News I really see no hope for employment in the US

[gravenewworld]

The US chemical industry has lost 66,000 jobs since 2007. Let's face reality here, many, many of these jobs are never coming back, they are all now in China and India. I'm sure people who have experience working with outsourcing companies know this firsthand. At my old job I was repeatedly warned time after time by my bosses with PhDs to never pursue a PhD in chemistry because you will be caught in a cycle of a never ending job rat race or always be pursuing a post doc. And I have to say, I feel like they were absolutely 100% correct. From my experiences, there always seems to be 30 PhD applicants for 1 job, in fact since being laid off 2 years ago, there are STILL some of my ex-coworkers who are still unemployed. The main thing they have in common: a PhD. Now this isn't to say I never had trouble either finding employment in the chemical industry with my BS. Sure many of us who got let go that had just BSs have since found jobs, but the most disturbing trend among many of my colleagues is the fact that most of them have only found temp work that is low paying and that also offers no health insurance. Many of the jobs I came across for almost 1 year of job searching while I was unemployed were only temp positions that were low paying. Welcome to the reality of the 2011 economy for chemists. You are either a low paid disposable temp with no health insurance, or a PhD hopping around from post doc to post doc or are simply unemployed all together. Sure there are some "niche" fields out there that a few people might be able to specialize in and can find jobs, but these are the exceptions not thebstandard.

I really don't see any hope for employment in the chemical industry in the US, that is of course you are satisfied with making only $40 K a year in your 50s and never want to own a house because you are constantly under the threat of being laid off. I guess that's why many of us from my old company have moved on to different fields, one guy in his mid 40s is now in school for nursing, another went back to school for accounting, and me starting from the ground up again pursuing engineering.

 

[chemisttree]

The US chemical industry has lost 66,000 jobs since 2007. Let's face reality here, many, many of these jobs are never coming back, they are all now in China and India. I'm sure people who have experience working with outsourcing companies know this firsthand. At my old job I was repeatedly warned time after time by my bosses with PhDs to never pursue a PhD in chemistry because you will be caught in a cycle of a never ending job rat race or always be pursuing a post doc. And I have to say, I feel like they were absolutely 100% correct. From my experiences, there always seems to be 30 PhD applicants for 1 job, in fact since being laid off 2 years ago, there are STILL some of my ex-coworkers who are still unemployed. The main thing they have in common: a PhD. Now this isn't to say I never had trouble either finding employment in the chemical industry with my BS. Sure many of us who got let go that had just BSs have since found jobs, but the most disturbing trend among many of my colleagues is the fact that most of them have only found temp work that is low paying and that also offers no health insurance. Many of the jobs I came across for almost 1 year of job searching while I was unemployed were only temp positions that were low paying. Welcome to the reality of the 2011 economy for chemists. You are either a low paid disposable temp with no health insurance, or a PhD hopping around from post doc to post doc or are simply unemployed all together. Sure there are some "niche" fields out there that a few people might be able to specialize in and can find jobs, but these are the exceptions not thebstandard.

I really don't see any hope for employment in the chemical industry in the US, that is of course you are satisfied with making only $40 K a year in your 50s and never want to own a house because you are constantly under the threat of being laid off. I guess that's why many of us from my old company have moved on to different fields, one guy in his mid 40s is now in school for nursing, another went back to school for accounting, and me starting from the ground up again pursuing engineering.

I've been discouraging students from Chemistry for over a decade now. I've seen this happening since the late '90s. Masters in Chemistry is more employable than PhD according to the ACS but without a manufacturing base to soak up all of the graduates, you have niches and government work mostly (including teaching). Watch out! Engineering is next!

 

[DDTea]

The chemical industry is in a race to the bottom: lay off as many people as possible until only a skeleton crew is left. Create a huge pool of unemployed scientists (with M.S.'s and Ph.D's) on the job market, and then hire them back as low-paid temps to fill work that would have been filled by a B.S. or even a high school diploma before 2007. That way, they have no commitment to the employee and can dispose of them and replace them as easy as they hire them.

I feel you dude. The only answer is socialist revolution and a scientist union that demands to be treated better and sets a minimum wage for itself.

 

[gravenewworld]

My life right now consists of doing endless amounts of mindless hplc injections, making buffers, and cleaning glassware...all for what you expect, pretty low pay after I took a $15k paycut from my old job just to be able to find work. It's nice knowing you're underemployed, underpaid, overeducated and headed into your 30s with no light at the end of the tunnel doing a job a high school freshman could do. At this rate it'll only take me 20 years to pay off my student loans!

 

[symbolipoint]

My life right now consists of doing endless amounts of mindless hplc injections, making buffers, and cleaning glassware...all for what you expect, pretty low pay after I took a $15k paycut from my old job just to be able to find work. It's nice knowing you're underemployed, underpaid, overeducated and headed into your 30s with no light at the end of the tunnel doing a job a high school freshman could do. At this rate it'll only take me 20 years to pay off my student loans!

gravenworld, be glad you have a job. You might be able to change jobs more easily than you could find to if you were unemployed. Employers have the opinion which makes it so.

 

[gravenewworld]

gravenworld, be glad you have a job. You might be able to change jobs more easily than you could find to if you were unemployed. Employers have the opinion which makes it so.

I'd be happy at this point also being a manager at McDonald's making the same amount of money I am now without out having to have had to take out all those college loans and just working my way up at Micky D's right after high school. OH why did I even waste my life learning quantum physics and organic chemistry? I've seriuosly considered saving up $10,000, finding a Latin GF, and moving to Costa Rica where I would open up a fried plaintain stand and teach EFL on the side. Believe me, I've looked for other jobs...it's just a never ending wave of temp positions.

 

[Gokul43201]

My life right now consists of doing endless amounts of mindless hplc injections, making buffers, and cleaning glassware...all for what you expect, pretty low pay after I took a $15k paycut from my old job just to be able to find work. It's nice knowing you're underemployed, underpaid, overeducated and headed into your 30s with no light at the end of the tunnel doing a job a high school freshman could do.
...
OH why did I even waste my life learning quantum physics and organic chemistry?

Yet you pity the fool doing a postdoc? And earning anywhere between $35K and $75K, working in a challenging research environment, learning new skills and material, actually using that quantum physics and organic chemistry that he learned, periodically visiting cities around the country/world to participate in an all-expenses-paid conference, and (I imagine) having a virtually guaranteed faculty position in some college chemistry department if he wants it?

 

[AlephZero]

I'd be happy at this point also being a manager at McDonald's making the same amount of money I am now without out having to have had to take out all those college loans and just working my way up at Micky D's right after high school. OH why did I even waste my life learning quantum physics and organic chemistry? I've seriuosly considered saving up $10,000, finding a Latin GF, and moving to Costa Rica where I would open up a fried plaintain stand and teach EFL on the side. Believe me, I've looked for other jobs...it's just a never ending wave of temp positions.

If that's what you really want, stop whining and JFDI (just ... do it).

The only person who is stopping you is youself. The hypothetical GF and $10,000 are optional extras - all you actually need is a one-way cheap air ticket.

 

[Pengwuino]

I'd be happy at this point also being a manager at McDonald's making the same amount of money I am now without out having to have had to take out all those college loans and just working my way up at Micky D's right after high school. OH why did I even waste my life learning quantum physics and organic chemistry? I've seriuosly considered saving up $10,000, finding a Latin GF, and moving to Costa Rica where I would open up a fried plaintain stand and teach EFL on the side. Believe me, I've looked for other jobs...it's just a never ending wave of temp positions.

Except you would be working at a McDonalds...

 

[chemisttree]

Yet you pity the fool doing a postdoc? And earning anywhere between $35K and $75K, working in a challenging research environment, learning new skills and material, actually using that quantum physics and organic chemistry that he learned, periodically visiting cities around the country/world to participate in an all-expenses-paid conference, and (I imagine) having a virtually guaranteed faculty position in some college chemistry department if he wants it?

I wasn't aware that postdocs had a virtually guaranteed faculty position in some college chemistry department. I'm glad to hear that.

Things are as http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/88/pdf/8828acsnews.pdf"

One would think that when the economy turns around, the jobs will come back but I'm not convinced with th manufacturing losses that we have suffered. University and government work does seem to be growing but those jobs might not be as secure with the 46 states budget problems catching up with them. It hasn't happened yet though. Cross your fingers.

 

[Monte_Carlo]

I'm very receptive to all information concerning unemployment in sciences. I've been struggling dearly to reconcile a very apparent discrepancy between projections of labor analysts, rosy promises of academia with gloomy outlooks held by practitioners like yourself. So, people like you - disillusioned with dark reality - are of particular interest to me.

If it all possible, would you describe the family (social circle) pressure you experience to change career path? What are the suggested directions? In this thread, you seem to have gone on to describe some of the expectations placed on you. For example - and this reflects something I often suspect reading unemployment reports - you say:

"...I really don't see any hope for employment in the chemical industry in the US, that is of course you are satisfied with making only $40 K a year in your 50s and never want to own a house because you are constantly under the threat of being laid off...".

This comment is just a treasure-trove of learnings for me.

I wasn't raised in middle-class America, and only recently, after earning masters in biology, and finding myself in your boat, I discovered the underlying factors shaping the mentality of a stereotype white-educated-middle-class man (which I don't suppose you are.) Through reading about ascendency of corporate America in 1950s and emergence of middle-class professionals, I see ambition of owning real estate - and earning commensurate salary with appropriate responsibility - to be something of a motivating factor, driving career decisions and determining lifestyles of the an educated American achiever.

Being educated - especially in sciences - seems to imply earning potential. What do you believe, if anything, needs to be amended in this view? American dream, science education or something else? And, perhaps more importantly, do your friends (social circle) agree with you?

Sorry for being a bit vague, but there are just too many interesting questions, and I can't ask them all at once. This is a question to everyone in the forum, so please join-in with your comments.

Thanks,

Monte

 

[turbo]

Things have gotten bad for chemical engineers in Maine. Once, you were pretty secure if you hired on with a pulp-and-paper mill because the physical plants are large and expensive and you can't effectively out-source the chemists' jobs. That has changed over the last couple of decades. As mills' equipment has drifted toward obsolescence, paper companies have increasingly opted to curtail operations, shut down production lines, and close entire mills. Recently, the Federal government has made moves to address dumping of foreign paper on the US market at below the cost of production. Unfortunately, the damage is already done and some large mills are closed. The once-safe technical jobs in pulp and paper are looking very shaky.

I was a process chemist in the newest, largest pulp mill in the state in the late '70s, but moved on to a better-paying job on the new paper machine. 10 years of that, and I opted out for a career as a technical consultant.

 

[gravenewworld]

I wasn't aware that postdocs had a virtually guaranteed faculty position in some college chemistry department. I'm glad to hear that.

Things are as http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/88/pdf/8828acsnews.pdf"

One would think that when the economy turns around, the jobs will come back but I'm not convinced with th manufacturing losses that we have suffered. University and government work does seem to be growing but those jobs might not be as secure with the 46 states budget problems catching up with them. It hasn't happened yet though. Cross your fingers.

Does anyone ever believe self reported ACS and CEN data on salary and employment statistics? I find the data they report to be laughably overinflated. Not once have I ever come across a position available that offers a salary that even comes close to the median average for BS chemists that they report. The ACS and CEN reports also hardly take into the account the swaths of people that only are hired now as permatemps and also likes to lump in post docs. I don't consider finding "work" the same thing as finding a "job". How does one ever get ahead as a permanent temp with no health care or retirement benefits? Hope and pray that they don't get sick or injured? Anecdotes aside, what does the BLS say?

http://www.bls.gov/oco/cg/cgs008.htm

Employment is projected to decline rapidly, and applicants for jobs are expected to face keen competition.

Employment change. Although output is expected to grow, wage and salary employment in the chemical manufacturing industry, excluding pharmaceuticals, is projected to decline by 13 percent over the 2008-18 period, compared to 11 percent growth projected for all industries combined.

That's excluding pharma, which is probably much worse.

 

[symbolipoint]

gravenworld, the same employer opinions are still applied. You have your dull jobs because you are still accepting assignments from your agencies. You can still look for positions outside of the agencies. Also so often employers will take candidates with more education when they can get them, instead of less.

 

[Dynamos]

Over the past couple of years I have seen ads on PBS and Discovery Channel (or those types of channels) by the ACS promoting "American Chemistry" as a proud tradition that young ppl interested in science should pursue.

What are they (ACS) up to if what most ppl here are saying is true? How long can they keep encouraging ppl to enter the field given the apparent reality?

Just curious.

 

[DrummingAtom]

I've been discouraging students from Chemistry for over a decade now. I've seen this happening since the late '90s. Masters in Chemistry is more employable than PhD according to the ACS but without a manufacturing base to soak up all of the graduates, you have niches and government work mostly (including teaching). Watch out! Engineering is next!

Did you mean chemical engineering or engineering in general? I have seen according to the BLS that chemical engineering is expecting a 2% drop in the next decade.

Over the past couple of years I have seen ads on PBS and Discovery Channel (or those types of channels) by the ACS promoting "American Chemistry" as a proud tradition that young ppl interested in science should pursue.

What are they (ACS) up to if what most ppl here are saying is true? How long can they keep encouraging ppl to enter the field given the apparent reality?

Just curious.

If I was part of a group that was getting less members(according to what's been said here) I would advertise too. I don't understand what's unordinary about that.

 

[gravenewworld]

gravenworld, the same employer opinions are still applied. You have your dull jobs because you are still accepting assignments from your agencies. You can still look for positions outside of the agencies. Also so often employers will take candidates with more education when they can get them, instead of less.

I don't belong to a temp. I have permanent (if you can call it that since I can tell they are trying to move operations overseas) position. After sending out 150 resumes, yes this is all I could find--a job that pays $35k even with my BS and 5 years of synthetic organic experience. Going from doing organic transformations to cleaning glassware, great! You know you've hit rock bottom when even your glassware cleaning gig gets outsourced overseas. LOL.

 

[Dynamos]

If I was part of a group that was getting less members(according to what's been said here) I would advertise too. I don't understand what's unordinary about that.

Yeah, but that can only be a temporary solution given that the source of the drain is not being addressed. It's like getting ppl to buy your stock when you know you're going under. Sooner or later ppl will find out, and raise heck.

 

[gravenewworld]

I'm very receptive to all information concerning unemployment in sciences. I've been struggling dearly to reconcile a very apparent discrepancy between projections of labor analysts, rosy promises of academia with gloomy outlooks held by practitioners like yourself. So, people like you - disillusioned with dark reality - are of particular interest to me.

If it all possible, would you describe the family (social circle) pressure you experience to change career path? What are the suggested directions? In this thread, you seem to have gone on to describe some of the expectations placed on you. For example - and this reflects something I often suspect reading unemployment reports - you say:

Thankfully, the only family I have are a brother and two parents. I'm not married yet and have no children. The pressure I feel to change career paths doesn't come from any sort of family member, but rather out of necessity. One day I would like to own a house and possibly start a family. The current situation I am in ,and likely see myself stuck in for at least the next decade or more, prohibits that. Why would I ever buy a house if I might have to relocate every 3 years to find another job after being laid off yet again? Have kids? Forget it. Finding a new job only every 3 years is being generous. Heck, one of my ex-coworkers had 6 jobs in the span of over 2 years. I don't see any resemblance of job stability and can likely see stagnant wages for myself, always stuck around the $40k mark. The only thing my wages have done since I've entered industry is go down with more experience, not up.

Being educated - especially in sciences - seems to imply earning potential. What do you believe, if anything, needs to be amended in this view? American dream, science education or something else? And, perhaps more importantly, do your friends (social circle) agree with you?

What we have to come to grips with is the fact that we could very well have the most educated and under/un-employed work force in the history of this country in the future. It sounds cliche, but the system needs to change. Why in the world would a company pay an American worker to do the same work that a person in India or China could do at a fraction of the cost while also not having to be burdened by the costs of social security taxes, health care costs, and retirement benefits? Companies have already started to go around these costs in this industry by now heavily relying on completely expendable permatemps (aka "dash trash") that cost them nothing in terms of retirement benefits, health care, and legal obligations. Maybe I just picked the wrong science, but I have yet to see training in chemistry equating with more earning potential. The jobs lost since 2007 are gone and aren't coming back. Pharma is toast. Chemical manufacturing is declining sharply. Where do I go in order to get out of a mundane job with mediocre pay? I'm all ears.


Do my friends agree? I have no idea. People can look at all the statistics that they want, however, my coworkers and I are the ones actually down here in the trenches, and many of them have left all together.

 

[twofish-quant]

Personally, I think the US should raise taxes on people making more than $250,000 year and then use that to fund basic research and build infrastructure. Unfortunately that sort of thing seems too "socialist" for the US. Also if the problem is lack of money, you can print it.

What really worries me in the long run is that this is pretty much what China is doing. The Chinese government realizes that China is about to get "China'ed", and the manufacturing plants that moved from Michigan to Guangdong are now moving to Indonesia and Vietnam, so the Chinese government is putting massive amounts of money into green technology and making offers to scientists to go home.

 

[symbolipoint]

gravenworld, you have some strong qualifications with 5 years organic syntesis experience, some instrumentation experience, and your B.S. degree. Without knowing any other details yet, many people would maybe even do the dull lab job as you currently have; the pay is better than what some people get now. Since you wonder about what other career to change to, could you consider further education for Engineering?

 

[DrummingAtom]

Yeah, but that can only be a temporary solution given that the source of the drain is not being addressed. It's like getting ppl to buy your stock when you know you're going under. Sooner or later ppl will find out, and raise heck.

I don't see what you're getting at. I agree that it would be a temporary solution. But if you're concerned about the ACS being "up to something" as you stated before, then why not contact them directly?

 

[gravenewworld]

gravenworld, you have some strong qualifications with 5 years organic syntesis experience, some instrumentation experience, and your B.S. degree. Without knowing any other details yet, many people would maybe even do the dull lab job as you currently have; the pay is better than what some people get now. Since you wonder about what other career to change to, could you consider further education for Engineering?

Well I'm lucky I also have a math degree. And yes I've considered bioengineering (the only engineering that didn't require an undergrad degree), and have already applied to graduate programs. Interview at Michigan in Feb!

 

[twofish-quant]

What we have to come to grips with is the fact that we could very well have the most educated and under/un-employed work force in the history of this country in the future.

What really worries me is the end of the American middle class. I'm seeing people that make truly insane amounts of money, and people that don't, but the type of job that let's you make a decent amount of money without being hyper-rich seems to have disappeared.

It sounds cliche, but the system needs to change. Why in the world would a company pay an American worker to do the same work that a person in India or China could do at a fraction of the cost while also not having to be burdened by the costs of social security taxes, health care costs, and retirement benefits?

Actually, I think the system needs to change but in a different way. Chinese manufacturers *do* have to pay social security taxes, health care, and retirement benefits. One myth is that China is a low tax environment, but for most manufacturing jobs, Chinese taxes are comparable to US taxes. A lot of the benefits were instituted in the last ten years, but a Chinese manufacturing worker now gets *more* benefits and *more* job security than most American ones.

One difference between China and the US, is that Chinese workers can strike. If you talk to a factory manager in Guangdong they have to pay things because if they don't, their workers will go on strike. Also Chinese factories in Guangdong are closing and moving off to Indonesia, Vietnam, or Mexico.

 

[DDTea]

It's called academic inflation: you still "need" quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and organic chemistry for a job where you'll probably never need to use them. Why are employers hiring this way? BECAUSE THEY CAN. They want to improve the overall quality of their workforce while keeping costs either the same or less. It's capitalism at its finest.

Don't blame the Chinese workers or the Indian workers, blame the employers for racing to the bottom and exploiting the third world. Every member of the working class is in the same boat, only some are poorer and more desperate than the others. It's just what employers want: get people desperate enough that they'll work for *any* wage, with or without benefits, as permatemps. Don't like it? You can be replaced the next day.

Nobody even wants to train you anymore. They expect you to come into THEIR labs knowing THEIR SOP's, and have at least 5 years of experience performing THEIR SOP's--it's lunacy. One semester of instrumental analysis is far more intense than any job training for an "analyst" position in a quality control/quality assurance lab.

Again, what you have to understand is that YOU are not the only one in this situation: a huge population of educated and trained scientists. The employers need to stop exploiting us--we should seriously organize and send some proclamation to the chemical industry that we won't take their crap anymore.

If you want a fat check, though, look into the Petroleum industry. $70k/yr+ salaries are quite common there, even for B.S.'s. Oh yeah, 4-6 months vacation/year too :D

 

[twofish-quant]

I have a sort of a different viewpoint since in the "new economy" I won big. However, I'm a firm believer in enlightened self-interest, and if things don't get fixed, then I'll be on the wrong side of a lynch mob.

What I strongly favor is increases in taxes on the wealthy to pay for free health care and public goods, more workers rights, and more funding for the sciences. This sounds socialist, and it is, but I think we need a bit of socialism to save capitalism.

I don't mind my tax bill going up, because if things don't change, then in a few years, what ends up happening is going to be even less pleasant for me.

 

[twofish-quant]

Don't blame the Chinese workers or the Indian workers, blame the employers for racing to the bottom and exploiting the third world. Every member of the working class is in the same boat, only some are poorer and more desperate than the others.

They actually aren't. The US has some very weak labor laws. In most countries (including China and Europe) the workers have enough political power to cause the government to balance things. Chinese workers can't vote, but they can (and do) strike and riot, and this creates a "street democracy."

It may be cold comfort for the US, but Chinese manufacturing workers aren't being ruthlessly exploited. Also there are parts of China that are "third world" but there are also large parts of China that aren't.

 

[DDTea]

I have a sort of a different viewpoint since in the "new economy" I won big. However, I'm a firm believer in enlightened self-interest, and if things don't get fixed, then I'll be on the wrong side of a lynch mob.

What I strongly favor is increases in taxes on the wealthy to pay for free health care and public goods, more workers rights, and more funding for the sciences. This sounds socialist, and it is, but I think we need a bit of socialism to save capitalism.

I don't mind my tax bill going up, because if things don't change, then in a few years, what ends up happening is going to be even less pleasant for me.

No, we need socialism to KILL capitalism. We don't need more science funding, we need less. We need fewer people with science degrees because they are glutting the market. Science degrees are hard efforts, but they are cheap on employment market. The costs don't add up. Science has been thoroughly victimized by the greed of Industry that wants to cut the costs of production while producing a higher quality product, using higher quality labor. It doesn't add up. If people keep knifing each other in the back, desperately chasing ever-decreasing wages and jobs that they are far overqualified for, things will never get better.

Industry is way out of line in the way it treats its employees and it has to stop.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Why in the world would a company pay an American worker to do the same work that a person in India or China could do at a fraction of the cost...

This is the fundamental issue, and it pertains to jobs well beyond specialized technical jobs. This is why the bulk of manufacturing jobs left the US a long time ago.

The reality is that we all have to compete against a global workforce- knowledge and capital are fluid commodities.

I don't have a solution. I advise my students to think about how they can differentiate themselves from their competition.

 

[twofish-quant]

Science has been thoroughly victimized by the greed of Industry that wants to cut the costs of production while producing a higher quality product, using higher quality labor.

It really depends. Personally, I've gotten treated really well by industry. If you want to make major changes to the system, then count me in, but if you want to blow up the system, then count me out.

If people keep knifing each other in the back, desperately chasing ever-decreasing wages and jobs that they are far overqualified for, things will never get better.

Sure, but the really hard part is that once you propose an alternative, you will have difficulty finding enough support to make it happen.

Industry is way out of line in the way it treats its employees and it has to stop.

If all companies treated all employees badly, then it's easy to have a revolution. The problem that you have is that you have people like me that really, really benefit from the current system. If you are proposing European-style social democracy, count me in. If you are talking about lynching bankers and managers, then count me out since I'm going to be one of the people that you are planning to lynch.

The reason I'm a very strong supporter of social democracy is that if things keep going the way that they are going, people will be out to get my hide, so I want to keep things from getting worse before I find myself on the wrong side of the rope.

One thing that is interesting about the internet is that you meet all sorts of interesting people. For example, if you go to a college coffee house and then shout Wall Street bankers are evil, let's beat them up, you can get a "rahhh rahhh rahh!" The problem with doing this online, is that you are more than likely find that someone in your audience is a Wall Street banker.

 

[twofish-quant]

This is the fundamental issue, and it pertains to jobs well beyond specialized technical jobs. This is why the bulk of manufacturing jobs left the US a long time ago.

The only ethical solution I can think of is to increase the standard of living in China and India so that it's not financially advantageous to move jobs. This is already starting to happen in manufacturing. For skilled jobs, the salaries in China aren't that much lower than the US.

The problem then becomes once you equalize the salaries, the jobs won't move to the people, but the people will move to the jobs.

The reality is that we all have to compete against a global workforce- knowledge and capital are fluid commodities.

And then you run into some basic ethical issues. Why *should* an American find it easier to get a job than someone that lives in China or India or Rwanda?

More or less true story. I was at a meeting in which people were talking about something that I thought would move jobs from the US to some other country. As a US citizen, is it my patriotic duty to oppose this?

Sure, but the problem was it was sort of pointless since I was the only US citizen in the room, and arguing that moving jobs from the US to India is a bad thing for the US is not an argument that the Indians in the meeting would find valid. The other people in the meeting were French, German, Mexican, Chinese, English etc.

I have a patriotic and sentimental attachment to the United States. Someone that was born and raised in Italy, just doesn't. They'll get annoyed if you move jobs from Italy to India, but if it is US to India, they won't care, and they have no reason to care. Indians would be happy, and there are more Indians than Americans.

That's one more thing that worries me. People in France or Mexico or China are used to having their fate decided by people who aren't French, Mexican, or Chinese. It sometimes makes them furious, but people are used to it. People in the US *aren't* used to this, and I wonder how most Americans will react to this.

 

[DDTea]

See, twofish, it's not about destroying the system; it's about fundamentally changing it and correcting the problems that have gotten us into this rut, or we'll see this cyclical pattern again and again of bubbles and collapses.

We have scientists who graduate with B.S.'s and $20,000 in debt, thrown into a pool of unemployed workers, where they're competing for the same position with people who are both more educated and more experienced than themselves. This is the frustrating position that I was in for over a year. Who gets hired? Yeah, a few B.S.'s may get hired, but they're the statistical aberrations. I'm one of those aberrations. They get subsistence wages, barely, and are often doing more work and higher quality work than that company has seen before: 12 hour shifts, $20/hr, zero job security, and pretty poor benefits.

The end result is, as someone mentioned above, the destruction of the middle class. No one will be able to buy a house because they do not have enough job security to afford one, so they rent month to month. How can you have a family that way or any hope of retiring? People will work until they die. It's the middle ages 2.0: a landed gentry and virtual slave labor.

Yeah, cutting jobs is a great way to save money, and a lower-paid, younger, naive, exploited workforce will be economical for any corporation. Industry as a whole will benefit, at least temporarily, until nobody can afford to buy their products and the economy grinds to a halt.

Employers simply have unrealistic expectations. I have seriously seen openings requiring a B.S. in chemistry that involve, and I quote, "weighing samples, calculating molar masses." Also, I've come across an M.S. positions for working with dangerous pathogens and toxic chemicals for $35k/yr. Great! You have a high risk position and you can still qualify for food-stamps! I'm *sure* the employer is going to bend over backwards when their employee gets sick/injured. When someone gets sick, it's no longer a problem: it's an opportunity!

It's not simply about fighting the man and the employees taking over the means of production (although I'm all in favor of that, too): employers simply need to treat their employees with the respect they deserve rather than being so cynical.

 

[atyy]

And then you run into some basic ethical issues. Why *should* an American find it easier to get a job than someone that lives in China or India or Rwanda?

More or less true story. I was at a meeting in which people were talking about something that I thought would move jobs from the US to some other country. As a US citizen, is it my patriotic duty to oppose this?

Sure, but the problem was it was sort of pointless since I was the only US citizen in the room, and arguing that moving jobs from the US to India is a bad thing for the US is not an argument that the Indians in the meeting would find valid. The other people in the meeting were French, German, Mexican, Chinese, English etc.

I have a patriotic and sentimental attachment to the United States. Someone that was born and raised in Italy, just doesn't. They'll get annoyed if you move jobs from Italy to India, but if it is US to India, they won't care, and they have no reason to care. Indians would be happy, and there are more Indians than Americans.

That's one more thing that worries me. People in France or Mexico or China are used to having their fate decided by people who aren't French, Mexican, or Chinese. It sometimes makes them furious, but people are used to it. People in the US *aren't* used to this, and I wonder how most Americans will react to this.

Is that really your patriotic duty? If someone else can make something cheaper and better, that could ultimately make it cheaper for many others in the US to buy.

Is the economic situation a failure of capitalism? Or is it due to bankers' negligence and lack ethics?

 

[cgk]

I don't think the main problem the US has is the destruction of the middle class. I think the main problem is the destruction of industry and agriculture. I don't mean financial industry or "serivce" industry. I mean real industry, producing real goods, things you can touch.

Economists say that industry is in decline, and that this is a good thing, because what we are seeing is a transformation to a service-oriented business model. But in the end, aren't the physical goods the ones which count? If I cut your hair and you give me 10$ for it, and then you cut my hair and I give you 10$ for it, what have we accomplished? An economist would say that we have increased the GDP by 20$ and thus contributed to growth of wealth. Is this really a correct interpretation of what happened? If instead I would give you 10$ for half an hour of work producing some good which otherwise would not exist, would that be something different?

In the past there was a strong move from actual industry producing goods to financial industry, in particular. The problem now is that the US has been living on loans: It borrows money from China and Europe (not the countries, from private investors) in order to buy goods from all over the world. Due to this there is a gigantic mismatch between the goods present in the US and the amount of goods actually produced there: It is simply not required to produce anything, because ultimately you can just get it for free! (or rather: for promises and paper.) This is why financial industry has been so much more successful than real industry...

 

[twofish-quant]

Is that really your patriotic duty? If someone else can make something cheaper and better, that could ultimately make it cheaper for many others in the US to buy.

The problem is that it doesn't matter how cheap the products are if people don't have money to buy them.

Is the economic situation a failure of capitalism? Or is it due to bankers' negligence and lack ethics?

Any economic and political system that requires people to be saints is fundamentally flawed. I'm sure that Communism would work fine if you could find Party bureaucrats that were totally non-corrupt and completely ethical, but those people are rare, and people that are really self-sacrificing tend not to get into positions of power.

 

[twofish-quant]

See, twofish, it's not about destroying the system; it's about fundamentally changing it and correcting the problems that have gotten us into this rut, or we'll see this cyclical pattern again and again of bubbles and collapses.

Personally, I think that market economies are dynamically unstable, and bubbles and collapses are an essential part of any market. The important thing is setting up a system so that bubbles and collapses don't come close to destroying the world economy. We more or less managed to do that in the mid-20th century, and I think a lot of the problems that we have are because we removed some of the shock absorbers.

It's not simply about fighting the man and the employees taking over the means of production (although I'm all in favor of that, too): employers simply need to treat their employees with the respect they deserve rather than being so cynical.

It's not simple.

The problem is that employers are also under a lot of pressure to cut costs. You can't pay workers if you don't have money. If you pay your workers more, but it means that your products are somewhat more expensive, you get killed in the market. It's not as if there is this big bag of cash in the back room that you can open up and spread around. There *is* a big bag of cash, but if you open it up and spread around, you are dead the next time there is a crash.

What I find frustrating is that John Maynard Keynes figured out the answer to this problem fifty years ago. If you have lots of cash in the back room and no one is willing to spend, then you have the government just print money and hire people. That's what China did in 2008-2009.

 

[twofish-quant]

If I cut your hair and you give me 10$ for it, and then you cut my hair and I give you 10$ for it, what have we accomplished?

Nothing, but if you cut my hair and I fix your computers, then we've done useful stuff. Also useful stuff gets accomplished even if we cut each others hair. I can't cut the hair at the back of my neck, and you can't either, so we are both better off if we cut each others hair.

In the past there was a strong move from actual industry producing goods to financial industry, in particular. The problem now is that the US has been living on loans: It borrows money from China and Europe (not the countries, from private investors) in order to buy goods from all over the world.

The same is pretty much true of China curiously enough. The economy in China in 1985 was 80% agriculture, 10% manufacturing, and 10% services. It's now 45% agriculture, 15% manufacturing and 40% services. (Rough numbers).

The interesting thing about the Chinese economy is that manufacturing doesn't employ that many people (then again 10% * 1.3 billion is a big number). During the 1990's, China closed the state owned enterprises and created new jobs in exports. The new jobs in exports then jump started a service industry.

The trouble with the US, is not that it was living off loans, but it was putting loans to non-useful things. Between 2001 and 2008, you had massive amounts of money go into real estate. If that same money had gone into clean energy, English teachers, or building telescopes and spaceships, I think we'd be better off. If instead of building houses, we had decided to put the money to build houses on Mars, that would have generated spinoffs that would have paid off the loans.

It is simply not required to produce anything, because ultimately you can just get it for free! (or rather: for promises and paper.) This is why financial industry has been so much more successful than real industry...

One science fiction scenario that I think about is suppose its 2050, and we can build anything we want. Push a button and any physical object that you produce appears. How would that economy work?

 

[ParticleGrl]

Personally, I think that market economies are dynamically unstable, and bubbles and collapses are an essential part of any market. The important thing is setting up a system so that bubbles and collapses don't come close to destroying the world economy. We more or less managed to do that in the mid-20th century, and I think a lot of the problems that we have are because we removed some of the shock absorbers.

I think that's the standard macroeconomic theory. The progressive tax system is supposed to be a shock absorber because it will automatically cut in a bust and helps to reign in the booms. Unfortunately, as incomes have grown, the payroll taxes have become downright regressive (top earners consistently make above the cap). I believe the regressive tendencies Warren Buffet complained about are at least partly responsible for both the runaway disparity between wealthy and poor and the recession: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../06/27/AR2007062700097.html?hpid=sec-politics

 

[chiro]

Push a button and any physical object that you produce appears. How would that economy work?

As long as consumption still exists there will always be a so called "economy".

One thing apart from your "magic push button device" is free energy. Currently energy like other economic resources is a consumption device. Take this away and people can do pretty much anything for free.

The so called "players" in the economy would bust, but not only that, everyone would their own opportunity to create wealth, and that would be very very interesting indeed.

 

[Mathnomalous]

This thread is very interesting and informative! Love it!

I think the solution is a re-balance of needs and wants. People want too many things when they probably just need a few things to lead a happy, productive life. Certainly, concentrated US wealth at the top will have to be released back down if the US wants to maintain some kind of stable society. I am sure those at the top understand this better than me, and they will figure out ways to establish some form of balance. But, I would like to see what 40% or more US unemployment looks like.

My personal solution is to obtain no more than 6 years of academic training (BS + MS) and, after completion, leave the US. I might return once the Baby Boomers are 80% gone. In the meantime, things need to get worse before they improve.

 

[gravenewworld]

Everyone makes money off of you. Schools get their cut by charging outrageous tuitions that keep rising faster than the rate of inflation. Banks make money off you through all of the interest you have to pay on loans for an education. Then business makes money off you by putting you through the never ending cycle of permatemps or other lowpaying jobs that are underemployment. When does the working man get his fair share?Everyone at almost every level profits off of me and what do I get in return? A dead end job with stagnant wages that is about to get offshored yet again. No one is asking to be rich, is it wrong to ask for a sustainable wage that will let me buy a house, start a family, and send a kid to college?

 

[atyy]

Any economic and political system that requires people to be saints is fundamentally flawed. I'm sure that Communism would work fine if you could find Party bureaucrats that were totally non-corrupt and completely ethical, but those people are rare, and people that are really self-sacrificing tend not to get into positions of power.

Yes. So the question is what type of regulation? I would prefer to regulate bankers, than to prevent meritocracy. OTOH, I am not a US citizen so maybe it is my patriotic duty to convince Americans that it is not their patriotic duty to keep jobs in the US by regulation. I do have sympathy with your socialist instincts though, coming from a country where 70% of people live in government housing and find that excellent.

 

[discrete*]

Everyone makes money off of you. Schools get their cut by charging outrageous tuitions that keep rising faster than the rate of inflation. Banks make money off you through all of the interest you have to pay on loans for an education. Then business makes money off you by putting you through the never ending cycle of permatemps or other lowpaying jobs that are underemployment. When does the working man get his fair share?Everyone at almost every level profits off of me and what do I get in return? A dead end job with stagnant wages that is about to get offshored yet again. No one is asking to be rich, is it wrong to ask for a sustainable wage that will let me buy a house, start a family, and send a kid to college?

You've just described the rather cancerous aspects of our society. Greed has run wild here, and the middle class has taken the brunt of it. Twofish is right, the middle class is disappearing. It goes back to the old adage "the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer"; and when that happens the middle class vanishes. This is a serious problem in the United States right now. It's honestly heartbreaking to hear these types of stories of people who put time and effort into science and have gotten a big f**k you in return.

 

[discrete*]

What I find frustrating is that John Maynard Keynes figured out the answer to this problem fifty years ago. If you have lots of cash in the back room and no one is willing to spend, then you have the government just print money and hire people. That's what China did in 2008-2009.

You're 100% correct here. From what I gather, many contemporary Economists describe themselves as Keynesian, but not many of them actually are.

It really depends. Personally, I've gotten treated really well by industry. If you want to make major changes to the system, then count me in, but if you want to blow up the system, then count me out.

If all companies treated all employees badly, then it's easy to have a revolution. The problem that you have is that you have people like me that really, really benefit from the current system. If you are proposing European-style social democracy, count me in. If you are talking about lynching bankers and managers, then count me out since I'm going to be one of the people that you are planning to lynch.

The reason I'm a very strong supporter of social democracy is that if things keep going the way that they are going, people will be out to get my hide, so I want to keep things from getting worse before I find myself on the wrong side of the rope.

One thing that is interesting about the internet is that you meet all sorts of interesting people. For example, if you go to a college coffee house and then shout Wall Street bankers are evil, let's beat them up, you can get a "rahhh rahhh rahh!" The problem with doing this online, is that you are more than likely find that someone in your audience is a Wall Street banker.

I think you represent a side of "Wall Street" that is unseen or incorrectly portrayed, Twofish. I think you're right in that we need serious reform at a fundamental level, and it's not something that the media would ever present as coming from the mouth of one of the "bad guys". I'm curious, do many of your compatriots share your views, or are you a rarity?

 

[discrete*]

No, we need socialism to KILL capitalism. We don't need more science funding, we need less. We need fewer people with science degrees because they are glutting the market. Science degrees are hard efforts, but they are cheap on employment market. The costs don't add up. Science has been thoroughly victimized by the greed of Industry that wants to cut the costs of production while producing a higher quality product, using higher quality labor. It doesn't add up. If people keep knifing each other in the back, desperately chasing ever-decreasing wages and jobs that they are far overqualified for, things will never get better.

Industry is way out of line in the way it treats its employees and it has to stop.

You make good points, I think. However, extreme actions such as the ones you've listed rarely ever work out the way that they should. We simply don't have the masses to strike up such a revolution. And that's because of the political divide in this country. You have the right and left all fighting for change, but at the same time fighting each other. It's a brilliant strategy by the government officials and leaders, really -- divide and conquer. The current system is a joke. You have these politicians arguing over things for no other reason than to keep the populous divided. If you think that at the end of the day these politicians aren't going home, getting fat and laughing together, than you need to wake up. The wider the rift, the easier it is for them to keep manipulating things. Once that rift closes, than we'll see reform. The divide between the public can only be closed in a select number of ways. Most of them aren't very nice to think about.

 

[twofish-quant]

It's a brilliant strategy by the government officials and leaders, really -- divide and conquer.

I don't think it's a clever strategy. If you look at the government officials and leaders, they are as divided as anyone else is.

If you think that at the end of the day these politicians aren't going home, getting fat and laughing together, than you need to wake up.

I've seen politicians up close, and I don't think that they are laughing together. If you spend time with someone, you have to have some level of civility, so I don't think that Barak Obama is going to punch Sarah Palin in the nose, but at the same time, I don't think that they are part of a secret conspiracy.

Once that rift closes, than we'll see reform.

I hate the word reform, because it's meaningless. Talking about reform is worse than useless, because it disguises the fact that people really don't agree on what needs to be reformed, and that's the hard part. I think the US would be better off with higher taxes and more government spending. Trouble is that half of the House of Representatives disagrees with me on that point, and thinks the fix is lower taxes and less government spending.

Politics would be a lot easier if you didn't have people disagree, but people disagree, and personally, I think that the US political system works quite well in the grand scheme of things.

 

[twofish-quant]

I think you represent a side of "Wall Street" that is unseen or incorrectly portrayed

It's because you can't sell ads and get viewers unless you make things simple and have a bad guy.

Twofish. I think you're right in that we need serious reform at a fundamental level

I think "serious reform at a fundamental level" is a meaningless statement. Personally, I think that we need a large increase in taxes on people making over a certain limit, and then massive spending on public infrastructure to create jobs. The problem with talking about "serious reform at a fundamental level" is that there are a lot of people that want deep changes, but they want deep changes in the exactly opposite direction.

Also, the changes that I support aren't that radical. I think it would be a good thing if the highest tax bracket was increased from 35% to 45%, but if you talk about increasing things to 90%, then you lose me.

One problem is that you can't measure "reform" or "regulation" by the pound. Give me a pound of reform and an ounce of regulation. In order to get things done you have to be extremely familiar with the details of the proposals, and most people get bored when you go into the details.

It's not something that the media would ever present as coming from the mouth of one of the "bad guys".

That's because I make things more complex, and complexity doesn't sell papers.

I'm curious, do many of your compatriots share your views, or are you a rarity?

Depends which views. People in investment banking disagree just like people anywhere. My views on how the banking system ought to be structured aren't particularly radical. Among Americans, I am unusual in that I'm willing to call myself a socialist where that is usually a dirty word in the United States.

 

[Gokul43201]

I wasn't aware that postdocs had a virtually guaranteed faculty position in some college chemistry department. I'm glad to hear that.

I don't know it for a fact. I was guessing that the situation was not completely dissimilar from what it is in Physics.

Things are as http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/88/pdf/8828acsnews.pdf"

The last figure has some interesting data. First off, unemployment is definitely lower among PhD's than it is among BS's and MS's. Also, notice the dip in unemployment in the 30-40 age group. That's not the demographic that's making its way through grad school; it's the group that includes a lot of recent PhD's and postdocs.

And, in general, it seems to me like the employment numbers are trending roughly with the overall health of the broader economy. It's hard to tell from the 10-yrs worth of numbers that there is a definite downtrend in the field.

PS: Didn't read any of the text besides what's in the figures.

 

[Gokul43201]

Everyone makes money off of you. Schools get their cut by charging outrageous tuitions that keep rising faster than the rate of inflation. Banks make money off you through all of the interest you have to pay on loans for an education. Then business makes money off you by putting you through the never ending cycle of permatemps or other lowpaying jobs that are underemployment. When does the working man get his fair share?Everyone at almost every level profits off of me and what do I get in return?

A higher inflation adjusted income than you would have had 50 years ago? A salary that allows two-thirds of all households to own a house, start a family, and put children through college?

 

[chemisttree]

When I graduated High School, the last day of class was devoted to... nothing. We spent the time talking about our life plans and the parties after graduation night. That day is forever seared into my mind, though. One of my teachers had us watch "Powers of Ten" and "Future Shock".

What I saw in "Future Shock" really rattled me. And it's here with a vengance!