I really see no hope for employment in the US

  • Topic: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter gravenewworld
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Employment
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
211 replies · 37K views
atyy said:
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.
70% of the population live in government housing? What country is that?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Wow, this thread is a scary read.

I find it particularly strange/disturbing that so many see the future lack of jobs as the worst thing imaginable, while to me it's a situation that offers endless possibilities.

Just look at our situation today, we are now the most efficient we have ever been during the course of history at producing food. Similarly, we now have best production capabilities we have ever had for producing homes/houses etc. One person in aggriculture today, can support a huge amount of people, much more than one similar person could just a hundred years ago. It is also clear that this trend will continue. If we look at the total amount of services that our society is producing, that is required to give everyone a good life, we will only get more efficient at it, meaning it will take fewer and fewer people to do it with every generation.

Conclusion: It is the inevitable result that in the future, not every has to work to run the society!

I see my conlusion in a most positive view, as it frees up everyones time to do everything they want! Who wants to work as a trash collector when an automated system can take care of it? So why force people to do it? Much better that we build the future society without the requirement that everyone must work. There are much better/more fun things people can do with their lives, like culture, science (those who are really interested in it) and sports.

As I see it, we are going to have to build a society around the fact that not everyone has a job (and those should be happy not sad!) or our society will collapse. And I would prefer the former...
 
I hope employment in the US falls to a point where it no longer can afford to go blowing up people around the world as it has been. Many countries get portrayed in western media as having bad human rights records, yet the US is among the worse. A bankrupt America can only be good for other countries in the long run. The way the US treats companies like BP or journalists like Julian Assange or it's own people like in Waco or innocent people in far away places makes me welcome its decline. Nothing personal to the American out of work, i wish you no malice, but your country is way too big for its boots and way too murderous and authoritive thinking it has the right to police the world.

I am English and regard my own government and EU dictators with equal disgust. The 5 permanent members of the UN security council are also the worlds 5 biggest arms exporters!
 
twofish-quant said:
It's possible. If it's physically impossible there is no point in discussing if it is reasonable.

You are really losing me here- are you saying any physically possible wish is a reasonable entitlement demand?

You originally asked me a very specific question- is it unreasonable to be entitled to a job sufficient to support a house, family, and pay for kids to go to college- I said yes, that is unreasonable. You then re-framed the question in a very abstract way, talking about equally apportioning the world's supply of gold, which I tried to parse. What exactly are you trying to ask me?

twofish-quant said:
Someone has to pay for it. It doesn't have to be you. Since I've got a ton of money that I don't know what to do with, I'd be glad spend something to pay for your clean air and clean water.

Please don't- just send me the money directly: Andrew Resnick, Department of Physics, Cleveland State University, 2100 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland OH 44115. TIA.

twofish-quant said:
1) Yes

2) Depends. But the fact that I can't give you an exact answer is irrelevant for the answer to 1). Also *someone* has to pay for the food, but it doesn't need to be the person consuming it. If I were on a desert island, and only I had access to food, then I think I'm obligated to give it to people who don't have it. Part of the reason I feel obligated is that they are going to take it anyone if I'm not nice.

Also a lot of the answers depend on social context. Right now, I don't think it's necessary to force someone to work for food. The answers are different in England-1600, where you have to force someone to work for food because there wasn't enough.

I guess this is where we disagree. I don't think someone else should have to buy my food.

You are also sliding off of 'entitlement' to the idea of 'charity'. They are not exclusive. The difference is that charity is entered into voluntarily, entitlement is a compulsive form of taxation (on someone else, of course...)
 
Zarqon said:
I find it particularly strange/disturbing that so many see the future lack of jobs as the worst thing imaginable, while to me it's a situation that offers endless possibilities.

<snip>

I tend to agree- there is an unprecedented amount of opportunity: the world is getting smaller and more interconnected.

I think a lot of people on this thread are having trouble with the reality that an increased opportunity to succeed also means an increased opportunity to *fail*.
 
Andy Resnick said:
I tend to agree- there is an unprecedented amount of opportunity: the world is getting smaller and more interconnected.

I think a lot of people on this thread are having trouble with the reality that an increased opportunity to succeed also means an increased opportunity to *fail*.

I agree. But, I think those opportunities will not be available for a while. In the meantime, we are going through a period of change, an information revolution. The reality is, that we are getting closer to a period where many of the basic needs and products we use will become cheaper, even free, and many of the big businesses and businesspeople of today stand to lose a lot of power. For an idea of where things are going, look at the music industry (1995, music must be bought -> 2005, music is free).

To put it simply, once more people are able to get most of their electricity from a solar panel and their food from a small garden at or near their house, there is very little reason to get a job.
 
Mathnomalous said:
(1995, music must be bought -> 2005, music is free).
Music is free where? They had radios in 1995. Unless your mean stealing music. And that's off topic.

To put it simply, once more people are able to get most of their electricity from a solar panel and their food from a small garden at or near their house, there is very little reason to get a job[/].
And how did you get that house and that solar panel, and the money for the garden, and clothes, upkeep, taxes, etc...? Where is the money coming from?
 
Evo said:
Music is free where? They had radios in 1995. Unless your mean stealing music. And that's off topic.

Options:

A) Steal the music.

B) Copy the music from your friend(s).

C) Go on YouTube, download, and convert the video to an MP3 file.

D) Go to artists' websites and download their free offerings.

E) Save music from a radio station broadcast to a recording device.

Evo said:
And how did you get that house and that solar panel, and the money for the garden, and clothes, upkeep, taxes, etc...? Where is the money coming from?

The only item in your list I do not have a good answer for is taxes. Everything else can or may eventually be built by small groups of people with the appropriate tools. Mass produced items will become cheaper (price regulated by supply). Even money is cheaper to produce nowadays (1s and 0s).

We have more money, more food, more efficient technology, more knowledge. More and more people have access to almost every technology the human race has to offer. The world is slowly, but certainly equalizing; It will be painful and very difficult, but I have no doubt that in 50 years I will live in a world where most of the population will have access to adequate food and shelter. In the meantime, we just need to survive through the nasty transition period.
 
Mathnomalous said:
The reality is, that we are getting closer to a period where many of the basic needs and products we use will become cheaper, even free, and many of the big businesses and businesspeople of today stand to lose a lot of power. For an idea of where things are going, look at the music industry (1995, music must be bought -> 2005, music is free).

To put it simply, once more people are able to get most of their electricity from a solar panel and their food from a small garden at or near their house, there is very little reason to get a job.

This is a lot of nonsense. First off, I have no interest in being a subsistence farmer. Second, just because music may be 'free' today (and it's not really- or do you not consider the costs of servers, electricity, programmer's time, etc) doesn't mean that artists have an obligation to provide you free entertainment.

The world is full of people who are willing to die to have the opportunities available in the US- people die all the time trying to enter the US. What does that tell you? What are you willing to die for? Free music? Grow up.
 
Look at that, Abbott laying off another 2000 people. Great, even more chemists to compete with.
 
Last edited:
Mathnomalous said:
I agree. But, I think those opportunities will not be available for a while. In the meantime, we are going through a period of change, an information revolution. The reality is, that we are getting closer to a period where many of the basic needs and products we use will become cheaper, even free, and many of the big businesses and businesspeople of today stand to lose a lot of power. For an idea of where things are going, look at the music industry (1995, music must be bought -> 2005, music is free).

To put it simply, once more people are able to get most of their electricity from a solar panel and their food from a small garden at or near their house, there is very little reason to get a job.

I don't want to jump down your throat for this post, but come on, man. This is just not realistic. First of all, it's full of all sorts of paradoxical situations. Like if your saying music is free, than why would anyone make music? Therefore, we'd hit a point where we wouldn't have music anymore. That extends to anything. What you're saying is not even possible in a Utopian future; perhaps in the most dire of dystopia, though.

If it were to happen the way you say, societies would crumble and we'd revert back to our more primitive selves. Human beings are not inherently in this to help each other out, we're in this to survive -- just like the rest of the animal kingdom. Take away commerce and barter systems, and we'd be killing each other for food.
 
Failure of imagination.

This is a forum of scientists and engineers, and they should be aware of the research efforts in every field of science that will bring us more efficient, cheaper, more advanced, and better technology and knowledge. I certainly hope to be one of those people who makes this a reality.

Perhaps the use of the word "free" was inappropriate since it is normally taken in the absolute. Still, I have no doubts that as more people gain access to knowledge and technology, things will become cheaper and more accessible to even more people.

Just 10 years ago I had to buy individual CDs for $13.99/ea to listen to music or watch movies. Today, for 14.99/mo I can watch as many movies as I want thanks to Netflix and for $10.00/mo to listen to as many songs as I want thanks to Rhapsody.com. Utopia? No. Neartopia? Yes.
 
Gokul43201 said:
Not in a big or medium sized University. But if you are willing to go teach at a small liberal arts school, there are usually a good number of those to pick from.

Have you applied for these jobs before? In my experience, teaching universities want people with teaching experience. Most of the people I know who went the small liberal arts route worked as adjuncts and lecturers rather than doing traditional postdocs. More research isn't going to make you a better teacher. Also, keep in mind that while there are a lot of liberal arts colleges, not many of them need a lot of physics professors.
 
gravenewworld said:
Look at that, Abbott laying off another 2000 people. Great, even more chemists to compete with.
Have you considered starting your own show on the side, as has advertised by our noted PF'r with the Green Hair?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3082752&postcount=12
http://www.chembuddy.com/
http://www.chembuddy.com/?left=Buffer-Maker&right=buffer-calculator
http://www.chembuddy.com/?left=EBAS&right=equation-balancing-stoichiometry
http://www.ph-meter.info/
http://www.ph-meter.info/pH-electrode

That's at least an option to consider before giving into a forecast of perpetual US unemployment.Edit: Exxon is hiring. I've heard they use a chemist or two.
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/fortune/1004/gallery.fortune500_most_hiring.fortune/12.html
 
Last edited:
gravenewworld said:
Look at that, Abott laying off another 2000 people. Great, even more chemists to compete with.

Think of all the training. All of it specialized and narrowly focused. Is a pharm chemist a good fit in environmental testing or plastics? The basic skill set it there but it's there for the recent grads as well. Pity the chemist that doesn't understand that he/she has always been employed in an industry that changes rapidly and with negative effects to all concerned.

The chemical industry along the coasts (all 3 of them) are all case studies in the vagaries of the industry. A plant is built to capitalize on a particular, and likely ephemeral, market for a commodity item. Chemists and engineers are hired and things go swimmingly until someone somewhere else gets the same idea. Supply goes up price goes down. Plant either switches to different product or closes. Often it closes. Another company, usually a transnational, buys the plant, rebuilds and the cycle begins anew with a different chemical and a new set of workers.

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Chemist/Salary" is a site that has some info regarding the payscale for chemists. You will note that the numbers here aren't the same as the ACS numbers! Pay particular attention to the percentage of workers vs. years experience.

less than 1 year - 9%
1 - 4 years - 51% (WOW!)
5 - 9 years - 21%
10 - 19 yrs - 13%
20+ years - 6%

How do you interpret that? The way I see it, most chemistry grads give up on their chemistry careers within 5 years. There are as many recent graduates this year as have 20+ years experience. And this includes academia! Personally, I don't know any chemists in industry with 20+ years experience but there isn't much chemical industry where I live so that may not be meaningful.

Gravenewworld, don't these stats seem to apply to you?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mheslep said:
Have you considered starting your own show on the side, as has advertised by our noted PF chemist?

Who, by the way, isn't a chemist at all. He's a computer scientist!

QED
 
Mathnomalous, I do believe that goods will become easier to make and cheaper to produce due to better technology. However, you said "This is a forum of scientists and engineers[...]" as though we should know what could be done, but what could be done is not necessarily what will be done. The world is not a forum of scientists and engineers, it is a world of people, and we are a political species. If you believe that there will simply be cheap goods for everyone and people won't have to work, I think your misunderstanding the world, which includes power hungry people. 50 years is quite a small timeline for a world with many economic problems and poverty. As "conspiracy" as it may sound, I suggest you read the book within the book 1984 "Theory and Practice of Collective Oligarchy", it certainly speaks about an economy where goods are easy to produce, but the political outcome is vastly different. I am not sugggesting we will go into 1984, simply that their certainly are realistic aspects to that scenario described.
 
chemisttree said:
Who, by the way, isn't a chemist at all. He's a computer scientist!

QED
Ah, fixed.
 
chemisttree said:
Think of all the training. All of it specialized and narrowly focused. Is a pharm chemist a good fit in environmental testing or plastics? The basic skill set it there but it's there for the recent grads as well. Pity the chemist that doesn't understand that he/she has always been employed in an industry that changes rapidly and with negative effects to all concerned.

The chemical industry along the coasts (all 3 of them) are all case studies in the vagaries of the industry. A plant is built to capitalize on a particular, and likely ephemeral, market for a commodity item. Chemists and engineers are hired and things go swimmingly until someone somewhere else gets the same idea. Supply goes up price goes down. Plant either switches to different product or closes. Often it closes. Another company, usually a transnational, buys the plant, rebuilds and the cycle begins anew with a different chemical and a new set of workers.

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Chemist/Salary" is a site that has some info regarding the payscale for chemists. You will note that the numbers here aren't the same as the ACS numbers! Pay particular attention to the percentage of workers vs. years experience.

less than 1 year - 9%
1 - 4 years - 51% (WOW!)
5 - 9 years - 21%
10 - 19 yrs - 13%
20+ years - 6%

How do you interpret that? The way I see it, most chemistry grads give up on their chemistry careers within 5 years. There are as many recent graduates this year as have 20+ years experience. And this includes academia! Personally, I don't know any chemists in industry with 20+ years experience but there isn't much chemical industry where I live so that may not be meaningful.

Gravenewworld, don't these stats seem to apply to you?

gravenworld started this topic. He at least (me thinking it as an advantage) has a few years of chemical synthesis experience and still working. His knowledge and skill should be transferable. Many other recently layed-off chemists and recent graduates may be less competetive for his target positions. His (and to an extent, their) worries would be business line and management changes, and company-restructuring. This then, is much of what he has been complaining about.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Andy Resnick said:
I think a lot of people on this thread are having trouble with the reality that an increased opportunity to succeed also means an increased opportunity to *fail*.

This doesn't actually make any sense. If success is defined as a job that pays well enough to support a wife, child, and house then you succeed, or fail. An increased opportunity to succeed means a reduced opportunity to fail.

Also, in terms of entitlement, couldn't it be argued that a worker has a right to earnings based on productivity? As worker productivity has increased dramatically since the 80s, middle class income has been stagnant. See, for instance: http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/27/news/economy/state_of_working_america/index.htm
 
Last edited:
mheslep said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States#Over_time_-_by_Race_.26_Sex"

The question was about wages and overall increased productivity of workers. Your source does not say much about workers productivity. Better approximation would be increase in capital gains vs. wages. By this comparison, one can say that wages remained stagnant.

1rrcet.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ParticleGrl said:
This doesn't actually make any sense. If success is defined as a job that pays well enough to support a wife, child, and house then you succeed, or fail. An increased opportunity to succeed means a reduced opportunity to fail.

Also, in terms of entitlement, couldn't it be argued that a worker has a right to earnings based on productivity? As worker productivity has increased dramatically since the 80s, middle class income has been stagnant. See, for instance: http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/27/news/economy/state_of_working_america/index.htm

I'm thinking in context of global markets. Bigger markets, more varied markets, etc imply more opportunities. However, there is also increased competition for those opportunities.

Look at it this way- the top 1% of the US labor force is (about) 3M people. Globally, the top 1% of the labor force is about 60M people. By gaining access to larger markets, you have to compete against a much larger pool of talent.

To be sure, we have been glossing over the distinction between 'entitlement', 'right', etc. We could discuss what constitutes a 'fair' wage as well. As the US auto worker discovered 10-20 years ago, what constitutes a 'fair wage' often depends on where the employee lives.

Defining success "as a job that pays well enough to support a wife, child, and house" must take into account the significant and absolute differences in required wages between someone living in the US and someone living in (say) Bolivia- especially since the Bolivian may be as productive as you.
 
Andy Resnick said:
I'm thinking in context of global markets. Bigger markets, more varied markets, etc imply more opportunities. However, there is also increased competition for those opportunities.

Right, so what matters is the ratio of "good" candidates seeking work, to the ratio of "good" jobs. How these are defined is obviously tricky, but my point is that the idea you can somehow increase the chance of success AND increase the risk of failure is nonsense.

Of course, you can increase the chance of success for third world workers, etc, while decreasing it for first world workers, but I got the impression that wasn't the point you were trying to make.

Hence, what people are complaining about in the thread is that they are seeing less chances to succeed in high skill, high education professions like chemistry.
 
vici10 said:
The question was about wages and overall increased productivity of workers. Your source does not say much about workers productivity.
The statement by ParticleGrl was "middle class income has been stagnant." The source I reference speaks directly to that statement, to individual income. By the way, is there an original source link that goes with that posted pic?
 
Last edited:
mheslep said:
The statement by ParticleGrl was "middle class income has been stagnant." The source I reference speaks directly to that statement, to individual income. By the way, is there an original source link that goes with that posted pic?

Actually, my statement was relative to productivity gains, middle class income has been stagnant.
 
chemisttree said:
Think of all the training. All of it specialized and narrowly focused. Is a pharm chemist a good fit in environmental testing or plastics? The basic skill set it there but it's there for the recent grads as well. Pity the chemist that doesn't understand that he/she has always been employed in an industry that changes rapidly and with negative effects to all concerned.

The chemical industry along the coasts (all 3 of them) are all case studies in the vagaries of the industry. A plant is built to capitalize on a particular, and likely ephemeral, market for a commodity item. Chemists and engineers are hired and things go swimmingly until someone somewhere else gets the same idea. Supply goes up price goes down. Plant either switches to different product or closes. Often it closes. Another company, usually a transnational, buys the plant, rebuilds and the cycle begins anew with a different chemical and a new set of workers.

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Chemist/Salary" is a site that has some info regarding the payscale for chemists. You will note that the numbers here aren't the same as the ACS numbers! Pay particular attention to the percentage of workers vs. years experience.

less than 1 year - 9%
1 - 4 years - 51% (WOW!)
5 - 9 years - 21%
10 - 19 yrs - 13%
20+ years - 6%

How do you interpret that? The way I see it, most chemistry grads give up on their chemistry careers within 5 years. There are as many recent graduates this year as have 20+ years experience. And this includes academia! Personally, I don't know any chemists in industry with 20+ years experience but there isn't much chemical industry where I live so that may not be meaningful.

Gravenewworld, don't these stats seem to apply to you?

Not trying to challenge your stats - any idea as to trends where a chemist assumes other duties - maybe sales, QA, or management?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ParticleGrl said:
<snip>

Of course, you can increase the chance of success for third world workers, etc, while decreasing it for first world workers, but I got the impression that wasn't the point you were trying to make.
<snip>.

Actually, that is pretty much exactly the point I am trying to make. That's what has driven manufacturing out of the US, and is what is driving R&D out of the US. So, the question becomes "how can we (first world workers) remain competitive?"

One way is to focus on what differentiates us (american citizens) from other countries- specifically, the explicit freedoms of speech and expression encourages people with creativity and imagination to give their ideas form. This cannot happen in repressive societies. Imagination and creativity is an essential element of problem-solving, so it is not surprising that American has historically led the world in innovative technology development.

Another advantageous aspect of american society is the lack of an explicit caste structure and ruling class- cynicism aside, there is an incredible amount of upward (and downward) mobility in US society. This constant churn, when coupled with open expression and the rapid dissemination of ideas over the interwebnets, leads to a constant influx of new ideas and willingness to try new things. Again, this is not seen in more ossified societies.

Lastly, the US has historically been open to immigrants. This also provides a steady influx of new ideas. Efforts to restrict immigration should be resisted (personally, I find the EB-5 program incredibly cynical).
 
Last edited:
WhoWee said:
Not trying to challenge your stats - any idea as to trends where a chemist assumes other duties - maybe sales, QA, or management?

Glassware cleaning duties :biggrin:
 

Similar threads

News More Demand for Goods and Services will Create More Employment ?
  • nameta9
  • · Replies 5 ·
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Should I pursue a physics PhD given postdoc and employment concerns?
  • -Dragoon-
  • · Replies 50 ·
  • STEM Career Guidance
2
Replies
50