Millions of jobs lost overseas- Is this a serious problem for the U.S.?

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Smiley
It is a very serious and unprecedented problem.

It is becoming less and less possible to make a good living in America using one's skills or one's labor. The only way to make a good living in the USA now is with existing money; the so-called "investor class".

This destroys the way the USA works because now people have no incentive to immigrate to the country.

The problem will partially correct itself though, as wages in the USA for a given quantity of work equalize with that elsewhere in the world. Then jobs stop leaving. But that does not solve the inequality problem.

have u noticed a drop in immigration? I haven't.

[Imran Siddiqui]

yes but as long as u dont pay the Indians anything they have to sell their goods to americans. and if u actually pay them then they wont have that ridiculous competitive advantage.

This is true... but they are paying the Indians, and as the years go by, you will have to pay them more and more . They already have the most in demand, best engineers in the world, I can believe that other jobs will follow.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Trajanus
fault of the big multinationals... they'll do anything to get people who work for less money

That's like faulting union members who will do anything to get people to work for more money. Both are just prosueing their natural self interest.

The big problem is when one side holds all of the cards and either the wages get set so high it is unreasonable or the free flow of goods is such that there is no way to fight the competetion.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

yes but as long as u dont pay the Indians anything they have to sell their goods to americans. and if u actually pay them then they wont have that ridiculous competitive advantage.

This is true... but they are paying the Indians, and as the years go by, you will have to pay them more and more . They already have the most in demand, best engineers in the world, I can believe that other jobs will follow.

true. India is a scary place. it produces great quantities of doctors/engineers and the like. and great quantities of piss poor labor. its a real dicotomy, an economic giant ready to explode. but can it maintain this obscene disparity forever? when will it have to switch and how much friction is in the switching. and when they do switch they'll be over a billion more consumers in the world for everyone to sell their crap to. since right now the indians and americans both sell to the americans.

[:) Smiley]

No, immigration as a whole has gone up... but not all immigration is the same kind of immigration. Much of immigration these days are people coming from other countries seeking low pay labor, and not so many are highly skilled workers.

[Dom Pedro II]

Well, hasn't that pretty much always been the case? I mean, I don't remember the large majority of people coming in during the 1800s and 1900s being young, fresh-out-of-college go-getters.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
No, it isn't a serious problem. It is a sign of more efficient jobs (your tech jobs in the 90s) predominating in the US. There will, of course, be growing pains through the process, but the US will get more efficient.

Skilled jobs go to where the productivity is. As long as the US is productive, we'll always have work.

Wrong. This is a serious problem. US productivity is going up - but productivity means each individual does/can do more. If the productivity of the average worker increases while the overall amount of work to be done remains the same, then you have the conditions for long-term unemployment problems.

We may always have work, but may not have enough for the majority of our citizens to make a decent living (i.e. a living wage - not the $6/hr the video store guy makes here in Manhattan).

I guess the 'serious problem' is that Indian workers are getting more and more productive and will be an economic superpower in the next 50 years.

The Indians likely see this in positive terms.

[Imran Siddiqui]

US productivity is going up - but productivity means each individual does/can do more. If the productivity of the average worker increases while the overall amount of work to be done remains the same, then you have the conditions for long-term unemployment problems.

This assumes that the amount of 'work' is remaining the same. It's not. When manufacturing jobs left, they were replaced by technology jobs, which more than made up for the loss. Tech jobs are more productive work than manufacturing.

Tell me why didn't the US have unemployment 'problems' in the 80s and 90s when manufacturing jobs were moving overseas? Hell, we STILL don't have unemployment problems. There are many countries that'd kill for a sub 6.5% unemployment.

We may always have work, but may not have enough for the majority of our citizens to make a decent living

Why? Has capitalism suddenly stopped all of a sudden? Has technology reached the end of its niche? People were claiming 'chicken little' like, back in the 70s, that new technology would lead to greater unemployment because of automation. It hasn't happened.

[Dinner]

This idea that everyone, including zit faced teenagers, needs to make $10 per hour and have full health, dental, and retirement benifets is just plain stupid. If we keep pushing up the minium wage and increasing the costs for businesses then we will only increase the rate at which jobs flee the country. Do you really want that?

You want to increase people's wages in a sustainable way? Improve the business climate so that businesses make greater profits, can hired and fire workers without market distorting government regulations interfering, and then sit back and watch the job base (and tax base) grow.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
This assumes that the amount of 'work' is remaining the same. It's not.

That's right. The amount of work is decreasing. Hence all the talk of "idle capacity" lately.

When manufacturing jobs left, they were replaced by technology jobs, which more than made up for the loss. Tech jobs are more productive work than manufacturing.

But Bob the welder cannot just go be Bob the computer technician or programmer. So even if more technology jobs come into being, there is a question of who this benefits. Many members of the middle class were squeezed out of the middle class during the 80s with the loss of manufacturing jobs. These former manufacturers had to go find new jobs without having any new skills. So when you say "made up for the loss" my question is to whom was this loss made up?

But many of those new tech jobs disappeared along with the tech bubble. So many of those techies are now working in low wage service jobs or unemployed.

Tell me why didn't the US have unemployment 'problems' in the 80s and 90s when manufacturing jobs were moving overseas? Hell, we STILL don't have unemployment problems. There are many countries that'd kill for a sub 6.5% unemployment.

The US did have unemployment problems in the 80s and early 90s.

Why? Has capitalism suddenly stopped all of a sudden? Has technology reached the end of its niche? People were claiming 'chicken little' like, back in the 70s, that new technology would lead to greater unemployment because of automation. It hasn't happened.

automation creates new jobs while destroying old. Yes this is inevitable, but how about programs to retrain displaced workers? The problem now, though, is that these jobs have left for China. Now, tech jobs are headed for India and China as well.

[The Vagabond]

Re: Millions of jobs lost overseas- Is this a serious problem for the U.S.?

Originally posted by Dissident
It seems many tech jobs are going to Russia and India, including tech support. All they have to know how to do is speak english.

Is this a serious problem?

Jobs going to Russia: not a problem at all

Jobs going to India: this is really a serious problem

[Dom Pedro II]

This idea that everyone, including zit faced teenagers, needs to make $10 per hour and have full health, dental, and retirement benifets is just plain stupid. If we keep pushing up the minium wage and increasing the costs for businesses then we will only increase the rate at which jobs flee the country. Do you really want that?

You want to increase people's wages in a sustainable way? Improve the business climate so that businesses make greater profits, can hired and fire workers without market distorting government regulations interfering, and then sit back and watch the job base (and tax base) grow.

On the first paragraph, I agree.

On the second, I agree to a point depending on what you mean... if you mean that minimum wage should be abolished altogether, I disagree.

We've done the no-minimum wage thing before and the results were horrendous. A world without minimum wage only works in which there are always other oppurtunities for workers, and that is not always the case. I've heard lots of talk at the Foundation for Enterprise about eliminating the minimum wage altogether, but that's all on paper they don't ever think about what happens when growth plateaus... and it, of course, does and must plateau eventually.

On the reverse side, Brazil has a *proportionally* higher minimum wage than the United States, but yet the people are so much poorer... the main reason is because the law is not in anyway enforced, so it doesn't do much good to just keep increasing the minimum wage since all it does is compel people to circumvent the law... of course, here there is a lot more enforcement, but at the same time, there are still plenty of chicanos and Guatemalans that aren't working for more than minimum wage, and it's unlikely their situation will ever improve.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Oerdin
This idea that everyone, including zit faced teenagers, needs to make $10 per hour and have full health, dental, and retirement benifets is just plain stupid.

How about unskilled adults?

If we keep pushing up the minium wage and increasing the costs for businesses then we will only increase the rate at which jobs flee the country. Do you really want that?

You want to increase people's wages in a sustainable way? Improve the business climate so that businesses make greater profits, can hired and fire workers without market distorting government regulations interfering, and then sit back and watch the job base (and tax base) grow.

You are joking, right? Yes, business growth leads to the preconditions for increasing the job base and salaries, but that is no guarantee that the wealth created by this growth will be used to increase wages or hire more people. I'll buy this if and only if you have some idea on how we may be assured that the wealth will indeed trickle down. (I won't even get into your proposals for decreasing job security.)

As for "market distorting government regulations" ...

Let's talk about the biggest "market distorting regulation" there is - all the laws limiting unions. For instance, right to work laws deny unions the freedom to contract for closed shops. How about the ban on secondary boycotts? That denies unions the freedom to contract for a shop that only deals with union shops. how about these infringements on the market? How about we allow workers to use unions to create parity of bargaining power with employers.

Actually, unions provide the perfect medium through which to make sure that the wealth created by growth does in fact make its way to the employees (who in turn buy more stuff, which in turn creates more business ...)

If we are going to get rid of those "market distorting government regulations" let's get rid of all of them - not just the ones businessmen don't want.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's right. The amount of work is decreasing. Hence all the talk of "idle capacity" lately.

So what happens during an economic slow down is indictative of future normal economic times?

But Bob the welder cannot just go be Bob the computer technician or programmer. So even if more technology jobs come into being, there is a question of who this benefits. Many members of the middle class were squeezed out of the middle class during the 80s with the loss of manufacturing jobs. These former manufacturers had to go find new jobs without having any new skills. So when you say "made up for the loss" my question is to whom was this loss made up?

Of course they will have to retrain. However, during the 80s and 90s, GDP went up by great amounts, so yes this loss was made up. People lose manufacturing jobs, and maybe they went into other fields, but many more new technology based jobs and other jobs opened up in the economy. Hey, maybe it didn't work out so well for the factory worker, but people in general did well.

But many of those new tech jobs disappeared along with the tech bubble. So many of those techies are now working in low wage service jobs or unemployed.

And they'll get new high paying jobs in the next boom period.

The US did have unemployment problems in the 80s and early 90s.

What, we hit 6% unemployment? That isn't an unemployment problem. An unemployment problem is when we hit 10% (which wouldn't be a problem in Europe, interestingly)

The problem now, though, is that these jobs have left for China. Now, tech jobs are headed for India and China as well.

And different jobs will come up to take their place, and the cycle continues.

It's funny when these manufacturing jobs were leaving in the 80s, there was talk that we were FINISHED! The Japanese would be the next economic superpower and we better get used to it. Then come the 90s, which was one of the most profitable decades in US history and we hit a bump and suddenly there is talk we are finished again, and the Indians are taking all our jobs.

I guess I can count on this discussion again (with another country as the new job taker) in 15 years!

[Dinner]

You are seriously claiming that Unions not having a natural right to exclude any and all persons who don't pay them membership dues is what is distorting the market? So by allowing unions to exclude all of there competetion we are creating a better market? Monoplies create perfect markets?

If you are arguing this then I don't see any reason discuing this with you because such a claim is clearly assinine.