Many people on here specualte that our high paying jobs are going overseas and are being replaced by minimum wage jobs (and typically bash Bush as the cause of this).
Consider, however, that of the predicted top 50 fastest growing jobs over the next 10 years, 33 pay in the top two earning quartiles, while only 5 pay in the bottom quartile.
Can I expect any rational rebuttals, or just the typical liberal Bush-bash rhetoric?
http://www.acinet.org/acinet/oview1.asp?next=oview1&Level=Overall&optstatus=&jobfam=&id=1%2C8&nodeid=3&soccode=&stfips=&ShowAll=&x=31&y=11
2007-02-12
08:17:55
·
9 answers
·
asked by
Time to Shrug, Atlas
6
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
Also regarding the "loss of our manufacturing jobs" see this link:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/employment/2006-12-05-skilled-workers-shortage_x.htm
2007-02-12
08:19:06 ·
update #1
Freak:
You are ignoring the fact that a majority of the bottom quratile jobs are part time and/or temporary. Would you rather people not have access to these jobs during the transitional periods of their lives?
2007-02-12
08:26:44 ·
update #2
Freak:
I also notice that you are conveniently ignoring my second article regarding our manufacturing base. ....But I thought our manufacturing base was moving overseas....sniff.sniff..
2007-02-12
08:35:06 ·
update #3
Of course its a puff piece. It doesn't agree with Freak.
And the point of the article is that there is a lack of trained workers and a lack of workers willing to be trained. If you owned a business would you hire untrained workers? Well, I guess you'll never have to worry about you owning a business.
BTW, where are the stats for your claims?
2007-02-12
08:43:36 ·
update #4
when things are outsourced it just opens capital and labor to go else where. when things get more automated does it reduce jobs?? NO, maybe temporarily, but it shifts the work to different sectors or specializations.
Bush bashers don't realize EVERY DECISION HAS TO BE APPROVED BY THE CONGRESS. WHEN THE PRESIDENT VETOES IT, YOU NEED 2/3 OVER RIDE NOT THE USUAL 50% TO PUT IT INTO ACTION. HE MAY HAVE WANTED THE WAR.....BUT WHY DID THE DEMO'S NOT VOTE AGAINST IT AND ALL THE SPENDING FOR IT? HOW DO YOU THINK HE GOT MONEY FOR THE WAR???????
2007-02-12 08:24:16
·
answer #1
·
answered by SWANY 2
·
2⤊
3⤋
Would you like to SuperSize that order? (sarcasm)
This answer comes from a Bush supporter - no ax to grind here:
I think it depends entirely on the area - I know that in the area where I live, we have lost numerous manufacturing facilities - not particularly high paying jobs, but good jobs none the less.
The statistics don't truly represent the reality. If a plant closes that had wages which averaged $16.00 an hour and 50 people are out of work - and the same week, Walmart opens and hires 50 people at $8.50 an hour - is the jobless rate in the community REALLY holding steady as reported in the media? I think not.
The fact is - manufacturing jobs are being outsourced and manufacturers are relocating for cheaper labor and lower overheads (apparently, this enables them to get rid of their dismally performing CEOs with multi-million dollar severance packages). The company I worked for in the R&D engineering department went overseas, so I am not speaking from hearsay.
All I can say to any young person today is stay in school - get a professional degree - the manufacturing jobs are going the way of the dodo bird - and the menial, short term, low paying jobs are already filled by every one who didn't heed this advice!
I don't think we can change the world market forces - regardless of which political party is on Capital Hill - we just have to buckle down and compete - hopefully on a more level playing field in the future.
2007-02-12 16:48:50
·
answer #2
·
answered by LeAnne 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Barron's book Econospinning touches on this topic.
You're right - I posted a similar question an hour ago. Basically the Left takes the fact that most of the job creation is in the "service sector," which includes all white collar jobs and in which most of the growth is in healthcare and technology, with some growth coming in professions such as law and finance as byproducts of the growth in these sectors (e.g., financing technology companies), and touting those stats but arguing that "service sector" means "mcjobs" - that's the SOLE basis for the "mcjobs" myth, the popular misconception that "service sector" means "mcjobs."
The job creation has been precisely in the high-paying jobs - which is why the premium for college-educated workers is growing. The problem, for some, is that former blue collar workers aren't qualified to hold these jobs.
I just think that there's no right to a mentally un-challenging job. you don't have an entitlement to make in the $40K and up range to do the same thing full-time that the rest of us do for a summer job in high school and college. It's just that a generation of folks got used to this notion because the other manufacturing powerhouses spent 20 years rebuilding after we bombed their infrastructures to the ground in WWII.
2007-02-12 16:35:53
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
that is very interesting to read. If true it means that the education system in this country is in worse shape than we thought, and that the immmigration and green card worker system is totally out of whack. Ive worked with people who immigrated here legally and they had a horrible time getting here, while we give unskilled mexicans free rein to come over. Ive heard it blamed on unions afraid that skilled workers from other countries will come take americans jobs, but that seems bogus. I dont know if it means that we are only adding mcwalmartjobs and the plan is to export all the skilled jobs oversead, but that is what it looks like from your links. I guess its only a matter of time before we are a third rate world country.
2007-02-12 16:26:37
·
answer #4
·
answered by tomhale138 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
Don't look at the percentage growth, look at actual job openings.
I provided the data in my earlier question - why are you covering it up if you are really curious about your own question?
http://www.acinet.org/acinet/oview2.asp?next=oview2&Level=Overall&optstatus=&jobfam=&id=1%2C8&nodeid=4&soccode=&stfips=&ShowAll=&x=58&y=11
EDIT: You are ignoring that these McJobs are the BIGGEST SOURCES OF NEW JOBS IN THE ECONOMY. I would like everyone who is looking for a job to have more a choice than McDonald's burger flipper, McDonald's cashier, or home health care aide taking care of someone who ate at McDonald's too much.
EDIT: As for the second article, you can choose to believe a puff piece from the National Association of Manufacturers where they claim they would LOVE to add jobs in the U.S.
Or you can believe official government statistics, showing manufacturing is in a state of collapse and a flood of imports from China. Your choice.
2007-02-12 16:21:21
·
answer #5
·
answered by Longhaired Freaky Person 4
·
3⤊
2⤋
Hold on, I'm gonna answer your question, but I need to drop some fries in the deep fryer.
2007-02-12 16:20:58
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Some say there are six degrees of separation between all people. Well, I cannot connect myself to anyone within two degrees that has lost their job because of outsourcing. Based on what I know, we haven't lost all these jobs the media claims.
2007-02-12 16:23:35
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
4⤋
I hope one day as you flip burgers you realize the error of your ways.
2007-02-12 16:20:27
·
answer #8
·
answered by Monkey Boy 3
·
3⤊
1⤋
"Are we really just adding McJobs to our economy? "
No. That is just Democrat propaganda.
2007-02-12 16:20:15
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
4⤋