SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A couple of years ago it was reported that in 2012 more than half of all American wage earners made less than $30,000 per year. The Social Security Administration's new earnings report for 2014 is out and there's still much gnashing of teeth about the dying middle class. With earnings numbers that haven't changed much in 2 years, estimates running as high as 100 million working age Americans without a job, and no one tracking the population of H-1B visa holders, where are the jobs really?
The July 9, 2015, issue of The New York Review of Books carried a very thoughtful piece by Andrew Hacker. In "The Frenzy About High-Tech Talent," Hacker discusses a number of books and reports that address whether or not there really is a need for more tech talent, the justification for the H-1B visa program, and issues in the American educational system.
[...] Throughout his piece Hacker is basically questioning two things:
1. Is there really an unfilled need for STEM graduates, or are we actually graduating too many so that many end up unemployed or employed in different areas?
2. Are there flaws in the American education system, both at the K-12 level and in college, that lead us to be very dependent on foreign STEM graduates?
[...] The texts Hacker is reviewing, and his own information, seem to dwell predominately on overall job projections for the STEM fields. Nowhere does there appear a breakout of the job forecast for computing related job categories. With the increased ubiquity of computing across all industries and employment sectors, it seems unlikely that we will see the "deskilling" trend that may be occurring in engineering (whereby engineers create equipment that means they and others like them no longer have job opportunities). We know that there are many jobs in the "tech sector" but there are also a lot of computing jobs in banking, finance, manufacturing, agriculture, healthcare, etc. We can get an accurate picture of future job openings only if we can make a good determination of the computing jobs that exist outside of the "tech sector."
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday October 27 2015, @01:44PM
Well, since nobody else wants to talk about it, I will. 100 million working-age Americans being out of work kinda puts the lie to this administration's claimed low unemployment percentage, no? We're in an extremely nasty recession... no, really a proper depression. That is where the jobs are. They're second cousin to Harvey the rabbit. They do not exist.
Why? Because the economy has gone straight down the shitter since Bush left office and it wasn't that fucking sparkly under his ass. Yeah, Big O can pull out all the numbers he likes but the ~50% of working-age people not being able to get a job means he's completely full of shit when he says we're anything but proper fucked.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday October 27 2015, @02:06PM
Your implication is that your president has the ability to control the economy. It's not the 1930s any more, in a globalised world nation states have very little control.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @03:50PM
Food from other countries (or the sea) is necessary for the Netherlands; it can't possibly feed its dense population otherwise. For the United States however, global trade is a choice, not a necessity. Even Cuba has been muddling through a trade embargo.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Tuesday October 27 2015, @04:41PM
And so will you. But there situation was also shitty for some time, and so might be yours as well.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @02:22PM
What everyone is describing is called the total employment rate. Wikipedia has a much better summary than I can come up with. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment-to-population_ratio [wikipedia.org] We are about 67% right now.
In the so called 'golden era' where people were making the most money the rate was in the 50-60s. But the reality was most people did not have a job. There may be good or bad reasons for that. People can speculate all they like which was better or worse. Most were not there. My parents have a different story about what it was like. My dad I think had no less than 15 different jobs. Until he lucked into a 'high paying' one.
The seeds of the current down turn were sown in the mid 90s and early 70s. Both with the removal on restrictions of derivatives, the employee medical mandates, the increase on foreign earned income taxes, and the real biggie was the home loan subsidies programs. Those created a perfect storm of 'easy cash'. With a fad of 'the internet'. People look back at 1999 as if it were some good thing. It was *all* flash. There were no real assets behind it. Which is why the double crash of 2001 and 2008.
The early 2000s and late 90s are an anomaly. They were a fabrication of easy cash thru loans. The current admin is trying to recreate 'easy loans' with low interest rates. I have sold many of my dividend paying stocks for pilling on huge debt to pay dividends. These companies are going to be in the massive pain when rates go up again. 2008 was a freezing up of loaning so you saw the whole system implode on itself.
This page has a nice summary on how our money system works and how money is created and destroyed. http://positivemoney.org/how-money-works/how-banks-create-money/ [positivemoney.org] The fed only creates a small fraction of the money. But they set the rate at which all the other banks follow. I literally as a banker can turn 10 bucks into 100 bucks (reloan rate). Then charge you to do it (interest rate).
Why am I on about loans? How do you think all these VCs were paying for those sweet gigs? You think they were risking their own cash?
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Tuesday October 27 2015, @04:19PM
The 1950s were a LOT more sexist than now, I don't know how it was in the USA, but in the Netherlands, women were very strongly encouraged to stop working, or outright fired from their jobs, as soon as they got married. They were supposed to be house-wives from then on.
The implication is, that all the normal people in the Netherlands, we're not talking about high earners here, were able to support an entire family (families were also larger then, let's say 3-4 kids) on *a single income*.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2015, @06:17PM
[...] that all the normal people in the Netherlands, we're not talking about high earners here, were able to support an entire family (families were also larger then, let's say 3-4 kids) on *a single income*.
They were. It was possible then and it should be possible now.
a LOT more sexist
Are you sure you're from the Netherlands? You sound like you're straight outta San Fransisco.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @02:55PM
Bush artificially pumped up the economy by deliberately not enforcing lending laws and regulations, so anyone could claim to be eligible for a mortgage. Hundreds of fly-by-night mortgage companies sprung up around the country to help people prepare the bogus paperwork.
That's why there were lots of jobs in 2005-2006.
The same disdain for regulation extended all the way up the chain, to the big banks who were creating phony Triple-A securities, and the three credit bureaus who were signing off on them. The idea was to *make lots of money*, and you did that by *moving lots of product*.
That's what happens in a Republican administration. Same thing happened in Reagan's second term.
(Score: 1) by FunkyLich on Tuesday October 27 2015, @03:01PM
Well... it would be more wise to be aware of the dinosaur in the room as well.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/akbar-ganji/the-transformation-of-ame_1_b_7945040.html [huffingtonpost.com]
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 [bbc.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 27 2015, @04:21PM
The first world problems discussed in these articles will continue to get worse - because poor people have their wealth in their labor which rich people have it in capital and we're in a regime where the price of labor has dropped substantially.
(Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Tuesday October 27 2015, @03:10PM
Calling it 100,000,000 unemployed is retarded. For one, I'm fairly sure taking 100% minus the labor force participation rate gives you a figure that already includes the official unemployment rate. Adding the official unemployment rate to a non participation rate is double dipping.
Second, in consumer expenditure survey data, in any age range, more people who aren't actively working give their reasons for not working as "staying at home", "in school", "disability or other health issues", and "retired" than give an answer of "unemployed". These categories are always larger than unemployment. I am not aware that they are particularly unusual at this time given that most of the drop in the participation rate can be explained by the baby boomer bulge in the population distribution hitting ages that have historically had lower workforce participation.
This isn't to say that everyone who has found themselves in the role of "stay at home mom/dad", "disability", or "retired" has done so by active choice in lieu of employment. However, that's always been the case. There's always some flow between these categories and the workforce due to the tension between people pursuing more income or settling into a non-income generating life pattern.
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kurenai.tsubasa on Tuesday October 27 2015, @05:45PM
Because the economy has gone straight down the shitter since Bush left office
Oh for crying out loud. Stop the partisan wanking. When I look at the graphs (not necessarily the ones in TFA, which only go back to 2000 on the article I just clicked to check), I see increasing worker productivity and GDP skyrocketing and wages stagnating since 1980. If you want to blame a D-type president, blame Carter by this logic.
If you remember back to 2008, the writing was already on the wall. Before the election, there was already rumblings of bailing out banks and car companies from the Rs. The TEA party had not yet been assimilated by the One Party as an astroturf movement. I voted for Bob Barr of all people for president, because 1.) as if I didn't have enough reasons even then for Grand Duchess Clinton to give me the willies 2.) if I wanted to vote in the D-type primary, I could have, but I voted in the R-type primary, and as far as I could tell Mr. Hussein Obama was a Chicago politician with no experience in an executive position (all though I will be honest I was curious about that hope and change thing—there's no mystery now!) 3.) McCain had my vote right up until he decided it would be a good idea to put some bimbo from Alaska one heart attack away from the presidency. (To Palin's credit, at least she had more executive experience than BHO!)
Back in 2008, I wanted nothing more to see the banks and car makers who were “too big to fail” to just fucking fail already. If we're going to worship the invisible hand of the free market, then I nominate Master Hand [google.com]. Sure, it would have been a complete disaster, but as John Titor put it during his stop-over in 2001-ish, the walk to the gas station will do you some good. Instead, the bread and circuses continued, but never quite enough bread to go around. The Masters of the Universe have been clever: provide plenty of circuses but only enough bread to prevent riots and real political change.
If you want to blame Obama for something, blame him for the insurance company gravy train that is Nixon/Romney/Obamacare.
The only thing that is to be done about this is to see the R-types and D-types for what they are: two faces of the One Party and a bunch of cows who blindly pick a side and stick with it like it's a sports team or some part of their identity.
Vote Libertarian! Personally, I will probably go with Sanders (I-VT) unless the Libertarians manage to put forward a candidate who is dynamite. If you must vote R, vote Trump in the primaries. That's my plan if the coronation process has eliminated Sanders from the D ticket at that point. Sure, Trump's crazy, but what's even crazier is sticking to party lines and continuing the Bush and Clinton dynasties. Trump and Sanders are only running as R and D for convenience. (Besides, how can Clinton be credibly coronated unless she defeats a credible opponent? The Narrative and circuses demand drama for the cows!)
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday October 27 2015, @08:59PM
Oh I do blame Carter for a great many things. What you missed with your own partisan goggles on is I also blamed Bush.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday October 29 2015, @02:11AM
Good.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @07:15PM
When over 20 percent of people have looked and looked and looked and looked and still can't find a fulltime job, that's NOT a recession; it's a depression.
...then we could mention the additional 30-plus percent who are being paid a poverty wage and who don't have disposable income that they could be spending into the economy, getting the Multiplier Effect going.
The illogic of eroded-customer-base Neoliberalism is killing civilization.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @07:43PM
Pure demand-side ideology is just as broken as pure supply-side ideology.
Even if you're a doctrinaire Keynesian, it depends on the comparative multiplier effect obtained from the money going to expenditures, investments and so on. From that perspective it might make more sense to simply accept a 90% indigence level with social welfare being paid for by the 10% - although that seems improbable.
But if you have detailed analyses on hand, that'd be great. Any citations?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday October 27 2015, @08:58PM
Wait, did we agree on something?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2015, @04:51AM
Don't be so amazed that we both spotted the giant dark stain in the middle of the pale rug.
-- gewg_
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 28 2015, @01:29PM
...then we could mention the additional 30-plus percent who are being paid a poverty wage and who don't have disposable income that they could be spending into the economy, getting the Multiplier Effect going.
Measuring everything in GDP is a disease. I have to agree with the other AC replier, this is just as broken as supply-side economics and for the same reasons. Further, I think this demand-side obsession is the key reason we have so much private debt per person. It's considered a win when a bunch of dupes borrow money and generate some multiplier effect.