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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @03:44PM
I don't think #1 will work, because everyone that actually would agree that there can be wiggling on the hook for a few decades, will accept this and hope to retire in a few decades with the salary they have, than the reductive haircut salary you offer. Being unable to retire in a few decades to save some political process money is something *someone else can do*.
People will trade or cut back, but not like what you suggest. People are going to give up meats due to cancer, conveniences due to global warming, freedom for hypocracy, etc. They are not going to willingly give up their income just so they can make a closer number to people in another country.
If you were able to get those people to "man up" and increase their living expenses 10x, 100x whatever it takes -- then maybe I can pretend it is my merit that makes me special and not the low salary and incredible value I provide.
There will need to be a moon project sort of goal that people care about, or a terrible disaster -- some kind of unifying force to get anyone to man up in the way you suggest.
But what you then would be endorsing looks like nationalism when willingly done, and communism when enforced... as far as the wealth distribution is concerned.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 27 2015, @04:07PM
People will trade or cut back, but not like what you suggest. People are going to give up meats due to cancer, conveniences due to global warming, freedom for hypocracy, etc. They are not going to willingly give up their income just so they can make a closer number to people in another country.
This part isn't negotiable. It will happen no matter how unwilling US workers are or what games are played to avoid it.
If you were able to get those people to "man up" and increase their living expenses 10x, 100x whatever it takes -- then maybe I can pretend it is my merit that makes me special and not the low salary and incredible value I provide.
Where are you going with that? It's worth noting that we're already on that rather dumb course of action with inflated real estate, health care, and education. It didn't take manning up, it took doing dumb things for half a century.
There will need to be a moon project sort of goal that people care about, or a terrible disaster -- some kind of unifying force to get anyone to man up in the way you suggest.
The terrible disaster is becoming poorer than China in the future.
But what you then would be endorsing looks like nationalism when willingly done, and communism when enforced... as far as the wealth distribution is concerned.
It's a national problem so any solutions will look a little nationalist.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27 2015, @11:15PM
This is the same poster that cited the concerns.
I think what I was trying to say is that there are not enough people to follow through with this, even if they believe it. Even if collapse happens around them.
The haves are digging vaults, the nuts are collecting guns, few outside of Etsy have any creative survival skills that involve something other than downloading plans someone else made for their 3d printer or what have you.
There are many good people that will be able to adapt -- but they are unlikely to give it up willingly. I think we have seen in Greece what the austerity measures have done. Even the migrants escaping Syria and Africa and other nearby locales, the people who have nothing -- are unwilling to go there. Instead, they pursue a fantasy--the fantasy that you are suggesting that the people already in the fantasy should give up.
I do not see it happening willingly, and when it happens, someone will get pitchforked to death as things burn. Probably with stolen pitchforks, because the people smart enough to save will be stolen from when those that have nothing see those nearby that do.