Jobs in March

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jul 21, 2003
Messages
347
Location
Colorado
You know what kills me about outsourcing. Blue collar/manufacturing outsourcing has been occuring for years and politicians never cared enough to make it a political issue.

Now that white collar jobs that required college education and were considered as a safety net against outsourcing are being outsourced to India, Russia and other countries (IT, MIS, and engineering jobs), the politicians got their panty's in a wad.

I recall the mantra of white collar people preaching to the blue collar folks that they wouldn't be unemployed due to outsourcing if they only had a college education to work a white collar "safe" job.

I guess its time for a lot of those folks to see how easy it is to obtain a new education and start a new career mid-life.

I support free trade but let's not kid ourselves. Is it really free trade when certain Chinese provinces ignore their own minimum wage laws and pay their workers 3 cents an hour in order to attract investment in their impoverished province?

On another issue, we screwed the pooch by allowing our trade with China to make it a major world economic player. China's transition to an industrial manufacturing power has greatly increased the demand for oil-leading to higher prices for the USA. Think about that everytime you shop at Walmart and buy a China made product.

[ April 03, 2004, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: Drew ]
 
'Outsourcing' of jobs has been a major problem for a very long time. Clothing manufacturers have long used sweat shop labor in various Third World countries. And chemical companies have long used low paid labor in various countries where there is zero concern for worker safety. A lot of the steel used by the United States is actually made in other countries. I saw a special report on I think 60 Minutes where Ford Escorts were being manufactured in Mexico. The cars were selling for the same price as Escorts made in America and the workers in Mexico were living in slum like conditions.

It is good that this problem of job outsourcing is finally being looked into. If we do want for jobs to stay in this country and if we do want for workers to have safe working conditions and adequate pay, we are probably going to have to be willing to pay more for clothes and other items.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Drew:

Think about that everytime you shop at Walmart and buy a China made product.


I will not shop at Wal-Mart but

One of my employees who's husband is a Union Plumber who has been out of work for 8 of the last 12 months loves Wal-Mart. She told me the Union tells it's members not to shop there. She said every one she knows in the union shops there because of how cheap the grocery prices are. BTW the reason that Union Plumber is out so long is he is waiting for a 6 month job. You see he vacations 5 to 6 months a year on his unemployment checks $451 per week.
He usually takes a voluntary lay off between Memorial day and Labor day and another between Thanksgiving and first of February.
 
quote:

take a look at insourcing.

You mean the intelectual property and consulting that we've been exporting since the term came into being? What's new about that? Although communications and information technologies are reaching more nations ...this is no boom ..the boom has already happened and we are viewing "evolution" not revolution.

It's fine to quote the only healthy part of your economy (that has been there forever) when no matter how you mix it up ...it is always going to be a "decline" (short term intermediate conditions and restrictions apply).

quote:

BTW the reason that Union Plumber is out so long is he is waiting for a 6 month job. You see he vacations 5 to 6 months a year on his unemployment checks $451 per week.
He usually takes a voluntary lay off between Memorial day and Labor day and another between Thanksgiving and first of February.

One plumber I know (not a union plumber) heard another plumber whining about union labor. He laughed at him and said "Do you think we would be this far up on the pole if unions didn't set some standard of living for the common laborer?"

Daddy warbucks or Mr. Dustybucks was never going to share what they had with the rabble. If any of you think that you would be working in any conditions as good as you have it today without the living standard that unions set ...well I think that you have too much faith in "good will".

Direct labor costs are not a big part of the cost of manufacturing. The typical labor is 4-7% of the costs. In my dye manufacturer's plant a dye that cost $55 had only $0.50 of indirect labor and $0.96 of direct labor. The rest was overhead which included taxes, waste treatment (very expensive for the dye industry), engineering, etc.

The place made money ...but there was just no justification to have that much capital invested for the yield ..when more money could be made elsewhere. This wasn't a bunch of jobs moved offshore...it was a "no longer viable" enterprize when compared to newer and less capital intensive sectors. Heck you could have made more money for the share holders through a passbook savings account. Add to that an aging workforce that is going to be all adding deferred expenses and are going to be less productive and what do you get??
 
"The place made money ...but there was just no justification to have that much capital invested for the yield "
----------------------------------------------------------

But Gary, people spend upwards of 100 million to be President and that job doesn't pay that much!

lol.gif
 
308000 Jobs created in March, and no, they weren't "Walmart jobs". There was no drop in manufacturing (first time in many years.) A lot of increases in construction. BTW-to the outsourcing people-take a look at insourcing.
Economist Article One

This is from another great article, but you must be a subscriber, and I didn't want to put the whole article on here.

Yes, individuals will be hurt in the process, and the focus of public policy should be directed towards providing a safety net for them, as well as ensuring that Americans have education to match the new jobs being created. By contrast, regarding globalisation as the enemy, as Mr Edwards does often and Messrs Kerry and Bush both do by default, is a much greater threat to America's economic health than any Indian software programmer.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Gary Allan:
Direct labor costs are not a big part of the cost of manufacturing. The typical labor is 4-7% of the costs. In my dye manufacturer's plant a dye that cost $55 had only $0.50 of indirect labor and $0.96 of direct labor. The rest was overhead which included taxes, waste treatment (very expensive for the dye industry), engineering, etc.

Gary, I know what you mean.

we sell electricity for about 2.5c/kWhr in the NSW power industry (I buy it back at 14c). $2 of that are "fixed" costs, like coal, taxes, financing charges. 0.5c are considered controllable. They include maintenance, spare parts, and wages. The wages come in at 0.1c.

So guess which part of the equation is the target every single time ?

My direct supervisor used to be in my job 10 years ago. He had 5 people working for him, looked after 1000MW of turbines, and earned a salary ranking that would place him $10k ahead of me. In the new world, I have more responsibility (which he acknowledges), 2320MW of turbines to look after, and not a single direct report.

Price of progress.
 
I did here one positive reason for outsourcing and that was for start-up businesses. It allows a better cost advantage until it can support hiring domestic workers. Seems to work best when used by people living here with their roots, language and contacts in the outsource country.
March jobs are certainely good news but we've got a long way to go. Here's some analysis from the
Economic Policy Institute. I know, I know, they're funded by labor and government, but I don't think what they are saying is wrong. It just sobers the outlook and says we have a long way to go.
http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_econindicators_jobspict
April 2, 2004

Payrolls up sharply, though labor slack remains
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported today that the nation's payrolls grew sharply last month, by 308,000, for the largest one-month jump in four years. With upward revisions to the payroll numbers for January (revised up 62,000) and February (up 25,000), payrolls have expanded by 513,000 since December and by 759,000 since August 2003.

Even with these gains, payrolls remain 323,000 below their level at the start of the recovery in November 2001, and two million below their pre-recession peak in March of that year. And while the pace of job growth has accelerated since last fall, the average monthly gain has been 108,000 since payroll growth turned positive. At this point in the early 1990s recovery, job growth averaged 220,000.

Along with the strong overall job growth, another positive sign is the broad-based distribution of job growth among industries. The service sector?including government, which accounts for 83% of total payroll employment?added 230,000 jobs in March, the largest monthly gain for that sector since May 2000. Retail trade also had a strong month, up 47,000 jobs, with some portion of these gains due to returning strikers. Note, however, that food store employment was up by 12,800, so the return of striking grocery workers does not discount the job gains in retail.

The 71,000 gain in construction, however, was likely partially weather related. Averaging over the past two months, construction employment is up by 25,000, a slight acceleration in the positive trend for that sector. Jobs in information services fell slightly (-1,000), suggesting the while tech firms are laying off fewer workers than in past months, they have yet to engage in significant job creation.

Employment in the nation's factories was unchanged in March, but this represents the first month since August 2000 that manufacturing jobs did not decline. Still, manufacturing employment remains three million jobs down from its 2000 peak. As a share of total employment, manufacturing has fallen from 13.1% to 11%, a sharp rate of decline in historical terms.

The unemployment rate, derived from a survey of households, ticked up slightly, from 5.6% to 5.7%. Much has been made of the divergence between the two surveys used to measure employment?the payroll and household surveys?and employment in the household survey actually fell slightly last month. But this was driven largely by a decline of 304,000 in the ranks of the self-employed, who are excluded from the payroll survey. Though this value can be volatile on a monthly basis, it may represent a shift out of involuntary self-employment as the labor market expands.

After falling by over 700,000 December through February, the labor force expanded by 179,000 in March, and the number of unemployed grew by 182,000. This dynamic is emblematic of the challenge in lowering the unemployment rate when the labor force is growing. The economy must create enough jobs to both re-employ those laid off during the recession and weak jobs recovery that followed, as well as to absorb those coming into the job market as the population expands over time.

The household survey also reveals a few other indicators that labor demand is still a problem. The share of the long-term unemployed?those who have been jobless for at least half a year?jumped up a percentage point to 23.9%, the highest level since July 1983, when the unemployment rate was 9.3%. There was also a 296,000 increase in the number of so-called involuntary part-time workers, i.e., those who would prefer full-time work. This change helped push up the BLS's comprehensive measure of underemployment?which adds discouraged workers and involuntary part-timers to the traditional group of unemployed?to 9.9%, up 0.3 percentage points from last month.

The increase in part-time work may be reflected in the payroll numbers, which showed a 0.1% decrease in average weekly hours last month. In fact, even with the large net increase of employment last month, the number of total hours worked in the labor market actually fell slightly, meaning more workers are working fewer hours than last month.

Despite the sharp gain in jobs, there is still considerable slack in the labor market. Average hourly pay, for example, continues to grow at about the rate of inflation, increasing at an annual rate of 1.8% over the past quarter. The increase in long-term unemployment, involuntary part-time work, and what may be a shift out of self-employment to the wage-and-salaried sector, all serve as reminders that over 150,000 jobs per month must be created to begin to absorb the available labor supply. If last month's trend in payroll jobs continues, the economy will begin to achieve that goal in coming months.

By EPI senior economist Jared Bernstein
with research assistance by Yulia Fungard.
 
I did here one positive reason for outsourcing and that was for start-up businesses. It allows a better cost advantage until it can support hiring domestic workers. Seems to work best when used by people living here with their roots, language and contacts in the outsource country.
March jobs are certainely good news but we've got a long way to go. Here's some analysis from the
Economic Policy Institute. I know, I know, they're funded by labor and government, but I don't think what they are saying is wrong. It just sobers the outlook and says we have a long way to go.

April 2, 2004

Payrolls up sharply, though labor slack remains
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported today that the nation's payrolls grew sharply last month, by 308,000, for the largest one-month jump in four years. With upward revisions to the payroll numbers for January (revised up 62,000) and February (up 25,000), payrolls have expanded by 513,000 since December and by 759,000 since August 2003.

Even with these gains, payrolls remain 323,000 below their level at the start of the recovery in November 2001, and two million below their pre-recession peak in March of that year. And while the pace of job growth has accelerated since last fall, the average monthly gain has been 108,000 since payroll growth turned positive. At this point in the early 1990s recovery, job growth averaged 220,000.

Along with the strong overall job growth, another positive sign is the broad-based distribution of job growth among industries. The service sector?including government, which accounts for 83% of total payroll employment?added 230,000 jobs in March, the largest monthly gain for that sector since May 2000. Retail trade also had a strong month, up 47,000 jobs, with some portion of these gains due to returning strikers. Note, however, that food store employment was up by 12,800, so the return of striking grocery workers does not discount the job gains in retail.

The 71,000 gain in construction, however, was likely partially weather related. Averaging over the past two months, construction employment is up by 25,000, a slight acceleration in the positive trend for that sector. Jobs in information services fell slightly (-1,000), suggesting the while tech firms are laying off fewer workers than in past months, they have yet to engage in significant job creation.

Employment in the nation's factories was unchanged in March, but this represents the first month since August 2000 that manufacturing jobs did not decline. Still, manufacturing employment remains three million jobs down from its 2000 peak. As a share of total employment, manufacturing has fallen from 13.1% to 11%, a sharp rate of decline in historical terms.

The unemployment rate, derived from a survey of households, ticked up slightly, from 5.6% to 5.7%. Much has been made of the divergence between the two surveys used to measure employment?the payroll and household surveys?and employment in the household survey actually fell slightly last month. But this was driven largely by a decline of 304,000 in the ranks of the self-employed, who are excluded from the payroll survey. Though this value can be volatile on a monthly basis, it may represent a shift out of involuntary self-employment as the labor market expands.

After falling by over 700,000 December through February, the labor force expanded by 179,000 in March, and the number of unemployed grew by 182,000. This dynamic is emblematic of the challenge in lowering the unemployment rate when the labor force is growing. The economy must create enough jobs to both re-employ those laid off during the recession and weak jobs recovery that followed, as well as to absorb those coming into the job market as the population expands over time.

The household survey also reveals a few other indicators that labor demand is still a problem. The share of the long-term unemployed?those who have been jobless for at least half a year?jumped up a percentage point to 23.9%, the highest level since July 1983, when the unemployment rate was 9.3%. There was also a 296,000 increase in the number of so-called involuntary part-time workers, i.e., those who would prefer full-time work. This change helped push up the BLS's comprehensive measure of underemployment?which adds discouraged workers and involuntary part-timers to the traditional group of unemployed?to 9.9%, up 0.3 percentage points from last month.

The increase in part-time work may be reflected in the payroll numbers, which showed a 0.1% decrease in average weekly hours last month. In fact, even with the large net increase of employment last month, the number of total hours worked in the labor market actually fell slightly, meaning more workers are working fewer hours than last month.

Despite the sharp gain in jobs, there is still considerable slack in the labor market. Average hourly pay, for example, continues to grow at about the rate of inflation, increasing at an annual rate of 1.8% over the past quarter. The increase in long-term unemployment, involuntary part-time work, and what may be a shift out of self-employment to the wage-and-salaried sector, all serve as reminders that over 150,000 jobs per month must be created to begin to absorb the available labor supply. If last month's trend in payroll jobs continues, the economy will begin to achieve that goal in coming months.

By EPI senior economist Jared Bernstein
with research assistance by Yulia Fungard.
 
All of you that say labor is a small part of the costs of a product are DEAD NUTS ON. Really the touch/direct labor is not that huge of a percentage......

I don't take this lightly, because a) it's my business b) it lulls people to sleep in the battle to get a grip on the worst violator: INCREASES IN HEALTH CARE COSTS

One high cost thing in the US is the regulatory "climate", no not necessarily taxes....but these are things China, et al don't have the same regs, insurance costs, layers of accountants, etc

So if someone says "That's made in China, and it's cheaper because the people make a buck an hour...." I kinda think the person making these simplistic statements doesn't know what they are talking about. Yes some do make that little in tertiary factories, most more now - certainly in direct suppliers - but the real savings in China is NOT the hourly wage. Our politicians need to consider this........when making wildass campaign statements and shaping economic policy.
 
All of you that say labor is a small part of the costs of a product are DEAD NUTS ON. Really the touch/direct labor is not that huge of a percentage of any human made good or service......

I don't take this lightly, because a) it's my business b) it lulls people to sleep in the battle to get a grip on the worst violator: INCREASES IN HEALTH CARE COSTS

One high cost thing in the US is the regulatory "climate", no not necessarily taxes....but these are things China, et al don't have the same regs, insurance costs, layers of accountants, etc

So if someone says "That's made in China, and it's cheaper because the people make a buck an hour...." I kinda think the person making these simplistic statements doesn't know what they are talking about. Yes some do make that little in tertiary factories, most more now - certainly in direct suppliers - but the real savings in China is NOT the hourly wage. Our politicians need to consider this........when making wildass campaign statements and shaping economic policy.
 
quote:

Our politicians need to consider this........when making wildass campaign statements and shaping economic policy.

That's the "trick". This is the class warfare tactics that you hear all the time (this type of "non" stuff).

Rush bellows: "Get the bums off of welfare!!! They're the achors in the mud that stifles your American dream!!!"

The Left bellows: "The low life "let them eat cake" rich are to blame!!".

Meanwhile neither has much to do with it. Medicare is going to kill us all with the people just getting old.

The problem is perception.

We lived VERY HIGH ON THE HOG for a long time. Our post WWII economy rebuilt the world and we were the inflating ballon swallowing up foreign revenue. We put it back ..and are still putting it back.

No politician is going to get elected saying "Things are going to get worse. The American people are going to have to work harder and for less wages than ever before".

Would you vote for this "honesty"? Well, you might ...but 80% of the population that thinks that $300 in tax cuts is making their life a whole lot better WOULD NOT.

To our good fortune, the entire global economy is tied to us. If they take too much of our "prosparity" ..they end up having to put it back. Naturally this creates the oscillations of expansion and recession that we experience and somehow deem "good or bad". In reality they are just "technical corrections" of monetary balances and WILL NEVER STOP unless one of two things occur.

1,) the entire world is at par with us.

2,) we control our trade in a "balanced" manner.

#1 won't happen for a long time.

#2 won't happen because too many people profit from our expasion ..even if it is at the expense of our population.

So until socialism naturally evolves because of too much #2 ...we WILL see this "decline" (intermediate condtions and restrictions apply).

No real gain in wages has occured in the US since the early 70's and we have been the biggest debtor nation on the planet since the Reagan administration.
 
Insourcing by offshore, non-US owned multinational companies IS NOT the same thing as outsourcing. When a US owned company goes to India to produce a product destined for the US market, and produces that product for 70% less, that is not the same economic situation as Toyota setting up a plant in the United states, hiring US workers to produce cars destined for the US market. The US is the only country in the world that outsources by defenition because the US dollar is the most "inflated" currency in the world. A dollar doesn't buy you jack **** in the US comared to a dollar in any other country in the world (this still takes into account the decline in the dollar in currency markets). The value of most other currencies IN THEIR home economies are at roughly 1950's levels of the dollar in the US. Is it a bad thing? In the long run, NO, as long as the US economy sustains 2-3-4% annual GDP growth with low inflation. And, yes, I do not like George W. Bush, but he is hardly to blame for it. It is essentially, economic evolution, and EVERY economy with our stature would do the exact same thing. Outsrourcing does increase our gigantic 5 trillion ? dollar a year trade defecit, by about .1%
gr_stretch.gif
Other countries, such as Euopean ones, strive for a trade surplus, yet they countinually have 8-10% unemplyment.
dunno.gif
 
Insourcing by offshore, non-US owned multinational companies IS NOT the same thing as outsourcing. When a US owned company goes to India to produce a product destined for the US market, and produces that product for 70% less, that is not the same economic situation as Toyota setting up a plant in the United states, hiring US workers to produce cars destined for the US market. The US is the only country in the world that outsources by defenition because the US dollar is the most "inflated" currency in the world. A dollar doesn't buy you jack **** in the US comared to a dollar in any other country in the world (this still takes into account the decline in the dollar in currency markets). The value of most other currencies IN THEIR home economies are at roughly 1950's levels of the dollar in the US. Is it a bad thing? In the long run, NO, as long as the US economy sustains 2-3-4% annual GDP growth with low inflation. And, yes, I do not like George W. Bush, but he is hardly to blame for it. It is essentially, economic evolution, and EVERY economy with our stature would do the exact same thing. Outsrourcing does increase our gigantic 5 trillion ? dollar a year trade defecit, by about .1%
gr_stretch.gif
Other countries, such as Euopean ones, strive for a trade surplus, yet they countinually have 8-10% unemplyment.
dunno.gif
 
quote:

Our politicians need to consider this........when making wildass campaign statements and shaping economic policy.

That's the "trick". This is the class warfare tactics that you hear all the time (this type of "non" stuff).

Rush bellows: "Get the bums off of welfare!!! They're the achors in the mud that stifles your American dream!!!"

The Left bellows: "The low life "let them eat cake" rich are to blame!!".

Meanwhile neither has much to do with it. Medicare is going to kill us all with the people just getting old.

The problem is perception.

We lived VERY HIGH ON THE HOG for a long time. Our post WWII economy rebuilt the world and we were the inflating ballon swallowing up foreign revenue. We put it back ..and are still putting it back.

No politician is going to get elected saying "Things are going to get worse. The American people are going to have to work harder and for less wages than ever before".

Would you vote for this "honesty"? Well, you might ...but 80% of the population that thinks that $300 in tax cuts is making their life a whole lot better WOULD NOT.

To our good fortune, the entire global economy is tied to us. If they take too much of our "prosparity" ..they end up having to put it back or suffer with too many dollars that they don't need. As it devaluates ..it also devaluates it for everyone else. Naturally this creates the oscillations of expansion and recession that we experience and somehow deem "good or bad". In reality they are just "technical corrections" of monetary balances and WILL NEVER STOP unless one of two things occur.

1,) the entire world is at par with us.

2,) we control our trade in a "balanced" manner.

#1 won't happen for a long time.

#2 won't happen because too many people profit from our expasion ..even if it is at the expense of our population.

So until socialism naturally evolves because of too much #2 ...we WILL see this "decline" (intermediate condtions and restrictions apply).

No real gain in wages has occured in the US since the early 70's and we have been the biggest debtor nation on the planet since the Reagan administration
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top