When will corporations bring jobs back to the USA? (1 Viewer)

[jon_mx]

Who is losing money. If you think Nike is making too much invest in them! Americans are doing well. I am not getting all the victims here. Or is this forum made up of a bunch of starving homeless people?

 

[Politician Spock]

That and automation mean those jobs are never coming back. And in truth, the impact of automation is going to outstrip the impact of cheap human labor much sooner than we think. Economies built on, and nations whose societal stability depends on cheap labor are going to have real problems very soon.

We really need to get a broader focus on what good post capitalism economic/societal approaches look like.

There's a reason why more developed economies rely more heavily on service-related revenues and less heavily on physical goods and manufacturing. As your workforce becomes more educated, and your factories become more automated, the value of an unskilled worker becomes less and less. Basically, once you can automate someone's job, the person that used to do that job is worthless...it basically pushes the "lowest wage at which a person is a better alternative than a robot" lower and lower. It's already at a point where that line is below what it's legal to pay people in the US.

I agree that at some point, that line will go below China wages as well. The only way to keep employment up is to "skill" the unskilled. The thing robots still can't do well is think and strategize. Smart people will still be needed to design future plants and robots. Smart people will still be needed to figure out what to manufacture, design products, etc.

It really is a bleak future for the truly unskilled, uneducated folks out there. Both here and overseas at some point.

There will only be the need for a relatively few "smart people" to do these jobs. It doesn't have to be a bleak future if we can figure out a way to get people acclimated to the notion that we're approaching a post scarcity society (and that especially includes easily copied things like media) in which everyone needn't work for pay while still having their needs covered.

Don't see this ever happening. There will have to be a lot less people for this to work.

Prettymuch all of history is "unskilled = fairly poor". It's only part of the 20th century where that changed for the masses - where the unskilled could live like (relative) Kings and Queens (house, car, 2 kids, vacation, color tv, etc.)

Those people experienced those benefits because corporatism was allowed to grow in the US and those corporations made good chunks of profit from what America experienced as a result.

The problem now is those corporations desire to reproduce the same thing again by expanding outside the US. But as soon as you open the doors for them to do that, you open the doors for them to get access to labor that doesn't live like that, making the easiest route to increased profit being lower wage costs by moving production outside the US.

It's the epitome of a country shooting itself in the foot economically. If the US wasn't the issuer of the world's reserve currency, which naturally allows us to consume more than we produce, we would be experiencing this problem even worse than we are.

 

[jwb]

That and automation mean those jobs are never coming back. And in truth, the impact of automation is going to outstrip the impact of cheap human labor much sooner than we think. Economies built on, and nations whose societal stability depends on cheap labor are going to have real problems very soon.

We really need to get a broader focus on what good post capitalism economic/societal approaches look like.

There's a reason why more developed economies rely more heavily on service-related revenues and less heavily on physical goods and manufacturing. As your workforce becomes more educated, and your factories become more automated, the value of an unskilled worker becomes less and less. Basically, once you can automate someone's job, the person that used to do that job is worthless...it basically pushes the "lowest wage at which a person is a better alternative than a robot" lower and lower. It's already at a point where that line is below what it's legal to pay people in the US.

I agree that at some point, that line will go below China wages as well. The only way to keep employment up is to "skill" the unskilled. The thing robots still can't do well is think and strategize. Smart people will still be needed to design future plants and robots. Smart people will still be needed to figure out what to manufacture, design products, etc.

It really is a bleak future for the truly unskilled, uneducated folks out there. Both here and overseas at some point.

There will only be the need for a relatively few "smart people" to do these jobs. It doesn't have to be a bleak future if we can figure out a way to get people acclimated to the notion that we're approaching a post scarcity society (and that especially includes easily copied things like media) in which everyone needn't work for pay while still having their needs covered.

Don't see this ever happening. There will have to be a lot less people for this to work.

Prettymuch all of history is "unskilled = fairly poor". It's only part of the 20th century where that changed for the masses - where the unskilled could live like (relative) Kings and Queens (house, car, 2 kids, vacation, color tv, etc.)

IMO, there's a couple of problems with this line of thinking....

1) For much of history, there were "release valves", be it war or expansion into the various frontiers (be it The Americas, then the American movement West) that allowed an ambitious poor (an oxymoron to many on this board I'm sure.....but think of the young person, ready to come of age being raised by poor people) a chance at a future. These things were high risk/high reward.....but they did exist. I don't know if they exist anymore.

2) It'd be kind of hard to convince people that the 20th Century American Way ISN"T the way that it should or could be. "House, Car, 2 kids, vacation, color tv, etc." is, I imagine an world wide accepted view of how things (with a modicum of work and risk) should be.

3) Our government allows these people to make changes. If unskilled and poor are pushed to quickly and hard off the cliff, they're going to grab the hand that's pushing them and pull them too.

I can't disagree with anything here in principle. That said, many would argue that the poor / unskilled already have basic needs met ("how things should be"). Basic shelter, food, clean water, and basic medical care are all available to anyone who wants them. Yes, you may be in a homeless shelter, but you don't have to worry about the elements (or wolves) killing you. It's a huge, huge thing when taken in the context of history.

I would argue the homesteaders were the entrepreneurs of yesterday. But indeed, that's not really available anymore.

I'm not sure there is an acceptable answer to this debate. The people who work will always dislike those who don't, and those with less will always dislike those with more. And those with more will always want even more, and keep it within their bloodline.

 

[Concept Coop]

Who is losing money. If you think Nike is making too much invest in them! Americans are doing well. I am not getting all the victims here. Or is this forum made up of a bunch of starving homeless people?

The non-elite are losing money. Production and profit is fine; it's just not rewarding the average American. If it were--if wages kept up with profit--the minimum wage would be $26/hr. Think about that. We're all victims, assuming we're not the few benefiting from it. Everyone who has a dollar in their pocket lost out when we lent trillions of dollars (that we needed to borrow) with next to no interest to bail out irresponsible banks, who then lent that money to the American public at usury rates. Every single dollar is worth less than it should be, if not for that lone act of corporate socialism. Never mind the many that led to it and the many that followed it.

And it's hard to invest in Nike when the market is sending your job elsewhere and devaluing your dollar. It's hard to invest in Nike when you're crippled with student loan debt. It's hard to invest in Nike while voting with your dollar is so expensive, and Nike is a big part reason why. It's hard to invest in Nike when the median income barely provides necessities for a single person, never mind a family. It's hard to invest in Nike when big pharma abuse leads to huge health care costs.

 

[Bonfire]

Why should American's feel so entitled to jobs? What are you some sort of evil, imperialist, capitalist pig-dog? Why would you want them...your own advancement? A better life for your children? You should rejoice that you can sacrifice your job and your children's to help raise up the people of the world that you as an individual have repressed, marginalized, and murdered. Shame on you and your greedy ways.

 

[Fat Nick]

And it's hard to invest in Nike when the market is sending your job elsewhere and devaluing your dollar. It's hard to invest in Nike when you're crippled with student loan debt. It's hard to invest in Nike while voting with your dollar is so expensive, and Nike is a big part reason why. It's hard to invest in Nike when the median income barely provides necessities for a single person, never mind a family. It's hard to invest in Nike when big pharma abuse leads to huge health care costs.

I guess this is where I differ...if I'm investing, I'm doing it to make money. I'll put my money where it makes me the best return. If I see a company that can off-shore jobs, sell an inferior product for TONS of money, etc...I'm investing.

I'm not sure I see all of your analogies here, but I think your general point is that it's hard to invest if you're trying to invest with a conscious and/or only invest in "good" companies. That's kind of the crux of this whole thing. Good /= profitable. Business is mostly about profit...as is investing.

 

[Gr00vus]

Why should American's feel so entitled to jobs? What are you some sort of evil, imperialist, capitalist pig-dog? Why would you want them...your own advancement? A better life for your children? You should rejoice that you can sacrifice your job and your children's to help raise up the people of the world that you as an individual have repressed, marginalized, and murdered. Shame on you and your greedy ways.

This shtick needs a LOT of work.

 

[Concept Coop]

And it's hard to invest in Nike when the market is sending your job elsewhere and devaluing your dollar. It's hard to invest in Nike when you're crippled with student loan debt. It's hard to invest in Nike while voting with your dollar is so expensive, and Nike is a big part reason why. It's hard to invest in Nike when the median income barely provides necessities for a single person, never mind a family. It's hard to invest in Nike when big pharma abuse leads to huge health care costs.

I guess this is where I differ...if I'm investing, I'm doing it to make money. I'll put my money where it makes me the best return. If I see a company that can off-shore jobs, sell an inferior product for TONS of money, etc...I'm investing.

I'm not sure I see all of your analogies here, but I think your general point is that it's hard to invest if you're trying to invest with a conscious and/or only invest in "good" companies. That's kind of the crux of this whole thing. Good /= profitable. Business is mostly about profit...as is investing.

My point is that to make money investing, you need money to invest and fallback on. Most middle class Americans don't. We're lucky if we have a broad portfolio that outgrows deflation to eventually retire with.

 

[Fat Nick]

And it's hard to invest in Nike when the market is sending your job elsewhere and devaluing your dollar. It's hard to invest in Nike when you're crippled with student loan debt. It's hard to invest in Nike while voting with your dollar is so expensive, and Nike is a big part reason why. It's hard to invest in Nike when the median income barely provides necessities for a single person, never mind a family. It's hard to invest in Nike when big pharma abuse leads to huge health care costs.

I guess this is where I differ...if I'm investing, I'm doing it to make money. I'll put my money where it makes me the best return. If I see a company that can off-shore jobs, sell an inferior product for TONS of money, etc...I'm investing.

I'm not sure I see all of your analogies here, but I think your general point is that it's hard to invest if you're trying to invest with a conscious and/or only invest in "good" companies. That's kind of the crux of this whole thing. Good /= profitable. Business is mostly about profit...as is investing.

My point is that to make money investing, you need money to invest and fallback on. Most middle class Americans don't. We're lucky if we have a broad portfolio that outgrows deflation to eventually retire with.

I'd argue that's true for lower class...but middle class Americans, while not rolling in the dough, should be able to save enough money to effectively nvest. If you can't, you're probably spending too much too soon.

 

[Concept Coop]

And it's hard to invest in Nike when the market is sending your job elsewhere and devaluing your dollar. It's hard to invest in Nike when you're crippled with student loan debt. It's hard to invest in Nike while voting with your dollar is so expensive, and Nike is a big part reason why. It's hard to invest in Nike when the median income barely provides necessities for a single person, never mind a family. It's hard to invest in Nike when big pharma abuse leads to huge health care costs.

I guess this is where I differ...if I'm investing, I'm doing it to make money. I'll put my money where it makes me the best return. If I see a company that can off-shore jobs, sell an inferior product for TONS of money, etc...I'm investing.

I'm not sure I see all of your analogies here, but I think your general point is that it's hard to invest if you're trying to invest with a conscious and/or only invest in "good" companies. That's kind of the crux of this whole thing. Good /= profitable. Business is mostly about profit...as is investing.

My point is that to make money investing, you need money to invest and fallback on. Most middle class Americans don't. We're lucky if we have a broad portfolio that outgrows deflation to eventually retire with.

I'd argue that's true for lower class...but middle class Americans, while not rolling in the dough, should be able to save enough money to effectively nvest. If you can't, you're probably spending too much too soon.

The fault with demonizing the middle class is simple math. If the average person isn't working hard enough, saving enough, or making enough money--the standards need to change. It's one thing to blame a minority of the population--though I'd still question that--but when we're justifying the growing and massive gap between profit and income, by telling the average person they're lazy or bad with money, we're advocating a system that doesn't serve the average American. We're advocating a system that rewards the "elite". The market is finding fewer and fewer people valuable, and giving that money to the top. It's easy to blame those on the other side of the rapidly moving line. But what happens when the line crosses even upper middle class--when even their services aren't valuable and can be found elsewhere for much less? Will we step in then, or will they be the new lazy, foolish, etc?

As for spending too much, of course we are. Our minds are literally under attack for our dollar. Constantly. If it was something the average person was immune to--if only the foolish fell for it--they wouldn't be spending millions for minutes of our attention. It's our culture to spend money. Not because the middle class wanted it, but because it was profitable to the elite.

 

[Thunderlips]

That and automation mean those jobs are never coming back. And in truth, the impact of automation is going to outstrip the impact of cheap human labor much sooner than we think. Economies built on, and nations whose societal stability depends on cheap labor are going to have real problems very soon.

We really need to get a broader focus on what good post capitalism economic/societal approaches look like.

There's a reason why more developed economies rely more heavily on service-related revenues and less heavily on physical goods and manufacturing. As your workforce becomes more educated, and your factories become more automated, the value of an unskilled worker becomes less and less. Basically, once you can automate someone's job, the person that used to do that job is worthless...it basically pushes the "lowest wage at which a person is a better alternative than a robot" lower and lower. It's already at a point where that line is below what it's legal to pay people in the US.

I agree that at some point, that line will go below China wages as well. The only way to keep employment up is to "skill" the unskilled. The thing robots still can't do well is think and strategize. Smart people will still be needed to design future plants and robots. Smart people will still be needed to figure out what to manufacture, design products, etc.

It really is a bleak future for the truly unskilled, uneducated folks out there. Both here and overseas at some point.

There will only be the need for a relatively few "smart people" to do these jobs. It doesn't have to be a bleak future if we can figure out a way to get people acclimated to the notion that we're approaching a post scarcity society (and that especially includes easily copied things like media) in which everyone needn't work for pay while still having their needs covered.

Don't see this ever happening. There will have to be a lot less people for this to work.

Prettymuch all of history is "unskilled = fairly poor". It's only part of the 20th century where that changed for the masses - where the unskilled could live like (relative) Kings and Queens (house, car, 2 kids, vacation, color tv, etc.)

IMO, there's a couple of problems with this line of thinking....

1) For much of history, there were "release valves", be it war or expansion into the various frontiers (be it The Americas, then the American movement West) that allowed an ambitious poor (an oxymoron to many on this board I'm sure.....but think of the young person, ready to come of age being raised by poor people) a chance at a future. These things were high risk/high reward.....but they did exist. I don't know if they exist anymore.

2) It'd be kind of hard to convince people that the 20th Century American Way ISN"T the way that it should or could be. "House, Car, 2 kids, vacation, color tv, etc." is, I imagine an world wide accepted view of how things (with a modicum of work and risk) should be.

3) Our government allows these people to make changes. If unskilled and poor are pushed to quickly and hard off the cliff, they're going to grab the hand that's pushing them and pull them too.

I can't disagree with anything here in principle. That said, many would argue that the poor / unskilled already have basic needs met ("how things should be"). Basic shelter, food, clean water, and basic medical care are all available to anyone who wants them. Yes, you may be in a homeless shelter, but you don't have to worry about the elements (or wolves) killing you. It's a huge, huge thing when taken in the context of history.

I would argue the homesteaders were the entrepreneurs of yesterday. But indeed, that's not really available anymore.

I'm not sure there is an acceptable answer to this debate. The people who work will always dislike those who don't, and those with less will always dislike those with more. And those with more will always want even more, and keep it within their bloodline.

I don't disagree with the idea that this country meets the basic needs of the poor. I'd even extrapolate that train of thought a bit in regards to the working class/working poor. This country provides so much to assist the working/middle class. It's not hard (and one can still make many mistakes along the way) to still achieve that stereotypical American Dream......to the point that at times I almost feel people complain too much that they don't have enough.

 

[Concept Coop]

That and automation mean those jobs are never coming back. And in truth, the impact of automation is going to outstrip the impact of cheap human labor much sooner than we think. Economies built on, and nations whose societal stability depends on cheap labor are going to have real problems very soon.

We really need to get a broader focus on what good post capitalism economic/societal approaches look like.

There's a reason why more developed economies rely more heavily on service-related revenues and less heavily on physical goods and manufacturing. As your workforce becomes more educated, and your factories become more automated, the value of an unskilled worker becomes less and less. Basically, once you can automate someone's job, the person that used to do that job is worthless...it basically pushes the "lowest wage at which a person is a better alternative than a robot" lower and lower. It's already at a point where that line is below what it's legal to pay people in the US.

I agree that at some point, that line will go below China wages as well. The only way to keep employment up is to "skill" the unskilled. The thing robots still can't do well is think and strategize. Smart people will still be needed to design future plants and robots. Smart people will still be needed to figure out what to manufacture, design products, etc.

It really is a bleak future for the truly unskilled, uneducated folks out there. Both here and overseas at some point.

There will only be the need for a relatively few "smart people" to do these jobs. It doesn't have to be a bleak future if we can figure out a way to get people acclimated to the notion that we're approaching a post scarcity society (and that especially includes easily copied things like media) in which everyone needn't work for pay while still having their needs covered.

Don't see this ever happening. There will have to be a lot less people for this to work.

Prettymuch all of history is "unskilled = fairly poor". It's only part of the 20th century where that changed for the masses - where the unskilled could live like (relative) Kings and Queens (house, car, 2 kids, vacation, color tv, etc.)

IMO, there's a couple of problems with this line of thinking....

1) For much of history, there were "release valves", be it war or expansion into the various frontiers (be it The Americas, then the American movement West) that allowed an ambitious poor (an oxymoron to many on this board I'm sure.....but think of the young person, ready to come of age being raised by poor people) a chance at a future. These things were high risk/high reward.....but they did exist. I don't know if they exist anymore.

2) It'd be kind of hard to convince people that the 20th Century American Way ISN"T the way that it should or could be. "House, Car, 2 kids, vacation, color tv, etc." is, I imagine an world wide accepted view of how things (with a modicum of work and risk) should be.

3) Our government allows these people to make changes. If unskilled and poor are pushed to quickly and hard off the cliff, they're going to grab the hand that's pushing them and pull them too.

I can't disagree with anything here in principle. That said, many would argue that the poor / unskilled already have basic needs met ("how things should be"). Basic shelter, food, clean water, and basic medical care are all available to anyone who wants them. Yes, you may be in a homeless shelter, but you don't have to worry about the elements (or wolves) killing you. It's a huge, huge thing when taken in the context of history.

I would argue the homesteaders were the entrepreneurs of yesterday. But indeed, that's not really available anymore.

I'm not sure there is an acceptable answer to this debate. The people who work will always dislike those who don't, and those with less will always dislike those with more. And those with more will always want even more, and keep it within their bloodline.

I don't disagree with the idea that this country meets the basic needs of the poor. I'd even extrapolate that train of thought a bit in regards to the working class/working poor. This country provides so much to assist the working/middle class. It's not hard (and one can still make many mistakes along the way) to still achieve that stereotypical American Dream......to the point that at times I almost feel people complain too much that they don't have enough.

Because it wasn't (or isn't) hard for you to achieve, doesn't mean it isn't hard for others, though. And that doesn't mean those who it is difficult for are lazy or less worthy. I know it's anecdotal, but my pops is the hardest working guy I know--earned a degree, raised 3 kids with 3 degrees, and is struggling post-divorce. He was laid off after selling his house at the wrong time and will never recover from it, financially. He'll be lucky to have enough to stay in his one bedroom appt the rest of his life. The guy had 2 jobs the large majority of my childhood and still made it to every sporting event. (Okay, he was an ####### from time to time, but still...)

I just don't think it's fair to suggest that everyone who wants--and is willing to work for--the American dream can get it. And until it is, we should be striving towards that.

 

[Johnnymac]

My father worked in a meat packing plant as a general laborer, union shop. In 1973 he made $33 grand. That's like $175 grand in todays dollars. It doesnt take a brain surgeon to figure out that, shall we say, alot of people are getting squeezed to death today.

 

[Gr00vus]

My father worked in a meat packing plant as a general laborer, union shop. In 1973 he made $33 grand. That's like $175 grand in todays dollars. It doesnt take a brain surgeon to figure out that, shall we say, alot of people are getting squeezed to death today.

Those days are never coming back. What can't be done oversees will be done here by illegal aliens, and eventually by robots. There won't be jobs available for most, even those who really do want to work.

If nothing is done, the current trend will lead us to extreme (even more pronounced than we currently experience) plutocracy, where a minuscule fraction of the overall human population has wealth and everyone else basically lives at their whim. Our other options are some sort of post scarcity socialism, or some serious anarchic/revolutionary phase with who knows what coming after.

 

[Binky The Doormat]

My father worked in a meat packing plant as a general laborer, union shop. In 1973 he made $33 grand. That's like $175 grand in todays dollars. It doesnt take a brain surgeon to figure out that, shall we say, alot of people are getting squeezed to death today.

Those days are never coming back. What can't be done oversees will be done here by illegal aliens, and eventually by robots. There won't be jobs available for most, even those who really do want to work.

If nothing is done, the current trend will lead us to extreme (even more pronounced than we currently experience) plutocracy, where a minuscule fraction of the overall human population has wealth and everyone else basically lives at their whim. Our other options are some sort of post scarcity socialism, or some serious anarchic/revolutionary phase with who knows what coming after.

Pretty scared for my kids.

 

[jwb]

My father worked in a meat packing plant as a general laborer, union shop. In 1973 he made $33 grand. That's like $175 grand in todays dollars. It doesnt take a brain surgeon to figure out that, shall we say, alot of people are getting squeezed to death today.

Those days are never coming back. What can't be done oversees will be done here by illegal aliens, and eventually by robots. There won't be jobs available for most, even those who really do want to work.

If nothing is done, the current trend will lead us to extreme (even more pronounced than we currently experience) plutocracy, where a minuscule fraction of the overall human population has wealth and everyone else basically lives at their whim. Our other options are some sort of post scarcity socialism, or some serious anarchic/revolutionary phase with who knows what coming after.

Pretty scared for my kids.

Truthfully, you should be.

Regardless of what level of education they get, teach them a good work ethic, and to do an excellent job, all the time. There are millions and millions of their peers who are of the "good enough" school of thought, and that's simply not going to cut it. And teach them patience. Too many kids now are "hey, I showed up on time for a WHOLE MONTH and got nothing for it"

The people who are going to own nice houses and have a solid life 20-30 years from now will be the ones who can be counted on to do excellent work.

 

[Gopher State]

Plenty of. Jobs in SD or ND, you cak make 75k a year driving a truck in the oil fields of ND. unemployment rate in sd is about 2 percent

 

[Gr00vus]

The people who are going to own nice houses and have a solid life 20-30 years from now will be the ones who can be counted on to do excellent work. own stake in a profitable corporation or corporations.

FYP. Being solely an employee isn't going to get you very far in the not so distant future without some economic system/societal change.

 

[jwb]

The people who are going to own nice houses and have a solid life 20-30 years from now will be the ones who can be counted on to do excellent work. own stake in a profitable corporation or corporations.

FYP. Being solely an employee isn't going to get you very far in the not so distant future without some economic system/societal change.

Probably right.

Glad I don't have kids. No stake in the future.