I bought some cheap clothes from Walmart and had to return them.
Washed them and the entire house turned into a toxic bomb, had to pull them out of the washing machine, triple plastic bag them outside and took multiple washes to get that crap out of my house, used baking soda, vinegar, over and over.
Did Walmart care or even seem to believe me, even though they wouldn't touch the bad of returned items? Of course not.
Spray away and ship it over to America, no problem.
The civilian labor force is the employed and unemployed, official. Those not in the labor force includes retirees, disabled, college students, stay at home domestic partners and so on. Those not in the labor force also includes people who have given up and thus are now longer counted. Those not in the labor force is a superset of the number of people who have given up.
i.e. not in the labor force does not equal unemployed.
"The retirement of baby boomers or people deciding to leave work to start families or go back to school, are more likely behind the continued exodus that is helping drive down unemployment."
If not getting married, are they choosing to co-habitate and raise children outside the institution of marriage? Are people choosing to leave the work force to have children with no income or employer heathcare plans? Are masses of people deciding NOT to work to go on welfare and Medicaid to have and raise children outside of marriage — "to start families"?
Retires and College students? (They left out "those on disability", but they only make up a tiny fraction anyway.)
Every year since 2008, high school grads have out numbered retirees (Baby Boomers) by 3 million to 1 million. That would be 7 million retirees (Baby Boomers) who left the work force since 2008 compared to 21 million high grads we had during that time. For the sake of argument, say 7 million high school grads left the labor force (or never entered) to "go back to school". That would still leave 14 million high school grads that either found a job and/or slept on their parent's couch, or married into money (or who otherwise, found someone to support them.)
The article discussed the two major effects of inversions in corporate America today, extreme disparities of wealth for the few, combined with stagnant wages for the vast majority of Americans. A third, perhaps more important result was not included--the omission of desperately needed tax dollars from Big Business and large corporations to help pay their "fair share" for the repair and construction of roads and bridges, better schools, healthcare for the less advantaged, social services, and the infrastructure for our neighborhoods, communities, cities and our country. Such corporations have been the beneficiaries of favorable tax laws created in most part by our lawmakers and protected by armies of high priced accountants, lawyers and others. Most of the tax dollars paid today, are paid by hard working folks in the middle class and they are tapped out. Let's not sanitize the conversation--the thousand of lobbyists today are essentially practicing legal bribery which has become institutionalized. Those in line, working to achieve the "American Dream, namely young people, particularly in college, begin their journey with the albatross of thousands upon thousands of college debt--yes, even our respected colleges and Universities have joined the corporate bandwagon. Next time one is waiting in gridlock traffic for hours, driving to or from work, or observes the struggles of young people with daycare costs, rents, and the list goes on, re-convince yourself, with ostrich logic, that American corporations remain patriotic both here and abroad, and we, in the middle class simply don't understand.
If the stock market is at record highs, and companies are making record profits, and if record profits are being hoarded in offshore banks, and if wages have been stagnant for 35 years, and if 50% of all wage earners only take home $27,500 a year or less, and if corporations are paying less in taxes as a percent of GDP since 1960s, and the capital gains tax rate is still less than the top margin rate for wage earners, then I see no reason why the "job creators" (and their defenders) should have any complaints at all if the peons decide to pipe up once in a while.
You can't have it both ways...the president says frequently we are part of the 'global community' and need to behave that way as a country...except when a company who is rightfully paying attention to excessive tax versus other options...then the company is bad...which way do you folks want it? The author also is missing some major motivators common in human nature, believing instead that companies/people should just act altruistically despite the government application of usury tax rates relative to other industrialized countries. When will our government and economics like this one on the left learn that understanding and leveraging human nature will be much more effective at achieving results than name calling and trying to convince people to be altruistic. Focus on results, not name calling.
Even in high-tech IT jobs that exist in US, qualified Americans have hard time finding one. 80% of them are overtaken by Indians and most of them are not well qualified. They don't play by the rule, hire their relatives, hire their friends, bring them on bulk from INDIA on L1,H1 visa and underpay them. The highly skilled engineers from US universities have hard time getting job where as below average Indian who just lands here gets 2-3 months of training and takes up those jobs via several Indian consulting firms as well as top tech companies via their link. This is really sad situation, US is turning into uncivilized third world country. This has to stop - qualified Americans and talented engineers that come to US who graduate from US universities should get the opportunity. We have no problem where top talents from all over the world get opportunity and contribute this great country! Else those mediocore plane load of people coming every day will eventually turn US tech companies into their villages where rule of law, ethics does not stand chance! They lie, make up their experience, have someone else give their phone interview, cheat on exams, buy their certificates... anything they can do to move ahead of others just like they are used to among 1.5 billions of swarms in their home country!
I have been checking in periodically, but less frequently over time. I started to think you'd been crushed by the loss of your charts and would not return.
I am glad that things have improved sufficiently though so that the FRED situation is no longer catastrophic and that you are back.
Dementia is indeed a terrible thing. Your relatives are very lucky indeed to have you around to help them.
Also glad you were able to be of help to the family when they needed it. That can come at great personal cost, in my experience, so know you aren't alone.
(Sept. 2014) Deindustrialization Redeploys Workers to Growing Service Sector
"The decline [in the U.S. industrial sector since 1980] has prompted debate about offshoring—outsourcing operations overseas and trade protection. Displaced workers whose jobs moved to other countries have reason to be concerned ... The U.S. experienced a declining share of agricultural employment, a rise and subsequent decline of industrial employment and, most recently, a rise in service employment. This process is known as 'structural transformation'".
"In China, the share of industrial employment increased from 17 percent in 1978 to 30 percent in 2013 ... Wages in China have risen dramatically and it faces the challenge of transitioning to a service-based economy ... Globalization and international trade allow the U.S. to engage in high-value-added manufacturing and services while importing low-tech goods from emerging economies ... U.S. manufacturing cannot compete with emerging economies’ low labor costs for unskilled workers. Instead, the comparative advantage of the U.S. and advanced economies is in producing high-tech and high-value-added goods and services, which is why these countries’ wages and standards of living are higher."
The Dallas Fed concludes: "Policies that aim at protecting the manufacturing sector in the U.S., such as import tariffs, export subsidies and restrictions on offshoring, ultimately interfere with the process of structural transformation and can reduce long-term growth. Expanding U.S. industrial employment would require an increase in world demand for American manufactured goods, which can be achieved only by reductions in U.S. wages and living standards. Instead, policymakers should acknowledge the importance of a growing service sector and consider focusing resources on compensating displaced manufacturing workers and incentivizing them to acquire skills to engage in higher-value-added activities."
But at least the FRED graphs are loading, although it looks like the actual site is a disaster as well, so gone is easily obtaining raw data for analysis. Upward, onward!
I think it's pretty clear that the U.S. Government has been using international trade as a foreign policy tool, to strengthen our leverage with strategic countries and to befriend countries that might otherwise threaten us (especially China) and to continue the fight against communism. This policy has required us to ship manufacturing jobs to low wage countries, and the great shame is that Americans who lost well paid jobs have had to accept lower wage employment and have not been properly compensated.
I agree entirely with the argument that appropriately designed tariffs could be used to level the playing field and to create large numbers of jobs in this country. But I do not think this would be in line with the foreign policy objective of sucking other countries into our orbit through use of trade.
As a result of automation, export of jobs to other countries, computerization of clerical jobs, destruction of small retailers, the U.S. has become more and more a labor surplus economy with increasing numbers of people employed or underemployed in low wage jobs, often in sub-subsistence jobs.
I think we need to promote technological progress and expand high wage employment through massive increases in government spending on really important goals like hugely ramped up exploration and exploitation of the solar system and much stronger investment in research in energy, the hard sciences, and medicine. Such expenditures would go largely to private subcontractors. Where would the money come from ? Taxes and borrowing.
This might seem like pie in the sky. And probably is.
I don't think the problem is too much T. In fact, the men in question are mostly low-T types. I've dealt with them, from time to time.
The problem is basic human wickedness, without the restraints which kept in check earlier in the history of American academia. Donna Shalala was big into this at UW, B4 she went to Washington, and while she might be a high T type, I don't think that was what was driving her.
Humans want to build monuments to themselves. Mostly, it is guys, but guys tend to take the lead in most things. Not really clear why, but it is probably that goal orientation which results from prenatal neurological apoptosis.
Surely, nothing of significance is ever accomplished, except someone thinks it is worth doing, and devotes thought, energy, resources to accomplish it.
It is not the desire to do great things, but the twisted, narcissistic, self-absorbed notion that building monuments to themselves, and living in luxury and privilege on the backs of the students is worth doing.
The problem is the humanistic "Glory to Me in the Highest" thinking. The problem is spiritual.
As Nebuchadnezzar said, "Is this not Babylon the Great, which I have built for the Glory of my Majesty?"
The problem in academia, as in most of American life, is that people have become their own gods.
And surly gods deserve to have monuments built in their name. Surely they deserve to be worshipped, and lavished with everything desirable.
The reason that academia was the way it was when we were children is that it had grown from a world view which was quite different.
Even though the ideology of the academics had drifted far from its foundation, (when the purpose of Yale was to train pastors and missionaries) the lingering effects of this culture of service, of a higher purpose, even of sacrifice of self, were still strongly felt.
But when the children of the baby boom, full of rebellion, because they were rejected (a natural consequence of the changing social dynamic resulting from the technology revolution) grew to take control of these institutions, they smashed all of that. It was like a conquering army, taking what they wanted, destroying most of the rest.
(By the way, the teenage rebellion phenomenon is by no means universal. It is mostly an American phenomenon, though with parallels in other western cultures. Roughly, it shows up in the same places as allergies do (also a western phenomenon) because its causes are correlated, though not the same.)
So now we find these institutions ruled by those who were the most aggressive self-promoters. The tenure track is so ugly, I have stayed out of academia altogether.
When I get calls from students raising money for the schools I attended (work-study, I suppose) I always explain to them that I will help them by not contributing. Because if I give them money, the university will use it to build buildings. And they will fill those buildings with people who need to be paid, but who will do nothing to help the students to receive an education. And they will be paid from their tuition. So their tuition will go up.
Then I explain that the actual cost of education has gone down every year for the last 20 years (because of technology) and that they are participating in the greatest generational wealth transfer in the history of the world (from students to their mostly 30-60 something university staff) This is like $2T, and still going up.
We can always compete with China by mirroring their pay scale and removal of regulations. The problem is liberals think they are protecting workers by clamoring for minimum wages, unions, forced benefits, and regulations, but they are actually destroying jobs. If I owned a business, and Worker A is willing to work for $3 an hour and Worker B insists on receiving $11, I'm going with Worker A every single time, and you would too. I am tired of liberals who refuse to concede this very basic, fundamental economic choice.
As far as the workers themselves, I'm also sick and tired of people who 'don't have enough money to buy', yet go out and borrow anyway, as if they are magically about to get a 12% pay increase next year to pay the bill and the credit card interest. Making ends meet is frequently an excuse - they want a certain lifestyle regardless of how much money they have, and are willing to borrow from the future in their fatalistic striving.
I just started back with our analysis,but since jobs are nowhere, wages flat, the same lies about "worker shortage" as the middle class has disappeared, I doubt any of this can be sustained.
Thanks for the additional detail figures. I saw autos & parts and wondered who exactly is buying up these cars? Wages are flat, rents are high....
I believe I saw a host of downgrades yesterday on Q3 estimates.
a lot of the 2nd quarter gains were just rebounds from the winter depressed 1st quarter...the 14.1% annualized rate of increase in durables goods consumption, which accounted for .99% of the GDP increase, will be particularly hard to match...almost half of that was an increase in consumption of motor vehicles and parts, which grew at a 19.1% annual rate and added .45% to GDP all by itself; in addition, real outlays for durable household equipment and furniture grew at a 12.9% rate, while real consumption of recreational goods and vehicles rose at a 13.3% rate, as all durables consumption benefited from a negative 1.9% deflator...
The decline of manufacturing jobs is far more than a China issue.
Wood construction materials -- in permanent decline.
Wood furniture -- hit by housing downturn + outsourced to lower-cost markets than China.
Glass, clay, cement, concrete, lime, gypsum -- hit by housing downturn.
Primary metals -- hit by housing downturn + outsourcing.
Structural metal products -- hit by housing/commercial construction downturn.
Valves and fittings -- hit by industrial downturn.
Ammunition and ordnance -- less war.
Industrial machinery -- hit by industrial and commercial/retail downturn, except oil/gas.
Computers and electronics -- in permanent decline, outsourced to lower-cost markets.
Household appliances -- consumer/housing downturn + outsourcing.
Transportation equipment -- still in recovery.
Office furniture and fixtures -- demand still weak + outsourcing.
Food manufacturing and processing -- automation + some outsourcing.
Textiles and apparel -- permanent decline, heavily outsourced to places beyond China.
Paper making, paper products and printing/publishing -- permanent decline.
Chemicals -- many enduring sources of downward pressure.
Many of these jobs are never coming back. Everything related to construction will recover in time, to some degree. In many industries, American labor costs and productivity are uncompetitive. The only hope in those areas is to reduce production cost enough to gain advantages from proximity and turnaround time (3D printing?).
I bought some cheap clothes from Walmart and had to return them.
Washed them and the entire house turned into a toxic bomb, had to pull them out of the washing machine, triple plastic bag them outside and took multiple washes to get that crap out of my house, used baking soda, vinegar, over and over.
Did Walmart care or even seem to believe me, even though they wouldn't touch the bad of returned items? Of course not.
Spray away and ship it over to America, no problem.
The civilian labor force is the employed and unemployed, official. Those not in the labor force includes retirees, disabled, college students, stay at home domestic partners and so on. Those not in the labor force also includes people who have given up and thus are now longer counted. Those not in the labor force is a superset of the number of people who have given up.
i.e. not in the labor force does not equal unemployed.
Bloomberg: Drop in U.S. Labor Force Hard to Pin on Discouraged Workers
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-03/drop-in-u-s-labor-force-difficu...
"The retirement of baby boomers or people deciding to leave work to start families or go back to school, are more likely behind the continued exodus that is helping drive down unemployment."
Start Families?
Business Insider: May 7, 2014 - Marriage Rates Are Near Their Lowest Levels In History
http://www.businessinsider.com/causes-of-low-marriage-rates-2014-5#ixzz3...
CNN Money: July 20, 2014 - Millennials say no to marriage
http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/20/news/economy/millennials-marriage/
If not getting married, are they choosing to co-habitate and raise children outside the institution of marriage? Are people choosing to leave the work force to have children with no income or employer heathcare plans? Are masses of people deciding NOT to work to go on welfare and Medicaid to have and raise children outside of marriage — "to start families"?
Retires and College students? (They left out "those on disability", but they only make up a tiny fraction anyway.)
Every year since 2008, high school grads have out numbered retirees (Baby Boomers) by 3 million to 1 million. That would be 7 million retirees (Baby Boomers) who left the work force since 2008 compared to 21 million high grads we had during that time. For the sake of argument, say 7 million high school grads left the labor force (or never entered) to "go back to school". That would still leave 14 million high school grads that either found a job and/or slept on their parent's couch, or married into money (or who otherwise, found someone to support them.)
The ranks of the "employed" has increased by 2.3 million in the last year while those "not in the labor force" has swelled by almost 2 million.
Does this mean we only had a NET GAIN of 300,000 in the labor force over the past year?
The article discussed the two major effects of inversions in corporate America today, extreme disparities of wealth for the few, combined with stagnant wages for the vast majority of Americans. A third, perhaps more important result was not included--the omission of desperately needed tax dollars from Big Business and large corporations to help pay their "fair share" for the repair and construction of roads and bridges, better schools, healthcare for the less advantaged, social services, and the infrastructure for our neighborhoods, communities, cities and our country. Such corporations have been the beneficiaries of favorable tax laws created in most part by our lawmakers and protected by armies of high priced accountants, lawyers and others. Most of the tax dollars paid today, are paid by hard working folks in the middle class and they are tapped out. Let's not sanitize the conversation--the thousand of lobbyists today are essentially practicing legal bribery which has become institutionalized. Those in line, working to achieve the "American Dream, namely young people, particularly in college, begin their journey with the albatross of thousands upon thousands of college debt--yes, even our respected colleges and Universities have joined the corporate bandwagon. Next time one is waiting in gridlock traffic for hours, driving to or from work, or observes the struggles of young people with daycare costs, rents, and the list goes on, re-convince yourself, with ostrich logic, that American corporations remain patriotic both here and abroad, and we, in the middle class simply don't understand.
If the stock market is at record highs, and companies are making record profits, and if record profits are being hoarded in offshore banks, and if wages have been stagnant for 35 years, and if 50% of all wage earners only take home $27,500 a year or less, and if corporations are paying less in taxes as a percent of GDP since 1960s, and the capital gains tax rate is still less than the top margin rate for wage earners, then I see no reason why the "job creators" (and their defenders) should have any complaints at all if the peons decide to pipe up once in a while.
You can't have it both ways...the president says frequently we are part of the 'global community' and need to behave that way as a country...except when a company who is rightfully paying attention to excessive tax versus other options...then the company is bad...which way do you folks want it? The author also is missing some major motivators common in human nature, believing instead that companies/people should just act altruistically despite the government application of usury tax rates relative to other industrialized countries. When will our government and economics like this one on the left learn that understanding and leveraging human nature will be much more effective at achieving results than name calling and trying to convince people to be altruistic. Focus on results, not name calling.
Even in high-tech IT jobs that exist in US, qualified Americans have hard time finding one. 80% of them are overtaken by Indians and most of them are not well qualified. They don't play by the rule, hire their relatives, hire their friends, bring them on bulk from INDIA on L1,H1 visa and underpay them. The highly skilled engineers from US universities have hard time getting job where as below average Indian who just lands here gets 2-3 months of training and takes up those jobs via several Indian consulting firms as well as top tech companies via their link. This is really sad situation, US is turning into uncivilized third world country. This has to stop - qualified Americans and talented engineers that come to US who graduate from US universities should get the opportunity. We have no problem where top talents from all over the world get opportunity and contribute this great country! Else those mediocore plane load of people coming every day will eventually turn US tech companies into their villages where rule of law, ethics does not stand chance! They lie, make up their experience, have someone else give their phone interview, cheat on exams, buy their certificates... anything they can do to move ahead of others just like they are used to among 1.5 billions of swarms in their home country!
I have been checking in periodically, but less frequently over time. I started to think you'd been crushed by the loss of your charts and would not return.
I am glad that things have improved sufficiently though so that the FRED situation is no longer catastrophic and that you are back.
Dementia is indeed a terrible thing. Your relatives are very lucky indeed to have you around to help them.
Been checking in regularly... very happy this morning. Looking forward to the future. Welcome back.
Also glad you were able to be of help to the family when they needed it. That can come at great personal cost, in my experience, so know you aren't alone.
(Sept. 2014) Deindustrialization Redeploys Workers to Growing Service Sector
"The decline [in the U.S. industrial sector since 1980] has prompted debate about offshoring—outsourcing operations overseas and trade protection. Displaced workers whose jobs moved to other countries have reason to be concerned ... The U.S. experienced a declining share of agricultural employment, a rise and subsequent decline of industrial employment and, most recently, a rise in service employment. This process is known as 'structural transformation'".
"In China, the share of industrial employment increased from 17 percent in 1978 to 30 percent in 2013 ... Wages in China have risen dramatically and it faces the challenge of transitioning to a service-based economy ... Globalization and international trade allow the U.S. to engage in high-value-added manufacturing and services while importing low-tech goods from emerging economies ... U.S. manufacturing cannot compete with emerging economies’ low labor costs for unskilled workers. Instead, the comparative advantage of the U.S. and advanced economies is in producing high-tech and high-value-added goods and services, which is why these countries’ wages and standards of living are higher."
The Dallas Fed concludes: "Policies that aim at protecting the manufacturing sector in the U.S., such as import tariffs, export subsidies and restrictions on offshoring, ultimately interfere with the process of structural transformation and can reduce long-term growth. Expanding U.S. industrial employment would require an increase in world demand for American manufactured goods, which can be achieved only by reductions in U.S. wages and living standards. Instead, policymakers should acknowledge the importance of a growing service sector and consider focusing resources on compensating displaced manufacturing workers and incentivizing them to acquire skills to engage in higher-value-added activities."
http://www.dallasfed.org/assets/documents/research/eclett/2014/el1411.pdf
But at least the FRED graphs are loading, although it looks like the actual site is a disaster as well, so gone is easily obtaining raw data for analysis. Upward, onward!
I think it's pretty clear that the U.S. Government has been using international trade as a foreign policy tool, to strengthen our leverage with strategic countries and to befriend countries that might otherwise threaten us (especially China) and to continue the fight against communism. This policy has required us to ship manufacturing jobs to low wage countries, and the great shame is that Americans who lost well paid jobs have had to accept lower wage employment and have not been properly compensated.
I agree entirely with the argument that appropriately designed tariffs could be used to level the playing field and to create large numbers of jobs in this country. But I do not think this would be in line with the foreign policy objective of sucking other countries into our orbit through use of trade.
As a result of automation, export of jobs to other countries, computerization of clerical jobs, destruction of small retailers, the U.S. has become more and more a labor surplus economy with increasing numbers of people employed or underemployed in low wage jobs, often in sub-subsistence jobs.
I think we need to promote technological progress and expand high wage employment through massive increases in government spending on really important goals like hugely ramped up exploration and exploitation of the solar system and much stronger investment in research in energy, the hard sciences, and medicine. Such expenditures would go largely to private subcontractors. Where would the money come from ? Taxes and borrowing.
This might seem like pie in the sky. And probably is.
So glad to see you are back.
Always take care of family first.
Jon
I don't think the problem is too much T. In fact, the men in question are mostly low-T types. I've dealt with them, from time to time.
The problem is basic human wickedness, without the restraints which kept in check earlier in the history of American academia. Donna Shalala was big into this at UW, B4 she went to Washington, and while she might be a high T type, I don't think that was what was driving her.
Humans want to build monuments to themselves. Mostly, it is guys, but guys tend to take the lead in most things. Not really clear why, but it is probably that goal orientation which results from prenatal neurological apoptosis.
Surely, nothing of significance is ever accomplished, except someone thinks it is worth doing, and devotes thought, energy, resources to accomplish it.
It is not the desire to do great things, but the twisted, narcissistic, self-absorbed notion that building monuments to themselves, and living in luxury and privilege on the backs of the students is worth doing.
The problem is the humanistic "Glory to Me in the Highest" thinking. The problem is spiritual.
As Nebuchadnezzar said, "Is this not Babylon the Great, which I have built for the Glory of my Majesty?"
The problem in academia, as in most of American life, is that people have become their own gods.
And surly gods deserve to have monuments built in their name. Surely they deserve to be worshipped, and lavished with everything desirable.
The reason that academia was the way it was when we were children is that it had grown from a world view which was quite different.
Even though the ideology of the academics had drifted far from its foundation, (when the purpose of Yale was to train pastors and missionaries) the lingering effects of this culture of service, of a higher purpose, even of sacrifice of self, were still strongly felt.
But when the children of the baby boom, full of rebellion, because they were rejected (a natural consequence of the changing social dynamic resulting from the technology revolution) grew to take control of these institutions, they smashed all of that. It was like a conquering army, taking what they wanted, destroying most of the rest.
(By the way, the teenage rebellion phenomenon is by no means universal. It is mostly an American phenomenon, though with parallels in other western cultures. Roughly, it shows up in the same places as allergies do (also a western phenomenon) because its causes are correlated, though not the same.)
So now we find these institutions ruled by those who were the most aggressive self-promoters. The tenure track is so ugly, I have stayed out of academia altogether.
When I get calls from students raising money for the schools I attended (work-study, I suppose) I always explain to them that I will help them by not contributing. Because if I give them money, the university will use it to build buildings. And they will fill those buildings with people who need to be paid, but who will do nothing to help the students to receive an education. And they will be paid from their tuition. So their tuition will go up.
Then I explain that the actual cost of education has gone down every year for the last 20 years (because of technology) and that they are participating in the greatest generational wealth transfer in the history of the world (from students to their mostly 30-60 something university staff) This is like $2T, and still going up.
Hopefully I can radicalize a few of them.
We can always compete with China by mirroring their pay scale and removal of regulations. The problem is liberals think they are protecting workers by clamoring for minimum wages, unions, forced benefits, and regulations, but they are actually destroying jobs. If I owned a business, and Worker A is willing to work for $3 an hour and Worker B insists on receiving $11, I'm going with Worker A every single time, and you would too. I am tired of liberals who refuse to concede this very basic, fundamental economic choice.
As far as the workers themselves, I'm also sick and tired of people who 'don't have enough money to buy', yet go out and borrow anyway, as if they are magically about to get a 12% pay increase next year to pay the bill and the credit card interest. Making ends meet is frequently an excuse - they want a certain lifestyle regardless of how much money they have, and are willing to borrow from the future in their fatalistic striving.
I just started back with our analysis,but since jobs are nowhere, wages flat, the same lies about "worker shortage" as the middle class has disappeared, I doubt any of this can be sustained.
Thanks for the additional detail figures. I saw autos & parts and wondered who exactly is buying up these cars? Wages are flat, rents are high....
I believe I saw a host of downgrades yesterday on Q3 estimates.
a lot of the 2nd quarter gains were just rebounds from the winter depressed 1st quarter...the 14.1% annualized rate of increase in durables goods consumption, which accounted for .99% of the GDP increase, will be particularly hard to match...almost half of that was an increase in consumption of motor vehicles and parts, which grew at a 19.1% annual rate and added .45% to GDP all by itself; in addition, real outlays for durable household equipment and furniture grew at a 12.9% rate, while real consumption of recreational goods and vehicles rose at a 13.3% rate, as all durables consumption benefited from a negative 1.9% deflator...
investment in equipment was also growing at an unsustainable rate of 11.2%, which added .63% to 2nd quarter growth.. investment in industrial equipment grew at a 27.3% rate and investment in information processing equipment grew at a 26.6% rate...blips in growth like that cannot be sustained...
The decline of manufacturing jobs is far more than a China issue.
Wood construction materials -- in permanent decline.
Wood furniture -- hit by housing downturn + outsourced to lower-cost markets than China.
Glass, clay, cement, concrete, lime, gypsum -- hit by housing downturn.
Primary metals -- hit by housing downturn + outsourcing.
Structural metal products -- hit by housing/commercial construction downturn.
Valves and fittings -- hit by industrial downturn.
Ammunition and ordnance -- less war.
Industrial machinery -- hit by industrial and commercial/retail downturn, except oil/gas.
Computers and electronics -- in permanent decline, outsourced to lower-cost markets.
Household appliances -- consumer/housing downturn + outsourcing.
Transportation equipment -- still in recovery.
Office furniture and fixtures -- demand still weak + outsourcing.
Food manufacturing and processing -- automation + some outsourcing.
Textiles and apparel -- permanent decline, heavily outsourced to places beyond China.
Paper making, paper products and printing/publishing -- permanent decline.
Chemicals -- many enduring sources of downward pressure.
Many of these jobs are never coming back. Everything related to construction will recover in time, to some degree. In many industries, American labor costs and productivity are uncompetitive. The only hope in those areas is to reduce production cost enough to gain advantages from proximity and turnaround time (3D printing?).
Pages