Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Only 39,000 New Jobs Isn't a Surprise

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
OlympicBrian Donating Member (456 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-03-10 01:46 PM
Original message
Only 39,000 New Jobs Isn't a Surprise
Edited on Fri Dec-03-10 02:32 PM by OlympicBrian
Only 39,000 New Jobs Isn't a Surprise
- Monetizing Debt in US Won't Help US Economy if GDP is Stimulated Abroad
By Dan, Seattle
12/03/10

Total non-farm payrolls increased a slim 39,000 in November, much lower than the 155,000 gain expected by Wall Street economists.

I'll put it simply: QE2 is incompatible with offshoring. The Federal Reserve is relying on outdated assumptions about the way the US economy works.

The Federal Reserve, like Congress, is completely ignoring the disconnect between the US quantitative easing program and the supposed effects on domestic employment and GDP. This is due to the simple fact that quantitative easing in a nation assumes there is some degree of a "closed system" when it comes to the home economy, and that the flow of direct investment is primarily enhanced domestically.

Specifically, in a globalized economy this is not the case, as business seeks out absolute advantage in the deployment of capital--particularly when incentivized by policy to do so--as is the case in the United States. Indeed, flows of investment subsequent to the last two recessions show an enhanced outward trend. In both cases, employment recovery was protracted, apparently US companies offshored as a productivity measure--given US tax incentives. This is because capitalism becomes increasingly "broken," as it severs ties to its home economy--also resulting in large deficits. Such an economic model is unsustainable--which the US fully admits to, but won't take the steps to fix. The debt commission is partially on track, with Jan Schakowsky on board--but most members miss the major point.

Moreover, quantitative easing has led to pronounced asset and commodity bubbles, and ultimately--a recent Fed Beige Book rife with references to inflation in almost every district--including not only pipeline inflation, but price markups for finished goods. This points to US stagflation--lots of jobs and inflation abroad...but few jobs and (perhaps sharply) increasing inflation at home.

Policymakers should make bills such as the Stop Outsourcing and Create American Jobs Act of 2010 (H.R. 5622)--and even more stringent offshoring bills such as the Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act (S.B. 3816)--of utmost priority, in order to immediately reverse a fiscally disastrous model. No amount of additional quantitative easing can fix a broken capitalist economy, which "leaks" jobs and capital offshore, preferentially over the US.

All things considered, long-winded discussions of minor adjustments to US taxation are a distraction, and a waste of taxpayer dollars.



"Economic theory assumes that capitalists pursuing their individual interests are led to benefit the general welfare of their society by an indivisible hand. But offshoring, or the pursuit of absolute advantage, breaks the connection between the profit motive and the general welfare. The beneficiaries of offshoring are the corporations' shareholders and top executives and the foreign country, the GDP of which rises when its labor is substituted for the corporations' home labor. Every time a corporation offshores its production, it converts domestic GDP into imports. The home economy loses GDP to the foreign country that gains it."
- Paul Craig Roberts, Economist, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, former editor and columnist Wall Street Journal, Businessweek
http://www.creators.com/opinion/paul-craig-roberts/cato-s-trade-report-blinded-by-ideology.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-03-10 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
1. That is also why the rich should not get tax cuts. Cause they invest their 'savings' in
Edited on Fri Dec-03-10 02:28 PM by applegrove
multinational companies that only create jobs outside the USA at this point. All the growth is in the newly emerging economies like India,Brazil and China. That is where all the investments will go. That tax cut, for those who make over $250,000, will not create much in the way of jobs in the USA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OlympicBrian Donating Member (456 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-03-10 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. It's not only the foreign affiliates of multinationals themselves...
Edited on Fri Dec-03-10 03:22 PM by OlympicBrian
But also foreign joint-ventures, and foreign subcontractors that steal US jobs and ultimately...US tax revenues.

In China alone, one subcontractor, Foxconn, has 500,000 employees who make "American" products.

In India alone, IBM employees 75,000, not including subcontractors.

Ireland is another tax-haven country for Intel, Merck, and Microsoft and others. These companies have invested over $100 billion there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-03-10 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Exactly. Why would some rich american invest in a corporation that only
builds stuff in the usa when growth rate in CHina and India is 10%? They won't. All of their investment will be in investments that have some international aspect and will thus increase the GDP of other countries and not help the USA very much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-03-10 02:44 PM
Response to Original message
3. "minor adjustments to US taxation are a distraction" = bullshit.
Edited on Fri Dec-03-10 02:45 PM by Hannah Bell
and the entire *world* has lost manufacturing jobs, not just the US. including china.

it's called productivity gains.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OlympicBrian Donating Member (456 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-03-10 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Please don't add/subtract from my text
Edited on Fri Dec-03-10 03:38 PM by OlympicBrian
I said nothing about manufacturing. However, I would be interested in your claim about the Chinese manufacturing workforce shrinking (112 million, end of 2006).
http://www.economist.com/node/16693397

Also I said, "All things considered, long-winded discussions of minor adjustments to US taxation are a distraction, and a waste of taxpayer dollars" not "minor adjustments to US taxation are a distraction."

In stating that, I am referring to the inordinate amount of discussion and time being taken related to the simple step of not renewing the Bush tax cuts. It's been in the headlines for months.

As for productivity gains, that is a nice term to whitewash outsourcing and offshoring with--used by folks who look the other way when it comes to the actual costs of doing so.

I mean, if I replace one machine with a better one, I'll get higher productivity and re-cycle the old one. However, what happens when I decide I am "done" with an employee I've had for years, and am going to send his/her job to India? A person is not easily re-cycled.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-03-10 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. you said something about offshoring.
China is losing more manufacturing jobs than the United States. For the entire economy between 1995 and 2002, China lost 15 million manufacturing jobs compared with 2 million in the United States, according to The Conference Board.

"As its manufacturing productivity accelerates, China is losing jobs in manufacturing--many more than the United States is--and gaining them in services, a pattern that has been playing out in the developed world for many years," asserts The Conference Board report.

China's lost manufacturing jobs parallel those that have been disappearing in the United States. Between 1995 and 2002, the United States lost 202,000 textile jobs, for example, and China was hit even harder with 1.8 million jobs lost in that segment.

Of China's 38 major industries, 26 registered job losses between 1995 and 2002, at which time the country's industrial labor productivity exploded at a 17 percent annual rate.

While there has been much discussion about offshoring high-wage jobs from the United States to low-wage countries such as China, the loss of large numbers of manufacturing jobs is actually occurring in both countries simultaneously, concludes the report "China's Experience with Productivity and Jobs: Benefits and Costs of Change."

http://www.allbusiness.com/marketing/market-research/211443-1.html


Factory jobs are vanishing all over the world. Even China is losing them. The Chinese are doing more manufacturing than ever, but they're also becoming far more efficient at it. They've shuttered most of the old state-run factories. Their new factories are chock full of automated and computerized machines. As a result, they don't need as many manufacturing workers as before.

Economists at Alliance Capital Management took a look at employment trends in twenty large economies and found that between 1995 and 2002--before the asset bubble and subsequent bust--twenty-two million manufacturing jobs disappeared. The United States wasn't even the biggest loser. We lost about 11% of our manufacturing jobs in that period, but the Japanese lost 16% of theirs. Even developing nations lost factory jobs: Brazil suffered a 20% decline, and China had a 15% drop.

What happened to manufacturing? In two words, higher productivity.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/28/robert-reich-manufacturing-business-economy.html


It's not about decreasing manufacturing jobs. It's about workers taking home smaller & smaller shares of the economic surplus, & capital taking bigger & bigger shares.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OlympicBrian Donating Member (456 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-03-10 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. I would like to overlay the Chinese equivalent graph with this
Edited on Fri Dec-03-10 04:21 PM by OlympicBrian
I would like to overlay the Chinese equivalent graph with this; I believe it would show a net shift from the US to China quite clearly. Granted, both lose jobs to productivity gains due to mechanization.



Why, Foxconn alone (a Chinese subcontractor) has a head count 4-5 percent of the total US manufacturing workforce!
(500000/11000000) = .045

I'm not sure what to make of that 2004 piece; that was also a post-recessionary period.

My studies of outgoing direct investment vs. incoming direct investment flows show an increase in volume and rate of funds being passed through foreign holding companies for the past few years (headed to China, India, Brazil, and elsewhere.) So it's possible a more recent trend has been that the rate of transfer of capital leading to new Chinese manufacturing jobs is increasing, partially or totally offsetting jobs lost to productivity gains.

I do agree workers are getting smaller and smaller shares, particularly in the US.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OlympicBrian Donating Member (456 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-03-10 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Ok here's what I got from the Chinese website on manufacturing employment vs. comparable US
Edited on Fri Dec-03-10 05:28 PM by OlympicBrian
From what appeared to be the employee count for Chinese largest manufacturers--number of employees (in 10,000s):

Comparing to the graph above:
China 2004 9305.9 (US housing bubble peak?), US flat
China 2005 6098.6 big shrinkage (US housing crash fallout?), US flat
China 2006 7358.4 up sharply, US flat
China 2007 7875.2 up sharply, US down sharply
China 2008 8837.6 up sharply, US down sharply

So, for the three years prior to and including 2008, Chinese total manufacturing employment has been growing--while US total manufacturing employment has been flat to shrinking.

http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ndsj/2009/indexeh.htm

Would like to get a bigger data set.

I found a similar trend in outgoing US direct investment for these years. My hypothesis is that data for 2009 and 2010 will show that foreign direct investment and hiring in China et. al. picked up markedly even while the US was in a downtrend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-03-10 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. china has 4.5 times more people than the US. You're saying they should have *fewer*
Edited on Fri Dec-03-10 05:23 PM by Hannah Bell
manufacturing jobs?


china has 20% of the world's population. about 14% of its workforce is employed in manufacturing.

Industry (including mining, manufacturing, construction, and power) contributed 52.9% of GDP in 2004 and occupied 22.5% of the workforce.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_People's_Republic_of_China


http://investing.curiouscatblog.net/2010/02/17/usa-china-and-japan-lead-manufacturing-output-in-2008/

The US has about 4% of the world's population & produces about 19% of its manufacturing output.

"In 2008, its manufacturing output was greater than that of the manufacturing output of China, India, and Brazil combined, despite manufacturing being a very small portion of the entire US economy as compared to most other countries."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States#Manufacturing


about 10% of US workers are employed in manufacturing.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/employment/2006-12-05-skilled-workers-shortage_x.htm



Spain & Portugal are the only EU countries with lower hourly manufacturing compensation costs than U.S.

http://www.ventureoutsource.com/contract-manufacturing/trends-observations/2010-report-global-manufacturing-labor-rates-trends-and-competitiveness



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OlympicBrian Donating Member (456 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-03-10 05:18 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. No you could overlay the graph lines and adjust for population
I would be looking for trend of two graphed lines, not absolute numbers.

You could adjust the lines to normalize for population.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hannah Bell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-03-10 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. what don't you get about percent of the workforce?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OlympicBrian Donating Member (456 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-03-10 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. No idea what you are referring to nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-03-10 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
10. news on npr reported they were expecting six-times that number
Edited on Fri Dec-03-10 05:16 PM by spanone
not true? i dunno
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OlympicBrian Donating Member (456 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-03-10 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. yea nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 08:27 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC