OK, Explain This To Me Like I’m A Complete Idiot Part 9:

[HughBeaumont]

We’re now in a period where there are more college and trade-school-educated workers across the country than any time in history, with our nation’s “leaders” (both corporate and congressional) stressing more and more education as the tool needed for today’s individuals to “compete” for the jobs of the 21st Century.

So why is it that, instead of a climate of growth, opportunity and entrepreneurship that should be ideally resulting from having a better-educated pool of workers, job creation has been extraordinarily weak since 9/11 and the ratio of available applicants per job is now anywhere from 5:1 to 300:1 (depending on the position)?

[xchrom]

1. du rec. nt

[unblock]

2. because our system can't figure out how to profit enough privately from it and prefers to do nothing

rather than not get enough private profit.


more directly, there's a shortage of demand, so if we build it, who would come?

we COULD solve this problem through a variety of governmental actions that would reduce household debt to bring back the consumer, but this would involve the government and ultimately the rich taking a little hit at first before realizing the benefits of this investment. but they pull the strings and they're not inclined to go along with this plan.

they're happy to slog through a lousy economy as long as they see others suffering far more than they are.

[HughBeaumont]

7. I think one of their many cons is the "productivity" card . . .

. . . doing more with less and less . . . displacing 1000 of workers while retaining/hiring 100 to do their same work. At the same time, they'll blame "TAXES n REGULASHINS" instead of looking in the mirror.

Frankly, I think it's going to lead to torches and gibbetts. I want to believe that the people are only going to take so much of this.

[unblock]

9. productivity is good, IF there are better things for displaced workers to be doing.

but having fewer people do the same work just so the unemployment rolls can be increased is the sign of a system gone wrong.

[Aerows]

19. They profit enough privately

It's just that they are extremely greedy at the top, and making the employees you have work like dogs rather than take on an additional person that would get benefits is even more profitable.

The problem is greed.

[unblock]

20. agreed. different definition of "enough".

it varies from "enough to stay afloat" to "all".

[getdown]

3. the jobs are "created" outside the USA

duh

[dawg]

4. The "more education" meme is a cop out.

It gives politicians an excuse for doing nothing about the job situation and puts the blame on individuals for not doing enough to make themselves more "marketable".

Ultimately, more education just means more educated checkers and stockmen at Wal*Mart, unless and until something is done to encourage quality job creation in the U.S. and discourage offshoring.

[abelenkpe]

8. +1000 nt

[Spazito]

10. Well said!

"...more education just means more educated checkers and stockmen at Wal*Mart, unless and until something is done to encourage quality job creation in the U.S. and discourage offshoring."

Right on point.

[HughBeaumont]

12. Hee hee . . . here's a right scary graphic relating to underemployment -

[LiberalAndProud]

14. Nice graphic. Where did you find it? -nt

[HughBeaumont]

17. From this article . . .

http://chronicle.com/blogs/innovations/why-did-17-million-students-go-to-college/27634

It just exists as a supplement. The content/intent of the article is suspect (Red Flag: the author likes Chuck Murray ) but the data's on the level.

[Edweird]

28. +1

[lunatica]

5. And while you're at it explain why no one in Congress is talking about climate change?

[abelenkpe]

16. Because a large chunk of them don't believe in it

Or say the science is still out. Really their donors don't want to suffer competition, reduced subsidies or increased costs.

[HughBeaumont]

23. "don't believe in it" is a sad state of affairs in itself.

Visual evidence is overwhelming. The abundance of disastrous screwy wet weather is incontrovertible, as is the unseasonable warmth. Record snowfalls last year, record rainfalls, floods, vanishing glaciers, droughts . . . how much more proof is needed?

[AnotherMcIntosh]

22. Because they busy raising campaign contributions. They have to set priorities, you know.

[riderinthestorm]

6. I have no answers but one piece of it has to be fear of leaving the present job, to start a company

because a person will lose their health insurance. It's now literally a matter of life and death to be without insurance in this country. A creative person can't just leave a job if they or any of their family has a PEC for example. Its got to be stifling creativity and entrepreneurship.

I know there are other factors but this has to be one of them.

[HughBeaumont]

11. I'm not sure, but I think that was another "Idiot" topic I've addressed in the past:

Why is it that the industrial scumbag moguls who bitch up a storm about how these "legacy and health care costs" are shackling them and keeping them from expanding/hiring/raises are the same ones who most steadfastly antagonize Universal Health Care and refuse to see the disconnect?

The only thing I can come up with is Carlin's "Big Club" theory . . . that the members of the "Big Club" don't really compete (that's for the underlings) and they don't step on each others toes? Big Insurance is in the same "Big Club" as the rest.

ETA: What you mentioned is probably the reason more of us aren't in the streets . . . because we NEED this insurance and our success in life is almost completely tethered to how gainfully we're employed. The Europeans can protest en masse because they don't have to worry about such things with strong social safety nets.

[Scuba]

24. Employer-based health insurance is a chain keeping employees at jobs they'd like to leave. n/t

[abelenkpe]

13. Existing companies who wish to expand

Also open offices overseas to take advantage of tax incentives provided for hiring locals and to escape the high cost of providing health care for employees in the united states. In entertainment studios open offices in the UK, NZ and Canada because workers cost less. Those countries provide tax incentives and healthcare. Which of course leads to good jobs leaving the US. And means that our highly trained indebted college students end up unemployed and unable to service their loans. Single payer would solve part of this. Tax incentives to keep work in the US would also help.

[HoldenD]

15. Who could turn down

a college grad for the price of a janitor?

And a generation of students indebted for life is just icing on the cake.

[HughBeaumont]

18. Yes, and while they're indebted, they can't purchase/put off purchasing products.

Nice plan, CEOs. Sell rope, hang self with, and all that . . .

[AnotherMcIntosh]

21. Because the neocons and neoliberals combined their efforts to sell us out w "free trade" etc.

Didn't Obama promise to take action to curtail NAFTA? And otherwise cut back on "free trade?"

If that promise helped him get elected the first time, maybe he can repeat it for his re-election.

[quaker bill]

25. The answer is obvious

a lack of education / training was never "the problem". It was always just a line used to convince us that poor economic results are the worker's fault (not the business owner). As they say "If you were just a little smarter we would hire you, really....., we promise...." - - "Too bad you just aren't good enough"

Funny that a "failed" education system has produced more graduates and well trained workers than have ever existed in US history. But it is obvious, since the business leaders keep telling us "Too bad you just aren't good enough", we have to reform education to make us "better".

This romantic notion of our becoming an intellectual superpower is tragic. It can never work. It is really just this simple, the very brightest (regardless of how you measure it) top 10 percent of the populations of China and India outnumber us (more people than the entire US population). Either of these countries on their own could produce many times more world leading scientists and engineers than we could hope for with even if we created the very best free education system on the planet, there just aren't enough of us with the capacity to perform at that level.

Even if you believe everyone here could be brought to this level, it is still not enough. BTW - if you happend to believe this fairy tale about our potential, please consider that some of the population will be voting for Michele Bachman and would have voted for Sarah Palin had she run, then get back to me.

[HughBeaumont]

26. I think the point of these "Idiot" posts . . . . is that I want to hear the explanation from THEM.

An explanation that I'll likely never get, at least not one that has logic a five-year old could tear through like a Christmas present.



Not only do they have the numbers in quantity, they (like big corporations over the little guy) have cost advantage; they will always be cheaper unless our standard of living is dragged down to theirs. Which, of course, will mean widespread poverty over here. Yeah, and good luck getting people to afford your shit then; we have trouble affording stuff now. I don't see how "biting bitter pills" is going to cure that.

[fasttense]

27. Because of monopolies and mergers.

One of the biggest engines of job growth use to be small businesses. But this 2nd RepubliCON Great Depression brought to you by the bushes has seen small businesses practically disappearing. No longer do small businesses hire the most people. They just can't compete with giant corporations who are allowed to monopolize everything. Try and start a new business that may slightly compete with Wal-Mart and see how quickly you disappear.

Huge Corporations are given regional monopolies by state and federal governments. By doing this they wipe out their competitors and this reduces the number of jobs available. Take 2 grocery stores for example. One buys out the other and now there is only one. What does the merger result in? One store is closed down. All those people who use to work at the other store are NOT rehired into the new bigger merged grocery store. They don't need double the amount of space and employees. They just need a few more to handle the increased volume. The end result is a smaller marketing area and fewer employees.

In addition, these very wealthy corporations buy up politicians so they pass laws that prevent the small businesses from competing. An example is TN State agriculture regulations. If you are a small farmer in TN and sell chicken eggs, you are inspected. In fact every single small farmer in TN who legally sells eggs is inspected 100% of the time. Remember those half a billion eggs that were infected with salmonella from an Iowa large egg producer? They hadn't been inspected in over 4 years. Those eggs came into TN without inspection. Even the state enforcers will tell you that less than 1% of imported foods are ever inspected. Yet, every single small farmer who legally sells eggs in TN is inspected. And required to pay $50 per year, buy bleach, special cartons, testing strips, special labels and a myriad of other requirements.

Yet you can buy an egg in TN from a large grocery chain store and the producer might never have been inspected for anything.

This is how they keep out competition and destroy jobs.

[NNN0LHI]

29. Job creation was extraordinarily weak since 9/11 but it had already been that way for decades

Not for everyone. But jobs in manufacturing have been disappearing for over three decades. Mine was one of the first to go during the early 80's.

Just took a little time for that to begin affecting other jobs in different sectors. That is why some think this just began ten years ago when in fact it began a long time ago.

Once we lost our manufacturing base it was all over for everyone except the wealthy who were making big bucks off of our misery by offshoring the jobs of an essential sector like manufacturing.

Don

[HughBeaumont]

31. Ever notice something else about Friedmanomics?

In the past 31 years, almost each and every period of prosperity the US has seen has been the result of a speculative bubble of some kind (S & L, credit, tech, housing, finance, etc). Take those away, and the track record actually seems less than mediocre.

[NNN0LHI]

32. Leveraging is what Wall Street does

If it isn't one thing it will be another.

Its a wonderfully effective scam too. If their gamble pays off they win. If their gamble goes bust they win.

How do you beat that?

Don

[TheMastersNemesis]

30. The End Of The Job

The education meme is just a ruse and a myth. It does not matter how much education you have the American business community is not interested in paying the worker for the value of that education. An they certainly do not want to hire Americans.
One example is that cities are hiring Chinese construction companies to build infrastructure. The rest they will sell off to foreign companies given the chanced.

As I said in a thread that I created, all they want is to hire contract labor and have NO obligation to the worker whatsoever. As an independent contractor the worker pays for all of his expenses that used to be called benefits. Those jobs have climbed astronomically since Ronald Reagan was elected. We have been profusely bleeding "living wage" jobs for over 30 years how. Elect the GOP and it will bee a tidal wave of jobs being sent overseas and eliminated and contracted. They will also eliminate more than a million government jobs at every level. Most will be privatized at 50% of the wages and NONE will have pensions.

The labor stats are distorted in that these stats do not take into account how many contract jobs or low value there are. A temporary or private employment agency who has a contract with a major employer has their severely reduced value job counted as a regular job. Most employment stats do not count the value of the job. Right now over 40% of the jobs and new jobs are "food stamp" jobs. If you are lucky to be full time you will earn enough to still qualify for food stamps.

For instance, when I worked at DOL the unemployment survey considered a person employed if they worked ONE hour in a given survey week. The UI rate is still calculated based on that same survey model. So underemployment, part time employment, day labor, and temporary are counted as jobs in the survey.

If we calculated the UI rate the same way it is done in many European countries our rate would be around 15%. Our underemployment rate is probably over 50%. And the UI rate does not count all workers who would seek work. People who have given up are not counted at all.

By and large the voters have been voting for this scenario for 30 plus years by voting for Republicans. Democrats are moving right because they are forced to by huge amounts of money and a now totally corrupted media. 90% plus is extreme right media nationwide at all levels even though they claim liberal bias.