The price of U.S. recession is paid in jobs

[UpInArms]

Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Long after President Barack Obama's first term ends in 2013, millions of U.S. families will still be paying the price for the recession.

From auto workers in Detroit too old for retraining, to Hispanic migrants in Arizona with no homes to build, to new college graduates competing with experienced workers for scarce jobs, more and more people are facing long-lasting unemployment.

Since the recession began in December 2007, the jobless rate has climbed 4.6 percentage points to 9.5 percent, the biggest jump since the Great Depression. Worse, the mean duration of unemployment is now almost 6 months, the highest on record.

<snip>

The rise in long-term unemployment is a puzzle for economists. The Congressional Budget Office studied it in 2007 and concluded merely that the shift was "hard to explain."

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5720J120090803?sp=true

[Haole Girl]

1. " The rise in long-term unemployment is a puzzle for economists."

HELLO?! Economists?! It's called outsourcing/off-shoring.

:banghead:

[LiberalEsto]

3. Absolutely right!

:grr:

[ixion]

5. and one wonders how they remain employed as 'economists'

when they are so obviously stupid. :banghead:

[Odin2005]

14. Because they are the useful idiots of the corporatists.

The corporatists push economic curricula with a Neo-Classical, Market Fundamentalist bias. Historian Eric Hobswam (whose Marxism I disagree with, but think he's a brilliant historian) called these types "Free Market Theologians" because they treat their views as a kind of religion and they are out of touch with economic reality, resulting in doozies like this. :banghead:

[Amonester]

15. they're so obviously $tupid, or corrupt...

bet on the latter (but it's true that being corrupt the retardlican way IS stupid because if everything collapses and the planet dies... who's gonna survive?)

[tomreedtoon]

6. It's called "We want you to die." Standard economic policy.

Why does anyone question the beliefs of economists and Wall Street? They want lots of people to crawl into a corner, die, and decompose without troubling their massive profits.

And before anyone questions, of COURSE economists believe this. Why would they have taught generations of Republicans this death philosophy at the Harvard Business School if they didn't?

[high density]

7. Yep

Corporate America doesn't seem to understand that they have to give people jobs at decent wages or else there is nobody to buy their crap.

[Hannah Bell]

10. it's not, actually. it's called "the miracle of productivity".

In each of the past 60 years, U.S. manufacturing output growth has averaged 4 percent and productivity growth has averaged 3 percent.

Manufacturing is going through the same process as agriculture. In 1900, 41 percent of American workers were employed in agriculture; today, only 2 percent are and agricultural output is greater.

In 1940, 35 percent of workers were employed in manufacturing jobs; today, it's about 10 percent. Again, because of huge productivity gains, manufacturing output is greater.

The decline in manufacturing employment is not limited to the U.S. Since 2000, China has lost over 4.5 million manufacturing jobs.

In fact, nine of the top 10 manufacturing countries, which produce 75 percent of the world's manufacturing output (the U.S., Japan, Germany, China, Britain, France, Italy, Korea, Canada, and Mexico), have lost manufacturing jobs but their manufacturing output has risen.

http://economics.gmu.edu/wew/articles/08/TradeVersusProtectionism.htm

[Odin2005]

16. Technological unemployment rearing it's ugly head again?

In an ideal world increased productivity would lead to working less for the same pay, but that's not happening because of inherent systemic flaws of an economic system based around the idea of scarcity. The ultimate solution is some way to reconcile the market mechanism with abundance, perhaps by replacing corporations with co-ops.

[LiberalEsto]

2. It's not that hard to explain

Corporations are trying to kill off the middle class by getting rid of middle class jobs. If they c0ontinue to have their way, we'll all be groveling for chances to work as minimum-wage stock clerks at Mal-Wart.

[Amonester]

4. Maybe "the Congressional Budget Office" (of 2007) */chainy's

"hard to explain" excuse was because... hard to explain the 8 years of laissez-faire retardlican cronyism that destroyed the economy and everything else, but hey, billionaires were getting obscenely richer 24/7, so they didn't really WANT to "explain" THAT?? :shrug:

(still going on) :mad:

[madrchsod]

8. do`t over look the steaming pile of shit in the middle of the room.....

we are taxed more for the defence of our empire than all the nations of the world combined.

[Amonester]

11. shhhhhh (the MIC oligarchy's talking-point memos)

"Don't you say that, or if you really HAVE TO say it, don't forget to add that it's to protect our freedom"
(not your freedom to make a living by having a decent-paying job we already created overseas)

[liberal N proud]

9. Puzzle? WTF

They shipped all the fucking jobs to China, how hard can it be to figure that one out?

:wtf:

[izquierdista]

17. If you laid all these economists end to end...

...you would never reach a conclusion.

[pampango]

18. Check out post 10 above. China is losing manufacturing jobs as well.

They have millions more than they did under Mao (maybe he was a good thing for American industry, since he kept Chinese productivity bottled up and off the world market), but they are losing manufacturing jobs, too.

http://economics.gmu.edu/wew/articles/08/TradeVersusProtectionism.htm

"In each of the past 60 years, U.S. manufacturing output growth has averaged 4 percent and productivity growth has averaged 3 percent. Manufacturing is going through the same process as agriculture. In 1900, 41 percent of American workers were employed in agriculture; today, only 2 percent are and agricultural output is greater. In 1940, 35 percent of workers were employed in manufacturing jobs; today, it's about 10 percent. Again, because of huge productivity gains, manufacturing output is greater.
The decline in manufacturing employment is not limited to the U.S. Since 2000, China has lost over 4.5 million manufacturing jobs. In fact, nine of the top 10 manufacturing countries, which produce 75 percent of the world's manufacturing output (the U.S., Japan, Germany, China, Britain, France, Italy, Korea, Canada, and Mexico), have lost manufacturing jobs but their manufacturing output has risen."
"The people who face foreign competition, say management and workers in the auto industry, are well organized, have narrowly shared interests and the resources to have considerable clout in Washington to get Congress to enact trade barriers. Restricting foreign competition means higher prices for their products, and hence higher profits and fuller employment in their industry. The people who are benefited by foreign competition, say auto consumers, have widely dispersed interests; they are not organized at all and have little clout in Washington. You never see consumers descending on Washington complaining about cheap prices for foreign products; it's always domestic producers who do the complaining."

[Odin2005]

19. This is turning into a technological unemployment crisis.

[Dappleganger]

12. Pharmaceutical and battery manufacturing is beginning to loosen up a bit

I've spoken with several headhunters in the last two weeks and the market is stabilizing and companies are indicating that positions will be opening up soon. Not a ton of them but much more than just a handful every now and then. The word is look at Sept-Oct to see more loosening up of jobs which were previously on hold, too.

[Odin2005]

13. Wow, are economists THAT stupid? Or have they been drinking to much Neo-Classical kool-aid?

John Maynard Keynes could have told these bozos this. Morons.