AbraCadabra! Where did all the jobs go?

Well...the reason it's imaginary is because why not pick $25K or $30K instead of $24K? They're just arbitrary numbers pulled out of politicians asses. Why $15/hour MW...why not $17/hour or $14/hour? A poverty level in San Francisco cannot be compared to one in Tupelo, MS so when you toss out poverty numbers they are 100% meaningless. Too bad people like you can't clearly define the problem...

 

The mere FACT that members of this forum are according to you 'hiding behind a pseudo' is the reason you will never know who these people are. You can play your games and guess but it just makes you a fool. Instead of judging people why not just carry on a conversation?

You talked about people being stuck below a poverty line, you talk about people wanting more income, and you talk about higher MW...and in all cases you expect the employers to cough it up?

Now I see you have a problem with 'Mexicans'? I hire Mexicans and they are the greatest workers! No white Americans will ever do farming work NO matter the pay!

You whine about higher incomes but when I give you a factual scenario you are incapable of answering? I told you how much my workers are paid and gave you an idea of the COL and asked you to tell me what you prefer their wages to be?

Why would I offer my employees $15/hour when they already make $17 to $25/hour?? You whine that my pay rates are 'criminal' yet you refuse to offer or suggest how much I should be paying?

If you're looking for 'thoughtful intellect' don't look in your mirror...

 

Unfortunately you cannot compare France farming to US farming, just as you cannot compare anything French to anything US...

 

sure you can. France has about 65% of our per capita income, about like Arkansas our poorest state. This is because they are lazy and socialist after half siding with the Nazis, and now have no sense of what they are doing. They are building a police state to hunt down immigrants who they brilliantly invited to live amongst them.

 

This OP title asks the question "where did all the jobs go?"
A more appropriate and accurate answer, in my opinion, would be that many of the jobs that once existed in the U.S. have simply moved to where they are more affordable to operate. They didn't morph into something else but required those who previously performing them to find a new source of income.
One might also ask a similar question many smaller and costlier business owners could be asking, "where did all the shoppers go?"
They are taking advantage of larger businesses who due to quantity of sales can afford to lower their prices.
True, there are some jobs which cannot be moved beyond our borders, but for the most part they are not jobs which can realize high profits/wages due to the amount of sales.

Government subsidizing consumption, while it helps to show a growing GDP in both good and bad times assures inflation which grows the cost of subsidizing and results in more profits for businesses both inside and outside the U.S. beneficial to both the poorest and the wealthiest and to the detriment of the middle class.

 

The loss of jobs is much more complex. Why don't we need a bunch of blacksmiths across the nation? What impact does technology, robotics and automation have on the new quantity of jobs? What impact does foreign labor and material costs have on the loss of jobs? What we never talk about is what people themselves need to do to keep up, or stay ahead, of the constantly evolving job market? We never talk about the responsibility each of us has to equip ourselves with the proper education and skills? We never talk about population increases and how this impacts nearly everything?

 

I don't see it being so complex. If a product/good/service has little or no demand the jobs producing/providing it will diminish or in some/many cases disappear. Products/goods/services which have constant and/or growing demand will continue to provide jobs for humans where they are needed.
I have on numerous occasions suggested that population growth is a source, if not the primary source of most all the problems we argue about, but many here seem to feel that as long as there remains an air gap between humans on the planet population is not a problem, only getting a government to provide them with their basic needs and wants of survival.
WW I was once claimed to be the war to end all wars, and then came WW II. I expect there will be a WW III eventually, and probably a WW IV, WW V, and more as long as humans remain inhabiting the planet. Perhaps the U.S. is on the verge of another Civil war looking at the news lately?

 

Jobs certainly are effected by demand of the products/services but they're also effected, greatly effected, by things like technology, robotics, automation, and the search for the best priced labor or other business conditions. I read today Tesla will start manufacturing in China...better priced labor and other business conditions. Tesla is highly automated so the process minimizes the need for labor.

One reason I tout population growth as a critical issue is there are few to no solutions. It's a paradox in the sense we bring new humans to life while at the same time too many humans are sucking the life out of Earth.

Regarding your WWIII and beyond, in the true sense of the definition 'world war' which requires several major nations around the globe to be at war...I don't see it happening. I can see a piss-ant like North Korea doing something stupid and retaliating but I cannot imagine nations like Russia, China, Japan, USA, etc. in all out war against each other? The outcome would be unconscionable...

 

That is undeniably the premise upon which proper conclusions of how to solve our problems, both social and economic must be based, otherwise they will simply be worsened by the so called corrective actions of government.

In the 60's, the "Sexual Revolution" in my opinion exacerbated the problem and the government took full advantage of it initiating many social (welfare) programs exploiting the "Right" to have children who have no say in their creation and therefore are innocent to be the responsibility of society as a whole for their collective needs and wants.

While I agree WW III is not likely to occur in the near future, I can't envision what might in another hundred or more years. I wonder if a small Nation such as North Korea launched a nuclear attack how much damage could it produce and what type of response would occur by those it attacked? If they attacked the U.S. would China become involved? On our side? Actually, I feel there is a greater chance of a Civil war happening in the U.S. than a war with North Korea in the near future.

 

Roughly the same percentage of people lived in poverty when the MW was $3.35 and since raising it to $7.25 didn't fix it, how would raising it to $15 fix it. We more than doubled it and nothing. Doubling again offers no promises of do anything either. All happens is the government moves the bar of what is "poverty". To me the most telling statistic is that the poverty rates for married blacks are about what it is for married whites--a little higher but still in the ballpark. With the drastic rise in non-traditional households, I am wondering if the poverty statistics are overstating poverty.

 

["Deckel, post: 1067663033, member: 67062"]Roughly the same percentage of people lived in poverty when the MW was $3.35 and since raising it to $7.25 didn't fix it, how would raising it to $15 fix it. [/quote]

Silly question. How would it not fix it.

It's been done in NYC. Go ask.

["Deckel, post: 1067663033, member: 67062"]We more than doubled it and nothing.Doubling again offers no promises of do anything either. All happens is the government moves the bar of what is "poverty". [/quote]

Doubling the minimum wage in a period when all wages are expanding simply maintains the status quo of the poorest.

["Deckel, post: 1067663033, member: 67062"] To me the most telling statistic is that the poverty rates for married blacks are about what it is for married whites--a little higher but still in the ballpark. With the drastic rise in non-traditional households, I am wondering if the poverty statistics are overstating poverty.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I am sure you would think this way.

Keep questioning the problem so we need not confront it, whilst Insufficiently Taxed Income rolls up into Wealth, and this is the result:


The country has never done anything consequential for the poor - that is, to get them out of poverty. And you propose even less, questioning why they were ever so stoopid to be poor ...

 

Taxed income has nothing to do with poverty and you did not address a single point I raised. I will just assume you are not capable since you cannot articulate why doubling the minimum wage that did nothing for poverty before will suddenly fix poverty. The nominal value of the stock market hasn't changed that much in the same time frame which is further proof that raising the MW only debases currency and does nothing to address the perceived causes of poverty. On the plus side we should raise it to $60 an hour so I can get me some earned income tax credits too. Who doesn't love them some free crack?

 

Sorry to break up the bromance in here but the point was already brought up that we spend significantly more per student at all levels of education than many, more educated, countries.


The problem isn't money, it's the poor use of it by the govt. Which also includes the cheap and easy money driving up college costs.

 

Your $15/hr minimum wage is going to go quickly when just a gallon of milk costs you a half hour worth of pay.

 

If we graph everything that happens in our lives we will see some severe peaks and valleys. When these severe peaks and valleys occur I don't mind the government meddling some to soften the effects.

Social welfare stems from increased populations and high density in which many find themselves in the bottom rungs of society. BTW; I am unaware of any unborn child who has a say in their birth?

Anything is possible in the long-term future including extreme severe events that our beyond our control. NK using nuclear weapons can be horrific if against highly populated areas. The type of response towards NK would be instant and deadly and destructive.

I also cannot imagine the federal government, or even local governments, allowing wide-spread civil disobedience?

 

The US median household income is about $52,000. Poverty line is defined as 1/2 of the nation's median household income so this makes the US poverty line about $26,000. Just as an FYI $26,000 income is a wage of about $12.50/hour. According to these calculations any household income over $12.51/hour is no longer below the poverty line. Hard to imagine combined household workers earning no more than $26K/year?

Looking at this nationally, with a one-size-fits-all MW or poverty line policy, is meaningless when we have such wide swings in the cost of living from one area to the next. I'll guess that if we look only at the high population areas, the high employment areas, which are mostly our large cities, $26K/year income will hardly keep the lights on! Therefore, MW's and poverty-line discussions must be within local areas instead of at the federal level.

If anything, assuming the definition above of the poverty line, my guess would be that poverty is understated...

 

The poverty line is not established as half the Median household income. It is not even close to that. It is based on a last century model of sustenance adjusted for inflation.

That said, I do agree with your other point, but that is a sticky situation considering so much of the economy is standardized and nationalized as far as pricing. I am lucky in that I was able to buy my good enough for the rest of my life house for nothing as a post foreclosure property following the recession that largely didn't affect me much beyond creating opportunities to get deals on many things. Even disregarding my own situation, my area has generally low prices on land and existing homes if you are not too picky. New homes will still cost you a mint because of the materials cost being largely nationalized, so it becomes a question of what is good enough for people. My house and land would be worth considerably more and cost me considerably more in other places and that is a big chunk of cost of living. I have rented dumps that cost me more than my current mortgage payment.

 

Workers will need to actively organize either with a union or form their own union and collectively bargain for their wages, terms and conditions of employment. Only then will they realize the power that they have to determine their future career paths.

 

https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/poverty/guidance/poverty-measures.html

 

absurd of course since we have what they call capitalism. If workers can form legal cartels then so can owners, consumers, raw material suppliers, distributors, retailers etc.

 

exactly given,

1) that America's poor get $50k in housing, health, education, and infrastructure free so are not poor.

2) that if half medium income makes you poor you could still be poor at $200k a year income assuming $400k average wage

 

LOL the above mentioned already have formed legal cartels.

 

if true that owners, consumers, raw material suppliers, distributors, retailers etc have formed cartels, which is illegal, you would not be so afraid to identify them. Sorry.

 

"The U.S. Census Bureau determines poverty status by comparing pre-tax cash income against a threshold that is set at three times the cost of a minimum food diet in 1963, updated annually for inflation using the Consumer Price Index" http://www.irp.wisc.edu/faqs/faq2.htm

 

Why don't you provide a link from the US Census Bureau?