Your position does not reflect recent employment trends, where many workers are expected to expand their abilities at their own expense simply to keep their jobs at reduced wages. This trend has been ongoing for over forty years and led those who worked in manufacturing to encourage their children to seek careers elsewhere. The chickens are coming home to roost as the last generation of manufacturing workers begins to retire. There is a lot of news these days about a severe shortage of a few million skilled labourers needed right now by manufacturers in the US. Once you get into the details the situation is not about skills so much as wages. Manufacturing these days is very high tech, manufacturing workers are no longer machine operators but highly skilled technicians who maintain and repair the robotic machines and assembly lines that do all the work. Over the decades as manufacturing became automated manufacturing workers accepted lower and lower wages to maintain their jobs so they could pay their mortgage and send their children to college. They adapted organically as new technology was introduced and they learned new skills, it was a decades long process. Now that they are all retiring the worth of those skills is becoming apparent. The skills required in many manufacturing jobs these days are equivalent to master tradesmen and just a little below an engineering degree for entry level jobs. Manufacturers expectations to pay low wages while demanding high skills are simply ridiculous. There was a big story in the news about a manufacturer in Toledo Ohio supposedly typifying manufacturers who could not find the skilled employees needed to meet increasing demand. A little digging and I found that he needed skilled electricians but was only offering $12 an hour. While that was a premium over the $10.66 and hour he paid unskilled workers it was far less than the average wage for and electrician around there, which was $18-24 for apprentices. There is no shortage of skills in the US, only a shortage of wages. I worked in electronics for over twenty years. I gained a lot of knowledge and became highly skilled in areas of great demand but was told more than once that I was not hired because the company thought it would have to pay me too much for my knowledge and skills even though they needed and could use them. So screw that, I changed career and have a much less stressful life and make far more money. I have never been without work, I am very good at what I do, as always. Was that the best for economic or technological advance? I think not but my hand was forced when the best offer I could find was a lower wage than I made 20 years before for a job with far more responsibility and time commitment. Sometimes I think it is better for everyone that these jobs move away but the reality that a lot of accumulated knowledge is tossed into the gutter means a lot of reinventing the wheel goes on.
I agree to a point. But alot also depends on the cost of living, which varies greatly from region to region. It also depends on the job you are looking for. Companies around here are looking for trained welders for example, 2 years in a trade school and you can make over $15 an hour, which makes for a decent living in my area. Part of the problem is that to many aren't willing to take jobs that they see as "beneath" them. There has been a shortage of truck drivers for years now, but many don't want to live that kind of life. Yet trucking companies are willing to train people so they have drivers. I grant you that employers aren't willing to pay higher wages to people they consider over qualified. I've seen it happen. Also, A lot of the reason behind lower wages is government regulations that companies need to conform to, which costs money that can't be used to pay employees higher wages.
Meeting OSHA requirements, enacting government mandated programs, etc. My boss put off hiring another driver for 6 months because of the cost of implementing a government mandated change in records reporting, which required a total revamp of his system. I used to work for a farmers co-op that put off paying dividends and raises for over a year because of a government mandated change in grain handling. The same id happening with Obamacare, companies are being forced to implement it's mandates, which cost money. Money that can't be spent on employees.
Why do you think the US has low wages than other western nations, despite those nations having more government interventionism? Rambling about your boss isn't going to explain the US result
Europe's problems reflect the folly of political motivations behind economic integration. Why do you think the US has such an abundance of low wages? Why also does the US have relatively low social mobility?
It's mostly due to policies put in place by the Left, under the auspices of "helping" people, that in truth make it nearly impossible for them to better themselves. The cut off points on government programs like welfare, food stamps, etc. are such that it's very difficult to transition from government help to self dependency. And that is by design. Those who are dependent on government vote for those who offer to feed that dependency. The wage problem can also be laid at the feet of government. Over regulation and micro management by government puts financial burdens on businesses that translate to lower wages for employees.
International comparison is inconsistent with the view. The US has a rather ungenerous welfare system. Countries with generous systems twin greater wages with greater social mobility. Care you explain that discrepancy?
I would thinkit was obvious. The US system is more interested in job security for government employees (including the politicians that run on more handouts), than actually fixing poverty.
The system is insufficiently generous to impact on poverty. However, if you want to make a US-specific moan, then please present the required international comparison in support. I doubt you'll achieve it
I would thinkit was obvious. The US system is more interested in job security for government employees (including the politicians that run on more handouts), than actually fixing poverty.
Back to reality. The problem with the US welfare system is its focus on efficiency criteria (i.e. ensuring that funds go to the poor), rather than effectiveness (i.e. ensuring that it reduces poverty). It certainly cannot be used in support of the 'its the welfare states fault' right wing whine
Efficiency and effectiveness are often in conflict; obsess over the former and the latter can suffer. The reality of the US welfare system, as shown by comparison with other countries, leads to one obvious conclusion: you cannot use the evidence in support of your viewpoint
Or, with government, neither efficiency, or effectiveness is being obsessed over, staying in power is the only focus. That conclusion is?
Rambling about US government inefficiency whilst ignoring the inconsistency of the international evidence (As shown by the welfare state analysis)
Already have! Every comment you've given has been wrong as you ignored the international evidence. As usual, you have no come back or means to evolve towards validity
Why do I need to provide international evidence to justify ineffectiveness and inefficiency of the US welfare system? That is as silly as using the condition of your carpet as "evidence" that I have spilled wine on mine. No, you haven't. You allude to some "obvious" conclusion about the US welfare system by comparing it to other countries, but have yet to do more than that. You haven't referenced any "peer reviewed" paper form some obscure journal, you haven't provided any rationale. So you resort to petty snipes that fit your behavior.
You've made comment inconsistent with the evidence. Whining about the welfare state makes no sense when we know for sure that the US system is pathetic compared to western competitors. Unlike you, I bother to ensure my argument is consistent with the evidence. See, for example, Smeeding (2006, Poor People in Rich Nations: The United States in Comparative Perspective, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 20 Issue 1). I'm but honest. Your opinion is inconsistent with the evidence. You know that you have no means to put it right. You can't question the evidence, nor can you refer to the economics involved. Both would necessarily lead to you concluding 'oops'
You keep stating that like I made comment that disagrees with that. You may want to read what I write instead of basing your false acccusations on what you want me to say. Unlike you, I bother to ensure my argument is consistent with the evidence. See, for example, Smeeding (2006, Poor People in Rich Nations: The United States in Comparative Perspective, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 20 Issue 1).[/quote]http://You mean this study www2.hawaii.edu/~noy/300texts/poverty-comparative.pdf ? The evidence is a compilation of numbers - good for a statitician. What does the report say about why the difference exists? Any insight on what could be done to improve the lot of the poor in the US? Nope. Seems you couldn't win the point, so you avoid the topic. What "my opinion" are you referring to? If you can't keep up with the conversation, don't respond.
I certainly won't be bothering if you continue to respond with naff all. If you've got nothing to say, do one
This is just more spam. Refer to wage determination or do one. Your standard strategy to avoid economic comment won't be tolerated
