DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**gennickO** · 03-13-2006, 04:13 PM

There are always layoffs in good times or bad. New stories about layoffs are meaningless, because even the largest layoff stories only account for something like 1% of the total jobs created and destroyed in that month.

Manufacturing employment has been hurting for 20 years. It's going the way of agriculture. In good economies or bad, it's going to be at best flat. Which is not a problem because the jobs of the future are replacing manufacturing jobs.

Not a problem unless that was your job or the jobs of most of the people in your community. In which case it is a serious problem. Especially since those "jobs of the future" are mostly still in the future and usually require training or education and frequently relocation.

A boom is defined loosely as any period where economic growth is high. It's a prerequisite for overall prosperity, but it doesn't guarantee prosperity for the average citizen.

The most important thing to know is that any policies that put a damper on economic growth will cost workers dearly, since they are typically the last ones to benefit from economic growth. The only way to grow wages across the board is to have long periods of good economic growth, long enough to create a tight labor market. In the most recent boom before Bush, from 1994-2000, real wage growth didn't really get going until 1996, the third year of the boom. We're following the same pattern today. The last six months have been excellent. So policies that slow "economic growth" or more accurately, reduce investor return, will cost workers dearly while poliicies which do not slow economic growth will still make no guarantees for anyone but investors?

03-13-2006, 04:13 PM	#11
gennickO Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 469 Senior Member	There are always layoffs in good times or bad. New stories about layoffs are meaningless, because even the largest layoff stories only account for something like 1% of the total jobs created and destroyed in that month. Manufacturing employment has been hurting for 20 years. It's going the way of agriculture. In good economies or bad, it's going to be at best flat. Which is not a problem because the jobs of the future are replacing manufacturing jobs. Not a problem unless that was your job or the jobs of most of the people in your community. In which case it is a serious problem. Especially since those "jobs of the future" are mostly still in the future and usually require training or education and frequently relocation. A boom is defined loosely as any period where economic growth is high. It's a prerequisite for overall prosperity, but it doesn't guarantee prosperity for the average citizen. The most important thing to know is that any policies that put a damper on economic growth will cost workers dearly, since they are typically the last ones to benefit from economic growth. The only way to grow wages across the board is to have long periods of good economic growth, long enough to create a tight labor market. In the most recent boom before Bush, from 1994-2000, real wage growth didn't really get going until 1996, the third year of the boom. We're following the same pattern today. The last six months have been excellent. So policies that slow "economic growth" or more accurately, reduce investor return, will cost workers dearly while poliicies which do not slow economic growth will still make no guarantees for anyone but investors?
	Quote