2009 June 07 Sunday
Decline Of Manufacturing Sector Collides With American Demographics
America's long term unemployed ranks are swelling.
But even if the pay for newly created jobs could compare with the $28 an hour that laid-off GM workers make, it's not clear that those thrown out of work have the skills or training needed to fill them. The number of "discouraged workers"—those who have given up looking for work because they don't believe a job is available for them—has nearly doubled in the past year. The number of long-term unemployed (jobless at least 27 weeks) increased by 268,000 in May, to 3.9 million. That number has tripled since the beginning of the recession, indicating that there may be a mismatch between open positions and workers' skill sets, geographical location, or desired rate of pay.
GM is laying off while Wal-Mart is planning a big expansion. All those minimum wage jobs. Yum, yum. Eat 'em up kids. I expect the middle will shrink while the lower class grows and the upper class grows to a lesser extent.
The manufacturing sector's decline has a disproportionate impact on less educated workers, who already face an unemployment rate significantly higher than that of college graduates.
"The concern is for workers that have only a high school degree or less," says NELP's Stettner. "We're losing lots of good jobs for people with that level of education. Unless the manufacturing sector recovers—or we somehow upgrade the level of jobs in the service sector—the job market will become even more unequal."
America has millions more high school drop-outs in its future. I do not see the logic of importing a new underclass. But that's what our elite wants to do.
I suppose if we drive the unskilled labor supply up high enough, corporations will be able to get manufacturing employees for about $9-to-$10-an hour, a price that might lead them to produce here in the future. I imagine employee turnover would be very high at that rate though, and only the lower end of the IQ pool would end up going into manufacturing at these levels. However, with the automation we will probably have in future factories...........they probably wont face many difficult tasks in those facilities at that time anyway.
Thats the only angle I can figure the elite are pursuing................the cheapest labor possible to be competitive, the defeat of present unions. The "problem" I see is the profound social costs of a new underclass. The present underclass pretty much is the sole cause of sprawl and increased housing prices for every one of us. People pay more to live "out of town". People use much more oil (gasoline) to communte to get away from the present underclass. I suppose the elite plan for Section 8 and HUD housing to spread the underclass around to the middle class where they live to get around that while excepting their own private-gated-guarded-fortress-communities from the same.
One thing I firmly believe in at this point: The elite couldn't care less about the happiness or relative well-being of *everyone* below themselves. If the top 5% have it good, it bothers them not one whit that the rest of us are uncomfortable or are apprehensive about the future.
The logic is this. The number one goal of the elites is to de-westernize the West. To remove us. To remove the whole of Western Civ. The people, the buildings, the knowledge, the art. All of it, in toto. They want Ozymandius, with "nothing beside remains".
They care about other things, but they have their eye on the ball. That's why, relentlessly, their policies are followed.
It's so grim, so horrific, that no one wants to face it.
erm Anon what could possibly be the motivation for this?
Why do elites want more immigrants? They want cheap nannies. They want to pay less to have people clean their house, mow their lawn, cook their food and wash their clothes. Some even pay people to walk their dogs and pickup their dogs poop. I doubt most average Americans use many of these services. People who give thousands in political contributions do.
I don't agree with Miles that it will lead to unions defeat. Latinos are much more pro union then white southerners. The employers are not only importing a future underclass, they are also importing stronger unions south of the Mason Dixon line.
Power. The West has a relatively long tradition of property rights, liberty, and democracy. The easiest way to gain power is to destabilize the former fundamental virtues and wait for everything on which they're built to crumble under the proles' application of the latter. Islam and European socialism -- quickly merging -- are the most obvious tools.
Cf, Al Gore and the Unibomber: use agitprop to indict industrial civilization and justify government meddling, taking the form of theft and codifying swiftly-changing economic conditions in slowly-changing law, inevitibly causing and exacerbating economic and social frictions, and fomet fascist (compulsory collectivist) and populist solutions to leverage a growing spiritual distress into political outrage over the fabricated sins (carbon indulgences).
I agree with the anonymous who said the Elite want to destroy "us". My take on why has been because they're (many of them) the type of Leftists who seethe with rage over opression. They consider all Westerners (excepting maybe the homeless and ghetto blacks) to be privileged living on the spoils of previous-era exploitation. It's payback time, in their eyes.
Why ONLY blame the leftists? Why can't we blame right-wing people too, such as Jonah Norberg? He actually SUPPORTS immigration because it gets rid off the welfare state.
"Why do elites want more immigrants? They want cheap nannies. They want to pay less to have people clean their house, mow their lawn, cook their food and wash their clothes. Some even pay people to walk their dogs and pickup their dogs poop. I doubt most average Americans use many of these services. People who give thousands in political contributions do."
Destroying the welfare state is a nice bonus for them, I guess.
Regarding, the elites and immigration, do you agree with my perspective Randall?
Ironically, I made an argument that it is best to restore political power to white proles since it is the best political way to stop immigration and possibly get deportations:
"If you do want to get rid off those evil "NAMs," it is best to appeal to the proles. Also, you have to give them more political power, or a perception of political power. It appears that the disenfranchisement of poor people in the US backfired (from the perspective of middle class people) because it allows the rich to profit largely from value transfer. The rich, much like George Soros who profits from devaluation of currencies, profit from the devaluation of labor brought forth by the decline of world socialism thus enlarging the global labor force. (Yes, world socialism was actually beneficial to the US and developed countries because it is essentially de facto protectionism.) Essentially, all the wealthy did was devalue developed nations labor and profit from wage arbitrage because they are able to maintain pricing power in developed nations so they could keep the profit from wages. Also, they employ illegals and stick the costs to the public.
The proles are complacent because they have no political power. If they had political power, people like Pat Buchanan would be the typical Republican and perhaps we have some serious immigration restriction policies. I do not support Pat Buchanan, but the US would be better off if he was President instead of Dubya. The European proles who are part of populist parties do not talk about the low IQ of Africans and Muslims. They just do not like them because it destroys the beloved welfare state. Too bad the the proles in the US do not have something to defend like a generous welfare state from the NAMs.
I do not care whether the IQ thing is true or not. I rather not hear it, and HBD is just racism. But prole "racism" is better than the elitist HBD racism, so I pick ethnonationalism as my preferred form of "racism" instead of HBD."
Half Sigma says he is a three sigma person. I am not disputing this, and there are good reasons (such as the content of his blog posts) to believe this is correct. As a three sigma person, he has high future time orientation. He is able to appreciate arguments that immigration is harmful for society IN THE LONG RUN because it increases the demand for welfare services by importing people who do not have enough earning power, and it also devalues the labor of unskilled nations, and this reduces the tax base. Furthermore, let's not forget that Homo sapiens base their morality on loyality to the in group (see the work of Jonathan Haidt for more). Because of this trait, it is likely that reducing ethnic homogeneity would cause racial hatred and a depletion of social capital.
Proles, by definition, are not three sigma. They do not have high IQs, and they do not have a high future time orientation. Thus, they would not be able to appreciate the former argument (which is used by intelligent paleocons such as Pat Buchanan who do have a high future time orientation.) But Proles are "smart" enough to realize that immigration harms them IN THE SHORT RUN even though they might not realize the long term harms. They know what the (global) unskilled labor market is largely a zero (or negative) sum game (despite economists saying this is an example of the "lump of labor" fallacy,) and a job taken by an immigrant is a job that they cannot have. An unemployed unskilled laborer harms all unskilled laborers because it reduces the real wage.
The proles do have an incentive to oppose the immigration of the NAMs, but the elites do not since they benefit from an influx of unskilled labor and they could just live in gated communities. It is better to evade smart people groupthink, and appeal to the proles if one is actually serious about restricting immigration.
I did not say give the white proles unlimited political influence. I said that giving them more power is one way to make sure anti-immigration policies go through. I also like it because one does not have to invoke HBD. They do not care about the IQs of NAMs, but they do know that the unskilled labor market is a zero-sum game, and it is in their best interest to remove competitors (such as Hispanics and deporting them.) (What other interest group would be against NAM immigration? Country club Republicans? SWPL "progressives" who voted for Obama?) But it seems that in order to be against immigration, you have to say that NAMs are stupid etc. and provide evidence through psychometrics that they are.
Yes, I know how white proles are basically dumb... just look how popular creationism is in the US. Again, I only stated that they should have influence in limited areas such as immigration policy.
"Why can't we blame right-wing people too, such as Jonah Norberg? He actually SUPPORTS immigration because it gets rid off the welfare state."
Non-leftists which support immigration are called "liberals" (filling out the ranks in the GOP) and "libertarians", both of which usually do so for consistent philosophical reasons, rather than for the purpose of creating instability or changing demographics.
It is actually Jonah Goldberg... I got him confused with Swedish libertarian Johan Norberg.
It's beyond stupid for a nation to believe and act as if only blue-collar jobs are lost with the loss of manufacturing. Engineering and all higher-level technical occupations, and thus real innovation, depend ultimately on the shop floor. Where manufacturing goes, R&D and capital investment follow - and that's exactly what's been happening at an accelerating pace in the last decade. It drives me nuts to listen to allegedly informed people (not referring to anybody here, just in general) talk as if it were still the case that only low-tech, low-skill manufacturing and technical occupations had left the United States, that "manufacturing" loss doesn't have a domino effect on employment., or that "recovery" is going to come from stimulus-financed jobs that have already been shipped overseas. Yet the clowns who run this joint still seem to be religiously devoted to their Heaven's Gate "service economy" cult. (Where all can be mystically "retrained" for non-existent jobs, said magic retraining financed out of their Walmart wages.)
I like this bit: "That number has tripled since the beginning of the recession, indicating that there may be a mismatch between open positions and workers' skill sets, geographical location, or desired rate of pay." IOW, "we won't train, we won't pay more than poverty wages/with no benefits, we won't recruit anywhere near where we might qualified workers, please give us a million more visas".
Too bad that unlike Sweden and Denmark, the US cannot give people government or make-work jobs. I would be less sympathetic to the unions if it could be shown that they receive more benefits that a Swedish government employee (which are probably on of the cushiest jobs on the planet