Jobs come and go, and sometimes they just go

The words were those of a steelworker in Pennsylvania, but they could just have easily been from a miner, or a lumber mill hand, or an airplane assembly mechanic.

"We were . . . people nobody thought much of, and we became halfway decent people. We were almost middle class."

In fact they were middle class, the huge cadre of Americans who, without connections or college degrees or inheritance, built a more than comfortable life for themselves and their families.

They did so on the strength of what we used to call skilled blue-collar jobs, with respectable paychecks attached, in the machine shops and on factory floors and assembly lines of this country.

If the continuing erosion of those jobs has been an ongoing story of the past two decades -- the quote above is from William Serrin's 1993 book "Homestead: The Glory and Tragedy of an American Steel Town" -- what this country does to stem the erosion, or whether anyone believes it matters, will be an emerging story to watch in 2003.

Jobs come and go, companies come and go, industries come and go; that's one of the hazards of living in a system with a certain degree of economic freedom.

They come and go for reasons too timeless to call a trend -- the business cycle, bad or short-sighted management, changing technology or customer tastes, depletions or shifts in raw material supplies.

Usually there's something to replace those jobs. That's one of the benefits to living in a system with a certain degree of economic freedom.

But what's been going on in the past two decades has been a phenomenon beyond that cycle. Jobs, companies and industries are going away, and they're not being replaced.

Even the most cursory of searches indicates that the phenomenon is not slowing. Vacuum cleaner-maker Bissell Inc. recently announced a plan to move 200 jobs from Michigan to its manufacturing centers in Texas and Mexico.

Maytag Corp. said it would close a 1,600-employee refrigerator plant in Galesburg, Ill., and move it to Mexico.

Kaiser Aluminum last week announced a deal to sell its Tacoma Tideflats smelter to the Port of Tacoma, which will likely flatten it to use the site as a container terminal; that smelter once employed more than 350 workers.

In the Stevens County town of Addy, Alcoa subsidiary Northwest Alloys announced a deal to sell an idled magnesium smelter, which will be shipped to Malaysia; that plant once accounted for 300 jobs.

And we've all heard the predictions from Boeing Co. executives that even if the commercial aerospace sector recovers, Puget Sound-region aerospace employment will never reach the peaks of previous boom cycles.

The contemporary reason is this: If those jobs don't come back, then the paychecks that accompany those jobs won't be there to drive an economic rebound in 2003. Consumer spending and retail sales can only do so much.

The long-term issue is this: If we don't have those jobs, not only for their own sake but for the others they generate, then what's to replace them?

Dismiss this if you will as just misplaced nostalgia for a manufacturing economy that is never coming back, just as some people long for a return to a nation of farmers.

Americans may have moved off the farms, but America didn't give up farming. We drove down the cost of production and drove up the efficiency -- something you can't learn how to do if you don't have the farms on which to innovate. And we kept the supply, transportation, marketing, finance, machinery and equipment and processing jobs that had agriculture at their core.

Losing manufacturing loses the jobs themselves, the jobs that support and feed off them and the platform from which innovation, new technology and entire new industries emerge.

The manufacturing jobs that have been lost are gone for lots of reasons, cheaper labor abroad being a common culprit, cheaper electricity being a frequent reason for plants like Kaiser's to be idled.

In some cases, the age of the facility is cited as the cause. But what's worrisome is that no one thought it worthwhile to invest in updates and modernizations. Or at least it ought to worry someone -- bet it worried those who once had those jobs.

The Employment Security Departments projections for job growth by industry and sector suggest one possibility: health services, one of the biggest categories both for percentage gain (2.2 percent for 2005 to 2010) and raw number of jobs (24,500 in that period). The aging population is frequently cited as a prime driver for that growth.

Certainly it is our fervent hope when we are eventually carted off to the Shady Nook Rest Home for Doddering Journalists, there will be someone there to cook our gruel and listen to our endless stories about how great we were and how these young whippersnappers of today just don't measure up.

But is that what we want to rely on to generate wealth in our economy? Just how well-paying are those jobs likely to be, given that we can barely afford the system we've got now?

The biggest projected percentage growth of any category in the Employment Security report is for computer and data processing, with a 3.8 percent gain for 2005-2010 coming on top of a 3.7 percent gain for the five-year period we're now in.

But would you like to count on that growth? Here's a piece of bad news: That kind of work is even more portable than a metals smelter or an aircraft assembly plant. About all you need is one decent high-speed phone line and your programming work is being done not in Redmond but, oh, say, Bangalore.

There are lots of quick fixes to the problem -- centralized industrial planning, massive trade barriers on the exportation of technology or the importation of finished goods, domestic content laws, tax code rewrites to punish companies that cut employment -- all with their own unattractive features and unintended consequences, not to mention dubious likelihood of actually solving the original problem.

More to the point will be lots of tweaks and small changes that add up to a significant shift in allowing us to keep the manufacturers of today as the generator of companies and jobs of tomorrow. Encouraging technology that makes energy production and use far more cost-efficient would be one place to start.

But much more significant will be whether anyone believes the debate is worth having. The new year would be an excellent time to have it.

True, this is a two-decade-old problem. Putting it off yet another year, the easiest and most likely course of action, probably wouldn't be calamitous.

Unless you're the one hoping there's a job out there tomorrow to replace the one you're losing today.

Baloney!!! When there is nothing to say - you can always fall back on name calling.

You are the one who began the blame game here. You have educated all of us why union jobs went overseas. Since many, many of these jobs are not union, we need to know just why non union jobs went overseas. How about I phrase it this way - fill in the blank to make the statement relevent to non-union jobs. "______________________________________ it becomes more productive to have it done out of the country. Then they wonder why their jobs go away. Funny how it works."

I repeat trashing the unions is just outdated and makes no sense anymore.

p>Now stick with me here. Your posts had everything to do with unions - now don't try to backtrack.

If you want to debate - let's do it - but first you have to admit or 'own upto' what you said.

You made the statements the unions priced themselves out of the job market, etc.

When I asked what about non-union jobs - you said the article was talking about unionized industries.

I replied I interpreted the article as speaking of jobs in general - so what about non-union jobs. You took exception to a word I used and accused me of being a democrat and a leftie.

I asked again what about non-union jobs and you reply your post was not about union jobs -

I keep trying to get you back to your original post and my original question. If you refuse to do that - then let's just don't debate.

(Unions and their goons drive up the cost of their labor to the point it becomes more productive to have it done out of the country. Then they wonder why their jobs go away. Funny how it works.)
Now could we try again - since all the jobs lost were not union jobs - to what would you attribute their loss?And you are right your last post was not about unions - It was just more attacks and obfucation.

Do ya'll feel that this was a fairly written article, depicting the scene as it exists today? Yes or no.

Fair to whom? I am not sure what you mean by that - but do I feel it depicts the scene as it exists today? Yes, except it does not go far enough. It would lead one to believe the jobs lost are in large industrialized cities and that is not the case. Our little town of less than 3,000 lost their sewing factory (100 jobs) to Mexico. These were not high paying jobs and were not union jobs. These people were paid up to 2 years unemployment and a job training for any job they would like. AS one lady replied when I reminded her of this , "what kind of job should I train for in this town?"

Sure she could train for some job in the computer industry, move her family to the city - until they 'outsource' that job, or 'import' a H1B worker.

p>Now stick with me here. Your posts had everything to do with unions - now don't try to backtrack.

The post you refer to had nothing to do with unions, but with whether anyone
'deserves' not to lose their job if they haven't done anything 'wrong.'

If you want to debate - let's do it - but first you have to admit or 'own upto' what you said.

If you are going to continue to lie, there will be no discussion. The last
post suggests that with your view on jobs, you are closely associated
with union membership. Are you?

You made the statements the unions priced themselves out of the job market, etc.

When I asked what about non-union jobs - you said the article was talking about unionized industries.

The companies in the article, as I mentioned in another post, are
heaviliy unionized, ie, lumber, steel, smelting...

I replied I interpreted the article as speaking of jobs in general - so what about non-union jobs. You took exception to a word I used and accused me of being a democrat and a leftie.

The belief that you deserve to keep a job because you didn't do anything
wrong when a company restructures is a leftist, union mentality.

I asked again what about non-union jobs and you reply your post was not about union jobs -

No one except the self-employed 'deserves' their job. Do you get it yet?

I keep trying to get you back to your original post and my original question. If you refuse to do that - then let's just don't debate.

This hasn't been a debate. This has been you making excuses for
union excesses driving basic industries out of business in the US.

Now could we try again - since all the jobs lost were not union jobs - to what would you attribute their loss?And you are right your last post was not about unions - It was just more attacks and obfucation.

You haven't been attacked, just your silly notion that someone who
puts a lot of money at risk to create wealth somehow owes you
a job. And I take it that you either have been a union member, are
one, or are married to someone who was.
23 posted on 12/26/2002 6:10 PM CST by nanny

Union, union, union. Everything boils down to nonunion or union in your distorted little world, eh?
Let us see...why would smelting (making things very hot), mining (going deep below ground), and timber (bringing very tall things down to earth), have in common?
Hmmmm....could it be that it is very easy to die at any of these jobs on any given day?
Hmmmm....now why would those jobs be heavily unionized?
Hmmmm....could it be the company's tried to take advantage of the employees and their families when said employees died or got injured on the job?
Nah, couldn't be.
Are you getting a crick in your neck from tilting at windmills?

Unions and their goons drive up the cost of their labor to the point it becomes more productive to have it done out of the country. Then they wonder why their jobs go away. Funny how it works.

I can't speak for all union employees, just the helicopter division of The Boeing Company where I work. The union employees there are very dedicated men and women who know and care about the product they make. The new MFG technique is Lean Manufacturing where most of the work is outsourced. It is supposed to reduce cost and be more efficient.

Just one example: in our facility, if you needed to replace a piece of wire on the assembly line, the mechanic would go to the Wire Shop which was adjacent to the assembly line. Now that work is done in Baltimore, MD. The piece of wire that could be replaced in 20 minutes now takes 2 weeks - if you are lucky. Mechanics are often idle and not happy waiting for parts that used to be readily available. And you knew the sheetmetal, machinist, etc. that was providing the part for you. You worked as a team, a family.

Last summer supervisors were telling mechanics to use sick leave or vacation to take long weekends due to hold for parts. And if you think this results in cheaper prices for the consumer, guess again. The minimum wage employee currently making the wire bundles for Boeing does not care about the product the way the Boeing employee does. That minimum wage employee is thinking about how he can get a higher paying job, not about the function of the part he/she is making. Our children fly in these aircraft and we build pride into each one. Those of us who remain.

In many ways, you get what you pay for. The men on the shop floor work in 150 degree temperatures during the summer, winter is cold but not that bad. There are some lazy bums, sure, but 90% are great, knowledgable and technically competent employees. I can tell you that IMHO it is the bonus hungry executives that don't care about the end product and who don't earn their pay, not the man on the production floor.

I am not a union employee or an anti-management person. But everyone piles on the guy who does the grunt work and carries the salary/overhead on their back. If a union person is not doing their job, then management has a right to document it and get rid of the guy. That's management's job, not the union's fault.

Quite a treasonous statement . I think some freepers( if the label fits) out here are Full on Ayn Rand types who couldn't care less about their country as long as it's not their job or more likely "trust fund" .They will see the light when all their dollar valued investments are now equivalent to rupies or yuan or rubles. This is an umitigated orgy of greed brought on by the wanton desires of the "never had to work hard " baby boom generation ( not all but alot..once again if the shoe fits ) . I firmly fixate on this generation because I doubt that their Parents would have ever sold out their sons and daughters future or the future of their country for a few extra bucks it would have been unthinkable...Nowadays corporate boomer CEO's bring down multi million dolar salaries totally disproportianate to any service they provide and yet say the company can't remain competitive unless it moves jobs overseas.. I think it would be easier to just fire the boomer CEO's and replace them with retirees who will work for a fair wage then to send all the middle class jobs overseas. Witness our government full of boomers continuing to import H1b's and nodding and winking at Global Outsourcing. How will they find parts for the F-16's which are now no longer made in America, This is a security issue as well. The government should be doing all it can to protect American manufacturing and jobs at all costs ,tariffs and incentives are the way to go.When this country was founded We had no income tax all national revenue was based on tariffs and duties. The loss of all jobs in USA is a net loss to all of us. I think you should follow your investment overseas and get out of the way of America. I hope all those that ship jobs overseas lose all there investments to some third world nationalization drive or destabilization or corruption . I believe in the American Worker and if We could just kick these Globalist traitors ( who claim to be American companies)
off our shoreline we could have a entrepeneurial renaisance like the World has never seen.I for myself will Vote AMERICA FIRST until all those who put money before country are out of here.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.