Since there is more to life than just wages or earnings, and we need to include what those dollars actually buy due to inflation, how much of them go towards taxes, how much is needed for things that previously were free, the amount of control over our own families from two working members, the costs of government programs trying to fill in the gaps, and so so many more.
Those dollars are adjusted for using a simple deflator, bringing all wages @ an equal respective price level. Inflation has nothing to do with it.
Such as the obvious. Things like jobs lost to countless plant closings, consolidation, losses to small business, wages not keeping pace with inflation etc etc etc
Care to provide numbers to the bold? The rest of that sentence is rather weak as it is based on false assumptions.
While things have changed for everyone in different ways the continued increase in the imbalance of trade in the US has put pressures on everyone from the small business owner (someone had to support or supply the various manufacturing concerns) the union laborer (who can not replace the level of wage or bene's in retail or the service industry) the retail businesses supporting and supplying the needs of the workers who are now receiving seriously lower wages, the municipalities that have seen serious decreases to their tax base from plant closings and corporate bankruptcies, and right on up to the state and federal tax collectors who have been scrambling for ways to replace the many lost taxes as well
Being an appologist for those unwilling to compete proves very little. Just as competition reduces inefficiency, so does technology shift trends in supply practices (manufacturing). The reason we outsource is due to the opportunity cost associated with producing it, where as efficient allocation of resources (both human capital, time, and factors of production) should be maximized to produce the greatest gains.
The more we produce cheap plastic goods in the US, the less we produce high tech computer processors, chemicals, machinery, etc... In fact, look at the amount of Toyota, Honda, Mercedes, etc... producing within the US. You state that the manufacturing base has declined, but that is none the less false. Maybe as a % of rGDP, but none the less manufacturing in the US has more than doubled since 1966 (i will prove it at the end).
It really depends on what is being considered poverty, and I know this changes depending on the region your discussing.
You are going back to the assumptive stance, of which your position has little if any ground to stand on. To a millionaire, poor would be making 75k/year, although you can see theProxy-Connection: keep-alive
Cache-Control: max-age=0
oxy-Connection: keep-alive
Cache-Control: max-age=0
oxy-Connection: keep-alive
Cache-Control: max-age=0
eakness in the statement exemplified by the use of "probably".
An example is that you could be worse off in NYC making well above the poverty level than earning within the poverty level in an other area like KY or AR etc.
You are not debating overall poverty, you are instead discussing relative cost of living. The conversation then shifts to the question, why do they live in NYC when New Jersey has a far less expensive cost of living? We can apply this same rhetoric to the manufacturing argument: why do people forgo improving their skill set which
is proven to make them increasingly marketable in a rapidly changing economy?
There is also the missing class of the working poor.
Care to provide any information or a source?
Now this is not directed at you etc, but I had learned early on years ago that figures lie and liars figure so please do not hate or blame me for not fully accepting the numbers in the charts.
Of course you would not accept the numbers, but you can look for yourself with a more in depth view of poverty.
Historical Poverty Tables
I think we all have seen numbers be made to show what the creator wanted them to, and it is nothing new for people to purposely produce inaccurate charts etc.
A rather weak debate tactic wouldn't you say? Attack my source, without a basis of sound reasoning, as a means to an end. The burden of proof is on you to prove the inaccuracy, of which you have failed....
Another thing to keep in mind is how the government has scrambled to create or help create those new industries to help replace jobs lost in manufacturing, how this very action shows that some at least knew of the future consequences and the real problems that would come from major trade imbalances.
Trade imbalances allow the US government to borrow from abroad. Being that we purchase more from China, using US dollars, they have to do something with those dollars. They could of course begin to depreciate them by selling them on the forex market, thereby driving up the price for the respective alternative currency, or... They could purchase the most liquid asset in the world, US Treasuries. This in turn allows the US to live beyond both its production possibilities frontier (on the basis of trade), and the consumption possibilities frontier (on the basis of debt).
You have yet to make a valid case on the negativity of either (although they do exist!).
Now lets consider things like, the added costs to the typical family due to the near requirement of new HS grads to be at least looking at getting a BS to be considered for a non labor position or not considered uneducated etc ($40-100K+), now increasing this even more as those who used to be able to get away with a BS now will require a masters etc.
But in the long run, is that not a minimal investment that will be returned dozens of times, if not more? Besides, if you live below the poverty level, you do not have to pay for college in the US, as federal pell grants kick in for those cases. You are going to have to try to prove that a college education does not equate to greater job security, and greater income possibilities in the long run.
Sure we needed to keep our academics and create new positions, but you also can not ignore the costs and the financial burden from losses in manufacturing being moved to the American tax payer in yet another way.
What are these costs, and how is the American tax payer footing the bill?
Since I am on the rant on this subject lets not forget that after the privilege of a family putting itself into debt (most from equity loans on their homes no less) that most of these high end grads will end up with a much lower income than anticipated, and many very likely will not out earn a good master plumber.
What is wrong with being a master plumber? You are very correct, although a master plumber is a service oriented type of employment. I never made the distinction between university and technological skill advancement, of which i will not. Reason be, not everyone can become doctors, and lawyers, (service) because even their plumbing goes out at times
This is getting too long already (wish there was some way to talk it and not type it lol) but though your correct in some of your basics or at least I agree on some etc there is a whole lot more involved, and I know it varies by region or state as well, but overall at least in the NE it seems that things are much different than you seem to believe, and the costs of government involvement or just trying to pick up the slack is only adding to the problem in a very large and expensive way.
US manufacturing has nearly doubled since 1966, even though manufacturing as a % of GDP is nearly half.
rGDP 1966= 3.8845 trillion Manufacturing % of GDP 1966= 30% (about 25% but this number gives me a better basis)
rGDP 2008=12892.5 trillion Manfacturing % of GDP 2008= 12% (could be higher, but revisions are about to come in)
In 1966, manufacturing accounted for
$1.165 trillion @ 30%, and
$971 billion @ 25%.
In 2008, manufacturing accounted for
$1.804 billion @ 12%.
Which is quite interesting. We produce more than we did in 1966 (between 35% and 50%) even though manufacturing as a whole has decreased somewhere between 60% and 40%. Quite interesting?