More jobs

I was watching one of Donald Trumps speeches in Pennsylvania hoping to get some insight on his plans for America once he becomes president. Almost everytime ive heard him speak he often speaks very general about problems in America. One of his platforms is about how much trouble steel mills and coal mines are having with the EPA. He wants to increase GDP by strengthening energy producing facilities in America and ultimately creating more jobs for Americans. He also wants to toughen up immigration laws to prevent illegal immigrants from taking away jobs from deserving Americans and stop companies from offshoring their work to other countries.

I'm not really sure what it is about "more jobs" that is so appealing to people when they're considering who to vote for. I drive around my neighborhood and see plenty "Now Hiring" signs on buildings in many areas. My brother works at a transportation company and the turnover rate for their drivers is astronomical. They're always in need of drivers, and they pay pretty reasonably too.

Layoffs happen and people lose their jobs and many of them have to take government assistance for unemployment compensation. The reason for this is not because work isn't available. Its because they know in their hearts that they're better than the work that's available for them. If you follow the career search websites there is little to no difficulty finding a Sales or Customer Service job. They're updated with new jobs every hour. Many companies go great lengths to disguise the title and description of the job in such a way that makes it sound different than it actually is. One time while my wife was unemployed she found an "Environmental Specialties Manager" which involved tasks and responsibilities such as "Lead in maintaining the sanitation of waste recepticles" (take out trash) "Provide exceptional service in the cleanliness and presentation of the building" (mop the floors) "Monitor the inventory of Safety and Sanitation supplies and materials" (organize the janitors closet) etc.

So what's kinda confusing to me about people excited about more jobs and opportunities for proud hard-working Americans, is that I have no idea who is excited about working in coal mines where people can become trapped or inhale noxious fumes, or in factories with heavy metal beams swinging and hot liquid steel splashing around. I just dont get it. Work is available. No one wants to do the work. They want the jobs with the least amount of labor for the highest pay. No one is willing to take a pay cut to help the country. People take unemployment because they aren't willing to change their quality of life. It seems really silly to me that introduction of more jobs to the country is really going to change anything for the better.

People are using the social safety net for its intended purpose instead of taking badly-paying jobs because they don't want to have to feed their family catfood.

It's okay, 40oz got this. He know the solution to problems, I will be student. *sits and watches patiently with awe*

40oz said:

People take unemployment because they aren't willing to change their quality of life. It seems really silly to me that introduction of more jobs to the country is really going to change anything for the better.

Oh man that $1,800 a month on unemployment is really living the dream. (That's $1,800 in Cali... I don't know what it is in other states, it's much lower in a lot of them.)

For an actual serious answer to your question from someone who spent the beginning of his adult life working construction and knows what a true "hard day's work" is and all that Baby-Boomer-Dad-Talk crap, it's because our system is set up to be one or the other instead of a modular type thing that would encourage people to work.

People don't want to do crap work because often times it means making less money than staying on the dole. And yeah we can talk about how they should "man the fuck up" and be willing to live in one of those worker dens where you pay $25 a month for rent to sleep in the corner with a sleeping bag all we want but unless you force people to do that at gun point, most people won't. Call it entitlement if you want but people will choose starvation over that.

Maybe if our system let people get work and still recieve assistance as needed without having to jump through 5,000 hoops more people would be working. Yeah they're "getting free shit" but really they're not. They're paying payroll taxes which go towards unemployment and medicade and the safety net shit they're on. Also it means they're only needing those programs as supplemental assistance instead of full assistance so they're costing us less money overall (which you know, spending less money is a pretty important aspect of fiscal conservatism).

Finally and most importantly most people are not "smart" with their money and it's a good thing they not. Why? Because they're driving the economy. Having people who have money to spend on dumb shit helps everyone out.

It's one of these things that makes me glad I volunteer and not have to deal with work.

(And before you ask me, my previous neurologist strongly advised my parents against me getting a job.)

40oz said:

So what's kinda confusing to me about people excited about more jobs and opportunities for proud hard-working Americans, is that I have no idea who is excited about working in coal mines where people can become trapped or inhale noxious fumes, or in factories with heavy metal beams swinging and hot liquid steel splashing around.

Uh. Mining is traditionally a well paid job. The downside is, of course, the almost inevitable lung cancer in your late 50's, high risk of alcoholism and the occasional death by cave-in. You need to motivate people to risk all that crap. My grandfather was a carpenter, but he moved his family to a different region to become a coal miner, because it was a high-demand, high-paying job in the 50's (even under communism). And miners still make very decent money nowadays, but globalization fucks up the local ecosystem by bringing in cheap export from India, Ukraine, Australia... all the hellholes where natives do it for even cheaper (and still get very decent money within their context).

The upside of such hard work is being able to elevate your family from poverty, at the cost of pretty much sacrificing your own life/future. What an upside, right? I can see how that is less appealing nowadays when the social safety net guarantees a relatively comfortable life without such sacrifice. But then your children will have a hard time elevating from your low social caste. That's also why there's a slow societal shift towards "not blaming" children for their parents' social status and giving them equal opportunities. On one hand, lazy people do have it easier. On the other, their children shouldn't become their lifetime victims. It's complicated, I guess?

Tarnsman said:

Oh man that $1,800 a month on unemployment is really living the dream. (That's $1,800 in Cali... I don't know what it is in other states, it's much lower in a lot of them.)

To put this in context, I make $900/mo in retail in PA. This is not enough to live on here for nearly anyone.

Sorry I didn't make the OP more concise. I think some of you guys are selective reading. I have no qualms against unemployment.

If the intensity of applause is anything to go by, anything that seems to increase the possibility of jobs and reduce the theft of American jobs by illegal immigrants or other countries is important to Donald Trump supporters.

My question is why? I dont see a lack of work available. I know Donald Trump supporters but they've been working the same jobs for many years and aren't at risk of losing their work to illegals or offshoring. Some jobs are low paying with low qualifications, some of them are pretty well paying with low qualifications, but the work is highly demanding, risky, requires flexibility, etc., which I imagine coal mining and steel mill working qualifies under. What does having more of this work available accomplish? Have people been dying to work in these industries for a long time?

I'm not making a contention here, I'm just not seeing the benefit.

40oz said:

Sorry I didn't make the OP more concise. I think some of you guys are selective reading. I have no qualms against unemployment.

If the intensity of applause is anything to go by, anything that seems to increase the possibility of jobs and reduce the theft of American jobs by illegal immigrants or other countries is important to Donald Trump supporters.

My question is why?

Cause trump supportors are racists and they want the non whites out of the country.

If you go through life thinking everybody around you is an asshole, you'll never understand a perspective other than your own.

For the OP: I'd have to say it's just an easy talking point for the general discontent many people feel over their jobs. 1 in 3 millenials live with their parents; people who work nice jobs that aren't in risk of going away still lost more than they've recovered since the housing bubble crash. People are generally unhappy and most of their individual feelings are summed up well-enough through Trump's talking points. Of course electing him will likely screw us over, but then again so will electing Hilary... The fact either candidate stands a chance goes to show the unfittness for office of the other candidate.

40oz said:

If the intensity of applause is anything to go by, anything that seems to increase the possibility of jobs and reduce the theft of American jobs by illegal immigrants or other countries is important to Donald Trump supporters.

My question is why? I dont see a lack of work available. I know Donald Trump supporters but they've been working the same jobs for many years and aren't at risk of losing their work to illegals or offshoring. Some jobs are low paying with low qualifications, some of them are pretty well paying with low qualifications, but the work is highly demanding, risky, requires flexibility, etc., which I imagine coal mining and steel mill working qualifies under. What does having more of this work available accomplish? Have people been dying to work in these industries for a long time?

Mmm... that's a deeper issue indeed. I'm not from your part of the world, but allow me to draw a possible explanation.

You're talking about the Rust Belt people, the blue collared white non-college electorate. Their jobs are slaughtered by globalization and Trump appeals to them by claiming he'll revert the trend and force industrial production to return to the US. He's lying, of course, but they're desperate to preserve their way of life, so they listen. Transforming entire communities from stable factory workforce to something diverse, self-sustaining, more service-oriented is a huge task and many will perish by the roadside, so they're afraid.

Now why is he lying? Because Trump won't fight globalization, his own business is its bastion after all. Furthermore, it would be a meaningless battle. Even if you force Ford and all the other traditional mass employers to produce in the US, the so-called "fourth industrial revolution" is creeping around the corner. Its ultimate goal is the complete eradication of all these basic factory jobs that can be performed better, faster and cheaper by fully automated assembly lines. Trump cannot stop this proces unless he goes fully luddite and starts smashing machines.

It's kind of ironic that these difficult, traditionally white jobs are much more endangered than the lowest-grade jobs like flipping burgers that any immigrant can do and any "established" person scoffs at. Blue collar communities hope that Trump is their Sitting Bull, but even if Hillary is supposed to be Custer, they'll be forced to surrender and die soon afterward.

There was a surplus of work in 2006 when businesses had to compete with wages to find people to do anything at all. It was funny when even the crappy grocery store was paying $12/hr and the crappy coffee shops paying $8 wondered why they couldn't find people.

These days there are places hiring, but it's for the bare minimum and it's mostly stuff they can pay high-school grads to do. People are willing to give me work in streamlining and automating their office processes so they don't have to pay as many people. It's pretty obvious where this is going to end up.

Manufacturing jobs aren't coming back, don't get your hopes up. If businesses can't operate in China, they'll move to Vietnam, Korea, Mexico or any place they can pay the workers peanuts to assemble their product. It's all about the path of least resistance.

40oz said:

If the intensity of applause is anything to go by, anything that seems to increase the possibility of jobs and reduce the theft of American jobs by illegal immigrants or other countries is important to Donald Trump supporters.

It is, because it sounds great, amazing even. Who doesn't love jobs? It's a fantastic platitude that can absolutely garner votes. However, those jobs are gone and they shan't return regardless of what trump or the GOP says or does.

Do you have a job?

A robot will have it in less than 20 years.

Suddenly that protestant work ethic makes no economic sense. These jobs are not coming back. They will never come back. It's not because Americans are "above" the jobs, it's that America has laws that keeps companies from selling iPhones at "low" prices.

If we paid people what they were really worth, the whole thing would fall apart. That's because wages never lined up with productivity. Whoops!

Plus, some states have "overqualification" laws where people that had high paying jobs with lots of education cannot work certain jobs. So what about those people?

Csonicgo said:

Do you have a job?

A robot will have it in less than 20 years.

Heh, I think my job is relatively safe until we manage to develop self propelled, human intelligence level AI. But yes, a lot of manufacturing jobs can easily be automated via robotics because they're mundane tasks that are easily performed. Paying one time for a robot that might cost 3 years worth of a workers wages and a little maintenance, while lasting for 10 years, at least, seems like a very smart business decision to me.

The unfortunate truths suck, but that's just how it is. :/

Rayzik said:

Heh, I think my job is relatively safe until we manage to develop self propelled, human intelligence level AI. But yes, a lot of manufacturing jobs can easily be automated via robotics because they're mundane tasks that are easily performed. Paying one time for a robot that might cost 3 years worth of a workers wages and a little maintenance, while lasting for 10 years, at least, seems like a very smart business decision to me.

The unfortunate truths suck, but that's just how it is. :/

I just want a robot that will make me a fucking sammich.

Rayzik said:

Heh, I think my job is relatively safe until we manage to develop self propelled, human intelligence level AI. But yes, a lot of manufacturing jobs can easily be automated via robotics because they're mundane tasks that are easily performed. Paying one time for a robot that might cost 3 years worth of a workers wages and a little maintenance, while lasting for 10 years, at least, seems like a very smart business decision to me.

The unfortunate truths suck, but that's just how it is. :/

Oh boy, as someone who works with robots on a day to day basis these numbers are way off XD. Before I got into the auto industry I wondered about this prospect myself, Until I saw it in action. Robots break down all the damn time, new, old, doesn't matter when you run an assembly line 24-7, shit is bound to give out. Enginering these things is insainly expensive and the companies doing it will milk all of its worth. as much as these machines have to be repaired and maintenenced our jobs arn't going anywhere but to the chinese. If anything, mabie they find better robotic systems and they atart eating up our jobs more so, Skilled trades jobs will be needed even further in order to repair these things and the lines that they run.

40oz said:

I'm not really sure what it is about "more jobs" that is so appealing to people when they're considering who to vote for. I drive around my neighborhood and see plenty "Now Hiring" signs on buildings in many areas. My brother works at a transportation company and the turnover rate for their drivers is astronomical. They're always in need of drivers, and they pay pretty reasonably too.

Unemployment is a hugely difficult and complicated problem and what I've quoted here reads to me as more than a little condescending.

Do you have a job?

A robot will have it in less than 20 years.

It is an endless source of amusement for me to see the very same people alternatively arguing automation is right around the corner *and* claiming we need more immigration to grow the economy.

Then you look at the existing data, and populations from Africa or the Middle East haven't fully integrated economically even after three generations.

Some people believe in no borders as a humanitarian cause and will say so as the root of their argument, without delving into economical considerations. This is debatable, but at least sincere. There is a moral argument to be made.

Those who pretend they speak from a place of logic, facts, intelligence as they offer immigration from underperforming populations as a miracle fix to economical woes, however... Lord Soros bless their misguided souls, for the *nicest* interpretation would be that they purposefully lie and deceive to work towards the above humanitarian goals, "the end justifies the means" style.

Now, here's the problem: why would you trust a pathological liar with moral quandaries? Once you've decided to disguise the truth on such a massive scale for ideological reasons, you don't operate any close to reality. Lying is self-reinforcing behavior, and successful lies beget more lies.

There's a chance this above part will hit home, and be quoted with a snarky Trump comment. Someone who knows their position isn't defendable looks for someone else to blame. "YOUR guy is just as bad!" This is where identity politics and two-party systems really work for the morally bankrupt. Tie anyone against you with the whole of an assumed other side, and you've got a blank cheque to continue being a terrible person.

As a persuasion technique, it works. As a moral assessment of your character? Sorry, hypothetical dude, you're still an asshat and you're still worse than most of us.

Oh man that $1,800 a month on unemployment is really living the dream.

Man, I live my dream for half that.

Ok, the home is paid for. The net total would still amount to less than 1k8 USD if I rented at market price in my area.

I don't know what kind of lifestyle you lead for this to sound like paltry money.

Buying a brand new $30,000 car on a loan, owning this year's smartphone with a large data plan, living alone in a flat in a large city, dining out 3 times a week - those are NOT "necessary expenses", but CHOICES.

If I had a dollar for each time I've seen someone supposedly concerned about the oppressed, yet living so lavishly they're waiting for the next paycheque every month on a $80K USD yearly income...

fraggle said:

Unemployment is a hugely difficult and complicated problem and what I've quoted here reads to me as more than a little condescending.

I'm not intending to make a contention here, I just don't know what having more jobs in the country is supposed to accomplish. Im not sure that the unavailability of work is a problem. I am however implying that it seems like a response to unemployment rates in the country with what little knowledge I have, but I don't know for sure that's the reason but if it is, I dont understand how that's helpful for that case.

Phml said:

It is an endless source of amusement for me to see the very same people alternatively arguing automation is right around the corner *and* claiming we need more immigration to grow the economy.

Because that's 100% truth stated by people that know what they're talking about.

That's how the United States has worked for decades and decades. There's nothing remotely funny about it.

40oz said:

I'm not intending to make a contention here, I just don't know what having more jobs in the country is supposed to accomplish. Im not sure that the unavailability of work is a problem. I am however implying that it seems like a response to unemployment rates in the country with what little knowledge I have, but I don't know for sure that's the reason but if it is, I dont understand how that's helpful for that case.

Even if creating jobs won't tackle most of the existing unemployment, because it will happen in regions and job segments that are already booming, the theoretical upside is at least that the market should start cannibalizing itself by stealing workforce from competitors, driving wages upwards. Which should in turn lure more job-related immigration into the region. Or something along those lines.

Tl;dr constant economy expansion and GDP growth is the golden calf of modern day economics.