FAQ
It is currently Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:54 am


Author Message
iceaura
Post  Post subject: a long term trend crosses a mark  |  Posted: Sat May 19, 2012 8:35 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 8:05 pm
Posts: 391

Offline
http://news.investors.com/article/61188 ... opouts.htm

Basically, it discusses the fact that people with college but with less than a four year degree are now unemployed at a higher rate than people with high school but no college at all.

And it tries to set that up to be Obama's fault as a lefty somehow, as is usual for that species of rightwing rag, but the main point here is the uncertainty cost of college education in the US.

This may help explain the shortage of native born engineers and such, for example: those kinds of study programs are more risky, carry greater potential of failure, and the price of failure is getting really steep these days.


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: a long term trend crosses a mark  |  Posted: Sat May 19, 2012 11:47 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5730
Location: Iowa

Offline
What would you recommend we do to decrease the risk involved?

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: a long term trend crosses a mark  |  Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 6:58 am
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4883
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
youth unemployment is high in most western countries
it's the usual conundrum in a recession : companies tend to employ people that they're sure are going to be of use to them, meaning that if you have a few years of relevant experience under your belt, you're more likely to get a job - conversely, if you don't have any experience, it's hard to convince them that you're going to make good, hence you find it hard to get the necessary experience that will prove your worth

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
iceaura
Post  Post subject: Re: a long term trend crosses a mark  |  Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 4:30 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 8:05 pm
Posts: 391

Offline
Quote:
youth unemployment is high in most western countries
it's the usual conundrum in a recession :
In the OP, and the thread, we would be considering youth over age 25.

That stipulated: In the US, youth unemployment is higher for youth who have some college but not a four year degree, than for youth with a high school diploma but no college at all.

That has not been the usual conundrum, in past recessions in the US or the present recession elsewhere. And as the graphic shows, it is the culmination of a trend that reaches back twenty years or more.


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: a long term trend crosses a mark  |  Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 4:42 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4883
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
iceaura wrote:
In the OP, and the thread, we would be considering youth over age 25.


by all means - when it comes to the labour market, it's not the absolute age that matters, but the number of years you've been available to join the work force

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
iceaura
Post  Post subject: Re: a long term trend crosses a mark  |  Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 5:03 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 8:05 pm
Posts: 391

Offline
So why is the pattern different now, and why the twenty year trend, compared with years past in the US and other countries?


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: a long term trend crosses a mark  |  Posted: Mon May 21, 2012 6:38 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4883
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
20 years is not necessarily a trend, i would like to see that graph go back as far as the mid 70s
i seem to remember i had a terrible time finding a job in the early 80s, and i have the impression the economic situation is not too dissimilar now (although admittedly a tad worse)

as for educated people pushing out uneducated ones, that's the result of more people going to college
those that don't lose out in the job hunting stakes, because if jobs are scarce those that do have vacancies can be choosy and select the higher qualified people, even if the job doesn't necessarily require it - as an employer it gives you more options

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
iceaura
Post  Post subject: Re: a long term trend crosses a mark  |  Posted: Tue May 22, 2012 1:11 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 8:05 pm
Posts: 391

Offline
Quote:
20 years is not necessarily a trend,
? Why not?

marnix wrote:
i seem to remember i had a terrible time finding a job in the early 80s, and i have the impression the economic situation is not too dissimilar now (although admittedly a tad worse)
The economy collapsed in 2008, on a scale more or less comparable with 1929 - the only reason we aren't in another Great Depression in the US is the remains of the New Deal putting a floor under things, and a large direct government stimulus (which was less than a third the size theoretically necessary to actually kickstart growth, but was big enough to at least postpone 1933 redux. Remember that tax cuts to capital and high incomes don't count as stimulus).

marnix wrote:
as for educated people pushing out uneducated ones, that's the result of more people going to college
The trend and notable mark crossed would indicate the opposite, if anything - uneducated people pushing out educated ones. That is the twenty year trend and new situation.

As far as past years, none back to 1970 show high school only with a lower unemployment rate than some college.

Page 33 figure 14 here, for example (the data after '92 are not comparable, see footnote) http://www.nber.org/chapters/c11245.pdf


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: a long term trend crosses a mark  |  Posted: Tue May 22, 2012 3:16 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5730
Location: Iowa

Offline
Given the situation "on the ground," it would be nice to look at the trends back to the 1920s to include the lead up to and early post-years after the great depression. That's why 20 years may not be a long enough trend. There have been no circumstances like the ones we're currently facing since ~80 years ago...

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: a long term trend crosses a mark  |  Posted: Tue May 22, 2012 6:32 am
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4883
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
iceaura wrote:
Quote:
20 years is not necessarily a trend,
? Why not?


because it may only show one leg of a cycle with a longer period

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: a long term trend crosses a mark  |  Posted: Tue May 22, 2012 6:46 am
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4883
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
iceaura wrote:
marnix wrote:
as for educated people pushing out uneducated ones, that's the result of more people going to college
The trend and notable mark crossed would indicate the opposite, if anything - uneducated people pushing out educated ones. That is the twenty year trend and new situation.

As far as past years, none back to 1970 show high school only with a lower unemployment rate than some college.


Image

:oops: i must admit to having totally misinterpreted that graph as meaning the opposite of what was intended
is this a trend that is specific to the US, or is it widespread in the western world ?

in the UK what we've seen is the growth of the university population when polytechnics (i.e. higher, non-university education) became universities in their own right - this reduced the overall quality of university education
on the other hand, the rise in university fees has caused some people on lower incomes to think hard whether having a degree really is worth the cost, especially the type of studies that don't clearly prepare you for a job

an example is a friend of my son's who studied history of art, after which she was forced to take an unpaid job in the local museum "to get some experience" - where would she end up in the stats ?

still, many of the larger companies still recruit based on your degree, meaning that any growth in jobs for the non-university population must come from McDonald type jobs or from being self-employed
the latter category tends to grow during hard times when people get laid off, and have little option but to look for a job or create one for themselves

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
iceaura
Post  Post subject: Re: a long term trend crosses a mark  |  Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 6:08 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 8:05 pm
Posts: 391

Offline
marnix wrote:
20 years is not necessarily a trend,

? Why not?

because it may only show one leg of a cycle with a longer period
That's true of anything. Are there no trends, then?

Quote:
There have been no circumstances like the ones we're currently facing since ~80 years ago...
The situation with regard to education was so different 100 years ago that comparisons would be very difficult.

Maybe we could drop the level of education compared a full notch, and compare "some high school" with "grade school only" in the years between WWI and WWII?.


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: a long term trend crosses a mark  |  Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 6:53 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5730
Location: Iowa

Offline
That's a good point, and an interesting idea, actually. We didn't even have child labor laws back then, did we?

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: a long term trend crosses a mark  |  Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 9:07 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4883
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
iceaura wrote:
marnix wrote:
20 years is not necessarily a trend,

? Why not?

because it may only show one leg of a cycle with a longer period
That's true of anything. Are there no trends, then?


there are, but the meaning of shorter term trends can be superseded by those of a longer periods
the selection of your period to declare meaning is a well-known statistical ploy if you know that including a slightly longer period would nullify the conclusions of a shorter period

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: a long term trend crosses a mark  |  Posted: Wed May 23, 2012 9:18 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5730
Location: Iowa

Offline
If there truly is a trend, it could also be indicative of a decreasing quality in our education... Perhaps today we require college to obtain the training previously afforded to high school students.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
iceaura
Post  Post subject: Re: a long term trend crosses a mark  |  Posted: Fri May 25, 2012 2:58 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 8:05 pm
Posts: 391

Offline
Quote:
If there truly is a trend, it could also be indicative of a decreasing quality in our education... Perhaps today we require college to obtain the training previously afforded to high school students.
How would that explain an actual disadvantage from going to college, compared with stopping after high school?

marnix wrote:

there are, but the meaning of shorter term trends can be superseded by those of a longer periods
the selection of your period to declare meaning is a well-known statistical ploy if you know that including a slightly longer period would nullify the conclusions of a shorter period
And that is a platitude - it is always true, of any situation whatsoever.

So how would that possibility matter here? We are looking for an explanation of a twenty year trend, regardless of whether it is a leg of a longer cycle or not.

We have a twenty year steady approach to a unique - never before seen - situation: having some college education now actually increases a US jobseeker's chances of unemployment after age 25.


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: a long term trend crosses a mark  |  Posted: Fri May 25, 2012 5:24 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5730
Location: Iowa

Offline
iceaura wrote:
Quote:
If there truly is a trend, it could also be indicative of a decreasing quality in our education... Perhaps today we require college to obtain the training previously afforded to high school students.
How would that explain an actual disadvantage from going to college, compared with stopping after high school?

I guess it wouldn't, but just to be open here, I've been pretty reluctant to accept the premise of your article as true. Most (if not, all) of the materials I've encountered these last 3-4 years have suggested that the college educated are doing far better overall than those without college.

I'm not saying this is true and yours is false, it just gives me pause and I'm going to want to confirm that there truly is a "disadvantage from going to college" relative to not going before I spend much time speculating about what may cause it (there's also the issue of different wages based on education level, and how companies may want to pay lower wages during times of balance sheet stress, so that could play some sort of role here in the post-recession era, as well).

Anyway, to better explain some of my reluctance to accept the premise that college is a disadvantage, here's a tiny sampling taken from a quick search...

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexch ... our-market
Quote:
The American workforce, by many accounts, has been polarising. Middle-skill jobs in manufacturing and many business services have been disappearing thanks to automation and international competition, but low- and high-skill employment is increasing. During the recession and recovery, this dynamic has become somewhat skewed. Highly skilled workers have done best, low-skill workers have done poorly, and those in middle-skill employment have done very, very poorly, even as the job market has improved over the past year. So, in the year to December, employment among workers without a high-school degree rose by 126,000. Employment for workers with a college degree rose by just over 1m jobs. For those with just a high-school diploma, however, employment fell by 551,000.

Meanwhile, employment for workers without a diploma is about 1.3m jobs short of the pre-recession level, and it's about 3.2m jobs short of the pre-recession level for workers with high-school credentials. There are 1.7m more college-educated workers on the job now than was true in late 2007, however.

Part of this may be that workers will lower skill levels are concentrated in many cyclically variable industries, like construction. A deep recession and slow recovery will inevitably be relatively easier on those with higher skill levels, in that case.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ ... story.html
Quote:
The recovery, economists say, has highlighted the consequences of not earning a college degree.

“There has been a considerable difference in who is getting those jobs,” said Pamela J. Loprest, director of the Urban Institute’s Income and Benefits Policy Center. She added that recent improvements in the jobless rate have not significantly lifted the burden on less-educated workers. “Lower-educated workers got hit harder. And the recovery has been uneven in that it has most benefited those with more skills.”


http://www.nber.org/reporter/2011number4/harrison.html
Quote:
Using data from the CPS, we show that between 1982 and 2002, total manufacturing employment fell from 22 to 17 million, with rapid declines at the beginning of the 1980s and in recent years. However, the effects were uneven across different types of workers. For workers without a college degree, there were significant declines in manufacturing employment over the entire period. The opposite was true for workers with a college degree. Within manufacturing, the labor force has become increasingly well educated, as college graduates replace workers with high school degrees.

Wage trends mirror the shifts in employment. While wages fell for the least educated workers, they increased for workers with at least some years of college. The biggest wage gains were for manufacturing workers with an advanced degree. The decline in wages for high school dropouts and the steep wage increases at the upper end of the income distribution indicate a sharp increase in wage inequality.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: a long term trend crosses a mark  |  Posted: Fri May 25, 2012 6:31 am
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4883
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
iceaura wrote:
We have a twenty year steady approach to a unique - never before seen - situation: having some college education now actually increases a US jobseeker's chances of unemployment after age 25.


i'm not denying the possible importance of this finding - i merely want to see if the picture remains the same when placed in a wider context - correlations are often better understood when compared to an outgroup

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
iceaura
Post  Post subject: Re: a long term trend crosses a mark  |  Posted: Fri May 25, 2012 10:05 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 8:05 pm
Posts: 391

Offline
inow wrote:
I guess it wouldn't, but just to be open here, I've been pretty reluctant to accept the premise of your article as true. Most (if not, all) of the materials I've encountered these last 3-4 years have suggested that the college educated are doing far better overall than those without college.
It's not a premise, it's an observation of a pattern in the data. A conclusion, unavoidable given the numbers. A fact.

The key is the word "some" - "some college", not a four year degree. The numbers for those with four year degrees are quite different. The "college educated" are indeed doing better, overall - and we might consider that as in need of explanation also, since a four year college education is hardly an obvious or clear basis for vocational economic value in a capitalistic society - but the matter at hand is specific.

marnix wrote:
i merely want to see if the picture remains the same when placed in a wider context - correlations are often better understood when compared to an outgroup
So compare. I'm having some difficulty imagining what you could be referring to as an "outgroup" useful for comparison, but nobody in this thread is excluding ideas - even whims - from the discussion.


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: a long term trend crosses a mark  |  Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 12:28 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5730
Location: Iowa

Offline
Functionally speaking... and in terms of just the metric... what's the difference between someone with some college and a person with a high school diploma? Are they not functionally equivalent here, as the next "threshold" is college degree completed?

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
iceaura
Post  Post subject: Re: a long term trend crosses a mark  |  Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 6:47 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 8:05 pm
Posts: 391

Offline
inow wrote:
Functionally speaking... and in terms of just the metric... what's the difference between someone with some college and a person with a high school diploma?
The difference is that they have attended college. They have accumulated college credits, taken college classes, paid college tuition, earned two year degrees, etc etc etc.

They just don't have a four year degree. This is made clear in the OP link.

And they are now unemployed at a higher rate than those who ended their formal education with a high school diploma, as a symbolic or attention-getting mark twenty years in the approach.


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: a long term trend crosses a mark  |  Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 7:20 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4883
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
meaning that the ones who started to work early have a head start over their peers who wasted a few years on an education that didn't contribute anything to their employability + the latter category carry the stain of having tried and failed

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: a long term trend crosses a mark  |  Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 10:08 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5730
Location: Iowa

Offline
Indeed. Since as iceaura clarified the metric demarcates high school / some college / college finished as three different and distinct groups, that answers my question. It does seem possible that there is some sort of taboo associated with having started college and not finished. Tied back to this thread, though, I'm not sure that's an adequate explanation of the phenomenon. One would think that an employer willing to employ people with only a high school diploma would prefer someone with some college training. I wonder if there is a wage distinction, wherein the individual with some college demands a higher wage than their high school only peers.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
iceaura
Post  Post subject: Re: a long term trend crosses a mark  |  Posted: Sat May 26, 2012 10:29 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 8:05 pm
Posts: 391

Offline
Quote:
meaning that the ones who started to work early have a head start over their peers who wasted a few years on an education that didn't contribute anything to their employability + the latter category carry the stain of having tried and failed
Quite possible - but why now, and not all along?

Why is it that now a couple of years of college does not contribute to one's employability, whereas in the past - always, since the invention of college - it did?

How is it that a two year degree - an "associates" degree or whatever they call it - is a failure and a stain?

Quote:
I wonder if there is a wage distinction, wherein the individual with some college demands a higher wage than their high school only peers.
And not get it, unlike in the past?


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: a long term trend crosses a mark  |  Posted: Sun May 27, 2012 2:20 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5730
Location: Iowa

Offline
Good point. If my assertion were valid, we'd likely see it in the past... Yet we didn't. It's a confusing metric. I'd still like to see it repeated in the years to come. As you said, it's a "fact" that it appears that way at one time point... One snapshot in time. I'm wondering if it will continue, and if so, what might explain it. I really don't know at this point.

Is it possible that people who have some college qualifier for greater amounts of government assistance and poverty benefits than do people with only high school or college completion? Could this population be self-selecting to remain unemployed at a higher rate?

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
iceaura
Post  Post subject: Re: a long term trend crosses a mark  |  Posted: Sun May 27, 2012 6:47 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 8:05 pm
Posts: 391

Offline
Quote:
I'd still like to see it repeated in the years to come. As you said, it's a "fact" that it appears that way at one time point... One snapshot in time. I'm wondering if it will continue, and if so, what might explain it.
The trend to this state of affairs has been continuous, essentially monotonic, for more than twenty years now. Although an actual disadvantage to some college is a recent or snapshot event, the steadily decreasing advantage that has culminated - so far - in that situation has been a feature of the US economy for a generation now. It's not, in other words, a one time deal or fluke.

The real news is not the attention-getting disadvantage, but the erosion of security in advantage. If the increasing cost is brought in, the magnitude of the change in payoff over these past twenty years becomes striking.


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: a long term trend crosses a mark  |  Posted: Sun May 27, 2012 8:36 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4883
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
iceaura wrote:
Why is it that now a couple of years of college does not contribute to one's employability, whereas in the past - always, since the invention of college - it did?


maybe it's a gradual erosion of a university degree in its contribution to employability in general : e.g. having a good university degree still is a benefit, having a degree from a mediocre university maybe less so, but presumably still holds some advantage over not having been to university, but having been to university without completing your degree, whilst it may have held an advantage in the past, may have seen that small advantage eroded to the point of non-existence

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: a long term trend crosses a mark  |  Posted: Thu May 14, 2015 5:31 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5730
Location: Iowa

Offline
An older thread for me to bump, but some interesting information came across my feed today and is related:

http://equitablegrowth.org/research/gra ... nequality/
Quote:
The research implies that the most direct and effective way to reduce the wage gap is to expand the share of the workforce with a college degree.
<snip>
It’s worthwhile to place this analysis within the context of a larger debate about the labor market and why it’s not delivering broad-based wage growth to the people who comprise it. Since 2000, median wages have stagnated and the labor market participation rate has fallen, as have the rates of job-to-job mobility and household and small business formation. Young workers are not climbing the job ladder to the middle class. The share of national income earned by workers declined. Over an even longer timeframe, wages have not kept pace with worker productivity.

All of these phenomena suggest that the labor market isn’t working for most employees—problems that aren’t confined to those without a college education—and that suggests the problem isn’t that too few people have college degrees. Rather than focus on education attainment as the solution to inequality, it’s time for policy-makers to move on from the race between education and technology and focus on our stagnant labor market. As Summers said, “the core problem is that there aren’t enough jobs.” The key to reducing inequality is more jobs and a higher demand for labor. In the absence of more jobs, heroic assumptions about educational improvement are likely to deliver only modest economic benefits.


Image

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: a long term trend crosses a mark  |  Posted: Thu May 21, 2015 3:13 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
Lol. Yeah. People just look at one sector of the labor market as if it were an island. And forget that the whole labor market will be affected by losses anywhere.

If you lose a million manufacturing jobs, those people aren't just going to go on wellfare and call it good. They're going to either retrain or move sideways into a job they already have the skills for. Now those job markets are going to be getting overcrowded.

Presumably those markets were already getting applicants, but now they have to not only support the existing pool of applicants, but there is a new mass of former manufacturing workers coming along and adding to the applicant pool.

If supply of applicants goes up but demand stays constant, then wage will go down. Then once wage goes down, demand won't stay constant. Demand will go down too.


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Print view

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
Jump to:   


Delete all board cookies | The team | All times are UTC


This free forum is proudly hosted by ProphpBB | phpBB software | Report Abuse | Privacy