As best auto jobs fade, careers, lives disrupted

http://www.detnews.com/2004/specialreport/0406/20/a01-188757.htm

The path to profits for Detroit’s Big Three automakers has taken a huge toll on jobs in Michigan.

Over the past four years, the number of auto-related jobs in the state has shrunk by 21 percent, falling to the lowest point since the recession-era levels of 1991.

It’s part of the price paid to restore profitability at the Big Three — and the grim consequence of the domestic automakers’ relentless drive to shed costs.

As of April, 274,000 people were employed in the industry statewide, compared to 347,000 workers during the same period in 2000, according to the Michigan Department of Labor & Economic Growth.



...more...

During Reagan I remember...

There is a place in North MIami by the Oleta River where we used to go fishing.

We found a family living there for awhile. They were there for weeks maybe as long as a couple of months. Living out of their van. Father, mother and a few small kids. Laid off from Detroit.

Sad as hell...

Try C-H-I-N-A. I just read recently that one of the big automakers (was it Ford?)is planning to move a big division to China. If I'm not mistaken, it will start up sometime in 2005.

Now add to this all the ancillary jobs that will go with this plant. Suppliers, analysts, engineers, contractors, parts manufacturers.

~~~see hundreds of thousands of jobs flying away on their little wings~~~

Now, I have read that the march to war was actually a decision made out of desperation. The policymakers in Washington would never admit to such a thing. But I HAVE read that there has been a sense of panic, of desperation over the oil situation, and of course the

NEW DREADED POWER ON THE HORIZON.....WHOSE STAR IS RISING....CHINA.

that the real reason Bush invaded Iraq was that Hussein planned to switch the currency he was dealing in from the dollar to the Euro. It's a rumor as far as I know, and I don't have any evidence to back it up, but it sounds more plausible than any of the reasons Bush gave.

actually switched to the Euro about 1 year before the US pulled the guillotine on him. Apparently he had done all his oil sales in Euros, and because of the appreciation of that currency, he made $471 million in currency evaluation alone.

He said that he was going to continue using more and more Euros rather than Petrodollars. So I think this was the straw that broke the camel's back in Washington. They definitely did NOT want other countries to switch to the Euro because if they did, we would go bankrupt. I know that Putin has been threatening from time to time to do this, and I think it sends shivers down their spine when they hear this.

But -- I do sense a real panic from policymakers. Real scrambling-type decisions which are not thought out, not solid in the sense that they are made over the long term. They're definitely short-term.

Welcome to the DU, by the way!!! :smoke:

It's more important that non-working stockholders make more money than the workers who produce the product.

It's the greatest ponzi scheme in the world, and one with a helluva lot of willing suckers.

...so much better. The media is reporting there are more jobs and less unemployment. Shouldn't every one be happy and dancing in the streets with joy?????????

Whether or not anyone else does is irrelevant.

It's a good thing Bush passed his tax cut too, otherwise all these rich people might not have gotten even richer in the last four years. I'm sure that is a huge comfort to all the unemployed and uninsured in the country. I mean....everyone knows the most important thing for a stable economy is to make sure the rich keep getting richer, even at the expense of the poor and middle class......CAN YOU IMAGINE HOW GREAT IT WILL BE IN ANOTHER FOUR YEARS??????? I just hope all those nice rich people are buying their children all the things I wish I could be getting for mine.

No one knows if they exist or not!

Look at www.bls.gov - Birth/Death model.

Mr, Bush and Rove are touting Bush**** once again.

Also see this report from www.comstockfunds.com

http://www.comstockfunds.com/index.cfm?act=Newsletter.cfm&category=Mar ...

We have long contended that the economic recovery and the consumer spending that propelled it were artificially based on the massive stimulation that enabled consumers to convert the wealth effect of soaring home prices and major tax cuts into ready cash despite the absence of adequate employment and wage gains. The latest data continues to support the view that employment and wage growth have been unusually tepid in the current cycle. Here are some very simple facts culled from the historical data.

On average, over the past six economic expansions, it took 24 months for total non-farm payroll employment to reach its previous peak, with a range of 19-to-32 months. Now, with the reporting of the May 2004 number, we are 38 months beyond the prior peak, and employment is still 1.37 million under its prior high. At this pace it would take another five months of average 275,000 increases just to reach the previous peak. Given these figures it is no wonder that the Fed has been so reluctant to raise rates and eliminate the only factor holding up a fragile economy.

The lack of employment growth is real and is reflected in the lack of wage gains. In the first 29 months of the last five economic recoveries the rise in wage and salary disbursements accounted, on average, for 67 percent of the gain in consumer disposable income (DPI), with a range of 59-to-79 percent. In the current expansion the increase in wages and salaries has accounted for only 33 percent of the growth in DPI. This means that an unusual two-thirds of the gain in DPI was made up of items other than wages and salaries—and the massive amounts of cash-outs from mortgage refinancing are not even part of the DPI.

Snip ......

Phantom Jobs?

http://www.comstockfunds.com/index.cfm/act/newsletter.cfm/category/Mar ...

According to the headlines and the releases by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), payroll employment increased by a total of 947,000 in the last three months—353,000 in March, 346,000 in April and 248,000 in May. Since it is well known that this figure is based on an actual survey of a large number of establishments one might presume that the result is based on actual head counts. It turns out, however, that this is not the case. In fact, a large majority of the employment growth that was reported and so widely hailed in the last three months is based on a guess attributable to an arcane formula used by the BLS to estimate employment changes resulting from the birth and death of business establishments.

Snip ......

According to the BLS, “The most significant potential drawback to this or any model-based approach is that time series modeling assumes a predictable continuation of historical patterns and relationships and therefore is likely to have some difficulty producing reliable estimates at economic turning points or during periods when there are sudden changes in trend…it is likely to remain as the most problematic part of the estimation process.”

The problem is that for the three months ending in May the estimation model contributed a total of 618,000 of the 947,000 rise in payroll employment—153,000 in March, 270,000 in April and 195,000 in May. Thus for the three months, 65 percent of the total growth in employment is an estimate based on the formula, and only 35 percent were actually counted. Now this may be a completely valid procedure that reflects the real number of jobs added. But it also can be way off base and result in the creation of phantom jobs that don’t exist. Nobody knows, including the BLS. The agency itself states that the model would have some difficulty at turning points, and this period would seem to fall into that category.

Snip ......

The problem is that everywhere, not just here, it is disrupting individual lives. The statistics may show that jobs moved overseas are evenutally replaced. Those statistics, however, don't reflect But we have to do something about the suffering of the many, many people who are pushed out of the labor force, lose their homes, their marriages and families, become mentally ill, etc. and can't adjust to the new job market.

Republicans seem to think retraining is the answer. But who is going to pay for retraining? If the person being retrained is to pay for it, the person's salary after the retraining has to justify the cost of retraining and they have to have an income while they are retraining. People who have already retrained several times in the rapidly changing job market are wisely cynical about doing it once again.

Also, how realistic is "retraining" for someone in their late 50s or mid-60s who still has to pay a mortgage and health insurance and save for retirement since he or she can't afford to retire because social security pays so little. This late 50s, mid-60s worker makes up a good portion of those who have given up on getting a job.

If "free trade" is inevitable, we need a better safety net for displaced workers. The companies that profit from producing goods abroad to be sold here should pay for it. They are the only ones who can afford it.

The Department Of Labor estimates that 7 of the 10 job categories most likely to expand over the next 10 years DO NOT REQUIRE advanced training.

So I ask again, retrain for what?

I understand this only too well.

Anyone with a brain can look around and see that many of the "new" jobs are service jobs that don't require a great deal of formal training: restaurants (no one cooks any more), retail (Shop! Shop! Shop!), financial and consumer service (processing credit cards).

Health care is one industry that used to be considered "safe" because you can't outsource the doctor's office, but as more and more people are left without insurance or the independent means to cover even routine medical care, will we next see the closing of hospitals? Don't think it can't happen -- we've already started to see the closing of schools.

Please note that only five pay more than $30,000 and that only the registered nurse, engineer, and analyst require a four-year degree.

:headbang:
rocknation

The Corporate sycophants in government and business have successfully reduced working men into wage-slaves once more ...

MY 'great paying job' in CA, went to TX, at less than HALF the wage, and zero benefits ...

Some of these jobs also went to Alabama ....

Texas and Alabama: BOTH 'Right-to-Work' states that have destroyed union representation .... Both to Michigan and California's detriment ...

I lucked out in that I had a house to sell at a profit: ... I started my own business .... Aerospace has become a dead end without any security whatsoever ....

So it goes with Detroit and Auto Manufacturing as well ...

EVERYTHING going according to GOP plan ...

He said the President of Mexico was in last week talking to the bigwigs. Can you say "union busting"? Reagan's lasting legacy. The repugs won't be happy until the US worker makes on a par as the Mexican worker so that the corporate fatcats have everything. My husband hasn't gotten a raise since * took office. And DaimlerChrysler gives all their campaign contributions to Bush. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what their agenda is.

(editted because I'm a grammar and spelling freak)

They had the right idea. maybe it's time to renew the concept of one big union. No matter what kind of work you do, everyone that works is in a union. Worldwide. Jobs could not be moved due to labor costs, 'cause labor costs would be relatively equal everywhere.