Millions of jobs that were cut won't likely return

WASHINGTON — Fewer construction workers will be needed. Don't expect as many interior designers or advertising copywriters, either. Retailers will get by with leaner staffs.

The economy is strengthening. But millions of jobs lost in the recession could be gone for good.

And unlike in past recessions, jobs in the beleaguered manufacturing sector aren't the only ones likely lost forever. What sets the Great Recession apart is the variety of jobs that may not return.

That helps explain why economists think it will take at least five years for the economy to regain the 8.2 million jobs wiped out by the recession — longer than in any other recovery since World War II.

It means that even as the economy strengthens, more Americans could face years out of work. Already, the percentage of the labor force unemployed for six months or longer is 4.3 percent. That's the highest rate on records dating to 1948.

Behind the trend are the cutbacks businesses made in the recession to make up for a loss of customers. To sustain earnings, they became more productive: They found ways to produce the same level of goods or services with fewer workers. Automation, global competition and technological efficiencies helped solidify the trend.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j6aDIUVzXhzLKESrre_V2TCfeefgD9FM33OG7

The fact that higher productivity results after a round of layoffs shouldn't surprise anyone. Just ask anyone who remains in their job after some of their colleagues have been let go. When I leave my job for grad school later this year, my co-workers are going to pick up some of that slack since my position is being repurposed.

I think that while we can continue to pine for jobs in fields that are dying, we need to start investing in new fields that can power new industries that we can lead. American manufacturing is probably dead since companies can get the same thing done overseas for much cheaper, so what's going to be the next thing that we can get in on before someone else does? I think that the long-term strategy has to be retraining our workforce for the next wave of innovation.

NAFTA needs to be changed, we need to create jobs by shifting to non-fossil fuel based energy sources and demand that anything produced which relates to that field be made on US soil (make that contingent in their government contracts).

but I have to think that if our entire strategy for building opportunity for the middle class in the 21st century relies on manufacturing, then we're really screwed.

I like your idea of being US Based as part of gov't contracts.

It's not as simple as the right-wingers put it, but part of it is "creative destruction." As an example, we don't really have TV repairmen anymore. Except for the newfangled HD flat screens, TVs have become so inexpensive that it doesn't make much sense to get them repaired if they break, you just get a new one. Same things goes for gas station attendants, elevator operators, the list goes on. As the economy develops, some jobs are naturally "destroyed."

I bet we had more elevator operators in 1950 than we did computer technicians. Wonder what those stats are now? That doesn't change the fact that we need to invest in new technologies and industries, but the fact that some jobs "aren't coming back" shouldn't alarm us in and of itself.

For reasons you point out, there's not enough meaningful work that needs to be done. Manufacturing creates things to stuff landfills.

Nixon had the right idea. It's called negative income tax.

--imm

by the idea of a negative income tax.

I'm no Friedmanite by any stretch, but the idea seems like a good one, although i don't know if it could ever be implemented.

But seriously, instead of having a myriad of programs like food stamps, welfare, Section 8 housing, etc., would it not be more efficient to simply have a guaranteed minimum income, regardless? Just think ... no money would have to be spent on administration (e.g., determining eligibility, rooting out fraud, etc.) There also would really be no need for a minimum wage, because no one would work for less than the minimum income. Maybe you adjust it regionally for differences in cost of living? I don't know. But it seems like a decent idea. Anyone have counterarguments? I'm definitely willing to listen to them.

we can extract from that that "the economy strengthening" does not equate with an economic strengthening of those who are not in a position to benefit from the so-called "recovery". So, the term is used incorrectly as it is not then a collective recovery but a "recovery for some".

Before I get the, "indicators" lecture about jobs following the recovery ... yeah, I have heard that already and it seems that we are in a far different scenario that needs to be called out.

Ed Schultz said yesterday that 2.4 million manufacturing jobs have been moved offshore. He's probably not too far off though I don't really know. Add to that all the customer service jobs and now computer jobs and other information-based jobs like accounting/bookkeeping, medical information, etc. and it's a wonder that the official unemployment rate isn't even higher than it is.

I've wondered if Congress is wary of doing anything serious to discourage offshoring for fear that it would tank the stock market which could lead to an electoral blowout. :shrug:

Of course if people don't have jobs in the first place due to massive offshoring then they won't be putting much if anything into the stock market anyway.