It turns out that the way unemployment is calculated is a little different than how it was explained to me, so I will retract my comment about how muchy it undervalues the real number.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

I am still curious as to whether Europe measures their unemployment like we do though.

 

Get in your canadian-made Camaro and move to a city and/or state that is showing economic growth versus economic decline then.

The one factor that is key to Americas prosperity is that Americans are mobile and are willing move to were the jobs and opportunities are unlike many in European countries. While this is certainly easier said then done, but unfortunately you got to do what you got to do sometimes.

 

What's even more amazing is that our economy hasn't crashed yet, due to all those "employed" people now working 2 jobs to equal the wages of the ONE they were outsourced from...
Not to mention China and Japan nearly OWNS us, with a nearly 500 billion dollar deficit, and trillions in trade debt...they could almost dictate policy to us.
But these short term gains will keep Wall Street satiated for a little while....and nowadays Return on Investment, and pleasing investors is all companies care about.
It's a catch 22, we're killing the demand engine, so supply must find more and more ways to reduce costs to be competetive...lowering wages per unit(through outsourcing), killing demand.
The day is coming when buyers/consumers will no longer be able to afford goods produced, then everything else will follow...

 

Ah, yes - early buyouts. I just love those. Let's give workers some fat retirement packages, and then **** and moan about retirement legacy costs.

One of the CAW's major gripes with DCX is that the company wants to introduce more lean production systems, such as kaisen, into its Canadian operations. Increased efficiency has a way of cutting jobs if it's not possible to increase production, and the domestic manufacturers are definitely not in a position to increase production right now (just wait until the market share numbers for September are released).

 

I agree there are some real possible problems ahead and there is no doubt that it takes two incomes to afford to buy a home and 'live' in many states (especially here in California). Im personally no big fan of moving all our manufacuring jobs to China and tech jobs to India but unfortunately the American consumer is just as guilty as any business for this problem. Consumers create the economic biosphere where business have to compete to survive every time they (the consumer) goes to the cash register. Too often the consumer has choosen cheaper foreign goods to the point that you can no longer find goods still made soley in the US. I do also acknowledge that many business owners, CEOs/CFO's, share holders, board of directors, etc haven gotten greedy and sold out to move operations overseas to make more money when they didn't have to.

Businesses often only have 3 real options when facing this pandemic of low priced competition from overseas. They either can go extinct, move operations offshore, or merge with an other company and loose controlling infuence in which the new controlling company will most likely move operations overseas anyways to cut cost and pay for their new aqcuisition.

Again I have to state that America on it's 'worst' day is still better then most countries on their very 'best' day.

 

Article from cnn’s 6 biggest money fears- http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/money_fears/

*Your job is outsourced
Real danger: You're obsolete.
September 16, 2005: 8:44 AM EDT

NEW YORK (MONEY Magazine) - Why does outsourcing make so many white-collar American workers so uneasy? Not because their jobs are really headed for Bangalore. Outsourcing overseas accounts for perhaps 350,000 lost jobs a year, the majority of them still blue collar, in a work force of 147 million.

"The number of people around the world that are really qualified to substitute for American workers is much smaller than people believe," notes Martin Baily of the Institute for International Economics.

The scary thing about outsourcing is that it's a new threat. We're used to competing against a guy across town, not one who's half a world away. We imbue outsourcing with what psychologist Paul Slovic, a pioneer in risk analysis, calls "signal value." We interpret it as a sign of bad things to come, and we exaggerate how often it occurs.

Global competition is heating up, certainly. But the big threat to our jobs comes not from cheap foreign workers but from technological change and the creative destruction inherent in capitalism.

Every year our economy consigns 13 million jobs to history's dustbin. The good news is that it generates 15 million new ones a year to take their place. (And no, they're not all in burger joints.) All that spells opportunity -- and it also spells insecurity. But you can act to keep yourself from becoming obsolete.
What to do

Get out of the office. "When you grow older, you tend to stay in your own little world, and take last week's skills and continue to use them," says Mark Mehler of CareerXroads, a recruitment consulting firm.

To understand what skills your industry will value tomorrow, attend conferences, which also will allow you to rebuild your network of outside contacts.

Start thinking like an investor. Check out analyst reports about your company, advises recruiter Dave Hickman of HirePursuit. Are they filled with terms like "dominant" or "dinosaur"? Scour earnings reports. Which parts of the business are growing? Are you in one of them?

Pick up new tech skills. Work-related or not, the twentysomethings around you take many tech skills for granted, says Susan Eckert, an organizational development consultant. If you can't send an instant message or download an MP3 (legally or otherwise), learn. Get comfortable around new technology; you don't want to whine when your boss suggests a meeting should be conducted over the Web.

Enjoy happy hour and the watercooler chat. "The more you build relationships with others," says Hickman, "the more you'll be perceived as a contributor."

 

Often it will be beneficial for the company since they won't always replace those retirees and then will add parts of that job to other people's jobs. They can then hire a younger employee who will work faster and use less benefits ie. healthcare because they are healthier.

A GM pension is half of what you make yearly so a lot of people don't want to or can't afford to retire. That's why they try to entice them by giving more.

I know it sounds weird but it works out in their favor.

 

No so much "fat" packages, but IMO fair packages.

For starters, these packages are based on length of time with the company. Someone who's been with the company for a few years won't be getting very much, but the guy who's say 10 years from retirement anyway, and has been with the company for 25 or 30 years is going to get his health and pension anyway. Give him a small percentage of what he'd make if he had stayed on that extra 10 years, in a lump sum in addition.

You're not going to change retirement packages of those already retired, and if you do it won't be much. You aren't going to cut existing union retirement packages unless you're ready to give raises or some other compromise. But you CAN cut your workforce & production costs.

Giving $100,000 to someone to quit who would probally make $600,000 over the next 8-10 years is saving half mil per person. Then on top of that, the workers left are getting more produced, saving additional money.

Simply outsourcing for the sake of outsourcing doesn't sit well with me at all.

 

OK, I can agree with that. I apologize for my initial wording.

Yea, but what's one of the reasons that's constantly listed for the problems with the American car companies? Isn't it retirement costs? It seems to me that if given a chance to choose between paying someone $100K to walk away or $600K to do their job, I'd choose the latter if I can find work for them to do.

But, hey, if I can't sell enough cars to keep my workers busy, then maybe I have to retire people early. If that's the case, however, then it's hard to use retirement costs as the root cause of my problems.

As someone who works in the auto industry, I agree with that statement 110%.

 

Many companies will outsource soley based on speculating currency exchange rates, increased raw material costs, and labor cost over the next 5-10 years.

The problem is that their speculation could be wrong and unfortunately we won't know for sure until the 'Fit-hits-the-SHan'.

 

No doubt. I'm sure there's a point where the exchange and labor rates don't make up for the infrastructure and the investment needed. Heck, Ford recently moved Focus production out of Mexico & back to the US, and you don't exactly see a rush of new factories being set up down there anymore.

It also seems the savings GM had envisioned by producing some cars in Australia and importing them here is now at the point where shipping costs all but elimiate the savings.