The U.S. Middle Class Is Being Wiped Out

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Right...because someone from India is capable of sitting down at one of my customers' sites to figure out that a switch port isn't working because some moron bridged two network ports together with his own unauthorized equipment.

My job is plenty skilled and will never go away. The same is true of many jobs.

However, it could be filled by a foreigner on an H-1B or L-1 visa. Alternatively, as unemployed Americans witness that good jobs are available aplenty in your field, they're liable to train to enter the field and offer to do your job for 50% of your current wage.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Lucky? I worked incredibly hard to get where I am. I started at the bottom of my company and worked for years studying independently and going to school to better my self. Nothing I did required me to be from a well-to-do family, I went to a state-sponsored college, and public high schools. Now I am the lead engineer on a very lucrative project.

How did you get that first job at your company? How were you able to move up and what circumstances (vacancy) allowed you to move up?

I'm sure you worked hard, but don't discount the importance of luck and the avoidance of bad luck. Acknowledging that doesn't detract from your hard work nor make you any less worthy of the money you earn, it's just a recognition of reality. Do you feel at all lucky that you have the mathematical aptitude needed to be an engineer, allowing you to work in a field with a smaller supply of competitors? Not everyone has that kind of aptitude through no fault of their own though they may have a work ethic. Do you feel lucky that when you first applied for your job you happened to be the best candidate and that there weren't a couple other better candidates?

A great many Americans have also invested time and money in higher education yet are unemployed or underemployed. Some are never able to even find entry-level jobs in their fields. In fact we even have an oversupply of people in a great many fields that require higher education, such as PhD. scientists (a STEM field--imagine that!).
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Shareholders have the option of not investing in companies that have corporate climates they don't agree with.

Don't like it? Don't invest.

Fact of the matter is that most shareholders don't care how much the CEO makes as long as the company is run in a manner that is above-board and they get a healthy return.

The only people that seem to care are those who care not because they are personally involved, but rather because of some fanatical dislike of anyone who is more successful than anyone else.

I suspect that the shareholders would care if they understood that they could get even higher returns if CEO compensation were more commensurate with performance and with the supply of people able and willing to do the very same job.

The fanatical dislike comes from a sense of injustice--a sense that those people did NOT earn the money they are receiving and are NOT receiving what should be a market rate of pay and that some of that money is coming at their expense in various ways. It might be in the form of their earning lower returns or higher prices or lower wages. Some of the people who have the fanatical dislike may even be shareholders themselves, such as merely middle class people with 401Ks and IRAs who are angry that the CEO of their failing asset was rewarded with a golden parachute.

The lower classes are angry because they perceive that these people are earning far more than they deserve while keeping a large percentage of workers' (their) contributions to the act of wealth production; they feel that they are essentially being robbed by the structure of our nation's economy.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Why does a mosquito bite? Why does a scorpian sting? Why do executives lay off workers for personal gain? Its what they do. There's no motive beyond instinct.

Remove the personal gain and the executive won't lay off the workers unless the company situation demands it.

The problem is that there's a conflict of interest between executives, shareholders, and workers. What we need to do is to change our economic policies so that those interests are aligned--if the company truly does well then the CEO earns more money, the shareholders earn more money, the workers earn a little more money and there are more of them. If the company does poorly then the CEO should only earn a minimum income. Likewise, their compensation needs to be tied to long-term performance and stability as opposed to short term booms that end up bankrupting the company long-term while the CEO profits.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Have fun training your H1-B replacement. That's your free market in action, buddy.

Even if you own your own business, what happens when your customers don't have any customers and can't afford to hire your services? You think a population of Wal-mart greeters is going to pay a network tech, let alone at the rate to which you think you're entitled?

People don't realize that our economy and prosperity is all interconnected. You can go start your own business, if lots of other people have the same idea then you'll be competing against lots of other people trying to start their own businesses in the same field. Also, high-value-added college-education-requiring solid middle class and upper middle class services jobs ultimately depend on having a strong middle class that can afford to purchase those goods and services and that creates demand for business support services. If half of the businesses that need network engineers end up going out of business or downsizing, then they'll be fewer jobs for network engineers and the unemployed engineers will be scrambling to undercut employed engineers, offering to work for a fraction of the income.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Personally I think the US Gov't should heavily subsidize (50% or so) science and engineering degrees from state universities for US Citizens. These universities should be required to have fairly strict admissions policies to these degrees for their students to recieve the subsidy.

Political science degrees can be left to be paid for in full by the student.

We need way more (good) engineers and less politicians and marketing folks.

Not a bad idea in principle, but do we really need to produce more engineers? We already have a large oversupply of scientists and don't need anymore, see:

http://www.miller-mccune.com/science/the-real-science-gap-16191/

“There is no scientist shortage,” declares Harvard economics professor Richard Freeman, a pre-eminent authority on the scientific work force. Michael Teitelbaum of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, a leading demographer who is also a national authority on science training, cites the “profound irony” of crying shortage — as have many business leaders, including Microsoft founder Bill Gates — while scores of thousands of young Ph.D.s labor in the nation’s university labs as low-paid, temporary workers, ostensibly training for permanent faculty positions that will never exist.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
But who will hire them? That's the problem. Engineering functions are also being outsourced to companies overseas. Did you read the thread a few weeks ago about the fact that the US produces more than enough science and engineering graduates, particularly the ones with advanced degrees?

I know that we have an oversupply of scientists and I'm very familiar with the scientist job market, but what is the story with engineers? I keep reading different things. Sometimes I read stories about engineers who cannot find work and then I read about how engineering is still a great field where it is easy to find a job. Then I read about how being an engineer is often a shitty dead-end job. Which is it? Does it depend on what specific engineering field is at issue? Are some of them very good with the others being bad?

well, this is also partially caused by outsourcing, entry level positions left the country and it's hard to find engineers with experience in specialized fields that are still around, because they can't get on the job training and most of that stuff is not taught in school anyway.

So the good job market is for engineers with experience and not the entry-level folks who are trying to enter the field? I'm not surprised; getting that first job and being able to gain experience and establish yourself in the field is a huge barrier to entry, which really protects those people who have passed over it.
 
Last edited:

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity."

Is it possible to prepare for an opportunity that never presents itself? Certainly. But you guarantee you won't find luck if you never prepare. Our education system needs to be fixed, but people can choose to prepare themselves if they so desire. If they choose not to, that's nobody's fault but their own. Without getting into my whole life history, I'll simply say I don't buy the sob stories. I never went to college. I've had to pound the pavement at a number different points in my life. In my adult life, I've been dirt poor several times, but I keep working. To anyone who wants to belittle my accomplishments and write me off as having just been lucky:

Go_fuck_yourself.png
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
I think that's the point, and that's what is sad. When did we, as a country, start valuing money movers and lawyers above all else? As I mentioned above, engineering and science will advance humanity -- financial advisors and lawyers won't. Engineering and science keep a nation on the forefront of technology and create entire new industries -- financial advisors and lawyers won't.

Do note though that your chances of training to be a businessperson, financial advisor, or lawyer and then finding a job in those fields may be much much less than your chances of training to be an engineer and finding a job as an engineer. The top businessmen, financial advisors, and lawyers might earn more than engineers, but the bottom half might do much worse.

I suspect that your average law degree holder is doing worse than your average engineer because the job market has been severely glutted in the legal profession for decades.

It is extremely arrogant for people to think that "We're Americans, we'll do all the 'design' or 'creative thinking' and then farm out the manufacturing to the Chinese!" Guess what? The Chinese and folks in India are turning out engineers and scientists in huge numbers and they're going to be the ones doing the design before long. They're going to be the ones coming up with new ideas and cutting edge technologies, not us. They're going to be the ones cashing in and creating whole new industries -- not us.

Yet it's amazing just how many politicians and pundits say that innovation is what is going to save us. I wonder if they have really thought critically about it or if they are just saying it because it sounds good and makes intuitive sense. I think the later.

FYI, India pumped out 290,000 new engineers in 2004.

http://www.computerworld.com/s/arti...fshore_Dominance?from=story_kc&taxonomyId=010
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
The difference now to what it was 30 yrs ago is that now most are living on debt(credit cards) and not living on there true income. While 30 yrs ago people did not have the debt lvl the average American has today. So the true reality is that the middle class is getting poorer and not richer.

Don't forget student loans! The price of a college education--often seen as the ticket to middle class prosperity--is going through the roof much faster than inflation. Also, a great many people now perceive that they need advanced and professional degrees in order to get middle class jobs, which means that they're taking on even more debt.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Don't forget student loans! The price of a college education--often seen as the ticket to middle class prosperity--is going through the roof much faster than inflation. Also, a great many people now perceive that they need advanced and professional degrees in order to get middle class jobs, which means that they're taking on even more debt.

So which came first, the degree requirement or the degree inflation?

Did companies start out by demanding that their janitors and cafeteria attendants have advanced degress?

Or did Americans, with their insatiable desire to have more STUFF than their neighbor start getting degrees in order to swoop in and grab that sweet job pushing a broom in warehouse 31B?
 

Trianon

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2000
1,789
0
71
www.conkurent.com

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,655
688
126
I know that we have an oversupply of scientists and I'm very familiar with the scientist job market, but what is the story with engineers? I keep reading different things. Sometimes I read stories about engineers who cannot find work and then I read about how engineering is still a great field where it is easy to find a job. Then I read about how being an engineer is often a shitty dead-end job. Which is it? Does it depend on what specific engineering field is at issue? Are some of them very good with the others being bad?

I left engineering to go into IT because jobs were more plentiful, so I can't accurately answer your questions. However, I think the career track of engineers depend on many different factors. For starters, more and more management jobs are requiring MBAs, even in engineering. I personally think that is a big mistake and is just part of the degree inflation we've discussed previously, but nevertheless, I don't make the rules and it does limit many people not only in engineering, but in IT. I was an IT Manager at a Fortune 500 for a short time, but even if I wanted to get another management job, I don't think I have a shot. I don't have an MBA and I probably won't get one, so that limits what I can do.
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,655
688
126
Do note though that your chances of training to be a businessperson, financial advisor, or lawyer and then finding a job in those fields may be much much less than your chances of training to be an engineer and finding a job as an engineer. The top businessmen, financial advisors, and lawyers might earn more than engineers, but the bottom half might do much worse.

I suspect that your average law degree holder is doing worse than your average engineer because the job market has been severely glutted in the legal profession for decades.

Oh, I agree, but I was speaking more about how we arrived at this point. I think anyone going into law right now is insane, as the law job market is awful.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
I left engineering to go into IT because jobs were more plentiful, so I can't accurately answer your questions. However, I think the career track of engineers depend on many different factors. For starters, more and more management jobs are requiring MBAs, even in engineering. I personally think that is a big mistake and is just part of the degree inflation we've discussed previously, but nevertheless, I don't make the rules and it does limit many people not only in engineering, but in IT. I was an IT Manager at a Fortune 500 for a short time, but even if I wanted to get another management job, I don't think I have a shot. I don't have an MBA and I probably won't get one, so that limits what I can do.

I get a little sick of scientists and engineer whining. If there is one group who possesses analytical skills and prerequisites to do just about anything it's them. Go to medical school - law school - IT and so on.

It's the shit ton of "do you want some fries with that" degrees that have an endemic problem.

PS good on you making adjustments. I went from testing metals at Lockheed (dead end) to building houses (dead end) to liquor store ...
 
Last edited:

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
The problem is that there's a conflict of interest between executives, shareholders, and workers.

Not a legal one...


What we need to do is to change our economic policies so that those interests are aligned--if the company truly does well then the CEO earns more money, the shareholders earn more money, the workers earn a little more money and there are more of them. If the company does poorly then the CEO should only earn a minimum income. Likewise, their compensation needs to be tied to long-term performance and stability as opposed to short term booms that end up bankrupting the company long-term while the CEO profits.

When you say "our economic policies (of companies, implied)..." who are you talking about? The gov't? You want gov't dictating CEO pay for private companies? Or the public in general? Hell, the majority of the public couldnt tell you what the DOW was at within 500 points on any given day. Hardly qualified to make economic policy for CEOs.

Bad, bad post man. Well, unrealistic anyway.
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,655
688
126
I get a little sick of scientists and engineer whining. If there is one group who possesses analytical skills and prerequisites to do just about anything it's them. Go to medical school - law school - IT and so on.

You do have a point, as I think engineers can do just about anything profession-wise. However, I am speaking more from the perspective of our national interests, not personal gain/satisfaction. I am saying that as a nation, we *need* those kinds of professions to move forward. I can't imagine being a nation full of money movers, "project managers," and Wal Mart greeters. We need to maintain a scientific edge as that opens so many doors and to do that, we need to invest in science and engineering.

PS good on you making adjustments. I went from testing metals at Lockheed (dead end) to building houses (dead end) to liquor store ...

Thanks, it was one of the toughest decisions in my entire life. I was a grad student in EE and worked as a hardware designer in one of our labs. I was also our computer guy and was always interested in IT. I was kind of burned out on EE and got an IT job offer and took it, with the intent to return to finish my Masters. Well, I never did. I just worked my way up in IT and now, I am looking for my next big move. I make good money, but unfortunately, I've had to endure mergers and some departmental closures and as a result, I'm not quite where I want to be salary-wise. Last year, I accepted a new position as a Sharepoint developer and I am hoping once I get some experience under my belt, I can make significantly more.
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
The problem is that there's a conflict of interest between executives, shareholders, and workers. What we need to do is to change our economic policies so that those interests are aligned--if the company truly does well then the CEO earns more money, the shareholders earn more money, the workers earn a little more money and there are more of them. If the company does poorly then the CEO should only earn a minimum income. Likewise, their compensation needs to be tied to long-term performance and stability as opposed to short term booms that end up bankrupting the company long-term while the CEO profits.

Easy solution, executives are paid a flat rate and largely compensated through stock, said stock can not be sold for 5 years after acquiring it.
 

Brigandier

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2008
4,394
2
81
so on $4-5/hr you must be doing something illegal.

I actually make $8.50, I said I would work for $4-5 an hour. The job that offered that low of a wage better at least let me work like a dog there for me to accept.
 

Trianon

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2000
1,789
0
71
www.conkurent.com
Who would've thought, PB write-up that I agree with
http://buchanan.org/blog/yankee-utopians-in-a-chinese-century-4227
Yankee Utopians in a Chinese Century

By Patrick J. Buchanan

For those who can yet recall the backyard blast furnaces of Mao’s China in the 1950s and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution to re-instill peasant values in the 1970s, the news was jarring.

In 2011, said the Financial Times, China will surpass the United States as first manufacturing power, a title America has held since surpassing Great Britain around 1890.

Each years, China passes a new milestone.

Last year, China surpassed Germany as the greatest exporting nation. This year, China surpasses Japan as the world’s second-largest economy. This year, China became the first auto manufacturer on earth.

For a decade, China has been running history’s largest trade surpluses with the United States and has amassed a hoard of $2.3 trillion in foreign currency. She now holds the mortgage on America.

How has China vaulted to the forefront in manufacturing, trade and technology? Export-driven economic nationalism.

Beijing cut the value of its currency in half in 1994, doubling the price of imports, slashing the price of exports and making Chinese labor the best bargain in Asia. Foreign firms were invited to relocate their plants in China and told this was the price of access to the Chinese market. Beijing began looting these firms of technology, as she sent her sons to study in America. Industrial espionage and intellectual property theft became Chinese specialties.

And how has America fared in the new century?

One in every three manufacturing jobs we had in 2000, nearly 6 million, vanished. Some 50,000 U.S. factories shut down. We have run trade deficits totaling $5 trillion since NAFTA passed. The real wages of working Americans have been stagnant for a decade.

While China has resumed her 12 percent growth rate, the United States, with 25 million unemployed or underemployed, appears headed for a double-dip recession.

Yet, even as the end of America’s tenure as the world’s first manufacturing power was being announced, The Wall Street Journal admonished us to keep our eyes on the prize: a new world order where it does not matter who produces what or where.

“The pursuit of some ideal global ‘balance’ in trade and capital flows is an illusion. … World leaders would do better to worry less about (trade) imbalances and more about whether their own nations are pursuing policies that contribute to global prosperity.”

There you have it — the conflict in visions between us.

For decades, America’s leaders have followed the Wall Street Journal ideology. We put a mythical world economy before our own economy. We put “global prosperity” before national interest. We forced our workers to compete, in their own country, against the products of foreign laborers earning a tenth of their pay. And we let in tens of millions of semi-skilled and unskilled immigrants, legal and illegal, to take the jobs of our countrymen.

And the Chinese? They put China first, second and third.

And who won the decade? And who is winning the future?

Inside the July 1 Washington Post is a small story about how the World Trade Organization finally ruled that European nations have been unfairly subsidizing Airbus — for 40 years.

While welcome, what good will it do now for scores of thousands of U.S. workers who built commercial jets for Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas, which Airbus took down, or Boeing, which was outsourcing jobs even before Airbus dethroned it as the world’s No. 1 aircraft manufacturer.

Why did some U.S. president not tell the Europeans when they started this: Either stop subsidizing Airbus to kill our U.S. aircraft companies — or start defending yourselves against the Russians.

The day the FT reported that China was sweeping past us to become No. 1 in manufacturing, The New York Times ran a front-page story on the closing of the Whirlpool refrigerator plant in Evansville, Ind., and the loss of 1,100 jobs. The plant is moving to Mexico.

The Times spoke with Natalie Ford, a worker, whose husband and son also worked at Whirlpool, as had her dad, “This is all about corporate greed,” Mrs. Ford said, “It’s devastating to our family and to everyone in the plant. I wonder where we’ll be two years from now. There aren’t any jobs here. How is this community going to survive?”

“My mom and dad told me that when they were young, there were jobs everywhere. They said we had Whirlpool, Bristol-Myers, Mead Johnson, Windsor Plastics, Guardian Automotive, Zenith. Now if you want to find a job, there’s nothing around.”

“Free trade! Free trade!” said Henry Clay in the tariff debate of 1833. “The call for free trade is as unavailing as the cry of a spoiled child in its nurse’s arms for the moon or the stars that glitter in the firmament of heaven. It has never existed. It will never exist.”

It will only place us, said Clay, “under the commercial dominion of Great Britain.” Today, it is the dominion of China..