What changed in 1980
- Thread starter StarDust9182
- Start date
Hmm. Hopeless.
Thanks for that chart. It would seem to contradict my research above.
Thanks for that chart. It would seem to contradict my research above.
Less people working/producing, more people dependent upon the government dole... just what Socialist Government agenda seeks. (Up to the point where "everybody is broke", of course.)
I'm reading the manufacturing jobs graph a little differently than you. I see the jobs peaking and holding more less steady (just the usual variance) until about 2001. Then I see a dramatic decline begin until 2010 when I see what may be a reversal begin-- it's way too soon to know. Those 2001-2009 years were G. W. Bush years, when the effect of Phil Gramm's "brilliant" Financial Services "Modernization" Act would have just been kicking in. (The wooshing sound heard overhead was Gramm's wife Wendy --Dutch's favorite economist-- rocketing from the CFTC, were she championed the exemption of Enron from derivative trading regulations, to Enron's board.)Quote from achilles28:Deficits became "structural" in the 80's. Meaning the US economy peaked in the early 80's, and began a slow, accelerating decent, thereafter. To stem that, ever-larger deficits were introduced to offset the growing shortfall in GDP. To "paper over" the real recession in the economy. This is the exact same situation we have today, except on a much larger scale (note the size of the Federal Budget deficit and FED Reserve monetization initiatives = >15% of GDP...).
Why the 80's? What happened in the 80's? That coincided exactly with the peak of US manufacturing employment. As US jobs packed up and went overseas, the US economy contracted and fell into recession. Who woulda thunk it? Fast forward 30 years later, and we're at about a shortfall of 20% GDP, with multiplier considerations. For every one factory worker that goes overseas, there's about .4 - .6 "support jobs" that go along with it (industrial suppliers, financial services, consumer products etc).
Examine this chart carefully. Wow. Looky here! EXACTLY AT 1980 manufacturing employment (total) peaked!!! What happened after? OUTSOURCING. Now, I would add, most of the posters in this thread are old timers, advanced in age, who voted for these slimy carpetbagging politicians who sold offshoring as a great thing. And these dopes fell for it. The US gave the Chinese a gigantic piece of its economy, because these fucking tards wern't minding the shop.
What's worse, this is just the beginning. The US is sustained by debt. The US, like Italy, Portugal, Spain etc has a debt limit. Once the market says no mass, guess what? We're fucked. And if Bernacke prints, say goodbye to your precious dollar reserve status, which is basically the only thing keeping this sinking ship afloat. We're headed for a gigantic depression. See, nobody gives a fuck. Every one is an idiot who buys the spoonfed pap. Look around, only 3 traders on this thread mentioned the trade deficit, which is an around about way of saying offshoring is the problem. TV? Divorce rates? Fuck. Its called JOBS!!!! Anyway, enjoy. Too late now. All done. Good luck to your granddaughter. She'll be growing up in a fucking shitshow.
Federal Deficits (note: consistently start ~1980)
The deregulation begun in the Reagan years accelerated to light speed under Bush, Ashcroft and Cheney. Pesky antitrust laws were ignored, large commercial banks became casinos, and the investment banks went from mere petty crooks to full fledged confidence game professionals. The myriad of mortgage closers, created to provide fodder for securitization, became drive-by ATMs, and apparently, judging by your chart, a steady stream of manufacturing jobs disappeared here and reappeared on the other side of the Pacific. Not included in your nice chart are the service jobs that also made the Pacific crossing. When you called your phone company, after 3 minutes of elevator music, you talked to "bob" in Mumbai. And "Amurican" business celebrated dismantling those pesky government rules -- and those that couldn't be dismantled could be ignored. I mean who's going to prosecute us?, certainly not Ashcroft, he's one of us! Government Bad; Bonuses Good! We were all happy-happy -- well all except the unemployed that is.
The more I read, the more I think nutmeg has a great point.
Google "explaining the growing inequality in wages across skill levels" for an interesting article.
I'm not sure the precise root cause(s), but it seems labour quality changed dramatically in the 1970 and 1980 decades. Robots, outsourcing, less productivity or ???
Also, I often hear that the rich are getting richer faster than the majority of regular folks. The rich are the owners of much of the societal wealth, primary stocks/investments and real estate. Real estate got hammered so only those owning companies directly or stocks/investments came out better I think. QE benefits them directly, so lets not be surprised by their wealth increase.
As a society moves to socialism, the middle class is moved down when private ownership is gone and some of the "rich" will be moved down by taxes and aging. In a pure capitalist society, the owners are the dictators of policy and in a socialist one, the political class and super-rich will ultimately prevail I suspect. Hope I am wrong about all this.
Thanks for the insights.
Google "explaining the growing inequality in wages across skill levels" for an interesting article.
I'm not sure the precise root cause(s), but it seems labour quality changed dramatically in the 1970 and 1980 decades. Robots, outsourcing, less productivity or ???
Also, I often hear that the rich are getting richer faster than the majority of regular folks. The rich are the owners of much of the societal wealth, primary stocks/investments and real estate. Real estate got hammered so only those owning companies directly or stocks/investments came out better I think. QE benefits them directly, so lets not be surprised by their wealth increase.
As a society moves to socialism, the middle class is moved down when private ownership is gone and some of the "rich" will be moved down by taxes and aging. In a pure capitalist society, the owners are the dictators of policy and in a socialist one, the political class and super-rich will ultimately prevail I suspect. Hope I am wrong about all this.
Thanks for the insights.
Not just net debtor; US was biggest debtor.
Your post reminded me of several things.
The Washington TV has a "morning show" and I was dealing out of EOP with the transition team that Reagan had put in place. We were doing a hand off.
At that time TV was live and not taped then played. During prep we took a few things off the table for the transition interview
One of the global things that was happening was crop failures and food surpluses. Some of you from NY area may remember the liberty ships filled with refrigerated wheat along the Hudson.
Carter had embargoed selling grains and wheat to Russia. Then Reagan was lining up to get "run" by Bechtel power guys. Doing energy policy for Carter was literally life threatening (we would not let ?'s on that be part of the TV).
So the faulty transition from hampered world trade and Bechtel runing things wrecked being able to have a working government and any "economic controls" around '80.
Environment got a second wind with NEPA after PL92-500 got the ball rolling withclean water. People got empowered a litttle.
A ton of people returned to downtown NY to be fought by Calif types just arrived in Wash. (Pete Peterson to Lehman, etc..)
I remember, I had sold a book (400K copies in four months) and began follow- on sales of high ticket items (15MM each and 15 sales in two quarters.) We were way ahead of ADM at that time.
BUT the US Gov was really digging the deepest hole imaginable.
fwiw.
Page 5
"To Volcker, the foiled Professional Air Traffic Controllers
Organization (PATCO) strike â in which President Reagan fired and replaced the strikers - was a
blow to inflation."
"In short, Volcker viewed affecting union wage determination through monetary restraint
as important for the Fedâs disinflation campaign. One commentator characterized the Fed chairâs
view as founded on the idea that âinflation would not be securely defeated...until all those
workers and their unions agreed to accept less. If they were not impressed by words, perhaps the
liquidation of several million more jobs would convince them.â
--------------------------
âI have never felt that there was any way to get inflation down without putting pressure
on business and labor. Put pressure on business and they have to find a way to cut those costs
because they donât have [available] the path of least resistance of raising prices. And if you put
pressure on business, labor begins to get the point that if they get too much in wages they wonât
have a business to work for. I think that really is beginning to happen now and thatâs why Iâm
more optimistic. Every business I know of out there is doing everything it can to cut costs. When
the Teamsters open the master contract because they see some of their truckers going under,
when the UAW talks about job security instead of wage increases, and when Pan Am workers
are willing to take 10% wage cuts because the airlines are in trouble, I think those are signs that
weâre at the point where something can really start to happen.â
-----------------
so on and so forth,
http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/events/fall05/seminars/mitchell/mitchell_notyetdead.pdf
Page 5
"To Volcker, the foiled Professional Air Traffic Controllers
Organization (PATCO) strike â in which President Reagan fired and replaced the strikers - was a
blow to inflation."
"In short, Volcker viewed affecting union wage determination through monetary restraint
as important for the Fedâs disinflation campaign. One commentator characterized the Fed chairâs
view as founded on the idea that âinflation would not be securely defeated...until all those
workers and their unions agreed to accept less. If they were not impressed by words, perhaps the
liquidation of several million more jobs would convince them.â
--------------------------
âI have never felt that there was any way to get inflation down without putting pressure
on business and labor. Put pressure on business and they have to find a way to cut those costs
because they donât have [available] the path of least resistance of raising prices. And if you put
pressure on business, labor begins to get the point that if they get too much in wages they wonât
have a business to work for. I think that really is beginning to happen now and thatâs why Iâm
more optimistic. Every business I know of out there is doing everything it can to cut costs. When
the Teamsters open the master contract because they see some of their truckers going under,
when the UAW talks about job security instead of wage increases, and when Pan Am workers
are willing to take 10% wage cuts because the airlines are in trouble, I think those are signs that
weâre at the point where something can really start to happen.â
-----------------
so on and so forth,
http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/events/fall05/seminars/mitchell/mitchell_notyetdead.pdf
Nutmeg, that was an absolutely astounding document. Thank you. Ideas have been swirling around my head (and yes it is a big head). I have been thinking a lot about implications. I will reply again when they settle a bit more.
I propose that 1982ish is when the Inflation wave ended and the Deflation wave began in my view. Of course, it began slowly and is a more powerful force now. Can it be stopped or is it like a black hole growing larger? Is it cause or is it an effect?
I propose that 1982ish is when the Inflation wave ended and the Deflation wave began in my view. Of course, it began slowly and is a more powerful force now. Can it be stopped or is it like a black hole growing larger? Is it cause or is it an effect?