CDZ Trade and Entertainment

[320 Years of History]

How often have you thought that for all the cable and over the air channels you have there's nothing worth watching on television? That thought doesn't cross my mind much these days, but when I was a kid and there was not such thing as cable television, I certainly thought that; however, with cable's advent, I no longer have that problem. On the contrary, the overwhelming majority of television I watch is cable television, the notable exceptions being PBS Newshour, Scandal, Empire, How to Get Away with Murder, and The Voice, all of which I record and "binge watch" at some point well after their actual airing. (I don't so much "watch" television shows as record and "listen" to them as I'm doing something else.)

As a predominantly cable television show watcher, I've recently begun to notice that much of what I do watch on television is produced somewhere outside the U.S. Though Game of Thrones is not among the shows I "watch," it's among the most highly acclaimed shows on television, and like so much else that Americans consume, it is made outside the U.S. Game of Thrones is not alone, and like manufacturers that go overseas to take advantage of lower costs, television content producers do the same thing.

Now here's the thing. In the face of price-driven competition from other countries and the talent there, I don't hear from U.S. talent anything even remotely approaching the griping that I hear from from (former? current?) U.S. factory workers. Do you? I don't hear or hear of actors and crew members and their unions complaining that they can't get work because of the competition from lower priced foreign actors and crew members. I certainly don't hear producers complaining just as I don't hear the owners of factories complaining.

So what does the talent do? Well, among other things, they go overseas and work when that's what they must do to obtain work. That's nothing new. Josephine Baker and others like her did exactly the same thing in the 1920s. Now if a woman in the 1920 who almost certainly had no formal economics training could put "two and two together" -- reasoning that as she could not obtain the work she wanted in the U.S., she had to go somewhere she could -- why is it that so many others today who cannot obtain employment doing what they want seem incapable of coming to the same rational conclusion? Quite simply, the work that lowly skilled factory workers want to perform no longer exists in great quantity in the U.S. and, given ever evolving technology, it's not ever going to again.

 

[Disir]

Are you seriously playing the blame the worker game?

 

[Dale Smith]

How often have you thought that for all the cable and over the air channels you have there's nothing worth watching on television? That thought doesn't cross my mind much these days, but when I was a kid and there was not such thing as cable television, I certainly thought that; however, with cable's advent, I no longer have that problem. On the contrary, the overwhelming majority of television I watch is cable television, the notable exceptions being PBS Newshour, Scandal, Empire, How to Get Away with Murder, and The Voice, all of which I record and "binge watch" at some point well after their actual airing. (I don't so much "watch" television shows as record and "listen" to them as I'm doing something else.)

As a predominantly cable television show watcher, I've recently begun to notice that much of what I do watch on television is produced somewhere outside the U.S. Though Game of Thrones is not among the shows I "watch," it's among the most highly acclaimed shows on television, and like so much else that Americans consume, it is made outside the U.S. Game of Thrones is not alone, and like manufacturers that go overseas to take advantage of lower costs, television content producers do the same thing.

Now here's the thing. In the face of price-driven competition from other countries and the talent there, I don't hear from U.S. talent anything even remotely approaching the griping that I hear from from (former? current?) U.S. factory workers. Do you? I don't hear or hear of actors and crew members and their unions complaining that they can't get work because of the competition from lower priced foreign actors and crew members. I certainly don't hear producers complaining just as I don't hear the owners of factories complaining.

So what does the talent do? Well, among other things, they go overseas and work when that's what they must do to obtain work. That's nothing new. Josephine Baker and others like her did exactly the same thing in the 1920s. Now if a woman in the 1920 who almost certainly had no formal economics training could put "two and two together" -- reasoning that as she could not obtain the work she wanted in the U.S., she had to go somewhere she could -- why is it that so many others today who cannot obtain employment doing what they want seem incapable of coming to the same rational conclusion? Quite simply, the work that lowly skilled factory workers want to perform no longer exists in great quantity in the U.S. and, given ever evolving technology, it's not ever going to again.

I kicked my TV to the curb 4 and half years ago and I don't miss it a bit.

 

[320 Years of History]

Are you seriously playing the blame the worker game?

No. Everyone is a worker. Some workers recognize the state in which they find themselves for what it is and act rationally in accordance with it. Others recognize some but not all aspects of their situation and expect someone else to "fix it" for them. I suspect that what you call my placing blame on someone is what I call articulating the reality that's in place, pointing out the rational choices that are available given that reality and imploring folks to rationally choose one of the rational options -- not just the option they like best without regard to whether it's rational to do so -- that exist.

 

[Disir]

There are no more rational options.
China Trade, Outsourcing and Jobs: Growing U.S. trade deficit with China cost 3.2 million jobs between 2001 and 2013, with job losses in every state

 

[Grandma]

320 Years of History - Do you realize that the pay scale for most foreign-based factory jobs won't cover the cost of transportation to get there? Do you realize that the pay scale for most foreign-based factory jobs won't cover the cost of living in those countries?

Why did you start a bait thread in the CDZ?

 

[DarkFury]

How often have you thought that for all the cable and over the air channels you have there's nothing worth watching on television? That thought doesn't cross my mind much these days, but when I was a kid and there was not such thing as cable television, I certainly thought that; however, with cable's advent, I no longer have that problem. On the contrary, the overwhelming majority of television I watch is cable television, the notable exceptions being PBS Newshour, Scandal, Empire, How to Get Away with Murder, and The Voice, all of which I record and "binge watch" at some point well after their actual airing. (I don't so much "watch" television shows as record and "listen" to them as I'm doing something else.)

As a predominantly cable television show watcher, I've recently begun to notice that much of what I do watch on television is produced somewhere outside the U.S. Though Game of Thrones is not among the shows I "watch," it's among the most highly acclaimed shows on television, and like so much else that Americans consume, it is made outside the U.S. Game of Thrones is not alone, and like manufacturers that go overseas to take advantage of lower costs, television content producers do the same thing.

Now here's the thing. In the face of price-driven competition from other countries and the talent there, I don't hear from U.S. talent anything even remotely approaching the griping that I hear from from (former? current?) U.S. factory workers. Do you? I don't hear or hear of actors and crew members and their unions complaining that they can't get work because of the competition from lower priced foreign actors and crew members. I certainly don't hear producers complaining just as I don't hear the owners of factories complaining.

So what does the talent do? Well, among other things, they go overseas and work when that's what they must do to obtain work. That's nothing new. Josephine Baker and others like her did exactly the same thing in the 1920s. Now if a woman in the 1920 who almost certainly had no formal economics training could put "two and two together" -- reasoning that as she could not obtain the work she wanted in the U.S., she had to go somewhere she could -- why is it that so many others today who cannot obtain employment doing what they want seem incapable of coming to the same rational conclusion? Quite simply, the work that lowly skilled factory workers want to perform no longer exists in great quantity in the U.S. and, given ever evolving technology, it's not ever going to again.

I kicked my TV to the curb 4 and half years ago and I don't miss it a bit.

Mine got the boot in 1995 and can stay there.

 

[320 Years of History]

320 Years of History - Do you realize that the pay scale for most foreign-based factory jobs won't cover the cost of transportation to get there? Do you realize that the pay scale for most foreign-based factory jobs won't cover the cost of living in those countries?

The real problem is that folks insist on being employed doing low skill work. That kind of work, as far as I'm concerned, doesn't pay well enough no matter where one performs it. The problem in the U.S. and everywhere else is not that there are no manufacturing jobs -- there are some 3M of them that have gone unfilled -- but rather that the ones that exist require skills too few folks have.

• The skills gap in U.S. manufacturing -- 2015 and beyond (read this report even though I've pasted below excerpts from it. It's not long at all.)
  
  Changing Nature of Work and the Workforce
  Many industries, not just manufacturing, are feeling the talent crunch. It’s been widely reported that high school students have demonstrated a lack of proficiency in math and science. But when we asked executives what they considered to be the most serious skill deficiencies, technical and computer skills topped the list. It was followed by a lack of problem solving skills, basic technical training, and math skills. And overall, less than half of the manufacturing executives surveyed indicate their employees have sufficient basic employability skills (attendance, timeliness, etc.) and the ability to work well in a team environment. The skills gap problem comes into sharper focus when considering the increasingly technical nature of manufacturing work. Many manufacturers have redesigned and streamlined production lines while increasingly automating processes. While some remaining job roles will require less technically skilled workers, ironically, these trends and innovations actually demand more skilled workers.
  
  The changing nature of work, the ensuing need for improved workforce skills, and the imminent retirement of baby boomers (born between 1946 and 1964) has become a focal point for companies as they consider the resulting business impact. Retaining, hiring, and developing a skilled workforce will be increasingly difficult in the face of aging demographics. As more and more older and experienced employees retire, finding younger talent to replace them will become increasingly difficult, not to mention the loss of all their embedded knowledge, thereby exacerbating the talent crunch.
  
  The anticipated retirement exodus could seriously hurt manufacturers. The areas of skilled production (machinists, operators, and technicians) will be the hardest hit according to manufacturing executives. Considering skilled production occupations account for over 50 percent of the total manufacturing workforce, worker shortages in this category will present a significant challenge to companies. Manufacturers are also feeling the pinch when it comes to highly specialized and innovative employees, such as scientists and design engineers. Their shortage could affect new manufacturing processes and new product development.
  
  Recruitment Challenges
  The negative image of the industry, coupled with scarcity of STEM talent in high schools, makes recruiting the right candidates challenging for manufacturing companies. The wage paradox adds to the conundrum, as well. Although manufacturers indicate they have the propensity to pay more than market rates, they are still often unable to find the right talent.
  
  The Business Impact
  The effects of the talent shortage are expected to be felt in functions throughout manufacturing companies. When asked which business areas will be affected most due to the talent shortage, more than three-fourths of manufacturing executives believe the greatest impact of the skills shortage will be in maintaining or increasing production levels (in line with customer demand) and implementing new technologies while achieving productivity targets. As manufacturers struggle to support their strategic, business, and production plans with insufficient human capital, they tend to stretch their existing resources. In fact, current data suggests the average annual working hours in manufacturing is 17 percent more than in all private industries.
  
  In addition, the use of frequent or forced overtime in order to maintain base production levels is not only economically unviable in the long term, but also suppresses productivity. In an era where many companies have spent significant time and resources to streamline operations, improve the ability to meet customer demand, and implement the latest technologies, this result highlights the effort that should be considered by most manufacturers to combat the expected severity and impact of future skills gap.

There's more in the study to read, but the emboldened sentence above alludes to what manufacturers need to do to overcome the skills gap. They are, however, reticent to do what really they must due to and economic behavior that is somewhat understandable at a superficial level -- it will make sense to everyone who doesn't "get" the economics of public "goods" -- but given the challenges U.S. manufacturers face, those objections don't "hold the water" they may once have.**

**Note:

For more on the economics of public goods which is not entirely the same as those of competitively produced/provided goods, read, or at least peruse thoroughly, any of the documents found here. The one's that have a link on the right side of the page are freely accessible.​

The fact is that both workers and manufacturers face critical challenges. Workers need to earn a living. Manufacturers must as well, although in their case, we call it "being profitable." Just as manufacturers have chosen to offshore some of their operations in order to maximize their "living," workers need to do the same thing. The economics of selling labor is no different than is the economics of selling goods. That means that workers have two basic choices:

• Offer what consumers (employers) demand.
• Sell what one offers to consumers who are willing to buy what one has to offer.

For lowly workers, as it is for manufacturers, that means they need to move because in the U.S., aside from lowly paid jobs, there simply is not and won't be much demand for lowly skilled workers. I am well aware that folks don't like being told that they need to either acquire the skills that are in demand or take the skills they have to where they are demanded, but that's the reality. It's not a "nice" reality to face, but whether one "hides in the root cellar" or "gets out of Dodge," the "tornado" bears down on one's home nonetheless and nothing one does will stop it. That is the position in which lowly skilled workers find themselves today.

Do you realize that the pay scale for most foreign-based factory jobs won't cover the cost of transportation to get there?

Perhaps I should have been clearer, but hopefully the remarks above in this post have clarified what I'm saying. I'm not saying go there and come back. I'm saying that if has nothing but meager skills to offer consumers (employers in this case), one must move from the place where there is insufficient demand for the skills one has to offer and to a place that demands those skills. Upon arriving there, one should remain there.

 

[Disir]

There is no STEM shortage.
There is no nursing shortage.

Legal has been off shored.
http://www.economist.com/node/17733545

IT in all industries
Banking / Tech jobs slated to be Offshored by major US and European Banks - Technology Brokers & Advisors

And yet.........you blame the worker.
Just like the Democrats talk about racism................while they destroy jobs like the USPS
Post office cuts could deliver a blow to the black community


This is the reason the Democrats should not be elected. I do not understand how it is that you can do this to your own people.

 

[yiostheoy]

How often have you thought that for all the cable and over the air channels you have there's nothing worth watching on television? That thought doesn't cross my mind much these days, but when I was a kid and there was not such thing as cable television, I certainly thought that; however, with cable's advent, I no longer have that problem. On the contrary, the overwhelming majority of television I watch is cable television, the notable exceptions being PBS Newshour, Scandal, Empire, How to Get Away with Murder, and The Voice, all of which I record and "binge watch" at some point well after their actual airing. (I don't so much "watch" television shows as record and "listen" to them as I'm doing something else.)

As a predominantly cable television show watcher, I've recently begun to notice that much of what I do watch on television is produced somewhere outside the U.S. Though Game of Thrones is not among the shows I "watch," it's among the most highly acclaimed shows on television, and like so much else that Americans consume, it is made outside the U.S. Game of Thrones is not alone, and like manufacturers that go overseas to take advantage of lower costs, television content producers do the same thing.

Now here's the thing. In the face of price-driven competition from other countries and the talent there, I don't hear from U.S. talent anything even remotely approaching the griping that I hear from from (former? current?) U.S. factory workers. Do you? I don't hear or hear of actors and crew members and their unions complaining that they can't get work because of the competition from lower priced foreign actors and crew members. I certainly don't hear producers complaining just as I don't hear the owners of factories complaining.

So what does the talent do? Well, among other things, they go overseas and work when that's what they must do to obtain work. That's nothing new. Josephine Baker and others like her did exactly the same thing in the 1920s. Now if a woman in the 1920 who almost certainly had no formal economics training could put "two and two together" -- reasoning that as she could not obtain the work she wanted in the U.S., she had to go somewhere she could -- why is it that so many others today who cannot obtain employment doing what they want seem incapable of coming to the same rational conclusion? Quite simply, the work that lowly skilled factory workers want to perform no longer exists in great quantity in the U.S. and, given ever evolving technology, it's not ever going to again.

The news is worth watching.

I also enjoy sporting events.

And I like crime dramas, especially true crime like Forensic Files and Cold Case Files.

 

[yiostheoy]

320 Years of History - Do you realize that the pay scale for most foreign-based factory jobs won't cover the cost of transportation to get there? Do you realize that the pay scale for most foreign-based factory jobs won't cover the cost of living in those countries?

The real problem is that folks insist on being employed doing low skill work. That kind of work, as far as I'm concerned, doesn't pay well enough no matter where one performs it. The problem in the U.S. and everywhere else is not that there are no manufacturing jobs -- there are some 3M of them that have gone unfilled -- but rather that the ones that exist require skills too few folks have.

• The skills gap in U.S. manufacturing -- 2015 and beyond (read this report even though I've pasted below excerpts from it. It's not long at all.)
  
  Changing Nature of Work and the Workforce
  Many industries, not just manufacturing, are feeling the talent crunch. It’s been widely reported that high school students have demonstrated a lack of proficiency in math and science. But when we asked executives what they considered to be the most serious skill deficiencies, technical and computer skills topped the list. It was followed by a lack of problem solving skills, basic technical training, and math skills. And overall, less than half of the manufacturing executives surveyed indicate their employees have sufficient basic employability skills (attendance, timeliness, etc.) and the ability to work well in a team environment. The skills gap problem comes into sharper focus when considering the increasingly technical nature of manufacturing work. Many manufacturers have redesigned and streamlined production lines while increasingly automating processes. While some remaining job roles will require less technically skilled workers, ironically, these trends and innovations actually demand more skilled workers.
  
  The changing nature of work, the ensuing need for improved workforce skills, and the imminent retirement of baby boomers (born between 1946 and 1964) has become a focal point for companies as they consider the resulting business impact. Retaining, hiring, and developing a skilled workforce will be increasingly difficult in the face of aging demographics. As more and more older and experienced employees retire, finding younger talent to replace them will become increasingly difficult, not to mention the loss of all their embedded knowledge, thereby exacerbating the talent crunch.
  
  The anticipated retirement exodus could seriously hurt manufacturers. The areas of skilled production (machinists, operators, and technicians) will be the hardest hit according to manufacturing executives. Considering skilled production occupations account for over 50 percent of the total manufacturing workforce, worker shortages in this category will present a significant challenge to companies. Manufacturers are also feeling the pinch when it comes to highly specialized and innovative employees, such as scientists and design engineers. Their shortage could affect new manufacturing processes and new product development.
  
  Recruitment Challenges
  The negative image of the industry, coupled with scarcity of STEM talent in high schools, makes recruiting the right candidates challenging for manufacturing companies. The wage paradox adds to the conundrum, as well. Although manufacturers indicate they have the propensity to pay more than market rates, they are still often unable to find the right talent.
  
  The Business Impact
  The effects of the talent shortage are expected to be felt in functions throughout manufacturing companies. When asked which business areas will be affected most due to the talent shortage, more than three-fourths of manufacturing executives believe the greatest impact of the skills shortage will be in maintaining or increasing production levels (in line with customer demand) and implementing new technologies while achieving productivity targets. As manufacturers struggle to support their strategic, business, and production plans with insufficient human capital, they tend to stretch their existing resources. In fact, current data suggests the average annual working hours in manufacturing is 17 percent more than in all private industries.
  
  In addition, the use of frequent or forced overtime in order to maintain base production levels is not only economically unviable in the long term, but also suppresses productivity. In an era where many companies have spent significant time and resources to streamline operations, improve the ability to meet customer demand, and implement the latest technologies, this result highlights the effort that should be considered by most manufacturers to combat the expected severity and impact of future skills gap.

There's more in the study to read, but the emboldened sentence above alludes to what manufacturers need to do to overcome the skills gap. They are, however, reticent to do what really they must due to and economic behavior that is somewhat understandable at a superficial level -- it will make sense to everyone who doesn't "get" the economics of public "goods" -- but given the challenges U.S. manufacturers face, those objections don't "hold the water" they may once have.**

**Note:

For more on the economics of public goods which is not entirely the same as those of competitively produced/provided goods, read, or at least peruse thoroughly, any of the documents found here. The one's that have a link on the right side of the page are freely accessible.​

The fact is that both workers and manufacturers face critical challenges. Workers need to earn a living. Manufacturers must as well, although in their case, we call it "being profitable." Just as manufacturers have chosen to offshore some of their operations in order to maximize their "living," workers need to do the same thing. The economics of selling labor is no different than is the economics of selling goods. That means that workers have two basic choices:

• Offer what consumers (employers) demand.
• Sell what one offers to consumers who are willing to buy what one has to offer.

For lowly workers, as it is for manufacturers, that means they need to move because in the U.S., aside from lowly paid jobs, there simply is not and won't be much demand for lowly skilled workers. I am well aware that folks don't like being told that they need to either acquire the skills that are in demand or take the skills they have to where they are demanded, but that's the reality. It's not a "nice" reality to face, but whether one "hides in the root cellar" or "gets out of Dodge," the "tornado" bears down on one's home nonetheless and nothing one does will stop it. That is the position in which lowly skilled workers find themselves today.

Do you realize that the pay scale for most foreign-based factory jobs won't cover the cost of transportation to get there?

Perhaps I should have been clearer, but hopefully the remarks above in this post have clarified what I'm saying. I'm not saying go there and come back. I'm saying that if has nothing but meager skills to offer consumers (employers in this case), one must move from the place where there is insufficient demand for the skills one has to offer and to a place that demands those skills. Upon arriving there, one should remain there.

What makes you think "they" "insist" ??

You sure do a lot of ass-u-me-ing in your rants without providing any evidence before your burp-out your opinions.

 

[320 Years of History]

320 Years of History - Do you realize that the pay scale for most foreign-based factory jobs won't cover the cost of transportation to get there? Do you realize that the pay scale for most foreign-based factory jobs won't cover the cost of living in those countries?

The real problem is that folks insist on being employed doing low skill work. That kind of work, as far as I'm concerned, doesn't pay well enough no matter where one performs it. The problem in the U.S. and everywhere else is not that there are no manufacturing jobs -- there are some 3M of them that have gone unfilled -- but rather that the ones that exist require skills too few folks have.

• The skills gap in U.S. manufacturing -- 2015 and beyond (read this report even though I've pasted below excerpts from it. It's not long at all.)
  
  Changing Nature of Work and the Workforce
  Many industries, not just manufacturing, are feeling the talent crunch. It’s been widely reported that high school students have demonstrated a lack of proficiency in math and science. But when we asked executives what they considered to be the most serious skill deficiencies, technical and computer skills topped the list. It was followed by a lack of problem solving skills, basic technical training, and math skills. And overall, less than half of the manufacturing executives surveyed indicate their employees have sufficient basic employability skills (attendance, timeliness, etc.) and the ability to work well in a team environment. The skills gap problem comes into sharper focus when considering the increasingly technical nature of manufacturing work. Many manufacturers have redesigned and streamlined production lines while increasingly automating processes. While some remaining job roles will require less technically skilled workers, ironically, these trends and innovations actually demand more skilled workers.
  
  The changing nature of work, the ensuing need for improved workforce skills, and the imminent retirement of baby boomers (born between 1946 and 1964) has become a focal point for companies as they consider the resulting business impact. Retaining, hiring, and developing a skilled workforce will be increasingly difficult in the face of aging demographics. As more and more older and experienced employees retire, finding younger talent to replace them will become increasingly difficult, not to mention the loss of all their embedded knowledge, thereby exacerbating the talent crunch.
  
  The anticipated retirement exodus could seriously hurt manufacturers. The areas of skilled production (machinists, operators, and technicians) will be the hardest hit according to manufacturing executives. Considering skilled production occupations account for over 50 percent of the total manufacturing workforce, worker shortages in this category will present a significant challenge to companies. Manufacturers are also feeling the pinch when it comes to highly specialized and innovative employees, such as scientists and design engineers. Their shortage could affect new manufacturing processes and new product development.
  
  Recruitment Challenges
  The negative image of the industry, coupled with scarcity of STEM talent in high schools, makes recruiting the right candidates challenging for manufacturing companies. The wage paradox adds to the conundrum, as well. Although manufacturers indicate they have the propensity to pay more than market rates, they are still often unable to find the right talent.
  
  The Business Impact
  The effects of the talent shortage are expected to be felt in functions throughout manufacturing companies. When asked which business areas will be affected most due to the talent shortage, more than three-fourths of manufacturing executives believe the greatest impact of the skills shortage will be in maintaining or increasing production levels (in line with customer demand) and implementing new technologies while achieving productivity targets. As manufacturers struggle to support their strategic, business, and production plans with insufficient human capital, they tend to stretch their existing resources. In fact, current data suggests the average annual working hours in manufacturing is 17 percent more than in all private industries.
  
  In addition, the use of frequent or forced overtime in order to maintain base production levels is not only economically unviable in the long term, but also suppresses productivity. In an era where many companies have spent significant time and resources to streamline operations, improve the ability to meet customer demand, and implement the latest technologies, this result highlights the effort that should be considered by most manufacturers to combat the expected severity and impact of future skills gap.

There's more in the study to read, but the emboldened sentence above alludes to what manufacturers need to do to overcome the skills gap. They are, however, reticent to do what really they must due to and economic behavior that is somewhat understandable at a superficial level -- it will make sense to everyone who doesn't "get" the economics of public "goods" -- but given the challenges U.S. manufacturers face, those objections don't "hold the water" they may once have.**

**Note:

For more on the economics of public goods which is not entirely the same as those of competitively produced/provided goods, read, or at least peruse thoroughly, any of the documents found here. The one's that have a link on the right side of the page are freely accessible.​

The fact is that both workers and manufacturers face critical challenges. Workers need to earn a living. Manufacturers must as well, although in their case, we call it "being profitable." Just as manufacturers have chosen to offshore some of their operations in order to maximize their "living," workers need to do the same thing. The economics of selling labor is no different than is the economics of selling goods. That means that workers have two basic choices:

• Offer what consumers (employers) demand.
• Sell what one offers to consumers who are willing to buy what one has to offer.

For lowly workers, as it is for manufacturers, that means they need to move because in the U.S., aside from lowly paid jobs, there simply is not and won't be much demand for lowly skilled workers. I am well aware that folks don't like being told that they need to either acquire the skills that are in demand or take the skills they have to where they are demanded, but that's the reality. It's not a "nice" reality to face, but whether one "hides in the root cellar" or "gets out of Dodge," the "tornado" bears down on one's home nonetheless and nothing one does will stop it. That is the position in which lowly skilled workers find themselves today.

Do you realize that the pay scale for most foreign-based factory jobs won't cover the cost of transportation to get there?

Perhaps I should have been clearer, but hopefully the remarks above in this post have clarified what I'm saying. I'm not saying go there and come back. I'm saying that if has nothing but meager skills to offer consumers (employers in this case), one must move from the place where there is insufficient demand for the skills one has to offer and to a place that demands those skills. Upon arriving there, one should remain there.

What makes you think "they" "insist" ??

You sure do a lot of ass-u-me-ing in your rants without providing any evidence before your burp-out your opinions.

Red:
I'll walk you through my answer to your question. First I'll present my case for the types of job openings that are "gone"/scarcely available and the types that remain and for which there are lots of openings. Then I will address the "insistence" aspect of your question.

Types of Job Openings:

• What kinds of manufacturing jobs are the one's that manufacturers have offshored? The answer is, of course, "all of them that require workers to physically perform them in the factory itself or in the same place as the factory itself."
• What kinds of manufacturing jobs were not offshored? The answer is the ones that can be performed in the U.S. even though the factory is not in the U.S.

• • What kinds of manufacturing jobs are not high-skill jobs? Basic assembly and observation oriented jobs.
    • What's an "observation" job? Ones in which one watches a process occurring, but one is not the person capable of correcting any but the most minor of problems with the process. Examples include, but are not limited to:
      • One in which a worker observes that a piece of machinery is jammed and one turns it off and either clears the jam and turns it back on again to resume the machine's operation, or informs another person who will fix the machine so it can resume operation.
      • One in which a worker watches objects pass by and removes the ones that are out of spec.
• What is the nature of the majority of the job openings (manufacturing and non-manufacturing) that exist today in the U.S? The answer is that they are jobs that require technical skills.
  • How many such job openings are there in the U.S. today? Literally millions; some 5.8M at last count.
    • US Manufacturing Faces a Two Million Worker Shortage by 2025, Deloitte and The Manufacturing Institute Studies Indicate | Deloitte US | Press release
    • Millions of Unfilled Jobs
    • America has near record 5.8 million job openings
    • As Skill Requirements Increase, More Manufacturing Jobs Go Unfilled
    • Why Jobs Go Unfilled Even in Times of High Unemployment

Given the above, it stands to reason that the types of jobs un-/underemployed Americans want and that they cannot obtain (regardless of why they cannot) are the ones that require one to be highly skilled.

"Insistence":
The "insistence" aspect of my remarks derives from the following observations (not assumptions):

• There are literally millions of job openings in the U.S. and the quantity of them corresponds roughly to the quantity of manufacturing jobs that are no longer performed in the U.S. because manufacturers have moved their factories to other countries.
• The folks complaining -- by the very dint of their complaining -- have not done any of the following things:
  
  
  • taken note of the fact that they must obtain the technical skills needed to obtain one of the jobs that is available and then gone about obtaining them, or
  • assuming they have the technical skills, moved to the place in the U.S. where the job for which they have the technical skill to obtain it is offered or obtained one of the available technical-skill-requiring jobs offered in a locality/place/company in which they are willing to work.

I cannot say why folks haven't taken either of those two actions. I can only say that since they are griping about not obtaining one of those jobs, they haven't taken them.
​

Given those two factors, it stands to reason that folks insist on performing jobs that are unavailable to them, regardless of whether the jobs are unavailable to them because the individuals lack the skills to obtain the jobs or unavailable because the individuals are unwilling to move to where the job exists. The result of that insistence is that folks are left with being willing to accept low-skill jobs, and as noted in multiple linked documents, those types of jobs are a thing of the past.
​

Yes, some low skill manufacturing jobs remain in the U.S. even today, but they are few and far between, which is why many folks cannot get one of them; there is more demand for those types of jobs than there are those types of jobs. And as was noted in the linked content I referenced earlier, those types of jobs simply aren't coming back even if the manufacturers do reshore their factories.

 

[320 Years of History]

There is no STEM shortage.
There is no nursing shortage.

Legal has been off shored.
http://www.economist.com/node/17733545

IT in all industries
Banking / Tech jobs slated to be Offshored by major US and European Banks - Technology Brokers & Advisors

And yet.........you blame the worker.
Just like the Democrats talk about racism................while they destroy jobs like the USPS
Post office cuts could deliver a blow to the black community


This is the reason the Democrats should not be elected. I do not understand how it is that you can do this to your own people.

Red:
If that's the point you want to make, fine. But if you're going to make it, then at least tell the whole story.

As goes the central question is whether there is a “STEM crisis” or a “STEM surplus.” The answer is that both exist. The Bureau of Labor Statistics' analysis of those two questions produced the following findings:

• The STEM labor market is heterogeneous. There are both shortages and surpluses of STEM workers, depending on the particular job market segment.
• In the academic job market, there is no noticeable shortage in any discipline. In fact, there are signs of an oversupply of Ph.D.’s vying for tenure-track faculty positions in many disciplines (e.g., biomedical sciences, physical sciences).
• In the government and government-related job sector, certain STEM disciplines have a shortage of positions at the Ph.D. level (e.g., materials science engineering, nuclear engineering) and in general (e.g., systems engineers, cybersecurity, and intelligence professionals) due to the U.S. citizenship requirement. In contrast, an oversupply of biomedical engineers is seen at the Ph.D. level, and there are transient shortages of electrical engineers and mechanical engineers at advanced-degree levels.
• In the private sector, software developers, petroleum engineers, data scientists, and those in skilled trades are in high demand; there is an abundant supply of biomedical, chemistry, and physics Ph.D.’s; and transient shortages and surpluses of electrical engineers occur from time to time.
• The geographic location of the position affects hiring ease or difficulty.

A critical distinction that you did not share when you introduced the STEM concept into this discussion is that STEM jobs are jobs for which a college degree (sometimes and advanced one) is nearly always required because very few folks obtain the knowledge and skills to be engineers and scientists without a one or more degrees, typically advanced degrees. The types of jobs the "average American" bemoans the loss of are not those kinds of jobs and the bulk of the folks and the majority of displaced workers griping about there not being enough manufacturing jobs are not workers with college degrees.

 

[Disir]

I'm already telling that story. Thanks.

 

[320 Years of History]

How often have you thought that for all the cable and over the air channels you have there's nothing worth watching on television? That thought doesn't cross my mind much these days, but when I was a kid and there was not such thing as cable television, I certainly thought that; however, with cable's advent, I no longer have that problem. On the contrary, the overwhelming majority of television I watch is cable television, the notable exceptions being PBS Newshour, Scandal, Empire, How to Get Away with Murder, and The Voice, all of which I record and "binge watch" at some point well after their actual airing. (I don't so much "watch" television shows as record and "listen" to them as I'm doing something else.)

As a predominantly cable television show watcher, I've recently begun to notice that much of what I do watch on television is produced somewhere outside the U.S. Though Game of Thrones is not among the shows I "watch," it's among the most highly acclaimed shows on television, and like so much else that Americans consume, it is made outside the U.S. Game of Thrones is not alone, and like manufacturers that go overseas to take advantage of lower costs, television content producers do the same thing.

Now here's the thing. In the face of price-driven competition from other countries and the talent there, I don't hear from U.S. talent anything even remotely approaching the griping that I hear from from (former? current?) U.S. factory workers. Do you? I don't hear or hear of actors and crew members and their unions complaining that they can't get work because of the competition from lower priced foreign actors and crew members. I certainly don't hear producers complaining just as I don't hear the owners of factories complaining.

So what does the talent do? Well, among other things, they go overseas and work when that's what they must do to obtain work. That's nothing new. Josephine Baker and others like her did exactly the same thing in the 1920s. Now if a woman in the 1920 who almost certainly had no formal economics training could put "two and two together" -- reasoning that as she could not obtain the work she wanted in the U.S., she had to go somewhere she could -- why is it that so many others today who cannot obtain employment doing what they want seem incapable of coming to the same rational conclusion? Quite simply, the work that lowly skilled factory workers want to perform no longer exists in great quantity in the U.S. and, given ever evolving technology, it's not ever going to again.

I kicked my TV to the curb 4 and half years ago and I don't miss it a bit.

Red:
Okay. TY for sharing.

Having said that, I ask: what has that to do with the theme and questions posed in the OP? (Note that the central theme of this thread's OP is at the end of the OP, not the beginning.)