Suburban people living in poverty rose 64% since 2000. PNTR?

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Suburban people living in poverty rose 64% since 2000. PNTR?

Postby kramer » Fri Mar 22, 2013 3:57 pm

From CNBC:
The number of suburban residents living in poverty rose by nearly 64 percent between 2000 and 2011, to about 16.4 million people, according to a Brookings Institution analysis of 95 of the nation's largest metropolitan areas. That's more than double the rate of growth for urban poverty in those areas.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100582664


Was giving China PNTR the main reason for this 64% rise? In my opinion the answer is yes because the graph below shows that we lost a third of our manufacturing jobs since giving China PNTR:
Image

It's also interesting that the Brookings analysis started in the same year as giving China PNTR.


“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
John Q. Public
Site Admin
Posts: 17412
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am

Re: Suburban people living in poverty rose 64% since 2000. P

Postby John Q. Public » Fri Mar 22, 2013 7:21 pm

Manufacturing Jobs Fall As Manufacturers Close Factories

Image

Uh, Kramer, your graph is only tangentially related to the subject of the article. I'm sure the loss of manufacturing jobs played a part but the economy crashing probably played a bigger one, as probably did the devaluing of "human capital." Notice the woman said the best job she's been able to come up with was part time. That's a whole lot more common than most people not looking for work realize. I bet if you made a chart of jobs that are no longer full time or one of hours or benefits cut, the slopes would be similar.
Don't look at me, I just work here.

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Suburban people living in poverty rose 64% since 2000. P

Postby kramer » Sat Mar 23, 2013 8:31 am

John Q. Public wrote:Manufacturing Jobs Fall As Manufacturers Close Factories

Image

Uh, Kramer, your graph is only tangentially related to the subject of the article.


I was focusing on just one part of the article, in particular, this bit of info.:
"The number of suburban residents living in poverty rose by nearly 64 percent between 2000 and 2011"



John Q. Public wrote: I'm sure the loss of manufacturing jobs played a part but the economy crashing probably played a bigger one,...


The Brookings analysis starts in 2000 before the economy crashed in 2008 which is why I think the loss of manufacturing jobs is the main reason for this 64% rise in suburban unemployment since 2000 (unless that analysis shows that the majority of that 64% came from people losing their jobs after 2008).

John Q. Public wrote:I bet if you made a chart of jobs that are no longer full time or one of hours or benefits cut, the slopes would be similar.


You're probably right. And if you are, I bet much of the data on the chart making the slopes similar are from people who lost their jobs to offshoring and are now no longer working full time and/or have fewer benefits.
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
John Q. Public
Site Admin
Posts: 17412
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am

Re: Suburban people living in poverty rose 64% since 2000. P

Postby John Q. Public » Sat Mar 23, 2013 11:40 am

kramer wrote:The Brookings analysis starts in 2000 before the economy crashed in 2008 which is why I think the loss of manufacturing jobs is the main reason for this 64% rise in suburban unemployment since 2000 (unless that analysis shows that the majority of that 64% came from people losing their jobs after 2008).

My money says the crash had more to do with it than the loss of manufacturing jobs, since it's just now becoming an issue. The problem is that they used 2000 as their base year but gave no numbers or graphs to show when or by how much it changed. They could have used 1968 as their base year and blamed it on the moon landing if they aren't going to give any numbers to demonstrate the changes.

You're probably right. And if you are, I bet much of the data on the chart making the slopes similar are from people who lost their jobs to offshoring and are now no longer working full time and/or have fewer benefits.

It's a factor but I think "rightsizing," "streamlining," which offshoring is a part of, and putting profits above humans are the real culprits.
Don't look at me, I just work here.

User avatar
Wabash
Posts: 23021
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:29 am

Re: Suburban people living in poverty rose 64% since 2000. P

Postby Wabash » Sat Mar 23, 2013 11:48 am

John Q. Public wrote:It's a factor but I think "rightsizing," "streamlining," which offshoring is a part of, and putting profits above humans are the real culprits.

:yeahthat:
They told me if I voted for Hillary Clinton the president would be emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable. They were right. I voted for Hillary Clinton and got a president that is emotional, impulsive, and unpredictable.

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Suburban people living in poverty rose 64% since 2000. P

Postby kramer » Mon Mar 25, 2013 7:06 pm

kramer wrote:The Brookings analysis starts in 2000 before the economy crashed in 2008 which is why I think the loss of manufacturing jobs is the main reason for this 64% rise in suburban unemployment since 2000 (unless that analysis shows that the majority of that 64% came from people losing their jobs after 2008).


John Q. Public wrote:My money says the crash had more to do with it than the loss of manufacturing jobs, since it's just now becoming an issue.

The reason the loss of manufacturing jobs wasn't an issue after 2000 and up to around the crash was that people with equity in their homes were taking it out and buying things which pumped up the economy.


John Q. Public wrote: The problem is that they used 2000 as their base year but gave no numbers or graphs to show when or by how much it changed.

I think PNTR is the main reason why they choose 2000. And that MANEMP graph shows the massive 33%+ drop in manufacturing jobs since we gave them PNTR.

John Q. Public wrote: They could have used 1968 as their base year and blamed it on the moon landing if they aren't going to give any numbers to demonstrate the changes.

Again, I believe PNTR is the reason for choosing 2000 as the starting point.


(logged in today)
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
John Q. Public
Site Admin
Posts: 17412
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am

Re: Suburban people living in poverty rose 64% since 2000. P

Postby John Q. Public » Mon Mar 25, 2013 11:01 pm

kramer wrote:The reason the loss of manufacturing jobs wasn't an issue after 2000 and up to around the crash was that people with equity in their homes were taking it out and buying things which pumped up the economy.

That would almost make sense if the unemployment rate in 2007 wasn't 4.6%. Apparently the laid off factory workers found some sort of work. I'm guessing they chose 2000 as their base year because they wanted to blame lost manufacturing jobs rather than the true cause. Lost manufacturing jobs was ancient history when most of the suburban poor became poor. Like I said, it was a factor but it wasn't he biggest one.
Don't look at me, I just work here.

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Suburban people living in poverty rose 64% since 2000. P

Postby kramer » Sat Mar 30, 2013 5:37 pm

kramer wrote:The reason the loss of manufacturing jobs wasn't an issue after 2000 and up to around the crash was that people with equity in their homes were taking it out and buying things which pumped up the economy.

John Q. Public wrote:That would almost make sense if the unemployment rate in 2007 wasn't 4.6%.


Well, Obama's Whitehouse thinks it makes sense (even though they slung a little BS in the mix...):

whitehouse.gov, Jan 2012 wrote:Over the past decade, real business investment in production capacity stagnated. Economic growth in the U.S. relied far too heavily on an unsustainable boom in residential and commercial real estate fueled by an unchecked financial sector. The bubble created by this boom distorted our economy and undercut the international competitiveness of our products and services. Companies increasingly chased low‐cost labor outside of the U.S., moving their manufacturing production, and some of their services, like call centers and software development, abroad.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default ... _final.pdf



John Q. Public wrote:Apparently the laid off factory workers found some sort of work.

Apparently. And I bet the majority of them ended up in jobs that paid less.


John Q. Public wrote: I'm guessing they chose 2000 as their base year because they wanted to blame lost manufacturing jobs rather than the true cause. Lost manufacturing jobs was ancient history when most of the suburban poor became poor. Like I said, it was a factor but it wasn't he biggest one.


Well, I believe losing a third of your manufacturing base in just 10 years is a huge factor in our problems and I also think its why they choose 2000 as the starting point. This is a Rockefeller funded think tank, they aren't stupid. I wouldn't be surprised if their lobbying and/or pressure was a factor in us giving China PNTR.
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Re: Suburban people living in poverty rose 64% since 2000. P

Postby kramer » Tue Aug 12, 2014 4:11 am

More evidence of how Clinton and the Republican congress screwed over America. Notice how the Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate starts dropping at just about the same time as the Manufacturing jobs. PNTR was signed in Oct of 2000.

Image
Image

source

Is decimating our work force and cities like Detroit worth $11.95 Wal-Mart electric can openers?
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

User avatar
Troglodyte
Posts: 16607
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 4:33 pm

Re: Suburban people living in poverty rose 64% since 2000. P

Postby Troglodyte » Tue Aug 12, 2014 9:33 am

Kramer, your graph is too big too read properly. Kinda screwed up the perspective..
PNTR and NAFTA aren't the only culprits that drove manufacturing off shore. NLRB, OSHA, the EPA and all of her sisters had a lot to do with it. Along with unions, added employee perks, the retirement avalanche, healthcare costs, the constant drum beat for higher minimum wage and the 35% corporate tax priced manufacturing out of the country. We priced ourselves out of the world market.
I don't suffer from any mental illnesses.. I enjoy them..

User avatar
John Q. Public
Site Admin
Posts: 17412
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:56 am

Re: Suburban people living in poverty rose 64% since 2000. P

Postby John Q. Public » Tue Aug 12, 2014 10:46 am

Interesting thread. Trog sounds like he wants us to return to sweatshops and Kramer sounds like he wants some kind of Socialist utopia. Whodathunkit?
Don't look at me, I just work here.

Return to “The Economy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest