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.