Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This huge amount of employment increase in health care employment always means more government spending funded by taxes. It's good there is a health care safety-net, just saying two-thirds.
Professional and Business services which mainly means consultants who may or may not have a return on investment and things like secrateries expanded by 67,000 jobs.
Retail and Food services added 52,000 jobs, which is not the sort of employment growth that has a multiplier effect.
Overall, it seems very uneven when the job growth is in the socially-based professional and business sector, majority government funded or subsidized health care or part-time restaurant and retail jobs.
I noticed pretty much every other industry is not gaining or is losing jobs.
It can be said the Obama economy has been mediocre. Some positives and but mostly average. Obama was able to reverse the crash in manufacturing jobs that began in 1998 for instance, but the sector hasn't boomed yet. Information sector also saw growth that it hadn't since the dot.com bust, but it still isn't thriving. Financial activities have also grown lackluster relative to past administrations. The mining sector is ending on a bad note but only during Bush #2 did that sector do good in decades. Obama also will leave office with a contracted public sector, with fewer jobs in that than when he entered office. The only president known to have done so.
Leisure and hospitality, education and healthcare, and professional services grew a lot, but they have in past economic cycles as well. The collapse of our public sector employment, jobs that tend to be high paying, full time, with benefits, has hurt this cycle the most. I'd say we can credit the obstructionist tea party for that.
Consider that Obama surpassed or matched (depends on if you waive terrible 1982 out of Reagans stats) Reagan on private sector job growth and did so despite our nations age structure not favoring him. In the end I give him a B. Reagan gets a C because a massive chunk of his job growth came from the public sector. Funny you never see conservatives complaining about that.
This huge amount of employment increase in health care employment always means more government spending funded by taxes. It's good there is a health care safety-net, just saying two-thirds.
Professional and Business services which mainly means consultants who may or may not have a return on investment and things like secrateries expanded by 67,000 jobs.
Retail and Food services added 52,000 jobs, which is not the sort of employment growth that has a multiplier effect.
Overall, it seems very uneven when the job growth is in the socially-based professional and business sector, majority government funded or subsidized health care or part-time restaurant and retail jobs.
I noticed pretty much every other industry is not gaining or is losing jobs.
It can be said the Obama economy has been mediocre. Some positives and but mostly average. Obama was able to reverse the crash in manufacturing jobs that began in 1998 for instance, but the sector hasn't boomed yet. Information sector also saw growth that it hadn't since the dot.com bust, but it still isn't thriving. Financial activities have also grown lackluster relative to past administrations. The mining sector is ending on a bad note but only during Bush #2 did that sector do good in decades. Obama also will leave office with a contracted public sector, with fewer jobs in that than when he entered office. The only president known to have done so.
Leisure and hospitality, education and healthcare, and professional services grew a lot, but they have in past economic cycles as well. The collapse of our public sector employment, jobs that tend to be high paying, full time, with benefits, has hurt this cycle the most. I'd say we can credit the obstructionist tea party for that.
Consider that Obama surpassed or matched (depends on if you waive terrible 1982 out of Reagans stats) Reagan on private sector job growth and did so despite our nations age structure not favoring him. In the end I give him a B. Reagan gets a C because a massive chunk of his job growth came from the public sector. Funny you never see conservatives complaining about that.
Between 2000-2010, 15% of all manufacturing jobs were eliminated via technology substitution. No doubt at least another 15% of manufacturing jobs will be eliminated by technology substitution.
Deloitte&Touche does a survey of 500 global CEOs every three years to take the pulse and identify trends. The most recent outcome was a projection the by 2020 the US would reclaim the top spot as the world's manufacturer while China would fall to second place. This projection was primarily based on investment in industrial robotics by US businesses.
Between 2000-2010, 15% of all manufacturing jobs were eliminated via technology substitution. No doubt at least another 15% of manufacturing jobs will be eliminated by technology substitution.
Deloitte&Touche does a survey of 500 global CEOs every three years to take the pulse and identify trends. The most recent outcome was a projection the by 2020 the US would reclaim the top spot as the world's manufacturer while China would fall to second place. This projection was primarily based on investment in industrial robotics by US businesses.
Was the crash in manufacturing employment entirely due to technology? Or was some of it due to the free trade craze of the time? I can't help but feel free trade agreements like NAFTA affected our manufacturing given the job losses coincide so clearly with them. Japan and Germany had all the technology innovation we had, and their manufacturing sectors didn't crash and burn.
This huge amount of employment increase in health care employment always means more government spending funded by taxes. It's good there is a health care safety-net, just saying two-thirds.
Professional and Business services which mainly means consultants who may or may not have a return on investment and things like secrateries expanded by 67,000 jobs.
Retail and Food services added 52,000 jobs, which is not the sort of employment growth that has a multiplier effect.
Overall, it seems very uneven when the job growth is in the socially-based professional and business sector, majority government funded or subsidized health care or part-time restaurant and retail jobs.
I noticed pretty much every other industry is not gaining or is losing jobs.
The oldest baby boomers turned 65 in 2011. 10,000 people a day are now turning 65. The aging of the population and the associated healthcare issues is a huge driver of growth in the healthcare sector.
Given 75% of us are overweight/ obese we are more vulnerable to Diabetes 2 and serious complications, heart disease, high BP and complications, some Cancers and joint deterioration. If by magic, everyone had a healthy weight, chances are healthcare costs and premiums would be dirt cheap.
There is no longer much demand for secretarial skills. Most employees do their own Word Processing, email, or text. I would not assume most business/ professional serve jobs are consultants.
Walmart, McDonalds and Yum Brands ( Taco Bell) became the largest US private sector employers in the 80's and have remained the largest employers. These jobs have historically trended low wage and part time.
Was the crash in manufacturing employment entirely due to technology? Or was some of it due to the free trade craze of the time? I can't help but feel free trade agreements like NAFTA affected our manufacturing given the job losses coincide so clearly with them. Japan and Germany had all the technology innovation we had, and their manufacturing sectors didn't crash and burn.
There has been a 30 year trend of job loss in manufacturing in the US. Technology substitution and offshoring are the reasons.
European and US automakers have had assembly plants in Mexico for more than 25 years, before NAFTA.
Mexico has been and remains attractive to manufacturers because it maintains more free trade agreements with the rest of the world than any other country.
There has been a 30 year trend of job loss in manufacturing in the US. Technology substitution and offshoring are the reasons.
European and US automakers have had assembly plants in Mexico for more than 25 years, before NAFTA.
Mexico has been and remains attractive to manufacturers because it maintains more free trade agreements with the rest of the world than any other country.
The off shoring can and needs to stop. I'm typing on an IPhone, an American invention, but is made in China. It's bothering to think about.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.