Could the US be headed for an economic meltdown

I'm not economist, but such a situation couldn't be good for the world as a whole.

Or could it mean that some other mineral rich countries with which the US doesn't see eye to eye be in the US sights

Where the jobs will be

Greatest employment growth is likely to be in service industries, according to new labor study.
February 13, 2004: 5:39 PM EST
By Jeanne Sahadi, CNN/Money senior staff writer



The remainder of the article can be found at
http://www.cnn.com/money/2004/02/12/pf/jobs_blsprojection/index.htm?cnn=yes


It is obvious that good, well paying jobs in manufacturing will be replaced by those in the service industry which more often than not will not be as well paying.
That aside since manufacturing will continue to shrink the balance of payments for manufactured products will obviously worsen. You cannot sell what you do not manufacture. The premise has been as the third worlds economy improves the US will have additional markets. My question has be and continues to be "sell what"?

I must admit my knowledge in this area is not great. However, I still believe that
2+2 still must equal 4

au1929,

The terms "service industry" and indeed "manufacturing" don't involve the clear distinctions they once had. Moreover, in terms of economic value added (and the price the market will pay) , it is no longer true that manufacturing commands a premium over service sector jobs or activities. Indeed for finished goods of all types the fraction of cost derived from manufacturing has generally declined over the past decade. Design, marketing, and product development generally command much higher returns than do manufacture.

George
From the article




These are the jobs where growth will occur. Will they help with our balance of payments?In addition are they good replacements for well paying jobs in manufacturing?

Bush adviser backs off pro-outsourcing comment

Thursday, February 12, 2004 Posted: 11:15 PM EST (0415 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- One of President Bush's top economic advisers sought Thursday to clarify remarks he made earlier in the week that seemed to suggest he thought outsourcing American jobs is good for the economy.
Gregory Mankiw, chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, said Monday in a White House briefing on Bush's 2004 Economic Report that outsourcing of jobs by U.S. companies is something that is "probably a plus" for the economy in the long run.
"Now, to get back to the question about outsourcing, I think outsourcing is a growing phenomenon, but it's something that we should realize is probably a plus for the economy in the long run," Mankiw said.
Speaking in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, President Bush tried Thursday to quell the potential controversy simmering over Mankiw's statements.
"People are looking for work because jobs have gone overseas and we need to act in this country. We need to act to make sure there are more jobs at home," Bush said as he touted his "21st century" job plan in a state that has lost 85,000 jobs since Bush took office.
Bush did not mention Mankiw by name, but two Bush advisers conceded privately the president's intention was to distance himself from Mankiw's remarks.
Democrats on the campaign trail and Capitol Hill immediately seized on Mankiw's comments, and a Bush source said the White House heard private concerns from Republicans, too. Those included House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Illinois, who ventured a rare criticism of the Bush White House.
"His theory fails a basic test of real economics," Hastert said Wednesday.
In a letter to Hastert on Thursday, Mankiw said his remarks had been misinterpreted.
"My lack of clarity left the wrong impression that I praised the loss of U.S. jobs. ... It is regrettable whenever anyone loses a job," Mankiw's letter said.
"We are used to goods being produced in one country and transported to another on ships and planes. We are less used to services being produced in one country and sent abroad on fiber optic cable."
Mankiw said in his letter that all economic changes "can cause painful dislocations for some workers and their families," but he said the goal of economic policy should be "not to deny change but to help workers prepare for the global economy of the future."
Hastert issued a statement in response, saying he appreciated Mankiw's clarification.
"My concern was that Mr. Mankiw left the wrong impression about our agenda. I know that President Bush shares my belief that we need to create a better environment for job creation here in the United States," Hastert's statement said.
With job recovery lagging, unemployment is a top issue this election year and of deep concern to the Bush campaign team.
Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pennsylvania, said outsourcing jobs overseas is "a bad thing," but conceded it may be inevitable at the moment.
"I would say ... that moving jobs overseas is a reality of global competition," Santorum said. "If you come from Pennsylvania, we've lost a lot of jobs from global competition. I think that's just a truth, if you will."
But Santorum said Bush's jobs plan and tax proposals should address the problem.
"I was with the president today, and I think he made the point very, very strongly that the key for this administration is creating jobs in this country and training workers so that [outsourcing jobs] doesn't have to happen," he said.
Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, called Mankiw's comments "Alice in Wonderland economics."
"America has lost 2.9 million private sector jobs since January 2001. Nearly every state in the nation has lost manufacturing jobs, and, contrary to the administration's economic theories, there is nothing good about it," he said at a briefing to discuss a new proposal to fight job outsourcing.
"The president's economic report is an insult to every hard-working American. It's unpatriotic economics, and he should apologize for it," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, at the same briefing.
The new proposal would "require companies that send jobs overseas to provide notice to [their] employees and the Department of Labor," Daschle said.
"Companies that export U.S. jobs would be required to disclose how many jobs are being shipped overseas, where they're going and why. This would provide valuable information for policy makers and, hopefully, encourage employers to think twice before they move jobs out of America."
Bush's comments came during his 25th visit to Pennsylvania, one of the states he lost in the 2000 election.
The president visited Harrisburg to talk about his jobs initiative, which is aimed at retraining workers for high-tech jobs.
"I don't worry about numbers, I worry about people," Bush said. "There are still some people looking for work because of the recession."

Another in this administration trips over his tongue. I guess it's follow the leader.

The Bush campaign motto should be "Never be afraid to ask : Do you want fries with that?"

It is no surprise that the jobs with the greatest growth, expresseed in numbers of new jobs, will be precisely those that today employ the greatest number of people. Thus there are more new opportunities for retail sales clerks than CEOs.

It is changes in the relative distribution of new jobs that relate to the argument AU1929 is making, not the statistics he has presented. No data to support a change in this distribution has been offered.

When people in other countries are willing and able to do the same jobs as Americans, do them as well, and for less money - then there is no way to keep those jobs here without artificial constraints on trade. Our trading partners have a say in this too, and they surely will retaliate if we create significant restraints. The result will injure both parties.

Dubya the Dunce Economic Plan
Msg from the Dunce:

Uh... We are doin' great folks. All of my advisors jus tell me to spend more of the Middle Class Tax money and cut taxes for corporations and the wealthiest friends that support me. Seems to work for me. I mean, ya know, uh, I got no complaints from my contributors. They ah, uh, keep sending me money, so, er, ah things must be great with Umerca. I am the war Pres. ya know, uh the wars are goin' good and Haliburton and Bechtel aint complainin. Me and my military are killin' off them evil doers, them terrists that don't love freedom.I trust in God and uh, uh I know he will take care of me and all the Jesus lovin' Umercans that pray for me and my family, so...no worries,here.

George




Yes, I agree. However, the question are we headed for an economic meltdown for just that reason. How long before our credit card is maxed out? What the government can do to stem the tide I certainly do not know. But one thing I do know is not to stick their collective heads in the sand and other places and do nothing except sing an old tune from depression days. "Happy days are here again"

I don't see that there are any serious indicators of an economic meltdown, as you term it, in the United States.

GDP per capita in the U.S. is about 40% higher than in western Europe; our population is a good deal younger (about 4 years in median age); economic productivity is higher here and growing faster; our public debt is considerably lower; and we have much more flexible, competitive and adaptive labor markets.

Together we are far richer and more productive than any part of the rest of the world (excluding Canada, Austrailia, and New Zeeland) . GDP per capita in Asia is under half ours; in eastern Europe and Russia it is about a quarter of what we enjoy; in the Moslem world and Latin America, about a tenth; and in Africa, about 3% ours.

We should welcome the development of basic manufacturing and market economies in other countries. This will reduce an otherwise politically unsustainable difference in our standards of living, and indirectly enrich ourselves through trade and exports to them.

George


Exactly what will we have to export. The remaining manufacturing jobs. Where we are today is not in question, where we are headed is. Will our credit card be maxed out and cash on the barrel head be demanded.

I heard on television this morning that Greenspan is suggesting a continuation of the tax cuts financed by paying even less on Social Security. If there is any truth in that I hope the info is disseminated to every would be SS recipient over the next few months.

Greenspan, the master of doublespeak and inuendo. If he did say that today he will find a way to deny or modify the statement when he is questioned on it.

I have not trusted Greenspan for a number of years. I believe his decisions are made on the basis of what's good for corporate America, not the nation as a whole.

What bothers me about Greenspan is that every thing he says has a qualifier added to it. Typical: Deficits are bad or good based on the situation, however. That however, allows for him always to be right or at least never to be wrong. He issues definite maybe's

He's an icon to millions, but I would love to see him go.

The unfolding of economic and political reality and events involves many factors over which even the best analyst has no control. Moreover the relative magnitudes of various factors affecting the economy are difficult to measure with the precision required to assess their relative dominance on the process. Finally the problem is highly non-linear, confounding even the most astute projections. No serious observer could truthfully make such projections without many qualifications. In addition the Federal Reserve is carefully watched by money managers and investoirs who are all too willing to make economic bets on the future behavior of the Board of Governors. Greenspan, or anyone in his position, must be doubly careful of anything he says.

You haven't made even an opening case to suggest the U.S. economy is headed for trouble, and you certainly have suggested no remedies that could either benefit the situation or wouldn't worsen it.

Taking away Social Security to finance tax cuts is a disaster, should it occur, for the poor involved. It is easy to lay out the entire financial structure of a country to befuddle the non expert, since even the experts don't often know a great deal. All I know is I see the money flowing upward out of the working poor's grasp without abatement. Sure, things look rosy to corporate America. It is a two edged sword that can be a boon or a disaster, depending on where each individual stands.