Two weeks ago The New York Times wheeled out that old chestnut of Great Recession-era economic reporting: Companies can’t find workers, despite high unemployment.
This one was mercifully buried inside Business Day, but it got 1,200 words all the same, including this top:
After the latest, disappointing unemployment figures, policy makers and economists continue to debate how American companies might create more jobs. But business owners and recruiters say thousands of jobs around the country are sitting vacant, particularly at small and midsize companies.
“Companies all over are having a difficult time recruiting the kind of people they’re looking for,” said Robert Funk, chairman and chief executive of Express Employment Professionals, a national staffing firm based in Oklahoma City that helped some 335,000 people land jobs last year. “We currently have 18,000 open job orders we can’t fill.”
Well, I’m looking for a Mary Poppins type to take care of my twins for $7.25 an hour, but can’t seem to find one. Where are all those stern-but-cheerful nannies with charming accents willing to work for a song?
These businesspeople are supposed know how markets work: If you want to buy something, but nobody wants to sell it to you, raise your bid. In other words, if you can’t find someone qualified to work for $15 an hour, maybe you need to pay $20 and/or train somebody yourself.
But what really sends the BS meter into the red zone is when you learn that the anecdotes are populated with business people with ties to lobbying groups that news organizations, for whatever reason, fail to disclose.
Take one of the Times’s main anecdotes, Drew Greenblatt, who owns a small manufacturing firm in Baltimore called Marlin Steel Wire and who gets his picture in the Times. This was his third NYT hit in three months. Here are Mr. Greenblatt’s other press hits in June: The NBC Nightly News, PBS Newshour (twice), NPR’s Morning Edition, The Hamilton Spectator. So far this year he’s also been on CNN Newsroom and Fox Business (four times), and in the Financial Times, Reuters, and the Associated Press, plus a number of smaller publications. Two years ago, Greenblatt and his company were the focus of a flattering 2,300 word Atlantic profile, and he scored a couple of WaPo profiles in 2001 and 2007. This guy is like the Greg Packer of small manufacturers.
Last month, Tim Geithner popped in for a visit. All this ain’t bad for a company with revenues of $5 million. You’d think it was IBM.
Undisclosed in any of these stories is the fact that Greenblatt is an executive-committee member of the board of the National Association of Manufacturers, the powerful DC trade lobby. NAM not only pushes Congress for anti-labor policies (like banning picketing), it lobbies for government-funded workforce training programs (“to be led by the business community,” naturally).
Back in October NAM partnered with Deloitte to put out a report that used sketchy methodology to claim that 600,000 jobs are going unfilled because manufacturers “can’t find people with the right skills.”
Back in 2009, Greenblatt was upset that Congress and President Bush had upped the minimum wage from $5.85 an hour, telling Investors Business Daily that “The minimum wage (hike) is another anti-small-business and another anti-job plan.”
Last September, Greenblatt testified to Congress for NAM in favor of so-called free-trade agreements in Colombia, Panama, and South Korea. Earlier in the year he testified to Congress for NAM in favor of sharply reducing corporate taxes, increasing foreign labor visas, and drilling for oil and against new labor regulations. He (NAM) was against new labor rules, consumer-safety rules, and environmental regulations.
And he’s been to the White House several times. His prominent NAM post, not to mention all this political activity, means Greenblatt’s NAM connections should be disclosed to readers. Yet none of the many news outlets that have quoted him has done so.
- 1
- 2
Excellent piece. I suspect the reason news organizations don't identify the affiliations of these lobbying group-supplied "ordinary Joe" sources is that they know if they properly identified them readers or listeners would discredit what they had to say, so the news organization couldn't use them. Then the news organization would have to do the work to find a non-affiliated ordinary Joe source.
#1 Posted by Harris Meyer, CJR on Tue 10 Jul 2012 at 06:23 PM
And, the inside the Beltway-to-NYC axis has reporters making in the vicinity of six figures to tap into these people. It's hard to resist the conclusion that some of this isn't just laziness or being rushed, but deliberate.
Whenever I see a name I don't recognize (and the NYT and others do this on op-eds, too, where it's even more egregious) I check Sourcewatch first, speaking of teh Internets.
#2 Posted by SocraticGadfly, CJR on Tue 10 Jul 2012 at 07:47 PM
Yet I don't recall when Mr Olivo, a paid shill for the NFIB, was flogged as being a small business owner on NPR and on other so-called 'respectable' mainstream media. An oversight?
#3 Posted by Wazmo, CJR on Tue 10 Jul 2012 at 09:07 PM
That's what I get for not displaying the rest of the article. nevermind....
#4 Posted by Wazmo, CJR on Tue 10 Jul 2012 at 09:10 PM
Just because someone has ties to a lobbying organization doesn't mean their view isn't legitimate. Greenblatt and Olivo aren't paid for their work with NAM and NFIB, they pay membership dues for the privilege to belong. So they are trying to get across a point of view, and they are doing so by testifying before Congress and talking to media. It would be one thing if the stories ONLY presented the NFIB side, but Ryan Chittum doesn't comment on the balance of the stories, he only blasts them because they use business owners who are *gasp* affiliated with national trade groups (aka "special interests" and therefore suspect).
I think Ryan makes some valid points about the dial-a-quote phenomonenon. The two people he uses as examples do seem excessively over-flacked. But Ryan, a blogger who probably sits at home in his pajamas and never feels the need to pick up a phone, isn't in a position to deride journalists who work hard to get real-world perspectives in their stories. If they were as lazy as Ryan claims, they would have gone into blogging.
#5 Posted by Martin Vaughan, CJR on Tue 10 Jul 2012 at 10:00 PM
Further, is it really so farfetched that a business owner would oppose a minimum wage increase? like that's a tip-off that he must be aligned with the pro-Republican NAM? should the reporter have looked harder for a small business owner who would be excited about and applaud the minimum wage increase?
or should she have spent the afternoon hanging around in Joe's tool and die shop, waiting for spontaneous reactions to the latest Washington pronouncement from Joe, whom she met over a Budweiser at the local monster truck rally, and who is now proudly part of her "real" sourcelist?
Readers are more sophisticated than that.
#6 Posted by Martin Vaughan, CJR on Tue 10 Jul 2012 at 10:13 PM
Terrific piece, Ryan. Great legwork.
#7 Posted by James, CJR on Tue 10 Jul 2012 at 10:55 PM
Martin, you're wrong about me not being "in a position to deride journalists who work hard to get real-world perspectives in their stories." I've done plenty of that in my day, but every last one of even your non-journalist readers is in position to be a critic. Even the bloggers in their proverbial pajamas.
This one is easy: Don't quote political activists without disclosing their political activities. Balance is irrelevant here, except where it's the impetus for the rent-a-quotes.
But to do a little reporting here-- You and a colleague quoted Greenblatt a couple of years ago on his views on a tax credit. How'd yall run across him?
#8 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Wed 11 Jul 2012 at 01:21 AM
Also, Martin. This is not about lazy reporters (or not, mostly, anyway), as I pointed out by talking about "deadline pressures mixed with 'balance' pressures." Reporters are trying to do fifty-five things at once, particularly these days. It's that these sources need to at least be clip-searched and if reporters then decide to use them, their backgrounds should be better disclosed to readers.
#9 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Wed 11 Jul 2012 at 02:00 AM
Ryan, when I was in Washington, I used trade associations to locate sources for stories, among other methods. Some of the groups are actually pretty protective of their members and sometimes it was difficult getting them to cough up real business owners. But it's important to get beyond the lobbyists at these organizations. The best was when the business owners would go off-script and reveal something that directly contradicted the trade group's line, which happened with some frequency. I think your characterization of them as "political activists" is inaccurate on a couple of levels. First, they still do own and manage businesses, and the fact that they are participating in democracy by making their views known in Congress doesn't mean we should dismiss everything they say. But secondly, as you know there are hundreds of trade groups in Washington, and each has its own profile in terms of how heavily they give to Republicans vs Democrats, based on history, current leadership, etc. Some lean one way or the other, and some are close to right down the middle. But ultimately a group like the NAM is trying to get its agenda enacted, and will work with whichever party will sign on.
On your broader point, I agree there isn't any reason why their connections to the lobbying groups shouldn't be disclosed in the story. And it certainly undercuts a news organization's credibility when the same small business owner pops up several times a month in different stories, eg Drew Greenblatt. I do remember speaking to him but I don't recall how I connected with him - likely it was either through his own pr firm, or the NAM, given how frequently he pops up elsewhere.
#10 Posted by Martin Vaughan, CJR on Wed 11 Jul 2012 at 05:29 AM
Get off your high, NYC horse and come to Rockford, IL, home of hundreds of small manufacturers, many of whom are complaining that they can't find CNC operators or other people to staff their companies. This is becoming a serious situation as most machine operators today are in their late 50s and will soon be retiring. The schools, which dropped their vocational ed programs in the 80s and 90s to save money -- they also bought the line that we were no longer going to be a manufacturing economy -- are mainly the culprit here. Also gone is the work ethic. Several medium sized company owners have told me that the only young people who will stay at a factory job are people who are not from this country, especially immigrants from Eastern Europe. We have need of all sorts of workers for good jobs as 'A&P' aircraft mechanics, sophisticated machine operators, and other factory occupations as successful industries expand.
Here's another Midwest example: Marinette Marine in northern Wisconsin wanted to hire 100 area high school graduates to staff its ship-building operation. 7 showed up. I'm sure there is propaganda involved at some level, but that doesn't mean we don't have a problem finding Americans who want to work. Let's do some accurate reporting, which can't be easily done from 40,000 feet.
#11 Posted by Chuck Sweeny, CJR on Wed 11 Jul 2012 at 01:06 PM
Ryan, it's worth noting here, per your earlier coverage of the "can't find workers meme," that James Surowiecki has just published a column on the topic and reached conclusions similar to yours and to those of Dean Barber, a frequent contributor to our pages here at Site Selection:
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2012/07/09/120709ta_talk_surowiecki
http://deanbarber.wordpress.com/2012/06/24/heresy-just-how-real-is-the-skills-gap-4/
Adam Bruns
#12 Posted by Adam Bruns, CJR on Wed 11 Jul 2012 at 01:11 PM
Just because a person has an affiliation to an advocacy organization, does not make him the mouth piece for that organization. I happen to know Drew Greenblatt personally and I can tell you this man is a go-getter. He is involved in a myriad of ways in promoting manufacturing in the US in the best way. He has developed ties with members of the media on his own as a well spoken, knowledgable and reliable source of information on the issues related to manufacturing. He does not need, nor does he seek, the approval of the National Association of Manufacturers, before he talks to the press.
The fact of the matter is there is a severe shortage of skilled workers for manufacturing jobs. Many people lake the basic skills necessary to operate the highly sophisticated machinery of today's industry. Instead of trying to make it some sort of consiparcy against labor or unions, how about reporting on how we can fix the problem.
I would ask you Mr. Chittum are you a member of any professional or trade organizations? Becasue the slant of this article certainly comes across as those kinds of organization are influencing your writings?
#13 Posted by Jay Pascoe, CJR on Wed 11 Jul 2012 at 03:02 PM
I am old enough to remember a piece in Esquire during the '60s by a machinst who complained (back in the days of 4% unemployment) that he couldn't find a job that wasn't tied to the military somehow or other.
I could go out right now, if I were an employer, and find Ph.D.s in just about any field who are looking for work. Some are in the coffee shop down the block.
Everybody wants to find a top-notch worker for free or cheap.
It's like the Fortune 500 companies. They cannot seem to find competent, honest CEOs, no matter how much they offer.
It is to laugh.
#14 Posted by Harry Eagar, CJR on Wed 11 Jul 2012 at 03:55 PM
Jay of NAM,
I'm a member of SPJ, thanks.
Again, the point is that if reporters decide they're going to quote political activists, they need to disclose that they are political activists--particularly when working with major lobbying groups.
#15 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Wed 11 Jul 2012 at 06:03 PM
Hmm. Might it have something to do with the average salary for a CNC operator being $26,000 per year? Source: Cnc Operator Salaries in Rockford, IL | Simply Hired
$12.50 per hour. That's not enough to get married and raise a family on, buy a house or an automobile. It's 1970's wages. Unskilled retail make 12.50 per hour. Student workers make 12.50 per hour. It's not enough of a job to stick around for.
Maybe if the small manufacturers invested a little bit in their work force, they'd have people knocking on the door to work for them. There is certainly no shortage of auto workers, union or non-union, who make around 26-28 an hour. For a manufacturer, your skilled workforce is an asset, not an expense.
#16 Posted by James, CJR on Wed 11 Jul 2012 at 06:14 PM
Plus, at a little better wage, maybe your workers could afford to buy your product. Think about that.
#17 Posted by James, CJR on Wed 11 Jul 2012 at 06:17 PM
.
"All those small business owners are lying bastards. They are just too greedy and stupid to hire all these qualified workers. Workers of the world, unite!" –A politically neutral journalist
.
#18 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Wed 11 Jul 2012 at 06:34 PM
I was impressed by the mix of skills Mr. Greenblatt requires of his skilled machinists. As I recall it, they had to be right with the equipment, and they also had to be strong communicators--good with the email and the back-and-forth descriptions and modifications customers might need.
This is no knock on machinists--my late uncle was one and I've known and respected plenty more in my four decades on the planet--but I've never yet known one who was also a good writer and a good salesman too.
Dividing up these jobs and parceling them out to different people used to be the essence of industrial management--back when managers were paid not much more than normal folk.
These days you find guys at the top of even small and midsized companies socking away sums that would have made their counterparts of four decades ago green with envy.
And the pay for line workers has barely budged at all--let alone kept pace with inflation.
Plus they're expected to have the proverbial ten thousand talents.
How could anyone be surprised that these workers are hard for guys like Greenblatt to find?
#19 Posted by Edward Ericson Jr., CJR on Wed 11 Jul 2012 at 10:30 PM
Geez, I remember when being a vegan quoted on separate stories for NPR and 350.org was enough to raise questions about process and get people's smarmy hackles up...
And these guys were undisclosed members of industry groups who were in the process of lobbying while these guys were commenting on multiple industry related stories? Yeeesh. Kind of sucks the drama out of the old Dan Korman scandal.
#20 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 12 Jul 2012 at 02:49 AM
yes the nanny for twins who will work for $7.25 an hour -- and should sing like Julie Andrews!
#21 Posted by Ellen Freilich, CJR on Thu 12 Jul 2012 at 09:02 AM
"These businesspeople are supposed know how markets work: If you want to buy something, but nobody wants to sell it to you, raise your bid."
Or, if higher wages cannot be justified given all the uncertainties out there, then you simpy do without.
Why can't you grasp this elemental insight?
#22 Posted by Nick R, CJR on Thu 12 Jul 2012 at 09:14 AM
Guys like Greenblatt and Olivo are great for reporters. They return calls promptly; they talk in sound bites; and they stay on message. Your ordinary non-media-savvy small business person is much harder to deal with.
It works the same way with experts. Real experts in any field are busy with their own work and wary of being misunderstood. But pretend experts who work in right-wing-funded "think tanks" don't have any real work. Their main job is to reporters and to go on TV. They always return calls and they always have a pithy sound bit to slot into a story.
#23 Posted by Bloix, CJR on Thu 12 Jul 2012 at 11:56 AM
Astroturf for the win!
#24 Posted by northierthanthou, CJR on Thu 12 Jul 2012 at 12:21 PM
I gotta admit; seeing all these pro-biz journos and industry flacks come into the comment section to defend the honor of these two, brave, average Joe small business fellas is hill-air-ee-us! Lets face it, these guys get more press time than Lindsay Lohan. But, sure, they're just run-of-the-mill businessmen just trying to make ends meet and struggling to find high-skilled workers who will work for peanuts. My heart bleeds for them...
And another thing, if employers can't find skilled employees that will slave away for the crappy wages they are offering, then they need to increase their bid price! This is basic economics! You'd think salt-of-the-earth business professionals would understand that.
#25 Posted by Afferent Input, CJR on Thu 12 Jul 2012 at 12:23 PM
Hysterical, Jay Pascoe, the VP of NAM, won't even identify his own affiliation in his comment. Hacktacular!
#26 Posted by Glenn, CJR on Thu 12 Jul 2012 at 01:24 PM
@Jay Pascoe: It sounds like you want skilled workers for ditch-digger wages. Ever thought of raising your bid, or training a worker yourself?
#27 Posted by Matt R, CJR on Thu 12 Jul 2012 at 01:37 PM
So, the position of NAM is that business owners are entitled to have trained employees provided to them (courtesy of the government, at no expense) who are required to work at whatever wage the owner wishes to pay.
And none of these free-market types see the inherent contradiction is this? I guess the free market is only invoked when it works against labor. When labor benefits from the free market, then it's time to bring in socialism AND indentured servitude.
#28 Posted by Lolly, CJR on Thu 12 Jul 2012 at 05:21 PM
"It’s called sourcing. Barring that, there’s the Internets."
Mr Chittum - I am a little surprised at the lack of effort that you put into this article. If your point were that journalists should be clear as to an experts affiliations, I agree. You could have said that in far fewer words. If your point is to discredit the position that manufacturers suffer from a shortage of qualified labor, then you've failed to make your point unless you expect us to accept the premise that lack of disclosure automatically disqualifies an advocate's position.
In aggregate, there is a severe shortage of qualified candidates, even where no shortage of applicants exists. What the manufacturers and frankly the politicians are dancing around is the fact that a high school graduate today is far less qualified for a real world job in manufacturing than those of 20 years ago. And for the record, the average manufacturing job pays (with benefits) just over $75K per year - just a little over minimum wage.
As I see it, your problem is that you've used the internet for your research as opposed to some good old sourcing, like wandering in to any manufacturing plant who is doing things in a modern way, using modern technologies. I have to believe there aren't at least a dozen near you that could be polled.
@Lolly - you say that business owners feel "entitled to have trained employees provided to them (courtesy of the government, at no expense". First, you are kidding yourself if you feel manufacturing firms in the US do not contribute to the tax base in their own communities. Second, if that training is basic math, science and communication skills - then I would say YES - US manufacturers expect this. Another term for this would be a valid HS diploma conferred for meeting skill requirements as opposed to age requirements.
Paul - a Board Member, The National Association of Manufacturers
#29 Posted by Paul Boris, CJR on Thu 19 Jul 2012 at 11:32 AM
Mr. Boris of NAM tells an outright lie here.
"And for the record, the average manufacturing job pays (with benefits) just over $75K per year - just a little over minimum wage."
In fact, the average manufacturing job, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, pays $18.27 per hour as of April, 2012. That is $38,000 per year. You can add 50% to that for the most generous benefits imaginable, and you are only up to $57,000.
I know what you are doing: you are grossly inflating your salary data by adding in the amount of money that already retired people are collecting from their pensions. That's like claiming that @Ryan is making half a million dollars a year, including the pensions of every retired professor in the University.
If you had a valid point to make, you wouldn't need to lie about easily checked data. Please retract your egregious, misleading statement.
Source: ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb17.txt
#30 Posted by James, CJR on Sat 21 Jul 2012 at 04:25 PM
James - no need for a retraction. You draw an inaccurate conclusion by making some sort of assumption that is not supported by my comments nor the data your cite.
The number I quote is derived by using US Bureau of Economic Analysis data (www.bea.gov) for full and part time manufacturing employees. Their data is based on actuals as opposed to "average hourly wage" where the overtime is excluded and the hours worked are not cited (in any event, you simply assume 40hrs/wk which is inconsistent with ANY manufacturing plant I have ever seen)
You start your quote by indicating that I tell an outright lie, with insufficient data to support your insult.
I have a point to make - good paying manufacturing jobs are going unfilled due to the lack of qualified candidates. I am not sure what point you are trying to make.
#31 Posted by Paul Boris, CJR on Sat 21 Jul 2012 at 06:49 PM
Mr. Boris,
Please include a link to your risible claim. Show your work. How do you arrive at your ludicrous numbers? The website you include does not direct me to anything like credible data that would support your claim. Please link to the specific data to show me that your claim is valid. There are plenty of data tables on that website so please link to the specific data that shows "total" compensation for manufacturing workers -- and we are talking about blue collar workers, not management or supervisory staff -- is anywhere near what you claim. It's interesting that you didn't see fit to link to data supporting your specific claim.
That you would lie about something like this by egregiously inflating and misrepresenting data shows that you are dishonest, and since you are speaking for your organization, that your organization or any of their spokespersons cannot be trusted either. I guess that includes your poster boy Olivo.
I am not trying to make any point at all. I am simply calling bullshit on your dishonesty, for all to see and read. Actually your point is that American high school graduates are too dumbass and unqualified to work for you even for half the median American wage. That's actually what I get from your comments. When you start out lying and making outrageously inflated and distorted claims as you did, it's hard to take you seriously.
I'd like to see you better address the point made by @Lolly above. This commenter really nailed you. As I pointed out above, the American auto worker industry has NO trouble finding qualified workers, union or non-union. In fact, there are long waiting lists of high school grads who want to work for them. Of course, they get paid a decent living wage. Think about that.
#32 Posted by James, CJR on Sat 21 Jul 2012 at 09:37 PM
James - based on your tone, it is clear that whatever details I provide will not be to your satisfaction. You pointed me to a site that had little information to support your claim, and when I point you to the specific site that has an excruciating level of detail to support my position, that is not enough for you. I've stated my position and provided the source, and you disagree. That is where I choose to leave it.
As for Lolly's comment - interestingly enough, an earlier poster points to a blog from Dean Barber in support of Lolly's points. Even more interesting is that Mr Barber cites a company as an example of a manufacturer who invests in their own people. This company and their Chairman are NAM Board members, and the Chairman has recently been elected Chair of the NAM's sister organization, the Manufacturing Institute. I know this gentleman personally and he is one of the most respected Trustees.
As for American High School students, I believe many are ill-prepared for real working conditions in environments that have the potential to provide good wages, specifically, manufacturing (many could not make change unless the register tells them). You can hurl all the insults you like, but that will not change the reality of our situation.
#33 Posted by Paul Boris, CJR on Sun 22 Jul 2012 at 12:52 PM
James - one last point.
Before you hold the Auto Industry up as an example, you might be interested to know that the UAW has chosen to agree to a two tier pay scale where new employees earn about half of what the current employees make hourly:
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/18/business/la-fi-economy-wages-20111218
#34 Posted by Paul Boris, CJR on Sun 22 Jul 2012 at 12:55 PM
@Mr. Boris,
In fact, my link goes to an official data table from the Bureau of Labor Statistics "B-17. Average hourly earnings, excluding overtime(1), of production employees on manufacturing payrolls." I am surprised and sorry that you cannot understand how to read an actual table of official data, that by the way refuted your ridiculous assertion on the average compensation of manufacturing employees. Perhaps you shouldn't quote dubious statistics until you can actually read and understand a data table.
On the other hand, you have not provided a source. Your "link" was to a home page with a lot of links, none of which enabled a person to find any data to verify your ridiculous assertion. A useless link and you still have not produced any data supporting your ridiculous, dishonest assertion. Here's another instance where you are being disingenuous. Show me where you come up with the numbers in your claim.
-It has been the reality since the time of Plato that people like you and your colleagues decry the sloth and disrespect of "kids these days." I'll just say that you are profoundly mistaken if you think that high school grads are not qualified to work for the lowest possible wages in a manufacturing plant. You aren't looking very hard or trying very hard. If you want the schools to output highly qualified people to work for your clients, maybe work with the schools, start paying some local taxes that support the infrastructure and education of the people who live in your community. Pay better wages. Here's something you may not know: Offering decent wages, security, and benefits tends to attract highly qualified workers. Offering crap wages attracts ...just the opposite.
In fact, become a valued member of your community, and quit sucking the life out of the local tax base. Many small and medium-sized companies do that, and attract very qualified, very hardworking and loyal workers.
-I know about the concessions the auto workers made, have been making for 20 years or more. Auto manufacturers STILL have waiting lists several years long of highly qualified people wanting to work for them. Why? Because they offer a living wage with benefits, such their workers want to make a career of it, raise a family, buy a house. As it is, the average manufacturing job paying an average of $18.00 per hour is a crap job. And your minions would pay even less if you could get away with it. Who would set out to make a career of a crap job? Seriously.
I agree with you, that our discussion is destined to go nowhere. That's kind of a shame; I think there is much constructive discussion to be had about this issue. These problems can be solved, with good will on both sides. But you start off with a big fat lie, and it's clear that your only function is to disseminate dishonesty. But I appreciate the discussion nevertheless.
#35 Posted by James, CJR on Sun 22 Jul 2012 at 07:43 PM
I did want to add the following:
-The US armed forces take tens of thousands of high school graduates every year, provide them with some structure and a little bit of training, and lo and behold, mold them into one awesome, talented fighting force and all the support occupations that we need to protect our great country, you and me. Not just infantry, but mechanics, shipbuilders, accountants, intelligence.
-The trade occupations take thousands, formerly tens of thousands, of high school grads every year, apprentice them with good starting wages and some training, and lo and behold, skilled craftsmen, electricians, carpenters, builders, welders, millwrights, build our bridges, tunnels, our houses, everything that can be built in this vast country are mainly built by high school graduates.
The armed forces and the skill trade occupations, to cite just two obvious examples, have not the trouble you seem to have in finding qualified high school graduates to do the work of America. Your colleagues and paying contributors, therefore, must be doing something wrong. What do you suppose that might be?
#36 Posted by James, CJR on Sun 22 Jul 2012 at 08:23 PM
James - your accusations and insults really diminish your arguments.
Your ignorance is really exemplified in your opinion that manufacturing firms "suck the life" out of the local tax base. One of President Obama's signature initiatives around education and employee retraining for the workforce of the future was driven by the Manufacturing Institute, proving that despite the rancor with which you choose to enter this debate, the issue of training has clear bi-partisan support. The NAM has also driven commitments from hundreds of member companies to increase internships in engineering related roles. You draw sweeping conclusions with little basis in fact, and show even less curiosity to learn what these "evil manufacturing firms" are doing to address the problem.
I cannot for the life of me figure out where you are reading the "kids these days" into my comments. I believe we have the best workforce in the world. You seem to equate my concern with our declining math and science scores with some sort of indictment of the students themselves. We cannot continue to lose engineering talent, and fall behind in math and science and expect to compete globally or bring manufacturing jobs back onshore. We should be VERY concerned when companies like GM move R&D operations from the US to China as they have recently announced around electric vehicles. Now we are not only losing line roles, but engineering jobs.
As for the US military providing "a little bit of training" - are you kidding ? The extensive training provided is far from "a little bit of training."
As for your data table, you cannot simply provide an average hourly anything and draw an accurate conclusion as to the total annual anything. If you drive your car an average of 55mph, how far will you go ? Well, that really depends how many hours are expended. Your data is actually meaningless expect in comparison of straight wage hourly compensation. Your data does not even include overtime, the staple of any good manufacturing operation.
In the first plant I ever ran, I would tell employees that I had one job - to increase their compensation. I would explain that there was really only one way to accomplish this - by increasing their skills and value to the company, and ultimately the company's profitability. I would commit in writing to any employee requesting a raise as to a plan for their training and backdate the raise to the date of our original discussion provided they completed the certification on time. We would both sign the form and then get to work. In that plant, we managed to nearly double throughput (product being shipped to a customer as opposed to a warehouse), with no additional physical space or significant increase in headcount, passing a portion of the profits back to the workers. This is the basis for my 30 years in manufacturing - I hope that qualifies me as a contributor as opposed to a leech.
I continue to engage the debate despite your anger and insults in the hope that others reading this with a little bit of intellectual curiosity might look into what the NAM and Manufacturing Institute are doing to address these issues - they might be pleasantly surprised.
#37 Posted by Paul Boris, CJR on Sun 22 Jul 2012 at 09:04 PM
Those who are interested might want to hit the link and check out Project Gift or 12 for Life.
http://www.southwire.com/ourcompany.htm
Just another example of what the manufacturing base does in their communities...
#38 Posted by Paul Boris, CJR on Sun 22 Jul 2012 at 09:16 PM
You rightwingers have come to this yourselves. You have almost destroyed public education in your communities, insisting on cut after cut and literally demonizing professional teachers and other community leaders and public servants in your anti-union jihad. And then you complain about "the kids these days." You have cut wages and benefits and any kind of permanency such that these kinds of low wage jobs are like retail or burger flipping jobs. You rightwingers are bent on creating hundreds of little Appalacias across the country mired in ignorance and poverty. That's the direct result of the kinds of policies that you rightwingers peddle.
I don't think that kids see any future in the kinds of manufacturing jobs that you are peddling. An average of $37,000 a year -- that's not beginning wages but average wages -- is not enough of a future for anyone. You rightwingers have eaten your seed corn with your drive to the lowest possible wages, eliminating any kind of decent benefits like health insurance and pension. These companies offer zero job security. Tell me, why would any talented high school graduate aspire to a low-wage temp job with no benefits and no future or career path? This is what your anti-middle class agenda has given you.
This preposterous lie that you peddle -- "the average manufacturing job pays (with benefits) just over $75K per year " -- is a piece of propaganda that is designed to be divisive and foster resentment, and for no other purpose. There is no other reason to use a grossly inflated, dishonest figure like that. I have asked you time and again to present ANY evidence of your claim and you have failed to do it. In fact, you cannot present evidence because it is a lie. If you were interested in real solutions more than disseminating rightwing propaganda, you would use a standard, official, and widely recognized statistic.
You know Mr. Boris, Americans like myself would very much love to be buying quality goods made in the USA. I am willing to pay a little more for quality, solid stuff that doesn't rust, rot, or fall apart, that isn't poisoned by lead or toxic plastics. That's why I'm rooting for the resurgence in American manufacturing. So you are very wrong in assuming that I am anti-manufacturing -- nothing could be further from the truth. But the policies and lies you are peddling aren't getting us where we want to be. How about dropping the rightwing-generated dishonesty and take a wider view about where your real problems are?
#39 Posted by James, CJR on Tue 24 Jul 2012 at 08:54 AM
James - no need to let your rabid rant get in the way of facts.
I provided the website with incredible detail on my stats, the the average US Manufacturing job pay ~$75K with benefits, but you choose not to review them. Your fault, not mine.
As for your right-wing rant, I provided a very specific example of what is driving down wages for middle class workers, i.e., GM moving R&D jobs offshore, GM and UAW throwing new employees under the bus with the 2 tier wage scheme (as opposed to addressing systemic costs), all of which are controlled or influenced by the largest share-holder (the US Government and Obama administration) and you simply ignore this to affix blame to some sort of right-wing conspiracy.
If we are going to solve these important issues, blaming those other guys is not going to get us there. But if that makes you feel better, so be it.
#40 Posted by Paul Boris, CJR on Wed 25 Jul 2012 at 08:54 AM