From: cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne)
Subject: Re: jobs, again
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:43:35 GMT

In article <BxIDKt.Isy@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>  I was looking over the jobs stats in yesterday's Wall Street
>  Journal.  It had earlier been announced that unemployment
>  had dropped to 7.4%.     But the Journal reported that this
>  was due strictly to an decrease in people showing up at
>  unemployment offices.   The actual number of jobs in the
>  US economy was *DOWN*.   


>It makes no
>  difference to them that an increasing number of very
>  mainstream economists and businessmen are beginning to
>  echo my sentiments that the problems in the US and world
>  economy are structural, not cyclical, and very severe.

>  I just don't see any source for significant job growth
>  in any sector of the US economy. 

>  This is a very serious problem, not just economically,
>  but also socially since unemployment can be a major
>  force favoring crime, family and other social problems, 
>  and political extremism.

>  I have repeatedly asked various people who think I'm
>  being too pessimistic to name the areas or industries 
>  where they anticipate growth in good-quality jobs.
>  What would you advise a college freshman to major in
>  today?   What would you advise a laid-off autoworker 
>  to seek training in?   

I would say that the job situation has been changing for the
last 30 years or so and people seem to just begin to realize it.
In the early postwar years, the U.S. had a booming economy, virtually
no war damage (at least physically), and a young, agressive population
that was ready to have families and make money.

By the 60's the population was booming and the children of the people
who had good jobs could also get good jobs.  The politicians realized that
times were passing by some people and we had the booming welfare state
(war on poverty).  Unfortunately, nothing was done to counter the fact that
Europe and Asia were recovering from the war and beginning to produce
very competitively with respect to the U.S.  During this period, LBJ expanded
a war in S. E. Asia which the U.S. couldn't win, but spent billions trying to.

In the 70's we saw worldwide inflation, partly due to increase in oil prices
and continued welfare spending in an attempt to solve social problems which
were attacked but still pending.

By the 80's, the country decided that it had too much of welfare spending and
government regulation, and elected a President who promised to stop wasteful
government spending and government regulation.  The result was the biggest
deficit in the countries history.

Still, the underlying problems of productivity and education for jobs were not
solved (25% of our high school students drop out and another 25% are functionally illiterate).  We have an underlying class of poor people (about 35 million
in number) who can't get good jobs (or health care).

President-elect Clinton was selected as the only candidate who could solve these problems.  I expect that the money that Democrats have traditionally depended
on to solve these problems just doesn't exist (the electorate refuses to be taxed to a level necessary to raise the funds).  

If you have some suggestions regarding what will work, I'm sure Bill Clinton
could use your help.

Charlie