“This Is Really A Symbol Of What’s Going On In This Whole Country. We’re Losing Middle-Class Jobs”

We wish we could say we didn’t warn Boeing’s machinists about the key trend taking place in the US economy under the Obama “recovery” but unfortunately we did. Three years ago, to be specific, when we wrote: “Charting America’s Transformation To A Part-Time Worker Society” and followed it up with “A “Quality Assessment” Of US Jobs Reveals The Ugliest Picture Yet” in which we explained that while the propaganda machine was fixated on numeric, quantitative, job additions every month, what has subversively going on, was the constant deterioration in the quality of jobs – and specifically the declining wages – available to those Americans who had not rotated outside of the labor force permanently (currently at a record 91.5 million). We say “alas” because it once again took several years before our cautions to be felt by the broader population, in this case the Boeing machinist union struggling to extract a wage increase from its employer: Boeing Airlines, whose stock keeps hitting new record highs with every passing day.

The machinists’ lament is well-known to virtually everyone who relies on labor instead of capital to exist: pay us more. Bloomberg reports:

“We need to focus on how many jobs there are that give an adult a chance to earn a decent living,” said Gordon Lafer, an associate professor at the University of Oregon’s Labor Education and Research Center in Eugene. “Too much of the discussion has been about the number of jobs, and that’s obviously important, but there’s also a crisis in the quality of jobs.”

That’s ironic: when we said it first three years ago, the mainstream media mocked it. Curious how things change when that hope you once believed in becomes a “zero balance” nightmare at the ATM machine, eh?

Blame it on the Fed, blame it on globalization, blame it on corporations who have a virtually unlimited labor, cheap and global pool to pick from, but the bottom line is US workers have zero leverage.

Where unions and their allies see reason for alarm, employers see a way to retain jobs against the lure of lower wages overseas. There were about 12 million U.S. factory jobs in October, buoyed by recent gains while still down 39 percent from 1979’s peak.

 

“We certainly have seen manufacturers become much more competitive,” said Chad Moutray, chief economist at the Washington-based National Association of Manufacturers. Falling labor costs have helped “keep U.S. manufacturers much more competitive and you’re seeing more investment in the U.S. as a result.”

The good news for workers: each day of pain for them means a day of joy for the shareholders – typically those in US society who already are the wealthiest.

Manufacturers’ after-tax profits rose to a record $289.1 billion last year, more than three times 2009’s tally, the Commerce Department reported. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Industrials Index has more than tripled since its 2009 low, and topped the broader index by 59 percentage points over that span.

 

“What’s being referred to as a recovery in manufacturing is to a large extent a recovery in profitability,” said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a Washington-based group funded by unions and private foundations. “That’s good for the companies and good for the shareholders but it’s not necessarily good for the workers.”

To some, labor’s epic lack of leverage has to do with lack of unionization to take on greedy coroprations.

Some of the states where factory jobs are growing the fastest are among the least unionized. In 2012, 4.6 percent of South Carolina workers were represented by unions, as did 6.8 percent of Texans, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. New York, the most-unionized, was at 24.9 percent.

 

Assembly workers at Boeing’s nonunion plant in North Charleston, South Carolina, earn an average of $17 an hour, compared with $27.65 for the more-experienced Machinists-represented workforce at the company’s wide-body jet plant in Everett, Washington, said Bryan Corliss, a union spokesman.

 

Higher wages also no longer go hand-in-hand with union jobs, as they once did.

But the reality is that in a world drowning in overcapacity, and in which globalization, technological innovation and improvements in productivity mean that Boeing can open a plant anywhere else in the US, or in the world and still pay less than it does currently, even if it means a lot of unhappy, and unemployed labor workers. For example:

General Electric Co. says it has added about 2,500 production jobs since 2010 at its home-appliance plant in Louisville, Kentucky. Under an accord with the union local, new hires make $14 an hour assembling refrigerators and washing machines, compared with a starting wage of about $22 for those who began before 2005. While CEO Jeffrey Immelt has said GE could have sent work on new products to China, it instead invested $1 billion in its appliance business in the U.S. after the agreement was reached.

 

The company is also moving work to lower-wage states. In Fort Edward, New York, GE plans to dismiss about 175 employees earning an average of $29.03 an hour and shift production of electrical capacitors to Clearwater, Florida. Workers there can earn about $12 an hour, according to the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, which represents the New York employees.

In summary: here is the corporate speak:

“GE’s business units continuously review their operations and sometimes have to make tough decisions to keep up with market trends, address customer demands or reduce cost,” Duchamp said in an e-mail. “The intention of the proposed move is to address the increasing cost pressures and leverage the resources” available at the Florida site.

And here is the worker speak:

This is really a symbol of what’s going on in this whole country,” said Machinist Thomas Campbell, 40. “We’re losing middle-class jobs.”

What is sad is that both are correct, and while Bernanke and his wealth effect policies do everything to make the rich, and the corporations, even richer, they continue to rob what little standard of living America’s workers have, and in the process continue to destroy what little is left of the middle class. Once again, as we warned, so long ago.

Tim Geithner was only kidding about “welcome to the recovery” – what he meant was “welcome to the new feudal system.”


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/xnTNsXO9BnY/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Dow Closes Above 16,000 For First Time (Retirement On)

Supported by economic weakness overnight in Asia and a weak Philly Fed print (bad news is good news) along with hope from more QE out of the BoJ, JPY weakness floated all boats today as homebuilders and financials surged lifting stocks tick for tick with carry. Yellen's nomination provided yet another lift. Treasuries rallied (though the long-end remains +10bps on the week). Precious metals were monkey-hammered early then dead for the rest of the day (-4% on the week) as oil prices surged higher ( +1.6% on the week). The USD Index glitched lower on no neg rates chatter early from Europe but the quietness in the index hid major dispersion as AUD was craushed (now 1.6% lower on the week). Credit markets rallied (but remain well off stocks) and VIX was compressed as low volumes meant a slow lift higher (and Trannies best day in almost 5 weeks). Shorts suffered the most until POMO ended – tripling market performance.

 

The Dow closed above 16,000 for the first time ever…

 

The S&P managed to get back perfectly to yesterday's highs…

 

The early going was dominated by a smash higher in the most shorted names… again…

 

As homebuilders and financials soared…

 

Credit rallied but has a long way to go to catch up with stocks…

 

Commodities were dispersed with PMs weak and energy/growth strong…

 

As FX markets saw a small down day in the USD Index but major buying relative to JPY, CAD, and AUD…

 

Treasuries rallied modestly after Yellen's nomination…

With USDJPY crossing back over 101, stocks were simply all about the JPY carry trade once again as the promise of Kuroda wins the day…

 

Charts: Bloomberg

 

 


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/oqltCjS0uGQ/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Insurance Company Mocks Obamacare Website in New Ads, WordPress.com Joins Lawsuit Over DMCA Abuse, University in Cyprus to Accept Bitcoin: P.M. Links

  • not a government colonoscopyWellmark Blue Cross Blue Shield
    is running a series of ads in Iowa and South Dakota
    mocking
    the government’s healthcare.gov problems and suggesting
    consumers try the company’s website instead. In Colorado, a
    14-year-old Yorkie named Baxter was
    enrolled
    through Obamacare. California, meanwhile, is
    looking
    to dial back the Obamacare rule that will prohibit
    insurance companies from dropping policy holders before three
    consecutive months of non-payment. California will continue to
    apply its own rule, which prohibits companies from dropping
    policyholders within a one-month grace period.
  • Senator Charles Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate
    Judiciary Committee,
    warned
    that in response to Democrats altering filibuster rules
    in a party-line vote, Republicans would expand the rollback of the
    judicial filibuster when they regain power.
  • The parent company of blogging website WordPress.com is

    joining
    two lawsuits by its users against alleged abusers of
    the DMCA copyright infringement take-down process.
  • A federal indictment unsealed today
    alleges
    that a drug dealer in Thailand boasted of being able to
    exprt to the United States a form of methamphetamine with “Breaking
    Bad” purity levels, and that the North Korean government was
    protecting the manufacturing operation in that country.
  • The LA Unified School District
    admitted
    the software licenses they purchased as part of their
    iPad acquisition will expire within three years, just six months
    before most students expected to participate in the program will
    have the devices. Renewal may cost up to $60 million a year after
    that.
  • A celebration putting San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee in the
    spotlight when the Make-a-Wish Foundation helped a boy play Batkid
    for a day means the act of charity will
    cost
    the city $105,000.
  • The University of Nicosia in Cyprus
    announced
    it would accept Bitcoin as payment for tuition and
    other school fees.

Follow Reason and Reason 24/7 on
Twitter, and like us on Facebook.
  You
can also get the top stories mailed to
you—
sign
up here.
 

Have a news tip? Send it to us!

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/21/insurance-company-mocks-obamacare-websit
via IFTTT

Sheldon Richman on Why the U.S. Isn’t Leaving Afghanistan

This is a confession of failure. America’s
longest war is nowhere near its end. Sheldon Richman points to a
draft agreement between the Obama administration and President
Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan. If it is finalized, U.S. troops will
remain in that country indefinitely — instead of being withdrawn at
the end of 2014, as the administration has said.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/21/sheldon-richman-on-why-the-us-isnt-leavi
via IFTTT

Sheldon Richman on Why the U.S. Isn't Leaving Afghanistan

This is a confession of failure. America’s
longest war is nowhere near its end. Sheldon Richman points to a
draft agreement between the Obama administration and President
Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan. If it is finalized, U.S. troops will
remain in that country indefinitely — instead of being withdrawn at
the end of 2014, as the administration has said.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://reason.com/blog/2013/11/21/sheldon-richman-on-why-the-us-isnt-leavi
via IFTTT

Guest Post: QE's Economic Miss & Future Valuation Overshoot

Submitted by Lance Roberts of STA Wealth Management,

 


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/ky0r83gMyDg/story01.htm Tyler Durden

Guest Post: QE’s Economic Miss & Future Valuation Overshoot

Submitted by Lance Roberts of STA Wealth Management,

 


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/ky0r83gMyDg/story01.htm Tyler Durden

A Minority Telling Us Why Majority Rule is Good For Us


Democrat Senator Harry Reid is now pushing to remove the filibuster from the US Senate.  This is referred to as, “The Nuclear Option.”  He has enlisted the help of President Barack Obama in this endeavor. 

President Barack Obama says he supports move by Senate Democrats to make it harder for Republicans to block his nominees.

Thus, we have the odd case of President Obama, a minority, telling us that Majority Rule is good for us.

 Harry Reid did not always feel this way about the filibuster…

 

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): “As majority leader, I intend to run the Senate with respect for the rules and for the minority rights the rules protect. The Senate was not established to be efficient. Sometimes the rules get in the way of efficiency. The Senate was established to make sure that minorities are protected. Majorities can always protect themselves, but minorities cannot. That is what the Senate is all about. For more than 200 years, the rules of the Senate have protected the American people, and rightfully so. The need to muster 60 votes in order to terminate Senate debate naturally frustrates the majority and oftentimes the minority. I am sure it will frustrate me when I assume the office of majority leader in a few weeks. But I recognize this requirement is a tool that serves the long-term interest of the Senate and the American people and our country.”

Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.11591, 12/8/06)

h/t rwe2late

 

For 200 years, we’ve had the right to extended debate. It’s not some “procedural gimmick.”

 

It’s within the vision of the Founding Fathers of our country. They
established a government so that no one person – and no single party –
could have total control.

 

Some in this Chamber want to throw out 217 years of Senate history in the quest for absolute power.

 

They want to do away with Mr. Smith coming to Washington.

 

They want to do away with the filibuster.

 

They think they are wiser than our Founding Fathers.

 

I doubt that’s true.

 

-Harry Reid, Reid Floor Speech on Use of Filibuster, 2005 

h/t trader1

How does the filibuster help to protect the minority?

Minority rights

 

Because a majority can win a vote under majority rule, it has been commonly argued that majority rule can lead to a “tyranny of the majority”. Supermajoritarian rules, such as the three-fifths supermajority rule required to end a filibuster in the United States Senate, have been proposed as preventative measures of this problem. Other experts argue that this solution is questionable. Supermajority rules do not guarantee that it is a minority that will be protected by the supermajority rule; they only establish that one of two alternatives is the status quo, and privilege it against being overturned by a mere majority. To use the example of the US Senate, if a majority votes against cloture, then the filibuster will continue, even though a minority supports it. Anthony McGann argues that when there are multiple minorities and one is protected (or privileged) by the supermajority rule, there is no guarantee that the protected minority won’t be one that is already privileged, and if nothing else it will be the one that has the privilege of being aligned with the status quo.[1]

 

 

Another way to safeguard against tyranny of the majority, it is argued, is to guarantee certain rights. Inalienable rights, including who can vote, which cannot be transgressed by a majority, can be decided beforehand as a separate act,[5] by charter or constitution. Thereafter, any decision that unfairly targets a minority’s right could be said to be majoritarian, but would not be a legitimate example of a majority decision because it would violate the requirement for equal rights. In response, advocates of unfettered majority rule argue that because the procedure that privileges constitutional rights is generally some sort of supermajoritarian rule, this solution inherits whatever problems this rule would have. They also add the following: First, constitutional rights, being words on paper, cannot by themselves offer protection. Second, under some circumstances, the rights of one person cannot be guaranteed without making an imposition on someone else; as Anthony McGann wrote, “one man’s right to property in the antebellum South was another man’s slavery”. Finally, as Amartya Sen stated when presenting the liberal paradox, a proliferation of rights may make everyone worse off.[6]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_rule

 

The fact that Barack Obama, an ethnic minority in America, is supporting the end of the filibuster in the US Senate is a very telling sign-post on what appears to be the road to, “A tyranny of the majority.”

 

 

May we have a moment of silence for The Rule of Law, Minority Rights, and the Constitutional Republic that we once had.

Plan accordingly.



    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/Wknr4L8d2OU/story01.htm hedgeless_horseman

Guest Post: What Happened To The Future?

Submitted by Gregor Mcdonald via Peak Prosperity,

Improbably, the global economy has returned to growth over the past four years despite the ravages of a deflationary debt collapse, a punishing oil shock, ongoing constraint from debt and deleveraging, and stagnant global wages.

The proof of this growth comes from the best indicator of all: the growth of global energy consumption. Halted in 2009, as global trade collapsed from the second half of 2008 into the first half of the following year, the global demand for energy inputs quickly returned to its long-term trend in 2010, growing at approximately 2% per year.

Ecological economics holds that human economies are subordinate to the availability of natural capital. Technology therefore does not create natural resources, nor does human innovation. Instead, technology and innovation mediate the utilization of existing natural resources. In other words, an improvement in the techniques of longwall coal mining (late 1700s), deepwater offshore oil drilling (late 1900s), and horizontal natural gas fracking (early 2000s) are all impressive. But these innovations only matter when the prize of dense energy deposits are actually on offer. No dense energy deposits = no value to innovation.

We are therefore obligated to acknowledge that when few natural resources exist or are too expensive to extract, very little economic activity is possible. Conversely, we are equally obligated to admit that when resources are available for consumption, then growth will likely result. And lo and behold, that is precisely the explanation for the world’s return to growth since the collapse of 2008: Despite the punishing repricing of oil from $25 earlier in the decade to $100, there was enough energy from other sources to get the global economy back to some kind of growth.

Of course, this is not the smooth and well-lubricated growth that many in the West had become accustomed to in the post-war era. The nature of today’s growth is highly asymmetric between East and West, and highly imbalanced between rich and poor. Today’s growth is also quite lumpy, or highly clustered, as certain domains and regions are benefiting while other populations are living in very stagnant conditions. We’ll get to these details shortly.

But first, let’s look at the longer-term chart of global energy consumption from all sources oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, and biomass denominated in Mtoe (million tonnes oil equivalent):

This chart is bad news for the many observers on all sides of the macroeconomic equation who are trying to puzzle out the post-crisis era. The fact is, there is enough energy to fund traditional, industrial economic growth in the phase after Peak Oil. Yes, the end of cheap oil did indeed shock the system, and along with the previous credit bubble, it has cast a pall on the potential rate of global growth. But many of the forecasts about the absolute end of growth have yet to come true. This is important because while the global economic system was highly sensitive to an oil shock coming into 2007, it is actually less sensitive now to an oil shock. Those who, ten years ago, correctly predicted the tail risk that oil presented to the system should declare victory. Equally, forecasting a repeat of that experience is probably unwise.

The Oil Crash is Now Behind Us

Why? Simply put, whereas oil used to be the key commodity on which a fast, just-in-time, high-functioning global economy depended all too much, now a combination of coal, natural gas, and other inputs to the power grid have taken nearly all of the market share over the past decade. It is axiomatic, therefore, that if the global supply of oil has only increased from 74 mbpd (million barrels per day) in 2004 to 76 mbpd here at the end of 2013, but total energy consumption globally from all sources has risen over 20% in the same period, then nearly all the growth in the global economy is being funded by other forms of energy.

So you can abandon the idea there will be a future oil crash – because we already had it. The world has been busily starting to wean itself off oil for nearly ten years now. Oil use in Europe and the United States peaked in 2004-2005. The decline of oil consumption only accelerated after 2008, and in the OECD, it's still declining. Will $125 or $150 oil crash the economies of Japan, the United States, or Europe at this point? Perhaps not. There is hardly any growth to crash in the OECD. It is as if the OECD economies are effectively bunkered, with no growth in wages, jobs, or construction, and nearly all progress is confined to asset prices, mainly the stock market. Perversely, this stagnation is the new strength.

Meanwhile, in the Non-OECD, where growth is actually taking place, the big drive that has taken world energy use higher since 2008 from 11310 Mtoe in 2009 to this year’s projected 12726 Mtoe continues to be funded by natural gas, various inputs to the power grid, and the world’s still fastest growing energy source: coal. Yes that's right, coal, which grew 2.5% last year. Again, ecological economics informs us that there must be energy inputs to fund economic growth. Well, the world has plenty of energy inputs in the form of natural gas and coal. There is no Peak Natural Gas and there is no Peak Coal. No crash is coming in either of these resources in the foreseeable future, either.

To give a better sense of the decline of oil and the rise of other energy inputs, consider that in almost every European country now, bicycle sales now outnumber automobile sales. Life After the Oil Crash, indeed! In the United States, oil demand has fallen to levels last seen over thirty years ago. The 5 mbpd of new demand in Asia, built over the past decade, has been supplied more from demand declines in the West than new global production. The real oil crash, now, the oil crash that matters most, is the decline of oil’s share in the total energy mix. A decade ago, oil provided nearly 39% of total global energy supply. Oil’s now down to 33%, and heading to 32% either this year, 2013, or by next year:

We would not say that the global economy is currently at high risk of losing its access to coal. So we should no longer be overly concerned that the global economy is going to lose its access to oil. It has already lost its access to cheap oil. And now coal, not oil, is in position to take the lead as the number one energy source, globally. But there is little room for complacency in this regard. Because there is little good news in this lower tail risk from oil and its lower-level threat to the global economy. Rather, the global economy is growing increasingly imbalanced.

The Grand Asymmetry

We can think of reflationary policy from Europe, the U.S., and especially Japan as an attempt to counter the West&
rsquo;s loss of access to cheap oil. Is that policy working? Not really.

The primary beneficiaries of this policy have largely been corporations, which derive most of their growth from the 5 billion people in the developing world but are located in the OECD. These corporations are sited in London, New York, Tokyo; the cash from worldwide operations rolls in, but they have little need for expensive, high-wage Western workers. Accordingly, stock markets in the West, composed of these corporations, continue to soar, while investment and growth in the OECD stagnates.

It’s bad enough that Western corporations do not hire domestic workers, do not raise wages, and have maintained capex (capital expenditures) at low levels for years. The huge cash piles stored in corporations represents their conversion, in some sense, to global utilities. Energy companies, technology companies, and infrastructure companies now operate at a very high level of efficiency. So high, and with the aid of information technology, that their need to invest in new capital equipment and especially human labor has fallen to very low levels. How low? A Standard-and-Poor's report on global capex released just this summer showed that investment is, unsurprisingly, far lower in the post-2008 period than before. Recent commentary from the folks at FT Alphaville lays some color on this data point, because at current rates, U.S. capex has only recovered to the previous trough levels of prior recessions. Worse, whatever meager recovery in capex has taken place from the lows of 2009 is now stalling again. From the S&P Global Corporate Capital Expenditure Survey, July 2013:

The global capex cycle appears to be stalling even before it has fully got under way. In real terms, capex growth for our sample of nonfinancial companies slowed in 2012 to 6% from 8% in 2011. Current estimates suggest that capex growth will fall by 2% in 2013. Early indications for 2014 are even more pessimistic, with an expected decline in real terms of 5%…. Worldwide, capex growth has become increasingly reliant on investment in the energy and materials sectors. Together, these sectors account for 62% of capex in the past decade. This reliance creates risks. If the global commodity "super cycle" is fading, global capex will struggle to grow meaningfully in the near term. Sharp cutbacks in the materials sector are a key factor in the projected slowdown in capex for 2013 and 2014.

Notice that the total volume of global capex is increasingly reliant on investment in the very capital-intensive energy and materials sector. This is highly revealing. In the aftermath of oil’s repricing and the repricing of many other natural resources, the global natural resources sector now requires significantly more investment to extract the same units of oil, copper, iron ore, coal, natural gas, and potash, and requires more expensive technology and more human labor. This is the sector holding up the average spend of global capex, so we can conclude that beneath that average, the capex in typical post-war industries like media, finance, real estate, and even infrastructure is not only low, but historically low. The very poor level of employment growth confirms exactly this conclusion. Most poignant of all, this is a wildly strong confirmation of ecological economics, showing that a larger and larger proportion of total investment needs to be devoted now to natural resource extraction, leaving less investment to other areas. The net energy available to society is in decline.

But it’s not just the private sector that has stopped investing. Public sector levels of investment have been dropping as well. In fact, according to yet another dump of recent data, U.S. government investment in public infrastructure is at the lowest levels since WWII. The Financial Times covered this on November 3rd and produced a rather stunning chart. The Financial Times writes, “Public investment picked up at the start of Mr. Obama’s term – temporarily rising to its highest level since the early 1990s – because of his fiscal stimulus. But that has been more than reversed by subsequent cuts. The biggest falls are in infrastructure, especially construction of schools and highways by states and municipalities.”

Conclusion (to Part I)

When neither the private nor public sector is willing to invest in the future, it seems appropriate to ask, what happened to the future? Have corporations along with governments figured out that a return to slow growth does not necessary equal a return to normal growth? Why invest in new infrastructure, new workforces, new office space, equipment, highways, or even rail, when the demand necessary to provide a return on this investment may never materialize?

Many sectors in Western economies remain in oversupply or overcapacity. There is a surplus of labor and a surplus of office and industrial real estate, as well as airports, highways, and suburbs that are succumbing to a permanent decrease in throughput and traffic. Perhaps the private sector is not so unwise. Collectively, through its failure to invest, it is making a de facto forecast: No normal recovery is coming.

In Part II: Why Social & Environmental Imbalances Are Becoming the Biggest Risks, we explore how the misguided policies being pursued worldwide to return to the growth we've been accustomed to are resulting in a volatile mix of imbalances in both wealth and resource availability.

As we move further into a future defined by less per capita not more, as we've become accustomed to dangerous rifts in our social fabric (both within and among countries) threaten to define the days ahead.

Click here to access Part II of this report (free executive summary; enrollment required for full access).

 


    



via Zero Hedge http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/zerohedge/feed/~3/LXCM8zqyrEA/story01.htm Tyler Durden