[GeneV]

This is a big part of the issue. Work ethic in general seems to have declined amongst younger generations. (i'm not that old BTW just 51)
When I was hiring people in a previous career I was sometimes astounded by the complete lax attitude towards work by the kids i hired. When i was 16-20 like they were i worked some pretty brutal hard jobs for crap money, but i worked hard at them and took pride in my work (try apprentice bricklayer in canada in late november in the snow uuggh that job sucked and paid little more than minimum wage)

That's interesting because MikeMike constantly blames the 50+ generation for the ills of our economy. I worked everything from the air conditioner assembly job I mentioned above to loading box cars with plastic garbage cans. The change in work ethic is not something that just happened, though. What kept me throwing 40 lb boxes over my head in 100 degree heat was hope. When people don't see a future, the ethic wanes.

[jolepp]

... When people don't see a future, the ethic wanes.

Sage observation, the difference between now and the mid 20th century in a nutshell.

[johnmflores]

When people don't see a future, the ethic wanes.

Sage observation, the difference between now and the mid 20th century in a nutshell.

Agreed. FWIW, I know recent college graduates selling cars and other young men knocking doors asking for any work whatsoever, so maybe the stereotype of today's youth is just that, a stereotype.

[mikemike]

That's interesting because MikeMike constantly blames the 50+ generation for the ills of our economy. I worked everything from the air conditioner assembly job I mentioned above to loading box cars with plastic garbage cans. The change in work ethic is not something that just happened, though. What kept me throwing 40 lb boxes over my head in 100 degree heat was hope. When people don't see a future, the ethic wanes.

That is just an anecdote, there are plenty of people from my generation and every generation working crappy manual labor jobs. I would be amazed if the guy who picked up my garbage this morning was older than 25. I too have worked my share of physical jobs from my first job which was actually in manufacturing when I was in high school, as a seasonal grunt moving boxes of crap for UPS at christmas time where we started at 3 AM, and working doing all kinds of demolition including in mold infested buildings after Katrina.

The decline in employment in manufacturing among younger generations is more symptomatic of the overall decline in manufacturing not a decline in work ethic. There is very limited future in it as US manufacturing facilities reduce head counts and it is hard to displace the incumbent workers.

I think one thing that might be a factor though is that college has to some degree taken on the role that the military used to fulfill of being a holding pen for young adults as they transition from dependence to self reliance and that shift has changed the desired type of work.

[séamuis]

Sage observation, the difference between now and the mid 20th century in a nutshell.

try telling that to the current republican front-runner, who thinks in his infinite wisdom that the people, particularly the ones at the bottom are to blame for the consistent decaying of the american labor force, and that in order to rectify it we should be making sure they are cleaning the bathrooms at school instead of attending it. this nation needs to end the dirty and disgusting trend of blaming the victims.

When people don't see a future, the ethic wanes.

I think that describes the very real reason why there is a perceived continual decline in work ethics. there is no reason to work hard, when its becoming more clear that you will get nowhere. (a big reason behind the OWS movement that the people at the top seem to conveniently ignore.)

My night job, is a mid-level manager for Kroger. (may be known under different names depending in what state you live in) and I have seen a continual decline in what on the surface could look like work ethics, or a simple increase in laziness over the past nearly six years. however, if you dig deeper you see that the average starting pay in the company has decreased, the work load has increased, the benefits decreased, the overall work environment has gone from good and caring, to nothing more than a PR campaign to make ignorant people think the company cares (because thats cheaper than actually doing so) and the young people pick up on this. the stockers that work at my store at night (the full timers doing the most difficult work and apart from the meat dept. guys get paid the most) are all in an age group of late 20's/early 30's to late 50's. you can't keep a young person for more than two weeks when they get their paycheck and realize that they are getting screwed. its not that they are greedy, its that its clear that the work required will get them nowhere, school would be too hard to do while juggling the work, and it isn't anywhere near enough to help cover the rising cost. they know they will never be on long enough to earn the pay or benefits that the older guys have, because they become aware quite quickly that the company has a very good policy in place of keeping the workforce a 'revolving door', to save costs. (suffice to say that it become aparnt quickly that you are always on the chopping block regardless of actual performance, and its true, you are.) and the older guys that show the 'work ethics' are usually just folks who got into the business long ago before it became an ugly greed driven profit machine. they mostly get paid about 11 bucks an hour. when I first started with the company I used to recommend it to people looking for their first job, or something to supplement college costs and a great alternative to a fast food restaurant. I now, in every case when asked, tell younger people (I'm only 27) to avoid the company if you can. this has all been with thin the span of under six years...

I think there is a real problem with this nations labor force, but it isn't a problem of the workers, that I know for sure. how can the people in politics believe that when a system is failing, that the people being failed don't have a right to abandon the system?

[falconeye]

Fast forward the movie to 30.11 and watch them on a production line were each are putting together 400 units a shift. Most people in the US would not touch that job with a ten foot pole. People here like to talk about bringing jobs like that back to the US but never say who is going to do work like that for low wages.

Being from Germany, I'd say you shouldn't want the jobs back.

The first time I visited the US, I was shocked by the tremendous waste of human resources: I saw men acting as a flag in a road construction site, I saw men collecting my money when leaving a parking garage, I saw women connecting my phone call, I could go on forever. All of this I wouldn't be able to even imagine before my first visit. I once consulted a company who built a letter sorting machine using automated reading of handwriting. They said the entire world buys except the US because they can get so cheap Mexicans.

Americans seem to lack a feeling of the value of a human when it comes to work. A more recent example are call centers. Esp. now where calls can come in from countries with cheap labour. Or spam mails. All of this shouldn't be feasible because humans should be too expensive to make the business model work.

I consulted Daimler Benz and visited on of their German factories. It looks like in a science fiction movie, I can assure you. Nothing even close to the jobs in the movie. If you see robots cooperating and helping each other out when working on a car body part you get strange feelings...

It won't be long before Artificial Intelligence will replace all those cheap jobs in factories anyway. So, now is the last chance for China and Co. to catch up. We should grant this chance to them. And focus ourself on innovations for the future. And have a better distribution mechanism for goods which are produced by automation. One shouldn't have to work for goids which are produced with no work. To simplify things a bit ...

[Class A]

One shouldn't have to work for goods which are produced with no work. To simplify things a bit ...

Communist! (To simply things a bit).



P.S.: I fully agree with you and hope the tongue in cheek joke is self-evident.

[magkelly]

The problem isn't the robots replacing the humans. That kind of thing has been happening since the dawn of the Industrial Age. I'm all for it actually. Let robots pick tomatoes, clean bath tubs. Train the people to do more important things, don't just forget them, that's all. My grandparents worked plenty of menial jobs. My parents trained to do something better, and why not? That is the American Dream.

Slaving for minimum wage is seen as a low end "starter job" thing and rightly so. Is that all we want people to do with their lives? I think not. I've done my share of that. I started out working for minimum when I was 15. I've earned my way up the pay scale ever since. You're right. I don't particularly want a job scrubbing toilets for $7 an hour. It's honest labor and I'm not saying it's not but I'd like to think that 30 years later I'm capable of handing a job that pays a bit more than that. Not to mention that I'm getting to the point where that kind of physical labor could actually put me in the hospital. It's kind of counter productive to take a low paying heavy labor job if you can't do it physically anymore even if that's all that's out there. You won't be doing it long enough to get anywhere and the medical bills will kill any hope of keeping that paycheck besides.

I've hired and I've fired and age has little to do with it I think. I've met and hired 30 somethings who were total slackers and hired 18 year old kids who worked for every dime they made, and vice versa. It's all in how you're raised. I wasn't raised not to work hard. I had two, three jobs at a time for years. I darn near worked myself into an early grave. I can't do that anymore. I can barely handle temping once in a while if you want to be honest. I had to get out of the rat race for my own good. That's why I went to photography.

If there is one thing I've learned the past decade or so about working is that anyone can be replaced. If they can replace you for a cheaper hire, or a machine, they absolutely will. I'm pretty good at the CSR/office clerk thing, was an excellent manager, had plenty of experience and everybody I worked for thought well of me, but that didn't stop my jobs from becoming redundant or vanishing or me from being outsourced not once but several times. There comes a point where you realize that's just how it is.

Yeah, I could go get a job a a fast food joint, scrub houses, pick tomatoes, not that my body would take that kind of abuse anymore, but I could. But what would be the point? That's a totally dead end job. All these people who work for the big unions and such 100 years from now they won't even need them to make cars, check people out, and such. I feel sorry for people who get caught up in changes. Heck, I'm one of them, but you know it's just not something that anyone is going to stop. The only way anyone in this position can survive is to find another job they like and retrain and/or make their own.

We don't really live in a society that values human lives, human effort like it used to. I think people are starting to get that and that's part of the problem. If no one values you or your contribution anymore what's the point of continuing? My folks worked the same jobs for years. You think I've ever had that opportunity? Nope. Every company I ever really busted my arse for is either gone or they outsourced my job. I've had to "start over" way too many times. I'm not about to work as hard for someone else like that ever again. For me, yeah, I'll do that. I'll work 80 hours a week if I have to do that to get myself established. But not for some company that only sees me as a TEMPORARY warm body in a chair until they can replace me with some person from a country who's low cost of living means he/she can take $3 an hour to do the same job or worse yet a computer/robot. I'm SO done with that. I'll temp to make a few $$$ now as I need to, but I'll make my own success now.

I don't trust corporate America to help me do that anymore. In my life I've made hundreds of thousands of dollars for other people, but never seen much out of it in terms of financial reward or employer loyalty. They always want you to give them your all, for as little $$$ as possible, but when it comes down to it I'm just a number, a body. It's not like it was with my folks generation. Employers, good ones, they're really scarce these days. We live in a "move on" society, sad but true. Some jobs they are just things you grow out of or eventually get kicked out of. That's the reality of working today. Scrubbing houses, picking crops just might keep food on the table, rent paid, but it's not going to do much else and eventually the day will come when you just can't do it anyway.

Low end blue collar jobs they're a one way street to the poorhouse or hospital, and I think even the illegals coming here know that. They're not coming here because they want to do that forever. They're coming here so they can get their foot in the door and get to doing jobs that pay more. That's the goal, not slaving forever like zombies for little pay.

[jogiba]

One sign of economic ignorance is the faith that "Buy American" is the path to prosperity. My former employer, ABC News, did a week's worth of stories claiming that "buying American" would put Americans back to work.

I'm glad I don't work there anymore.

"Buy American" is a dumb idea. It would not only not create prosperity, it would cost jobs and make us all poorer. David R. Henderson, an economist at the Hoover Institution, explained why.

"Almost all economists say it's nonsense," he said. "And the reason is: We should buy things where they're cheapest. That frees up more of our resources to buy other things, and other Americans get jobs producing those things."

This is what people always forget. Anytime we can use fewer resources and less labor to produce one thing, that leaves more for other things we can't afford. If we save money buying abroad, we can make and buy other products.

The nonsense of "Buy American" can be seen if you trace out the logic.

"If it's good to Buy American," Henderson said, "why isn't it good to have Buy Alabaman? And if it's good to have Buy Alabaman, why isn't it good to have Buy Montgomery, Ala.? And if it's good to have Buy Montgomery, Ala. ..."

You get the idea. You wouldn't get very good stuff if everything you bought came Montgomery, Ala.

"A huge part of the history of mankind is an increase in the division of labor. And that division of labor goes across national boundaries."

Which creates wealth — and jobs. In a similar vein, consider "fair trade" coffee. It costs much more money, but we're told that if we buy it, we should have a warm feeling inside because somebody in a poor country will supposedly get paid more.

"But a huge part of that premium is taken by the bureaucracy that organizes this. Most of it doesn't go to the farmer. And a better way to help those farmers is just buy what you would have bought anyway, take the premium you would have spent and give it to those people."

And here's something else: If you pay more for coffee, you'll have to buy less, or less of something else.

That hurts other workers. We all should heed Henry Hazlitt's famous economics lesson: Look beyond the immediate effects and beneficiaries. You may be accomplishing the opposite of what you intend.

The same applies to so-called sweatshop-free products. I'm for free trade, but trade means you get the lowest price, and that might mean you buy something from what some people call a sweatshop. The name itself conveys abuse.

Henderson says that's wrong. The workers aren't abused.

"In fact, they're better off taking those jobs. ... The mistake Americans make is they think they would never work in a sweatshop and therefore they say these people shouldn't. Well, no one's offering those people green cards. Those people are stuck in those countries. They're choosing their best of a bunch of bad options. And when you take away someone's best of a bad option, they're worse off."

That happened after Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa complained about sweatshops in Bangladesh. Some shops closed. Then Oxfam discovered that kids who were laid off often turned to prostitution to support themselves.

"The person who tries to get you fired is not your friend," Henderson said.

The conglomerates that hire people in poor countries usually pay more than local employers do. In Honduras, many sweatshops pay $3.10 per hour. That's low to us, but most Hondurans earn less than two dollars an hour.

Since Third World countries do not pursue free-market policies, worker opportunities are often foreclosed by self-serving politicians. So multinational sweatshops are usually people's best alternative. Humanitarians should target the politicians, not the factories that provide some hope.

Interfering with peaceful exchange is never a good idea. The great 19th-century liberal Richard Cobden was right when he praised free trade for "drawing men together, thrusting aside the antagonism of race, and creed, and language, and uniting us in the bonds of eternal peace."

The Stupidity of "Buy American" by John Stossel on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent

[Wheatfield]

One wonders why the American worker is out of work now that we buy "Chinese". By their logic, buying Chinese should be bad for the Chinese, yet they seem to be doing OK from an income POV.

[Parallax]

Seems like the link title should rightfully read: "The stupidity of John Stossel on "Buy American". The quote

And here's something else: If you pay more for coffee, you'll have to buy less, or less of something else.

is based on the false premise that there is a finite amount of wealth so every dollar someone has is, by default, reducing someone else's wealth. Economics doesn't work that way.

[Wheatfield]

To be fair, the point he is making, is that on an individual basis, if a person spends more for one thing that person will have less to spend on something else. In this he is correct.
In everything else he is wrong, I suspect because he is using one correct assertion to make a logical leap into something the correct assertion doesn't support..

[Parallax]

To be fair, the point he is making, is that on an individual basis, if a person spends more for one thing that person will have less to spend on something else. In this he is correct

Except that incomes and the economy as a whole, will adjust as well.

[Nesster]

I have seen a continual decline in what on the surface could look like work ethics, or a simple increase in laziness over the past nearly six years. however, if you dig deeper you see that the average starting pay in the company has decreased, the work load has increased, the benefits decreased, the overall work environment has gone from good and caring, to nothing more than a PR campaign to make ignorant people think the company cares (because thats cheaper than actually doing so) and the young people pick up on this.

This process has gone on in other industries, well paying ones too.

I always come back to: instead of blaming the employees or the government, management has by far the largest impact on working conditions and how viable a company is in the long run. But blaming poor management just doesn't seem to be where most politics go.

[jolepp]

...
It won't be long before Artificial Intelligence will replace all those cheap jobs in factories anyway. So, now is the last chance for China and Co. to catch up. We should grant this chance to them. And focus ourself on innovations for the future. And have a better distribution mechanism for goods which are produced by automation. One shouldn't have to work for goids which are produced with no work. To simplify things a bit ...

There is a serious issue in this: if production indeed gets fully automated who is going to buy the products when the workers that used to make them do not get a salary any more.