Gary McLennan: > A leading >right wing economist Terry McCrann has argued that the layoffs were >necessary and that anyway, like in USA, the sacked workers would get jobs in >the service industries. He claims that unemployment in the former American >steel towns is now 3-4%. He writes > >"The old industrial jobs that were destroyed have been replaced with better, >more sustainable and more meaningful jobs in service industries. This was >possible only because of the enormous flexibility of the American economy" > > Is he correct in this? What has happened over the American rust belt? A >comment on this plus data would be greatly appreciated. > Louis P.: This seems like a question that Doug can supply the most meaningful answer to, but I will say something based on impressions from the mass media. A city like Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania is offered up as an example of one that has made the transition from the rust belt--it was a major producer of steel--to service industries. There is no question that Pittsburgh has seen a steady increase in jobs in the financial services, etc. The problem is that a 35 year old steelworker with 15 years experience in a foundry is not likely to get a job programming financial applications, nor a job answering area code 800 phone calls to tell people their current balance. Those jobs will go to recent high-school graduates. I suspect that the tens of thousands of steelworkers who lost their jobs in the 70s and 80s are working at Walmart, Sears, etc. for $8 to $10 an hour. If Doug can't come up with some statistics on this, I might take a trip over to the library and do some digging myself since the question has a bearing on American politics as well as Australian politics. This has to do with Clinton's claim that the American economy is healthy. While the stock-market is booming, I sense that there is much misery in the "rust belt" no matter the unemployment rate.
