<p>Over the last decade, new job creation has largely been in low productivity areas that economists call "non-tradeable" sectors like home care and food prep. Standard middle class jobs just aren't being created. </p>
<p>This echoes the advice I've given to my kids, which is that if you want to work in the US, you should either choose an area which can't be outsourced or an area in which the US infrastructure still provides it a competitive advantage and if you can be globally competitive given your skill/education (this is the top 1% in Occupy Wall Street terms). </p>
<p>I think people sense this and this has fueled some of the anger of the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street crowds. The TP folks seem to want to turn the clock back to the 50's and rail against abortion and government spending -- when intelligent government spending on education, infrastructure, and possibly national health care to reduce the burden on employers in creating new jobs (I'm not sure this is correct, so don't beat on me here) has the greatest chance of slowing the decline although perhaps not reversing the trend. The OWS folks seem to think the solution comes from beating up the top 1% -- unclear that there is enough blood to squeeze out of that stone to make a meaningful difference (though higher taxes above some threshold could help fund improved education (if we knew how to do it) and infrastructure). But, the likely continuation of the trend, combined with our government's inability to act in even remotely sensible ways over the last year or two, seems like a recipe for political instability.</p>
<p>What are you telling your kids? I never have paid attention to short-term trends (e.g., they're not hiring engineers this year) as hiring is often cyclical and the best time to go into fields may be when no one else wants to go in. But, this seems like a long-term structural problem with no easy fix.</p>
<p>This is a tough one. We talk with our kids but struggle to strike a balance between informed caution/wise planning and panic/over-reaction.</p>
<p>We can’t make all our kids be future engineers. And it’s a sad world where there is no room for kids with other strengths.</p>
<p>You are right about the dangers of rigidly following short-term cycles. Two years ago <em>everyone</em> was fighting to get into nursing school/changing major. Already, new RNs are struggling to find jobs in many regions–the world and healthcare system continue to change at a dizzying pace.</p>
<p>I am simply telling my kids to think globally while maintaining an entreprenerial mindset. I have really emphasized the need for them to be multilingual as a compliment to whatever their core interests are. And I don’t mean just learning a few words or phrases, I’m talking about real fluency that will allow them to connect with opportunities related to the broadest geography possible. </p>
<p>They are not engineers or scientists, but a lot of opportunities have come their way as a result of this apporach to their education. One currently manages a staff of language interpreters, among other responsibilities, at major hospital in a community where overcoming language and cultural barriers have become critical to administering effective health care. </p>
<p>Another was recently offered work with an international logistics firm due to her experience in China. She is only in her second year of college so that is not going to be a realistic opportunity in the near term, but she has gotten lots of similar attention due the breadth of her education beyond traditional confines. She will likely attend graduate and/or professional school outside the US. </p>
<p>I really think we need to do more to link our kids into the broader universe of economic activity beyond our own shores.</p>
<p>My strategy is: I don’t need to be in the 1%. But I need to market my services to the 1%. If they need my skills, I’ll be OK, even if I’m in the 99%.</p>
<p>I tell my kids to like their work, love thier hobbies. The pressure to make a living off of one’s passion is probably the fastest way to suck all the fun out of it. Work at something that doesn’t suck, then define and find happiness in your free time.</p>
<p>Very rich people recognized a long time that the best way to get poor is to attempt to sell to the rich. On the other hand, the best way to get rich is to sell to the poor. </p>
<p>I think that the Walton’s would agree. And if other references are needed, just check the sales targets of most of the “sin” products such a liquor or cigarettes, or consider that the highest sales of Coke per capita are in Mexico.</p>
<p>As far as jobs, I think it has become incredibly hard to read the tea leaves and predict the pockets of employment that will “work” in 5 years or in a decade. We know we will need tons of teachers, will probably need more health care suppliers, and a few other services, especially in the public sectors. Manufacturing and industrial jobs face an even bleaker future. </p>
<p>In the current stage, the best attribute seems to be a combination of a useful rolodex of family and friend AND a great dosis of luck in hitting the right spot at the right time.</p>
<p>It takes much more money to sell to the poor. I know too many normal people who make a very nice living catering to the wealthy in Seattle. Everything from house painters to artists, to mechanics.<br>
The local paper had an article about one of our latest failed real estate moguls. She cited all his stuff as evidence of waste by the rich. But when I see expensive items listed I think of some talented person making a good living selling those items to the rich. And often they are made by small scale artisans. Even luxury cars require many well-paid skilled people to design and make. I am sure workers at Ferrari have more pride in their work than those making a new Ford every 60 seconds.</p>