4 ms·

I think the most important thing here is the difference in outlook. The people in this story lived their lives with the assumption that they will live the same

I think the most important thing here is the difference in outlook. The people in this story lived their lives with the assumption that they will live the same lives as their parents. This hasn't been true since the industrial revolution (>80% of people working in agriculture shrunk to ~2%). This reminds me of British coal-workers striking over layoffs, even though they would receive the same paycheck for life if they were laid off. Their rationale is that they were striking for their children's future jobs in the coal mine. That just struck me as depressing, that parents just assumed that their kids' lot in lives would be a coal miner just like them. Maybe this is the immigrant mentality that people talk about, but > Cheering the deal might check a political box for the president, but getting hired by the buyer would probably mean making $11 an hour, he said, a wage he last made in his early 20s. “It would be back to square one after 25 years in the plant,” he said. Rick seems to be following the same line of thinking. The notion of working in a different industry just doesn't seem to be considered. This is probably one of the best times in recent history to start looking for a job. Unemployment is at record lows, and growth is fairly strong. I think the biggest issue here isn't layoffs, it's people putting their sense of identity into their job instead of viewing it as a transaction. 80% of employees at the beginning of the 20th century worked in industries that are either non-existent or drastically smaller by the end of the 20th century. I see no reason why we should expect the 21st century to be any different. Rick's assumption that he would work in the same industry as his father for the entirety of his life seems to be the biggest culprit here, not NAFTA.

galazzah 7y ago
TBH, someone at this age who has spent 25 years in a pipeline probably realizes that, unfortunately, no one in this market wants to hire older folks -- especially with no relevant experience.
- manfredo 7y ago
  "No relevant experience" is a highly pessimistic outlook. This man has demonstrated an ability to hold down a steady job for decades. That alone puts him ahead of many people that simply lack the ability to hold down a job. Working at an auto plant results in skills with with operating industrial machinery. After 25 years he's probably been put in a leadership position, or at least a mentorship position to train new hires. This demonstrates good communication and teamwork ability. He may have much better prospects if he expands his skills by learning a trade. Someone who worked in an auto plant for 25 years is probably a good candidate to become a construction worker, plumber, escalator repairman, etc. Another big elephant in the room is location. It looks like he still lives in Lordstown Ohio. Employment prospects will be drastically better if he moves. It's harder to move with families but not impossible. I moved 3 times (each of them across national borders, no less) when I was a kid and while its hard to settle down in a new place it expanded my worldview and likely made a better person in the long run. The sort of static mentality I talk about earlier also applies to moving. People put their self-worth in their location and hamper their employment opportunities by refusing to move. The subtext of one of the images reads: "Mr. Marsh with his wife, Lindsay, and their daughter, Abigail. The Marshes have spent years fighting to get Abigail services in Ohio. Moving would be wrenching." It doesn't actually say that their daughter's cerebral palsy is preventing them from moving. I doubt it would be harder to get services in an economically vibrant location with more tax funds for services, as compared to Lordstown Ohio. The fact that they "spent years fighting to get Abigail services in Ohio" seems to drive this home. Overall I would be much more sympathetic if the author spent their words explaining how Rick has tried to find employment in other fields, has tried to find apprenticeships or trade school education, and is willing to move across the country but still can't find a job then I would be drastically more sympathetic. As it stands, the piece can be summed up as, "laid off auto worker who doesn't search for jobs in different fields and isn't willing to move has trouble finding employment and blames NAFTA and Democrats for his situation". It's clear the author wants to paint a sympathetic picture, but it reads like a pardoy.
  - bluGill 7y ago
    Getting help is tricky. States with good programs don't want freeloaders to move in. They often require you to be a resident for a while before they will help you - the idea being if you come with the intent of not being a freeloader and something happens it is bad luck. It isn't unheard of for states to pay to move someone to a different state just so they to get that person out of their system. I can see both sides, Mr. Marsh is caught in the middle.
    - manfredo 7y ago
      > States with good programs don't want freeloaders to move in. They often require you to be a resident for a while before they will help you - the idea being if you come with the intent of not being a freeloader and something happens it is bad luck. I've only heard of this for university tuition. If a student starts university in a state school, and their parents move to the state they have to pay out of state tuition for 2 years. States with good programs are usually liberal ones with high taxes. Discriminating on the basis of origin for disability services seems like a good way to piss off liberal voters. If you can find documentation to demonstrate that someone with cerebral palsy would be denied services because they moved there from out of state, I'm all ears, but I find this claim is dubious. > It isn't unheard of for states to pay to move someone to a different state just so they to get that person out of their system. This would help him move.
      - bluGill 7y ago
        Each state is different. There are 50 of them with different programs and rules. States are changing their rules all the time. Depending on the destination state he might or might not have problems. It is a consideration he unfortunately has to face.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > It isn't unheard of for states to pay to move someone to a different state just so they to get that person out of their system. It isn't unheard of for states to involuntarily ship people to other states for that purpose, either.
the-rc 7y ago
Indeed, this is not a new thing. "For every job, so many men, so many men noone needs." Written in the Thatcher days, inspired by the Depression, still relevant today. These are complicated issues, which are not solved by soundbites on TV or vague, unrealistic promises to keep the status quo in eternity. I agree that some kind of job mobility is required in the long run; the real question is how much of it is needed. I hope the answer is not "a lot", especially among those who have or earn less.
_bxg1 7y ago
Part of it is an identity thing, part of it is an age thing, but part of it too is a location thing. When plants like this out in the literal middle-of-nowhere close, entire towns die. You might suggest that people just move, but what if they have a mortgage on a house that's suddenly worthless? And that's not even factoring in the "soft" costs of losing your community and possibly moving away from family. Given the U.S.'s aversion to social welfare, people end up stuck without any options.
- manfredo 7y ago
  Entire towns disappearing is a normal state of affairs. > Hundreds of workers have already transferred. His nephew packed up his family and moved to Flint. The alternative, working on natural gas wells in Pennsylvania, paid him $13 an hour, about half what he was making at G.M. > You might suggest that people just move, but what if they have a mortgage on a house that's suddenly worthless? Then he should blame his situation on his own gamble on real-estate speculation, and not NAFTA. > And that's not even factoring in the "soft" costs of losing your community and possibly moving away from family. My whole point is, the emphasis on these "soft" factors are what's holding him back. When you move, you don't "lose" community, you swap them out for a different one. Moving away from family may be challenging, but it's probably worse to not have a job. > Given the U.S.'s aversion to social welfare, people end up stuck without any options. I don't think lack of welfare is an issue here: > G.M. is a lifeline for Mr. Marsh, too. It will pay him a pension, a rare thing in today’s economy. He may have given up raises, but he gets a share of the company’s profits — last year, about $10,000. Under the union contract, he gets payments to supplement his unemployment check, and his family still has health insurance Ohio unemployment benefits pay half of weekly wages up to $424. Rick would be receiving $424 if $26 per hour was his wages while he was employed. So he's getting $22,000 per year in unemployment plus $10,000 from his GM pension on top of that. Is getting $32,000 per year in pension and unemployment benefits considered bad welfare? He's getting about 2/3 of his income while he was employed in unemployment benefits. Probably more if you take taxes into account. And health insurance. And the "payments to supplement his unemployment check" that the article doesn't explain in detail. There's a good chance that abundant welfare is why he isn't looking for work. If he took the $13 and hour job in Pennsylvania he may lose more in benefits than he'd be gaining in wages. I wouldn't blame him if this were the case, but the fact that our welfare system is actively discouraging people from seeking employment is the messed up part of this situation. Not the fact that manufacturing jobs are moving because of globalization.

galazzah 7y ago

TBH, someone at this age who has spent 25 years in a pipeline probably realizes that, unfortunately, no one in this market wants to hire older folks -- especially with no relevant experience.

manfredo 7y ago
"No relevant experience" is a highly pessimistic outlook. This man has demonstrated an ability to hold down a steady job for decades. That alone puts him ahead of many people that simply lack the ability to hold down a job. Working at an auto plant results in skills with with operating industrial machinery. After 25 years he's probably been put in a leadership position, or at least a mentorship position to train new hires. This demonstrates good communication and teamwork ability. He may have much better prospects if he expands his skills by learning a trade. Someone who worked in an auto plant for 25 years is probably a good candidate to become a construction worker, plumber, escalator repairman, etc. Another big elephant in the room is location. It looks like he still lives in Lordstown Ohio. Employment prospects will be drastically better if he moves. It's harder to move with families but not impossible. I moved 3 times (each of them across national borders, no less) when I was a kid and while its hard to settle down in a new place it expanded my worldview and likely made a better person in the long run. The sort of static mentality I talk about earlier also applies to moving. People put their self-worth in their location and hamper their employment opportunities by refusing to move. The subtext of one of the images reads: "Mr. Marsh with his wife, Lindsay, and their daughter, Abigail. The Marshes have spent years fighting to get Abigail services in Ohio. Moving would be wrenching." It doesn't actually say that their daughter's cerebral palsy is preventing them from moving. I doubt it would be harder to get services in an economically vibrant location with more tax funds for services, as compared to Lordstown Ohio. The fact that they "spent years fighting to get Abigail services in Ohio" seems to drive this home. Overall I would be much more sympathetic if the author spent their words explaining how Rick has tried to find employment in other fields, has tried to find apprenticeships or trade school education, and is willing to move across the country but still can't find a job then I would be drastically more sympathetic. As it stands, the piece can be summed up as, "laid off auto worker who doesn't search for jobs in different fields and isn't willing to move has trouble finding employment and blames NAFTA and Democrats for his situation". It's clear the author wants to paint a sympathetic picture, but it reads like a pardoy.
- bluGill 7y ago
  Getting help is tricky. States with good programs don't want freeloaders to move in. They often require you to be a resident for a while before they will help you - the idea being if you come with the intent of not being a freeloader and something happens it is bad luck. It isn't unheard of for states to pay to move someone to a different state just so they to get that person out of their system. I can see both sides, Mr. Marsh is caught in the middle.
  - manfredo 7y ago
    > States with good programs don't want freeloaders to move in. They often require you to be a resident for a while before they will help you - the idea being if you come with the intent of not being a freeloader and something happens it is bad luck. I've only heard of this for university tuition. If a student starts university in a state school, and their parents move to the state they have to pay out of state tuition for 2 years. States with good programs are usually liberal ones with high taxes. Discriminating on the basis of origin for disability services seems like a good way to piss off liberal voters. If you can find documentation to demonstrate that someone with cerebral palsy would be denied services because they moved there from out of state, I'm all ears, but I find this claim is dubious. > It isn't unheard of for states to pay to move someone to a different state just so they to get that person out of their system. This would help him move.
    - bluGill 7y ago
      Each state is different. There are 50 of them with different programs and rules. States are changing their rules all the time. Depending on the destination state he might or might not have problems. It is a consideration he unfortunately has to face.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > It isn't unheard of for states to pay to move someone to a different state just so they to get that person out of their system. It isn't unheard of for states to involuntarily ship people to other states for that purpose, either.

the-rc 7y ago

Indeed, this is not a new thing. "For every job, so many men, so many men noone needs." Written in the Thatcher days, inspired by the Depression, still relevant today. These are complicated issues, which are not solved by soundbites on TV or vague, unrealistic promises to keep the status quo in eternity. I agree that some kind of job mobility is required in the long run; the real question is how much of it is needed. I hope the answer is not "a lot", especially among those who have or earn less.

_bxg1 7y ago

Part of it is an identity thing, part of it is an age thing, but part of it too is a location thing. When plants like this out in the literal middle-of-nowhere close, entire towns die. You might suggest that people just move, but what if they have a mortgage on a house that's suddenly worthless? And that's not even factoring in the "soft" costs of losing your community and possibly moving away from family. Given the U.S.'s aversion to social welfare, people end up stuck without any options.

manfredo 7y ago
Entire towns disappearing is a normal state of affairs. > Hundreds of workers have already transferred. His nephew packed up his family and moved to Flint. The alternative, working on natural gas wells in Pennsylvania, paid him $13 an hour, about half what he was making at G.M. > You might suggest that people just move, but what if they have a mortgage on a house that's suddenly worthless? Then he should blame his situation on his own gamble on real-estate speculation, and not NAFTA. > And that's not even factoring in the "soft" costs of losing your community and possibly moving away from family. My whole point is, the emphasis on these "soft" factors are what's holding him back. When you move, you don't "lose" community, you swap them out for a different one. Moving away from family may be challenging, but it's probably worse to not have a job. > Given the U.S.'s aversion to social welfare, people end up stuck without any options. I don't think lack of welfare is an issue here: > G.M. is a lifeline for Mr. Marsh, too. It will pay him a pension, a rare thing in today’s economy. He may have given up raises, but he gets a share of the company’s profits — last year, about $10,000. Under the union contract, he gets payments to supplement his unemployment check, and his family still has health insurance Ohio unemployment benefits pay half of weekly wages up to $424. Rick would be receiving $424 if $26 per hour was his wages while he was employed. So he's getting $22,000 per year in unemployment plus $10,000 from his GM pension on top of that. Is getting $32,000 per year in pension and unemployment benefits considered bad welfare? He's getting about 2/3 of his income while he was employed in unemployment benefits. Probably more if you take taxes into account. And health insurance. And the "payments to supplement his unemployment check" that the article doesn't explain in detail. There's a good chance that abundant welfare is why he isn't looking for work. If he took the $13 and hour job in Pennsylvania he may lose more in benefits than he'd be gaining in wages. I wouldn't blame him if this were the case, but the fact that our welfare system is actively discouraging people from seeking employment is the messed up part of this situation. Not the fact that manufacturing jobs are moving because of globalization.