Maybe it’s me, but the headline for the article has nothing to do with the article details. The article speaks primarily of the actual mfging jobs than it does about WC premiums.
Correct. It starts out with premium stats and causes for their changes and shifts. It then goes on to manufacturing employment stats, domestic and abroad.
The comments at the end regarding the loss of jobs being primarily attributed to automation / mechanization rather than NAFTA is misleading. Two different categories are being considered; overall job counts and domestic job counts vs foreign to the US jobs. I agree that automation / mechanization / process improvement is beneficial to consumers, but don’t agree that NAFTA is beneficial to consumers or to workers. Countries who develop better ways to manufacture goods and produce services shouldn’t be impeded by NAFTA regulations. That is certainly the case for the US.
The concluding comments about employment growth in the US are distorted by the absence of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT workers in the US workforce in those stats. The BLS doesn’t record those ILLEGALS properly, impacting / invalidating their stats. What will employment growth rates look like for 2017 and beyond under the TrumPresident Administration? Will abandonment of the NAFTA agreement occur soon?
Maybe it’s me, but the headline for the article has nothing to do with the article details. The article speaks primarily of the actual mfging jobs than it does about WC premiums.
Correct. It starts out with premium stats and causes for their changes and shifts. It then goes on to manufacturing employment stats, domestic and abroad.
The comments at the end regarding the loss of jobs being primarily attributed to automation / mechanization rather than NAFTA is misleading. Two different categories are being considered; overall job counts and domestic job counts vs foreign to the US jobs. I agree that automation / mechanization / process improvement is beneficial to consumers, but don’t agree that NAFTA is beneficial to consumers or to workers. Countries who develop better ways to manufacture goods and produce services shouldn’t be impeded by NAFTA regulations. That is certainly the case for the US.
The concluding comments about employment growth in the US are distorted by the absence of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT workers in the US workforce in those stats. The BLS doesn’t record those ILLEGALS properly, impacting / invalidating their stats. What will employment growth rates look like for 2017 and beyond under the TrumPresident Administration? Will abandonment of the NAFTA agreement occur soon?