EMPLOYMENT Economic shifts leave some earning less

U.S. jobs are moving away from manufacturing and into service.
KNIGHT RIDDER NEWSPAPERS
For struggling workers like Keith Burnham, it's not just the quantity of jobs that aren't there -- it's the quality of those that are.
And so far in this economic recovery, the new ones sure don't pay like the old ones.
After 28 years making tools, Vietnam veteran Burnham now sews boat chairs in his Sterling Heights, Mich., garage for half the pay and no benefits. He sees jobs out there that pay $10 an hour, but says: "I'm not a kid. I've got a family. I can't live on that."
His is not an isolated example.
While politicians and press reports have focused on the numbers of jobs lost and gained in this post-recession U.S. recovery -- there has been a net loss of 2.3 million jobs since 2001 -- very little has been said about the disparity in pay between jobs lost and jobs gained.
But combine the loss of jobs with the often reduced quality of new jobs, and it's likely this trend will become an issue between now and the November election.
President Bush will point to a rising stock market and strong gross domestic product growth, economists say. But, they say, Democrats will hammer him on not only lagging job growth, but the fact that those jobs that do exist are for fewer hours at lesser wages and lower benefits.
How jobs compare
A national study says the new jobs being created pay about 21 percent less than the jobs they replace.
Another concern: More people are working part-time involuntarily because they want a full-time job but can't find one. Part-time means working 34 hours or fewer a week. In December, there were 4.79 million involuntary part-timers, compared with 3.25 million in December 2000, federal labor statistics show. That's the most since June 1994.
Economists say these numbers reflect a U.S. economy that is changing -- shifting from a manufacturing economy in which people make cars or furniture to a so-called service economy with more people working in health care or hospitality jobs. Invariably, those jobs pay less.
"Some jobs are being created in education, health-care services or hospitality, but they pay less, have poor benefits, and they certainly don't pay pensions like the old jobs did," said Jeff Chapman, economic analyst with the Economic Policy Institute.
This isn't the first time the U.S. economy has lost jobs in one industry and gained them elsewhere. From 1870 through 1920, tens of thousands of farming jobs vanished, and workers eventually found work in the auto industry or other fields. But many of the new factory jobs paid better than those farming jobs they replaced.
Now, the new jobs pay about $35,410 a year, compared with $44,570 at the old jobs.
The transition is painful for workers whose jobs are lost and who don't have skills for the new ones, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said to a London economic conference in January.
Burnham's story
After 28 years of virtually the same job -- designing tools used by manufacturers -- 54-year-old Burnham has tried several occupations since he was laid off in 2000.
Burnham also went back to school at Macomb Community College and got an associate's degree, hoping that would help him find a job making tools, where he used to earn about $30 an hour, or about $60,000 a year.
"I thought I'd update my computer skills and get back to work. That didn't happen. I think I picked a bad career," he said.
Burnham is getting by repairing boat upholstery. He spent $1,200 this summer for sewing machines and has some work that pays $14 to $16 an hour for the weeks he's working. As a veteran, he gets benefits -- but his wife doesn't. The couple also have five grandchildren living with them.
"I think there are a lot of people like me out there. Older folks doing this and that to make it," said Burnham.
Impact on elections
Workers caught in the economic shift likely will be a key voice during the 2004 presidential race. They say they understand times are changing, but wonder if politicians and government can do anything about it.
In many ways, voters say their views on whether the federal government can do something about the loss of quality jobs may determine how they'll vote.
Those who think the situation is beyond government control say they're likely to give Bush a pass. Those who think the government can protect jobs or better train workers say they might back the Democratic candidate.