America,The Superpower, The Economy and The Shirking Middle Class

How are we going to keep our edge as we move further into the 21st century? Jobs are being shipped out left and right our economy is service based and we are losing a technical edge which America has had a lock on for quite a while. After WW2 we produced the most steel oil and food. Now China pumps out the most steel our oil reserves are gone and Americas farmers are paid not to grow crop. We do not offer the world anything tanigable and all we seem to do is consume and make our debt get bigger and bigger. My soulution is this. Stop outsourcing this is the main cuase of America losing jobs. The fat cats want a good profit margin tax the hell out of them to outscource make it more profitable to pay Americans. Stop paying Farmers not to plant let them plant all there land graze all there cattle and America will bury the wrold in foodstuffs. Start investing in Industrial/manfacturing/Rescource jobs. America still has massive coal reserves left and I suggest we use this as a double eged sword. We use the coal to make steel and we improve its standing as a fossil fuel buying making it clearner to burn. With oil like it is who knows maybe Coal will be a better alternartive to it. Thoughts?

If there is no outsoucing, American companies will not be able to compete with foreign companies. Just look at GM and Ford competeing against Toyota. American companies lose about $1000 dollars of profit every time they sell a car due to extra benefits compared to Japanese cars. You can then say what if the government puts large tarriffs on all foreign companies which would then not make the economy that free and be more government controlled which isn't what capitalism really stands for.

If you ignore ideals in which America supposedly stand for, you will become a hypocrite and lose all credibility. America right now wants nations in the world such as China to have markets that are more free, but how can America do that if it is becoming more restrictive and socialist like.

Jobs are not only outsourced because they can't compete in their home country, they are also outsourced because they will make more money in a third world country.

And until we are all third world countries, there is nothing to stop companies outsourcing jobs with that kind of logic. You just can't beat a 9-year old willing to work 12 hours a day for a dollar a year.

However, what we CAN do, is use the power of the state to force them to remain. However, governments using power has become something we fear today...

Let the state take over the jobs that were outsourced, requisition the assets of the company in question, and ban them from the country. It is very possible for a state to do this, but all of them are lacking the balls or the will to do it...

At the moment, we are all forced to view how a select few people get stinking rich, while development in third world countries is kept in check due to the exploitation of their workforce.

They should all be hung by the neck or shot.

I think you have a good point. But I believe the best way to stop outsourcing would be to lower minimum wage, not by laws and regulations. If the minimum wage was lowered employers could afford to hire more workers, which would create more jobs and businesses. Also the price of goods in general would go down, which would not only give the US a better competitive edge but would also null the problems of poverty which a lower minimum wage could create.

Minimum Wage will never be lowered simply because of politics. As soon as Congress even discuss this, people will start accussing them of favoring the big companies and screwing the little man that is trying to work hard to support his or her family

You do realise that outsourcing is:

A) Profitable
B) Makes a larger middle class in the respective nations that get the outsourcing.
C) Which has a knock on effect of:
1) Them wanting to buy more foreign goods (to show off their new wealth).
2) Makes the outsourced to nation as a whole more capitalistic, educated, wealthy and hence a general trend to democracy.
D) The outsourcing nation gets more bang for its buck and allows their motivated workers to do less menial tasks.

Compare that with invading a country and tell me which is a better option

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xdeathfire

Minimum Wage will never be lowered simply because of politics. As soon as Congress even discuss this, people will start accussing them of favoring the big companies and screwing the little man that is trying to work hard to support his or her family

---

Well the thing is a lower minimum wage would make it easier for the little man to start his own business. But yeah it would never happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

You do realise that outsourcing is:

A) Profitable
B) Makes a larger middle class in the respective nations that get the outsourcing.
C) Which has a knock on effect of:
1) Them wanting to buy more foreign goods (to show off their new wealth).
2) Makes the outsourced to nation as a whole more capitalistic, educated, wealthy and hence a general trend to democracy.
D) The outsourcing nation gets more bang for its buck and allows their motivated workers to do less menial tasks.

Compare that with invading a country and tell me which is a better option

---

Yes, thank you. :bow:
Outsourcing doesn't cost jobs- you could easily argue that it's created better jobs domestically in addition to the benefits you mention above. Of course, any politician that says outsourcing is good will likely be hanged from the nearest tree- people lose all rationality on that subject it seems. :shrug:

Quote:

---

America,The Superpower, The Economy and The Shirking Middle Class

---

I'm pretty sure your meant "shrinking" Middle Class, but your typo is telling.

[rant]A radical fundamentalist capitalist would point out that america was built on the boss's ability to manage resources - of which labor is one. Just as it's run out of frontier ('free land', taken by purchase, treaty and war), it's also run out of cheap labor (slaves, indentured servants, citizens willing to work for slave wages).

But there are thousands of millions of asians, africans and latinamericans willing and eager to fill that gap; which will last about 100 years - after which they'll want to educate their kids and participate in their governments, and "own" land too, just like their american-dream predecessors did.

Sadly, the only way to slow that progression, in my opinion, would be to totally give up the fuel for the industrial engine that drives that trend: oil.

Give it up, like an alchoholic gives up booze; not because it has killed him (yet), but because his reliance on it has ruined what he'd hoped had been his life's events and accomplishments. Horses, bicycles, walking... living muscle-power trumps dead-dinosaur power, everytime.

Just because we can adapt to almost any environment, doesn't mean we must. We can change environments, too.

[/rant]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

How are we going to keep our edge as we move further into the 21st century? Jobs are being shipped out left and right our economy is service based and we are losing a technical edge which America has had a lock on for quite a while. After WW2 we produced the most steel oil and food. Now China pumps out the most steel our oil reserves are gone and Americas farmers are paid not to grow crop. We do not offer the world anything tanigable and all we seem to do is consume and make our debt get bigger and bigger. My soulution is this. Stop outsourcing this is the main cuase of America losing jobs. The fat cats want a good profit margin tax the hell out of them to outscource make it more profitable to pay Americans. Stop paying Farmers not to plant let them plant all there land graze all there cattle and America will bury the wrold in foodstuffs. Start investing in Industrial/manfacturing/Rescource jobs. America still has massive coal reserves left and I suggest we use this as a double eged sword. We use the coal to make steel and we improve its standing as a fossil fuel buying making it clearner to burn. With oil like it is who knows maybe Coal will be a better alternartive to it. Thoughts?

---

A bit of a jumble, but I got your jist. Outsourcing isn't always bad, Strike. Take a couple of economics classes. You will realize the reasons behind it and it is not such the bogey man you think it is. Oh, also. Why tax successful companies that want to outsource? It is their right to outsource, not provide employment for everyone. All tariffs and laws like that do, is restrict trade and isolate our market. If another country can make the same product at a lower price, why not let them? They are passing the benefits to American citizens by the low costs it will take to buy them. Outsourcing a lot of the time is using a comparative advantage each country has. For example: The United States can focus on technology, while China, Vietnam, Cambodia, etc, can focus on the manufacturing part. More blue collar jobs are created in those Asian countries, while more white collar jobs are needed here. Win win.

You do realize why the government pays farmers to plant, right? It drives the supply down, increasing the amount they can sell it for. Take this away and market will be flooded with these food products. Farmers will make less a profit, and many will go out of business causing a then shortage in the amount of food. Not a great idea.

Why invest in coal? Coal isn't the best or cleanest way for the energy of the future. We already have oil, and plenty of it. We just have to open up more wells and build more refineries. Invest in that and other renewable, cleaner energy sources. Combined with oil, we can almost become self sufficient if responsible enough. No need to use coal and go back a hundred years.

As you can see, Strike, not everything is black and white.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

You do realise that outsourcing is:

A) Profitable
B) Makes a larger middle class in the respective nations that get the outsourcing.
C) Which has a knock on effect of:
1) Them wanting to buy more foreign goods (to show off their new wealth).
2) Makes the outsourced to nation as a whole more capitalistic, educated, wealthy and hence a general trend to democracy.
D) The outsourcing nation gets more bang for its buck and allows their motivated workers to do less menial tasks.

---

Yes, thank you. :bow:
Outsourcing doesn't cost jobs- you could easily argue that it's created better jobs domestically in addition to the benefits you mention above. Of course, any politician that says outsourcing is good will likely be hanged from the nearest tree- people lose all rationality on that subject it seems. :shrug:

---

I'm afraid we might be in a bit of disagreement here.

Pape: I agree with A, with a clarification: profitable for the companies engaged in it.
I disagree with D. The "motivated" workers are out of jobs as a consequence of outsourcing. Lots of white-collar jobs are outsourced - or are those workers, like you, and me, and Xiahou, not among the "motivated" ones?

I disagree with C2. It makes them more capitalistic, sure. But there is a contradiction between C2 and D. D implies that only menial jobs are being outsourced (I disagree with that, and I have shown evidence of that in a similar thread less than 2 weeks ago, I believe; but, for the sake of the argument, let's leave that aside for now); C2 claims it makes them "more educated".
Really ? They become "more educated" by doing menial jobs ?
Working on a, say, assembly line, improves your education, or skills ?

I certainly agree with both of you about it being a pure capitalist trait.
Whether that's good or bad, is a different story. In my opinion, simply put, capitalism, in its current implementations, favors the corporations at the expense of the individual. It's a bit of a generalization, in the sense that, naturally, it has its good facets, but I'm not gonna try to do an exhaustive analysis of capitalism right now.

About the jobs, one more thing: I'll give you an example, again. Look at Ford, for instance. They are laying off people like crazy. How can you claim it creates new jobs ?! On the contrary, it eliminates existing jobs!!
Oh, sure, it does create new jobs - in the outsourced-to country, but it only eliminates them in the outsourcing one.

Please, let all those ex-Ford, late-middle-aged ex-employees, whom nobody is going to hire, and whose welfare cheques you will be paying from your taxes, let them all know how outsourcing is good for them, and creates new jobs. I'm sure they'll be thrilled to hear it, and will be enlightened by the revelation. Not that that's gonna feed their families or anything, but hey...

I'm curious as to how you think about this, and that's why I'm gonna ask you the following question. It's a personal question, so you're more than entitled to ignore it, and not answer it, if you choose to. That would be perfectly reasonable, in my view.
Would you still consider outsourcing as a good principle, if you were to lose your job because of it ?
Again, since this is a personal question, I am not going to make any comments on your answer, should you choose to give me one. I feel that it would not be fair, or honorable, of me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blodrast

I certainly agree with both of you about it being a pure capitalist trait.
Whether that's good or bad, is a different story. In my opinion, simply put, capitalism, in its current implementations, favors the corporations at the expense of the individual. It's a bit of a generalization, in the sense that, naturally, it has its good facets, but I'm not gonna try to do an exhaustive analysis of capitalism right now.

About the jobs, one more thing: I'll give you an example, again. Look at Ford, for instance. They are laying off people like crazy. How can you claim it creates new jobs ?! On the contrary, it eliminates existing jobs!!
Oh, sure, it does create new jobs - in the outsourced-to country, but it only eliminates them in the outsourcing one.

Please, let all those ex-Ford, late-middle-aged ex-employees, whom nobody is going to hire, and whose welfare cheques you will be paying from your taxes, let them all know how outsourcing is good for them, and creates new jobs. I'm sure they'll be thrilled to hear it, and will be enlightened by the revelation. Not that that's gonna feed their families or anything, but hey...

I'm curious as to how you think about this, and that's why I'm gonna ask you the following question. It's a personal question, so you're more than entitled to ignore it, and not answer it, if you choose to. That would be perfectly reasonable, in my view.
Would you still consider outsourcing as a good principle, if you were to lose your job because of it ?
Again, since this is a personal question, I am not going to make any comments on your answer, should you choose to give me one. I feel that it would not be fair, or honorable, of me.

---

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0217/p08s02-comv.html

Quote:

---

A 2003 study by the consulting firm McKinsey & Company points to the global economic benefits of US outsourcing of white-collar jobs. For every dollar now spent in India on US business processes, India nets at least 33 cents in taxes, wages, and revenues. That creates wealth, and has helped India nearly double its imports from the US since 1990.

American companies save 58 cents on every dollar of offshore work. That money can be used to invest in new technology - the next big thing. This in turn creates new jobs. Meanwhile, India ships back cheaper tech products to the US, which allows more businesses to install these products and increase their productivity.

---

A better article by business weekly weighing the pros and cons. I personally think the pros are better than the cons.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...4/b3846027.htm

Quote:

---

NO
America's strongest suit is innovation, which will always create new high-paying positions

Think of the world economy as a ladder. On the bottom rungs are the countries producing mainly textiles and other low-tech goods. Toward the top are the U.S. and other leading economies, which make sophisticated electronics, software, and pharmaceuticals. Up and down the middle rungs are all the other nations, manufacturing everything from steel to autos to memory chips.

Viewed in this way, economic development is simple: Everyone tries to climb to the next rung. This works well if the topmost countries can create new industries and products. Such invention allows older industries to move overseas while fresh jobs are generated at home. But if innovation stalls at the highest rung -- well, that's bad news for Americans, who must compete with lower-wage workers elsewhere.

Today, many are worried that the U.S. has reached the top of the ladder and run out of rungs. A growing number of high-tech and other white-collar jobs are moving to India, China, and other places. At the same time, there's nothing readily apparent to replace those exported jobs. What's more, the countries snatching jobs are producing large numbers of college graduates for the first time. The fear is that the U.S. educated class will be ground down by globalization, just as blue-collar workers were in the 1970s and '80s.

It's a scenario that shouldn't be dismissed out of hand -- but it's not likely to happen. The U.S. still has a distinct competitive advantage in innovation. If there's any country well-suited to find a new rung for the economic ladder, it's America. Outside of tech, the labor market for educated workers still seems fairly decent, given the stage of the business cycle.

Despite anecdotes of well-paying jobs being sucked overseas, there's little evidence that educated workers, overall, are worse off than they were after the last recession. The average unemployment rate for college-educated workers 25 years and older for the 12 months ended in July was 3.0%. That's lower than the 3.2% for 1992, the year after the last recession.

Some economists have argued that this low unemployment rate stems from educated Americans pulling out of the labor force. Declining labor-force participation over the past year, though, is part of a long-term trend -- it fell during the boom of the 1990s as well.

Moreover, the number of jobs held by college-educated workers 25 years and older has risen by 2.2% over the past year, compared with a 0.4% gain for the less-educated. The jobless rate for college-educated workers has been around 3% since the end of 2001, while the unemployment rate for other workers has increased by half a percentage point, to 5.7%. Wage growth has also been stronger for better jobs. Over the past year, median earnings for managers and professionals are up by 2.8%. Blue-collar and service workers showed no gain.

True, there is pressure on educated workers in the tech sector -- but that's coming off a boom. For example, jobs in software and computer-systems design have fallen by 1.6% over the past year but are still up by 70% since 1995, vs. a 7% gain for all private-sector jobs. "I think people are overreacting a little bit," says Steven P. Jobs, CEO of Apple Computer (AAPL ) Inc., since big chunks of the tech labor market -- including the most innovative parts -- are not going to move overseas.

Still, history does offer cause for worry. There was a period, from 1973 to 1985, when technological change contributed almost nothing to growth, according to government data. Not coincidentally, that was also the same stretch when U.S. manufacturing became vulnerable to foreign competitors.

That's why the American economy needs a boost from innovation if it is to continue creating the next generation of leading-edge industries and new high-paying jobs. By its nature, technology leaps are unpredictable and risky -- yet that's where the U.S. shines. It has the the biggest economy on earth, enabling America to make technological bets that would crush other nations. The U.S. has by far the best-developed financial markets in the world, including venture-capital and high-yield bond markets for financing new businesses.

And for the foreseeable future, the U.S. still has the best-educated workforce among the major economies, a plus for invention. The latest figures from the Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development show that 30% of Americans aged 25 to 34 have a college degree, compared with 24% for Japan and 14% for Germany. That's essential: Better-educated workers can better cope with rapid change, adjust on the fly, and imagine and develop fresh products and strategies.

Where will the next big innovation come from? It could be telecom, or biotech, or energy. Nobody knows. Nobody knew in 1994, either, when real wage growth was still slow, unemployment was above 6%, and the Netscape Communications Corp. initial public offering, which marked the start of the Internet Revolution, was a year away.

The biggest danger to U.S. workers isn't overseas competition. It's that we worry too much about other countries climbing up the ladder and not enough about finding the next higher rung for ourselves.

---

OK, people have started quoting "Business" literature and spouting mantras, so let's get one thing straight--

Economics is a bleeping theology, and it isn't even a good one. It is completely incapable of predicting anything, or telling us anything useful about the world as it is. And when economics is wrong, again, and again, and again, the culprits are always the same: unobservable variables, market imperfections-- imperfections which must be "corrected". In other words, reality must be made to comply with theory. What kind of crap is this?

Given this farsical "science" 's clearly demonstrated lack of intellectual rigor and innovative vigor, I personally do not consider any mere recitation of "economic" propaganda to be a valid argument.

Realistically, the Next Big Thing won't be providing 300 million people with work.

But those things could also be filled by service jobs of all kinds if the economy has all the money running around to be hunted for, and not hoarded into some big dragon holes of gold (figurative) that end up not being ever spent. Will it?

Though I do feel -- *feel* -- that the US has sort of slowed down its proud record of innovations lately. Hopefully the whole Internet Revolution thing will continue for quite some time to come. Until we get the nuclear fusion reactor...before the Scandinavians, hopefully! (Not very likely...)

In any case, I don't see the USA collapsing into another Great Depression any time soon, so I doubt SFTS will have to worry about his growing into a lost generation too much. And I kind of get the feeling that more and more jobs are being transported away to other countries; though I could've been mistaken.

[mini rant]

And looking for "careers" is quite annoying; I do find I run of ideas fast, and with 4 out of 5 people on doses of ritalin claiming they'd like to become a psychiatrist I don't even feel better about finding out ideas. To lose jobs from the tech sector overseas can naturally be seen as troublesome since no apparent booming sectors are replacing it...at least, not ones of any reasonable longevity that are not just stupid real estate booms.

[/mini rant]

However, the national deficit/debt *is* troublesome. Some of you economic majors seem to dismiss so it easily, but I must seriously wonder what we could've achieved with all those interests paid away and expanding yearly... Sure, the idea of US subsidizing other people to buy US goods is as old as Good Neighbor and earlier, but this kind of subsidizing could just as well easily backfire once the costs get overwhelming.

Most of the jobs we outsource suck anyway. Is anyone really upset that less Americans are telemarketers nowadays?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Most of the jobs we outsource suck anyway. Is anyone really upset that less Americans are telemarketers nowadays?

---

Brevity ftw! :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blodrast

About the jobs, one more thing: I'll give you an example, again. Look at Ford, for instance. They are laying off people like crazy. How can you claim it creates new jobs ?! On the contrary, it eliminates existing jobs!!
Oh, sure, it does create new jobs - in the outsourced-to country, but it only eliminates them in the outsourcing one.

---

Refer to our fantastically low unemployment numbers. How many years has the outsourcing boogeyman been scaring people now? How much has our economy grown in that time? How low has our unemployment been? What about wages?

People are just bitter you can't stagger out of school at 16 into a full time manual labour job that lasts a lifetime. Get over it. The world has moved on.

My understanding of the whole outsourcing thing is like those 3M commercials. We may not make the car, but we make it better by 1) Designing it 2) Making it more fuel efficient 3) Developing lighter, stronger composites used to assemble it 4) Research and develop new ways to power it (i.e. H fuel cells), 5)Find better ways to market it, etc etc.

Sure those crap hole countries we outsource to can make cars; but like the automotive industry in China has been described as in the cheap, imitative phase. A major reason why so many American autoworkers are out of a job is because they've become complacient and used to their bennefits to the point where they're no longer competitive.

And the “disappearing” middle class…last thing I’ve seen on that is that they’re disappearing up. The middle class hasn’t been able to make “ends meet” (like that idiot Lou Dobbs on CNN likes to say) because they’ve stretched them out to where they can’t grasp them anymore. When both husband and wife are working they usually do so to accommodate their lifestyle, not because they’re unable to feed their kids, if they even have any.

The solution: Buy stock.

Companies make money for their shareholders, become a shareholder of a company that works with outsourced labour and you'll be making money off the Chinese guy working for you (Hah !).

I'm going to have to agree with Xiahou and Pape, outsourcing doesn't have to be a bad thing. However, what would be bad is a certain minority reaping all the rewards of this new globalized economy.

I'd like to answer, but not enough time now; hopefully later in the day, if my bosses don't kick my :daisy: today (BG, I should get a virtual cookie or something for doing your work for free ~;p).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

OK, people have started quoting "Business" literature and spouting mantras, so let's get one thing straight--

Economics is a bleeping theology, and it isn't even a good one. It is completely incapable of predicting anything, or telling us anything useful about the world as it is. And when economics is wrong, again, and again, and again, the culprits are always the same: unobservable variables, market imperfections-- imperfections which must be "corrected". In other words, reality must be made to comply with theory. What kind of crap is this?

Given this farsical "science" 's clearly demonstrated lack of intellectual rigor and innovative vigor, I personally do not consider any mere recitation of "economic" propaganda to be a valid argument.

---

:laugh4:

Yup, all economic study is completely pointless and cannot predict anything. I'm sorry, I don't usually say this, but that is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. Of course economics isn't 100% or nearly that accurate, but it's the best assessment that we currently have.

I wish I coulda outsourced my college classes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

I wish I coulda outsourced my college classes

---

The internet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blodrast

I'd like to answer, but not enough time now; hopefully later in the day, if my bosses don't kick my :daisy: today (BG, I should get a virtual cookie or something for doing your work for free ~;p).

---

:flowers: How's that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Screw political ideals like "capitalism" or "socialism" or whatever.. just do what you have to do to protect the economy. If that means tarrifs that means tarrifs.

I swear, the world is just stupid sometimes. Or rather, our elected officials are just stupid most of the time. :thumbsdown:

---

Err, aren't you supposed to be a "radical libertarian"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Yes, thank you. :bow:
Outsourcing doesn't cost jobs- you could easily argue that it's created better jobs domestically in addition to the benefits you mention above. Of course, any politician that says outsourcing is good will likely be hanged from the nearest tree- people lose all rationality on that subject it seems. :shrug:

---

I think D covered that as it meant that motivated workers won't be doing the menial jobs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blodrast

Pape: I agree with A, with a clarification: profitable for the companies engaged in it.
I disagree with D. The "motivated" workers are out of jobs as a consequence of outsourcing. Lots of white-collar jobs are outsourced - or are those workers, like you, and me, and Xiahou, not among the "motivated" ones?

I disagree with C2. It makes them more capitalistic, sure. But there is a contradiction between C2 and D. D implies that only menial jobs are being outsourced (I disagree with that, and I have shown evidence of that in a similar thread less than 2 weeks ago, I believe; but, for the sake of the argument, let's leave that aside for now); C2 claims it makes them "more educated".
Really ? They become "more educated" by doing menial jobs ?
Working on a, say, assembly line, improves your education, or skills ?

---

Nation, not necessarily individual becomes more educated. Wealth that is then injected into the education of the workers children or by the government into the whole infrastructure. Also as the menial jobs go across... agents, so do the team leaders, supervisors, 2nd and 3rd tier techs and project managers... over the long term the nation that it getting the outsourcing will benefit.

Look at India, outsourcing with call centers for the likes of HSBC. Then software and now drafting, accounting and a lot of other jobs. Also a lot of Indians who went overseas and gained skills now are back creating outsourcing companies.

Quote:

---

The "motivated" workers are out of jobs as a consequence of outsourcing. Lots of white-collar jobs are outsourced - or are those workers, like you, and me, and Xiahou, not among the "motivated" ones?

---

Motivated, as in when the world changes and they lose their jobs, they take the oppourtunities presented to them.

As for myself I work for a telephony outsourcer and have in the past been made redundant a few times. Each time I have moved on, and worked my way back up and beyond to better things.

I don't like outsourcing because it is a threat to *me*, but I do see the global benefits of it. And the best way to combat a threat is to understand it and out do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Del Arroyo

OK, people have started quoting "Business" literature and spouting mantras, so let's get one thing straight--

Economics is a bleeping theology, and it isn't even a good one. It is completely incapable of predicting anything, or telling us anything useful about the world as it is. And when economics is wrong, again, and again, and again, the culprits are always the same: unobservable variables, market imperfections-- imperfections which must be "corrected". In other words, reality must be made to comply with theory. What kind of crap is this?

Given this farsical "science" 's clearly demonstrated lack of intellectual rigor and innovative vigor, I personally do not consider any mere recitation of "economic" propaganda to be a valid argument.

---

The reason most economic predictions don't come true, is because that's exactly the point of it. If a prognosis shows that unemployment is going to rise through the top, generally a government will work to prevent it :idea2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

economics isn't 100% or nearly that accurate, but it's the best assessment that we currently have.

---

The "science" of economics failed in Iraq. A wide-open market with no existing structure and absolutely no regualtions should have led to the greatest economic explosion in the history of mankind, right? Well, it led to an explosion alright, but not quite the kind that the neo-con economic theorists had promised.

Economics has also been wrong about the minimum wage. We keep on raising it, and unemployment remains low.

Perhaps it is going a little far to say that the study of economics is completely useless, but it has recorded a few spectacular failures in the past and its conventional conclusions are more often used as mantras than as relevant facts. It is a study which seems to promote a very limited world view, and which seems more interested in making policy than advising it.

People who study economics will say things like: "If FDR had done absolutely nothing to soften the effects of the Depression, and just let the economy bottom out and thousands more people starve, then there would have been a rapid turn-around and we would have been out of it within a year."

And people who study economics will say things like: "Trade-deficit, schmade-deficit. It'll all work out, and everyone will come out on top!" It will all work out, and stateless corporations will come out on top, and the US will eventually suffer some sort of correction that will probably be bigger than it has to be. So thanks for nothing.

Pape: You're mostly reinforcing an aspect that I already agreed with: that it benefits (a lot) the outsourcee (yay, making up words is fun), i.e. the country that stuff is being outsourced to.

If you take another look at my post, you'll see that I agree with most of those benefits. My main dislike was with its effects on the outsourcer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Motivated, as in when the world changes and they lose their jobs, they take the oppourtunities presented to them.

---

Sarcastic translation (not referring to you, or me, or anybody in particular, but in general): When they lose their jobs, they take whatever jobs they can get, even if it's something they're overqualified for, and below their skill levels, just so they can keep paying the bills.

This is one of the beefs that I have with Ice's article as well: it says that college-grads have jobs - but it doesn't specify what kind of jobs; are they all working in the field, and at the level that they are educated for, and capable of ? I have my doubts, judging by the people I know.

Ice: thank you for the articles, they were quite interesting. And thank you for putting time and effort into this discussion. :bow: I agree with a lot of stuff in there, but I disagree with some bits (but I'll bet you expected that already :laugh4:) :

- If we're outsourcing the white-collars, who exactly remains here to DO the actual innovation that they talk about as being the most important thing (and the only one that US is gonna remain the top dog for) ?
Innovation, as in research-derived innovation right ? The same research that is being outsourced, as well, to China and India, for example ?

- college-grads have jobs - great, but see above: what kind of jobs ? The article doesn't specify that. I know of programmers who work waiting tables; they have jobs, sure enough; is that the best society can get out of them ? Think what you will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Article

America's strongest suit is innovation, which will always create new high-paying positions

---

I'm sorry, I read it, but failed to understand how exactly innovations will keep creating jobs at the same pace that jobs are being outsourced. Are we "innovating" like crazy and I'm just not aware of it ? Must be, I guess...

As for the innovators... as I pointed out, with some figures, in the similar thread we discussed a while ago, it is research, and the innovators, that are being outsourced as well. I mentioned there IBM, Intel, research centers opening in China, India...
Creation of new jobs ? Let's see, Intel fired 9500 people, they froze hiring, are running like crazy after interns, and will open research lab in South Asia. Yup, plenty of new jobs created at home, clearly.
And don't tell me those jobs are not needed, because if they weren't, they wouldn't hire interns at the crazy pace that they are.

As for adapting, and improving, that's pretty easy talk when you're in your twenties or thirties. Try competing with a fresh spiffy college grad when you're 50 or so. We'll see who wins in flexibility and adaptability...
But I guess you don't need to live or have a job after you're 50, right ?


And, to clarify my stance, no, I haven't lost my job because of outsourcing, or anything of the sort.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

:flowers: How's that?

---

That, my friend, is so hot, that it will make Dave ruin his fishnets. ~;)

*looks cocked eyed at you* :help:

Quote:

---

The "science" of economics failed in Iraq. A wide-open market with no existing structure and absolutely no regualtions should have led to the greatest economic explosion in the history of mankind, right? Well, it led to an explosion alright, but not quite the kind that the neo-con economic theorists had promised.

---

What? This would be laissez faire capitalism. Very few, if any economists, see this is a good thing. I have no idea where you pulled this from.

Quote:

---

Economics has also been wrong about the minimum wage. We keep on raising it, and unemployment remains low.

---

You have oversimplied a very complex problem. Economists never claim that unemployment will raise drastically, they state that lower income people will be put out of work. Refer the minimum wage thread I started before.

Quote:

---

Perhaps it is going a little far to say that the study of economics is completely useless, but it has recorded a few spectacular failures in the past and its conventional conclusions are more often used as mantras than as relevant facts. It is a study which seems to promote a very limited world view, and which seems more interested in making policy than advising it.

---

Again, what?

Quote:

---

People who study economics will say things like: "If FDR had done absolutely nothing to soften the effects of the Depression, and just let the economy bottom out and thousands more people starve, then there would have been a rapid turn-around and we would have been out of it within a year."

---

I know you aren't a moron, but I sincerely hope you have a difficult time with English, because that is a ridiculous statement to make. First of all, most economists think FDR did many wrong things that pro longed the depression.
They don't advocate not doing anything at all.
Second of all, economists come in all political ideologies. Sorry to burst your delusional bubble, but all economics isn't a conservative science at all.

Quote:

---

And people who study economics will say things like: "Trade-deficit, schmade-deficit. It'll all work out, and everyone will come out on top!" It will all work out, and stateless corporations will come out on top, and the US will eventually suffer some sort of correction that will probably be bigger than it has to be. So thanks for nothing.

---

Again, what the ****! Seriously man, I don't usually get his mad, but this statement is ignorant to the max. You know absolutely NOTHING about economics or economic theory.

Economists don't worry about the trade deficit for various reasons. I'd post some links to explain, but that would just be... how did you put it... "'Business' Literature"? What a joke. Try knowing what you are talking about next time.

First off I have said its mainly great for the nations, shareholders and consumers... not the employees... except for the highly motivated ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blodrast

As for adapting, and improving, that's pretty easy talk when you're in your twenties or thirties. Try competing with a fresh spiffy college grad when you're 50 or so. We'll see who wins in flexibility and adaptability...
But I guess you don't need to live or have a job after you're 50, right ?


And, to clarify my stance, no, I haven't lost my job because of outsourcing, or anything of the sort.

---

My dad who is sixty this year... just quit his job because of the way they treated another contractor. He's taken a $3 an hour pay cut and moved on... he is extraordinarily highly motivated like my brothers (I'm the black sheep :shame: ) and still adapting and improving his abilities.

Ice: What ? Dave is the usual recipient of BG's daisies, and I think that bouquet is gonna make him really really jealous, that's all. Besides, I'll tell you a secret, I don't think they are his stockings anyway.

Pape: Kudos to your father, and your brothers. I know very few people around that age who, if they were put in that situation, would be able or even willing to try and improve/adapt. And I wouldn't give them good odds, either.
I will also admit that, as much as I know myself, I won't be able to do that either. That's another reason why I admire people who can do that. But I'm afraid they're the exceptions, rather than the rule, Pape - at least according to the people I've known.

Quote:

---

- If we're outsourcing the white-collars, who exactly remains here to DO the actual innovation that they talk about as being the most important thing (and the only one that US is gonna remain the top dog for) ?
Innovation, as in research-derived innovation right ? The same research that is being outsourced, as well, to China and India, for example ?

---

Every single job isn't being outsourced. There are still people here with the ability to do that.

Quote:

---

- college-grads have jobs - great, but see above: what kind of jobs ? The article doesn't specify that. I know of programmers who work waiting tables; they have jobs, sure enough; is that the best society can get out of them ? Think what you will.

---

The burden of proof is on you to show this. I'm seeing the unemployment number is low and I'll go with those numbers. I have no reason to believe otherwise.

Quote:

---

I'm sorry, I read it, but failed to understand how exactly innovations will keep creating jobs at the same pace that jobs are being outsourced. Are we "innovating" like crazy and I'm just not aware of it ? Must be, I guess...

---

They don't have to. I never claimed that jobs were being replaced at the same number as they were being outsourced.

Quote:

---

As for the innovators... as I pointed out, with some figures, in the similar thread we discussed a while ago, it is research, and the innovators, that are being outsourced as well. I mentioned there IBM, Intel, research centers opening in China, India...

---

Sorry to sound arrogant, but I believe the we can still do a better job. All this does is create more competition causing people to work harder.

Quote:

---

Creation of new jobs ? Let's see, Intel fired 9500 people, they froze hiring, are running like crazy after interns, and will open research lab in South Asia. Yup, plenty of new jobs created at home, clearly.
And don't tell me those jobs are not needed, because if they weren't, they wouldn't hire interns at the crazy pace that they are.

---

That's one example, my friend.

Quote:

---

As for adapting, and improving, that's pretty easy talk when you're in your twenties or thirties. Try competing with a fresh spiffy college grad when you're 50 or so. We'll see who wins in flexibility and adaptability...
But I guess you don't need to live or have a job after you're 50, right ?

---

Plan for a rainy day. Be a harder worker. As long as you are a harder worker, you have nothing to fear. Don't get lazy. You don't have to be a young buck to be employed.

Quote:

---

And, to clarify my stance, no, I haven't lost my job because of outsourcing, or anything of the sort.

---

I thought nothing of the sort.~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blodrast

Ice: .

---

That wasn't directed at you, but at the poster I quoted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blodrast

That, my friend, is so hot, that it will make Dave ruin his fishnets. ~;)

---

Don't worry, I've got some thick panties on!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

Plan for a rainy day. Be a harder worker. As long as you are a harder worker, you have nothing to fear. Don't get lazy. You don't have to be a young buck to be employed.

---

Yes, older men approaching their sixties should certainly work harder than young men because their physical strength is at it's highest peak and ehh...
Many companies here just don't take old men anymore because they can just as well get a young man who may lack some experience, but gives them room to improve and can stay with them for much longer, plus he is likely to be sick less often and has usually more physical strength(and may demand less money as a starter).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Yes, older men approaching their sixties should certainly work harder than young men because their physical strength is at it's highest peak and ehh...
Many companies here just don't take old men anymore because they can just as well get a young man who may lack some experience, but gives them room to improve and can stay with them for much longer, plus he is likely to be sick less often and has usually more physical strength(and may demand less money as a starter).

---

Id say part of the problem here (in belgium at least) is the diea that people should get payed more as they get older, while doing the same job (and have about the same productivity). I think that's part of the reason at least why so many people in their 50s are 'retired'.

Another reason is probably that a lot of them are filthy rich because they planned for a rainy day and wat to have some fun beofre they're too old :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Yes, older men approaching their sixties should certainly work harder than young men because their physical strength is at it's highest peak and ehh...
Many companies here just don't take old men anymore because they can just as well get a young man who may lack some experience, but gives them room to improve and can stay with them for much longer, plus he is likely to be sick less often and has usually more physical strength(and may demand less money as a starter).

---

All you can do is try. Besides, when you are that age, you should be planning for your retirement soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

All you can do is try. Besides, when you are that age, you should be planning for your retirement soon.

---

What's the prognosis for pensions over in the US? Do you have any state pension system?

Over here, the pensions "timebomb" is, or ought to be, exercising a great deal of concern. There is almost no chance of many European governments being able to pay the pensions of people my age, let alone some of the whippersnappers here. Many people are going to have to work far beyond the currently accepted retirement age.

It's not even much fun if you have planned. I invested in a private pension at an early age, with a British mutual company that had been the most respected and successful pension handler since 1789 (or something close). British friends will wince when I say: The Equitable Life.

In short, a bunch of charlatans got control of this eminent and incredibly conservative organisation and went on a bonus spree, telling porkies about performance and signing new members up to a scheme they couldn't possibly pay out on. Got found out, went bust - and the Ghost's pension became ephemeral.

Now, I'm really lucky because I have some independent wealth, an army pension and write for living - which I can do until I'm senile. (Stop tittering at the back, this isn't senility, it's outrage).

Without those things, I'd have to look forward to an old age stacking supermarket shelves and wearing fifteen sweaters to keep warm - despite having worked hard and saved long.

And no government I can see is making it more attractive to keep older people in work.

*feels the absence of an oldie-shaking-stick-smilie*