The Jobs Crisis & the GOP

[310]

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37516

 

[Timebuilder]

As far as what I learned in school, no party or president has ever "created jobs."

Companies create jobs. The companies are owned by people with money to invest. People with retirement plans, people who are rich, and people with a new idea, starting out small.

If we have created a hostile environment through lawsuits and regulations, then it should be no surprise that overseas workers are very attractive to companies.

We are all invested in those companies. Don't forget that part.

 

[Swass]

I tought the unemployment rate was lower now than it has beenin many, many years? Lower than when Clinton was in office I believe.

 

[merikeyegro]

I tought the unemployment rate was lower now than it has beenin many, many years? Lower than when Clinton was in office I believe.

When Clinton TOOK office from Bush I, the unemployment rate was 7.3%. When Clinton was re-elected in 1996, it was about 6.0%. When he left in 2000, it was 4.0%. Today, it sits at 5.6%.

Go to this site and select 1987-2004 at the top, click on the graphing function to get the tabulated data and the graph (US Dept of Labor - Bureau of Labor Statistics):

http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet

There are the facts. Make of them what you will.

 

[Caveman]

The DNC's claim that there have been 3 million jobs lost during GWB's watch is just that, a claim. Where do they get that number? They must get it from the same place that says 15% of the population is homosexual or that there are 20 million homeless. The unemployment rate is derived from the number of people receiving unemployment. Despite the fact that the period for drawing unemployment has been increased from 26 to 39 or even 52 weeks the number of people on it is still down. Our local paper is full of want ads for skilled labor and white collar professionals. The only way you can't find decent work in the US is if you are are convcted felon (your fault), you are unskilled (your fault), or are uneducated (again, your fault). If you can't find work in your chosen field either start your own business or change careers. Take responsibility for your own life and stop blaming everything and everybody else.

 

[merikeyegro]

Caveman:

Stats, dude. Click on my link above to get the data for yourself...from GWB's executive branch itself. Numbers typically can't tell lies. Strange that Bush would employ them...

By the raw numbers, let's figure it:

On that same site - http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ln - I clicked on "unemployment LEVELS (not rate)" and compared the data. According to the RAW NUMBERS, here are the facts:

Unemployed level, Jan 2000 - 5,698,000
Unemployed level, Feb 2004 - 8,170,000

Difference = 8,170,000 - 5,698,000 = 2,472,000 = 2.472 million MORE out of work today than when Bush took office. To his credit, I guess, the same figure in Jun 2003 was 9,245,000 - a net loss of 3.547 million jobs. Now, since I don't remember many jobs being added during this time, a lot of this decrease could be due to shrinking enterprises or outsourced jobs to foreign labor. The median number of weeks unemployed has gone up from 5.8 to 10.3 during his tenure, with actually little drop in that number in over a year. The number of part-time workers employed for economic necessity has increased by 50%. The number of discouraged workers has increased from a low of 203,000 in August 2001 to 484,000 in Feb 2004. The labor force participation rate (likely due to retirement), has dropped to 65.9% from 67.3% - a 1.4% net decrease in employable individuals. So, some of the numbers - notably the unemployment rate - are going to be skewed.

I also find it strange that we have a GOP president (supposedly against bigger gov't) and we have today 990,000 MORE government employees than we did in January 2000 (21,559,000 - 20,569,000 = + 990,000 government jobs). And GWB wants us to believe that Kerry will expand the federal government...

If someone is uneducated, it's not necessarily their fault. A lot of times the school system fails kids. There isn't much one can do about his education at age 9. I mostly agree with you about post-secondary education, but about primary and secondary education I do not.

Anyway, just the facts.

 

[Resume Writer]

The unemployment rate is derived from the number of people receiving unemployment. Despite the fact that the period for drawing unemployment has been increased from 26 to 39 or even 52 weeks the number of people on it is still down.

Caveman,

Are you aware that the figures for unemployment are only from NEW claims? It does not count the people sitting on unemployment or the ones who have exhausted unemployment benefits.

You are right that there are jobs out there for general employment. Did you also know that most people do not know there are training funds through the Workforce Investment Act for retraining in a different area? To get these fund though, there are certain criteria and an unemployed worker must fall into one of the following categories:

1. Substantial layoff - Notice of termination or layoff of 25%, or fifty (50) of a company's workforce which is not the result of a plant closing and which results in an employment loss at a single site of employment during any 30-day period

2. General announcement of plant closing - Plant status as confirmed by written notice from employer or layoff or termination

3. Unemployed as a result of general economic conditions - General economic conditions can include the failure, closure or substantial layoffs in one or more businesses in the community that had a direct effect on the individual's unemployment

4. Unlikely to return to a previous industry or occupation - Status of an unemployed worker as having limited opportunities for employment or re-employment

But to get that training, the industry you want to be retrained in has to be a "growth" industry.

For instance, a furloughed airline pilot cannot be retrained for a job in Information Technology, because that industry is an "affected" industry also. Nor will they give you a type rating anymore without having a job offer contingent on the successful completion of the type rating. (some states may still do it)

If you visit this link http://www.careeronestop.org/WiaProviderSearch.asp it will provide you with training providers or schools that are approved by the Workforce Investment Act. You can look by state.

Kathy

 

[Timebuilder]

Difference = 8,170,000 - 5,698,000 = 2,472,000 = 2.472 million MORE out of work today than when Bush took office. To his credit, I guess, the same figure in Jun 2003 was 9,245,000 - a net loss of 3.547 million jobs. Now, since I don't remember many jobs being added during this time, a lot of this decrease could be due to shrinking enterprises or outsourced jobs to foreign labor.

I could have sworn that the loss in jobs was directly attributable to the dot com bust, and the subsequent contraction of the economy: a business cycle in action.

For the dems to say that Bush somehow "lost" these jobs, or is somehome responsible for the loss of jobs, is pure fantasy.

If you say something that you already know isn't even possible to be true, and you say it because you know some people will be misled to trust that it is so, that thing is a LIE. Kerry is counting on people who do not have a grasp of these concepts to vote with their feelings and not their minds.

What is TRUE is that we are in far better shape right now because of the tax cuts Bush put into place. They have very likely saved us from a second Great Depression. At the least, they have kept the economy from getting any worse than it could have.

 

[ATL2CDG]

The only way you can't find decent work in the US is if you are are convcted felon (your fault), you are unskilled (your fault), or are uneducated (again, your fault). If you can't find work in your chosen field either start your own business or change careers.

Caveman:

What a ludicrous bunch of crap! I will give you that being a felony is strictly the fault of the individual, but my tolerance stops there.

Someone being unskilled or uneducated is NOT necessarily the fault of the individual. With the American insistence that higher education is limited to only those who can afford it, thousands, if not millions, of people are unable to gain the education and skills that they need to thrive today.

In the U.S., only the wealthy can afford higher education, adequate healthcare and a decent living after retirement; our cousins in Europe recognize these as univeral rights.

I digress. How do you expect an unemployed individual to pay for at the least 2 years of education and support his/her family? How do you propose that once that individual gains the necessary skills he/she compete with others who have the skills and experience? The world is not as simple as you would like it to be.

Furthermore, you suggest this man/woman start a business? How in the world do you expect a financial institution to loan a, as you put it, uneducated, unskilled person the money to start a high risk business that Microsoft, Borders or Toy 'R Us will put out of business in three months? Great suggestion... Now he/she unemployed and has $250,000 in debt. G.W. Bush would be proud; that's how he's running the federal government.

'Stop blaming everyone else'?? When G.W. Bush encourages corporations to move jobs overseas and gives endless tax-breaks to multibillion dollars businesses who compensate their executive management with mutlimillion dollar bonuses after 10 consecutive quarters of losses, who would you have the unemployed blame? They give 10 years to a company, work with pride and distinction then some new CEO comes in and after 3 months, that frontline worker is out of a job, benefits and a pension and the new CEO buys a house in Maui. Disgusting.

Whether you and your allies want to believe it, the government plays a central and direct roles in jobs. By limiting the exportation of jobs, by creating and funding new works programs and by developing a social platform of internal economic growth, the federal, state and local governments can stimulate growth. Despite conservative dogma, lower corporate taxes stimulate shareholder profit and executive bonuses, not job growth. The need for more product or service dictates job growth, not more money in the corporate coffers.

Quit drinking the Kool-Aid of the White House and get a vocabulary beyond 'tax cuts' and 'regime change.'

TysV

 

[Timebuilder]

Someone being unskilled or uneducated is NOT necessarily the fault of the individual. With the American insistence that higher education is limited to only those who can afford it, thousands, if not millions, of people are unable to gain the education and skills that they need to thrive today.

My most recent college expereience was in the past five years, as both a student and a teacher.

Actually, Caveman is correct.

Being unskilled or uneducated is a function of the level of desire of the student. The motivated student asks teachers for more work and better explanations. If he is struggling, he asks for help. Most teachers are happy to oblige.

As a person who did not have a lot of money, I was looking for scholarship opportunities. What I found was a virtually free education for various minorities and teenage mothers, and nothing for a white male carrying a full course load and a 3.75 GPA.

In other words, the lower performers, the C and D students, were getting the most money for college, and the students who worked hard to achieve were left to other means. So, scholarship is no loger for scholars, it is a process of liberal social engineering.

I was able to get loans and now they are paid off. Don't try and convince me that a lack of education or skills is anyone's fault except the individual, even with favoritism by the liberals who come up with these wacky programs.

Bottom line: a lot of bright kids are lazy. Period.

 

[Timebuilder]

By limiting the exportation of jobs, by creating and funding new works programs and by developing a social platform of internal economic growth, the federal, state and local governments can stimulate growth. Despite conservative dogma, lower corporate taxes stimulate shareholder profit and executive bonuses, not job growth. The need for more product or service dictates job growth, not more money in the corporate coffers.

Ah, a socialist.

With typical socialist nonsense.

 

[Timebuilder]

"Corporate coffers."




ROTFLMAO!!!

 

[ATL2CDG]

Timebuilder:

You required three posts to respond to mine?

Apparently you think there is superiority in numbers.

And yes, I am a democratic socialist... All of Europe and Canada seem to make it work quite well.

What's wrong with following Christ's commandent to support our fellow man and not leave them to rot in the streets. It's amazing how most American Christian Conservatives are the least Christian people when it comes to social welfare and corporate practices... Hypocrits and idolaters abound!

TysV

 

[bart]

Someone being unskilled or uneducated is NOT necessarily the fault of the individual. With the American insistence that higher education is limited to only those who can afford it, thousands, if not millions, of people are unable to gain the education and skills that they need to thrive today.

What form of stupidity are you afflicted with? Does it have a brand name, or did you come up with it yourself?

My guess is that you are both unskilled and uneducated and you are still blaming it on someone else. Hey, if it works for you, go for it. I would also guess that you choose to drive a nicer car or have a better apartment as opposed to paying for health insurance.

Wake up and smell the coffee son, you are the problem.

Quit trying to get someone else to pay for it.

 

[ATL2CDG]

bart:

First and foremost, do NOT address me as 'son.' I find the mere thought of relationship to someone as arrogant and self-righteous as you disgusting.

Ah, I don't agree with you, so I'm stupid. Thank you, Mr. Chairman of the RNC and Founder of the 700 Club.

I am as skilled and as educated as I desire to be at the current time; I am faulting NO ONE for my state.

Actually, I drive an inexpensive, fuel-efficient subcompact vehicle and my wife drive a beat-up old minivan so that we can transport our daughter and others with ease. We own our own house, which is FAR from luxurious, but which we happily, humbly and gratefully call 'home.' And, I happily pay for our healthcare through the program provided by my employer.

I am NO problem. I work. I support my family. I pay my taxes. I contribute to my church and my community. I endeavor to make the world a better place for ALL, not just myself.

I don't drink, or for that matter, smell coffee.

And lastly, Heaven forbid that we should lift our brethen up. All wealth is of the Heavenly Father; we are simply given stewardship over it. Based on your remarks, I would think you fail to use yours righteously in the eyes of the Lord.

TysV

 

[Timebuilder]

And yes, I am a democratic socialist... All of Europe and Canada seem to make it work quite well.

Let's see aren't Europe and Canada the areas where the Gospel of Jesus, and His teachings, have been called "hate speech?" Yes, they are. If you communicate the Bible's teaching on homosexuality, you can be sanctioned.

I'll take the US any day, speaking as a guy with 50% Canadian DNA.

What's wrong with following Christ's commandent to support our fellow man and not leave them to rot in the streets.

Nothing at all. It is an act of charity, not a government program administered by "Ceasar" that is the correct approach.

Don't forget that Christ exhorted the sinner to leave his sin behind and walk by faith. That said, many have worked dilligently to bring the Gospel to the homeless as a prerequisite for their life improvements. Many have started hostels for the homeless, and provided hot meals for them.

So, when you write:

It's amazing how most American Christian Conservatives are the least Christian people when it comes to social welfare and corporate practices... Hypocrits and idolaters abound!

..I don't know who you are talking about. I DO know that those who worship the government instead of God are idolaters, indeed. People like Kennedy and Kerry fall into that group, to be sure.

Ah, I don't agree with you, so I'm stupid. Thank you, Mr. Chairman of the RNC and Founder of the 700 Club.

What a way to elevate a discussion. So, having made the comment, can you back it up? Any quote at all that says either Pat Robertson or the RNC see those who don't agree with them as "stupid" will do. I don't think you will have much luck finding such a reference, though, since this would not be a characteristic response for either organization.

And lastly, Heaven forbid that we should lift our brethen up. All wealth is of the Heavenly Father; we are simply given stewardship over it. Based on your remarks, I would think you fail to use yours righteously in the eyes of the Lord.

Seriously, you don't have enough information about him to rebuke him for things you think he has failed to do.

The reason you havce the life you described above is due to one reason and one reason alone: your own dilligence and good choices that you made in your own life. Socialism didn't provide that goodness, God did, working through you as an individual beleiver.

The individual believer in God threatens socialism, which wishes to be "god, the government."

 

[Crizz]

In the U.S., only the wealthy can afford higher education, adequate healthcare and a decent living after retirement; our cousins in Europe recognize these as univeral rights.

WTF are you talking about. Im in college right now and am completely broke. I have $30k in student loans and no "wealthy" family to pay for my education.

AND I live in AMERICA.

Anyone who doesnt seek higher education is simply misguided or a complete bafoon.

The other things you mention (healthcare and retirement) are functions of the quality of job you recieve. The quality of job you recieve is a function of the amount of education you recieve. We already covered that point


Laziness and lack of motivation (or lack of ANY cognitive ability) are the culprits in these limosine liberal bastions of rhetoric.

I'm done.

 

[wil]

Most of the successful people I know are biz owners with no college. I value an education but to tie a degree to financial success is class envy, liberal clap-trap.

 

[bart]

Actually, I drive an inexpensive, fuel-efficient subcompact vehicle and my wife drive a beat-up old minivan so that we can transport our daughter and others with ease. We own our own house, which is FAR from luxurious, but which we happily, humbly and gratefully call 'home.' And, I happily pay for our healthcare through the program provided by my employer.

Well then by any measure you have heretofore mentioned, you have made it!

You are wealthy.

Good for you...

 

[Crizz]

Most of the successful people I know are biz owners with no college. I value an education but to tie a degree to financial success is class envy, liberal clap-trap.

You are absolutely right. I should re-state my assertion.

The quality of job you recieve is a function of the amount of effort you put into obtaining it. Education opens doors not otherwise avaliable.

 

[Tim47SIP]

ATLdood

I digress. How do you expect an unemployed individual to pay for at the least 2 years of education and support his/her family? How do you propose that once that individual gains the necessary skills he/she compete with others who have the skills and experience? The world is not as simple as you would like it to be.

Well, let me think, MAYBE THE SAME WAY EVERONE ELSE DOES IT!Get a job, any job and go to school.

I got a degree on my own by working and paying for school. I was not wealthy, and not LAZY. And yes I was supporting a family.

 

[merikeyegro]

Timebuilder -

You have yet to prove how we are "better off with the tax cuts" that "Bush gave us." I'm still waiting on that one. Dot-com bust definitely skewered us, but our prez's fiscal policies are not exactly kickin' a$$. Where are those 1.5 million (or whatever) jobs that Bush was going to help create when he touted his tax plan...or his next tax plan...or his next one...or his future one? Nope. Not here yet. Didn't think so.

Do you HONESTLY have a lower tax burden today when everything is figured in? I'm talkin' healthcare, car and homeowners' insurance, state and local tax. I'm guessing likely not. Yeah, the feds take less cash, but you're no better off. Not to mention that the deficits we run now are just gonna have to be paid off later. We're not going to be running a net positive here. It all comes back in the end. So, do we cut our income now and let the interest build or do we pay off debts and then cut up the credit cards? You tell me. You seem to be the expert here. However, my guess is that you and Sean Hannity are good buds. You apparently drink at the same establishment.

Bush and his buddies are slowly eating away at your rights not only as a citizen, but as a worker. So, when you no longer have bargaining rights without jumping through 47 new hoops and your wages get unilaterally cut by 20%, tell me how that tax cut is treatin' ya. That's what supporting corporatism will get you.

Oh, and there is a direct correlation between education and income. The Department of Labor itself says this. Read up (yup, more facts for the feeble-minded here - maybe some of these Bush lovers will actually READ what I put out there and realize that Bush's OWN GOVERNMENT SUPPLIES THIS DATA):

"Generally speaking, jobs that require high levels of education and skill pay higher wages than jobs that require few skills and little education. Statistics from the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) validate this viewpoint by revealing that the unemployment rate among people who have a professional degree is significantly lower than that of people who have a high school diploma or less than a complete high school education. In addition, earnings increase significantly as a worker's degree of education rises." -

http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/wages/educational.htm

So, for you to sit here and tell me that education has nothing to do with compensation and has everything to do with motivation is contrary to all empirical data collected by our own government. I simply do not understand this mentality.

Supply-siders. 20 years later and they still haven't figured it out.

 

[Caveman]

ATL2CDG,

"How do you expect an unemployed individual to pay for at the least 2 years of education and support his/her family?"

Easy. Don't have a family until you are educated enough or skilled enough to adequately support them. Oh sorry, that would require discipline and responsibility.

How to pay for college?

1. Work hard enough in high school to merit some scholarships and/or grants. Unfortunately, that also requires discipline, motivation and responsibility.

2. Grades not good enough for scholarships? Student loans.

3. Don't want to borrow the money? Enlist for 4 years and earn the GI Bill benefits. A side benefit of this is that you also could gain experience in a marketable skill.

4. Don't like the military? Work menial jobs and pay your way through college.

Shall I continue? The point is that getting an education is COMPLETELY under the control of the person seeking it. There is no excuse other than a lack of application. It takes effort because it's worth it.

"How do you propose that once that individual gains the necessary skills he/she compete with others who have the skills and experience?"

Same way every body else does. You start at the bottom and work your way up. Your problem is you have the cart before the horse. Get an education, get some skills and experience, land a good job and THEN start a family.

Just because some young stud can't keep his crank in his pants and knocks up some SuzyQ isn't GWB's fault. It d@mn sure ain't my problem. Loverboy created the problem, he can fix it and I'm sick of hearing about how it's everybody else's fault that he can't catch a break. If he was thinking with the big head and not the little one he wouldn't have a problem.

 

[ATL2CDG]

Caveman et al.:

Oh, well. We disagree. We obviously view the role of government differently.

I'm not going to convince you and you're not going to convince me; let's just admit it and move on.

It was fun while it lasted.

TysV

 

[46Driver]

The Montgomery GI Bill is huge - my package came to $36,000 and that's after you leave active duty. While on active duty, depending on the branch of the service you are in, you can receive up to 100% of your tuition paid for.

Tuition itself? The local junior college here is about $1200 semester, the local university is about $2500 per semester, and grad school maybe $4000 per semester.

There are very few reasons that an American can not get a college education. Whether or not they are too lazy is another story.

 

[Timebuilder]

You have yet to prove how we are "better off with the tax cuts" that "Bush gave us." I'm still waiting on that one.

You pose an interesting challenge.

Can I prove to you that millions of Americans would have polio if it were not for the Salk vaccine? No, I can't "prove" that one, either. It would required an alternate timeline to show you exactly what would have happened without the tax cuts. I can point you toward economists so you can see what they say, and I can ask you to construct a mental hypothesis based upon what those economists say, but that's about it.

In other words, all it takes is a reasonable person who has a basic command of economics to understand the importance odf the tax cuts, particularly the tax cuts given to those who traditionally pay the MOST taxes in America: the so-called "rich."

Dot-com bust definitely skewered us, but our prez's fiscal policies are not exactly kickin' a$$.

No challenger to the president has articulated what should have been done in place of the "Bush policies". I don't expect I will ever hear what these "superior" ideas might have been. I strongly suspect that the resulting depression from refusing to cut taxes might have led to even greater reliance on government programs, higher taxes, and a stalled economy. I am old enough to remember the Carter years.

Where are those 1.5 million (or whatever) jobs that Bush was going to help create when he touted his tax plan...or his next tax plan...or his next one...or his future one? Nope. Not here yet. Didn't think so.

Ah, I see. You're sticking wirth the idea that a president "creates" jobs. He can only exert just so much influence, no matter what party affiliation he has. I wasn't aware that he gave some kind of time line for these jobs, so you can inform me, and I'll then know.

Do you HONESTLY have a lower tax burden today when everything is figured in? I'm talkin' healthcare, car and homeowners' insurance, state and local tax. I'm guessing likely not. Yeah, the feds take less cash, but you're no better off.

I am much better off, and sleep much better, thank you. Advertising is up. My calls have tripled in the past month. I expect my fortunes to mirror the fortunes of the economy. I also believe that the financial markets are desperate that we don't get another tax and spend guy who will pacify the UN and terrorists to the detriment of our national sovereignty and security. Such a person would no doubt put up trade barriers that would essentially get us kicked out of many foreign markets, leaving European countries to slip into the gap.

Bush and his buddies are slowly eating away at your rights not only as a citizen, but as a worker. So, when you no longer have bargaining rights without jumping through 47 new hoops and your wages get unilaterally cut by 20%, tell me how that tax cut is treatin' ya. That's what supporting corporatism will get you.

Bargaining rights? What bargaining rights?

Airlines are forming new non-union carriers, SAG and AFTRA costs are going up while jobs for that segment are going down. Union membership is dropping steadily in the US. In fifty years, there will be government employee unions and a few others. SAG will have gobbled up AFTRA by then, but most movies will not be SAG work, they will be made overseas.

What bargaining rights do I now have that I don't know about?

Oh, and there is a direct correlation between education and income. The Department of Labor itself says this. Read up (yup, more facts for the feeble-minded here -

I never said that you were feeble minded.

While there is a correlation between education and income, we still regularly seem to create entire companies led by undereducated people. It is the creativity and motivation of such folks, who would otherwise have degrees, that make this correlation one that is not chisled in stone. It is a generalization more than anything else. Everyone should be encouraged to become better educated. There are entire libraries of books that can more than compensate for college. The structure of the educational elite tends to put up roadblocks in this area, since that means less money for them. That's what the CLEP program is for.

Supply-siders. 20 years later and they still haven't figured it out.

Supply is where things come from, where wealth is created.

I'm surprised that some folks haven't figured out that the Reagan tax cuts proved, beyond any doubt at all, that as tax rates were lowered, revenue to the treasury went UP. Tax cuts lead to prosperity, raising all boats with a rising tide.

Indeed "twenty years later, and they still haven't figured it out."

You said a mouthful.

 

[SDF2BUF2MCO]

College education, et.al

While I realize college education in today's US society is the way the game is played, I still question its value (this coming from someone who has a Master's degree...albeit from Kentucky). Think the market is saturated with college degreed people for jobs that may not necessarily need a college degree. Granted it gets your foot in the door but I question its real/tangible value. Oh well, keeps the liberal professors employed.
For those of you who think the economy is just fine. I keep reading articles from certain conservatives who think we are going down the wrong path. Saw a good article in Worldnetdaily.com today. If the author's facts are correct, we'll be like the legacy airlines within the next twenty years. While I would never support Kerry (although I did receive a nice letter from him and Teddy Kennedy the other day wanting money - I didn't have any money but I did send them some coupons to Pizza Hut), I don't think Bush is any savior. Pick your poison.

 

[Groucho]

I will address only the article that the origional poster linked to.

The article by Patrick Buchannan states that the GOP is worried because the current economic rebound may be in trouble because jobs are not being created fast enough to sustain the recovery. The GNP of the US is approximately 66% consumer spending and therefore jobs play directly into the equation of sustainable growth.

The current free trade agenda is based on the work of a 17th century economist, David Ricardo, and called "comparitive advantage", which holds that countries should not try to do or produce all things if others can do it more efficiently. By concentrating on what a country can do best, and better than others, overall employment and the economy will improve and be stronger in the long run.

This economic theory is under attack by some very well published and knowledgeable people. This weeks Business Week Magazine has a commentary by Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant Treasury Secratary to the Regan administration. Mr Roberts states that the theory of comparative advantage has several gross errors in todays outsourcing of jobs.
"For comparative advantage to work, a country's labor, capital, and technology must not move offshore." Comparative advantage is about labor rates using existing capital. "If technology and other factors move offshore than comparitive advantage changes to absolute advantage." This is labor arbitrage only.

Productivity is about all the infrastructur, education, and capital markets that make up an economy. Allowing unlimited transfer off jobs and total industries is akin to robbing the US taxpayer of the accumulated wealth of the society that enabled the technology in the first place.

"Until recently, first world economies retained their capital, labor and technology." "Foreign investment occoured, but it worked differently from outsourcing in that it was primarily focused on the first world and used to gain comparitive advantage in shipping costs, tarriffs and quotas. "

"Today acquired knowledge is the basis for most tradable goods and services, making the Ricardian assumptions unrealistic." "Indeed, it is not clear where there is a basis for comparative advantage when production rests on acquired knowledge. " The theory proposed by Alan Greespan and others may in fact hold no water and we are just seeing the hollowing out of America as far as quality employment goes.

This is not a purley political rabble rousing debate between conservative and big government types. Many economists and well educated professionals worry that with the huge execces of labor available in China and India ensures that American wages will fall faster than Asian wages will rise thus not allowing a growing export market for US goods. This leads to polarization of income distribution, loss of taxbase and a long term slide in American competiveness in the world markets.

 

[sqwkvfr]

And yes, I am a democratic socialist... All of Europe and Canada seem to make it work quite well.


TysV [/B]

Uh, most European countries have unemployment rates in the double digits....."quite well", indeed.