Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Government United States Politics

The Jobs Crunch 1307

randall_burns writes "Neither major party is accurately describing or combatting the Jobs Crunch that Americans are facing. Bad immigration policy-and bad trade deals are combining to decimate the middle class in America."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Jobs Crunch

Comments Filter:
  • by vijayiyer ( 728590 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @03:15AM (#10346968)
    Since it's so fashionable to compare our policy to the European powers, let's look at some of the numbers. In France, unemployment was 9.3% as of last year. Germany's unemployment rate was 9.7% as of 2 years ago. We had a bubble during the 90s, and it's only expected to pay the price now. The economy moves in cycles and is an extremely complex nonlinear system. To conclusively blame immigration and trade policy as the cause for an increase in unemployment is easy, but unfortunately also meaningless.
  • by redhotchil ( 44670 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @03:18AM (#10346976) Homepage Journal
    Oh no neither party is helping? Gee.. wouldn't it be great if there were other parties besides the Dems and Reps? OH WAIT
  • Any bias? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by professorfalcon ( 713985 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @03:20AM (#10346986)

    Randall Burns ... recently helped create the Kucinich campaign's position paper on H-1b/L-1 visas.

    I guess he hates both Kerry and Bush equally. Should we call him non-partisan?

  • by lowell ( 66406 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @03:20AM (#10346989)
    The problem is that these men who represent our presidential canidates, are the best that the parties could come up with. Out of everyone in the whole country. These four pricks. Thats insane. If this is the best that the dems and republicans can come up with then we need some different parties invovled in politics.
  • by killjoe ( 766577 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @03:25AM (#10346994)
    First of all I am pretty sure that a person without a job in Europe is much better off then a person without a job in the US.

    Having said that I really don't think that unemployment is measured the same in both places. In the US if a person stops looking for job (gives up for example) unemployment goes down. The unemployment figures only take into account people who are actively looking for jobs. I am not sure how it's measured in Europe but I would bet it's different. You may be comparing oranges and apples.

    Finally I really don't care how much worse Europe is. Do you? Does it really help somebody who lost a job to say to them "well other people have it worse then you".

    Reagan asked the question "are you better off today then you were four years ago" and the question is still valid. Compare your (and your countries) situation to four years ago and vote accordingly.

  • Re:Outsourcing (Score:3, Insightful)

    by N3WBI3 ( 595976 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @03:26AM (#10346996) Homepage
    This is the *only* thing of worth Kerry has said, Now what he might do about it I dont know, and how business will react to having outsourcing clipped and taxes hiked at the same time also remains to be seen.

    How I long for a candidate who actually cares about both workers and business owners...

  • Free Trade (Score:2, Insightful)

    by lisabeeren ( 657508 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @03:26AM (#10346999)
    Welcome to the wonderful world of free trade. Not only does free trade totally destroy 3rd world countries, it harms 1st world one's too.
  • by killjoe ( 766577 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @03:30AM (#10347013)
    "The story itself is just a massive advertisement to vote against Bush too."

    Why? According to Bush the economy is doing great. If Bush is good for jobs then this thread may be an advertisement for voting for bush. It's only anti bush if Bush is horrible for jobs in the country.

    " I know I wont be trying to moderate anyone in this thread, because every second post will look like trolling or flamebait depending on the perspective of the reader."

    I have to agree with you there. I have never seen our country divided so much. The people who relish driving wedges to set the country apart have been very successful. I don't know what it would take to get the country back together again. Maybe if we had a president that was a "uniter not a divider" things would be different.
  • by Epeeist ( 2682 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @03:31AM (#10347016) Homepage
    It is difficult to be sure from a distance (I live in the UK), but what seems to be happening in the States is a move to what I can best call a neo-feudal society.

    At the top end you have the rich and super-rich, with limited call on their wealth in terms of taxes.

    At the bottom end you seem to have people who have to hold down more than one job to make ends meet, have limited access to medical care and whose children receive only a poor quality education.

    This leaves your middle classes, who are being squeezed. If they don't work in a service that requires personal contact then they are in danger of being outsourced to cheaper locations elswhere on the globe.

    Barons, serfs and guilds is the way it appears to be. It isn't quite as extreme here in Britain, but we are going the same way.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 25, 2004 @03:32AM (#10347020)
    If you are good enough to do the job of Prez, you are also likely to be sane enough to not want the job.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 25, 2004 @03:33AM (#10347025)
    His stated policies, among other things, are to enforce the tax laws already on the books. Something the Clinton administration was lax in, and something the Bush administration simply doesn't do, unless you're relatively poor. Close existing legal tax loopholes, and benefits for companies that outsource. As well as provide tax incentives for companies that don't. Which is of course just what he claims, but 180 degrees from what the current administration does, and admittedly plans to continue doing. He also planned to be more aggressive, and possibly heavy handed in dealing with trade organizations when it comes to protecting US interests. He also supports enforcement of current immigration laws, and proper funding for border patrols and NIS. (Which Bush won't do since a "let 'em run free" policy puts a downward pressure on what services cost.)

    The trade deficit, and outsourcing aren't about cheaper labor, their about unequal access to capital. People are forced to pool and discount their capital which no longer is used to build infrastructure in their local communities or the larger community of the whole of the US. But rather it's hemoraged out to other locales where a quicker short term gain is percieved, rampant corruption is considered a cost of doing business, and it's hard to blame people in other legal jurisdictions. We in America have the most capital and have to pay a premium for access to it. Thanks to the 80's the 'B' in MBA stands for "Bullshit".

    If Kerry followed his plan up with a pledge to subsidize lighting up a bunch of huge walk away nuclear reactors, I'd say his was the beginings of a perfect economic policy. Bush, yeah, that's not going to happen.
  • by N3WBI3 ( 595976 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @03:34AM (#10347027) Homepage
    maybe your retarded ass would have had a point.

    Or maybe the point is right now there are jobs to be had. The OP said that these jobs are still unfilled.

  • Ohio is a mess... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 25, 2004 @03:35AM (#10347032)
    Data just came out showing that Cleveland, Ohio has the largest unemployment rate of any major city in the US. Cincinnati is on the brink of (and has fallen into) racial and class conflict. The whole state is an unbelieveable mess and it appears that even with an inept Republican govenor that Ohio will vote Republican and give the rich and corporations more and more tax cuts which they, in turn, will use to buy more foreign products and fund more outsourcing projects.

    Distribution of wealth is an nasty necessity that is created by the greed in all of us (once I hit the million dollar threshold I will give to the less fortunate - then it's once I become one of the 331 billionaires in the US -- well you get the drift...). Anyway, the Republicans have never and will never talk about redistribution of wealth. Flat taxes and sales taxes are rigged against the poor, but people seem to think they are a great idea because of conservative thinktank spin.

    The Democrats may have become as much of the problem as the Republicans, but at least they are still talking about these issues. I can't for the life of me undersand why a the population of a state on the brink of disaster would vote for a party that still talks about supply side economics and trickle down. I shake my head and then realize that to be a politician these days you have to be rich already -- it's no wonder that we are where we are.

    There will never be another farmer from Illinois in the Whitehouse, and I just don't see any solutions on the horizon...
  • by N3WBI3 ( 595976 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @03:36AM (#10347036) Homepage
    So to clarify: You're reasonably sure your better off unemployed in europe than the US but you dont know how? You're pretty sure unemployement is measured differently in europe then the us but you dont know how?
  • Re:Free Trade (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Asterisk ( 16357 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @03:45AM (#10347060)
    Because we all now how much better off everyone is when they can only consume the products they've made with their own hands.
  • by parliboy ( 233658 ) <parliboy@gmail . c om> on Saturday September 25, 2004 @03:48AM (#10347066) Homepage
    I graduated in May with a degree in Education and another in Computer Science. I can't get permanent work in either. In Houston. The epicenter of Bushism.

    All the layoffs of recent times have flooded the teaching ranks with people getting alternative certification. Add to that a recent flood of people who spent years in other roles in education just now finishing their degrees, and the new teachers are getting pushed out. That whole ETS scoring fiasco [theadvertiser.com] didn't help either.

    Read again to understand this: there are too many teachers. People in other countries may not understand the gravity of this, but for people who are used to teachers being the most pissed on of American professionals, this should be the ultimate sign of how bad things are right now.

  • by Twirlip of the Mists ( 615030 ) <twirlipofthemists@yahoo.com> on Saturday September 25, 2004 @03:48AM (#10347070)
    Please reconcile your comment with recent Department of Labor statistics which report that entrepreneurship is at an all-time high.

    When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. When all you want to talk about is classism, every society appears stratified.
  • by Bill_Royle ( 639563 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @03:49AM (#10347077)
    Agreed. Twice today we've had whining that draws directly from the Kerry camp:

    1. It's a bad economy, and things are getting worse.
    2. Google's evil, because searching for John Kerry in the news section shows a lot of negative articles.

    First off, the economy isn't doing badly - I'm right here in the valley, and things are picking up quite nicely. Is it at dotcom levels? No - and that's ok too. After all, the dotcom era was essentially a lot of people spending money while providing no real service or product. Sooner or later, the economy pays the price for that kind of crap.

    Second, Kerry's getting more negative articles written about him because his campaign is virtually tripping over itself to incur more PR drubbings. The race was Kerry's to lose, and he's well on his way if they don't get it together.

    One way or the other, it's a joke to try to disguise this as some sort of outsourcing article... try attaching an example to your editorial commentary.
  • Immigration policy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tim C ( 15259 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @03:50AM (#10347079)
    Yeah, it's always the fault of those pesky foreigners [thinkquest.org]...
  • Racismdot (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lurker McLurker ( 730170 ) <allthecoolnameshavegone@NOSpaM.gmail.com> on Saturday September 25, 2004 @03:50AM (#10347081)
    Well, I never expected to see this story on the front page of slashdot. What next?
  • by Gorimek ( 61128 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @03:52AM (#10347083) Homepage
    The unemployment numbers are political dynamite in any country, so they're pretty heavily doctored everywhere.

    My native Sweden has fairly low official numbers, but they are achieved by having some 10% or 20% (*) of the working age population that is not working being classified in other categores. The big ones are long term sickness, early retirement and "education". Some of that education is no doubt useful in the way you describe, but most is little more than long term people storage, and everybody involved knows it.

    In all these categories you are getting paid fairly well by the government, to a much larger extent than in the US, which you may or may not think is a good thing.

    So where is the unemployment really highest? Who lies the most and the best? I don't have that information, though I'm sure there are plenty of studies someone can look up. But as a Swede living in California I have no doubt at all that there are far more Americans gainfully employed, and that it's much easier to get a job here.

    (*) I haven't seen actual numbers in a long time, and these things are very hard to measure precisely anyway, but that's the range.
  • Sad Day For /. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by R.Caley ( 126968 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @03:53AM (#10347087)
    When the rantings on a xenophobic loonie site are presented as fact.
  • by myowntrueself ( 607117 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @03:57AM (#10347105)
    "Data just came out showing that Cleveland, Ohio has the largest unemployment rate of any major city in the US. Cincinnati is on the brink of (and has fallen into) racial and class conflict."

    Thats an interesting observation.

    European nations can probably tolerate a much higher unemployment level before getting this sort of social unrest; in the US the unemployed have so much less to lose by being, uh, antisocial in one way or another.
  • LOL!! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by here4fun ( 813136 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @04:01AM (#10347117) Homepage Journal
    The problem is that these men who represent our presidential canidates, are the best that the parties could come up with. Out of everyone in the whole country. These four pricks. Thats insane. If this is the best that the dems and republicans can come up with then we need some different parties invovled in politics.

    LOL, Out of everyone "these four pricks"? I don't think it is the party that picked them. It is special interest and money that picked them. The candidates that can be purchased get picked. Look at Cheney and Haliburton. Look at Edwards and the Trial Lawyers. It does not matter what party gets in the white house, they are pretty much the same. What we need is campaign finance reform.

  • by Pros_n_Cons ( 535669 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @04:02AM (#10347123)
    For the first time in my life, within 4 weeks of one another, my sister lost her job, my friend lost his job, and his wife lost her job. These are NOT good times...although Bush would have us believe otherwise.

    And you'd have us believe everyone we know is out of work. 5.4 are the latest numbers, the lowest since Oct 2001. sorry
  • by killjoe ( 766577 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @04:08AM (#10347140)
    That's silly. You have an incombent president and you have plenty of evidence about how he will continue to run the country.

    If he has not run the country to your satisfaction so far you have every right to expect that he will not run it to your satisfaction in the next cycle. If anything he will probably run it worse since he does not need to get re-elected.

    Again. If you are better off, if your country is better off, if the world is a better place then it was four years ago then vote for Bush. Otherwise vote for somebody else.
  • by maxpublic ( 450413 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @04:11AM (#10347154) Homepage
    5.4 are the latest numbers, the lowest since Oct 2001.

    These figures are inaccurate. They don't count people who're no longer collecting unemployment and have simply given up. Many households which formerly had two parents working now only have one parent employed but the government, in it's infinite wisdom, doesn't count these folks as being unemployed.

    This is nothing short of 'voodoo unemployment numbers': pretending that people who can't find a job prefer not to work, and therefore don't need to be counted.

    We should also note that of the jobs created (about half of those lost so far) the average pay is almost $9,000 lower than the jobs lost. Things are much, much grimmer than our government would lead us to believe.

    This isn't new, though. The government did the exact same thing during the Reagan Era depression, declaring that things were looking up despite the fact that, for example, nearly one in three people in Oregon were unemployed and that the few jobs created paid about *one-half the wage* of the timber jobs lost.

    Don't trust the government for unbiased numbers; you won't get them.

    Max
  • by Tlosk ( 761023 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @04:12AM (#10347158)
    "I am pretty sure that a person without a job in Europe is much better off then a person without a job in the US."

    Which unfortunately contributes to joblessness. Good arguments can be made to have unemployment programs, but the more you increase the coverage period and the better the benefits, the higher jobless rates will go.

    And the comparison isn't being made by most people as a "well other people have it worse argument," rather it's meant to show that you need to be careful of the policies you institute because sometimes they make the problem worse, not better, despite your good intentions. Europe is an example, so before we charge ahead with policies that have been shown to fail, we should think twice.

    It's usually a lot easier to focus on the short term, but we really need to take a long term view of things. Opening trade and eliminating barriers to the free flow of labor is where the larger rewards are in the long term.

    Just as people have self-destructive tendencies with diet because we didn't evolve in an environment filled with calorie rich and easily obtained food, we also end up shooting ourselves in the foot when we decide to circle the wagons and protect members of the "tribe." It's not the world we live in anymore, and it requires a leap of rationality to recognize what is best for everyone in the long term.
  • by infonography ( 566403 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @04:16AM (#10347169) Homepage
    Tried it about in May 2001,

    Internet bubble bursting = no funding = no work.

    Then your out your savings and 911 hits. worst your stuck in a area code recruiters ignore and don't find this out till two years later. Now I nolonger equate MBAs as idiots who can't do like Gym Teachers teach Gym. However I still don't like their choice of clothes.

  • by Tatarize ( 682683 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @04:19AM (#10347178) Homepage
    Couple problems. Firstly, it isn't going to inspire any other states to work in this way. Only a battleground state like CO would consider it. Even in states like Maine where it goes by district doesn't attack of the status quo this does.

    Take CA and TX for example, you'll never see them implement anything close to this. Because they start out for one side or the other and vote that way accordingly. Why would they hand off a 3rd of their electoral votes to the other party.

    The only way about this would be to trash the electoral vote system at the national level and convert to a real democracy. I would highly recommend one with a runoff or instant runoff system built in. I'd prefer a runoff system with a none of the above choice.

    You will only get battleground states to ever approve such a measure, and even then if this measure is approved you'll see it in a SCOTUS near you. It's damaging to the status quo, as damaging as could be done by a state in a democratic republic such as our.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 25, 2004 @04:22AM (#10347188)

    Shouldn't demand for jobs be at an all-time high, then, too?

    Shouldn't the economy be turning for the better, instead of consuming on borrowed money, already in debts up to your ears?

  • Re:Pathetic (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DarkZero ( 516460 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @04:22AM (#10347189)
    This article is not economics, not public policy, not even deserving opinion. Just the typical xenophobic, bigoted kind of rant that the nativist crowd likes to engage in. Anti-immigrant sentiment is the omnivorous reptile in the fauna of politics. A recession with falling wages? Cheap immigrant labor must be to blame. Terrorism? Without immigration there wouldn't be any. Traffic? Too many immigrants must have moved in. Whatever the issue at hand, the subterfuged racism of the nativist crowd always translates into an immigration problem.

    The United States has millions of illegal Mexican immigrants who live in fear of getting caught and are regularly abused by employers who can get away with paying them slave wages. Both from the point of view of the immigrants and the citizens, we do have some sort of immigration problem. It isn't the key problem behind everything wrong in the United States, but at the very least, SOME sort of problem is there. There's no reason to jump between the extremes of "the immigration problem is the new apocalypse" and "there is no immigration problem, you bigot". There's a very wide area between those two ideas, and I believe that the United States is somewhere within it.
  • by billstewart ( 78916 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @04:23AM (#10347192) Journal
    "Bad Immigration Policy"? My ancestors let your ancestors move to North America, so don't bitch if we let other people move here too. Meanwhile, when I moved to California from New Jersey, I came twice as far as a typical Mexican immigrant, and I only speak one of the four or five main languages used here in SF, but nobody made me ask permission from some bureaucrat to move here.

    Yes, we've got a job crunch in this country, and we had a severe job crunch in the dot-bomb technology industry, with an estimated 49% of San Francisco's high-tech jobs disappearing, so my friends were affected much more strongly than the average American, and there's a non-trivial chance I'll get laid off next week.

    • One reason we're having trouble is that technological change created a lot of temporary opportunities for jobs until the market figured out what the web business was really worth and the VC money all dried up.
    • Another reason has to do with rapidly rising interest rates in Y2K, which _is_ something politicians had a lot of influence on, which happened as the Y2K-conversion software boom jobs dried up and the dogfood-on-line.com companies were running out of their early funding rounds.
    • Another reason is that Bush's protectionism raised the price of steel, hurting any American manufacturers who used steel, harming a lot more business than it saved.
    • Moore's Law really zapped the telecommunications industry, by suddenly giving us near-infinite fiber bandwidth when everybody's construction funding had depended on selling it at slowly declining prices, and the "Internet capacity demand doubling every 15 minutes" phenomenon only slowed down the crash a bit.
    • Information wants to be free and the Internet lets anybody work from anywhere in the world. That seemed like a good reason for everybody to move to San Francisco, but in fact anybody in the world who's reasonably educated can compete with us, even if the xenophobes don't let them move here. That's not just the software business - almost any white-collar job is really about either manipulating information or talking to people face to face; the cost of phone calls dropped to near-zero once government monopolies in most of the world realized that white-collar jobs were more important than ripoff telephone prices.
    • Container shipping means that not only can information go anywhere in the world, physical stuff can be transported cheaply too, so manufacturing jobs can easily be done around the world.
    • The American Education System has been declining over the last 30 years, just in case you thought this was a purely Libertarian rant. School systems aren't putting out the quality of education they used to, which means that students aren't prepared for high-value jobs, but schools also aren't teaching mechanical skills that laborers would use.
  • by Twirlip of the Mists ( 615030 ) <twirlipofthemists@yahoo.com> on Saturday September 25, 2004 @04:25AM (#10347200)
    Anyway, the Republicans have never and will never talk about redistribution of wealth.

    That's not true. We Republicans talk about it whenever the subject comes up. We say that the redistribution of wealth by the state is (a) immoral and (b) unconstitutional. The conversation rarely goes beyond that, granted.

    Cleveland is a mess because its economy is shot. For more than twenty years the city has had a distinctly business-unfriendly fiscal plan, and consequently has failed to attract any significant outside investment. It's a slippery slope, because a city that's seen as bad for business is going to have a hard time correcting that image. But it's not impossible. It just take sound fiscal planning.

    The seizure of private property by the state is not the answer. Not only is it not the answer, it's not even an answer. It's immoral and wrong, before you even get into a discussion about whether it's good or bad.

    Flat taxes and sales taxes are rigged against the poor

    Sales taxes do, in fact, hurt the poor more than the wealthy, because poor people spend a bigger fraction of their income than wealthy people spend. This is offset to an extent by exemptions. Proposals to replace the federal income tax with a national sales tax--proposals which have never gone anywhere--have traditionally included a fixed credit that effectively establishes a minimum taxable income level.

    Flat taxes, of course, are not "rigged against the poor" at all. All citizens pay precisely the same fraction of their income in taxes. The only way you can come to the conclusion that they're rigged is if you start with the assumption that the wealthy should pay a bigger percentage, which is circular reasoning at its finest.

    I can't for the life of me undersand why a the population of a state on the brink of disaster would vote for a party that still talks about supply side economics and trickle down.

    'Cause it works? Nice job with the "brink of disaster" line, though. That's a play right out of Terry McAuliffe's book. Good job.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 25, 2004 @04:34AM (#10347217)
    Thank god for that article. I was beginning to wonder if *I* might be the one responsible for my unemployment due to my choice of remaining in a one factory town, with my limited skill-set, narrow education, zero-ambition and unwillingness to take any job that was far beneath my abilities that can apparently be replicated by someone who grew-up in a third world country without indoor plumbing while educated in a classroom with a dirt floor. I'm so glad I can blame them foreigners and people in Washington. I was almost thinking that I was some kind of loser slacker who spent all my time on message boards downloading music (cause it was meant to be free!) and not trying to make myself into someone with valuable assets. Not my responsibility. There's no way you can convince me otherwise now. Forget the "data", this economy sucks because all my loser friends are out of work too.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 25, 2004 @04:42AM (#10347237)
    .. stop whinily suckling their corporate and/or public sector feeding/cocoon pods and shed their fat middles and go do some real inventing and entreprenuering. Its shameful to see so much whining from the offspring of those who kicked Nazi and Soviet ass, gave us the moon landing, modern computing etc etc. Sheesh, at the very least these whiners can daytrade on indian and chinese and korean companies' stocks from a starbucks for crissakes...

  • What a bullshit? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by admp ( 778242 ) <{moc.liamg} {ta} {suicivanatlap.samoda}> on Saturday September 25, 2004 @04:43AM (#10347239) Homepage
    Hey, this is strange: the "lowest grade" people from east europe, asia etc. get new jobs in US sector, while the "middle grade" people loose them? Don't you see there is a problem with the americans on themselves?
  • Re:Outsourcing (Score:3, Insightful)

    by vandan ( 151516 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @04:45AM (#10347245) Homepage
    I don't think the average worker has anything to take 'resoponsabiltiy' for, as you so elloquently put it.

    It's bastards like that current US administration, who's family and buddies are making billions of dollars on weapons sales and oil deals and such.

    It is a complete myth that unions are wrecking the economy. Pure greed makes companies turn to the lowest cost of production, and it won't be until the people decide that they want to force their companies to only buy labour at a nationally agreed 'fair price' - no matter what country the labour comes - that this myth will be fully exposed.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 25, 2004 @04:46AM (#10347246)
    I have to say that a lot of issues presented in that article are the same sort of crap that's been tossed around for decades.

    For instance, mining and metallurgical refining are extremely high-risk cost-dependent ventures, and they always go wherever is cheapest. My dad's been designing mines for decades, works around the world, and sometimes you can't even get a gold mine going in a place with incredibly low labour costs like Costa Rica! So to point to a shift of refining work to Canada and Mexico as being a fault with NAFTA is just incorrect-- it's exactly what NAFTA was designed to do, in order to make it cheaper for Americans to buy products.

    As for Visas, many people on HB-1s, J-1s, etc... leave the U.S. after a few years. They're here for training, and that's it-- and when you consider the legal hurdles that companies have to go through in order to get foreigners (like moi) into the country in the first place, you should realize it's not going to happen if companies could easily find adequately skilled people here in the U.S.

    No, I'm afraid what's really wrong with the U.S. job situation is very simple-- there are extreme disincentives for companies to hire new employees if they can make current employees work overtime.

    'Fess up. How many of you work overtime for little or NO pay? 50% of you? 75%? How many of your companies had massive layoffs in the past decade, then been very slow to rehire even as the bottom line improved?

    I'm good at what I do, and I'm willing to work hard, but realistically, the company I work for should have hired half a dozen more people instead of just me.
  • by Awptimus Prime ( 695459 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @04:50AM (#10347253)
    The people who want to die, are going to die. They have given up and want me to take care of them, I do not care about these people. I am worried about the people TRYING to find work.

    Please do not be a tool. The "given up" remark is something getting said a lot in the media regarding some people who are married and have a spouse who gets laid off and can't find work. The household then learns to get by on a single income, then the pressure to find work is much less. This works and has been popular for the families who will sacrifice that Lexus and drive a Honda instead. This means nothing for the masses across middle america who's factory jobs are gone. So are all the Walmart and McDonalds jobs in many areas.

    The men and women who are trying to support families who have had their unemployement benefits dry up do not just "give up" on getting a job. They do anything and everything they can to keep their kids and spouse fed. The only thing they don't do is count towards the damn numbers our government is trying to pass off on us as "getting better". If nobody noticed, more people matured to legal working age than jobs created this year.

  • by jotaeleemeese ( 303437 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @04:51AM (#10347256) Homepage Journal
    Frankly it is tiring, Western Europe and what is today's EU has always respected free enterprise and private ownership, cornerstones of a capitalist economy.

    People in the US have no idea what they are talking about when they say EU countries are socialist.

    They may be more socially responsible than the US goverments perhaps, but private property and free enterprise has never been stopped.

    If you want examples of Socialist countries look at Cuba or North Korea, where everything is Socialized by means of state control and ownership.
  • Re:LOL!! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by maxpublic ( 450413 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @04:51AM (#10347257) Homepage
    What we need is campaign finance reform.

    Exactly how is that going to help anything? So long as you have a two-party system dominated by the DemoRepublicans then you can fuck with the money system any way you please and you'll STILL get one Democrat and one Republican running for the Presidency every four years.

    Campaign finance reform is the issue that the DemoRepublicans use to distract us from the real problem: that the current system is rigged so only they can play the game.

    Max
  • by l3v1 ( 787564 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @04:53AM (#10347267)
    Bad immigration policy-and bad trade deals are combining to decimate the middle class in America.

    In the country where I live now I'm an immigrant, having settled and got citizenship about 8 years ago. I have been through many arguings and blind quarrels over the years over "immigrants take our jobs" and the like.

    What I've found is the people who complain the most are those who are just down in the dumps, not necessarily because they couldn't get a job, but because they didn't want to accept any job, or just politicians who are what they are, anyplace, or just bloody ignorant.

    It's the most easy to blame increasing uneployment rates on others who have jobs, especially if they come from abroad.

    Really no offence and forgive my ignorance, but I have to tell, U.S. people also have their history on intolerance, racism and xenophoby.

    You also have to take into account that some effects of the late dotcom boom and blow are still showing today. I mean there was a continuing very large over-employment of IT "professionals" , very many of which are dismissed even today.

    What I want to point out is that there are very many aspects that lead to the given rising unemployment rates in the U.S. (and just that you know, that is _not_ that high if you consider other countries as well, which americans tend not to do), and only one of them may be connected to immigration of qualified professionals (I intentionally don't mention seasonal uneducated workers, that's another area of the problem).

  • by maxpublic ( 450413 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @04:55AM (#10347271) Homepage
    receive the benefits of the education systems

    You mean that despite the fact that we're paying more per child (adjusted for inflation) in our schools than at any previous time in American history, our literacy rates (among other measures) have been steadily declining? That in fact, when this country rebelled in 1776 the average literacy rate was 98% despite having no forced schooling, and now, with this enormous forced schooling infrastructure we now have a literacy rate of around 68%?

    You mean *those* benefits?

    Max
  • by dlelash ( 235648 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @04:57AM (#10347279)
    ...and a recovery is when George Bush is out of work.
  • by johannesg ( 664142 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @05:04AM (#10347300)
    I live in Europe, and the notion that there is some sort of safety net should I lose my job is comforting. However, I also agree that for some people it makes it just too easy to never work again. That's why I feel that unemployment pay should be coupled to some sort of community service. It doesn't have to be hard work, or even particularly long hours, but if you want your unemployment money by all means do something for the community in return. Cleaning the streets would be a good example. The people involved would still retain their working rythm, they would have a reason to find a real job again, and the working part of the population would see some benefits for their money. From my perspective it looks like a win for everyone.
  • by johannesg ( 664142 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @05:09AM (#10347315)
    But as a Swede living in California I have no doubt at all that there are far more Americans gainfully employed, and that it's much easier to get a job here.

    Well, that makes sense. In Europe any private enterprise is effectively competing with the government in terms of pay. They must at least match unemployment pay before people will show up for the job. Secondary benefits (things like education subsidies for unemployed people) tends to make things even worse, and have in fact created a situation in which taking a low-paying job usually means significant loss of income compared to getting unemployment pay.

  • by Motherfucking Shit ( 636021 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @05:19AM (#10347338) Journal
    If Americans were
    better workers employers wouldn't be looking oversees for employees.
    I'm sorry, but it appears that you misspelled "cheaper."
  • by Crazieeman ( 610662 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @05:22AM (#10347344) Journal
    Look, the rate of unemployment is 5.4%. It was 5.5% when Bill Clinton ran for reelection in 96. Amazingly, 5.4% for Bush is considered bad, 5.5% for Clinton is considered good. Go figure. Now if you're going to rant about job losses, you must remember the average rate for unemployment is roughly 6%. The mid-4s when Bush entered office were downright unusually low rates.

    Then enter the dot-com bust, the accounting fraud crisis that boiled over after it festered under the Clinton years, as well as 9/11.

  • by RWerp ( 798951 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @05:37AM (#10347368)
    A very real change in Iraq policy would need to send some serious messages. It might even require some mass civilian casualties. Drop a BLU-82 or MOAB on Tikrit and Fallujah. Stop interrogating Iraqi detainees, but killing them and letting dogs and pigs eat at their rotting bodies. Let them know that these little kidnappings and chicken-shit roadside bombings will be punished 100-fold, 1000-fold.

    Hello? This is 2004, not 1004. You're not on a crusade to get the Holy Grail from the infidels. It is apparent you have no respect for them if the human in question does not have an American passport --- a form of racism, I suppose.
  • All I know is... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Taco Cowboy ( 5327 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @05:41AM (#10347379) Journal
    before that, your sister, your friend, and his wife were thinking ... hmmm... perhaps we can go to Europe for a nice vacation, and never realize that their own jobs were hanging by a rope.

    Wake up, people.

    Don't blame "bad immigration", or "globalization", blame YOURSELVES for being COMPLACENT !

    This world we live in is increasingly interconnected. Whatever we'd seen playing in the halls of UN 20 or 30 years ago today is playing right at our doorsteps - and that is, we aren't compete against other Americans for our own survival, but against THE WORLD !

    Yes, globalization goes both ways. While the third world countries are whinning about "Developing world conspire to re-colonize us", we, who live in FIRST WORLD COUNTRIES, must realize that while those sons-of-bitches are whinning, their cheaper labor is taking away our jobs.

    Usually, we single-minded Americans will yell and shout and demand our "representatives" to "DO SOMETHING" - which, more than always, mean "closing our borders", "stop outsourcing" etc, which in itself WILL NOT WORK ANYMORE IN THIS WORLD WE ARE LIVING.

    Instead of closing up, we SHOULD be OPENING UP EVEN MORE, and yes, that means, we should roll up our sleeves and COMPETE AGAINST THE CHEAPEST LABOR IN BANGLADESH, by using OUR BRAIN.

    Our plush lifestyle is at threat. If we don't do something, our high cost of living ain't gonna last. We gotta figure out ways to be BOTH the CHEAPEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD TO DO SOMETHING, and THE COUNTRY WHERE WE CAN LIVE In WHATEVER LIFESTYLE WE WANT.

    I am saying this base on my experience of a guy who have traveled and worked in all over the world. I am not that type of "Americans" who coccoon himself in the "protection of Uncle Sam". Rather, I go out into the WORLD and see what's going on, and btw, making money at it.

    Yep, there are people in the third world countries who will accuse me of "exploitation", but I don't mind. If they won't let me exploit them, then they won't get jobs. It's that simple.

    And then, there are Americans who accuse me of "exporting jobs to other countries". Again, I don't mind.

    You see, if I can't make a toaster oven in America under U$ 2.25, then I won't make money selling them not only in America, but also all over the world. I gotta find the CHEAPEST PLACE IN THE WORLD to do what I need to do, and if that means doing it OUTSIDE AMERICA, I'll do it in a jiffy.

    In the same token, the money I earned, I sent back to my good ol' U. S. of A. for safekeeping. No matter how I like the world outside America, America is still my country.

    To to those who want to close our borders - please don't buy any clothing, any furniture, any electrical appliances, any thing, in fact, because 90% of them are MADE OUTSIDE America !

    You can close the border to "immigrant, but you can't stop those things from coming in. It's us, the Americans, who demand CHEAP but QUALITY goods, so something gotta give.

    Until the day you realize you can't live the way you did, you wouldn't understand which world we are living in, my friend.

  • Re:Indeed So... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by HyperCash ( 768512 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @05:51AM (#10347401)
    "After I realized that finding a similar-paying job wasn't going to happen, I went out to the usual teenie-employers to try my luck... Wal*Mart, Burger King, etc etc. I've been unsuccessful even with these places, and have been since I've started my job-hunting two and a half years ago."

    I'm sorry, but if you can't get a job at one of those places, or any job at all for that matter, then the problem lies with you even if it makes you feel better to blame it on someone else.

    I live in CA but I quit my job and went away for the summer. I didn't have a job when I came back but it took me less than a week to land a new one. I wasn't willing to take just any job, either, I wanted something that paid decent and that had a good working environment. So I'm making about $20 an hour (depends on tips, I'm waiting tables) and I get benefits. I'm 21 years old and had very little experience in food service.

    I have however had some management experience. When people come in and ask for applications or to talk to a manager about a job I can tell right off the bat which ones definetly aren't going to get hired. Are they well kept, are the articulate, etc. If you can't get any job after two and a half years, any job of any type, then it is definetly you doing something wrong so stop blaming other people for your problems and get your act together.

    --HC, who has not tolerance for woe is me bullshit.

  • Re:Outsourcing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Iffy Bonzoolie ( 1621 ) <iffy.xarble@org> on Saturday September 25, 2004 @06:07AM (#10347434) Journal
    I was gonna mod you up, but I decided to post a response instead. Lucky you! I don't entirely agree with your post, so I wanted to blab on about my silly ideas.

    I take serious issue with anyone who wants to try and suppress outsourcing or "globalization" in any way. Not because I think it's good for me personally - it's bad for me personally, as a software engineer in the Silicon Valley... at least in the short term. But this attitude is similar to the attitude of the RIAA who wants to fight the inevitable. The world is changing, national economies are becoming one global economy. You can try and fight it, but we will just be damaging our position in this new global economy. It's going to happen, whether we like it or not. The ubiquity of the Internet that gave us such prosperity in the late 90's has also helped to ensure the inexorable approach of globalization.

    The question we has to ask ourselves is not "How do we stop outsourcing/globalization?" The question is "How do we make sure we have a strong position in the new global economy?"

    Unfortunately, I don't have any firm answer I can beat people around the head with. It's a hard problem. I have some ideas, though (of course). I think what will keep us fiscally healthy as certain types of jobs become more efficient to export is innovation, pure and simple. We need to encourage innovation and entrepreneurialism, which will not only create new jobs, but new TYPES of jobs, new fields, and new skills that we will have a distinct advantage in possessing.

    Assuming you buy that idea at all, the question then becomes, how do we promote that? We already have a culture that encourages individualism, creativity, and risk-taking. I think that's a good start. But we need to focus more heavily on education. We should be more aggressive about the expectations of our children. Perhaps have some government subsidy of pre-schooling. More education about education - make sure kids know what their options are. Anyone that can finish high school can go to a university or a vocational school and get some basic knowledge about a field where there is a chance they will innovate. There's all sorts of loans or scholarships available for people who don't have the money. There are some exceptional people that will be revolutionary no matter what schooling or environment they come from, but innovation will be more common given more rigorous and effective education. I think the government should aggressively fund and incentivize education at all levels.

    The other thing that's REALLY important is making it EASY to start and run a small company. Small business is extremely important in innovation, and local job creation. Joe (or Jane) Upper-Middle-Class-with-a-Bachelor's-degree-and-an -idea is not going to offshore anything. He is going to find someone local. The easier it is for him to stay in business, the longer that someone local has a job. And, the more people who can start small businesses are more people who can try their ideas out and perhaps start the next industry people will be scrambling towards.

    I think the US government, in order to protect its country's position of economic dominance over the next 20 years, must take an active role in shaping America into as Educated and Creative a country as it can. Big business leads to monopolies leads to a lack of innovation, competition, and freedom leads to mediocrity and the death of Capitalism. Why does our government encourage big business over small business, other than simply corruption?

    Ok, I've started ranting. I'll stop now.

    -If
  • by maxpublic ( 450413 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @06:07AM (#10347435) Homepage
    we aren't compete against other Americans for our own survival, but against THE WORLD !

    That's what tariffs are for, boy.

    their cheaper labor is taking away our jobs.

    That's what tariffs and restrictive trade policies are for, boy.

    COMPETE AGAINST THE CHEAPEST LABOR IN BANGLADESH, by using OUR BRAIN.

    Oh, good show! Now provide some concrete, real-world examples of how our 'brains' will allow us to compete with labor you can pay $2/hour.

    Why, I know! Tariffs and restrictive trade policies! Problem solved!

    And then, there are Americans who accuse me of "exporting jobs to other countries". Again, I don't mind.

    Then do us all a favor and stop pretending that you're an American. If you're exporting jobs to India, then go become a fucking Indian citizen; it's certain you're doing more for India than for the U.S.

    Really, if we had any brains at all we'd ban corporations that employed foreigners in excess of 10% of it's workforce. Half your employees are Indian? Then fuck you and the horse you road in on! You're no longer an American company, but an Indian one! And now you're subject to tariffs and - you guessed it - trade restrictions! Eat shit, traitors.

    No matter how I like the world outside America, America is still my country.

    Yeah, right. Go ahead and tell yourself that while you're selling out your neighbors. Bastard.

    You can close the border to "immigrant, but you can't stop those things from coming in.

    We sure can. It's called 'tariffs' and 'restrictive trade policies'. It might put guys like you out of work, but why should I give a shit? It's just the way things go, and you're okay with that, right?

    Next thing you know you'll be hearing your (gainfully employed) wife yelling "get in the kitchen and make me a pot pie, bitch!" Scamper along now, before she gets angry with you!

    Max
  • by maxpublic ( 450413 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @06:13AM (#10347452) Homepage
    Remember that here in America *any offer of work* is enough to disqualify one from unemployment benefits even if the offered job doesn't pay as much as you get from unemployment.

    Max
  • by nuggz ( 69912 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @06:46AM (#10347527) Homepage
    Bad immigration?
    Bad immigration are the social leeches, criminals and terrorists.

    Anyone who comes and works is good. Being born in the US isn't a right to a nice high paying job, it is just a better opportunity then almost everyone else has. Since when is more people a bad thing? They can only 'steal jobs' if someone owned it to begin with. When I buy my gas from one gas station and switch to another you don't see the owner complaining the other guy stole his customer.

    Bad trade deals? Walmart and your local car lot are full of the results. Cheap goods available to raise your standard of living.
    The trade deficit is just a choice that people make. If you choose to buy a hard drive made in taiwan, or a chinese chair, the trade deficit will increase.
    The only way to stop this is protectionism, which will cause a downward spiral in the economy.
    Plus this is also self correcting, the US dollar will eventually drop relative to other currencies if the trade defecit doesn't change.
  • by vudufixit ( 581911 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @07:13AM (#10347578)
    Presidents don't create jobs, unless it's a massive make-work program like the Civil Conservation Corps in the 1930s. The real responsbility lies with the hundreds of CEOs who decide to lay off or add more workers. Period. And it's been far more of the former, than the latter - and that's been the case for about the last 30 years or so. Shedding workers is really a redistribution of wealth - from rank and file workers at the bottom, to the executive leadership at the top and the shareholders. But this is something that a sitting US President has little control over - each of these business leaders indivudually decides, "I want fewer workers and therefore more money for myself" which adds up to a grisly collective result. Since the early 90s I've read Business Week, Forbes and the Economist on a fairly regular basis, and I never once recalled reading about a specific economic policy of Clinton's that lead to the spectacular economic growth of that decade. In fact, his tax increases shortly after he took office probably had the effect of dampening growth. He was the lucky beneficiary of Greenspan's aggressive rate-lowering from 1990-1992, and a wave of IT investment and payoff. Am I writing this to defend Bush? Perhaps a bit. But I sincerely believe that it's easier for people to blame a President than an amorphous mass of private sector executives for their economic woes.
  • by Cryofan ( 194126 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @07:36AM (#10347630) Journal
    And income taxation is the best thing that ever happened to civilization. We just need more of it.
  • by King Louie ( 211282 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @07:42AM (#10347644)
    One thing that always seems to be left out of discussions of the economy is any mention of the federal government's legal role. The form and function of the United States government is ultimately controlled by the US Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of the economy or business. And per the 10th Amendment, those powers not specifically given the federal government are reserved for the states or the people at large.

    In short, it is not the government's function to create jobs. It's the government's function to get out of the way and let businesses create jobs. Yes, government has a place in regulating businesses to ensure they are not endangering people or the environment unnecessarily. Every government regulation costs businesses money -- money that might otherwise go to hiring new employees to produce more product. These are especially hard on small businesses (who are responsible for over half of all US jobs). These regulations also affect the quality of your work life, so don't think they only affect the fat cats.

    About three years ago, my employer was working out the details of a formal telecommuting program, which would make my work life easier and save them money (fewer people on site == lower expenses). This would have included picking up part of the tab for internet connections, new computers, etc. Unfortunately, the Labor Department announced that they had the power to regulate home offices used for telecommuting the same way they could regulate those office spaces provided by the emloyer. This extended to inspecting home offices just as they do employer-provided spaces, and the intention to fine employers for regulatory violations found in the home offices. Employers could also be held liable for injuries incurred in the home office.

    Needless to say, the telecommuting project died before it began -- the potential liabilities were so great they posed a significant risk to the company's future.

    This is but one example of the government often doing more harm than good. And there's not much any president can do to alter that -- the people who came up with this hare-brained idea are probably still there, waiting for a more favorable time to put this idea into action. They can't be fired because they're civil servants, so they don't change with the administration.

    There really isn't much a president can do to create jobs (and it's not his responsibility anyway). The best thing he can do is push policies that give businesses the freedom to act.

    Also, note that the Labor Department just declared they had this regulatory power -- no act of Congress granted it, they just assumed it -- such is the power-hungry nature of any bureaucracy. And any entity that has the power to find you a job has the power to have you removed from that job. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

  • by morgandelra ( 448341 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @07:59AM (#10347678)
    Gawd I hope your joking! Personally, I think Teddy Roosevelt was the best president.. and as for income taxation, I'd prefer the http://www.fairtax.org/ [fairtax.org] plan to anything else I have seen proposed.
  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @08:01AM (#10347684)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • A Lousy Article (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Amigori ( 177092 ) <eefranklin718@@@yahoo...com> on Saturday September 25, 2004 @08:02AM (#10347686) Homepage
    Stylistically, this is a terrible article to read. Since when did one sentence equal an entire paragraph? (Yes I know the newspapers often do it.) Although, after checking other articles on this site, they all seem to be written this way. The author could have written the entire page using bullet points.

    All he did was state data, interpret, and generalize. He indicts rebuplicans and the current administration for corporate decisions; democrats for their failure to understand their constituents. He is assuming the Kerry-Edwards campaign will succeed in November by advising them in what they should be doing, manage the trade defecit and immigration. By doing so will magically grow the middle class and their disposable income.

    For being an economist, why doesn't he understand that and unemployment rate of 5.4% is very good and one of the lowest in the world. Its certainly better than the double-digit numbers in most of the world and certainly this [rupe-india.org] overall number from India.

    As for the shifting of capital and the growing divide of the classes, name one successful society, where the controlling power had a monetary policy will divide the currency exactly among its citizens. Just one... Nope? I didn't think so. The closest example I can think of is the USSR, and they still had the rich elite controlling the working class; and it only lasted 70 years.

    Last time I checked, my blue-collar, low-wage friends and I all have the same opportunity of wealth as the rich kids we tend to resent. Notice, I did NOT say that it would be easier because often capital is more difficult to obtain, but we have the same basic opportunity to start a business as the next person. We have the greatest entrepreneurial environment in the world and its ours to take advantage of. People from other countries see this and other advantages our country offers and immigrate. Is the global playing field level? No, it never has been and it never will be. Life is not fair. Life is hard. Get over the idea of being employeed in one place for your entire life in a job that a trained monkey or robots can do.

    Will the election in November help? No. Its just a corporate sponsored figurehead with a puppet administration. Either one. What about a third party? Well, we effectively shut them out a generation ago and now, they're just a talking point.--Amigori

  • by mankey wanker ( 673345 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @08:11AM (#10347718)

    Check the date on that one. IIRC Bush changed how the government collects it's data by purposefully underfunding and cutting certain unemployment tracking programs.

    Let's face it - the gang in power is just a bunch of "Cheap Labor Republicans." They are gunning for your job because it can be done cheaper somewhere else. These guys make money by keeping labor costs down, not by a a booming economy that benefits you or yours. Catch a clue.

    Political Reality Redacted

    Several months ago I watched Joe Hough, President of the Faculty and William E. Dodge Professor of Social Ethics at the Union Theological Seminary, speak on Bill Moyers "Now" and I was immediately impressed by both his passion as well as the following statement that he made:

    HOUGH: The growing gap between the rich and the poor which has become almost obscene by anybody's standards, and the stated intentional policy of bankrupting the government so that in the future there'll be no money for anything the federal government would decide to do. http://www.pbs.org/now/printable/transc...print.ht ml [pbs.org]

    Now some of you may be thinking that the above statement is somewhat extreme, and I used to wonder about that myself. But the statement haunted me. The reality is that some of what our current government is doing only makes sense if you consider "bankrupting the government" their actual goal. Have they not reduced taxes for the top 1%? Have they not also run a record deficit? When is a tax cut not a tax cut? When you run a deficit.

    The bottom line is that it seems to be okay to run a deficit paying off federal war contracts to Halliburton, but god forbid they should run a deficit supporting job creation programs. And you'll forgive me if I don't consider the expansion of our military "true" job creation.

    So what are they really doing? Why are they doing it? You have to ask those questions because it would be a mistake to assume that anyone, esp. an apparent imbecile like Bush, acts without purpose. The appearance of the dolt just might be the mask of a sly con man.

    So who has the answers? There's this one guy that has it completely nailed. His stuff is so savvy, so on point that it is frankly scary in it's simplicity and clarity. So don't hesitate - go read it. If you can't handle it all at once, pace yourself - but read it, all of it. It's just four pages: two long, two short. And the rest of the site is excellent too if you still need more.

    "CHEAP-LABOR CONSERVATIVE" ISSUES GUIDE
    http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/blurbs.htm [conceptualguerilla.com]

    CATALOGUE OF BOGUS CONSERVATIVE IDEAS
    http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/bogusideas.htm [conceptualguerilla.com]

    "PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY" AND WAGES
    http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/wages...bility.h tm [conceptualguerilla.com]

    THE WRATH OF THE MILLIONAIRE WANNABE'S
    http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/milli...nnabes.h tm [conceptualguerilla.com]

    What's all this about in a few short sentences?

    Labor is the true engine of any economy, wealth is not (it is the mere distribution of the results of labor). A boom economy benefits anyone that works for a living because labor is then scarce and labor is valued more highly. Those at the top require cheap labor to maximize their profits - so they hate boom economies. Everything our government is doing right now is intended to devalue labor. The unequal distribution of vast amounts of wealth into the hands of non-laborers makes democracy almost impossible (which is why the founders favored limits on almost everything that concentrated wealth into too few hands).

    Let it sit with you a while and you will begin to realize that it explains everything from bad schools, pri

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @08:16AM (#10347733)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by jsebrech ( 525647 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @08:22AM (#10347759)
    Religion has always been used to subdue the lower social classes. A lot of religions glorify poverty and promise the poor that they will be rewarded for a life of misery in the afterlife. Organized christianity is especially guilty of this, with it teaching people from a young age to "accept god's plan" and not rebel against the system that gives them less opportunity in life than someone born in a rich family. Note that I'm not bashing christianity as a religion, which I think has very nice values (being nice to your neighbor, helping those in need, peace, love), but you need to make a clear distinction between the religion and the people and organizations who claim to represent it.
  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @08:31AM (#10347781)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by Cryofan ( 194126 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @08:31AM (#10347782) Journal
    We Americans have a right to protect our jobs. And we have the means to do so.
    This economic treason by the elites all started decades ago when they shipped out our advanced manufacturing jobs to Japan. Advanced manufacturing jobs are not assembly jobs, but more like fabrication jobs. See this article for more info. [pushhamburger.com]

    Now they are doing the same thing to office work (like software, financial etc) that they did to advanced manufacturing. But we office workers are more able to stop them this time, mainly because we have some access to the media via the internet and boards like Slashdot.

    Tariffs do make things worse, but only for the upper income group. For the average working person, tariffs are good.

    Let me ask you something: if free trade is so good for lowering prices, then why is an average car costing more of the average salary now than it did 25 years ago? For more details on this check out Marshall Brain's Concentration of Wealth blog [blogspot.com].

  • Re:Outsourcing (Score:2, Insightful)

    by sgt_doom ( 655561 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @08:36AM (#10347796)
    Your major problem is a severely limited grasp of analytical thinking. To explain it in the most fundamental of terms: survival occurs in groups, and if a group does not protect itself - it simply doesn't survive. That is what is occurring in the USA today (and other countries) and all the corporate misinformation and disinformation won't change that. The offshoring of jobs has nothing to do with free trade - it simply raises the perks and wealth of CEOs and senior management!
  • by Cryofan ( 194126 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @08:45AM (#10347826) Journal
    Labor costs are the PROFITS of the worker. You don't hear business owners complaining when their profits get too high, do you?

    Look, the highest standards of living in the world are in the social demcracies of Europe, and they have HIGH labor costs--they have minimum wages levels of like $12/hour. High lahor costs are a GOOD THING...IF, and ONLY if you are a WORKER. Now, if you are an investor or business owner, that is a Bad Thing.

    Fortunately, over 90% of Americans are WORKERS. Your problem is that you have been tricked by investor/corporate propaganda into thinking that YOU are an INVESTOR. Well, you AIN'T an investor. YOu are a WORKER. Deal with it. Accept it, and then help organize your country to HELP THE WORKER, like they do in Scandanavia.

    The reason the 3rd world IS the 3rd world is that they have LOW LABOR COSTS. That is the DEFINTION of being 3rd world.

    The reason many of the countries in NW Europe have the highest quality of life is because they have the HIGHEST COST OF LABOR. And it aint no accident. The two concepts are DIRECTLY RELATED.

  • by quarkscat ( 697644 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @08:48AM (#10347832)
    FDR tried to alleviate the suffering caused by
    the depression's very high unemployment rate by
    instituting SS, and work programs like CCC and WPA
    that provided a public benefit. He did not make
    lies, half-truths, and political doublespeak
    an Executive Branch SOP. He did not slash
    corporate taxes, and the tax rate of the very
    wealthiest Americans, and then shift the tax
    burdeon onto the backs of the shrinking
    middle class. FDR did not encourage the flight
    of American jobs overseas because "what's good
    for General Motors is good for America". FDR
    did not open the floodgates of illegal
    immigration into this country to force wages
    lower.

    George W. Bush has done all these things, and
    more. It is pretty sad when the only decent
    paying jobs available to unemployed Americans
    is to drive a truck through Iraqi free fire
    zones. The high point of Bush's "job creation"
    record was 135,000 new jobs in a month -- which
    unfortunately doesn't even cover students from
    high school or college entering the job market,
    let alone those unemployed. Bush has embraced
    "corporate national socialism", and abandoned
    the working class. From all reliable accounts,
    one of the Bush administration's top policy
    goals was the invasion of Iraq, from before his
    inauguration. All the lies and doublespeak that
    was employed (WMD, terror links, and "imminent
    threat" were cobbled together and used after
    9/11/2001 as cover for this war. Each have
    proved to be false. The Bush "war plank" was
    an agenda hidden from the voters in 2000 by
    such promises as "no foreign wars", "no nation-
    building", etcetera, all while planning for
    Saddam's ouster. Bush mismanagement of the
    war in Iraq, and of domestic policy decisions,
    have been equally disasterous to this country,
    with the sole exception of the GOP-aligned
    multinational corporations. George W. Bush
    spoke the truth (finally) at a Washington,DC
    fundraiser when he said "the HAVE's and the
    HAVE MORE's are my base (constituency)".

    If this country should be cursed with yet another
    George W. Bush term of office, do not expect that
    there will be any improvements in job growth,
    health care, international relations, or the
    war in Iraq. Do expect more tax cuts for the
    corporations and wealthiest 2% of taxpayers.
    Do expect SS and Medicare to be gutted, as Bush
    finds new ways to drive the country deeper into
    debt. Do expect greater loss of personal freedom
    in this country, as "Patriot Act" extensions
    are subverted to crush political opposition.
    Do expect Bush to continue promoting religious
    organizations as the only source of welfare
    and social assistance. Do expect America's
    open borders to continue to encourage illegal
    immigration, because America's businesses
    want ever cheaper labor.
  • by tabdelgawad ( 590061 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @08:52AM (#10347844)
    ... you're willing to give up all those cheap imports (including practically all your PC and electronic hardware) and live in economic isolation from the rest of the world. THERE IS NO ECONOMIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OUTSOURCING A JOB AND IMPORTING A GOOD. Here's a short argument to convince you [windbag.us]. If you're still not convinced, ask your favorite Econ professor, or even anyone who paid attention in their International Trade class.

    I'm always amused when presidents take credit for good economic times, and receive blame for bad times. Fact of the matter is, despite what the campaigns would like you to think, the Fed chairman probably has more influence on the economy than the president, and even the Fed chairman probably doesn't have that much influence. I say, by all means, go ahead and vote Bush out of office for the mess he created in the world and the assault on civil liberties at home, but don't think protectionism is good for the country, or that Kerry will solve the unemployment problem.
  • by intnsred ( 199771 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @08:54AM (#10347853)
    "He [FDR] not only turned a routine recession into the great depression..."

    When FDR entered office the unemployment rate was 25%, with an underemployment rate of 50%. [...] calling the economy of 1933 "a routine recession" is idiocy.

    No it's NOT! I heard it on Rush Limbaugh and again on Fox News so it MUST be true! :-)
  • by Mouse42 ( 765369 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @09:04AM (#10347875)
    All right! Really? So by Tuesday I'll have a nice profitable business?

    Oh wait. First I need money to pay for an office to hold my new employees. Plus, I'll need money to pay for the employees. And I'll need money for whatever supplies are needed for these employees to do their jobs (computers, products, etc).

    Oh, and then I'll need time finding the place to rent, supplies and employees. In addition, I'll need time to plan out what business I'm going into, as well as strategy to make it profitable.

    Hm. Yeah, that ain't happening in 2 business days even given my full weekend head start. I might be able to muster up enough grocery money in 2 days, not enough money to start a business.

    Did you really think about this comment before you posted it? I think you meant it takes two days for a rich person to set up a profitable business, with the previous months spent in planning.
  • by SpinyNorman ( 33776 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @09:04AM (#10347878)
    I disagree... Outsourcing means taking money out of the American economy (wages that would be paid to someone getting taxed and buying stuff over here), and sends it overseas where that money (generated with the assistence of US-taxpayer funded US infrastructure, and taxpayer funder corporate tax breaks) now instead helps a competitor to America. That's not a good thing.

    The free trade of high paying AMerican jobs for cheap overseas labor also would not naturally end until some natural balance in global salary levels has been achieved... Now, when you realize that the US *currently* has one of the highest salary levels in the worls, but only represents ~5% of the global population, you'll begin to realize where that eventual equilibrium may be achieved... it wont be the midway point between current US and Indian/Chinese/Russian salaries, but rather it'll be much closer to what those Indian etc salaries are right now, since their population sizes swamp our own.

    Now, if you actually give a crap about quality of life over here, and your ability to earn a wage that'll pay an American mortage rather than paying for a Chinese apartment (not much use unless you live in China), then you'd be concerned about this, but don't go looking for enlightened CEO's to stop gunning for expense-cutting bonuses in this way, especially since there duty to shareholders is to maximize profits for them, regardless of anythign else (such as whether by doing so they're screwing the American economy, and screwing the job prospects of their shareholders and everyone else).

    The only thing that will stop the quality of life in America being dragged down to what'll be supported on an Indian salary is indeed, as Kerry says, to have the government provide disincentives to do so... What I'd support is tax penalties that are proportional to the difference in cost of living between the US and where a company outsources to, since that levels the playing field. I'll happily compete with anyone in the US for a programming job, since I'm good at what I do, and my competitors have pretty much the same cost of living as myself... but trying to compete with someone on the same skill level who's cost of living is 20% of mine is going to be a losing proposition since they can work for 20% of the salary that I need. That's not competition, it's slaughter, and it may be good for globally reducing labor rates to a minimum (if that for some reason is your goal), but it's sure not good for the Americal lifestyle that we enjoy, even if you want to roll out the old excuse that I'll be able to buy a VCR at Walmart for $28.99 instead of $32, because of the Chinese labor.

    I'd be voting for Kerry anyway based on the danger to America that Bush represents, but I certainly also support him on this issue - his policy will be good for working Americans, while Bush's outsourcing-happy policy is only good for the independently wealthy and business owners to which lower US labor costs are a plus rather than a negative.
  • by xigxag ( 167441 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @09:06AM (#10347882)
    Why go to snopes when you can go to the source?

    http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_faq.htm#Ques5 [bls.gov]

    Who is counted as unemployed?

    Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work.

    Now, if you look at the qualifications [state.wy.us] for collecting unemployment, you'll see that unemployment eligible people are a proper subset of "unemployed" people. If you're unemployment benefits ineligible, you're not considered "unemployed." So the poster you were disagreeing with was exactly right in saying that the figures "don't count people who're no longer collecting unemployment and have simply given up.."

  • Re:Outsourcing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Genda ( 560240 ) <marietNO@SPAMgot.net> on Saturday September 25, 2004 @09:09AM (#10347891) Journal
    The problem here is that we are shifting from a colonial economic system to a global one, and we've kept the worst part of both.

    If you're going to have a global system, then you must adjust the relative value of human labor, so that the quality of life is elevated for the poorest, and the whole world isn't reduced to a huge slave shop. Just as we balance monetary worth between nations and currencies, we need to set up a fair trade balance in wage differential across nations to insure that the quick and the greedy don't just use this as an opportunity to make a cash grab (in the form of human value), and cause an economic implosion. This needs to be a slow process, allowing for global equalization to occur, at the same time we need to insure that trade and the flow of wealth is balanced so that the nations economy remains robust and flexible.

    The current outflow of 'Dollars' is unsustainable. The current rate of increasing unemployment for American workers is unsustainable. What happens when every, job blue and white, collar is taken by either an illegal immigrant, or a foreign national working outside the country? What happens when the only jobs available in this country pay minimum wage? What happens when tens of millions of people have no way of finding work at all, no way of contributing to the economy, and are a drain on the national infrastructure? As the tax base erodes, how are government services provided? How do we prevent lawlessness, crime, ignorance, when government infrastructure begins to collapse? That's not a moot question. A small town on the California central cost just closed it's city government, Salinas has let go of over half it's city employees, and the kindergartens in Monterey have gone from an average of 20 students 4 years ago, to over 40 per classroom now, and teachers are terrified, because there have recently been a number of cases of 5 year olds wandering off of school property because there is no way for one person to watch that many young children.

    Your idea about education is a good one, sadly, money for education is being cut across the board all over the country. A recent report describing the increased cost of education and the quickly dwindling money available for supporting education, is forcing student with resources to settle for less, and students without resources to settle for nothing at all. Add to that, a general educational system more intent on making people docile and obedient, than actually giving them anything that vaguely resembles knowledge, and you have one more critical ingredient for what is quickly becoming a global disaster.

    As for small business... how do you start a small business if the middle class is gone and you have no local customers? Are you going to start off with a global business from the get go? If so, how will you compete against a third world country providing the same service as you for 10% of your cost? Your ideas are good, they just can't happen in the world that is getting made, they are literally impossible, if the current trends follow to their conclusion. The worst part, is that the European and Asian economies are intimately linked to ours. If we go down, we're taking the entire first and second world down with us. We'll be faced with an economic disaster that makes the great depression look like misplaced chump change. The current Libertarian Presidential candidate had some brilliant ideas, returning the country to a strict adherence of the constitution, fixing the big mistakes we made with corporations and bringing back a high level of personal responsibility to both business and society. Separating business from state, just as we separate church from state. Making government service the thing it was originally intended to be, a means to serve, not a means to get rich or empower lawyers/business/the highest bidder.

    I am of the mind that all people everywhere need to be free, safe from harm, safe from violence, safe from slavery. I am of the mind that every person on earth should have a nom
  • by Fulcrum of Evil ( 560260 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @09:20AM (#10347925)

    No the Figure is not inaccurate, they are correct.

    Spoken like somebody with food on the table. The unemployment figures may be an accurate representation of a statistic, but they are not even close to an accurate representation of the actual unemployment rate. Rather they are a stat for the numbr of people on unemployment. Once your benefits go away, you're no longer unemployed - congratulations!

    The people who want to die, are going to die.

    I dare you to go to the midwest and say that to somebody's face. With any luck, they'll kill you and take your job.

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @09:24AM (#10347939)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Re:Pathetic (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gorbachev ( 512743 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @09:29AM (#10347958) Homepage
    The illegal Mexican immigrants are NOT squeezing the middle class in any way. There is nobody in the middle class that would their jobs.

    Several researchers have actually said the illegal immigration is good for the country, from the job market perspective, that is. Sure, illegal immigration brings other problems, but they sure as hell aren't taking any jobs away from the us middle class.
  • by Citizen of Earth ( 569446 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @09:30AM (#10347965)
    Then enter the dot-com bust, the accounting fraud crisis that boiled over after it festered under the Clinton years, as well as 9/11.

    You're wasting your breath. People are way too short-sighted to believe that a president isn't the direct cause of everything that goes on during his term, especially when people have a political agenda.
  • by SofaMan ( 454881 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @09:34AM (#10347976)
    Flat taxes, of course, are not "rigged against the poor" at all. All citizens pay precisely the same fraction of their income in taxes.

    Flat taxes *are* rigged against the poor, since any given fixed percentage of a person's income in going to mean a lot more to a poor person than a rich one. Let's pretend the rate is 15% - A person who only earns $10,000 a year is going to be hurt a lot more losing $1500 a year, than some who earns $100,000 losing $15,000. The rich guy still has $85,000, the the poor guy now only has $8500.
  • by antifoidulus ( 807088 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @09:35AM (#10347979) Homepage Journal
    Actually the really funny thing is that during Clinton's presidency, a lot of people(esp. Republicans) criticized Clinton for adopting Republican economic policies. But then they turn around and blame the recession on those same policies. How quickly we all forget what really happened during Clinton's years.....
    I really think the whole blind Clinton bashing is a lot like blind Bush bashing, the other side so reviles the person that they are willing to say anything to keep their side riled up against the competetion.
    My biggest gripe against Bush isn't that he "caused" the recession, you really won't be able to convince a single Republican that he did, but that he bungled the recovery while creating record deficits. That is something that even Herbert Hoover didn't do. The government is spending tons of money, but a lot of people are still having trouble finding work. Where is it all going? That is the question I really want answered from a Bush supporter.
  • Re:Outsourcing (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Paulrothrock ( 685079 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @09:39AM (#10347991) Homepage Journal
    I think what will keep us fiscally healthy as certain types of jobs become more efficient to export is innovation, pure and simple. We need to encourage innovation and entrepreneurialism, which will not only create new jobs, but new TYPES of jobs, new fields, and new skills that we will have a distinct advantage in possessing.

    And what happens when those skills get sent overseas? Are people in India or Korea any less creative than Americans?

    What happens when China decides to stop taking our money, or stop exporting goods to us? We *need* a manufacturing sector. If China decides to invade Taiwan, where will we get our steel or semiconductors? This is a very real threat.

    Finally, these "new industries" have extremely high costs of entry. What new industry would be possible? Biotech? Nanotech? Robotics? Space? How will a small business raise the hundreds of millions of dollars needed to start any of these businesses? Who the heck will buy carbon nanotubes if they don't do anything? And how the hell are we going to keep biotech open if we allow big companies to patent genes?

    The answer isn't a "Creative" economy. That's bullshit. The only thing a creative economy will get us is more PHBs spouting jargon. There's only so much crap people will buy, especially when John Q. Sixpack lost his job and can't find anything in his field.

    The economy of tomorrow is going to be... a service economy. Those are the *only* jobs that can't be exported, because it's kinda hard for someone in India to unclog your toilet or (increasingly) change your bedpan. Our economy will be based on the baby boomers retiring. There's already a *huge* nursing shortage, to the point where they're offering $10,000 signing bonuses and $50,000/year salaries.

    If we want to save our country, we need to stop the culture of consumerism by REMOVING PERSONHOOD FOR CORPORATIONS and TAXING THE HELL OUT OF THEM. This is the only way we will prevent Wal-Mart from being the de facto retailer, selling things *not* made in America to people who *lost their fscking jobs* because it's cheaper to hire a person with no human rights in China or Bangladesh.

  • by intnsred ( 199771 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @09:41AM (#10348000)
    Your comments are premised on the notion that there is a distinct difference in the fundamental worldviews of the Demopublican and Republocratic parties; that's a big mistake.

    Those two factions of our single party are both funded by the wealthy and corporations, and are both beholden to their funders. They employ different rhetoric to try to rally the populace, but there is no significant difference in their worldviews.

    Compared to the range of parties and political choice that a citizen of most any European country has, there is no political freedom in the US -- we're a one-party state.
  • by WhatAmIDoingHere ( 742870 ) <sexwithanimals@gmail.com> on Saturday September 25, 2004 @09:44AM (#10348014) Homepage
    You're not guaranteed a high paying job that you like.

    Outsourcing is what makes the free open market free and open.
  • by Paulrothrock ( 685079 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @09:48AM (#10348035) Homepage Journal
    I agree that opening trade and the free flow of labor is a good thing, but only if there is a way to ensure that people's human rights are being protected, and that environmental regulations are upheld to first-world standards. Otherwise, it will *always* be cheaper to go to China, where they don't care about human rights or the environment.

    The WTO is widely seen by my fellow leftists as an evil entity. However, I can see it as a world trade regulator, if the influences of corporations are removed and it is chosen by a democratic vote. Imagine if the world could say to China or Saudi Arabia or Indonesia: "If you don't respect human rights based on what the world has agreed upon, and you don't provide this minimum environmental regulations, we will not trade with you." They would stop immediately.

    If we *don't* do this, free trade will simply be a race to the bottom: The country with the lowest cost of living, the lowest respect for human rights, and the lowest environmental regulations will get all the jobs, and other countries will have to lower their standards in order to compete.

  • by Taco Cowboy ( 5327 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @10:00AM (#10348091) Journal
    I see that you have bought into the idea that the media have been trying to plant into our collective consciousness - that the "Dollars going out is unattainable" crap.

    Stop thinking of the flow of money in the Zero Sum term. You have to understand, whatever that's flowing out of America is in US dollars, and whatever flowed out of America will flow into some other people's hands, and when they accumulate enough, they will use that money to BUY something !

    After all, what else is money for, right ?

    So, we shouldn't concentrate in how much our money has flowed out, we should instead, think of ways to get those money back - by earning it !

    When those people want to buy something - and they ain't buying toaster oven, for sure - we better be prepared to provide them with whatever they want to buy, and charge accordingly for it.

    The market isn't a static one, it's dynamic. So, don't worry.
  • by heby ( 256691 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @10:04AM (#10348112) Homepage


    did anybody read the article or is this just about comiserating about unemployment?



    American trade policy has been pro-"free trade" without requiring that the trading partner have equivalent environmental or employee protections. These blind spots have, for example, caused the export of almost all American non-ferrous metals processing jobs to Mexico and Canada.



    while "made in china" might mean this, i can't believe how this article tries to take a shot at the NAFTA countries. Mexico might not live up to US standards (but i want to see the American consumers pay the prices for "made in USA" DVD players etc. ...), but it certainly does not apply to Canada. yes, i'm sure, you can always find one or the other rule where Canada's rules are looser but the next thing you look at, it will be the other way.



    immigrants are an important economic factor in the western world.
    -look at Europe: europe is struggeling because of its aging population which causes health and old age pension costs to skyrocket; not so the US. the birth rates are no higher in the US but immigration keeps the average age at bay because young people enter the country.
    -immigrants are not only workers; they are also consumers. so they don't take jobs away from americans, they simply increase the population.
    -legal immigration should be simpler because legal immigration is much better than illegal immigration - legal immigrants work under the same labour and health standards as Americans and they pay taxes. none of this can be said of illegal immigrants. they are at high danger of abuse in many ways by their "employers" (or slave drivers) and they have no way of defending themselves because any legal action would cause them to be kicked out.



    in my opinion, this article is full of xenophobia and uses the current anxiety about jobs to try to convince people that immigration and immigrants (clearly one of the weakest groups of society who have little or no political voice) are the root of all evil. this is simply disgusting.

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @10:12AM (#10348157)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by EnderPax ( 173293 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @10:46AM (#10348307) Homepage

    I don't know about becoming fascist, but I would have thought someone would check the credentials/site before approving the article. From vdare.com:

    "The articles on VDARE.com are brought to you by The Center for American Unity."

    So, on to The Center for American Unity [cfau.org]:

    "The Center is concerned with what has been called the National Question - whether the United States can survive as a nation-state, the political expression of a distinct American people, in the face of these emerging threats: mass immigration, multiculturalism, multilingualism, and affirmative action."

    Regardless of what you think about affirmative action, I would hardly see mass immigration, multiculturalism and multilingualism as "threats". It seems that vdare.com is funding by yet another one of those groups that forgets that the founders of America were immigrants, America has always had immigration as one of its strengths and that a large portion of the economy is supported by immigration. Idiots.

    Shame on whoever approved this claptrap. It's a step above the KKK, at best. I wonder if any of Slashdot's staff members are immigrants or first generation Americans. I wonder how they feel knowing this sort of crap gets posted to the main page.

  • by idiotnot ( 302133 ) <sean@757.org> on Saturday September 25, 2004 @10:46AM (#10348309) Homepage Journal
    OK, perhaps Bush isn't responsible for mismanagement of a floundering game company, but it stings nonetheless.

    You have it right. But there are many people who believe that the future of their financial position depends upon the actions of some politician.

    If someone honestly believes that, he will never be successful, because success is a function of external circumstance.

    Oh well.
  • by arminw ( 717974 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @11:07AM (#10348420)
    ....Labor is the true engine of any economy,.....

    That's what Hitler said as he changed the basis of the German money and economy from the gold standard, essentially making gold nothing more than another metal commodity. All this was to the chagrin of all the wealthy people in the US and elsewhere, since now the gold they had amassed did not help them to control others any more. Soon after Hitler did this, the rest of the world abandoned gold and now the worth of money is entirely arbitrary, controlled by the bankers of the world. In the US it even became illegal for the citizens to own gold.

    What you get paid in dollars, pounds, pesos, euros or whatever is immaterial. What matters is how long you have to work for a loaf of bread or whatever. In the US, the time needed to work for most items is still much less than in many other countries. Today you can buy a pair of shoes for a few hours of labor, but my grandparents in Germany had to work for about a month for a decent pair of shoes. A good suit of clothes took three months wages for an average tradesman. Today, even someone flipping hamburgers in the US, works less time to buy almost everything and can buy those same shoes for a lot less work time than the worker in Indonesia who works in the factory that made those very same shoes.

    Compared to generations past, and to the vast majority of people on Earth today, we are spoiled and rather unthankful for what we do have here in the US. If things here really are as bad as some of the posters on this forum complain, then why is it that so many foreigners still clamor to come here, such as some from Mexico risking a horrible death in the deserts of the southwest?
  • by gorfie ( 700458 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @11:24AM (#10348516)
    You are correct in that the economy was failing even before Bush took office. Gillette laid off thousands just after the election but before Bush took office, and that's when I knew we were in for some problems. I'm willing to bet that those companies waited to lay people off until after the election (recall that Gillette donated razor blades to DNC attendees who were then promptly pulled aside by security guards).

    This brings up another question. What's going to happen after this election? Who is waiting until after the election to do something that might make Bush look bad? I personally don't know, but you have to wonder.

    That said, I'm in a decent job now and I'm assuming that this will still be the case in December, so economy isn't a hot topic with me. Ashcroft on the other hand, is. The guy's ultimate goal is to monitor all of our actions/thoughts and prosecute if we deviate from conservative/Christian ideals. Not saying church goers are bad, but I would prefer that they do their worshipping and I look at my pr0n and all of us can be happy.

    But again, you are correct. The shit was going to hit the fan regardless of who won in 2000. And if the shit's going to hit the fan again, it will do so in a few months regardless of who wins.
  • by jpop32 ( 596022 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @11:38AM (#10348594)
    We Americans have a right to protect our jobs. And we have the means to do so.

    I'm really having trouble understanding how can someone defend import tariffs, and point to works of Noam Chomsky, all in the same post...

    Tariffs do make things worse, but only for the upper income group. For the average working person, tariffs are good.

    Yup. Tell that to third world cotton growers (hundreds of thousands of them), whose lives are held hostage by a couple of thousand of US cotton growers for which the US government keeps the sky high import tariffs. Or to the african cattle herders who live on less money _monthly_ than an european _cow_ receives from the government _daily_! Yeah, all good and fine.

    The western powers would like to have their cake and eat it too. When they export high value industrial goods into the third world, they demand free trade and no tariffs. But, when those same third world countries try to leverage their position by importing cheap agricultural goods and offering cheap labor, out comes the 'protect our workers' rethoric, and import tariffs. Hypocrisy, anyone?

    Capitalism is fine, but only to the extent that it benefits us, right?
  • by Cryofan ( 194126 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @11:42AM (#10348610) Journal
    Corporations and Investors want a Race to the Bottom, which increases profits by decreasing wages and benefits. The end result will be a large amount of wealth concentrated in the hands of a few.

    Workers want a Race to the Top by increasing wages and benefits. THe end result here will be a large amount of wealth dispersed into the hands of many.

    As we can see here on Slashdot, the real problem we have is that the wealthy and the corporations have funded a network of think tanks and foundations that have spent the last 30 years spewing propaganda to make everyone think that a Race to the Bottom is good and that a Race to the Top is Bad. And most Americans (and most Slashdotters!) are buying into the corporate propaganda!

    It just goes to show you the power of propaganda over a long period of time--if you spend billions of dollars saying that black is white and white is black, that after 30 years, you will have a bunch of people walking around telling you black is white and that high labor costs and protective trade laws are bad....

    THe details of the this RightWing/Corporate propaganda machine are starting to be made public. You can get more info about these "Tentacles of Rage" in the lastest edition of Harpers Magazine here. [mindfully.org]
  • by jbolden ( 176878 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @11:43AM (#10348618) Homepage
    The level of economic activity is not the whole problem. The problem is shifting wealth away from the middle classes and lower classes and towards the wealthy. Liberal H1B laws do not help the American people but they do help American businesses. Low taxes on capital gains, dividends... while there are very high taxes on wages (combining income tax and social security) means the American tax system is anti-progressive.
  • by LookSharp ( 3864 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @12:10PM (#10348792)
    Then do us all a favor and stop pretending that you're an American.

    This is the rhetoric we've come to. "If you support outsourcing, you're not an American," and others... "If you criticize the government..." "...if you don't submit to a full body-cavity search and background investigation before boarding a plane..." etc. etc. you are not an American.

    I SWEAR that I am not deliberately invoking Godwin's law here, but think about it. Getting the country afraid of unseen enemies, and promoting unquestioned nationalistic mindset is exactly how, over the course of a few years, Nazi Germany came about. I would HOPE that American society is intelligent enough to stand up and see what is happening, and stop it, before all civil liberties are lost. I don't think Bush is a dictator in waiting, I don't think we're sitting here compacently waiting to become a fascist state. However there can be no question that as we go down this avenue of language and mindset, bigger and bigger breeches of freedom will be justified in the name of security or patriotism.

    THAT IS A BAD THING.
  • by Artful Codger ( 245847 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @12:15PM (#10348815)
    I totally agree with your measure of "worth" as how long you have to work to get something.

    But you have to compare apples to apples - same timeframe, and same relative framework. it's not helpful to compare a 1st world economy to a 3rd world economy (except to remind oneself how good we currently have it in North America).

    A better comparison might be cost of shelter - how many days one has to work for a month's rent (or a month of mortgage, utilities, property taxes)

    But two very key things;

    First, we only have to work a couple hours to buy shoes... because we don't make them anymore. We get the 3rd world and to make them. ditto for alot of consumer goods. The price we pay is artificially LOW and we are going to get it between the eyes when we run out of cheap labour to exploit.

    And second... since we still do have it relatively good... we should be INVESTING AS A SOCIETY in things that will insure future well-being - eg education and research. As a class, the thing rich people are mostly good at is staying rich. Giving them more wealth via tax cuts in this day and age... makes them wealthier, period. They are not reinvesting in things that produce jobs.

    So I agree that we have it good, but we're on the wrong course for keeping it good... unless the intent is to maintain our wealth through world domination and intimidation by force (military and capital). Which doesn't seem to be working so well, lately.
  • Re:Carry on (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 25, 2004 @12:49PM (#10349017)
    Thanks for trying to break the spell on these blockheads.

    If you like what you're getting and where things are going, you must be rich and a corporate owner.

    If you don't, and want to have a future with a decent retirement, and fight for the middle class, vote Kerry. Work to turn the tide.
  • by tom's a-cold ( 253195 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @12:52PM (#10349027) Homepage
    Do expect Bush to continue promoting religious organizations as the only source of welfare and social assistance.
    Oh I hadn't heard that was something on his platform. I think this is awesome! Let the people help themselves!
    Well, it wasn't really his idea, his lackeys figured it out by observing how Islamic fundamentalism was spread worldwide from Saudi Arabia: by state support of religious fanatics masquerading as charity.

  • by ChrisInSF ( 140519 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @01:07PM (#10349125)
    But its even more profitable if you don't emply others..

    See This interesting piece about what is happening with call center jobs [tcf.org] (from Simon Head's "The New Ruthless Economy" - a must read book)
  • by einhverfr ( 238914 ) <chris...travers@@@gmail...com> on Saturday September 25, 2004 @01:08PM (#10349128) Homepage Journal
    You and i know it only takes like 2 days to set up a profitable business that can employ others. Thank god the government is there to do it for us!

    Ok, in context, I guess you are telling a joke. I didn't find it very funny though. MAybe it will take you 48 work hours to get the ground-work set up for a business which may eventually become profitable though....

    When I started my consulting business, I spent something like a full week (more than 40 hours too) writing my business plan. I probably spent another 8 hours or so setting up network infrastructure, buying licenses, setting up office space, etc. So that is 48 hours or more (2 days, right? if I don't eat or sleep ;-))

    BTW, my business plan is about 100 pages long.

    My business has been profitable every month since inception. Granted it hasn't always made enough for me to pay myself enough to cover all *my* bills, but the business has been otherwise self-supporting.

    Now, six months later, I am finally being able to cover my bills (mortgage payment, electricity, groceries, etc). So my seed capital (tax refund, IRA) basically was used to pay my living expenses for those six months. Someday soon, maybe I can even look at hiring people fulltime.

    However, I have a different perspective on this job crunch. I think that we are in the midst of a major economic change in this country. It is going to take some time for businesses to understand how to best use off-shore outsourcing and global networks such as open source project teams. This transition creates an opportunity for me because many people feel orphaned by the current trends in the small business markets.

    In the end, I think that services businesses in the US will do well.
  • by AaronGTurner ( 731883 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @01:57PM (#10349463)
    Replying to my own post, in the future immigration may be one of the ways to cover the costs of an aeging population. Since capital is increasingly mobile you can't necessarily cover the costs of older members of the population by taxing corporations which means that the two options are either cutting benefits dramatically for baby boomers (it was assumed in the 1960s that the future would be rosy, and many failed to save enough by taking the information offered and planning accordingly) or by taxing the workforce more heavily to pay for the costs. Since you can't tax foreigners living abroad then getting more people of working age into your country to work there, and be taxed, rather than outsourcing, is one way to make up the tax revenue.

    The next generation (Generation X if you will) will simply have to save much much more for retirement (I need to save more for one) since importing more people to be taxed won't work forever as those people will also get older unless the visas on which immigrants work are strictly time limited and they get booted out at 65. If the US dollar is high compared to the costs in their home countries this might actually work, however, as money saved working in the USA might offer a comfortable retirement for them in their country of origin (and without being a burden to their country of origin) as well as offering the USA the chance to garner additional tax receipts while they are working in the USA.

    There are plenty of things that could go wrong, and encouraging immigration is not necessarily a popular choice. However the costs of an aeging population sometimes scare the pants off me.

  • by dubl-u ( 51156 ) * <2523987012@pota . t o> on Saturday September 25, 2004 @02:09PM (#10349527)
    Ok and what has SS turned into? A pyramid scheme that is looted by Congress. It's dying and needs to be replaced. Support Bush's plan [whitehouse.gov] for SS reform.

    As anybody with a calculator can figure out, Bush's plan has a huge hole. The cost of switching from pay-as-you-go to individual-investment plans is dumbfoundingly large (some estimate it as $1 trillion), and I've seen no coherent explanation from Bush's administration as to where the money will come from.

    I think pension plans with up-front contributions and more individual control are a great idea, and I'm glad that people have at least started to talk about reforming Social Security. But Bush, et al, have only given us fairy tales and titanic defecits, so it's hard to believe that they're serious.
  • by deaddrunk ( 443038 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @02:12PM (#10349546)
    And how many of those businesses last 2 years? Not many, given that hardly anyone is hard-nosed enough to create a successful business.
    It takes guts and giving up any other things in your life for a long time to build a successful business. I'd much rather be an employee working 40 hours a week and have a life and I bet I'm in the majority.
    Outsourcing may be highly beneficial in the short term for big business, but when no-one can afford their products anymore because they're all working for minimum wage (or not working at all) all that rush to save money will look a bit stupid. Not that the middle-classes will ever allow it to go that far.
  • by s4m7 ( 519684 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @02:13PM (#10349562) Homepage

    Great post. You manage to imply blame for FDR for starting World War 2 through a rather flimsy connection, and simultaneously give WW2 credit for pulling the US out of the depression.

    Would you be interested in a job with the Cheney administration?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 25, 2004 @02:25PM (#10349639)
    I feel that some of the compairsons that you make here are a little unfair. I assume that when you say "your grandparents in germany" you refering to a economic situation that existed 60 years ago... not exactly current. The Indonesia example is also a little unfair since it can be argued that situation exists due to the US (and others) creating that enviorment for "cheap labor" and supposed "free trade".I would like to say as well that I was born and raised in the US for the first 22 years of my life and I now live in europe (Norway) I am now currently 27 and I can say confidently that my wage here is better, I pay nearly the same amount of taxes, I am able to save money here FAR more easily then I ever was in the US and do not have to live "paycheck to paycheck" as was the case 95% of the time I lived in the US. I have met other Americans that have moved to europe as well living in Germany, France, Holland, Danmark, Beligum that all told me they felt the same way. While I agree the US is not the "worst off" The situation is bad in the US right now, it has not reached a crisis yet but it will and I hope the country will not just sit on the sidelines and watch it happen because "we are better off the indonesians so quit complaining"
  • by torinth ( 216077 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @02:56PM (#10349860) Homepage
    Big deal. People lose their jobs and think they can start a little business until they find another. But almost all entrepreneurial ventures fail.

    The real statistic you want to consider is the poverty rate. The percentage of people who don't earn enough to make ends meet. The percentage of people who need to decide whether to eat or buy medical care. The percentage of people who need two work two 30hr/wk jobs with no benefits because low-wage employers refuse to hire one full-timer with expensive benefits when they can hire two part-timers for the same work.

    The poverty rate is higher in the United States than in any other first-world nation. When you look at the child poverty rate, which measures the percentage of children who live in poverty, the difference between the United States and other first-world nations is even greater.

    So obviously there's a problem in the American model somewhere. We can't just rest on our heels and pretend that current market regulations, taxes, and social programs are working according to plan. They aren't, and they haven't been for quite a long time.

    We need someone with the vision to either try something innovative and new or someone who can learn from the nations that have had more success. While neither presidential candidate is spectacular in this regard, one certainly stands out in comparison.
  • by mOdQuArK! ( 87332 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @03:15PM (#10349989)
    Lots of big, simple, promises.

    Kerry can't win in the PR campaign about "simple solutions". The system is too complicated for simple solutions, but every time Kerry tries to get into detail about his plans, no one wants to cover it because they can't get any juicy sound bites (& he gets accused of being another ivory-tower egghead proposing an overly complicated solution). So when he "dumbs it down" so that the media will accept it, he gets accused of being condescending to the public, and proposing overly-simple solutions to a complicated problem.

    Bush's approach is a lot simpler: let his buddies write the laws. No thinking involved, and he looks like he's getting something done. As long as nobody can find out where the money's going, he can put on a happy face and pretend like everything's going great (because it IS - at least for him & his buddies...).

    At least from those awkward moments in interviews where Kerry gets "too complicated", you can tell he's put some thought into the issues.

  • by palfreman ( 164768 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @03:15PM (#10349990) Homepage
    "Actually, the redistribution of wealth through taxes works incredibly well and has been all hallmark of the greatest nations on Earth: U.S., England, France, Germany, etc."

    Eh? EH? I seriously suggest you check out the 10-15% long term unemplyment and microscopic growth rates in France and Germany. That is the price of socilaist distortions like in TFA above. And England is rapidly catching them up under Blairism. In spite of a IT recession in the US (now over), it is still far easier to get an IT job in America than England, and in England far more easily than France or Germany.

    Where on earth do you people come up with this kind of stuff? There isn't a lump of jobs out their that can be divvied up between your favourite political groups. Individual people, wherever they are from, create jobs by creating wealth - spending their time to take somethng low value and make it higher value using their abilities. If you go down the socialist road that TFA wants, you will bring ruin to the very people you pretend to be helping.

  • by Bobzibub ( 20561 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @03:26PM (#10350051)
    But that doesn't make it OK to blame foreingers for all your country's problems.

    The Labour force participation is dropping because baby boomers are retiring. This means that the generation younger will be paying a hefty bill for their retirement. Social Security will not withstand this problem--people do not have as many kids and the only way to "pay" for it is to have immigration. Grampa is not going to have the retirement he hopes for.

    Much of Europe has the same issue. Many of those countries have declining populations. How will the old be able to have a secure retirement? They won't without immigration.

    If you want to blame something for the unemployment rate, it is not sufficient to assume that every immigrant entering the US == one job lost to an American. It is simply a too simplistic view.

    To blame trade agreements for lost jobs is unfair. Every time a government negotiates a trade agreement they claim that they will train people with new skills for those who have lost their jobs. They should do it. This is the right policy, but how many governments have actually followed through with the promise? Not many.

    With free trade, those that have 3rd world skills will be offered 3rd world wages. Ask what your government has done to lower tuition lately?

    There is a classic economic discussion about economies: "Guns and butter" Essentially, the argument is that some societies place more emphasis on the Guns than Butter (or vice versa). These are just two products, but they have symbolic value: You folks spend more than the rest of the world combined on the military. Could it be better spent? Do you really want to be an empire, knowing the costs to your own society? One stealth bomber can pay for an awful lot of teachers. North Korea has made it's choices. They blame the evil south and the evil US oppresssors--bla bla bla. They have a militaristic outlook. Their people must eat bark and roots and possibly each other. Don't walk down their shoes, alright?

    To single out some arbitrary group, and then blame them for your ills, is a classic approach seen many times throughout history. It has never solved anything before, so why do they think it'll work this time? Sure it'll get one politician over another elected, but that doesn't really solve anything does it?

    For those that agree with the page's ideas: Instead of thinking about how to worsen someone else's situation, at least try to think about improving your own first.

    -b
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 25, 2004 @03:26PM (#10350053)
    The failure rate totally depends on the type of business, who your mentors are, who your partners are, how much previous experience you have in business, etc.... People are willing to spend 16 years in school to learn how to become a good employee (and they think this is a success) and they are unwilling to take risks and learn business by doing it (and, yes, failing in it often). Wouldn't you consider spending 16 years in school to end up in JOBS that you hate a bigger failure than starting a business and losing say $1000-$10000?
  • by mOdQuArK! ( 87332 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @03:33PM (#10350092)
    someone had to bring up the flip-flopping

    You're talking about Bush, right? I've never seen somebody who could so completely change their position & pretend like they've always thought that way. I'm not sure what you mean about his "vision" - about the only thing I think he's been consistent on is the "us" vs "them" mentality - all of his other messages seem to change depending on whatever his political handlers are telling him to say at any given moment.

    Kerry's not a simple person (maybe unlike Bush). Based on what I've read about him, he seems like the type of guy who analyzes all sides of an issue before making a decision about what to do - and what he decides to do may not be the obvious thing that someone else who hasn't thought about the problem as much would have picked.

    You can probably guess who I think is better suited to be a world leader. :-) I have no idea why so many people in the American public think Bush is a good leader. I keep having flashbacks to the popularity-contests called student government in high school. Bush is portrayed on TV as a personable-if-somewhat-slow guy, while Kerry seems to be portrayed as some kind of unlikable ivory-tower "Lurch" character. It depresses me to know that many of my fellow Americans don't pick their leaders based on demonstrated merit (or reject them based on demonstrated incompetence).

  • by Ralph Yarro ( 704772 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @03:56PM (#10350227) Homepage
    Even by usual Slashdot standards, it's stunning that the above crap actually got modded up.

    His argument, explicitly spelled out, is that he buys foreign goods because they are cheaper than American goods and that if he bought American goods he would have less money for the rent and therefore, he argues, the government should FORCE him (and you and me and everyone else) to pay higher prices for all goods, bringing the foreign ones at least up to the price of the American ones he's unwilling to pay for, and thus to have less money to pay the rent. And someone somewhere bought into this?

    Leaving asside the morality of forcing foreigners into poverty, leaving aside the practicalities of the negative effects on markets that we depend on, leaving aside the effects of retaliatory measures, you actually want the government to FORCE you to pay higher prices because it's not a choice you'd make on your own? This is insanity.
  • by randall_burns ( 108052 ) <randall_burns AT hotmail DOT com> on Saturday September 25, 2004 @04:32PM (#10350477)
    First off, there are alternatives to immigration for handling workforce development:
    automation/robotics
    life extension technologies
    changing tax policies so folks can afford to
    have kids

    Not to mention significantly expanding the resource base through stuff like developing of the oceans(which is more immediate) and space development(Which is an interesting long term bet).

    Secondly, if you read my article, I don't blame immigrants for the problems. Most of them are just hard working folks trying to get ahead. I blame the politicians that made policy here because they made a very, very bad set of policies that don't encourage wealth creation and don't appropriately set a level playing field. Trade predicated on a half trillion dollar deficit is just plain not a good idea. Letting companies use immigration rights as corporate perks is just plain pork.

  • by Randym ( 25779 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @04:41PM (#10350542)
    Libertarians: Start your own business. *Create* your own job, instead of waiting for someone else to do it.

    Greens: Organize your neighbors and start sustainable cooperatives, especially around "life necessities" (food, shelter, health care, education). Undercut the corporate monopolies.

    These are both viable alternatives. However, they both require determination, optimism, personal responsibility and hard work; therefore, they won't be popular with people who were brought up in an educational system that encouraged them to be passive workers, rather than active owners.

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @04:52PM (#10350618)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by OldAndSlow ( 528779 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @05:23PM (#10350812)
    But you have to admit that the possibility is there for anybody determined enough.

    But it is mostly the possibility of failure. From this report [utk.edu]

    According to Dun & Bradstreet reports, "Businesses with fewer than 20 employees have only a 37% chance of surviving four years (of business) and only a 9% chance of surviving 10 years." Restaurants only have a 20% chance of surviving 2 years. Of these failed business, only 10% of them close involuntarily due to bankruptcy and the remaining 90% close because the business was not successful, did not provide the level of income desired or was too much work for their efforts

    The old adage, "People don't plan to fail, they fail to plan" certainly holds true when it comes to small business success. The failure rate for new businesses seems to be around 70% to 80% in the first year and only about half of those who survive the first year will remain in business the next five years 3 .

  • by Sinterklaas ( 729850 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @05:56PM (#10350990)
    That's why I feel that unemployment pay should be coupled to some sort of community service. It doesn't have to be hard work, or even particularly long hours, but if you want your unemployment money by all means do something for the community in return.

    I disagree strongly. This idea looks good on the surface, but there are so many problems with it that it should never be instituted. First of all, people who are jobless are supposed to spend their time looking for a job. Social security is a safety net, not a job itself. That changes if you start requiring people to work for a 'pay check'. Then people can legitimately claim that they earn their money and aren't required to find a job. You also get into all kinds of trouble, for instance, what happens when people get hurt on the job?

    Secondly, the notion that jobless people are lazy fu*ks is certainly not true. My father worked 60+ hours per week as a volunteer when he was unemployed (he is part of the so called 'lost generation' who got to the marketplace during a major recession and job drought). If he would be forced to do some idiotic job like cleaning the streets, he would probably kill himself. Then there is the sad fact that a considerable part of the jobless have physical or mental issues. Especially since in my country, only the very disabled/sick are counted as sick and get special social security for that. The rest are just counted as unemployed, but this certainly doesn't mean that they can necessarily do jobs like street sweeping (kind of hard from a wheelchair).

    Thirdly, there is a serious risk of having real jobs be replaced by this kind of community work. Last time this idea was tried by our local right wing party, the plan was to have these people clean the homes of people who are to old or sick to do that themselves. There is little doubt who the employers would choose, cheap forced labor or expensive workers. And not only is it an incredible blow to the people who do this job and an enormous underestimation of the expertise required to correctly and respectfully clean other people's homes, it also ignores the problem of letting uneducated, unmotivated and untrained people, who are not bound by a contract loose in the homes of people who cannot take care of themselves. Now, cleaning the streets is obviously a bit less of a problem, although people who do that now are bound to be replaced by 'cheap labor'. However, I believe that there is a big chance that politicians will not stop there.

    Finally, if you seriously want to combat unemployment, there are plenty of work projects and education that are possible. For instance, for people who lack a working rythm, there already exists a fake company where jobless people 'practice' having a job and prove to potential employers that they are good employees. Other possibilities are reeducation programs, such as the ones that were denied to my father who was written off due to his age. Then he finally got a chance to learn to be a programmer and now he is making his boss tons of money. Of course, this required an actual investment first, instead of just the tired old 'these people don't want to work' routine.
  • by Dick Faze ( 711885 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @09:34PM (#10352273) Journal
    And when you beat down the hard-working people who are doing the earning, the economy fails. Fuck the rich. They can afford to pay more in taxes, so let them.

    The problem with this statement is that, to literally 10 million people in this country, anyone making $30,000 a year or more is 'rich' compared to them, so I'm sure you won't mind if your income tax is raised 10% since you can 'afford it'.

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @11:23PM (#10352815)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by lightknight ( 213164 ) on Saturday September 25, 2004 @11:54PM (#10352961) Homepage
    Hmm. Returning money to those who earned it is immoral and unethical...yes, that is doubleplusungood.

    Now, Mr. Buffet may be a philanthropist, and he may have *so much money* that he no longer knows where to put it, but that is his opinion. I imagine that if we asked Mr. Gates for his opinion, we may find an interesting contrast (note: Microsoft IS issuing dividends). And Mr. Gates is the leading philanthropist.

    From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. How about we let people keep their own damn money, and let them decide whether to donate it to charity?

  • by civilizedINTENSITY ( 45686 ) on Sunday September 26, 2004 @03:34AM (#10353638)
    Ever read Wealth of Nations? Do you think that we have a ballance of power today between supplysiders and consumers? We no longer have villages of skilled craftsman competing, who weren't able to service more than a county. In order to have a free-market today it is necessary to ballance the power wielded by the large multi-nationals, or reduce them to the small businesses from whence they came. Government intervention is one way. View it as the power of the people of a country taken together as a whole. Regulation is necessary as elimination of corporations just isn't politically feasible.
  • Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday September 27, 2004 @12:54AM (#10359933)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Working...