|
The Christian Taliban (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| PHALPAX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
I am active duty in the U.S. military. It's not uncommon for "outsourcing" of meals in the absence of a regular mess hall
the soldiers are usually compensated with the use of a per-diem supplement.
Then again, I have not had the pleasure:rolleyes: of touring in Iraq. |
Is there a set balance with the per-diem supplement or is it compensated regardless of cost? |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by PHALPAX
Jobless recovery- I'll concede that it is debatable, but to put in more simpler terms...Bush has lost more jobs than created new jobs.
|
Inevitable. The economy as a whole was booming to rediculous levels such that bubbles were growing all across the board ... including the labor market. C'mon, 3.5% unemployment? That's nowhere near standard "full employment". The economy was unsustainable at such levels and it naturally shed such jobs once the bubble bursted to the point where it is a "trim" "healthy" economy.
| quote: |
Promotion of outsourcing- Debatable. The outsourcing may have not been directly promoted but there has been a creation of an atmosphere that "promotes" outsourcing. Such as high energy costs, education spending, no new tax breaks for manufacturing companies (still in the senate I believe) etc. I'm taking the liberal side on this one regardless anyway. |
Outsourcing is promoted only in the sense that free markets allow businesses to properly adjust to the optimal level of job creation such that opportunities and advantages available abroad equal opportunities and advantage available domestically. In the event that workers in the US become economically inefficient, the solution is for workers to retrain and retool their abilities to retain their competitive edge ... not hinder business growth by slapping restrictions on the economy. This whole issue has become far too politicized ...
| quote: | The Bright Side of Sending Jobs Overseas
By EDUARDO PORTER
Published: February 15, 2004
FOR most politicians - Democratic or Republican - the issue of outsourcing jobs to faraway countries is a no-brainer: It's bad for the United States economy and it's even worse for their careers, especially in an election year when the work force has just lost more than two million jobs. So it is unsurprising that politicians of both parties ripped into N. Gregory Mankiw, chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, when his annual economic report on Tuesday made precisely the opposite point: that if services like software programming can be done more cheaply in India, it makes sense for companies to procure them there. Outsourcing will ultimately enhance their productivity.
Yet while debate is raging over globalization's costs and benefits, Mr. Mankiw's comments are based on solid, age-old economic arguments. Most economists agree that higher productivity - whether it comes from trade, outsourcing or technology - is good, even when it creates pain for many workers.
"Outsourcing does not reduce the total number of jobs in America," said Robert Reich, who served as labor secretary under President Bill Clinton. "If other countries can do something cheaper we ought to let them do it, and concentrate on what we can do best."
Indeed, despite the hemorrhage of jobs since Mr. Bush took office, the past performance of the American economy - particularly the pattern of job creation and destruction over the past several years - supports Mr. Mankiw's case.
In many ways, the economists' argument for outsourcing is as straightforward as the case for importing products. If an Indian software programmer is paid a tenth of an American's salary, a company that develops software in India will save money and - provided competitors do the same - the price of its software will fall, productivity will rise, the technology will spread, and new jobs will be created to adapt and improve it.
Take cellphones, which 20 years ago were luxury items with the size and weight of a brick. Today - thanks to competition and inexpensive, globalized production - they are cheap, ubiquitous, tiny and packed with a mind-boggling complement of ancillary functions. The industry and the number of jobs have only increased. Global outsourcing also played a big role in the information technology boom of the late 1990's. Personal computers were imported from abroad. Chip companies shipped production overseas. But this outsourcing prompted the creation of new jobs here, on the higher end of the technological spectrum.
A report released last December by Catherine L. Mann of the Institute for International Economics, a Washington research group that backs free trade, calculated that lower costs due to globalized production accounted for 10 percent to 30 percent of the decline in hardware prices during the technology boom of the second half of the 1990's, when computer prices fell 10 percent a year.
The impact of cheap hardware was felt throughout the economy. Ms. Mann calculates that outsourcing boosted productivity growth from 2.5 percent to 2.8 percent a year from 1995 to 2002, a gain that in turn added at least $230 billion to the country's total output of goods and services.
As lower-priced technology flooded the marketplace, it helped generate new jobs, as companies that snapped up computers suddenly required software and workers who could adapt the products to their needs.
Ms. Mann notes that demand for people who knew how to use computers grew by 22 percent through the 1990's boom, twice as fast as overall job creation. "This is despite the fact that outsourcing of computer jobs was going on," Ms. Mann said.
Moreover, lower prices also muted inflation, allowing interest rates to be lower than they otherwise would be - thus boosting investment and growth. And the Asian countries that made computers and chips spent some earnings buying other American services - like legal and financial assistance.
Over all, Ms. Mann notes, "unemployment in the 1990's fell to 4 percent," despite aggressive outsourcing during this period.
But for many unions, investment in foreign lands is undisputedly bad. "For every investment you make there is investment you don't make here," says Bob Baugh, executive director of the Industrial Union Council of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. , which has suffered a relentless decline in manufacturing jobs since the late 1990's. "People are concerned about their own job. They know it's a problem and they are absolutely stunned by the admission of this administration."
Fears of outsourcing have heightened even further, because it is no longer just manufacturing jobs that are threatened, but high-paying, white-collar service-sector jobs. Moreover, the worldwide pool of available well-trained workers is much larger, and they are only a mouse-click away.
The Internet and other technologies have enabled Dell, the personal computer manufacturer, to open customer support centers in India, and allowed Delta Airlines to send reservations jobs to the Philippines. The trend seems to be moving up the skills ladder: Oracle, a software company, and Ericsson, the telecommunications equipment manufacturer, have moved product and software development jobs to India. An often-cited report by Forrester Research says 3.3 million American white-collar service industry jobs will move overseas by 2015. People are afraid that they will be left with low-paying jobs at Wal-Mart.
Yet most economists agree that the impact on productivity, economic growth and jobs should be similar to that of the outsourcing of hardware in the late 1990's. Prices of technology services will fall, technology will become more pervasive, and jobs will be created as businesses find new things to do with the technology.
"We tend to keep the high end of the value chain," said Janet Yellen, an economist at the University of California at Berkeley who was head of Mr. Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers. "We're outsourcing the more standardized part of high tech."
Indeed, employment in the service sector - including those services considered most at risk of being outsourced to developing nations - has not done too badly compared with the rest of the job market.
The United States has lost many jobs of late. But that's basically because the economy fell into recession. From 1999 to 2003, as the economy peaked and went bust, 1.3 million nonfarm jobs vanished. Manufacturing lost 2.8 million jobs; 800,000 management positions disappeared - including C.E.O.'s and other executive jobs that are not easily outsourced to Bangladesh.
But business and financial service occupations - at risk of the kind of outsourcing that Forrester Research warns of - added more than 600,000 jobs during the period. Another sector that is supposed to be vulnerable, what the Commerce Department calls computer and mathematical occupations, added 150,000 jobs. Moreover, many jobs that are outsourced today - like call-center operators or data-entry staff - could just as easily be lost to automation.
"Productivity growth, however it occurs, has a disruptive side to it," Ms. Yellen said. "In the short term most things that contribute to productivity growth are very painful." Fast productivity growth is one reason that employment hasn't picked up despite fast economic growth.
What to do? Labor unions would support legislation that slowed globalization down. Others, like Mr. Reich, want more comprehensive employment insurance. Ms. Yellen supports better education and job training. But ending sources of productivity growth, she said, is not a good idea. "You could end up with an economy that does not show progress and doesn't improve living standards," she said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/15/w...15f6acc&ei=5070
|
And a great (but long) article from the economist:
http://www.economist.com/agenda/dis...tory_id=2454530
| quote: |
making the UN look like a joke- I agree that the UN is a joke, but we should at the very least respect the organization and its goal its trying to accomplish here. We did not exhaust all options before blindly attacking Iraq. But I think this has been talked about in another thread. :D |
Why respect a joke? Rightfully criticize the US's failure to adhere to a standard for war that should be self-imposed. But don't take that US failure as a means to make a case for UN effectivness. :) |
|
|
| PHALPAX |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Why respect a joke? Rightfully criticize the US's failure to adhere to a standard for war that should be self-imposed. But don't take that US failure as a means to make a case for UN effectivness. :) |
Maybe because a large portion of the world does. But then again we're the ing U.S. of A! We don't need to provide hard evidence that isn't theoretical or circumstantial in any way! You’re either with us or against us! We're the ing 800 lb gorilla that sleeps and eats where he wants and when he wants regardless of what the rest of the world thinks. Policing!? Nah, we call it prevention with political arm twisting. Economic gains!? Why would we need that considering how well the economy is booming here? An effective UN? The effectiveness of the UN is all in the eye of the beholder…...I don’t think we need to explain the U.S. view. And clearly, that "joke" is remains of whatever global unity is left. And so far, we've been better at destroying than building lately. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| occrider is smarter than your average bear...and many other herbivores.;) |
|
|
| WhoaNellie1487 |
| quote: | | what is the view of bush in the US? how much support does he have and what are his chances to be re-elected? |
Well, Over 70% of America approves of Bush,and his decision to go to war. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by PHALPAX
Maybe because a large portion of the world does. But then again we're the ing U.S. of A! We don't need to provide hard evidence that isn't theoretical or circumstantial in any way! You’re either with us or against us! We're the ing 800 lb gorilla that sleeps and eats where he wants and when he wants regardless of what the rest of the world thinks. Policing!? Nah, we call it prevention with political arm twisting. Economic gains!? Why would we need that considering how well the economy is booming here? An effective UN? The effectiveness of the UN is all in the eye of the beholder…...I don’t think we need to explain the U.S. view. And clearly, that "joke" is remains of whatever global unity is left. And so far, we've been better at destroying than building lately. |
You misunderstand me. The US'S (emphasis on possession) failures do not, and should not, legitamize the false sense of security or misplaced belief that the UN is a successful, effective organization. Regardless of whether Iraq had 0 WMDs or whether they had a billion wmds poised to strike, the UN's course of action would have been one and the same. The hypothesis of Iraqi WMDs was not simply a fantasy of US intelligence services ... it was the widespread consensus among MOST intelligence services. I feel that stringent standards to enforce resolutions established in the 90's would have accomplished much in avoiding the views of UNMOVIC as a lackadaisical group solely motivated by increased US insistence. Regardless of how "right" the UN was with respect to this latest crisis, the UN has a long list of crises stretching back decades which should dictate to somebody ... anybody that the institution needs to be reformed. If you want to read up on my opinions about its "effectiveness" I've been rather vocal in this area:
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...UN&pagenumber=2
Global unity IS the solution, the UN is simply not the vehicle to accomplish that nor should we resign ourselves to believe that it is. |
|
|
| PHALPAX |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
You misunderstand me. The US'S (emphasis on possession) failures do not, and should not, legitamize the false sense of security or misplaced belief that the UN is a successful, effective organization. Regardless of whether Iraq had 0 WMDs or whether they had a billion wmds poised to strike, the UN's course of action would have been one and the same. Regardless of how "right" the UN was with respect to this latest crisis, the UN has a long list of crises stretching back decades which should dictate to somebody ... anybody that the institution needs to be reformed. If you want to read up on my opinions about its "effectiveness" I've been rather vocal in this area:
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...UN&pagenumber=2
Global unity IS the solution, the UN is simply not the vehicle to accomplish that nor should we resign ourselves to believe that it is. |
I'll review this tomorrow...only have 5 hrs of sleep left :whip: |
|
|
| Izzy |
Gregory Mankiw sounds like one smart d00d :cool: |
|
|
| Yoepus |
I just wanted to add:
The UN is a joke.
...Just in case any of you had doubts.
Thank you, that is all. |
|
|
| Kia Kaha |
The US is a joke!
A year after the event and even you most brainwashed of pro-Bush fools can't deny that:
1. Saddam Hussein never had WMD.
2. Hans Blix was right.
3. The entire CIA / NSA / FBI / whatever other jackass three-letter-abbreviation American intelligence agency Bush decided to twist the arm of, was full of .
4. The whole world knew they were full of . It wasn't exactly rocket science, in fact it was a completely blatant in-your-face falsification. Hence why millions and millions of Brits and Aussies and other people, who didn't want their countries unwillingly dragged into Bush's phoney war by their US-economic-ass-kissing leaders, turned out on the streets for the the largest anti-war demonstrations in the entire history of the world.
5. You guys went ahead and did it anyway, in the process proving yourselves to be a bunch of untrustworthy, unprincipled cowboys with no regard for international law.
6. You may be the playground bullies now but the day will come when you actually need something that the rest of the world has got. Or maybe you'll wake up one morning and find that you've pissed off the rest of the world so much we no longer want to do business with you, and you find you can't take everything you want in the entire world by force or economic coercion, and then we'll see the hit the fan. The teenagers and students who watched this disgusting self righteous display of US greed over the last couple of years, are the prime ministers of tomorrow, and they will have long memories.
7. Anyone who says the UN is a joke, is just sour because the rest of the free world (the ones who still have principles) wouldn't rubber-stamp your blatant oil grab war. Wankers.
:whip: |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Inevitable. The economy as a whole was booming to rediculous levels such that bubbles were growing all across the board ... including the labor market. C'mon, 3.5% unemployment? That's nowhere near standard "full employment". The economy was unsustainable at such levels and it naturally shed such jobs once the bubble bursted to the point where it is a "trim" "healthy" economy. |
Help me out, oh wise one:D. How come 3.5% is unrealistic? Why is it unrealistic to have an incredibly low unemployment rate? Ideally (and I mean really ideally), wouldn't it be the goal of every government to have as many people to have a job as possible? Ya know, like that movie, "Dave" with Kevin Cline?
| quote: | Outsourcing is promoted only in the sense that free markets allow businesses to properly adjust to the optimal level of job creation such that opportunities and advantages available abroad equal opportunities and advantage available domestically. In the event that workers in the US become economically inefficient, the solution is for workers to retrain and retool their abilities to retain their competitive edge ... not hinder business growth by slapping restrictions on the economy. This whole issue has become far too politicized ...
And a great (but long) article from the economist:
http://www.economist.com/agenda/dis...tory_id=2454530
|
I'm beginning to agree with this assessment, but only partially. The 90's boom with technology certainly contributed to our job cuts in the present. As it seems, most businesses are able to squeeze a great deal more work out of their employees without the need for hiring. What's more, with Bush's incentive to do away with overtime pay (give everyone "managerial" positions), we can squeeze even more time out of our workers without the necessity for hiring. This, however, is pretty damn disturbing to me.
In general, both your articles pointed out the need for globalization in order to not only help increase productivity (which is occurring now), but will eventually help increase job growth overall.
How much longer shall we continue to hold our breath for this to happen? I've bugged you about this before, and it does bother the hell out of me - how much longer will we continue to hear of job growth in the future? Damnit, the future is already here! Although the manufacturing sector ONLY lost 3,000 last month (the lowest so far in it's downfall trend), our private sector gained NO jobs last month! That's just ridiculous. March had better be a monumental gain in order for me to have a little more hope, because as it seems we are not able to keep up whatsoever with the natural growth in the number of potential workers.
Another thing that the articles touch on is that globalization and outsourcing, for the most part, reduces production of low-tech goods here in the U.S., and will eventually increase production of high-tech goods here in the U.S. As a result, jobs will follow respectively - the low-tech jobs go overseas, whereas eventually more high tech jobs will be created here.
But as one article I ran across points out, that isin't necessarily the case with China:
| quote: | Soaring increase in high-tech exports from China erodes U.S. employment
It is often argued that free trade benefits all countries because it allows them to specialize in goods for which they have a comparative advantage, yielding increased efficiency and productivity in each economy. In the United States, economists and public officials frequently claim that trade will reduce production of low-tech goods such as textiles and apparel and increase production of high-tech goods in which the United States has a comparative advantage.
For example, in a recent address in Washington, D.C., World Trade Organization (WTO) Director Supachai Panitchpakdi said that for every U.S. job threatened by imports, a growing number of high-paid, high-skilled jobs are created by exports.
The theory of comparative advantage suggests that low-wage countries such as China should specialize in low-tech goods such as textiles, apparel, toys, and furniture. However, as shown in the figure below, China has rapidly increased the share of middle- and high-tech products in its exports during a period in which its total exports nearly tripled.
The share of electronics, machinery, and transport equipment in China’s exports increased from 18.1% in 1994 to 42.9% in 2003, an increase of 24.8 percentage points. Of this total, the export shares of office and data processing equipment (including computers and components) increased by 12.1 points, electric appliances by 4.8, points and telecommunications equipment by 4.7 percentage points.
Meanwhile, the U.S. balance of trade in high-tech products has fallen from a peak of $32.3 billion in 1997 to a deficit of $27.4 billion in 2003. The rapid growth of China’s high-tech exports is quickly eroding U.S. employment in these cutting-edge industries.
http://epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots |
Furthermore, as it seems that would entail that higher education would be a necessity in order to be hired for these higher paying jobs that would hopefully be coming to the U.S. Well how does that bode for our increasing lower class folks without a higher education, or the means to attain one? And I must say that Bush and his GOP cronies, considering how much they love social programs (i.e. education), and considering how much education is already being cut in nearly every state (even Bush's NCLB federal program is being cut!), and considering how much higher college tuitions are rising, how will this help out anyone aside of those selected few who can actually afford a good education?
| quote: | | Why respect a joke? Rightfully criticize the US's failure to adhere to a standard for war that should be self-imposed. But don't take that US failure as a means to make a case for UN effectivness. :) |
I certainly agree with that. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
I feel that stringent standards to enforce resolutions established in the 90's would have accomplished much in avoiding the views of UNMOVIC as a lackadaisical group solely motivated by increased US insistence. |
Would that include doing weapons inspections in Israel? |
|
|
|
|
