Posted on 07/27/2005 6:21:50 AM PDT by A. Pole
The June payroll jobs report did not receive much attention due to the July 4 holiday, but the depressing 21st century job performance of the U.S. economy continues unabated.
Only 144,000 private sector jobs were created, each one of which was in domestic services.
Fifty-six thousand jobs were created in professional and business services, about half of which are in administrative and waste services.
Thirty-eight thousand jobs were created in education and health services, almost all of which are in health care and social assistance.
Nineteen thousand jobs were created in leisure and hospitality, almost all of which are waitresses and bartenders.
Membership associations and organizations created 10,000 jobs, and repair and maintenance created 4,000 jobs.
Financial activities created 16,000 jobs.
This most certainly is not the labor market profile of a First World country, much less a superpower.
Where are the jobs for this year’s crop of engineering and science graduates?
U.S. manufacturing lost another 24,000 jobs in June. A country that doesn’t manufacture doesn’t need many engineers. And the few engineering jobs available go to foreigners.
Readers have sent me employment listings from U.S. software development firms. The listings are discriminatory against American citizens. One ad from a company in New Jersey that is a developer for many companies, including Oracle, specifies that the applicant must have a TN visa.
A TN or Trade NAFTA visa is what is given to Mexicans and Canadians who are willing to work in the United States at below prevailing wages.
Another ad from a software consulting company based in Omaha, Neb., specifies it wants software engineers who are H-1B transferees. What this means is that the firm is advertising for foreigners already in the United States who have H-1B work visas.
The reason the U.S. firms specify that they have employment opportunities only for foreigners who hold work visas is because the foreigners will work for less than the prevailing U.S. salary.
Gentle reader, when you read allegations that there is a shortage of engineers in America, necessitating the importation of foreigners to do the work, you are reading a bald-faced lie. If there were a shortage of American engineers, employers would not word their job listings to read that no American need apply and that they are offering jobs only to foreigners holding work visas.
What kind of country gives preference to foreigners over its own engineering graduates?
What kind of country destroys the job market for its own citizens?
How much longer will parents shell out $100,000 for a college education for a son or daughter who ends up employed as a bartender, waitress or temp?
I agree.
"...We even deal with illiteracy now. How do you think illiterate people can compete?"
Bush/Bayourod open borders bring in millions of functional illiterates, they maintain that this makes us more competitive.
False. You ranted about expertise, and our modern understanding being superior and could not put up. You were countered, and ran away.
The response is incoherent and irrelevant to anything I said.
Says you. More proof you are incapable of confronting adverse empirical evidence to your thesis. The response was point-blank debunking the revisionism extant in the "modern" movement who you pinning all your hopes on.
If you claim to be "more scientific" then the empirical evidence would support you. But It DOESN'T, does it? So you run away, and call names. OH, that's so persuasive!
You think your performance here will persuade the CCCP in Bejing? LOL!
You don't really want a dialogue. You want a one-way street. Not going to happen at Free Republic. You see, we really do believe in FREEDOM here, unlike your stripe.
It's a good point: the average literacy level does decrease, as you pointed out. But, to the best of my knowledge, the proponents of open borders do not justifhy it by better competitiveness: they point out that they increase our standard of living (cheaper labor, cheaper products, more of them we can buy).
I am not saying they are correct: Bush and Co. only point to private goods and services like groceries and lawn care, and, although the cost of these does go down, the cost of public goods goes up (roads, emergency rooms full of illegals, our schools for which they do no pay a dime, etc.)
I am completely with you on this: I cannot find a single reason or excuse for not shutting close all of our borders. And, although I am distrustful of government, I would even accept an national ID card if it really helped to drive the illegals out. But that is not going to happen: all dems and even some conservatives are wobbly on this issue, right?
For those of us here in the USA the challenge is taking the step of faith to work "out of the box".
"Now I'm considering moving into pure R&D work (which previously only larger corporations could afford) and even sponsorships for promising young athletes in the third world."
And this benefits the USA how?
"Not at all. I tried to have a dialog. The response is incoherent and irrelevant to anything I said."
Once again Paul Ross beat me to the punch (Post 623). I agree with everything he said. He hits you with a solid logic and irrefutable fact barrage so large you don't know what to do with it.
Thank you, thank you, thank you --- for bringing some sanity on this board.
I had an exchange with A.Pole. In one of the posts, he attributed our prosperity to the Constitution, and I pointed out that it is only very, very indirectly correct, if at all. In that same post, A.Pole smeared "Chicago" and "Harvard" economists in one stroke --- which makes one wonder who is judging them. So I asked (not completely rhetorically) whether A.Pole actually read any research papers by those economists or attended their seminars (this is a diverse board, who knows, (s)he mights be a professional economist).
At this point Paul Ross butts in, focusing on my last remark and calling is self-aggrandizeing or something to that effect. With name-calling fallowing shortly. After a few posts, I stopped dignifying him with replies.
Now, if you think that such level of dialog is appropriate, then shame on you: anyone smart enough to know something about neutron decay should have higher scientific standards.
Well, a couple of my offshore people are here in town blowing a big chunk of their income at Disney this week. (I think the rest has gone to US rental car companies and restaurants).
I think it was a US-based airline that brought them here.
The laptop computers they bought here are Dells - isn't that still a US company?
And, as far as R&D...well, it's pretty obvious that R&D benefits everybody (how fast is your CPU?) - regardless of whether it takes place.
However, that said, I must also stipulate that I subscribe to the philosophy of Any Rand, which suggests that one benefits society by benefiting oneself ("the virtue of greed"). And I do believe that I am personally benefiting from the arrangement.
"I had an exchange with A.Pole. In one of the posts, he attributed our prosperity to the Constitution, and I pointed out that it is only very, very indirectly correct, if at all."
The Constitution was a foundation of course. It's design made it possible for the 13 former colonies to establish a truly solid nation. Without it it's highly likely the USA would've broken up early in it's history and the world would be a considerably different place. The world probably wouldn't be past a 1940's to 1960's technological level and would likely be a much scarier place.
"A.Pole smeared "Chicago" and "Harvard" economists in one stroke --- which makes one wonder who is judging them."
I would have to actually see the post to know what you mean by "smeared" so I'll reserve judgement on that one.
"At this point Paul Ross butts in, focusing on my last remark and calling is self-aggrandizeing or something to that effect. With name-calling fallowing shortly. After a few posts, I stopped dignifying him with replies."
So you we're overwhelmed, and are thin-skinned as well?
"(charged particles have to take a stand, after all)."
Just thought you should know that neutrons are not charged particles. That would be positrons and electrons. Neutrons can be manipulated by magnetic fields but are neutral...you know...neu-tral...neu-trons...
I was not writing to you about the substance of discussion: I explained to you that the form of Paul Ross's reply was inappropriate.
I would have to actually see the post to know what you mean y "smeared" so I'll reserve judgment on that one.
That is what you should've done from the start.
So you we're overwhelmed, and are thin-skinned as well?
I am not running for office; I don't have to be thick-skinned to have a conversation. Too bad you don't understand the difference. As a conservative, what culture are you striving to preserve?
"(charged particles have to take a stand, after all)."
Just thought you should know that neutrons are not charged particles. That would be positrons and electrons. Neutrons can be manipulated by magnetic fields but are neutral...you know...neu-tral...neu-trons...
You should try to think while reading: "(charged particles, IN CONTRAST, have to take a stand, after all )." --- that's what "after all" was for.
Thank you for the lecture. Since we do not appear to understand each other, perhaps we should end it here.
Until we meet again. EP.
"I was not writing to you about the substance of discussion: I explained to you that the form of Paul Ross's reply was inappropriate."
So what section was this little dust-up in? (100's, 200's, etc...) As for Ross "butting in" you should stick to private replies if you don't like others injecting their comments. If it annoys you that much, maybe FR is not the forum for you.
"As a conservative, what culture are you striving to preserve?"
A constitutional republic with absolutely minimal dependency upon other nations. Or are you talking about etiquette within the discussion? I don't let others rudeness or insults bother me, I either ignore it and concentrate on the other parts of the reply, or use my imagination and return fire. I think "He's being mean to me!" is used too much by some to avoid arguments they're afraid of losing.
"You should try to think while reading: "(charged particles, IN CONTRAST, have to take a stand, after all )." --- that's what "after all" was for."
Now, now, don't blame me because you chose not to be clear with that statement until AFTER my reply.
"Thank you for the lecture. Since we do not appear to understand each other, perhaps we should end it here."
You don't have much endurance do you? A little bit of a pounding and you begin to disintegrate.
"Well, a couple of my offshore people are here in town blowing a big chunk of their income at Disney this week. (I think the rest has gone to US rental car companies and restaurants)."
Ooooo....a whole COUPLE of people. I wonder how much contribution to the US economy there would be if both were US citizens working here? Let's see....one week vs. 1 year...
"The laptop computers they bought here are Dells - isn't that still a US company?"
For all practical purposes..no. Very little, if anything, of those computers are manufactured in the USA. The most you'll get is final assembly. If the parts don't make it in, any US final assembly plant is shut down.
"And, as far as R&D...well, it's pretty obvious that R&D benefits everybody (how fast is your CPU?) - regardless of whether it takes place."
I'm pretty sure you meant "...where it takes place." Which is partially correct. It benefits MOST the nation that the R&D is conducted in. If it's in dual-use tech (usable for both military & civilian purposes) then the host nation benefits even further. Especially if it's a dictatorship like China. It pretty much guarantees that govt's access to the technology.
"However, that said, I must also stipulate that I subscribe to the philosophy of Any Rand, which suggests that one benefits society by benefiting oneself ("the virtue of greed")."
I'd say that describes most free traders quite accurately. Any Rand was obviously a fool as well. It defies a lot of human nature. By benefiting yourself (cheap consumer goods) you may think you're benefiting society, but what you do is undermine your nation's industrial infrastructure, which inevitably is an open invitation to exploitation by a foreign enemy. It's a "penny wise, pound foolish" philosophy. I suspect there's a lot of free traders who don't have children, think they'll be dead or to senile to care by the time it happens, and thus don't care. The rest are idealists.
"And I do believe that I am personally benefiting from the arrangement."
I can respect that kind of honesty.
No where in any of my posts on trade issues have I advocated "government" action of any kind. On the contrary, it is the so-called "free" traders who are seemingly obsessed with the idea of "government intervention".
I don't give a crap about labels, and so I don't give a crap about what anyone would call the "conservative thing" to do, whatever that is. What I care about is doing the right thing. So how about doing that instead of selling out your country and it's citizens in search of another penny or two of profit? I got news for the free traitors around here: greed isn't always good.
I think everybody on this thread needs to read, "Rich Dad Poor Dad" by Robert T. Kiyosaki (a former USMMA grad like me).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.