Posted on 04/16/2004 1:24:31 AM PDT by sarcasm
Last week, Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao announced her Skills to Build America's Future" initiative. This is a "nationwide outreach and education effort designed to attract young people and transitioning workers to" the "key" occupations of the [near] future: "skilled trades."
This initiative, understandably, was proclaimed with little fanfare. While President Bush looks toward Mars, Ms. Chao can hardly be proud of her decidedly pedestrian prophecy that "construction laborers, operating engineers, carpenters, iron workers, cement masons, bricklayers, truck drivers and many other construction related crafts are among the trades expected to see the greatest demand in workers over the next 6 years." (This demand will be filled, I predict, by "guest workers," i.e., illegal aliens awarded shiny new government permits.)
Telling America's young people that the best they can hope for is careers as tradesmen certainly casts a pall over an administration given to grandiose planning and posturing. Essentially, the mathematically precocious – youngsters with aptitudes for science, engineering or accounting – must be yanked down to earth. Reaching for the stars in the America of the future will be the exclusive province of "American Idol" participants.
And according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics latest Employment Situation Summary, Ms. Chao's future is now. For all the din sounded over the addition of 308,000 jobs to the economy in March, the government-fed news filters failed to mention which job sectors were surging. Sure enough, it transpires that employment opportunities are optimal in construction, retail trade, food services, social assistance, and (naturally) in government.
As economist Paul Craig Roberts – a rare independent thinker on the issue – observes: "Only labor involved in non-traded goods and services is safe from foreign substitution." In other words, young Americans had better learn to live by their hands lest their livelihoods be outsourced.
If President Bush intends to revive America's space program, engineers will be at a premium. Yet the IEEE-USA, the world's largest technical professional society – representing more than 225,000 electrical electronics, computer, and software engineers – reports that "American high-tech firms shed 560,000 jobs between 2001 and 2003, and expect to lose another 234,000 in 2004." This contraction cannot be dismissed as the nadir of the dot-com correction. The jobless rate for electrical and electronics engineers was in fact lower in 2002 (4.2 percent) than in 2003 (6.2 percent).
Meanwhile, the Computing Research Association's Taulbee's Survey found that total enrollment in bachelor-degree programs in computer science and computer engineering fell 19 percent in 2003, a factor it attributes to "the decline in the technology industry and the moving of jobs offshore." (Curiously omitted are the impacts of the H-1B and L-1 work visas.)
College administrators are already hip to Ms. Chao's future. For example, San Francisco State University is considering the closure of its engineering school.
Indeed, today's college graduate cannot even expect to find entry-level jobs in the hi-tech industry, warns entrepreneur Rosen Sharma. Sharma heads a Silicon Valley start-up that "could not survive without outsourcing." Nevertheless, he fears for America's future. "As a father my reaction is different than my reaction as a CEO," he admitted to Time.
Pay no attention to such Chicken Littles, high-tech-industry lobbyists counter. Outsourcing is good for America, they claim. Their studies employ the "impregnable" science of econometrics to prove that outsourcing high-tech jobs creates more jobs than it kills. One such study, commissioned by the Information Technology Association of America, predicts 317,387 such jobs will materialize by 2008. The study's premise, however, begs the question, as it assumes the new jobs are and will be as good as the old (vanished) ones.
Why, they'll be even better, brags economist and outsourcing enthusiast, Catherine Mann. Dr. Mann, who also labors under the illusion that only bottom-rung jobs are vanishing, plays Pollyanna to a doubting Thomas, Ron Hira of IEEE-USA. Professor Hira confessed to Washington Post readers that he, an industry insider, had no idea what shape the "new" putative high-value jobs would take. "Is it nanotech, biotech, bioinformatics?" Of one thing he is certain, however: "Other developing and developed countries are targeting those very same industries and jobs."
Thankfully, author Virginia Postrel has located America's burgeoning (and indubitably "dynamist") occupations. She faults the Bureau of Labor Statistics for failing to recognize the rise of spa-related personal services – e.g., manicure and massage therapy – for the powerhouse growth industries they are. Of course, if Ms. Postrel is to remain faithful to the central thesis of her first book – that all change is always good – she is obligated to remain, like Ms. Mann, a Pollyanna, despite the new employment reality. Ms. Postrel's second book, the sum of which is that all that glitters is gold, even better encapsulates her enthusiasm for the role eyebrow waxing and other crafts will play in an economic recovery.
Although preliminary – even tentative – the Bureau's Employment Situation Summary suggests that high-value knowledge jobs are being replaced with low-value service and manual-labor jobs. The ensuing loss of income to American workers will surely outweigh the lower prices outsourcing engenders.
If I refuse to genuflect to this brave new world, it's because the idea of living in communities where applied scientists are unemployed while colonic hydrotherapists thrive isn't particularly enthralling. I'll leave it to the motion obsessed, ever-evolving Ms. Postrel to celebrate that kind of future.
Umm? But being a free-traitor is far worse. It is loathsome.
You really do not even understand what free trade is!
Yes, I do. And that one David Ricardo, mercifully taken into the great beyond in 1823, was the originator of the theory. More, that economists begin to realize that free trade is not the panacea that Ricardo and his misguided followers seem to believe that it is.
Are you advocating FORTRESS AMERICA too?
Absolutley and completely.
Do you, as it appears,imagine that the government should ensure everyone a job?
That cannot work. Establishing straw-man arguments is...shall we say...a pathetic tactic.
Enjoy your trinkets while you may. China is growing - and quickly.
WorldNetDaily mistakenly(I'm sure) left out this surging sector:
Well,well, well...a Patsie,who claims to have voted for President Bush? You yearn for FORTRESS AMEDRICA,but also cl.aim to understand economics and free trade? What a hoot! I can't stop laughing my socks off.I just bet you're for sumptuary taxes too.
China has a GDP per capita of 4,400 which ranks it 129th of all countries in the world.
Engineering programs come and go all the time.
Engineering school enrollment in this country is growing.
Yes.
Hes was also a free trader,you know.:-)
He was also a former Democrat. Democrats were the traditional party of free trade. As Reagan once said - I didn't leave the party, the party left me. Reagan held on to that part of his Democrat identity.
How does it fare when you adjust for purchasing power?
Having agreed with me,thus far, on this matter, are you now also willing to flame/castigate Reagan even more? If so,then also please state which president,to your way of thinking,was a Conservative.
How does it fare when you adjust for purchasing power?
I'm sorry. I meant to say China has a GDP per capita of $4,400. That's U.S. dollars, which means it's already adjusted.
I would say that it's the other way around.
If so,then also please state which president,to your way of thinking,was a Conservative.
In terms of free trade - Teddy Roosevelt - he called it a pernicious dogma.
Nope, look up purchasing power parity.
Teddy Roosevelt? I didn't say in terms of free trade...I asked you which president was a Conservative,in your lexicon;not in terms of free trade, or any other terms either,just Conservative. But okay,I'll take the answer, FWIW,as given and thanks for playing. :-)
Nope, look up purchasing power parity.
No you are wrong. You look up PPP.
Any Republican before Eisenhower.
Even the ones who were totally useless?
The only one I would consider "useless" would be Harding.
Anyone else you'd care to exclude?
4,400 American Dollars can purchase considerably more in China than in the United States - that is the essence of purchasing power parity.
Wrong, PPP is based on the "law of one price". By definition it sates that "competitive markets will equalize the price of an identical good in two countries when the prices are expressed in the same currency."
GDP in U.S. dollars for China is based on U.S. purchasing power because it is based on the U.S. dollar.
BTW, I doubt that your figure is correct.
I doubt you have ever looked in the CIA world fact book on the subject of China and GDP per capita for the year 2003.
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.