Yeah, but they really should legalize pot.
Posted on 07/07/2004 11:05:41 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
Is globalization sending the best American jobs overseas? If you get your news from CNN’s Lou Dobbs, the answer is “of course” and the only real issue is how many trade restrictions should be applied to stem the bleeding.
But the recent scare about ”offshoring” is just the latest twist on an inaccurate, decades-old complaint that global trade is stealing jobs and causing a ”race to the bottom” in which corporations relentlessly scour the world for the lowest wages and most squalid working conditions. China and India have replaced 1980s Japan and 1990s Mexico as the most feared foreign threats to U.S. employment, and the old fallacy of job scarcity has once again reared its distracting head.
The truth is cheerier. Trade is only one element in a much bigger picture of incessant turnover in the American labor market. Furthermore, the overall trend is toward more and better jobs for American workers. While job losses are real and sometimes very painful, it is important -- indeed, for the formulation of sound public policy, it is vital -- to distinguish between the painful aspects of progress and outright decline.
Toward that end, and to counter protectionist “analysis” masquerading as fact, here are 10 core truths about global trade and American jobs.
Reagan's Laws of Government:
If it moves, tax it.
If it's still moving, regulate it.
When it stops moving, subsidize it.
The fact that someone responded to an editorial in the unreasonable manner in which they did and that article came from Reason Magazine makes the irony that much more delicious.
Actually, it should be globalist@nwo.int (globalists aren't loyal to the .gov domain) (c8
bump for later read
Farmers: Midwestern welfare queens in overalls.
Actually, the article squares with my own beliefs quite well.
But, some time ago I "subscribed" to Reason magazine long enough to throroughly read one issue. Every third article or so was pushing for legalization of pot.
Thus, Reason magazine marginalized itself.
Nice try, though.
bump
I'd love to hear how that works out.
From my personal experience, the job market is seriously heating up. I'm getting calls on resumes I posted a year ago. Looking at the job sites, there's a *ton* of new dev jobs out there.
Esp. the N. Carolina area, their 'Tech Triangle' as it seems to be called. That part of the country is sssssmokin'.
It's a completely new 'take' on offshoring. Instead of firing the American and hiring 3 Indians with no clue, they KEEP the American and hire him/her two assistants. I will be offloading rote programming tasks, giving them things to do I don't have time for, etc. etc.
Example: Our product is international. We use a resource fall-back manager for localization of foreign strings.
They can replace all the text in the ASP.NET pages with labels for me, and I'll wire it all together.
This might work out.
Did you realize that this article was about economics, and not drug legalization, before you posted, or did your knee jerk so hard that it caused you to click?
marking
Yeah, but they really should legalize pot.
Color me skeptical, but I could be wrong.
I've seen it tried, actually. It was the last stage of the process. First they off-shored everything, then they tried mixing in a few Americans.
In our experience, it would still have been more productive to have hired one American in place of two or even three Indians.
rudeboy, are you ever going to learn how to do math? 93% over 23 years is 1.2% per year. In the next sentence you say 2.2% for 2003 is recovering. So, is 1.2% 'dizzying', or a little more than half a recovery rate? One of my professors was fond of saying "statistics don't lie, people do".
sixmil, are you ever going to learn how to read? Manufacturing output is not the same measure as the industrial production index. One of my professors was fond of saying "words mean things."
LOL, does that depend on what the definition of the word 'is' is? Please tell us what this index is trying to gauge then. I'd love to hear you compare and contrast the two.
How come you get to compare the two to make your argument, but I don't get to when I destroy your argument? Are we playing rudeboy wins? If you are going to debate on a conservative website, drop the liberal one-way-street tactics.
Of course.
or did your knee jerk so hard that it caused you to click?
I posted a comment about the source. In case you haven't noticed, that happens a lot around here.
No. LOL
Please tell us what this index is trying to gauge then. I'd love to hear you compare and contrast the two.
I'm beginning to suspect that you have not read the article, because you do not appear to understand that those are the author's words and not mine. Latching-on to a small discrepancy that does not exist in order to distract is a Liberal tactic, as I'm sure you are aware.
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.