Posted on 06/13/2007 11:13:52 AM PDT by indthkr
WASHINGTON — Alan Blinder, former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve, told Congress Tuesday (June 12) that one out of four U.S. jobs are vulnerable to offshoring. Blinder, now an economics professor at Princeton University, told the House Science and Technology Committee that American jobs in science, technology and engineering are most vulnerable to offshoring.
Blinder testified during a hearing on the offshoring of U.S. technology jobs. Committee Chairman Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.) last year successfully pressed the Bush administration to release a controversial 2004 Commerce Department report on offshoring. The report singled out chip design as one of the next U.S. technology sectors likely headed overseas.
Leading-edge design work has not moved offshore, but U.S. design engineers "are facing stiff competition from designers in India who work for lower wages and whose experience and quality [are] quickly improving," the report warned.
"The message of that report," Gordon said during Tuesday''s hearing," is that offshoring is happening at significant levels in some industrial sectors and the phenomenon will continue and is likely to accelerate."
Now there's a good idea, not only can we get rid of all those jobs nobody wants, we can include a trained "technician" to go along with it. This is why America is always ahead of the game. We are a nation of thinkers and problem solvers. This is of course a by product of a population that is allowed freedom of thought, something not found in these third world countries where backward cults destroy the ability to think rationally, and outside of the totalitarian system imposed on them.
:o)
He wasn’t making an argument, he was simply stating a fact.
Well, you are factually incorrect here: that someone is an idiot is never a statement of fact; it is an opinion. one can justify that opinion but offering facts and then reach that conclusion.
That was precisely my point: if you want to state that someone is an idiot, first offer some facts that point to that conclusion. This would constitute an argument.
You appear to confuse facts and opinions in general:
is merely a descriptive word, words that are commonly used in the english language. It’s like saying a person is fat, tall short, skinny, dumb, smart, an idiot, a genius, etc.
None of these are facts either. Short in comparison to whom? Smart in comparison to whom and in what are of human endeavors?
You on the other hand, instead of offering a difference of opinion
You must be a victim of modern education: contrary to what you've been mislead to believe, a discussion is not a spectator sport where the opposing parties battle by offering diverging opinions and the spectator decides which of those he "feels" better about.
I can offer a supporting or a counter-argument to engage in a discussion, and state my conclusions based on those. None was offered by the original poster, however. That was the point.
you rudely demand from him.
Rudely? Demand?
Take a deep breath and reread the post.
Thank you for writing.
If any textbook you have "understood" has lead you to believe that name calling is a slur when its accurate and honest, then I am sad that you have not recieved the education that you should have.
Name calling, if true, and accurate, and honest, is proper.
Alan Blinder, while being a nice guy, is an idiot. His textbook was a joke littered with errors (not typo's either, not opinion biases, just errors).
I am like the preacher in church, telling the truth and it hurts.
Always the optimist, I posit that the bulk of the jobs sent overseas could be those held by government employees.
You are not in church, and I am not easily hurt.
Conclusions such as yours require arguments to precede them. If you claim errors, you should give a few examples. In addition, errors in a textbook are not a manifestation of someone's idiocy: the author may have poorly implemented that particular project. Just as your errors on a bad day are not necessarily a manifestation of your lack of intelligence, so is a bad textbook.
I thank you for your reply, but did you notice that in it, too, you did not even bother with SUBSTANTIATION of your claims? And that is what I objected to: you do not seem to have a habit of doing so.
And so we’ll find other jobs to replace them. Case in point, two European companies are constructing plants in our area that will create 4,000 direct permanent jobs, and well over 20,000 connected jobs during the next quarter century.
Most of the industrial development in this state, in the last 15 years, has come from foreign owned companies building plants here. Trade uplifts all.
I didn't realize I would have had to write up a term paper to explain the errors in his textbook, that multiplied along the way. I assert that he is in idiot and use his book as proof.
Among the problems with his book (and I hope he only wrote one textbook, as I fear him writing more may contribute to the dumbing down of society). He mistated facts, offered analysis that contradicted facts which he provided, countered his own statements with opinions contradicting his facts (several things including the price of labor, supply and demand regarding price equilibrium, price ceiling, price floor, the latter 2 which he at times used interchangabley). He also got several theories entirely wrong (in his defence, he may have been trying to simplify them, he failed). Not to mention getting several theories mixed up. Mostly regarding "shocks" or shock absorbers.
Its a bad text book and it reflects on its author, its very frustrating having to sit in class and learn a subject when the book you are using has to be disregarded or selectivly used because it might contribute to you getting a poor grade by citing a theory that is explained in error.
He did try not to be partisian in his book, but he also got terms like supply side, neo-classical, and keynesian often mixed up (supply side is actually a form of neo-classical, keynesian , after keynes broke with some of those ideas).
Errors on a bad day may not reflect somones intelligence, but then again, depending on what those errors are, they can.
That is why I again state, that Alan Blinder is an idiot, I am not in the habit of calling everyone an idiot, just those who actually are.
2. If Blinder is an idiot, as you claim, what does it make your instructor, who assigned the book? What did he say about all those errors?
3. Have you been to seminars given by Blinder? Have you read his research papers? This is relevant. All evidence you have, it appears, is his textbook. Why do you attack the author wholesale when you could stop at saying that the textbook is bad? Do you think it would be fair to characterize you as an idiot if you make a mistake on a bad day?
The profssor claimed he didn't know how bad the book would be, he had considered using Krugman, which is really frightening. He noted many of the errors while we went through the book, it was a problem for him too, since he had to teach and test us.
3. Have you been to seminars given by Blinder? Have you read his research papers? This is relevant. All evidence you have, it appears, is his textbook. Why do you attack the author wholesale when you could stop at saying that the textbook is bad? Do you think it would be fair to characterize you as an idiot if you make a mistake on a bad day?
I never went to any of his seminars, I did however read some of this other papers, he does try to make things simpler or easier to explain, he does very poorly at times doing so.
I remember an amusing interview he gave years ago (I must say he does seem like a really nice guy) where he was trying to explain why we were not heading into a recession and the economy was doing good (circa 2001, before 9/11) and was using data and citing stats that directly contradicted everything he was saying.
It was bizarre, and one of the reasons I call him an idiot (but the textbook thing was really frustratring), he doesn't seem to ever grasp that often he undermines his own statements, and seems baffled when someone says so. He also, while trying to be nie, seems to have real problems understanding why anyone would disagree him.....even after he somtimes gives them cause.
Blinder is an idiot.
It's really amazing how informative FReppers have become lately.
A bit slow to boot. Walter Mondale ran on this "issue" as one of his planks in 1984. Didn't impress too many poeple then either.
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.