Posted on 07/31/2003 11:53:32 AM PDT by Florida_Irish
During a Wednesday morning (July 30th) press conference, President Bush was asked a question about jobs going overseas as a result of technological innovation. His response was:
"I fully understand what you're saying. In other words, as technology races through the economy, a lot of times worker skills don't keep up with technological change."
Many people have taken his response to mean that unemployment in the high-tech sector is the result of American workers who allowed their skills to become obsolete. This is an unacceptable explanation.
(Excerpt) Read more at capwiz.com ...
And, by the way, you do take you ball and go home when you are losing the debate. You did it with me the only time we debated, and you did it with southack.
Sheesh, leave that type of rhetoric on TLB's Biker Bar. Yunz guys are in meltdown, IMO, with your(bvw) cryptic messages on FR, and dirt's kicking and screaming about his misconstruation about Bush's remarks and making a fool of himself.
Me too. Worked with enough of them to know the subject quite well.
Yes, killing the H1-B program (and the L1 program, and the TN visas via NAFTA) will delay the inevitable decline of the IT industry. So if delaying the inevitable is your goal, so be it.
Actually, it's not inevitable. The company I work for is trying to insource everything now. So, in the end, this may be a competitive issue - which makes more sense in the long run, outsourcing or insourcing? Having looked at the future of IT, IMO, in the form of tools such as Ab Initio, I think insourcing will come out ahead. But we don't have to keep policies in place that make matters worse for American workers during that transition, that time of uncertainty. I don't think IT workers are looking for a handout, just some fairness.
I can set my watch by the time you come wading into threads. Guess the school bus gets to your home about 3:50 Eastern.
Dane, I already showed that Bush's comments were not misconstrued, since you could never be bothered to post YOUR case about how I was misconstruing them.
Be so kind as to point it out to me.
Actually, a lot of the time I just plain go home, has nothing to do with the debate.
Uh dirt, I guess you are immune to knowledge. It is August 1st, and 90% of those in primary, junior, and high school are on vacation.
But what the hey, your lame above italicized passage is all you have.
I am not surprised since your boss Terry MaCauliffe uses old ad hominems all the time.
JMO, but you are giving Dashole a run for his money in the kicking and screaming, and being an ass department. He may get jealous.
I.E. a malcontents paradise.
BTW, name the last malcontent elected President?
The headline written by the IEEE claimed that the President Blames Unemployment On Lack of Tech Skills. He did not.
That I agree is not an accurate headline. I posted a separate thread after this one was initially yanked that was titled something along the lines of " Bush's comments regarding employment training”. However, I do think that, since the reporter’s question did mention outsourcing, that the subject is in play – Bush, by not responding to that aspect of it, indicates that his administration has no plans to address it, and an article from the Financial Times of India claims just that – that the Bush Admin will asks states trying to combat outsourcing to back off.
635:
It all depends on who is looking for a job. Let's say the person looking for a job has one skill. He is able to put widget a in hole b. In this job market... not much call for a widget guy. So, $3,000 worth of training will be the difference between his getting hired or not.
With the loss of manufacturing jobs, it might be irrelevant.
Now, meet the average administrative assistant. Good skills on word, good on excel, does good on powerpoint. Laid off due to down sizing... $3,000 will enable that person to be able to include some desktop publishing, maybe some web design... her portfolio is fatter. So the $3,000 has helped.
Considering our floor has all of two admin assistants, and most people do all their own work nowadays, including travel arrangements, and Word does the work of desktop publishing nowadays, I think even that won’t accomplish much.
Now, meet the Kmart employee... He's resume says he can stock shelves. $3,000 may enable him to go to a tech school to learn a skill. That will make him more employable.
I look at machining. It used to pay $40K a year. Now machinists have been laid off in droves.
Vice President of Marketing is downsized. $3,000 isn't going to help him much.
That’s OK, every VP of Marketing I’ve ever known ain’t worth $3,000 anyway.
The IT sector... jobs disappearing overseas...no, $3,000 isn't going to help that person. But, let's be honest, IT workers are a dime a dozen. And in every class I sit in at the university is 1/2 IT or IS or something. But that doesn't justify the outsourcing of jobs.
As I told Southack, my company is actually bucking this trend and is insourcing jobs – as a strategic directive. So we’ll see who wins and who looses, and in the end that’s the best way to arrest the decline – figure out how to make keeping good-paying jobs here in the U.S. a competitive advantage for companies. But our current government policies, IMO, encourage short-term thinking.
652:
Did the economy grow by 2.4% or not...
Over half of that growth was due to increased government spending. That’s not the kind of growth that sustains a solid economy in the long run, nor do I care to have more government employees added to address the unemployment problem.
I always figured you to be summer-school material to keep up with your classmates.
Terry MaCauliffe ... Dashole
Dane, here it is, August 1, and you're still using the same [insert Dem figure] line of attack. It's time to switch back to [insert third party] line of attack. Geez, your mom must have to write FRONT and BACK on your underwear with a big fat Sharpie pen so you know how to put them on.
Well gee you could have stated that several hundred replies ago, but you didn't.
Uh, Dane, I was debating what Bush actually said, not the headline.
To me, this was the debate.
With the loss of manufacturing jobs, it might be irrelevant.
Training is very relevant with the loss of manufacturing jobs. It's the only hope the unemployed manufacturing worker has to gain meaningful employment. If there are not manufacturing jobs, then he has to change and grow... $3,000 will allow the process to begin.
Considering our floor has all of two admin assistants, and most people do all their own work nowadays, including travel arrangements, and Word does the work of desktop publishing nowadays, I think even that won’t accomplish much.
Right and wrong... the job still exists because of older management who will not do these things for themselves. To be competitive, it is important for the admin assistant to bring as much to the table as she can. In 20 years... the admin assistant will be a thing of the past. A dinosaur...
Kmart employee...
You are missing the point the argument... the point we agree on is that jobs are disappearing... the point you miss that these workers are going to have to change their skills if they want to gain employment... the only way they are going to do that is to be trained in another field... The training program the President spoke of will do this... or begin to do this...
652...did the economy grow. Yes, it grew by 2.4%. That's a fact. Did the government spending contribute to this growth... yes... we split this. Governemnt spending and adding employees to the role is not the answer.
I have to leave for the evening... I hope you have a great weekend.
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.