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 ...
My debate was in whether Bush's comments addressed the core problems of getting folks back into jobs - and he failed, IMO, with the key point.
Training is very relevant with the loss of manufacturing jobs. It's the only hope the unemployed manufacturing worker has to gain meaningful employment.
You can train employees until the cows come home, but when someone with no labor or environmental protections in the Far East can make widgets for $1.20/hour, that isn't going to help much.
In 20 years... the admin assistant will be a thing of the past. A dinosaur...
Unless Louis Freeh is still working by then, since he won't use a computer.
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...
I don't think there's anything wrong with training, in fact it's needed. But IMO it's not the core problem here - we have a lot of very highly trained people who cannot find work nowadays.
Did the government spending contribute to this growth... yes... we split this. Governemnt spending and adding employees to the role is not the answer.
We're in agreement there.
There you go again, taking your ball and going home.
Just kidding, have a good weekend yourself.
I don't beat anybody with a stick, but, IMO, your best buddy over at LP, TLN, if he had the chance would try to beat Bush with a hickory stick.
Of course Bush would kick tubbyshow to Timbuktu, and once in Timbuktu your friend would be in the marketplace proclaiming he is the the only "seer of the truth, but good".
Nixon.
You answer my question as if it is self-evident; however, I'm pretty well informed in this area, and I'm not aware of any overt restrictions placed by China and/or India on foreign investment/trade.
To the contrary, China/India have experienced multi-billion capital investments from Japan, the US and EU. The net result is they import a huge amount of capital goods from those source countries as well.
If you can back-up your assertion that they have imposed trade restrictions, then you would go a long way towards convincing others to perhaps impose relatiatory tariffs.
If you can't, then you have a very weak position. I already know the answer, and so do the Dem/Repub leaders, which is why you aren't seeing any calls for restrictions.
There aren't any unfair trade policies holding back Americans. It's a pure economic shift were technology and service/skill transportability have conspired to create a unique situation where an established market is being rapidly displaced by the competition.
Unless you can back up your assertion, then you're advocating trade restrictions with no previous basis (according to Adam Smith and others) other than protection for protection's sake.
On the contrary, I'm very familiar with Smith, and well understand the two cases he states for protection: (1) retaliation, and (2) phased protection in cases were tariffs are being phased out as well to avoid wholesale displacement.
Perhaps you should re-read what Smith is saying. My reponse addressed these two cases and posed the question of which one(s) where applicable in this debate. Please resubmit your reply.
The capitalistic system from which we all benefit is based on one simple fact: there are NO guarantees. It is the threat of the wolf at the door, of being thrown out to the hobo village that keeps people on their toes.
Stress and worry are the backbone of our economy. Perhaps this should be taught more clearly in our schools. The lure/siren song of the socialist is security. Give up just a little bit of freedom and in return, they will protect you.
What we're seeing here on FR is not so much the lament of the unemployed, but the lamet of unemployed 35-45 year olds. Before 35, the world is your oyster, and every job seems like a stepping stone to a better position. After 45, reality sets in, and people are grateful for any job that puts food on the plate.
It's this awkard transitional phase, where knowledge workers who didn't pursue hated managerial positions are now complaining load and clear for all to hear. Before the Net, previous generations found solace in beer, bars and union sponsored riots.
Of course it's wholesale displacement. What's your point? That we should protect industries subject to technological shifts just, well, because?
Adam Smith called out three key areas that warranted protection: (1) defense, (2) retaliation, and (3) a phasing out of previous protections. Nowhere did he advocate protection for protection's sake, especially technological change.
The sudden availibility of offshore labor is precisely the condition the framers had in mind with regard to tariffs.
While I have the utmost respect for the Framer's political philosphy, they simply weren't adequately knowledgable about trade to make lasting theories. It's no mistake that while Adam Smith's seminal work was published during the same period, it still took the Brits another 50 years before they fully embraced his concepts (ie the repeal of the Corn tax).
The result is in the history books: GB exploded in economic activity and was the largest economy in the world until around WWI. Their capital investments built our railroads; the legacy of their pioneering work in accounting/auditing/banking/insurance is still with us today.
It's only after WWII that they rejected these ideals, with the predictable outcome. It took Thatcher to reverse course, with the net result that GB is once again the healthiest economy in Europe.
I for one would like to see some acknowledgement on your part that what you're advocating is not tariffs for purposes of defense, retaliation or phased recovery from a previous period of restrictions, but outright protection for protection's sake.
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.