LET'S TALK ABOUT "YOUR" JOBS

Nealz Nuze ^ | Wednesday, February 18, 2004 | Neal Boortz

[beaureguard]

Jobs .. and the economy. Those seem to be the issues that are driving many, if not most, of those who are supporting the Kerry candidacy.

First of all ... I'm going to repeat this simply because it makes the whiners so unbelievably angry. Listen up. They're not your jobs! The jobs belong to the employers .. not to you! You have job skills and, presumably, a willingness to work. Your task in a free economy is to get out there and find some employer with a job who needs your skills ... and strike a deal.

If you do not have the particular set of job skills that an employer needs, of if you have priced your labor out of the marketplace, guess what? It's not the employer's fault. The fault lies with you. Either develop a new set of job skills that are actually in demand, or adjust your pricing. The employer knows what he's looking for you. If you're not it .. it's your problem, not his.

Now ... you say you're going to vote for a Democrat this year because of jobs? You mean to tell me that you're going to vote against George Bush this year because you don't have a set of job skills that are in demand in our free marketplace? Yeah .. that makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?

Tell me. Just what do you want the president to do? You information technology people out there .. just what are you demanding? Do you want companies to stop outsourcing IT jobs to India? OK ... tell me how to do that. These companies aren't shipping parts overseas and completed products back. All they do is ship information overseas by phone lines or the Internet. Then that information is modified and shipped back the same way. What do you want the government .. the president to do? Do you want some federal law that prohibits companies from transmitting information overseas by the Internet, having that information transformed or modified, and then shipped back? And tell me just how do you enforce that law? Does that law then apply to you also if you seek information from a company that is located overseas, thus depriving a domestic company of your business?

Ditto for manufacturing. I've already told you the story about the California company that makes computer mouses. (computer mice?) This company ships the components to China. The mouse is assembled in China and shipped back, then sold for around $40. Why? Because the assembly is cheaper in China than it would be in the US. So, you say you want the president to force this company to have that mouse assembled in the US? Fine .. then the price for the mouse goes up to about $70 a pop and sales drop. As the sales drop the jobs of the people in this country who manufacture the components for that mouse go away. Then the 100 marketing jobs this company supports in California also go away. You see, perhaps you can succeed in forcing this company to assemble these mouses in the US, but there just isn't any way you can force the American consumer to pay 80% more for the "made in America" version.

As Bruce Bartlett says in an article listed in my reading assignments, "No nation has ever gotten rich by forcing its citizens to pay more for domestic goods and services that could have been procured more cheaply abroad."

What we are seeing here is a demonstration of the "government owes me" mentality of far too many Americans. Every time you arrive at a speed bump in your life's journey you start screaming to the government for help. Sure, the speed bump is going to slow you down a bit ... but just keep moving forward and things inevitably pick up speed again. Americans are becoming helpless whiners. The more helpless you are, and the more you whine, the more likely it is you're going to vote for a Democrat. Democrats specialize in stroking the malcontent.

Congratulations, whiners. At a time when America if fighting World War IV, the war against Islamic terrorism ... you're going to vote for a candidate who wants to treat terrorism as a freaking law enforcement problem because you've made some pitiful jobs choices. Pitiful.

[Jim Noble]

Other than Secretary of State and a few other positions, what does the President have to do with "jobs"?

[DustyMoment]

While I agree with the contention that the jobs belong to the employers, not the government, there is a serious disconnect with the economic model involved in exporting American jobs.

Let's evaluate some facts. For decades, American workers have been rated as among the most productive in the world. This productivity has driven a national economy that has allowed us to become the world's largest consumer nation.

When American companies export jobs to countries with lower wage scales, several things need to happen. The workers whose jobs were exported obviously need to obtain new ones. For many, that means accepting positions that pay substantially less than they were making in their previous occupation. Since they make less than they used to, they must lower their standard of living. Some may end up declaring bankruptcy since they can't support they debt they accrued from their former salary with their current lower salary. As more American workers readjust their standard of living, they begin consuming less; fewer luxuries, more necessities. At some point, this readjustment begins to affect our ability, as a nation, to maintain our current position as the world's largest consumer nation. The focus will shift to other countries better able to purchase more goods while America, facing its new reality, will find itself unable to negotiate previously lucrative prices for consumer goods.

Now, IF (a big IF), American corporations were to lower their prices for goods on an equivalent level to reflect the lower incomes many workers are having to accept after their jobs have been exported, we could likely retain our position as the world's largest consumer nation. But, that's not what we are seeing. We are seeing many high-paying jobs being exported to low-wage nations and the folks who formerly held those jobs having to take lower paying jobs while the prices remain high. The ultimate end result is that over-paid CEOs will rake in higher salaries in the short-term until the economic bubble bursts from the devastating effects of the domino theory. At that point, American CEOs will have successfully levied America into Third World territory and we will fall from our current position as world leader and a free nation.

We don't necessarily need government intervention into the job market, but the corporations exporting those jobs should be required to demonstrate that the offshore recipients of those jobs are as capable as Americans at performing the same jobs with the same efficiency. Anecdotal evidence disagrees with the contention that offshore workers are as efficient and productive as American workers. It remains to be seen how long this trend will last. When NAFTA was passed, many companies couldn't wait to ship jobs to Mexico. For most, after dealing with poor quality in the products sent to Mexico for manufacture or assembly, the jobs were quietly returned to the US after a couple of years on average. We may just have to wait this one out.

[Liberatio]

He did say he will vote for Bush, but will vote Libertarian everywhere else.

[MEG33]

Why the glee if you were a supporter?You will have Kerry for President and it fills you with GLEE?

[William Terrell]

Sure the jobs belong to the corporations, but the corporations belong to and are creatures of United States, which is us, and all that implies.

[Dead Corpse]

The values which drive capitalism are often antithetical to Christianity.

The antithesis of capitalism is communism, so you are saying Christians are communists? Not trying to start a fight here, but that comment has logical holes big enough to drive a mac truck through. It just doesn't jive with the rest of your post. Am I reading it wrong?

[Taliesan]

I agree with everything in Amos. American society does not.

[Taliesan]

Christians are not communists if they have their heads screwed on straight.

Again, the values which drive capitalism are often corrupt values.

Not sure what your struggle is here.

[kaylar]

I thought I read that the military actually will not outsource sensitive defense contracts? Maybe I missed that they actually do?

Well, I should hope they wouldn't...But all we need is one more WJC, and the law be d*mned, they'll outsource everything. Remember that back-door attempt at giving China control over our very BULLETS, through the 'green ammo' gambit? Don'tknow how that came out...Guess I have something to google.

I am voting for Bush,because I regard the WOT as THE most important thing-even more important than the economy. We have to make the Islamists see that they will NOT be allowed to strike us with impunity, and they will NOT be allowed to conquer the US, either through war or our laws, but I wonder just how many economically hurting people feel that way.

[Cronos]

I'm scratchin my head. Supply & demand of the product and/or service determines whether I need to hire or not. The employer and product\service generally exist before the need to hire exists. What's your point ?

The point is that the government should now tell you who you can hire.

[Taliesan]

Since they make less than they used to, they must lower their standard of living. Some may end up declaring bankruptcy since they can't support they debt they accrued from their former salary with their current lower salary. As more American workers readjust their standard of living, they begin consuming less; fewer luxuries, more necessities.

You are assuming there is no other subset whose consumption increases.

[kaylar]

I read about a hospital in a large northeastern city-Boston?-where 1/4 of the nursing staff was let go,due to "overstaffing". Before 90 days had passed,more nurses were hired than had been let go-all from the Phillipines, and all at 7-9 dollars an hour.

[kaylar]

I read about a hospital in a large northeastern city-Boston?-where 1/4 of the nursing staff was let go,due to "overstaffing". Before 90 days had passed,more nurses were hired than had been let go-all from the Phillipines, and all at 7-9 dollars an hour.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Over the last two or three years I've even started hiring local teenagers to help me out after school. I can't pay them a great deal of money, but they get hands on experience to go with their career center training.

You wanna get more profits?

Do like all these corportations do, hire illegal aliens. They work for near nothing, don't complain like lazy Americans, or ask for benefits. Hell, they wont even complain about lousy working conditions. Ditch the lazy teenagers and get yourself some illegal aliens.

[Jhoffa_]

Listen up. They're not your jobs! The jobs belong to the employers .. not to you! You have job skills and, presumably, a willingness to work. Your task in a free economy is to get out there and find some employer with a job who needs your skills ... and strike a deal.

Thanks for the ping.

I agree with Boortz on this account, btw. I know it's not a popular point of view, but that's the way our free market works. To say anything less is to say that someone, somewhere is "owed" a job.

This is incorrect and foolhardy in my opinion. It borderlines on union-speak.

However, Congress does set trade policy.. the President signs bill related to this. Then can affect the viability of a particular skill set, product or process with the stroke of a pen.

In this realm, people have a perfect right to be angry, and vote any damn way they please. Because, just as in our free market example above, no one in elected office is "owed" a vote, either.

^ IMVHO.

[Cronos]

Similar reason why Russia CANNOT become a banana republic - it is too cold for bananas.

You jest! A banana Republic is one that depends on a single commodity to keep afloat -- like many Central American and West African countries. Russia won't become a banana republic (it could become other things) -- it's too big and it's economy is too diversified. I would call SAudi A, Iran, Norway, Brunei as banana republics (no wait on Iran and Norway are republics).

[No.6]

"Time for a depression in this country again. A severe depression where everyone gets clobbered."

Oh yea, that'd be great. Last time we got one of those the Dem president stacked the Supreme Court and ramrodded the "Great Society" er, Great Big Socialism down our throat.

Imagine what another Dem might do "in the public need" with another depression?

[FBD]

Boortz makes a good point, eh?

"And if anyone thinks -- for one moment -- people will ask any one of the *reasoned* questions this author posits, while they & their neighbor's livlihoods are concurrently being eliminated & sent to 3rd world locations overseas?"

*sigh*

[MrB]

Christians are not communists if they have their heads screwed on straight.

This comes down to the difference between free will and imposed will (force). Choosing to not be corrupted by forces of capitalism while remaining free
is greatly different from communism forced by an outside entity (government).

Of course, force is the only way that communism/socialism "works"

[Leatherneck_MT]

Better idea, NO Lawyers should be allowed to hold either Political Power OR Judgeships. Matter of fact.. I see no problem with packing all the lawyers onto a large barge and sinking it in the atlantic :o)