News How has Bush economics affected the job market in the United States?

[aeroegnr]

All I've got to say is (in the words of Frederic Bastiat) :

VII. RESTRICTIONS

M. Prohibant (it was not I who gave him this name, but M. Charles Dupin) devoted his time and capital to converting the ore found on his land into iron. As nature had been more lavish towards the Belgians, they furnished the French with iron cheaper than M. Prohibant, which means, that all the French, or France, could obtain a given quantity of iron with less labour by buying it of the honest Flemings; therefore, guided by their own interest, they did not fail to do so, and every day there might be seen a multitude of nail-smiths, blacksmiths, cartwrights, machinists, farriers, and labourers, going themselves, or sending intermediates, to supply themselves in Belgium. This displeased M. Prohibant exceedingly.

At first, it occurred to him to put an end to this abuse by his own efforts; it was the least he could do, for he was the only sufferer. "I will take my carbine," said he; "I will put four pistols into my belt; I will fill my cartridge box; I will gird on my sword, and go thus equipped to the frontier. There, the first blacksmith, nailsmith, farrier, machinist, or locksmith, who presents himself to do his own business and not mine, I will kill, to teach him how to live." At the moment of starting, M. Prohibant made a few reflections which calmed down his warlike ardour a little. He said to himself, "In the first place, it is not absolutely impossible that the purchasers of iron, my countrymen and enemies, should take the thing ill, and, instead of letting me kill them, should kill me instead; and then, even were I to call out all my servants, we should not be able to defend the passages. In short, this proceeding would cost me very dear; much more so than the result would be worth."

M. Prohibant was on the point of resigning himself to his sad fate, that of being only as free as the rest of the world, when a ray of light darted across his brain. He recollected that at Paris there is a great manufactory of laws. "What is a law?" said he to himself. "It is a measure to which, when once it is decreed, be it good or bad, everybody is bound to conform. For the execution of the same a public force is organized, and to constitute the said public force, men and money are drawn from the nation. If, then, I could only get the great Parisian manufactory to pass a little law, 'Belgian iron is prohibited,' I should obtain the following results: The Government would replace the few valets that I was going to send to the frontier by 20,000 of the sons of those refractory blacksmiths, farmers, artisans, machinists, locksmiths, nailsmiths, and labourers. Then, to keep these 20,000 custom-house officers in health and good humour, it would distribute amongst them 25,000,000 of francs, taken from these blacksmiths, nailsmiths, artisans, and labourers. They would guard the frontier much better; would cost me nothing; I should not be exposed to the brutality of the brokers, should sell the iron at my own price, and have the sweet satisfaction of seeing our great people shamefully mystified. That would teach them to proclaim themselves perpetually the harbingers and promoters of progress in Europe. Oh! it would be a capital joke, and deserves to be tried."

So M. Prohibant went to the law manufactory. Another time, perhaps, I shall relate the story of his underhand dealings, but now I shall merely mention his visible proceedings. He brought the following consideration before the view of the legislating gentlemen:-

"Belgian iron is sold in France at ten francs, which obliges me to sell mine at the same price. I should like to sell at fifteen, but cannot do so on account of this Belgian iron, which I wish was at the bottom of the Red Sea. I beg you will make a law that no more Belgian iron shall enter France. Immediately I raise my price five francs, and these are the consequences: "For every hundred-weight of iron that I shall deliver to the public, I shall receive fifteen francs instead of ten; I shall grow rich more rapidly, extend my traffic, and employ more workmen. My workmen and I shall spend much more freely to the great advantage of our tradesmen for miles around. These latter, having more custom, will furnish more employment to trade, and activity on both sides will increase in the country. This fortunate piece of money, which you will drop into my strong-box, will, like a stone thrown into a lake, give birth to an infinite number of concentric circles."

Charmed with his discourse, delighted to learn that it is so easy to promote, by legislating, the prosperity of a people, the law-makers voted the restriction. "Talk of labour and economy," they said, "what is the use of these painful means of increasing the national wealth, when all that is wanted for this object is a Decree?"

And, in fact, the law produced all the consequences announced by M. Prohibant; the only thing was, it produced others which he had not foreseen. To do him justice, his reasoning was not false, but only incomplete. In endeavouring to obtain a privilege, he had taken cognizance of the effects which are seen, leaving in the background those which are not seen. He had pointed out only two personages, whereas there are three concerned in the affair. It is for us to supply this involuntary or premeditated omission.

It is true, the crown-piece, thus directed by law into M. Prohibant's strong-box, is advantageous to him and to those whose labour it would encourage; and if the Act had caused the crownpiece to descend from the moon, these good effects would not have been counterbalanced by any corresponding evils. Unfortunately, the mysterious piece of money does not come from the moon, but from the pocket of a blacksmith, or a nail-smith, or a cartwright, or a farrier, or a labourer, or a shipwright; in a word, from James B., who gives it now without receiving a grain more of iron than when he was paying ten francs. Thus, we can see at a glance that this very much alters the state of the case; for it is very evident that M. Prohibant's profit is compensated by James B.'s loss, and all that M. Prohibant can do with the crown-piece, for the encouragement of national labour, James B. might have done himself. The stone has only been thrown upon one part of the lake, because the law has prevented it from being thrown upon another.

Therefore, that which is not seen supersedes that which is seen, and at this point there remains, as the residue of the operation, a piece of injustice, and, sad to say, a piece of injustice perpetrated by the law!

This is not all. I have said that there is always a third person left in the back-ground. I must now bring him forward, that he may reveal to us a second loss of five francs. Then we shall have the entire results of the transaction.

James B. is the possessor of fifteen francs, the fruit of his labour. He is now free. What does he do with his fifteen francs? He purchases some article of fashion for ten francs, and with it he pays (or the intermediate pay for him) for the hundred-weight of Belgian iron. After this he has five francs left. He does not throw them into the river, but (and this is what is not seen) he gives them to some tradesman in exchange for some enjoyment; to a bookseller, for instance, for Bossuet's "Discourse on Universal History."

Thus, as far as national labour is concerned, it is encouraged to the amount of fifteen francs, viz.: -ten francs for the Paris article; five francs to the bookselling trade.

As to James B., he obtains for his fifteen francs two gratifications, viz.:

1st. A hundred-weight of iron.
2nd. A book.

The Decree is put in force. How does it affect the condition of James B.? How does it affect the national labour?

James B. pays every centime of his five francs to M. Prohibant, and therefore is deprived of the pleasure of a book, or of some other thing of equal value. He loses five francs. This must be admitted; it cannot fail to be admitted, that when the restriction raises the price of things, the consumer loses the difference.

But, then, it is said, national labour is the gainer.

No, it is not the gainer; for, since the Act, it is no more encouraged than it was before, to the amount of fifteen francs.

The only thing is that, since the Act, the fifteen francs of James B. go to the metal trade, while, before it was put in force, they were divided between the milliner and the bookseller.

The violence used by M. Prohibant on the frontier, or that which he causes to be used by the law, may be judged very differently in a moral point of view. Some persons consider that plunder is perfectly justifiable, if only sanctioned by law. But, for myself, I cannot imagine anything more aggravating. However it may be, the economical results are the same in both cases.

Look at the thing as you will; but if you are impartial, you will see that no good can come of legal or illegal plunder. We do not deny that it affords M. Prohibant, or his trade, or, if you will, national industry, a profit of five francs. But we affirm that it causes two losses, one to James B., who pays fifteen francs where he otherwise would have paid ten; the other to national industry, which does not receive the difference. Take your choice of these two losses, and compensate with it the profit which we allow. The other will prove not the less a dead loss. Here is the moral: To take by violence is not to produce, but to destroy. Truly, if taking by violence was producing, this country of ours would be a little richer than she is.

http://www.freedomsnest.com/bastiat.html

 

[aeroegnr]

this is why i love america, because of the opportunity we have to sustain a higher standard of living then most of the world.

And so other countries shouldn't have that opportunity as well, when they are willing to work harder and for less pay than we are, because we are so addicted to corporate welfare/government education/healthcare?

as for 3rd world countries go, don't preach on your soap box unless you have served time in the peace corps...

Well, then by that reasoning, don't express views about the president, any representatives, or any senators until you have been one yourself.

 

[Kerrie]

And so other countries shouldn't have that opportunity as well, when they are willing to work harder and for less pay than we are, because we are so addicted to corporate welfare/government education/healthcare?



Well, then by that reasoning, don't express views about the president, any representatives, or any senators until you have been one yourself.

those countries that hold themselves back from developing to what america has become must do it on their own. take china for example-a thriving economy today, a 3rd world communist country merely 30 years ago. i should also mention we are giving them a big helping hand with it by allowing all of our manufacturing jobs to go there. take a look around your home, how many things do you buy are made overseas? worse yet, how much produce do you buy that actually is being grown in the states? it's very scary when you start seeing how many apples come from south america when washington state's production has gone completely down the tubes. sorry, how can i advocate helping a third world country when i see this happening both within my company and as a consumer?

and yes, i can express my views of the president because since he has been in office, my company has laid off a 1/3 of the manufacturing jobs just to stay open and keep the rest of the 2/3 employed. stop picking apart my words because you can't present a real point. the point here in this thread is not that the Bush Administation entirely responsible for a recession, but what is willing to do about it? not much, terroism in a third world country is much more of a priority right now.

 

[Moonbear]

I can name companies like Tyson Foods, Frito Lay, Boeing, FMC, and many more in which life long time employees now fear the loss of their jobs. Boeing has layed off 30 year employees! This has never been seen before.

Actually, I have seen that before. In the mid-90s, this was quite common among the pharmaceutical and chemical manufacturing industries, at least in NJ where I was at the time. There were a lot of people who worked for those companies for a long time and were finding themselves laid off. Worse, they truly took advantage of the young employees, the ones they wanted to keep around but couldn't afford. They laid them off, then hired them back as temporary employees. This meant they did the same job for a lower salary and no benefits. They were glad to have any employment at all!

I sort of teeter between both party lines on this issue. When we are trying to recover from a recession, I hate seeing jobs outsourced to other countries. I don't think raising minimum wage has ever solved anything other than for a very short term, until the increased costs of labor have trickled through the economy to raise prices on everything and make the minimum wage once again a poverty level wage. I do think any job is better than no job. Sometimes you must swallow your pride and bring home a paycheck to put food on the table rather than wallowing around whining you can't get the job you want. On the other hand, I find it difficult to accept that someone should be allowed to starve to death because they can't earn enough to support their family when they had their children during a time when they thought they had job security and anticipated moving up, not down, in earnings levels.

One of our countries successes is also one of our problems. We have been doing a better and better job of getting higher education. People who never thought they could afford college have gotten to college. However, on the flip side, we now have a very highly skilled, highly qualified work force, and not nearly enough jobs requiring that level of qualification. You can't hire everyone on as bosses. Higher education does not guarantee higher employment. One can hope for a job in their field of study, but should never expect it. There seem to be a lot of people who think earning a diploma is supposed to automatically guarantee employment. It doesn't if everyone else with a diploma in the same field is competing for the same jobs and they are better qualified. Maybe I just have this attitude because I'm in academics, where we all are trained with the knowledge that more-or-less, someone has to die to create a job opening, and then the competition is fierce. When I was a grad student, we all practiced the phrase, "Do you want fries with that?" whenever someone mentioned jobs after graduation.

 

[Kerrie]

One can hope for a job in their field of study, but should never expect it. There seem to be a lot of people who think earning a diploma is supposed to automatically guarantee employment.

Moonbear, i simply couldn't agree with you more. Along with these "white collar" jobs though, the manufacturing jobs are also going. Interesting to note, I have no college degree, have completed maybe 2 years tops and earn 10K a year more then a gal I know with a bachelor's of animal science who works as a customer service rep rather then in the veterinarian field. My conclusion: A little determination, an eye for opportunity and never expecting a job to be handed to you will pay off in the long run. I think many americans forget that America truly is a land of opportunity, but you do have to put some effort into getting there.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Actually, I have seen that before. In the mid-90s, this was quite common among the pharmaceutical and chemical manufacturing industries, at least in NJ where I was at the time.

Yes those industries were hit first. I meant that this has never happened at the companies mentioned and many other that I have worked with. In fact I have heard the same story dozens of times, all over the country, and I don't see any quality jobs coming along to replace those lost. I believe in free trade, but not reckless abandon. We are becoming a country of Walmart workers, temporary or underemployed, non-benefited workers. Anyone who thinks this is good for America clearly hasn't a clue what's happening out there. There are no quality jobs to replace those lost.

Bush won't even recognize that the problem exists!

 

[thedude]

I get all my information from Socialist International :D http://www.socialistinternational.org :D

Oh and that's sure an unbiased source not filled with propaganday?

This guy is nuts. http://www.nodeity.com/tulbure.html for more info.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes those industries were hit first...

Great, so you're saying that this is a problem that has been growing for at least the past 15 years? Show me the data. I provided both unemployment stats and income stats that both show your assertions are simply false. Unemployment is relatively low and incomes continue to rise. Your opinion appears to me to be based on the classic fallacy of anecdotal evidence: you saw something happen somewhere so it must be happening everywhere. It isn't.

However, on the flip side, we now have a very highly skilled, highly qualified work force, and not nearly enough jobs requiring that level of qualification. You can't hire everyone on as bosses. Higher education does not guarantee higher employment. One can hope for a job in their field of study, but should never expect it. There seem to be a lot of people who think earning a diploma is supposed to automatically guarantee employment. It doesn't if everyone else with a diploma in the same field is competing for the same jobs and they are better qualified.

I have no college degree, have completed maybe 2 years tops and earn 10K a year more then a gal I know with a bachelor's of animal science who works as a customer service rep rather then in the veterinarian field. My conclusion: A little determination, an eye for opportunity and never expecting a job to be handed to you will pay off in the long run. I think many americans forget that America truly is a land of opportunity, but you do have to put some effort into getting there.

Well, that's just it - people today go to college because that's what they are expected to do. And with that comes the expectation of a certain life once they get their ticket punched. But this isn't the land of expectations, its the land of opportunity. If you don't sieze the opportunity, you won't get the life you expect. For you and me, that meant, first and foremost picking the right field. I guarantee you'll find more psychology grads than engineering grads tending bar. And you really are better off not even having a degree than having one that is useless.

From my perspective, (and this is the primary reason why I'm not a democrat), many people are looking at "the American dream" backwards. They misunderstand the meaning of the term "opportunity."

 

[russ_watters]

Now this I just love:

And so other countries shouldn't have that opportunity as well, when they are willing to work harder and for less pay than we are, because we are so addicted to corporate welfare/government education/healthcare?

Combining the various democratic ideas expressed here and you get: job outsourcing is bad for the US because valuable jobs leave here to go overseas, but job outsourcing is also bad for the countries that get the jobs because they are bad (low paying) jobs. Set aside for a moment all the data, history, and economic theory that says this is horse manure and marvel at the beauty of the doublethink. This is the second reason why I'm not a democrat.

 

[Moonbear]

Well, that's just it - people today go to college because that's what they are expected to do. And with that comes the expectation of a certain life once they get their ticket punched. But this isn't the land of expectations, its the land of opportunity. If you don't sieze the opportunity, you won't get the life you expect. For you and me, that meant, first and foremost picking the right field. I guarantee you'll find more psychology grads than engineering grads tending bar. And you really are better off not even having a degree than having one that is useless.

From my perspective, (and this is the primary reason why I'm not a democrat), many people are looking at "the American dream" backwards. They misunderstand the meaning of the term "opportunity."

So, given those views, what did you think of Bush's answers in last night's debate that the solution to unemployment is more education? Now, job training I can understand, if you lose your job and need to switch fields, you might need some assistance getting the qualifications to fill an opening in some area you haven't been working in for the past 20 years, but he made it sound like he was going to send everyone to college to solve unemployment. Now, if you're going to require a college education to dig a ditch, that might help, but it just seems to be devaluing a college education to say everyone can get one. Of course, as a professor, I'm very supportive of people getting college educations and expanding their knowledge, even if it's just for fun and not to get a job, but I'm also realistic that it isn't for everyone. Besides, spending 4 years in college isn't going to put food on the table for your family. I thought he was way off base on that one.

 

[aeroegnr]

Besides, spending 4 years in college isn't going to put food on the table for your family. I thought he was way off base on that one.

How about Kerry's plan to keep public schools open until 6pm? If anything we need less indoctrin... *ahem* schooling.

Students are spending 13 years of their lives locked up in a system and at the end of it, they can't read, write, or do simple math very well. That, and there is no other optional system, everyone is forced into that one.

If you add up all the time that students spend in school if they go to college, and assume that the first 5 years of no school are worthless for job making, and also assume an average lifespan of 75 years, people spend almost 1/3 of their life locked out of society. That's a lot of mind/muscle/fresh ideas to keep out of the world.

 

[Locrian]

Combining the various democratic ideas expressed here and you get:

Are you sure you aren't referring to the post he was reacting to? Because I did not interpret Arg's post the way you did at all; quite the opposite. I'm misunderstanding something.

 

[Kerrie]

Well, that's just it - people today go to college because that's what they are expected to do. And with that comes the expectation of a certain life once they get their ticket punched. But this isn't the land of expectations, its the land of opportunity. If you don't sieze the opportunity, you won't get the life you expect. For you and me, that meant, first and foremost picking the right field. I guarantee you'll find more psychology grads than engineering grads tending bar. And you really are better off not even having a degree than having one that is useless.

From my perspective, (and this is the primary reason why I'm not a democrat), many people are looking at "the American dream" backwards. They misunderstand the meaning of the term "opportunity."

Thank you Russ. American's in general are spoiled. Many believe they deserve that great job because they put in their time in college. Instead, they forget college gives them an edge (especially with technical education) in finding the job they think they will be most happy at. I don't think your comment insinuating this is a democratic view is accurate. I am a total democrat, but also understand how competitive it is today in this country when it comes to jobs. I think the main concern here though for those expressing their concern that jobs are going overseas is that opportunity is fading away. We are at a time now that we need to stop expecting higher wages and work from the bottom up-not expect to start on top.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Great, so you're saying that this is a problem that has been growing for at least the past 15 years? Show me the data. I provided both unemployment stats and income stats that both show your assertions are simply false"

Again you have failed to understand the most elemental aspects of what has been said. I cited the jobs you and Bush consider employment: Taxi Drivers, Donut salesmen, waitress, photolab operator at Bi-Rite... Maybe you consider these good opportunities for college grads, but no reasonable person would agree.

 

[selfAdjoint]

And don't forget that unemployment was redefined a dozen or so years ago to eliminate people who have given up and stopped searching for jobs. The numbers for previous years included those people so the unemployment rates from then and today are not directly comparable.

 

[Moonbear]

And don't forget that unemployment was redefined a dozen or so years ago to eliminate people who have given up and stopped searching for jobs. The numbers for previous years included those people so the unemployment rates from then and today are not directly comparable.

I wasn't aware of this! Wow, that probably changes a lot of the interpretation of the numbers. Is there any way to pull those numbers out of old data to make them more directly comparable to current numbers?

 

[Gokul43201]

I wasn't aware of this! Wow, that probably changes a lot of the interpretation of the numbers. Is there any way to pull those numbers out of old data to make them more directly comparable to current numbers?

I believe the Bureau of Labor refers to these folks under the category of "Persons not in the labor force". There are specific statistics for people that are not actively seeking work because of discouragement over job prospects. I'm not sure what the numbers are over the last 4 years. But over the last one year, the number of discouraged persons has increased from 388,000 to 412,000 or an increase of a little over 6%.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t13.htm
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

 

[Moonbear]

I believe the Bureau of Labor refers to these folks under the category of "Persons not in the labor force". There are specific statistics for people that are not actively seeking work because of discouragement over job prospects. I'm not sure what the numbers are over the last 4 years. But over the last one year, the number of discouraged persons has increased from 388,000 to 412,000 or an increase of a little over 6%.

Not actively seeking jobs because they are discouraged? We used to call them lazy good-for-nothings! I don't care how bad the prospects look, you keep pounding the pavement until you find something. I don't feel sorry for that group and don't want my taxes paying for them to sit around loafing all day.

When a single parent is working 3 jobs and still can't make ends meet to feed their kids and pay for child care, then I feel more generous with my tax money, and would bend over backward to help such a person.

 

[Gokul43201]

I think a good number of these people are pretty close to retirement, when they get laid off. So they look around, give up, and call it a day.

 

[aeroegnr]

A reflection of the times, in the words of de Tocqueville, who am I currently reading:

Starting page 491 of de Tocqueville's Democracy in America

"...During the campaigns of the Revolution the French introduced a new system of tactics into the art of war, which perplexed the oldest generals, and nearly destroyed the most ancient monarchies in Europe. They undertook (what had never before been attempted) to make shift without a number of things which have always been held to be indispensable in warfare; they required novel exertions on the part of their troops which no civilized nations had ever thought of; they achieved great actions in an incredibly short space of time; and they risked human life without hesitation to obtain the object in view. The French sources were infinitely inferior; nevertheless they were constantly victorious, until their adversaries chose to imitate their example.

The Americans have introduced a similar system into the commercial speculations; and they do for cheapness what the French did for conquest. The European sailor navigates with prudence; he only sets sail when the weather is favorable; if an unforeseen accident befalls him, he puts into port; at night he furls a portion of his canvas; and when the whitening billows intimate the vicinity of land, he checks his way, and takes an observation of the sun. But the American neglects these precautions and braves these dangers. He weighs anchor in the midst of tempestuous gales; by night and by day he spreads his sheets to the wind; he repairs as he goes along such damage as his vessel may have sustained from the storm; and when he at last approaches the term of his voyage, he darts onward to the shore as if he already descried a port. The Americans are often shipwrecked, but no trader crosses the seas so rapidly. And as they perform the same distance in a shorter time, they can perform it at a cheaper rate.

The European touches several times at different ports in the course of a long voyage; he loses a good deal of precious time in making the harbor, or in waiting for a favorable wind to leave it; and he pays daily dues to be allowed to remain there. The American starts from Boston to go to purchase tea in China; he arrives at Canton, stays there a few days, and then returns. In less than two years he has sailed as far as the entire circumference of the globe, and he has seen land but once. It is true that during a voyage of eight or ten months he has drunk brackish water and lived upon salt meat; that he has been in a continual contest with the sea, with disease, and with a tedious existence; but upon his return he can sell a pound of his tea for a half-penny less than the English merchant, and his purpose is accomplished...

...Nothing tends to materialize man, and to deprive his work of the faintest trace of mind, more than extreme division of labor. In a country like America, where men devoted to special occupations are rare, a long apprenticeship cannot be required from anyone who embraces a profession. The Americans, therefore, change their means of gaining a livelihood very readily; and they suit their occupations to the exigencies of the moment, in the manner most profitable to themselves. Men are to be met with who have successively been barristers, farmers, merchants, ministers of the gospel, and physicians. If the American be less perfect in each craft than the European, at least there is scarcely any trade with which he is utterly unacquainted. His capacity is more general, and the circle of his intelligence is enlarged.

The inhabitants of the United States are never fettered by the axioms of their profession; they escape from all the prejudices of their present station; they are not more attached to one line of operation than to another; they are not more prone to employ an old method than a new one; they have no rooted habits, and they easily shake off the influence which the habits of other nations might exercise upon their minds from a conviction that their country is unlike any other, and that its situation is without a precedent in the world...

...As Long as the sailors of the United States retain these inspiriting advantages, and the practical superiority which they derive from them, they will not only continue to supply the wants of the producers and consumers of their own country, but they will tend more and more to become, like the English, the factors of all other peoples."

How does this reflect upon outsourcing today?

 

[Microburst]

Gee wiz, it was Bush who came up with NAFTA, right?

Anyway, it sicken me to see so many idiots blame a president for loss of Jobs or give credit for new jobs.

There is VERY little a president can do to create or lose jobs. Too bad so many people have very little common sense.


Max

Actually a president can do a lot through foreign policies and local ones, the trick is how to stay competitive. I suggest bombing anyone who refuses to buy our products LOL J/K...

 

[russ_watters]

So, given those views, what did you think of Bush's answers in last night's debate that the solution to unemployment is more education?

Well, I would say better education. But that's a subtlety lost on the vast majority of the population. Yes, more, in general, is good, but it'll only take you so far.

... but it just seems to be devaluing a college education to say everyone can get one.

The way I see it, what devalues a college education is a glut of people getting useless degrees. An engineering degree is still worth today what it was worth 30 years ago. --actually, I'm doing about the same as my dad was at my age with less education. We're both engineers, he just has 3 degrees and I only have one.

All that said, there is a reality there that I'm well aware of: you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. You can send a kid to college, but you can't make him study or pick a worthwhile major. Yes, some of those kids would be better off just accepting that college isn't for them (frankly, a nice way of saying they're slackers) and getting some technical knowledge. We should encourage everyone to shoot for college - but those who show they can't do it chould be encouraged to get technical training. That's how it works in Germany (kids are targeted early and put on tracks) and their extremely high-skilled manufacturing shows it.

Of course, as a professor, I'm very supportive of people getting college educations and expanding their knowledge, even if it's just for fun and not to get a job...

I'm wholly opposed to that. I'm a big fan of realism. It made my college experience less fun than most of my friends', but I'm better off for it professionally today.

I don't think your comment insinuating this is a democratic view is accurate. I am a total democrat, but also understand how competitive it is today in this country when it comes to jobs.

Fair enough - I think you're breaking the mold, but that's just my perception based on my observations of a small slice of America.

Again you have failed to understand the most elemental aspects of what has been said. I cited the jobs you and Bush consider employment: Taxi Drivers, Donut salesmen, waitress, photolab operator at Bi-Rite... Maybe you consider these good opportunities for college grads, but no reasonable person would agree.

Well, I guess I fail to understand the difference between a "citation" and an "assertion." Since I don't see a link to a source, a quote, or any data, that looks to me like an "assertion" with no "citation" to back it up. Reasonable or not, I won't accept an argument not based on facts. Further, I won't even respond to the purposeful mischaracterization of my opinion there.

Ivan, you don't have to keep refusing to post the facts: I already posted them. They don't support your assertion, they quite directly contradict it.

 

[Moonbear]

Well, I would say better education. But that's a subtlety lost on the vast majority of the population.

If I recall correctly, I think Bush's better education answer, in terms of public schools, not college educations, was what he discussed in answer to the minimum wage question. In terms of what he would say to the worker whose job was outsourced, he said he give them money for more education, go to a community college, something like that.

I agree our public schools need improvement, but I don't think throwing money at them is going to help. If you have good teachers and parents who raise their kids to respect those teachers, then you could teach under a tent by drawing in sand and give those kids a good education.

Regardless, I think Bush dodged the outsourcing question completely in the debate. Okay, I know for the average person this would backfire, but I just so wish a political candidate would just once say, you know what, that is a really complex problem, I'm working on it, but no, I don't have a good solution for that one.

(As a side note, folks have probably noticed that in a number of topics previously, such as Iraq, I've held a predominantly Democratic position, whereas with domestic issues, I'm taking a more Republican position...this is why I don't belong to any party. )

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ivan, you don't have to keep refusing to post the facts: I already posted them. They don't support your assertion, they quite directly contradict it.

I only refuse to service your intentional mischaracterization of my posts. It seems that you don't need anyone to debate. You just make up both sides as you go. No wonder you support Bush.

I can cite perhaps hundreds of examples of large businesses that employ skilled labor, such as Boeing, that are leaving the country. The burden of proof is on you to show evidence of the new skilled jobs to replace the old ones. I already know that McDonalds is hiring.

Next, if we have no products to export, what produces wealth?

 

[Kerrie]

I only refuse to service your intentional mischaracterization of my posts. It seems that you don't need anyone to debate. You just make up both sides as you go. No wonder you support Bush.

I can cite perhaps hundreds of examples of large businesses that employ skilled labor, such as Boeing, that are leaving the country. The burden of proof is on you to show evidence of the new skilled jobs to replace the old ones. I already know that McDonalds is hiring.

Next, if we have no products to export, what produces wealth?

i have seen the same scenario within my own company ivan. you bring up a good point of what will produce wealth once manufacturing is completely gone.

 

[russ_watters]

...

I pretty much agree with all of that - though I didn't watch the debate, so I can't comment on that.

I can cite perhaps hundreds of examples of large businesses that employ skilled labor, such as Boeing, that are leaving the country. The burden of proof is on you to show evidence of the new skilled jobs to replace the old ones. I already know that McDonalds is hiring.

No, Ivan, as you well know, anecdotal evidence is incomplete evidence. A battle of anecdote vs anecdote is utterly meaningles. You haven't sown anything unless you can show me the statistics. But to save you the effort, I already have: unemployment is low and wages are high.

 

[Kerrie]

I pretty much agree with all of that - though I didn't watch the debate, so I can't comment on that. No, Ivan, as you well know, anecdotal evidence is incomplete evidence. A battle of anecdote vs anecdote is utterly meaningles. You haven't sown anything unless you can show me the statistics. But to save you the effort, I already have: unemployment is low and wages are high.

russ, as i understand it, you live on the east coast? ivan and i are both in oregon, a state that is suffering a higher unemployment rate then perhaps pennsylvania. giving total figures for the United States as a whole is a bit skewed. you have to realize that different regions of the usa experience slightly different economies. here is an article from the LOCAL newssource-

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/business/109784134456030.xml

quite honestly, i think ivan is voicing a very valid concern as i am experiencing in my own company here in oregon. (we both are in oregon)
note this line in the article:

Oregon's unemployment rate has ranked first or second worst in the nation for the past 38 months, Ayre said

 

[russ_watters]

russ, as i understand it, you live on the east coast? ivan and i are both in oregon, a state that is suffering a higher unemployment rate then perhaps pennsylvania. giving total figures for the United States as a whole is a bit skewed. you have to realize that different regions of the usa experience slightly different economies. here is an article from the LOCAL newssource-

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/business/109784134456030.xml

quite honestly, i think ivan is voicing a very valid concern as i am experiencing in my own company here in oregon. (we both are in oregon)
note this line in the article: [emphasis added]

Fine, Kerrie, I accept that things are worse than average in Oregon - what I object to is making up statistics to support a point, whcih Ivan did in another thread on the same subect. It isn't quite lying, but its close, and he's making the same argument here. I guess supporting the point with nothing is a step in the right direction from supporting the point with fabrications, but its not much in the right direction.

According to your article, Kerrie, the unemployment rate is 30% higher in Oregon than the national average. But Ivan claimed (made up statistics to support) that the number of people making minimum wage in Oregon is 20% when the national average is 3%. That's 567%. This is why I insist on real facts (which you have graciously provided).

edit(next morning): Rethinkig this, the fact that Oregon is doing worse than the national average means that Ivan's personal perceptions are not just incomplete, but are also skewed toward leading him to believe things are worse everywhere than they actually are. Ie, seeing unemployment at 7% in Oregon could lead him to assume its 7% in the whole country, when it isn't. This is a secondary danger with basing an opinion on personal perception and a limited set of facts.

 

[Moonbear]

How about Kerry's plan to keep public schools open until 6pm? If anything we need less indoctrin... *ahem* schooling

I didn't reply to this sooner because I didn't recall such a plan, so went to Kerry's website to see what it said. Here's what it says on his site http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/education/

Offer 3.5 Million After-School Opportunities Through "School's Open 'Til Six"
John Kerry and John Edwards are strong supporters of after-school programs. They give students extra help, keep them out of trouble, and offer peace of mind to working parents. The Kerry-Edwards "School's Open 'Til 'Six" initiative will offer after-school opportunities to 3.5 million children, through programs that are open until 6 p.m. and offer safe transportation for children.

So, he's not planning to force kids to stay in school until 6, he's setting up an after-school program. It's essentially an alternative to babysitters, daycare or stay-at-home parents. When I was in elementary school, we had similar programs available (for a small supplies fee) and I enjoyed them quite a bit. We had the option of taking some enrichment classes not offered as part of the regular curriculum, such as learning a foreign language or dance lessons. I've also taught after-school science classes for the same program, when I still lived in the same area. Of course, we didn't have the programs available year-round when I was in school, but they were so fun I wished they were longer. For some kids, just letting them stay in the school library or cafeteria to do their homework would be great, especially if it was a convenient place to meet with tutors without needing a parent to leave work to pick them up and drop them off somewhere else. I know my required routine as a kid, when I wasn't taking an afterschool class, was to go straight home and do homework until mom got home and made dinner (homework was done at the kitchen table, so we had to be done in time to set the table), so if I could have stayed with my friends in school and done homework together and not have to carry the books home, that would have been even better.

Anyway, it doesn't sound at all mandatory.

 

[aeroegnr]

Anyway, it doesn't sound at all mandatory.

I have no proof or anything other than the assertion that my best guess is that once stuff like this gets federal funding, it will become mandatory in time. Just like when Massachusetts started requiring compulsory school, the rest of the country soon followed suit. Or we saw from the Germans (pre world war I) how best to educate the masses.

I oppose any involvement of the federal government in education. When the federal government sets standards for schools nationally, they dictate how the country is going to look 20 years from now and later. That is not in the government's legitimate power.

After reading several books by John Taylor Gatto (in the process of fact checking it so that I know what I read isn't made up hogwash), I am stronger in my assertion that the federal government should have nothing to do with education. This is along with reading the works of Robert D. Honigman, Charlotte Thompson Iserbyt, George Orwell, Kurt Vonnegut.