Methinks you don’t give the Indians enough credit. I’ve worked with many East Indians; they are highly skilled and will work for 50% pay. The average education there might be worse than America’s, but they still have millions of people whose intelligence runs circles around the average American. Microsoft is building a huge software development center there. No doubt other companies are following suit. Other countries are just as smart, they just need better English.
In terms of educaitonal infrastructure, China, India, obviously the asian tigers, and a few others are catching up with the west. Some in the Americas might only have an elite go to university, but its enough to make sure that they pose a threat to the wests pre-eminence. So, as the balance swings away from Europe and the USA, what are we going to do about it? All you need to do is consider the fact that a lot of Boeings aircraft, such as the wings, are built in China.
Consider that many of the best and brightest in the US universities are Chinese and Indian. I believe in China the government pays for you to go and come back and invest ur emmense intellectual capital back into the system. The US is providing for her own hi-tech collapse. It is really sad for the US, in 1998 the US had a huge hi-tech surplus with the rest of the world, the US was in the new revolution. But now the US has a huge hi-tech deficit. Things are not looking good at all...
I'm not saying they're stupid, nor am I saying that they don't deserve jobs. They're only getting jobs from our companies because our companies can pay them half as much, which is wrong. If they do the same work that Americans do there is absolutely no reason for them to be paid a cent less. If that were the case I wouldn't care about the job loss in America. If we'd want a job, we could move to India, that's where the jobs are. I don't believe it. How could we have created that many jobs if that many people weren't even unemployed? Explain. Some factions are better than others, apparently. Source? If we were losing more jobs back then why wasn't it an issue? No, I'm telling them that it's more beneficial to stay here. They get breaks here, and they can't get cheaper labor anywhere else. I'd be willing to pay an extra ten cents for my coffee if it paid the people that made it abroad as much as people that make it in the US. Their wages are not increasing on their own. Wages never increase on their own. It takes labor movements and strikes. That's no justification. Regardless, according to the CIA World Factbook our "fake economy" is the best in the world. Oh, okay, go move to India Nico. I'm sure they'd love you there. Pretty substantial difference I think. $2,600 GDP per capita as opposed to our $37,600. Sure, things must be just dandy there, Nico. Living in India sucks. Back it up. I don't believe it. The CIA World Factbook said otherwise. Source. I looked at a pattern. He was president, economy did well. Bushes were president, reagan was president, economy did bad. Sometimes. It happened to Carter. When exactly did it happen? Clinton had eight years as president. I acknowledged earlier that the recession did begin under him, but only at the very very end of his last term, maybe even after Bush was elected but before he was inaugurated. And these patterns do not change every ten years or so. The economy was total crap way back before Carter, into Reagan's entire president, Bush's presidency, early Clinton. Then it got better. Now it sucks again. It's not just a decayear cycle. It has to be more complicated than that.
I don't believe it. I don't care what you believe or not, that is irrelevant the US economy generated 21 million jobs. How? Well have you ever thought of these factors: i) Unemployed from Bush years got employed ii) Population reaching working age, thus increasing # of workers. iii) Immigration Last time I checked Pollux the US population has grown quite significantly since 1992. How could we have created that many jobs if that many people weren't even unemployed? Explain. How do you know this? Show me the math please. Enough on the rhectoric's. Some factions are better than others, apparently. Sure some cater to oil and gas and others to big unions. Source? If we were losing more jobs back then why wasn't it an issue? Because jobs were being created back then, jobs being lost was not an issue. Thus no one cared and no one noticed, thus companies flooded out. No, I'm telling them that it's more beneficial to stay here. They get breaks here, and they can't get cheaper labor anywhere else. Those breaks are not going to be sufficent enough to compell them to stay here. They would be forced into accepting high paid workers, and they have no choice. With that goes profit margins, and the economy. The companies will most likely downsize creating more unemployment, prices go up and the economy falters. This has already happened in the past: UK, and Argentina good examples. I'd be willing to pay an extra ten cents for my coffee if it paid the people that made it abroad as much as people that make it in the US. You are one person out of millions of consumers who look for low prices. If they can coffee for $2.50, instead of $2.70 they will get the former. That is the whole premise of capitalism, and globalization. Americans simply cannot afford to live in a country that has no importations of cheap goods. Their wages are not increasing on their own. Wages never increase on their own. It takes labor movements and strikes. Wages have gone down adjusted for inflation, a full $6. That's no justification. To you no...but you are irrelevant. Regardless, according to the CIA World Factbook our "fake economy" is the best in the world. No actually the US is not the "best" in the world, if we go to real economic progress right now China is the best in the world, and will usurp the US very soon. And of course it is fake, everything is built on debt. Argentina had the "best" economy in latin america in the 90's too mein friend. Oh, okay, go move to India Nico. I'm sure they'd love you there. Would love to visit why not? But India is not a hell hole, it has high literacy, increasing innovation, and employing more hi-tech employees then Silicon Valley in Banglalore. You are too young to see ur overt centrism. Pretty substantial difference I think. $2,600 GDP per capita as opposed to our $37,600. Sure, things must be just dandy there, Nico. Oh poor Pollux you let these numbers fool you. Firstly goods in India cost much less then they do in the US, one dollar there can get u more things. The Indians obviously live in worse conditions, or less then Americans. But the US will be forced to go down, as prices go down, as will wages (as they have), and synthesis will eventually be reached. Living in India sucks. You know this through? Empirical obversation I assume? Don't talk smack please it is not becoming of you. Back it up. Do enjoy.... http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_581121,00030007.htm I don't believe it. The CIA World Factbook said otherwise. Source. The CIA said nothing about jobs Pollux what are you talking about? There have been 20.7 million jobs created in the domestic economy since 1992. In the last column of the table, these jobs are allocated in proportion to the change in real output in each sector. These estimates show that, while rising exports created about 4.1 million jobs, rising imports lost 7.3 million, for a net effect of 3.2 million jobs lost due to trade. http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issuebriefs_ib139 Do enjoy... I looked at a pattern. He was president, economy did well. Bushes were president, reagan was president, economy did bad. Under Reagan the economy boomed, what are you talking about? Sometimes. It happened to Carter. It usually happens, the seeds of economic discontent are usually found in the predecessor.
And Pollux you want to know the difference that really matters btwn India and the US? India: Labor force:406 million (1999) Labor force: 141.8 million (includes unemployed) (2001) Labour costs per hour (USD) India: .66 United States: 20.87 So let's say all of India's labour force was employed at that rate of .66, per hour wages would amount to $267 million. Let's say the same for the US, you would have to spend $295 million for 1.4 the workers, doing much less work. That's the only difference that really matters.
I'll concede the point. But doesn't this work against your argument? Correct me if I'm wrong, but we seem to still be gaining here. Provide a source to prove that we were losing jobs to other countries. If they all downsize then how are any of them supposed to make money? If everyone stops employing, the unemployed spend as little as possible. Prices would not go up because there would be no one to buy anything. I don't know about the UK, but Argentina is in the position that it's in because it borrows too much of its money, that's all. Goddamn world banks charge too much interest. There needs to be an organization that helps countries get out of debt, any country, whether it's the US or Brazil. We have plenty of organizations like that for individual people, why not individual nations? I'd buy the $2.70 if I knew that the company was fairly paying its workers relative to current United States labor laws. Source? Being an American who will be able to vote in two years I'd say that I am more relevant than you nico, as I believe you are Canadian? Yes, sure it will. Everything is written in stone. Utah's going to be the capital of God's Kingdom, too. Costa Rica has the best economy in Latin America, buddy boy. Not visit, stay. Yes nico ur so much older and more maturer than me. I was conceded this point. If it's so obvious nico I'm curious as to why you aren't conceding? Just because you say they will, oh prophet nico. You just agreed with me! There was rampant poverty in the United States under Reagan, inflation was out of control, as I recall the FCC was trying to pull as much money out of circulation as they could by raising their rates to 20%. The deficit was higher than it is now.
"Methodically trashed"? By what? The rebound is funded by a massive tax cut. The budget deficit has more to do with an idiotic Medicare handout bill than the tax cuts.
[/B]I'll concede the point. You'll be saying that a lot more... But doesn't this work against your argument? Correct me if I'm wrong, but we seem to still be gaining here. WAS gaining jobs, yes. The US was going through a economic boom during the roaring 90's. But the US was doing that in the 20's too, and in the 20's the US debt exploded, as it did in the 90's...hmmmmmm....interesting. American companies are employing less workers because: i) Technology has made the worker much more productive, thus jobs are redundant and thustly eliminated. ii) Cheap overseas labour. Provide a source to prove that we were losing jobs to other countries. Firstly turn on your TV at 6:00 pm est, on CNN. You'll see if you are ADD enough here: http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.dobbs.tonight/ Read and watch exporting America Very interesting. If they all downsize then how are any of them supposed to make money? OH GOD here I have to teach again... ok Pollux the world is not the United States concede? Ok, now since jobs are going to China for instance they are creating markets in China. Which has a larger market then the US non? Ok so the money going to China is employing more workers, and thus creating more markets, and with wages rising and inflation nearly 0 in China you get a market. Last year car sales in China boomed 13%, in the US did it even grow? The US is an exploited market, India, and China aren't. It is in the best interests of TNC's to increase wages in China and employ more ppl then fewer high paid workers in the US. Prices would not go up because there would be no one to buy anything. You aren't making any sense now Pollux. You said that you will stop the exportation of jobs, which essentially means closing the US to imports, which will create a shortage of goods, and thus an increase in prices for goods that are rare. Your economic plan is laughable at best. I don't know about the UK, Yet you still talk? but Argentina is in the position that it's in because it borrows too much of its money, that's all. Goddamn world banks charge too much interest. There needs to be an organization that helps countries get out of debt, any country, whether it's the US or Brazil. We have plenty of organizations like that for individual people, why not individual nations? I am talking Argentina 80's not 90's, but let's use 90's sure why not. The US is no different then Argentina, you owe the world $3 trillion. Yes banks and other nations charge too much interest but interest is the whole reason why ppl lend money, and Argentina knew what it was getting itself into. Amnesty should be made to the billions inherited from the dictators, but that won't happen. Your idealism is something that I am forced to respect, but it is nothing more then mere idealism. I'd buy the $2.70 if I knew that the company was fairly paying its workers relative to current United States labor laws. I assume then Pollux you are every single American citizen? Source? JPS showed me, and good ole Lou Dobbs. Being an American who will be able to vote in two years I'd say that I am more relevant than you nico, as I believe you are Canadian? I am undecided; if you continue to use nico your posts will be deleted. Secondly I can vote and I can make a difference, but I resign to the fate that Globalization is here to stay. You cannot do anything that is actually meaningful unless of course you have a lobby in Washington. Yes, sure it will. Everything is written in stone. Utah's going to be the capital of God's Kingdom, too. If you say so, but since that was a surrender as big as the French in 1940. I'll take it you agree with me. Costa Rica has the best economy in Latin America, buddy boy. LOL, your undeserved condescension is seriously killing me. Argentina was considered the poster boy for neo-liberalist reforms in the 90's the model for the rest of Latin America. But of course since it seems you have ADD you missed this: Not visit, stay. Sure, if I have an American job that pays well. Yes nico ur so much older and more maturer than me. I was conceded this point. I am, and it's evident, and the last portion of ur sentence makes no sense. If it's so obvious nico I'm curious as to why you aren't conceding? But you are asserting it is a hell hole, not moi. There is nothing to concede. Just because you say they will, oh prophet nico. Thank you for agreeing with me, surrender #2. You just agreed with me! Right... obviously you don't know what the sentence means. There was rampant poverty in the United States under Reagan, inflation was out of control, as I recall the FCC was trying to pull as much money out of circulation as they could by raising their rates to 20%. The deficit was higher than it is now When ignorance abounds my friend, when ignorance abounds. Reagan had to go through these reforms early in his term to transform the US economy from a Keynesian model to a neo-liberalist one. By 1983-84 the US economy was red hot; this was common in the UK in the early 80's as well. It was the painful transition. Reagan's term lasted longer then 2 years Pollux.
Why is it wrong? If they can’t hire the cheapest labor, why should you be allowed to buy a product from the cheapest source? Who would decide how much is the right amount to pay for a job?
I think I already covered that earlier in this thread. By tax cuts, rollbacks on environmental regs, silencing his scientific advisers, being a huge pessimist, spending hundreds of billions and killing thousands of civilians to hand Iraq to Bush Oil, increasing logging, ignoring the Constitution, supporting religious issues, trying to un-preserve a preserve to give even more oil to Bush Oil, spreading fear with useless colored alerts, giving allies the finger, initiating a Mars project that will rain a fintillion dillion dollars in taxpayer money on his corporate sponsors just so humans can pick up the same rocks that machines are examining now, & on & on. We can always debate about what caused what. The bottom line is that Bush’s net economic performance is horrible. A moderate rebound is not a gold star when it is preceded by a giant plunge in value. Three years is enough time for a president to take full ownership of the economy. Bush is responsible for taking the country downward.
My economy would be red hot too if the banks let me borrow a few trillion dollars. Reagan gets negative points for his performance. The economy wasn’t hot enough to justify the huge increase in debt for which people decades from now will still be liable.
My economy would be red hot too if the banks let me borrow a few trillion dollars. Reagan gets negative points for his performance. The economy wasn’t hot enough to justify the huge increase in debt for which people decades from now will still be liable. I totally agree, that is why I call American economic growth since Reagan as faux.
Three years? zanket, you must be joking. Three years are short-term effects and as we all know from short term effects they evaporate and leave the country with bigger problems. However most people will take 400 dollars now, instead of 10 dollars every month of their life. The economy is going to be restructured and I guarantee you, the next term no matter what president will have a booming economy. Every economic boom was preceded with economic restructuring. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=&e=5&u=/ap/20040227/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy_24
The economy is going to be restructured and I guarantee you, the next term no matter what president will have a booming economy. For who? The worker or the Corps?
The corps? The corporations? I really don't need to go into just how good corporations have been for the United States and the American worker, do I? Do I?
Historically yes you have a point, but what happened in 1920 has no bearing on us today. Corps. today are exporting jobs galore, and they don't even tell their employees until it's too late. Remember Corps. did not increase the standards of their employees if it wasn't for Unions and if it wasn't for government intervention. This is shown in nations like China, and India. If the corps. could get away with it they would. Most of the jobs in the US are those of small business, not corps. they are flooding out.
Hey, just thought I'd mention that the UK economy wasnt hot in the early 1980's, was very hot around london in 1987, then cooled down somewhat. It didnt actually get anywhere until the 90's. I personally dont think the politicians have that much effect on the economy, especially when you consider that the Clinton through to bush money policy seems to have been under GReenspans control, and both pretty much have tinkered with the total set up. yes, I know adding to the deficit isnt quite tinkering, but you know what i mean. "I really don't need to go into just how good corporations have been for the United States and the American worker, do I? Do I?" They have been good and bad. Obviously i dont need to mention the trusts. Or perhaps the sclerosis and waste in the 60's and 70's. Or perhaps the way that actual purchasing power of the average wage has decreased over the past 20 years, obviously that has nothing to do with the corporations either. (OK, I'll admit they've been useful at various times as well, but you have to see both sides.)
Boohoo. Exporting those jobs to India and China is keeping my family's health insurance premiums down, along with a lot of other bills that would be a lot higher if the corporations had to pay what they would to American workers. Its a free country. The corporations can hire workers wherever they want. You do know the goverment control in India and China is far bigger same goes for the unionazation of workers. I don't thing it is because of that that workers got better living standards. Hell I work I get above standard required treatment and above avarage pay. Why would they do that? Maybe because they want to attract good employees?
Hey I agree with you, I am just being a devils advocate. I am a globalist as well, but I recognize that Globalization and democracy are a dangerous combo.
