CDZ Times, they are a changin'...you need to change with them or get left behind

[320 Years of History]

It seems almost daily that folks decry that their jobs have been "exported" to other countries. Hello!

• What part of the globalized economy did they not see coming over the past half century? What part of the basic laws of supply and demand did they think weren't "on point?"
• What part of "profit motive" is so lost on them that they don't understand why a company would opt to use less dear labor provided in other countries?
• What about there being 1.7 billion people who speak Mandarin and 1.1 billion who speak Hindi suggests to them that speaking only English will be sufficient going forward?
• What about waking to see the dawn of the information age suggests that tangible production of goods is where most U.S. jobs will exist in the future?
• What about the advances in miniaturization and robotics makes folks think that their rote-work job won't soon be done by a machine?

In my mind, if one can't "see the writing on the wall," "writing" that isn't remotely speculative but that is instead as sure as the day is long, one deserves to find oneself in the position of bemoaning the stuff folks are "on about" these days re: jobs being exported or performed by machines. Frankly, I'm just sick and tired of all the whiners, and the politicians who pander to them. Get over it. Time are changing and you need to change with them. Period.

Hello OP,

First I would like to ask who are those "folks" you are taking as reference? I would like a concrete answer to begin this discussion, not just a generalized aggroupation such as you have already done (whiners, politicians, etc). Do you have actual names and authentic profiles?

It seems to me you are just being swayed by a trend of expressionism, which relates more to psychology than with the functioning economy (therefore possibly making your rhetorical bullet points a sidetrack to the situation in question - I was very confused by your wording and organization of them too).

If you could first enumerate how many people you personally know with the given political stance you are sharing and then briefly describe their professional histories to assure me you are not simply attempting to analyse popular expressionism, I believe I could better take into account the totality of your post.

If perhaps it may happen that indeed you are interested in understanding the situation as psychological phenonema, then I would be no less interested in engaging in a possible explanation.

In any case, I need your claim to be better presented so that my answer can actually be relevant and understood according to your request with the initiation of the thread.

All those questions are largely rhetorical. I'm not seeking specific answers to any of them. I'm saying that if one fails to recognize and adjust oneself to take advantage of the opportunities presented by the realities noted in my questions, one has no legitimate right to complain about the job market. The OP rebukes the people who see fit to complain about not being able to find a job but who simultaneously do little to nothing to adapt themselves to qualify for the jobs that are now available and in demand.

The "folks" then are people who want is clearly gone -- rote manufacturing jobs -- to come back, in spite of all indications being that there's little indicating a reason why companies would "repatriate" those production operations to the U.S. If one wants work in a textile factory, fine, but go to where it makes sense for textile producers/assemblers to have factories; don't sit in the U.S. bemoaning the fact that those factories are in Mexico or China, or wherever and pining for them to come back.

 

[Holos]

It seems almost daily that folks decry that their jobs have been "exported" to other countries. Hello!

• What part of the globalized economy did they not see coming over the past half century? What part of the basic laws of supply and demand did they think weren't "on point?"
• What part of "profit motive" is so lost on them that they don't understand why a company would opt to use less dear labor provided in other countries?
• What about there being 1.7 billion people who speak Mandarin and 1.1 billion who speak Hindi suggests to them that speaking only English will be sufficient going forward?
• What about waking to see the dawn of the information age suggests that tangible production of goods is where most U.S. jobs will exist in the future?
• What about the advances in miniaturization and robotics makes folks think that their rote-work job won't soon be done by a machine?

In my mind, if one can't "see the writing on the wall," "writing" that isn't remotely speculative but that is instead as sure as the day is long, one deserves to find oneself in the position of bemoaning the stuff folks are "on about" these days re: jobs being exported or performed by machines. Frankly, I'm just sick and tired of all the whiners, and the politicians who pander to them. Get over it. Time are changing and you need to change with them. Period.

Hello OP,

First I would like to ask who are those "folks" you are taking as reference? I would like a concrete answer to begin this discussion, not just a generalized aggroupation such as you have already done (whiners, politicians, etc). Do you have actual names and authentic profiles?

It seems to me you are just being swayed by a trend of expressionism, which relates more to psychology than with the functioning economy (therefore possibly making your rhetorical bullet points a sidetrack to the situation in question - I was very confused by your wording and organization of them too).

If you could first enumerate how many people you personally know with the given political stance you are sharing and then briefly describe their professional histories to assure me you are not simply attempting to analyse popular expressionism, I believe I could better take into account the totality of your post.

If perhaps it may happen that indeed you are interested in understanding the situation as psychological phenonema, then I would be no less interested in engaging in a possible explanation.

In any case, I need your claim to be better presented so that my answer can actually be relevant and understood according to your request with the initiation of the thread.

All those questions are largely rhetorical. I'm not seeking specific answers to any of them. I'm saying that if one fails to recognize and adjust oneself to take advantage of the opportunities presented by the realities noted in my questions, one has no legitimate right to complain about the job market. The OP rebukes the people who see fit to complain about not being able to find a job but who simultaneously do little to nothing to adapt themselves to qualify for the jobs that are now available and in demand.

The "folks" then are people who want is clearly gone -- rote manufacturing jobs -- to come back, in spite of all indications being that there's little indicating a reason why companies would "repatriate" those production operations to the U.S. If one wants work in a textile factory, fine, but go to where it makes sense for textile producers/assemblers to have factories; don't sit in the U.S. bemoaning the fact that those factories are in Mexico or China, or wherever and pining for them to come back.

So basically what you are saying is that the thread is just meant for self recognition with no actual opportunity for multilateral debate involved? I am okay with that, I was simply not very sure of its purpose.

 

[Indeependent]

Corporatism is bullshit by the simple fact that those very entities that claim that can't find qualified non-Indians are the very same entities that are encouraging non-Indians to go into those supposedly dead end specialties.
The claim of shortages is a lie.

 

[oldsoul]

I don't begin to hold against one one's failure to become well educated on XYZ until one is no longer in one's parents' care.

So, are you saying that my failure to position myself in a high demand occupation following high school/college is more my parents' fault than mine? I would strongly disagree with that statement, if that is indeed what you are saying.

I think that burden becomes one's own when, after becoming an adult, one persists in doing nothing to "get on board," so to speak

At what point does a person become and adult and therefore take on the burden of getting themselves "on board" with the realities of the job market. In my estimation, an adult is a person who has attained the age of majority, or 18 years old. As I understand it that is the point at which most people would consider a person an adult, as well as legally one is considered an adult at that point. For most people that occurs prior to or within a year of high school graduation. For all practical purposes, however, a person is considered an adult (in this context) after high school graduation, or dropping out of high school, which ever happens to be the case for that person.

 

[320 Years of History]

It seems almost daily that folks decry that their jobs have been "exported" to other countries. Hello!

• What part of the globalized economy did they not see coming over the past half century? What part of the basic laws of supply and demand did they think weren't "on point?"
• What part of "profit motive" is so lost on them that they don't understand why a company would opt to use less dear labor provided in other countries?
• What about there being 1.7 billion people who speak Mandarin and 1.1 billion who speak Hindi suggests to them that speaking only English will be sufficient going forward?
• What about waking to see the dawn of the information age suggests that tangible production of goods is where most U.S. jobs will exist in the future?
• What about the advances in miniaturization and robotics makes folks think that their rote-work job won't soon be done by a machine?

In my mind, if one can't "see the writing on the wall," "writing" that isn't remotely speculative but that is instead as sure as the day is long, one deserves to find oneself in the position of bemoaning the stuff folks are "on about" these days re: jobs being exported or performed by machines. Frankly, I'm just sick and tired of all the whiners, and the politicians who pander to them. Get over it. Time are changing and you need to change with them. Period.

Hello OP,

First I would like to ask who are those "folks" you are taking as reference? I would like a concrete answer to begin this discussion, not just a generalized aggroupation such as you have already done (whiners, politicians, etc). Do you have actual names and authentic profiles?

It seems to me you are just being swayed by a trend of expressionism, which relates more to psychology than with the functioning economy (therefore possibly making your rhetorical bullet points a sidetrack to the situation in question - I was very confused by your wording and organization of them too).

If you could first enumerate how many people you personally know with the given political stance you are sharing and then briefly describe their professional histories to assure me you are not simply attempting to analyse popular expressionism, I believe I could better take into account the totality of your post.

If perhaps it may happen that indeed you are interested in understanding the situation as psychological phenonema, then I would be no less interested in engaging in a possible explanation.

In any case, I need your claim to be better presented so that my answer can actually be relevant and understood according to your request with the initiation of the thread.

All those questions are largely rhetorical. I'm not seeking specific answers to any of them. I'm saying that if one fails to recognize and adjust oneself to take advantage of the opportunities presented by the realities noted in my questions, one has no legitimate right to complain about the job market. The OP rebukes the people who see fit to complain about not being able to find a job but who simultaneously do little to nothing to adapt themselves to qualify for the jobs that are now available and in demand.

The "folks" then are people who want is clearly gone -- rote manufacturing jobs -- to come back, in spite of all indications being that there's little indicating a reason why companies would "repatriate" those production operations to the U.S. If one wants work in a textile factory, fine, but go to where it makes sense for textile producers/assemblers to have factories; don't sit in the U.S. bemoaning the fact that those factories are in Mexico or China, or wherever and pining for them to come back.

So basically what you are saying is that the thread is just meant for self recognition with no actual opportunity for multilateral debate involved? I am okay with that, I was simply not very sure of its purpose.

If someone wants to express a different viewpoint or discuss how they believe my viewpoint is unjustified, they can do so. It may be that someone perceives there are other signs that are more properly weighted more heavily than the ones I've noted, and thus my stance isn't rational, they can express that idea as well. Depending on how I or others view the matter, there may issue some debate.

 

[I amso IR]

The globalists hired a good actor and put a nice spin on the future of free trade. I think Americans are suffering buyers remorse now. Especially when you throw in the damage NAFTA did to the Mexican job market and how that effected illegal immigration in this country. All hail Saint Ronnie.

Spin? What spin? The pros and cons of free trade have been understood at since Adam Smith. While its hand may be invisible, capitalism's effects are not. One cannot one the one hand want the "laissez faire" of capitalism and at the same time bitch and moan because that "free hand," due to comparative advantage, inspires purchasers of labor to purchase it from someone other than oneself.

The fact is that the U.S. at the moment has neither a comparative advantage nor absolute advantage in rote physical labor; therefore it's pure folly to think that the folks who purchase labor will, given an alternative, buy it from a U.S. worker instead of a far less costly foreign worker. So if one is going to espouse capitalism, one must take the good of it with the bad of it. That or espouse something other than a market driven economy.

"One cannot one the one hand want the "laissez faire" of capitalism and at the same time"... Now that statement, to that point, is a thing of beauty. Good job 320.

 

[320 Years of History]

I don't begin to hold against one one's failure to become well educated on XYZ until one is no longer in one's parents' care.

So, are you saying that my failure to position myself in a high demand occupation following high school/college is more my parents' fault than mine? I would strongly disagree with that statement, if that is indeed what you are saying.

I think that burden becomes one's own when, after becoming an adult, one persists in doing nothing to "get on board," so to speak

At what point does a person become and adult and therefore take on the burden of getting themselves "on board" with the realities of the job market. In my estimation, an adult is a person who has attained the age of majority, or 18 years old. As I understand it that is the point at which most people would consider a person an adult, as well as legally one is considered an adult at that point. For most people that occurs prior to or within a year of high school graduation. For all practical purposes, however, a person is considered an adult (in this context) after high school graduation, or dropping out of high school, which ever happens to be the case for that person.

Red:
Who bears more or less of the burden depends on a number of factors. It's more parental the younger a young adult is and less parental the older a young adult is. There's no precise point that can be cited for every individual's arrival at full onus for themselves, but I'd say that in general, by the time one is 28, most folks can no longer hold their parent's accountable.

Blue:
See "red" above. It really depends....for some individuals, that point arrives closer to 18, for others, closer to ~28. If I know a given person well, I can probably say when that point roughly should be for them. Speaking of the general population, however, I cannot pinpoint an age/time.

For my own kids, that burden wasn't rightly theirs at 18. They were hardly prepared to pursue their careers and whatnot at that age, but they were prepared to pursue higher education, which is what their mother and I prepared them to take on at 18. All three of them are doing what I/society expects of them at this point in their lives and that's fine. They each have been very successful at all that's been put before them up to this point in their lives. We'll see whether they have difficulty finding work in their fields, but my bet is that they will have none at all.

 

[320 Years of History]

The globalists hired a good actor and put a nice spin on the future of free trade. I think Americans are suffering buyers remorse now. Especially when you throw in the damage NAFTA did to the Mexican job market and how that effected illegal immigration in this country. All hail Saint Ronnie.

Spin? What spin? The pros and cons of free trade have been understood at since Adam Smith. While its hand may be invisible, capitalism's effects are not. One cannot one the one hand want the "laissez faire" of capitalism and at the same time bitch and moan because that "free hand," due to comparative advantage, inspires purchasers of labor to purchase it from someone other than oneself.

The fact is that the U.S. at the moment has neither a comparative advantage nor absolute advantage in rote physical labor; therefore it's pure folly to think that the folks who purchase labor will, given an alternative, buy it from a U.S. worker instead of a far less costly foreign worker. So if one is going to espouse capitalism, one must take the good of it with the bad of it. That or espouse something other than a market driven economy.

"One cannot one the one hand want the "laissez faire" of capitalism and at the same time"... Now that statement, to that point, is a thing of beauty. Good job 320.

Well, I don't mind that folks want to "have their cake and eat it too." I mind that they see that as a sequence of events plausibly and probably coming to fruition.

 

[oldsoul]

I don't begin to hold against one one's failure to become well educated on XYZ until one is no longer in one's parents' care.

So, are you saying that my failure to position myself in a high demand occupation following high school/college is more my parents' fault than mine? I would strongly disagree with that statement, if that is indeed what you are saying.

I think that burden becomes one's own when, after becoming an adult, one persists in doing nothing to "get on board," so to speak

At what point does a person become and adult and therefore take on the burden of getting themselves "on board" with the realities of the job market. In my estimation, an adult is a person who has attained the age of majority, or 18 years old. As I understand it that is the point at which most people would consider a person an adult, as well as legally one is considered an adult at that point. For most people that occurs prior to or within a year of high school graduation. For all practical purposes, however, a person is considered an adult (in this context) after high school graduation, or dropping out of high school, which ever happens to be the case for that person.

Red:
Who bears more or less of the burden depends on a number of factors. It's more parental the younger a young adult is and less parental the older a young adult is. There's no precise point that can be cited for every individual's arrival at full onus for themselves, but I'd say that in general, by the time one is 28, most folks can no longer hold their parent's accountable.

Blue:
See "red" above. It really depends....for some individuals, that point arrives closer to 18, for others, closer to ~28. If I know a given person well, I can probably say when that point roughly should be for them. Speaking of the general population, however, I cannot pinpoint an age/time.

For my own kids, that burden wasn't rightly theirs at 18. They were hardly prepared to pursue their careers and whatnot at that age, but they were prepared to pursue higher education, which is what their mother and I prepared them to take on at 18. All three of them are doing what I/society expects of them at this point in their lives and that's fine. They each have been very successful at all that's been put before them up to this point in their lives. We'll see whether they have difficulty finding work in their fields, but my bet is that they will have none at all.

There you have it. I believe that, baring a mental deficientcy, a person becomes responsible for themselves, and their action/inaction upon meeting the legal definition of an adult. While many people reach that point without the nessicary tools to be able to cope, the fact remainds that they, and they alone, are to blame for any failures or sucesses. There was once a time, not all that long ago, that a person was concidered to be responsible for one's self at a younger age than 18. Would you say that that is because we, as a species, have begun to mature slower, or would you say that this is due to lower expectations? I would argue that it is due to lower expectations. If we expect less we will get less, conversely, if we expect more we will, generally speaking, get more.

 

[oldsoul]

In

I don't begin to hold against one one's failure to become well educated on XYZ until one is no longer in one's parents' care.

So, are you saying that my failure to position myself in a high demand occupation following high school/college is more my parents' fault than mine? I would strongly disagree with that statement, if that is indeed what you are saying.

I think that burden becomes one's own when, after becoming an adult, one persists in doing nothing to "get on board," so to speak

At what point does a person become and adult and therefore take on the burden of getting themselves "on board" with the realities of the job market. In my estimation, an adult is a person who has attained the age of majority, or 18 years old. As I understand it that is the point at which most people would consider a person an adult, as well as legally one is considered an adult at that point. For most people that occurs prior to or within a year of high school graduation. For all practical purposes, however, a person is considered an adult (in this context) after high school graduation, or dropping out of high school, which ever happens to be the case for that person.

Red:
Who bears more or less of the burden depends on a number of factors. It's more parental the younger a young adult is and less parental the older a young adult is. There's no precise point that can be cited for every individual's arrival at full onus for themselves, but I'd say that in general, by the time one is 28, most folks can no longer hold their parent's accountable.

Blue:
See "red" above. It really depends....for some individuals, that point arrives closer to 18, for others, closer to ~28. If I know a given person well, I can probably say when that point roughly should be for them. Speaking of the general population, however, I cannot pinpoint an age/time.

For my own kids, that burden wasn't rightly theirs at 18. They were hardly prepared to pursue their careers and whatnot at that age, but they were prepared to pursue higher education, which is what their mother and I prepared them to take on at 18. All three of them are doing what I/society expects of them at this point in their lives and that's fine. They each have been very successful at all that's been put before them up to this point in their lives. We'll see whether they have difficulty finding work in their fields, but my bet is that they will have none at all.

There you have it. I believe that, baring a mental deficientcy, a person becomes responsible for themselves, and their action/inaction upon meeting the legal definition of an adult. While many people reach that point without the nessicary tools to be able to cope, the fact remainds that they, and they alone, are to blame for any failures or sucesses. There was once a time, not all that long ago, that a person was concidered to be responsible for one's self at a younger age than 18. Would you say that that is because we, as a species, have begun to mature slower, or would you say that this is due to lower expectations? I would argue that it is due to lower expectations. If we expect less we will get less, conversely, if we expect more we will, generally speaking, get more.

To put it another way, if we hold someone accountable for a crime on an adult level, why should we not hold them to the same stanard in all areas of their life. The thinking that a person is not solely responsible for their own success and/or failure is the same thinking that allows and fosters an entitlement mentality. Let me explain. If one is not, at the age of 18, responsible for their own success and/or failure, then someone else is. Therefore, if I fail as a twenty-something, it is not my fault and I should not have to suffer the consequences of said failure. Someone does have to suffer the consequences of my failure, if said consequences are financial in nature, then someone else has to pay.

Let's take the financial aspect out of it with another example. If a 9 year old bites someone, are they responsible for their actions? I think we can all agree that they are, and should suffer the consequences of them. Likewise, if a 60 year old bites someone, they are held responsible for their actions and have to suffer the consequences. So, in both cases the person is responsible for their actions, the consequences are different, but they are responsible none the less. Why would we have different standards for social behavior than we have for one's financial well-being? Why would an 18 year old be held responsible as an adult for a crime and not for their failure in the job market? Furthermore, who decides at what point a person is responsible for their own financial well-being? As a society, we cannot have it both ways. If someone is old enough to be held to the standard of other adults in one area, they are old enough to be held to the same stanard in all areas.

Whether or not a person has the tools to cope as an adult has little, if any, bearing on a criminal case. So, why should it have any bearing at all on their success and/or failure in th job market?

 

[jasonnfree]

Corporatism isn't natural, OP.
You speak as if this is some sort of evolution, yet, it is entirely man made.
I agree about the robotics, though.

Are you sure corporatism is what you meant to say?

• The Economic System of Corporatism

I certainly didn't have that economic theory in mind. I'm not sure what inspired you to mention it.

Certainly sounds like a perfect description of what we have here....

Corporatism:

• The society and economy of a country are organized into major interest groups (sometimes called corporations) and representatives of those interest groups settle any problems through negotiation and joint agreement. In contrast to a market economy which operates through competition a corporate economic works through collective bargaining.

It doesn't sound like what we have going on to me, although aspects of it are present in our "system." To that end, I will recognize that corporatism is a continuous concept rather than a binary one. I don't see much negotiation; what I see is the folks in power exerting their power to do what they want so long as they have the power and obstructing action when the power must unavoidably be shared. That's not my idea of negotiation; that's "I want all of what I want, and you can't have any of what you want, so long as I have any say in the matter."

Regardless of whether our society is or is not corporatist -- even mentioning that strikes me as a red herring to side track the topic of the thread -- seems irrelevant. Times are changing no matter whether we are corporatist, free market oriented, or anything else. The point of the thread is that all the grumbling about "exported job this" and "can't get a job that" is just folks loudly "on about" what boils down to their not having paid attention to the "writing on the wall" and now what was portended has come to be and the grumblers are "stuck out in the cold," so to speak, and they want to blame their misfortune on damn near anyone other than themselves.

For example, if one has kids, what kinds of input does one give them?

• What guidance did one give them re: studying foreign language? Did one say the following, for example? "You can take Spanish or French if you want to, but you better take Mandarin too because by the time you are grown the Chinese will have a role in the global economy that cannot be ignored and knowing Mandarin will make it easier for you to succeed in that economy."
• What guidance did one give them about whether to become very good with math and computer science skills?
• Is one telling one's kids that although the so-called "health care revolution" has been long anticipated, it hasn't really happened, but surely by your generation's majority, it will, so being strong in chemistry and biology will give you a "leg up" in being part of that wave of innovation?
• Has one said to them that although miniaturization is always going to be "in demand," robotics is just now getting to the point that it can assume a "Jetsons-esque" role in the daily lives of the masses, so if physics, biomechanics, or various engineering fields interest you, see what appeals to you that can have robotics applications.
• Are people saying to their kids, "We live in a globalized world, and in that world there are huge portions of it that have not ascended to the levels of advancement that we have in the U.S. and Western Europe. If you are to make a tidy living, you can surely find your fortune by learning from the mistakes made in the West and/or building on our advances and being part of the tide that makes them or better available in the underdeveloped part(s) of the world."?

Quite frankly, if that (or similar) is not the input one is giving one's kids (or gave them a few years ago), the "blame," the "problem," when some years from now they can't get a good job, isn't them or anyone else, it's oneself. In short, if one is not giving one's descendents insights on how to prepare for and where to find the best opportunities upon their entry into the workforce, what good is one?

I'll tell you want one is good for. Complaining and singing "woe is me." And that, backed with plenty of hubris and nostalgia for days long gone, is what I see a lot of these days. Too much for my taste.

You say "all the grumbling about "exported job this" and "can't get a job that" is just folks loudly "on about" what boils down to their not having paid attention to the "writing on the wall".
How about those young people who had the foresight to train in a profession in demand, only to see that profession being put at risk to being outsourced when these students were halfway or more to their completing the degree or qualifications in that profession?
A link below about Obama putting American jobs at risk on behalf of the cheap labor lobby. Will you say that those students in the last paragraph didn't have the foresight to see the future? The future being that all jobs and professions are at risk to the profit motive?

New Obama Action Could Increase Permanent Work Permits to Foreign Workers Above Congressionally-Approved Levels | NumbersUSA

 

[320 Years of History]

Corporatism isn't natural, OP.
You speak as if this is some sort of evolution, yet, it is entirely man made.
I agree about the robotics, though.

Are you sure corporatism is what you meant to say?

• The Economic System of Corporatism

I certainly didn't have that economic theory in mind. I'm not sure what inspired you to mention it.

Certainly sounds like a perfect description of what we have here....

Corporatism:

• The society and economy of a country are organized into major interest groups (sometimes called corporations) and representatives of those interest groups settle any problems through negotiation and joint agreement. In contrast to a market economy which operates through competition a corporate economic works through collective bargaining.

It doesn't sound like what we have going on to me, although aspects of it are present in our "system." To that end, I will recognize that corporatism is a continuous concept rather than a binary one. I don't see much negotiation; what I see is the folks in power exerting their power to do what they want so long as they have the power and obstructing action when the power must unavoidably be shared. That's not my idea of negotiation; that's "I want all of what I want, and you can't have any of what you want, so long as I have any say in the matter."

Regardless of whether our society is or is not corporatist -- even mentioning that strikes me as a red herring to side track the topic of the thread -- seems irrelevant. Times are changing no matter whether we are corporatist, free market oriented, or anything else. The point of the thread is that all the grumbling about "exported job this" and "can't get a job that" is just folks loudly "on about" what boils down to their not having paid attention to the "writing on the wall" and now what was portended has come to be and the grumblers are "stuck out in the cold," so to speak, and they want to blame their misfortune on damn near anyone other than themselves.

For example, if one has kids, what kinds of input does one give them?

• What guidance did one give them re: studying foreign language? Did one say the following, for example? "You can take Spanish or French if you want to, but you better take Mandarin too because by the time you are grown the Chinese will have a role in the global economy that cannot be ignored and knowing Mandarin will make it easier for you to succeed in that economy."
• What guidance did one give them about whether to become very good with math and computer science skills?
• Is one telling one's kids that although the so-called "health care revolution" has been long anticipated, it hasn't really happened, but surely by your generation's majority, it will, so being strong in chemistry and biology will give you a "leg up" in being part of that wave of innovation?
• Has one said to them that although miniaturization is always going to be "in demand," robotics is just now getting to the point that it can assume a "Jetsons-esque" role in the daily lives of the masses, so if physics, biomechanics, or various engineering fields interest you, see what appeals to you that can have robotics applications.
• Are people saying to their kids, "We live in a globalized world, and in that world there are huge portions of it that have not ascended to the levels of advancement that we have in the U.S. and Western Europe. If you are to make a tidy living, you can surely find your fortune by learning from the mistakes made in the West and/or building on our advances and being part of the tide that makes them or better available in the underdeveloped part(s) of the world."?

Quite frankly, if that (or similar) is not the input one is giving one's kids (or gave them a few years ago), the "blame," the "problem," when some years from now they can't get a good job, isn't them or anyone else, it's oneself. In short, if one is not giving one's descendents insights on how to prepare for and where to find the best opportunities upon their entry into the workforce, what good is one?

I'll tell you want one is good for. Complaining and singing "woe is me." And that, backed with plenty of hubris and nostalgia for days long gone, is what I see a lot of these days. Too much for my taste.

You say "all the grumbling about "exported job this" and "can't get a job that" is just folks loudly "on about" what boils down to their not having paid attention to the "writing on the wall".
How about those young people who had the foresight to train in a profession in demand, only to see that profession being put at risk to being outsourced when these students were halfway or more to their completing the degree or qualifications in that profession?
A link below about Obama putting American jobs at risk on behalf of the cheap labor lobby. Will you say that those students in the last paragraph didn't have the foresight to see the future? The future being that all jobs and professions are at risk to the profit motive?

New Obama Action Could Increase Permanent Work Permits to Foreign Workers Above Congressionally-Approved Levels | NumbersUSA

The context of that article addresses increasing the competitive situation for job seekers. If you are going to tell me that as an employer of recent graduates whom we start at $60K+ a year in positions that have career potential salaries that top $1M/year that I should feel sorry for them because an increase in H1B visas increases the labor competition and thus allows employers to hire them for a bit less but at nonetheless quite good starting salaries, I'm just not buying it.

 

[oldsoul]

On the whole, here is my take on this topic. Yes, times are changing and one needs to change with the times. However, people still have the right to grumble about it, I hear things all the time about how it was so much better in years gone by. So what, if things where so much better, why are they not anymore? Answer, because we have, for the most part, made things "better". By better I mean easier/faster/more productive, there was a time that cross country communication would take weeks to months, now it's instant. Is that better? In many ways it is, in some ways it is not. Technology and globalism are here, and they are not going away, you can grumble all you want, but you either have to change with the times, or you will be left behind. We will never go back to horse and buggy days. At least not until something happens that kills more advanced technology than that.

 

[jasonnfree]

Corporatism isn't natural, OP.
You speak as if this is some sort of evolution, yet, it is entirely man made.
I agree about the robotics, though.

Are you sure corporatism is what you meant to say?

• The Economic System of Corporatism

I certainly didn't have that economic theory in mind. I'm not sure what inspired you to mention it.

Certainly sounds like a perfect description of what we have here....

Corporatism:

• The society and economy of a country are organized into major interest groups (sometimes called corporations) and representatives of those interest groups settle any problems through negotiation and joint agreement. In contrast to a market economy which operates through competition a corporate economic works through collective bargaining.

It doesn't sound like what we have going on to me, although aspects of it are present in our "system." To that end, I will recognize that corporatism is a continuous concept rather than a binary one. I don't see much negotiation; what I see is the folks in power exerting their power to do what they want so long as they have the power and obstructing action when the power must unavoidably be shared. That's not my idea of negotiation; that's "I want all of what I want, and you can't have any of what you want, so long as I have any say in the matter."

Regardless of whether our society is or is not corporatist -- even mentioning that strikes me as a red herring to side track the topic of the thread -- seems irrelevant. Times are changing no matter whether we are corporatist, free market oriented, or anything else. The point of the thread is that all the grumbling about "exported job this" and "can't get a job that" is just folks loudly "on about" what boils down to their not having paid attention to the "writing on the wall" and now what was portended has come to be and the grumblers are "stuck out in the cold," so to speak, and they want to blame their misfortune on damn near anyone other than themselves.

For example, if one has kids, what kinds of input does one give them?

• What guidance did one give them re: studying foreign language? Did one say the following, for example? "You can take Spanish or French if you want to, but you better take Mandarin too because by the time you are grown the Chinese will have a role in the global economy that cannot be ignored and knowing Mandarin will make it easier for you to succeed in that economy."
• What guidance did one give them about whether to become very good with math and computer science skills?
• Is one telling one's kids that although the so-called "health care revolution" has been long anticipated, it hasn't really happened, but surely by your generation's majority, it will, so being strong in chemistry and biology will give you a "leg up" in being part of that wave of innovation?
• Has one said to them that although miniaturization is always going to be "in demand," robotics is just now getting to the point that it can assume a "Jetsons-esque" role in the daily lives of the masses, so if physics, biomechanics, or various engineering fields interest you, see what appeals to you that can have robotics applications.
• Are people saying to their kids, "We live in a globalized world, and in that world there are huge portions of it that have not ascended to the levels of advancement that we have in the U.S. and Western Europe. If you are to make a tidy living, you can surely find your fortune by learning from the mistakes made in the West and/or building on our advances and being part of the tide that makes them or better available in the underdeveloped part(s) of the world."?

Quite frankly, if that (or similar) is not the input one is giving one's kids (or gave them a few years ago), the "blame," the "problem," when some years from now they can't get a good job, isn't them or anyone else, it's oneself. In short, if one is not giving one's descendents insights on how to prepare for and where to find the best opportunities upon their entry into the workforce, what good is one?

I'll tell you want one is good for. Complaining and singing "woe is me." And that, backed with plenty of hubris and nostalgia for days long gone, is what I see a lot of these days. Too much for my taste.

You say "all the grumbling about "exported job this" and "can't get a job that" is just folks loudly "on about" what boils down to their not having paid attention to the "writing on the wall".
How about those young people who had the foresight to train in a profession in demand, only to see that profession being put at risk to being outsourced when these students were halfway or more to their completing the degree or qualifications in that profession?
A link below about Obama putting American jobs at risk on behalf of the cheap labor lobby. Will you say that those students in the last paragraph didn't have the foresight to see the future? The future being that all jobs and professions are at risk to the profit motive?

New Obama Action Could Increase Permanent Work Permits to Foreign Workers Above Congressionally-Approved Levels | NumbersUSA

The context of that article addresses increasing the competitive situation for job seekers. If you are going to tell me that as an employer of recent graduates whom we start at $60K+ a year in positions that have career potential salaries that top $1M/year that I should feel sorry for them because an increase in H1B visas increases the labor competition and thus allows employers to hire them for a bit less but at nonetheless quite good starting salaries, I'm just not buying it.

Corporatism isn't natural, OP.
You speak as if this is some sort of evolution, yet, it is entirely man made.
I agree about the robotics, though.

Are you sure corporatism is what you meant to say?

• The Economic System of Corporatism

I certainly didn't have that economic theory in mind. I'm not sure what inspired you to mention it.

Certainly sounds like a perfect description of what we have here....

Corporatism:

• The society and economy of a country are organized into major interest groups (sometimes called corporations) and representatives of those interest groups settle any problems through negotiation and joint agreement. In contrast to a market economy which operates through competition a corporate economic works through collective bargaining.

It doesn't sound like what we have going on to me, although aspects of it are present in our "system." To that end, I will recognize that corporatism is a continuous concept rather than a binary one. I don't see much negotiation; what I see is the folks in power exerting their power to do what they want so long as they have the power and obstructing action when the power must unavoidably be shared. That's not my idea of negotiation; that's "I want all of what I want, and you can't have any of what you want, so long as I have any say in the matter."

Regardless of whether our society is or is not corporatist -- even mentioning that strikes me as a red herring to side track the topic of the thread -- seems irrelevant. Times are changing no matter whether we are corporatist, free market oriented, or anything else. The point of the thread is that all the grumbling about "exported job this" and "can't get a job that" is just folks loudly "on about" what boils down to their not having paid attention to the "writing on the wall" and now what was portended has come to be and the grumblers are "stuck out in the cold," so to speak, and they want to blame their misfortune on damn near anyone other than themselves.

For example, if one has kids, what kinds of input does one give them?

• What guidance did one give them re: studying foreign language? Did one say the following, for example? "You can take Spanish or French if you want to, but you better take Mandarin too because by the time you are grown the Chinese will have a role in the global economy that cannot be ignored and knowing Mandarin will make it easier for you to succeed in that economy."
• What guidance did one give them about whether to become very good with math and computer science skills?
• Is one telling one's kids that although the so-called "health care revolution" has been long anticipated, it hasn't really happened, but surely by your generation's majority, it will, so being strong in chemistry and biology will give you a "leg up" in being part of that wave of innovation?
• Has one said to them that although miniaturization is always going to be "in demand," robotics is just now getting to the point that it can assume a "Jetsons-esque" role in the daily lives of the masses, so if physics, biomechanics, or various engineering fields interest you, see what appeals to you that can have robotics applications.
• Are people saying to their kids, "We live in a globalized world, and in that world there are huge portions of it that have not ascended to the levels of advancement that we have in the U.S. and Western Europe. If you are to make a tidy living, you can surely find your fortune by learning from the mistakes made in the West and/or building on our advances and being part of the tide that makes them or better available in the underdeveloped part(s) of the world."?

Quite frankly, if that (or similar) is not the input one is giving one's kids (or gave them a few years ago), the "blame," the "problem," when some years from now they can't get a good job, isn't them or anyone else, it's oneself. In short, if one is not giving one's descendents insights on how to prepare for and where to find the best opportunities upon their entry into the workforce, what good is one?

I'll tell you want one is good for. Complaining and singing "woe is me." And that, backed with plenty of hubris and nostalgia for days long gone, is what I see a lot of these days. Too much for my taste.

You say "all the grumbling about "exported job this" and "can't get a job that" is just folks loudly "on about" what boils down to their not having paid attention to the "writing on the wall".
How about those young people who had the foresight to train in a profession in demand, only to see that profession being put at risk to being outsourced when these students were halfway or more to their completing the degree or qualifications in that profession?
A link below about Obama putting American jobs at risk on behalf of the cheap labor lobby. Will you say that those students in the last paragraph didn't have the foresight to see the future? The future being that all jobs and professions are at risk to the profit motive?

New Obama Action Could Increase Permanent Work Permits to Foreign Workers Above Congressionally-Approved Levels | NumbersUSA

The context of that article addresses increasing the competitive situation for job seekers. If you are going to tell me that as an employer of recent graduates whom we start at $60K+ a year in positions that have career potential salaries that top $1M/year that I should feel sorry for them because an increase in H1B visas increases the labor competition and thus allows employers to hire them for a bit less but at nonetheless quite good starting salaries, I'm just not buying it.

So basically you're saying that all jobs in this country are at risk to being given to the lowest bidder from anywhere in the world, since those low bidders can easily brought to this country now. Like I said, all American jobs are at risk now due to the profit at any cost, and to hell with what's good for America, attitude.

 

[320 Years of History]

Are you sure corporatism is what you meant to say?

• The Economic System of Corporatism

I certainly didn't have that economic theory in mind. I'm not sure what inspired you to mention it.

Certainly sounds like a perfect description of what we have here....

Corporatism:

• The society and economy of a country are organized into major interest groups (sometimes called corporations) and representatives of those interest groups settle any problems through negotiation and joint agreement. In contrast to a market economy which operates through competition a corporate economic works through collective bargaining.

It doesn't sound like what we have going on to me, although aspects of it are present in our "system." To that end, I will recognize that corporatism is a continuous concept rather than a binary one. I don't see much negotiation; what I see is the folks in power exerting their power to do what they want so long as they have the power and obstructing action when the power must unavoidably be shared. That's not my idea of negotiation; that's "I want all of what I want, and you can't have any of what you want, so long as I have any say in the matter."

Regardless of whether our society is or is not corporatist -- even mentioning that strikes me as a red herring to side track the topic of the thread -- seems irrelevant. Times are changing no matter whether we are corporatist, free market oriented, or anything else. The point of the thread is that all the grumbling about "exported job this" and "can't get a job that" is just folks loudly "on about" what boils down to their not having paid attention to the "writing on the wall" and now what was portended has come to be and the grumblers are "stuck out in the cold," so to speak, and they want to blame their misfortune on damn near anyone other than themselves.

For example, if one has kids, what kinds of input does one give them?

• What guidance did one give them re: studying foreign language? Did one say the following, for example? "You can take Spanish or French if you want to, but you better take Mandarin too because by the time you are grown the Chinese will have a role in the global economy that cannot be ignored and knowing Mandarin will make it easier for you to succeed in that economy."
• What guidance did one give them about whether to become very good with math and computer science skills?
• Is one telling one's kids that although the so-called "health care revolution" has been long anticipated, it hasn't really happened, but surely by your generation's majority, it will, so being strong in chemistry and biology will give you a "leg up" in being part of that wave of innovation?
• Has one said to them that although miniaturization is always going to be "in demand," robotics is just now getting to the point that it can assume a "Jetsons-esque" role in the daily lives of the masses, so if physics, biomechanics, or various engineering fields interest you, see what appeals to you that can have robotics applications.
• Are people saying to their kids, "We live in a globalized world, and in that world there are huge portions of it that have not ascended to the levels of advancement that we have in the U.S. and Western Europe. If you are to make a tidy living, you can surely find your fortune by learning from the mistakes made in the West and/or building on our advances and being part of the tide that makes them or better available in the underdeveloped part(s) of the world."?

Quite frankly, if that (or similar) is not the input one is giving one's kids (or gave them a few years ago), the "blame," the "problem," when some years from now they can't get a good job, isn't them or anyone else, it's oneself. In short, if one is not giving one's descendents insights on how to prepare for and where to find the best opportunities upon their entry into the workforce, what good is one?

I'll tell you want one is good for. Complaining and singing "woe is me." And that, backed with plenty of hubris and nostalgia for days long gone, is what I see a lot of these days. Too much for my taste.

You say "all the grumbling about "exported job this" and "can't get a job that" is just folks loudly "on about" what boils down to their not having paid attention to the "writing on the wall".
How about those young people who had the foresight to train in a profession in demand, only to see that profession being put at risk to being outsourced when these students were halfway or more to their completing the degree or qualifications in that profession?
A link below about Obama putting American jobs at risk on behalf of the cheap labor lobby. Will you say that those students in the last paragraph didn't have the foresight to see the future? The future being that all jobs and professions are at risk to the profit motive?

New Obama Action Could Increase Permanent Work Permits to Foreign Workers Above Congressionally-Approved Levels | NumbersUSA

The context of that article addresses increasing the competitive situation for job seekers. If you are going to tell me that as an employer of recent graduates whom we start at $60K+ a year in positions that have career potential salaries that top $1M/year that I should feel sorry for them because an increase in H1B visas increases the labor competition and thus allows employers to hire them for a bit less but at nonetheless quite good starting salaries, I'm just not buying it.

Are you sure corporatism is what you meant to say?

• The Economic System of Corporatism

I certainly didn't have that economic theory in mind. I'm not sure what inspired you to mention it.

Certainly sounds like a perfect description of what we have here....

Corporatism:

• The society and economy of a country are organized into major interest groups (sometimes called corporations) and representatives of those interest groups settle any problems through negotiation and joint agreement. In contrast to a market economy which operates through competition a corporate economic works through collective bargaining.

It doesn't sound like what we have going on to me, although aspects of it are present in our "system." To that end, I will recognize that corporatism is a continuous concept rather than a binary one. I don't see much negotiation; what I see is the folks in power exerting their power to do what they want so long as they have the power and obstructing action when the power must unavoidably be shared. That's not my idea of negotiation; that's "I want all of what I want, and you can't have any of what you want, so long as I have any say in the matter."

Regardless of whether our society is or is not corporatist -- even mentioning that strikes me as a red herring to side track the topic of the thread -- seems irrelevant. Times are changing no matter whether we are corporatist, free market oriented, or anything else. The point of the thread is that all the grumbling about "exported job this" and "can't get a job that" is just folks loudly "on about" what boils down to their not having paid attention to the "writing on the wall" and now what was portended has come to be and the grumblers are "stuck out in the cold," so to speak, and they want to blame their misfortune on damn near anyone other than themselves.

For example, if one has kids, what kinds of input does one give them?

• What guidance did one give them re: studying foreign language? Did one say the following, for example? "You can take Spanish or French if you want to, but you better take Mandarin too because by the time you are grown the Chinese will have a role in the global economy that cannot be ignored and knowing Mandarin will make it easier for you to succeed in that economy."
• What guidance did one give them about whether to become very good with math and computer science skills?
• Is one telling one's kids that although the so-called "health care revolution" has been long anticipated, it hasn't really happened, but surely by your generation's majority, it will, so being strong in chemistry and biology will give you a "leg up" in being part of that wave of innovation?
• Has one said to them that although miniaturization is always going to be "in demand," robotics is just now getting to the point that it can assume a "Jetsons-esque" role in the daily lives of the masses, so if physics, biomechanics, or various engineering fields interest you, see what appeals to you that can have robotics applications.
• Are people saying to their kids, "We live in a globalized world, and in that world there are huge portions of it that have not ascended to the levels of advancement that we have in the U.S. and Western Europe. If you are to make a tidy living, you can surely find your fortune by learning from the mistakes made in the West and/or building on our advances and being part of the tide that makes them or better available in the underdeveloped part(s) of the world."?

Quite frankly, if that (or similar) is not the input one is giving one's kids (or gave them a few years ago), the "blame," the "problem," when some years from now they can't get a good job, isn't them or anyone else, it's oneself. In short, if one is not giving one's descendents insights on how to prepare for and where to find the best opportunities upon their entry into the workforce, what good is one?

I'll tell you want one is good for. Complaining and singing "woe is me." And that, backed with plenty of hubris and nostalgia for days long gone, is what I see a lot of these days. Too much for my taste.

You say "all the grumbling about "exported job this" and "can't get a job that" is just folks loudly "on about" what boils down to their not having paid attention to the "writing on the wall".
How about those young people who had the foresight to train in a profession in demand, only to see that profession being put at risk to being outsourced when these students were halfway or more to their completing the degree or qualifications in that profession?
A link below about Obama putting American jobs at risk on behalf of the cheap labor lobby. Will you say that those students in the last paragraph didn't have the foresight to see the future? The future being that all jobs and professions are at risk to the profit motive?

New Obama Action Could Increase Permanent Work Permits to Foreign Workers Above Congressionally-Approved Levels | NumbersUSA

The context of that article addresses increasing the competitive situation for job seekers. If you are going to tell me that as an employer of recent graduates whom we start at $60K+ a year in positions that have career potential salaries that top $1M/year that I should feel sorry for them because an increase in H1B visas increases the labor competition and thus allows employers to hire them for a bit less but at nonetheless quite good starting salaries, I'm just not buying it.

So basically you're saying that all jobs in this country are at risk to being given to the lowest bidder from anywhere in the world, since those low bidders can easily brought to this country now. Like I said, all American jobs are at risk now due to the profit at any cost, and to hell with what's good for America, attitude.

What I'm saying is that labor is a "good" that is bought and sold just like everything else. That's never not been so, but it only relatively recently that the costs and risks associated with producing goods using distant labor and subsequently transporting the finished goods to the marketplace have gotten low enough that labor must, outside of purely local markets, compete just as do land and capital, on the basis of price, content, and/or perceived or actual quality.

I'm not saying one has to like that economic reality, but I am saying that with each passing lustrum, it's a more and more prescient reality, so deal with it head on by making the resource you provide one that cannot be easily bested by cheap labor elsewhere. I suppose nobody outright craves having to be more innovative, more competent, more efficient, etc. than their father or grandfather, but that's the reality we face.

Every economy that's been "on top" has eventually had to deal with the fact that "rising domestic fortunes" result in domestic labor costing more than foreign labor. It's just that now, it's the U.S.' turn to figure out how to deal with it. What's unfortunate for the U.S. is that there are some 3B+ people on the planet who have not been, for whatever reasons, party to the economic "boom" Western nations experienced over the past 300 years.

Do you want to be able to avail yourself of the burgeoning opportunity and the wealth that accompanies rapid growth? If yes, I suggest you move (oneself or at least one's business ventures) to Central/Southern Asia, Africa or Central/South America. Europe and the U.S. are mature economies, and as such, while there are riches to be had, the economic odds of finding them (somewhat) easily are better elsewhere. The reason for that is pretty straightforward: the folks who in mature economies are not about to enable even more domestic competition in their home economy from domestic competitors. That's going to be so everywhere, but if one has something to offer that isn't easily obtained elsewhere, going elsewhere to peddle it makes sense. If one has nothing that's in high demand anywhere, the solution is clear: retool.

 

[jasonnfree]

Corporatism isn't natural, OP.
You speak as if this is some sort of evolution, yet, it is entirely man made.
I agree about the robotics, though.

Are you sure corporatism is what you meant to say?

• The Economic System of Corporatism

I certainly didn't have that economic theory in mind. I'm not sure what inspired you to mention it.

Certainly sounds like a perfect description of what we have here....

Corporatism:

• The society and economy of a country are organized into major interest groups (sometimes called corporations) and representatives of those interest groups settle any problems through negotiation and joint agreement. In contrast to a market economy which operates through competition a corporate economic works through collective bargaining.

It doesn't sound like what we have going on to me, although aspects of it are present in our "system." To that end, I will recognize that corporatism is a continuous concept rather than a binary one. I don't see much negotiation; what I see is the folks in power exerting their power to do what they want so long as they have the power and obstructing action when the power must unavoidably be shared. That's not my idea of negotiation; that's "I want all of what I want, and you can't have any of what you want, so long as I have any say in the matter."

Regardless of whether our society is or is not corporatist -- even mentioning that strikes me as a red herring to side track the topic of the thread -- seems irrelevant. Times are changing no matter whether we are corporatist, free market oriented, or anything else. The point of the thread is that all the grumbling about "exported job this" and "can't get a job that" is just folks loudly "on about" what boils down to their not having paid attention to the "writing on the wall" and now what was portended has come to be and the grumblers are "stuck out in the cold," so to speak, and they want to blame their misfortune on damn near anyone other than themselves.

For example, if one has kids, what kinds of input does one give them?

• What guidance did one give them re: studying foreign language? Did one say the following, for example? "You can take Spanish or French if you want to, but you better take Mandarin too because by the time you are grown the Chinese will have a role in the global economy that cannot be ignored and knowing Mandarin will make it easier for you to succeed in that economy."
• What guidance did one give them about whether to become very good with math and computer science skills?
• Is one telling one's kids that although the so-called "health care revolution" has been long anticipated, it hasn't really happened, but surely by your generation's majority, it will, so being strong in chemistry and biology will give you a "leg up" in being part of that wave of innovation?
• Has one said to them that although miniaturization is always going to be "in demand," robotics is just now getting to the point that it can assume a "Jetsons-esque" role in the daily lives of the masses, so if physics, biomechanics, or various engineering fields interest you, see what appeals to you that can have robotics applications.
• Are people saying to their kids, "We live in a globalized world, and in that world there are huge portions of it that have not ascended to the levels of advancement that we have in the U.S. and Western Europe. If you are to make a tidy living, you can surely find your fortune by learning from the mistakes made in the West and/or building on our advances and being part of the tide that makes them or better available in the underdeveloped part(s) of the world."?

Quite frankly, if that (or similar) is not the input one is giving one's kids (or gave them a few years ago), the "blame," the "problem," when some years from now they can't get a good job, isn't them or anyone else, it's oneself. In short, if one is not giving one's descendents insights on how to prepare for and where to find the best opportunities upon their entry into the workforce, what good is one?

I'll tell you want one is good for. Complaining and singing "woe is me." And that, backed with plenty of hubris and nostalgia for days long gone, is what I see a lot of these days. Too much for my taste.

You say "all the grumbling about "exported job this" and "can't get a job that" is just folks loudly "on about" what boils down to their not having paid attention to the "writing on the wall".
How about those young people who had the foresight to train in a profession in demand, only to see that profession being put at risk to being outsourced when these students were halfway or more to their completing the degree or qualifications in that profession?
A link below about Obama putting American jobs at risk on behalf of the cheap labor lobby. Will you say that those students in the last paragraph didn't have the foresight to see the future? The future being that all jobs and professions are at risk to the profit motive?

New Obama Action Could Increase Permanent Work Permits to Foreign Workers Above Congressionally-Approved Levels | NumbersUSA

The context of that article addresses increasing the competitive situation for job seekers. If you are going to tell me that as an employer of recent graduates whom we start at $60K+ a year in positions that have career potential salaries that top $1M/year that I should feel sorry for them because an increase in H1B visas increases the labor competition and thus allows employers to hire them for a bit less but at nonetheless quite good starting salaries, I'm just not buying it.

So you are an employer in the USA and don't want pay the going rate, I get this. I see how it helps your bottom line, but how does this help our country by flooding it with cheap labor from the third world, I ask.

 

[320 Years of History]

Are you sure corporatism is what you meant to say?

• The Economic System of Corporatism

I certainly didn't have that economic theory in mind. I'm not sure what inspired you to mention it.

Certainly sounds like a perfect description of what we have here....

Corporatism:

• The society and economy of a country are organized into major interest groups (sometimes called corporations) and representatives of those interest groups settle any problems through negotiation and joint agreement. In contrast to a market economy which operates through competition a corporate economic works through collective bargaining.

It doesn't sound like what we have going on to me, although aspects of it are present in our "system." To that end, I will recognize that corporatism is a continuous concept rather than a binary one. I don't see much negotiation; what I see is the folks in power exerting their power to do what they want so long as they have the power and obstructing action when the power must unavoidably be shared. That's not my idea of negotiation; that's "I want all of what I want, and you can't have any of what you want, so long as I have any say in the matter."

Regardless of whether our society is or is not corporatist -- even mentioning that strikes me as a red herring to side track the topic of the thread -- seems irrelevant. Times are changing no matter whether we are corporatist, free market oriented, or anything else. The point of the thread is that all the grumbling about "exported job this" and "can't get a job that" is just folks loudly "on about" what boils down to their not having paid attention to the "writing on the wall" and now what was portended has come to be and the grumblers are "stuck out in the cold," so to speak, and they want to blame their misfortune on damn near anyone other than themselves.

For example, if one has kids, what kinds of input does one give them?

• What guidance did one give them re: studying foreign language? Did one say the following, for example? "You can take Spanish or French if you want to, but you better take Mandarin too because by the time you are grown the Chinese will have a role in the global economy that cannot be ignored and knowing Mandarin will make it easier for you to succeed in that economy."
• What guidance did one give them about whether to become very good with math and computer science skills?
• Is one telling one's kids that although the so-called "health care revolution" has been long anticipated, it hasn't really happened, but surely by your generation's majority, it will, so being strong in chemistry and biology will give you a "leg up" in being part of that wave of innovation?
• Has one said to them that although miniaturization is always going to be "in demand," robotics is just now getting to the point that it can assume a "Jetsons-esque" role in the daily lives of the masses, so if physics, biomechanics, or various engineering fields interest you, see what appeals to you that can have robotics applications.
• Are people saying to their kids, "We live in a globalized world, and in that world there are huge portions of it that have not ascended to the levels of advancement that we have in the U.S. and Western Europe. If you are to make a tidy living, you can surely find your fortune by learning from the mistakes made in the West and/or building on our advances and being part of the tide that makes them or better available in the underdeveloped part(s) of the world."?

Quite frankly, if that (or similar) is not the input one is giving one's kids (or gave them a few years ago), the "blame," the "problem," when some years from now they can't get a good job, isn't them or anyone else, it's oneself. In short, if one is not giving one's descendents insights on how to prepare for and where to find the best opportunities upon their entry into the workforce, what good is one?

I'll tell you want one is good for. Complaining and singing "woe is me." And that, backed with plenty of hubris and nostalgia for days long gone, is what I see a lot of these days. Too much for my taste.

You say "all the grumbling about "exported job this" and "can't get a job that" is just folks loudly "on about" what boils down to their not having paid attention to the "writing on the wall".
How about those young people who had the foresight to train in a profession in demand, only to see that profession being put at risk to being outsourced when these students were halfway or more to their completing the degree or qualifications in that profession?
A link below about Obama putting American jobs at risk on behalf of the cheap labor lobby. Will you say that those students in the last paragraph didn't have the foresight to see the future? The future being that all jobs and professions are at risk to the profit motive?

New Obama Action Could Increase Permanent Work Permits to Foreign Workers Above Congressionally-Approved Levels | NumbersUSA

The context of that article addresses increasing the competitive situation for job seekers. If you are going to tell me that as an employer of recent graduates whom we start at $60K+ a year in positions that have career potential salaries that top $1M/year that I should feel sorry for them because an increase in H1B visas increases the labor competition and thus allows employers to hire them for a bit less but at nonetheless quite good starting salaries, I'm just not buying it.

So you are an employer in the USA and don't want pay the going rate, I get this. I see how it helps your bottom line, but how does this help our country by flooding it with cheap labor from the third world, I ask.

You're in favor of capitalism, aren't you? I am.

??? What you are calling "cheap" amounts to the firm paying between $5K and $10K per worker per year in salary/wages to some, say, 50 to 100 new hires. That savings goes to the firm and allows the partners to retain more of the firm's earnings and thus have more to spend on "whatever," be it personally or collectively as firm investments. And guess what, nobody had to lower our tax rates to make that happen; it's purely a matter of market driven competition for labor.

What might the firm do with that money? Well, it might sponsor graduate school for qualified/deserving recent hires, something several firms do already, but an extra $250K-$500K per year certainly will sponsor several more individuals. Perhaps we'd increase the staffing in one of the support departments of the firm, thus making more jobs available. Perhaps we'd increase the number of client facing professionals we hire overall. Maybe it'd be used to help fund human resource or infrastructural improvements. Or maybe we'd donate the savings to one or several charitable causes. Among the last things the partners would do with it is direct it to their own pockets simply because it could be better spent elsewhere, mainly because given the firm's size, that sum isn't going to matter as bump in annual per partner earnings.

Are you really going to tell me that a gross earnings increase of $5K - $10K is "life changing" for someone being paid $60-$70K/per year? Because that, not a difference/savings of $20K-$30K per person per year, is really what we are talking about as the delta between what I have seen between the rates we pay for our "imported" project staff and our full time domestic employees in the same roles. We both know that sum it's not. Were we talking about "importing" H1B workers to perform low paying retail or restaurant roles, I'd have a different stance, but we aren't. Nobody is going overseas to find workers to fill minimum or just above minimum wage positions.

Are you going to argue against the idea that the economy as a whole is better off when the highest earners have more disposable income to do with as they see fit? I won't argue against upping the tax rates of high earners because I am well aware that doing so by the tiny increments that are under consideration at any given recent point aren't going to make difference in the lives of one-percenters, and I'm certainly going to minimize my own tax bill to the best of my ability if I'm offered a lower tax rate. I'm not saying you should or shouldn't oppose higher taxes on the wealthy, but I am saying that if you buy into the principles of "trickle down," then you need to buy into it not just re: taxes, but also re: it's manifestation in the marketplace as a result of competition. (Note: I don't know a thing about you or your historic remarks on this site, so I have no idea what way you'll answer the question.)

You realize that essentially you are arguing that employers like my firm should willfully pay higher prices and eschew spending less of their capital because it's good for the nation. What makes any sense of that yet the same basis for argument is roundly opposed when it comes to taxes? Are you among those who "get ethical" when it comes to wages, but not so much when it comes to taxes?

 

[oldsoul]

Are you sure corporatism is what you meant to say?

• The Economic System of Corporatism

I certainly didn't have that economic theory in mind. I'm not sure what inspired you to mention it.

Certainly sounds like a perfect description of what we have here....

Corporatism:

• The society and economy of a country are organized into major interest groups (sometimes called corporations) and representatives of those interest groups settle any problems through negotiation and joint agreement. In contrast to a market economy which operates through competition a corporate economic works through collective bargaining.

It doesn't sound like what we have going on to me, although aspects of it are present in our "system." To that end, I will recognize that corporatism is a continuous concept rather than a binary one. I don't see much negotiation; what I see is the folks in power exerting their power to do what they want so long as they have the power and obstructing action when the power must unavoidably be shared. That's not my idea of negotiation; that's "I want all of what I want, and you can't have any of what you want, so long as I have any say in the matter."

Regardless of whether our society is or is not corporatist -- even mentioning that strikes me as a red herring to side track the topic of the thread -- seems irrelevant. Times are changing no matter whether we are corporatist, free market oriented, or anything else. The point of the thread is that all the grumbling about "exported job this" and "can't get a job that" is just folks loudly "on about" what boils down to their not having paid attention to the "writing on the wall" and now what was portended has come to be and the grumblers are "stuck out in the cold," so to speak, and they want to blame their misfortune on damn near anyone other than themselves.

For example, if one has kids, what kinds of input does one give them?

• What guidance did one give them re: studying foreign language? Did one say the following, for example? "You can take Spanish or French if you want to, but you better take Mandarin too because by the time you are grown the Chinese will have a role in the global economy that cannot be ignored and knowing Mandarin will make it easier for you to succeed in that economy."
• What guidance did one give them about whether to become very good with math and computer science skills?
• Is one telling one's kids that although the so-called "health care revolution" has been long anticipated, it hasn't really happened, but surely by your generation's majority, it will, so being strong in chemistry and biology will give you a "leg up" in being part of that wave of innovation?
• Has one said to them that although miniaturization is always going to be "in demand," robotics is just now getting to the point that it can assume a "Jetsons-esque" role in the daily lives of the masses, so if physics, biomechanics, or various engineering fields interest you, see what appeals to you that can have robotics applications.
• Are people saying to their kids, "We live in a globalized world, and in that world there are huge portions of it that have not ascended to the levels of advancement that we have in the U.S. and Western Europe. If you are to make a tidy living, you can surely find your fortune by learning from the mistakes made in the West and/or building on our advances and being part of the tide that makes them or better available in the underdeveloped part(s) of the world."?

Quite frankly, if that (or similar) is not the input one is giving one's kids (or gave them a few years ago), the "blame," the "problem," when some years from now they can't get a good job, isn't them or anyone else, it's oneself. In short, if one is not giving one's descendents insights on how to prepare for and where to find the best opportunities upon their entry into the workforce, what good is one?

I'll tell you want one is good for. Complaining and singing "woe is me." And that, backed with plenty of hubris and nostalgia for days long gone, is what I see a lot of these days. Too much for my taste.

You say "all the grumbling about "exported job this" and "can't get a job that" is just folks loudly "on about" what boils down to their not having paid attention to the "writing on the wall".
How about those young people who had the foresight to train in a profession in demand, only to see that profession being put at risk to being outsourced when these students were halfway or more to their completing the degree or qualifications in that profession?
A link below about Obama putting American jobs at risk on behalf of the cheap labor lobby. Will you say that those students in the last paragraph didn't have the foresight to see the future? The future being that all jobs and professions are at risk to the profit motive?

New Obama Action Could Increase Permanent Work Permits to Foreign Workers Above Congressionally-Approved Levels | NumbersUSA

The context of that article addresses increasing the competitive situation for job seekers. If you are going to tell me that as an employer of recent graduates whom we start at $60K+ a year in positions that have career potential salaries that top $1M/year that I should feel sorry for them because an increase in H1B visas increases the labor competition and thus allows employers to hire them for a bit less but at nonetheless quite good starting salaries, I'm just not buying it.

Are you sure corporatism is what you meant to say?

• The Economic System of Corporatism

I certainly didn't have that economic theory in mind. I'm not sure what inspired you to mention it.

Certainly sounds like a perfect description of what we have here....

Corporatism:

• The society and economy of a country are organized into major interest groups (sometimes called corporations) and representatives of those interest groups settle any problems through negotiation and joint agreement. In contrast to a market economy which operates through competition a corporate economic works through collective bargaining.

It doesn't sound like what we have going on to me, although aspects of it are present in our "system." To that end, I will recognize that corporatism is a continuous concept rather than a binary one. I don't see much negotiation; what I see is the folks in power exerting their power to do what they want so long as they have the power and obstructing action when the power must unavoidably be shared. That's not my idea of negotiation; that's "I want all of what I want, and you can't have any of what you want, so long as I have any say in the matter."

Regardless of whether our society is or is not corporatist -- even mentioning that strikes me as a red herring to side track the topic of the thread -- seems irrelevant. Times are changing no matter whether we are corporatist, free market oriented, or anything else. The point of the thread is that all the grumbling about "exported job this" and "can't get a job that" is just folks loudly "on about" what boils down to their not having paid attention to the "writing on the wall" and now what was portended has come to be and the grumblers are "stuck out in the cold," so to speak, and they want to blame their misfortune on damn near anyone other than themselves.

For example, if one has kids, what kinds of input does one give them?

• What guidance did one give them re: studying foreign language? Did one say the following, for example? "You can take Spanish or French if you want to, but you better take Mandarin too because by the time you are grown the Chinese will have a role in the global economy that cannot be ignored and knowing Mandarin will make it easier for you to succeed in that economy."
• What guidance did one give them about whether to become very good with math and computer science skills?
• Is one telling one's kids that although the so-called "health care revolution" has been long anticipated, it hasn't really happened, but surely by your generation's majority, it will, so being strong in chemistry and biology will give you a "leg up" in being part of that wave of innovation?
• Has one said to them that although miniaturization is always going to be "in demand," robotics is just now getting to the point that it can assume a "Jetsons-esque" role in the daily lives of the masses, so if physics, biomechanics, or various engineering fields interest you, see what appeals to you that can have robotics applications.
• Are people saying to their kids, "We live in a globalized world, and in that world there are huge portions of it that have not ascended to the levels of advancement that we have in the U.S. and Western Europe. If you are to make a tidy living, you can surely find your fortune by learning from the mistakes made in the West and/or building on our advances and being part of the tide that makes them or better available in the underdeveloped part(s) of the world."?

Quite frankly, if that (or similar) is not the input one is giving one's kids (or gave them a few years ago), the "blame," the "problem," when some years from now they can't get a good job, isn't them or anyone else, it's oneself. In short, if one is not giving one's descendents insights on how to prepare for and where to find the best opportunities upon their entry into the workforce, what good is one?

I'll tell you want one is good for. Complaining and singing "woe is me." And that, backed with plenty of hubris and nostalgia for days long gone, is what I see a lot of these days. Too much for my taste.

You say "all the grumbling about "exported job this" and "can't get a job that" is just folks loudly "on about" what boils down to their not having paid attention to the "writing on the wall".
How about those young people who had the foresight to train in a profession in demand, only to see that profession being put at risk to being outsourced when these students were halfway or more to their completing the degree or qualifications in that profession?
A link below about Obama putting American jobs at risk on behalf of the cheap labor lobby. Will you say that those students in the last paragraph didn't have the foresight to see the future? The future being that all jobs and professions are at risk to the profit motive?

New Obama Action Could Increase Permanent Work Permits to Foreign Workers Above Congressionally-Approved Levels | NumbersUSA

The context of that article addresses increasing the competitive situation for job seekers. If you are going to tell me that as an employer of recent graduates whom we start at $60K+ a year in positions that have career potential salaries that top $1M/year that I should feel sorry for them because an increase in H1B visas increases the labor competition and thus allows employers to hire them for a bit less but at nonetheless quite good starting salaries, I'm just not buying it.

So basically you're saying that all jobs in this country are at risk to being given to the lowest bidder from anywhere in the world, since those low bidders can easily brought to this country now. Like I said, all American jobs are at risk now due to the profit at any cost, and to hell with what's good for America, attitude.

While I do not like the reality, it is what it is. And it is, at least in the short term, not good for American manufacturing, as well as other industries. If one is in favor of free market capitalism, one must accept the fact that this is one of the consequences of it. However, in many ways the American workforce, through unions and expectations of a certain standard of living, have done this to ourselves. We have, in essence, priced ourselves out of the labor market to a large degree.

 

[jasonnfree]

Certainly sounds like a perfect description of what we have here....

Corporatism:

• The society and economy of a country are organized into major interest groups (sometimes called corporations) and representatives of those interest groups settle any problems through negotiation and joint agreement. In contrast to a market economy which operates through competition a corporate economic works through collective bargaining.

It doesn't sound like what we have going on to me, although aspects of it are present in our "system." To that end, I will recognize that corporatism is a continuous concept rather than a binary one. I don't see much negotiation; what I see is the folks in power exerting their power to do what they want so long as they have the power and obstructing action when the power must unavoidably be shared. That's not my idea of negotiation; that's "I want all of what I want, and you can't have any of what you want, so long as I have any say in the matter."

Regardless of whether our society is or is not corporatist -- even mentioning that strikes me as a red herring to side track the topic of the thread -- seems irrelevant. Times are changing no matter whether we are corporatist, free market oriented, or anything else. The point of the thread is that all the grumbling about "exported job this" and "can't get a job that" is just folks loudly "on about" what boils down to their not having paid attention to the "writing on the wall" and now what was portended has come to be and the grumblers are "stuck out in the cold," so to speak, and they want to blame their misfortune on damn near anyone other than themselves.

For example, if one has kids, what kinds of input does one give them?

• What guidance did one give them re: studying foreign language? Did one say the following, for example? "You can take Spanish or French if you want to, but you better take Mandarin too because by the time you are grown the Chinese will have a role in the global economy that cannot be ignored and knowing Mandarin will make it easier for you to succeed in that economy."
• What guidance did one give them about whether to become very good with math and computer science skills?
• Is one telling one's kids that although the so-called "health care revolution" has been long anticipated, it hasn't really happened, but surely by your generation's majority, it will, so being strong in chemistry and biology will give you a "leg up" in being part of that wave of innovation?
• Has one said to them that although miniaturization is always going to be "in demand," robotics is just now getting to the point that it can assume a "Jetsons-esque" role in the daily lives of the masses, so if physics, biomechanics, or various engineering fields interest you, see what appeals to you that can have robotics applications.
• Are people saying to their kids, "We live in a globalized world, and in that world there are huge portions of it that have not ascended to the levels of advancement that we have in the U.S. and Western Europe. If you are to make a tidy living, you can surely find your fortune by learning from the mistakes made in the West and/or building on our advances and being part of the tide that makes them or better available in the underdeveloped part(s) of the world."?

Quite frankly, if that (or similar) is not the input one is giving one's kids (or gave them a few years ago), the "blame," the "problem," when some years from now they can't get a good job, isn't them or anyone else, it's oneself. In short, if one is not giving one's descendents insights on how to prepare for and where to find the best opportunities upon their entry into the workforce, what good is one?

I'll tell you want one is good for. Complaining and singing "woe is me." And that, backed with plenty of hubris and nostalgia for days long gone, is what I see a lot of these days. Too much for my taste.

You say "all the grumbling about "exported job this" and "can't get a job that" is just folks loudly "on about" what boils down to their not having paid attention to the "writing on the wall".
How about those young people who had the foresight to train in a profession in demand, only to see that profession being put at risk to being outsourced when these students were halfway or more to their completing the degree or qualifications in that profession?
A link below about Obama putting American jobs at risk on behalf of the cheap labor lobby. Will you say that those students in the last paragraph didn't have the foresight to see the future? The future being that all jobs and professions are at risk to the profit motive?

New Obama Action Could Increase Permanent Work Permits to Foreign Workers Above Congressionally-Approved Levels | NumbersUSA

The context of that article addresses increasing the competitive situation for job seekers. If you are going to tell me that as an employer of recent graduates whom we start at $60K+ a year in positions that have career potential salaries that top $1M/year that I should feel sorry for them because an increase in H1B visas increases the labor competition and thus allows employers to hire them for a bit less but at nonetheless quite good starting salaries, I'm just not buying it.

So you are an employer in the USA and don't want pay the going rate, I get this. I see how it helps your bottom line, but how does this help our country by flooding it with cheap labor from the third world, I ask.

You're in favor of capitalism, aren't you? I am.

??? What you are calling "cheap" amounts to the firm paying between $5K and $10K per worker per year in salary/wages to some, say, 50 to 100 new hires. That savings goes to the firm and allows the partners to retain more of the firm's earnings and thus have more to spend on "whatever," be it personally or collectively as firm investments. And guess what, nobody had to lower our tax rates to make that happen; it's purely a matter of market driven competition for labor.

What might the firm do with that money? Well, it might sponsor graduate school for qualified/deserving recent hires, something several firms do already, but an extra $250K-$500K per year certainly will sponsor several more individuals. Perhaps we'd increase the staffing in one of the support departments of the firm, thus making more jobs available. Perhaps we'd increase the number of client facing professionals we hire overall. Maybe it'd be used to help fund human resource or infrastructural improvements. Or maybe we'd donate the savings to one or several charitable causes. Among the last things the partners would do with it is direct it to their own pockets simply because it could be better spent elsewhere, mainly because given the firm's size, that sum isn't going to matter as bump in annual per partner earnings.

Are you really going to tell me that a gross earnings increase of $5K - $10K is "life changing" for someone being paid $60-$70K/per year? Because that, not a difference/savings of $20K-$30K per person per year, is really what we are talking about as the delta between what I have seen between the rates we pay for our "imported" project staff and our full time domestic employees in the same roles. We both know that sum it's not. Were we talking about "importing" H1B workers to perform low paying retail or restaurant roles, I'd have a different stance, but we aren't. Nobody is going overseas to find workers to fill minimum or just above minimum wage positions.

Are you going to argue against the idea that the economy as a whole is better off when the highest earners have more disposable income to do with as they see fit? I won't argue against upping the tax rates of high earners because I am well aware that doing so by the tiny increments that are under consideration at any given recent point aren't going to make difference in the lives of one-percenters, and I'm certainly going to minimize my own tax bill to the best of my ability if I'm offered a lower tax rate. I'm not saying you should or shouldn't oppose higher taxes on the wealthy, but I am saying that if you buy into the principles of "trickle down," then you need to buy into it not just re: taxes, but also re: it's manifestation in the marketplace as a result of competition. (Note: I don't know a thing about you or your historic remarks on this site, so I have no idea what way you'll answer the question.)

You realize that essentially you are arguing that employers like my firm should willfully pay higher prices and eschew spending less of their capital because it's good for the nation. What makes any sense of that yet the same basis for argument is roundly opposed when it comes to taxes? Are you among those who "get ethical" when it comes to wages, but not so much when it comes to taxes?

In post

Certainly sounds like a perfect description of what we have here....

Corporatism:

• The society and economy of a country are organized into major interest groups (sometimes called corporations) and representatives of those interest groups settle any problems through negotiation and joint agreement. In contrast to a market economy which operates through competition a corporate economic works through collective bargaining.

It doesn't sound like what we have going on to me, although aspects of it are present in our "system." To that end, I will recognize that corporatism is a continuous concept rather than a binary one. I don't see much negotiation; what I see is the folks in power exerting their power to do what they want so long as they have the power and obstructing action when the power must unavoidably be shared. That's not my idea of negotiation; that's "I want all of what I want, and you can't have any of what you want, so long as I have any say in the matter."

Regardless of whether our society is or is not corporatist -- even mentioning that strikes me as a red herring to side track the topic of the thread -- seems irrelevant. Times are changing no matter whether we are corporatist, free market oriented, or anything else. The point of the thread is that all the grumbling about "exported job this" and "can't get a job that" is just folks loudly "on about" what boils down to their not having paid attention to the "writing on the wall" and now what was portended has come to be and the grumblers are "stuck out in the cold," so to speak, and they want to blame their misfortune on damn near anyone other than themselves.

For example, if one has kids, what kinds of input does one give them?

• What guidance did one give them re: studying foreign language? Did one say the following, for example? "You can take Spanish or French if you want to, but you better take Mandarin too because by the time you are grown the Chinese will have a role in the global economy that cannot be ignored and knowing Mandarin will make it easier for you to succeed in that economy."
• What guidance did one give them about whether to become very good with math and computer science skills?
• Is one telling one's kids that although the so-called "health care revolution" has been long anticipated, it hasn't really happened, but surely by your generation's majority, it will, so being strong in chemistry and biology will give you a "leg up" in being part of that wave of innovation?
• Has one said to them that although miniaturization is always going to be "in demand," robotics is just now getting to the point that it can assume a "Jetsons-esque" role in the daily lives of the masses, so if physics, biomechanics, or various engineering fields interest you, see what appeals to you that can have robotics applications.
• Are people saying to their kids, "We live in a globalized world, and in that world there are huge portions of it that have not ascended to the levels of advancement that we have in the U.S. and Western Europe. If you are to make a tidy living, you can surely find your fortune by learning from the mistakes made in the West and/or building on our advances and being part of the tide that makes them or better available in the underdeveloped part(s) of the world."?

Quite frankly, if that (or similar) is not the input one is giving one's kids (or gave them a few years ago), the "blame," the "problem," when some years from now they can't get a good job, isn't them or anyone else, it's oneself. In short, if one is not giving one's descendents insights on how to prepare for and where to find the best opportunities upon their entry into the workforce, what good is one?

I'll tell you want one is good for. Complaining and singing "woe is me." And that, backed with plenty of hubris and nostalgia for days long gone, is what I see a lot of these days. Too much for my taste.

You say "all the grumbling about "exported job this" and "can't get a job that" is just folks loudly "on about" what boils down to their not having paid attention to the "writing on the wall".
How about those young people who had the foresight to train in a profession in demand, only to see that profession being put at risk to being outsourced when these students were halfway or more to their completing the degree or qualifications in that profession?
A link below about Obama putting American jobs at risk on behalf of the cheap labor lobby. Will you say that those students in the last paragraph didn't have the foresight to see the future? The future being that all jobs and professions are at risk to the profit motive?

New Obama Action Could Increase Permanent Work Permits to Foreign Workers Above Congressionally-Approved Levels | NumbersUSA

The context of that article addresses increasing the competitive situation for job seekers. If you are going to tell me that as an employer of recent graduates whom we start at $60K+ a year in positions that have career potential salaries that top $1M/year that I should feel sorry for them because an increase in H1B visas increases the labor competition and thus allows employers to hire them for a bit less but at nonetheless quite good starting salaries, I'm just not buying it.

So you are an employer in the USA and don't want pay the going rate, I get this. I see how it helps your bottom line, but how does this help our country by flooding it with cheap labor from the third world, I ask.

You're in favor of capitalism, aren't you? I am.

??? What you are calling "cheap" amounts to the firm paying between $5K and $10K per worker per year in salary/wages to some, say, 50 to 100 new hires. That savings goes to the firm and allows the partners to retain more of the firm's earnings and thus have more to spend on "whatever," be it personally or collectively as firm investments. And guess what, nobody had to lower our tax rates to make that happen; it's purely a matter of market driven competition for labor.

What might the firm do with that money? Well, it might sponsor graduate school for qualified/deserving recent hires, something several firms do already, but an extra $250K-$500K per year certainly will sponsor several more individuals. Perhaps we'd increase the staffing in one of the support departments of the firm, thus making more jobs available. Perhaps we'd increase the number of client facing professionals we hire overall. Maybe it'd be used to help fund human resource or infrastructural improvements. Or maybe we'd donate the savings to one or several charitable causes. Among the last things the partners would do with it is direct it to their own pockets simply because it could be better spent elsewhere, mainly because given the firm's size, that sum isn't going to matter as bump in annual per partner earnings.

Are you really going to tell me that a gross earnings increase of $5K - $10K is "life changing" for someone being paid $60-$70K/per year? Because that, not a difference/savings of $20K-$30K per person per year, is really what we are talking about as the delta between what I have seen between the rates we pay for our "imported" project staff and our full time domestic employees in the same roles. We both know that sum it's not. Were we talking about "importing" H1B workers to perform low paying retail or restaurant roles, I'd have a different stance, but we aren't. Nobody is going overseas to find workers to fill minimum or just above minimum wage positions.

Are you going to argue against the idea that the economy as a whole is better off when the highest earners have more disposable income to do with as they see fit? I won't argue against upping the tax rates of high earners because I am well aware that doing so by the tiny increments that are under consideration at any given recent point aren't going to make difference in the lives of one-percenters, and I'm certainly going to minimize my own tax bill to the best of my ability if I'm offered a lower tax rate. I'm not saying you should or shouldn't oppose higher taxes on the wealthy, but I am saying that if you buy into the principles of "trickle down," then you need to buy into it not just re: taxes, but also re: it's manifestation in the marketplace as a result of competition. (Note: I don't know a thing about you or your historic remarks on this site, so I have no idea what way you'll answer the question.)

You realize that essentially you are arguing that employers like my firm should willfully pay higher prices and eschew spending less of their capital because it's good for the nation. What makes any sense of that yet the same basis for argument is roundly opposed when it comes to taxes? Are you among those who "get ethical" when it comes to wages, but not so much when it comes to taxes?

In post #15 you said "The point of the thread is that all the grumbling about "exported job this" and "can't get a job that" is just folks loudly "on about" what boils down to their not having paid attention to the "writing on the wall" and now what was portended has come to be and the grumblers are "stuck out in the cold," so to speak, and they want to blame their misfortune on damn near anyone other than themselves.
Those are your words, which I responded to.

You're basically blaming American workers for not seeing the "writing on the wall". I'm saying that even if people see the writing on the wall and try to prepare for the future in advance, their futures are at risk due to this new globalization situation we have where labor and jobs can be shifted to anyplace where it can be more profitable. You write an acre of words, but to cut to the chase, you're trying to justify being an employer who will bring into this country anyone who will undercut American wages. I asked, how does help our country, since there are millions of these low wage foreign stem grads ready to serve you, even if will to harm to American kids in school right now planning their futures by studying for these degrees?

 

[320 Years of History]

Corporatism:

• The society and economy of a country are organized into major interest groups (sometimes called corporations) and representatives of those interest groups settle any problems through negotiation and joint agreement. In contrast to a market economy which operates through competition a corporate economic works through collective bargaining.

It doesn't sound like what we have going on to me, although aspects of it are present in our "system." To that end, I will recognize that corporatism is a continuous concept rather than a binary one. I don't see much negotiation; what I see is the folks in power exerting their power to do what they want so long as they have the power and obstructing action when the power must unavoidably be shared. That's not my idea of negotiation; that's "I want all of what I want, and you can't have any of what you want, so long as I have any say in the matter."

Regardless of whether our society is or is not corporatist -- even mentioning that strikes me as a red herring to side track the topic of the thread -- seems irrelevant. Times are changing no matter whether we are corporatist, free market oriented, or anything else. The point of the thread is that all the grumbling about "exported job this" and "can't get a job that" is just folks loudly "on about" what boils down to their not having paid attention to the "writing on the wall" and now what was portended has come to be and the grumblers are "stuck out in the cold," so to speak, and they want to blame their misfortune on damn near anyone other than themselves.

For example, if one has kids, what kinds of input does one give them?

• What guidance did one give them re: studying foreign language? Did one say the following, for example? "You can take Spanish or French if you want to, but you better take Mandarin too because by the time you are grown the Chinese will have a role in the global economy that cannot be ignored and knowing Mandarin will make it easier for you to succeed in that economy."
• What guidance did one give them about whether to become very good with math and computer science skills?
• Is one telling one's kids that although the so-called "health care revolution" has been long anticipated, it hasn't really happened, but surely by your generation's majority, it will, so being strong in chemistry and biology will give you a "leg up" in being part of that wave of innovation?
• Has one said to them that although miniaturization is always going to be "in demand," robotics is just now getting to the point that it can assume a "Jetsons-esque" role in the daily lives of the masses, so if physics, biomechanics, or various engineering fields interest you, see what appeals to you that can have robotics applications.
• Are people saying to their kids, "We live in a globalized world, and in that world there are huge portions of it that have not ascended to the levels of advancement that we have in the U.S. and Western Europe. If you are to make a tidy living, you can surely find your fortune by learning from the mistakes made in the West and/or building on our advances and being part of the tide that makes them or better available in the underdeveloped part(s) of the world."?

Quite frankly, if that (or similar) is not the input one is giving one's kids (or gave them a few years ago), the "blame," the "problem," when some years from now they can't get a good job, isn't them or anyone else, it's oneself. In short, if one is not giving one's descendents insights on how to prepare for and where to find the best opportunities upon their entry into the workforce, what good is one?

I'll tell you want one is good for. Complaining and singing "woe is me." And that, backed with plenty of hubris and nostalgia for days long gone, is what I see a lot of these days. Too much for my taste.

You say "all the grumbling about "exported job this" and "can't get a job that" is just folks loudly "on about" what boils down to their not having paid attention to the "writing on the wall".
How about those young people who had the foresight to train in a profession in demand, only to see that profession being put at risk to being outsourced when these students were halfway or more to their completing the degree or qualifications in that profession?
A link below about Obama putting American jobs at risk on behalf of the cheap labor lobby. Will you say that those students in the last paragraph didn't have the foresight to see the future? The future being that all jobs and professions are at risk to the profit motive?

New Obama Action Could Increase Permanent Work Permits to Foreign Workers Above Congressionally-Approved Levels | NumbersUSA

The context of that article addresses increasing the competitive situation for job seekers. If you are going to tell me that as an employer of recent graduates whom we start at $60K+ a year in positions that have career potential salaries that top $1M/year that I should feel sorry for them because an increase in H1B visas increases the labor competition and thus allows employers to hire them for a bit less but at nonetheless quite good starting salaries, I'm just not buying it.

So you are an employer in the USA and don't want pay the going rate, I get this. I see how it helps your bottom line, but how does this help our country by flooding it with cheap labor from the third world, I ask.

You're in favor of capitalism, aren't you? I am.

??? What you are calling "cheap" amounts to the firm paying between $5K and $10K per worker per year in salary/wages to some, say, 50 to 100 new hires. That savings goes to the firm and allows the partners to retain more of the firm's earnings and thus have more to spend on "whatever," be it personally or collectively as firm investments. And guess what, nobody had to lower our tax rates to make that happen; it's purely a matter of market driven competition for labor.

What might the firm do with that money? Well, it might sponsor graduate school for qualified/deserving recent hires, something several firms do already, but an extra $250K-$500K per year certainly will sponsor several more individuals. Perhaps we'd increase the staffing in one of the support departments of the firm, thus making more jobs available. Perhaps we'd increase the number of client facing professionals we hire overall. Maybe it'd be used to help fund human resource or infrastructural improvements. Or maybe we'd donate the savings to one or several charitable causes. Among the last things the partners would do with it is direct it to their own pockets simply because it could be better spent elsewhere, mainly because given the firm's size, that sum isn't going to matter as bump in annual per partner earnings.

Are you really going to tell me that a gross earnings increase of $5K - $10K is "life changing" for someone being paid $60-$70K/per year? Because that, not a difference/savings of $20K-$30K per person per year, is really what we are talking about as the delta between what I have seen between the rates we pay for our "imported" project staff and our full time domestic employees in the same roles. We both know that sum it's not. Were we talking about "importing" H1B workers to perform low paying retail or restaurant roles, I'd have a different stance, but we aren't. Nobody is going overseas to find workers to fill minimum or just above minimum wage positions.

Are you going to argue against the idea that the economy as a whole is better off when the highest earners have more disposable income to do with as they see fit? I won't argue against upping the tax rates of high earners because I am well aware that doing so by the tiny increments that are under consideration at any given recent point aren't going to make difference in the lives of one-percenters, and I'm certainly going to minimize my own tax bill to the best of my ability if I'm offered a lower tax rate. I'm not saying you should or shouldn't oppose higher taxes on the wealthy, but I am saying that if you buy into the principles of "trickle down," then you need to buy into it not just re: taxes, but also re: it's manifestation in the marketplace as a result of competition. (Note: I don't know a thing about you or your historic remarks on this site, so I have no idea what way you'll answer the question.)

You realize that essentially you are arguing that employers like my firm should willfully pay higher prices and eschew spending less of their capital because it's good for the nation. What makes any sense of that yet the same basis for argument is roundly opposed when it comes to taxes? Are you among those who "get ethical" when it comes to wages, but not so much when it comes to taxes?

In post

Corporatism:

• The society and economy of a country are organized into major interest groups (sometimes called corporations) and representatives of those interest groups settle any problems through negotiation and joint agreement. In contrast to a market economy which operates through competition a corporate economic works through collective bargaining.

It doesn't sound like what we have going on to me, although aspects of it are present in our "system." To that end, I will recognize that corporatism is a continuous concept rather than a binary one. I don't see much negotiation; what I see is the folks in power exerting their power to do what they want so long as they have the power and obstructing action when the power must unavoidably be shared. That's not my idea of negotiation; that's "I want all of what I want, and you can't have any of what you want, so long as I have any say in the matter."

Regardless of whether our society is or is not corporatist -- even mentioning that strikes me as a red herring to side track the topic of the thread -- seems irrelevant. Times are changing no matter whether we are corporatist, free market oriented, or anything else. The point of the thread is that all the grumbling about "exported job this" and "can't get a job that" is just folks loudly "on about" what boils down to their not having paid attention to the "writing on the wall" and now what was portended has come to be and the grumblers are "stuck out in the cold," so to speak, and they want to blame their misfortune on damn near anyone other than themselves.

For example, if one has kids, what kinds of input does one give them?

• What guidance did one give them re: studying foreign language? Did one say the following, for example? "You can take Spanish or French if you want to, but you better take Mandarin too because by the time you are grown the Chinese will have a role in the global economy that cannot be ignored and knowing Mandarin will make it easier for you to succeed in that economy."
• What guidance did one give them about whether to become very good with math and computer science skills?
• Is one telling one's kids that although the so-called "health care revolution" has been long anticipated, it hasn't really happened, but surely by your generation's majority, it will, so being strong in chemistry and biology will give you a "leg up" in being part of that wave of innovation?
• Has one said to them that although miniaturization is always going to be "in demand," robotics is just now getting to the point that it can assume a "Jetsons-esque" role in the daily lives of the masses, so if physics, biomechanics, or various engineering fields interest you, see what appeals to you that can have robotics applications.
• Are people saying to their kids, "We live in a globalized world, and in that world there are huge portions of it that have not ascended to the levels of advancement that we have in the U.S. and Western Europe. If you are to make a tidy living, you can surely find your fortune by learning from the mistakes made in the West and/or building on our advances and being part of the tide that makes them or better available in the underdeveloped part(s) of the world."?

Quite frankly, if that (or similar) is not the input one is giving one's kids (or gave them a few years ago), the "blame," the "problem," when some years from now they can't get a good job, isn't them or anyone else, it's oneself. In short, if one is not giving one's descendents insights on how to prepare for and where to find the best opportunities upon their entry into the workforce, what good is one?

I'll tell you want one is good for. Complaining and singing "woe is me." And that, backed with plenty of hubris and nostalgia for days long gone, is what I see a lot of these days. Too much for my taste.

You say "all the grumbling about "exported job this" and "can't get a job that" is just folks loudly "on about" what boils down to their not having paid attention to the "writing on the wall".
How about those young people who had the foresight to train in a profession in demand, only to see that profession being put at risk to being outsourced when these students were halfway or more to their completing the degree or qualifications in that profession?
A link below about Obama putting American jobs at risk on behalf of the cheap labor lobby. Will you say that those students in the last paragraph didn't have the foresight to see the future? The future being that all jobs and professions are at risk to the profit motive?

New Obama Action Could Increase Permanent Work Permits to Foreign Workers Above Congressionally-Approved Levels | NumbersUSA

The context of that article addresses increasing the competitive situation for job seekers. If you are going to tell me that as an employer of recent graduates whom we start at $60K+ a year in positions that have career potential salaries that top $1M/year that I should feel sorry for them because an increase in H1B visas increases the labor competition and thus allows employers to hire them for a bit less but at nonetheless quite good starting salaries, I'm just not buying it.

So you are an employer in the USA and don't want pay the going rate, I get this. I see how it helps your bottom line, but how does this help our country by flooding it with cheap labor from the third world, I ask.

You're in favor of capitalism, aren't you? I am.

??? What you are calling "cheap" amounts to the firm paying between $5K and $10K per worker per year in salary/wages to some, say, 50 to 100 new hires. That savings goes to the firm and allows the partners to retain more of the firm's earnings and thus have more to spend on "whatever," be it personally or collectively as firm investments. And guess what, nobody had to lower our tax rates to make that happen; it's purely a matter of market driven competition for labor.

What might the firm do with that money? Well, it might sponsor graduate school for qualified/deserving recent hires, something several firms do already, but an extra $250K-$500K per year certainly will sponsor several more individuals. Perhaps we'd increase the staffing in one of the support departments of the firm, thus making more jobs available. Perhaps we'd increase the number of client facing professionals we hire overall. Maybe it'd be used to help fund human resource or infrastructural improvements. Or maybe we'd donate the savings to one or several charitable causes. Among the last things the partners would do with it is direct it to their own pockets simply because it could be better spent elsewhere, mainly because given the firm's size, that sum isn't going to matter as bump in annual per partner earnings.

Are you really going to tell me that a gross earnings increase of $5K - $10K is "life changing" for someone being paid $60-$70K/per year? Because that, not a difference/savings of $20K-$30K per person per year, is really what we are talking about as the delta between what I have seen between the rates we pay for our "imported" project staff and our full time domestic employees in the same roles. We both know that sum it's not. Were we talking about "importing" H1B workers to perform low paying retail or restaurant roles, I'd have a different stance, but we aren't. Nobody is going overseas to find workers to fill minimum or just above minimum wage positions.

Are you going to argue against the idea that the economy as a whole is better off when the highest earners have more disposable income to do with as they see fit? I won't argue against upping the tax rates of high earners because I am well aware that doing so by the tiny increments that are under consideration at any given recent point aren't going to make difference in the lives of one-percenters, and I'm certainly going to minimize my own tax bill to the best of my ability if I'm offered a lower tax rate. I'm not saying you should or shouldn't oppose higher taxes on the wealthy, but I am saying that if you buy into the principles of "trickle down," then you need to buy into it not just re: taxes, but also re: it's manifestation in the marketplace as a result of competition. (Note: I don't know a thing about you or your historic remarks on this site, so I have no idea what way you'll answer the question.)

You realize that essentially you are arguing that employers like my firm should willfully pay higher prices and eschew spending less of their capital because it's good for the nation. What makes any sense of that yet the same basis for argument is roundly opposed when it comes to taxes? Are you among those who "get ethical" when it comes to wages, but not so much when it comes to taxes?

In post #15 you said "The point of the thread is that all the grumbling about "exported job this" and "can't get a job that" is just folks loudly "on about" what boils down to their not having paid attention to the "writing on the wall" and now what was portended has come to be and the grumblers are "stuck out in the cold," so to speak, and they want to blame their misfortune on damn near anyone other than themselves.
Those are your words, which I responded to.

You're basically blaming American workers for not seeing the "writing on the wall". I'm saying that even if people see the writing on the wall and try to prepare for the future in advance, their futures are at risk due to this new globalization situation we have where labor and jobs can be shifted to anyplace where it can be more profitable. You write an acre of words, but to cut to the chase, you're trying to justify being an employer who will bring into this country anyone who will undercut American wages. I asked, how does help our country, since there are millions of these low wage foreign stem grads ready to serve you, even if will to harm to American kids in school right now planning their futures by studying for these degrees?

I'll respond to the post in it's entirety after you correct the typos in the red text. The earlier typos didn't stump me, but the one(s) in the red text have.