Anyone with half a brain knows that sending jobs overseas only helps the corporations, not the non-executive people working for them.

It's just another sign of the spin propaganda being forced down the nation's collective throat by the present regime.

It's like saying - "It's ok to have bad roads. Why fix them? It causes drivers to drive more cautiously, therefore causing less accidents."

Really George?

re: "Checkers and cashiers at grocery stores. Working at McDonalds or Subway. Car washes."

Bush wants to loosen up Mexican immigration for those.

Sorry.

Love it or...

move to...

um...

India?

China?

Hey, I hear they're hiring.

it does seem at though they're soft-pedaling the offshore outsourcing of IT jobs. check out the Economic Report of the President. outsourcing is mentioned, but for manufacturing jobs only.

and criminy, are they going 'all in' on this claim that the ecomomy is going to create 3.8 million jobs this year? yow.

"The Myth of Job Recovery" on my site has a few useful inks.

The relatively few jobs that are being created pay 20% less on average (40% less in California.

It also gets into the "faux trade" argument a bit.

There are a few jobs that are picking up... Checkers and cashiers at grocery stores.

I thought they were disappearing in favor of self-checkout. I certainly don't see my supermarket hiring anybody.

I would recommend going into private security. The rich are going to need bodyguards. Plus, when you're armed you have another bargaining chip when you ask for a raise.

You guys don't get it do you. Sending jobs abroad is good. It frees capital for new technology. Jobs sent overseas to India for example give a wage to the poorest of the poor, allowing them to afford clean water, food, and housing.

They also grow as a consumer class to be able to purchase items made by our companies, increasing profits and therefore enabling more jobs for us here.

Without the jobs we send overseas companies over here would not be able to sustain any jobs, and would risk total bankruptcy.

Not sending jobs overseas starves children. Millions will die of starvation, thirst, and disease becuause you want to ensure a few jobs over here in the short term.

And Mac Diva calls me racist.

I basically agree with you on this topic Tom, although there are many side issues that complicate the matter.

"You guys don't get it do you. Sending jobs abroad is good. It frees capital for new technology. Jobs sent overseas to India for example give a wage to the poorest of the poor, allowing them to afford clean water, food, and housing.
They also grow as a consumer class to be able to purchase items made by our companies, increasing profits and therefore enabling more jobs for us here.

Tom, I'm afraid that we do get it.

The truth is that offshoring jobs is good for the countries that get those jobs, not the U. S. That's nice, but the corollary is that it diminishes the resources in this country. In the current trade circumstances, there is no tit-for-tat, there is no "rising tide."

When you follow the money (a McKinsey Global Institute study) you find that $1 in labor from the U. S. goes to India and generates $1.45. Of that 33 cents stays in India initially and $1.12 is returned to the multinational corporation that fired that U. S. worker to get that $1.

Sounds great, except nobody mentions that that's not the end of the money trail.

The multinational rakes off a bit for the corporate officers, perhaps some for stockholder dividends, but then what do you suppose it does with the rest?

No, it doesn't give any of it that unemployed American worker: It sends the money to India again, because that's where it can turn every $1 into a $1.45 - the stockholders wouldn't have it any other way.

We see the results of that reflected in the supposed "jobless recovery" which isn't jobless, it's just that the jobs are in Mumbai.



(Thanks for listing these, Eric - I missed this quote.)

Seems like the third world countries need jobs a lot worse than we do. Why should I be mad about them getting some jobs?

I could give a shit about the third world when I don't have money myself?

Take care of your own before you try to save the planet.

Barger: "Seems like the third world countries need jobs a lot worse than we do. Why should I be mad about them getting some jobs?"

There are 8+ million counted unemployed Americans that would have a great answer for you.

There's another 4-6 million or so that can't find a full-time job, like programmers and former punch-press operators delivering pizzas to cover their food and rent, who you should ask, too.

Not to mention another 3-4 million who have quit looking for work because there are no jobs for them.

I'd love to be a fly-on-the-wall when you ask.

Just a quick note to say I believe Hal has done a wonderful job analyzing this topic in several posts. His insight and dedication, and knowledge of the situation he is discussing (too often missing in the blogosphere) are to be applauded.

Liberal bloggers expended a lot of energy on trying to keep the Gropenator from being elected governor in Cali. I believe this topic deserves more attention because its repercussions reach deeper. I fear that 'discouraged' unemployed people (the ones so long out of a job so long they give up) will begin to believe they are indeed expendable unless what is occurring here is fully exposed. If so, that notion will creep into the consciousnesses of most Americans. They will believe that it is fine for as much as 15 or 20 percent of the employable population to be unemployed or underemployed.

Also:

Terrorists are usually people who have nothing to lose.

8,000,000
+ 4 to 6,000,000
+ 3 to 4,000,000
------------------------
= *


* New bumper sticker:

"You do the math while I reload."

Something I will add to Hal's and Tom's disagreement is that even in India or China or Nairobi, it isn't the average worker who profits most from exported jobs. It is the elite of their countries, who own the factories and get the contracts, or, as if often the case, the Second World wealthy (South Koreans, for example) exploiting Third World labor (Bangladeshis, for example). This is all much more complicated than the Bush administration's talking points would have us believe.

On a side note...

Suddenly, I have CHEESE on my blog...

GRRR....

Thanks for the strokes, MD.

As far as the California recall goes, it was an "Anybody but..." situation for me - Davis had to go. He should have taken the Democratic legislature with him (he didn't do all that damage alone), but we didn't have a choice.

Arnold was not my first choice (conservative Republican McClintock has his head screwed on straight), but it ended up a popularity contest.

Today, I'm trying to convince people that borrowing against your credit card is not a good way to solve your financial problems (Arnold is asking for a $15 billion loan, which would be just enough to hold us until we get hit by next year's $7-10 billion projected deficit).

As I've said many a time: the problem isn't the parties, it's the politicians.

Re terrorists: it is utterly false that they tend to be people with nothing to lose. The 9/11 terrorists, and even many other suicide bombers, tend to be well-educated, middle class or higher, fanatics who succumb to social pressure and the need to "belong."

§µ<¥?$t is utterly false that they tend to be people with nothing to lose. The 9/11 terrorists, and even many other suicide bombers, tend to be well-educated, middle class or higher, fanatics who succumb to social pressure and the need to "belong."

I stand corrected.

You're right relative to international, idealogical terrorism.

I was talking about Americans, (Ted Kaczynski, et al?) and rampant joblessness, layoffs, downsizing, ruined retirements, etc.--- I should have said "home-grown American terrorists". (esp. in the future)

I stand by that as a statement, but more as a prediction... which I guess means:

We shall see.