"Social Investing"

[bush_cheney2004]

I don't think we can provide that... but keep watching.

I only mention it because the whining coming from the so called "middle class" has to be tempered by this reality. If it was fine to compete and win/lose against the unwashed masses, what has really changed? Are they only bitching now because it's getting a lot tougher to stay in the game?

[blueblood]

You think that high salary jobs will come back again without government intervention ? I don't.

except there are hi salary jobs out there, just not what the status quo used to be.

[Michael Hardner]

Are they only bitching now because it's getting a lot tougher to stay in the game?

It seems to me that we would drift into talk about what is fair/unfair if we went into that area. Of course it's tougher for them, but who knows whether they know that, agree with it, or like it...

[Michael Hardner]

except there are hi salary jobs out there, just not what the status quo used to be.

We can just admit that those jobs are fewer and harder to get and that's enough for me. I don't need to talk about what's fair or unfair, but what works.

The middle class manufacturing jobs that flourished in 20th century American came about from a number of factors, one of which was organized labour. We can say that without having to enter into the other discussion.

We can also say that politicians are promising jobs, but none of them are truthfully saying how well-paying jobs will return...

[bush_cheney2004]

The middle class manufacturing jobs that flourished in 20th century American came about from a number of factors, one of which was organized labour. We can say that without having to enter into the other discussion.

Why are you avoiding the "other discussion". Why is your focus on America (i.e. United States) instead of the larger domain?

We can also say that politicians are promising jobs, but none of them are truthfully saying how well-paying jobs will return...

Politicians do not not create jobs....but you already knew that.

[Michael Hardner]

Why are you avoiding the "other discussion". Why is your focus on America (i.e. United States) instead of the larger domain?

What other discussion ? I think I acknowledged that globalized trade is good for some other countries too, didn't I ?

Politicians do not not create jobs....but you already knew that.

Incorrect - they create their own job... and they will do whatever is required to get it.

[blueblood]

We can just admit that those jobs are fewer and harder to get and that's enough for me. I don't need to talk about what's fair or unfair, but what works.

The middle class manufacturing jobs that flourished in 20th century American came about from a number of factors, one of which was organized labour. We can say that without having to enter into the other discussion.

We can also say that politicians are promising jobs, but none of them are truthfully saying how well-paying jobs will return...

The manufacturing jobs came about because of market conditions and a growing economy. Organized labour only inflated the wages and helped increase the cost of labour which provided the incentive to look at Asia. The well paying jobs will return when the cost of production allows them to return. This isn't the mid 20th century where the USA was the only kid on the block.

If your talking about the stereotypical factory jobs, then yes they will be fewer and harder to get, but energy production, agricultue, and tech will be more plentiful.

[Shady]

If your talking about the stereotypical factory jobs, then yes they will be fewer and harder to get, but energy production, agricultue, and tech will be more plentiful.

Defintiely. Except the same people that bemoan the loss of manufacturing jobs, fight like hell against an expanded energy industry and the good paying manufacturing jobs that come from that. They also don't realize their quest for CO2 reductions neuters the manufacturing industry as a whole.

I'm beginning to think these people are bi-polar or something.

[bush_cheney2004]

What other discussion ? I think I acknowledged that globalized trade is good for some other countries too, didn't I ?

Excellent...then we agree that globalized capital and labour is good, regardless of winners or losers. Guess who's turn it is to lose after dominating for a century?

Incorrect - they create their own job... and they will do whatever is required to get it.

Okay, but quite petty in the overall scheme of things. That's why we asked about "Occupying" Washington or Ottawa instead.

[bush_cheney2004]

... The well paying jobs will return when the cost of production allows them to return. This isn't the mid 20th century where the USA was the only kid on the block.

It wasn't even that good...unemployment rates were actually higher during previous recessions. Union jobs with overtime largesse took a hit back then too. I didn't live through the 30's, but I did live through the 70's....that's when Chrysler almost went under the first time save for a government bailout.

[Michael Hardner]

The manufacturing jobs came about because of market conditions and a growing economy. Organized labour only inflated the wages and helped increase the cost of labour which provided the incentive to look at Asia. The well paying jobs will return when the cost of production allows them to return. This isn't the mid 20th century where the USA was the only kid on the block.

The incentive to look at Asia... 50 years later...

If your talking about the stereotypical factory jobs, then yes they will be fewer and harder to get, but energy production, agricultue, and tech will be more plentiful.

When ? And Tech ? How so... those jobs also have gone offshore and are still going.

[Michael Hardner]

Excellent...then we agree that globalized capital and labour is good, regardless of winners or losers. Guess who's turn it is to lose after dominating for a century?

Uh.. the US's I guess ?

Okay, but quite petty in the overall scheme of things. That's why we asked about "Occupying" Washington or Ottawa instead.

You seem to be saying that the idea is sound, but the geography is off.

[bush_cheney2004]

Uh.. the US's I guess ?

...and others. Relying on the "US" engine has been part of the problem. It can no longer consume with debt at previous levels. Sorry Canada.

You seem to be saying that the idea is sound, but the geography is off.

Neither can affect meaningful "change" to meet the silly expectations rooted in the past.

Edited October 29, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Michael Hardner]

...and others. Relying on the "US" engine has been part of the problem. It can no longer consume with debt at previous levels. Sorry Canada.

No problem... we'll go back to exporting our resources to industrialized nations then.

Neither can affect meaningful "change" to meet the silly expectations rooted in the past.

Governments can and do change things, and that's why we are where we are - they set the rules to the game and protesters know this.

[bush_cheney2004]

When ? And Tech ? How so... those jobs also have gone offshore and are still going.

Two points:

1) The US is still importing H1-B labour for high paying jobs that some Americans can't/won't do. Those jobs exist "onshore".

2) The US is still the largest manufacturing nation on the planet. Productivity gains means that "jobs" don't exist just for "jobs" sake alone.

[bush_cheney2004]

No problem... we'll go back to exporting our resources to industrialized nations then.

Sounds like a plan to me. Manufacturing large pickup trucks in Oshawa, Ontario is not going to come back to pre-2007 levels.

Governments can and do change things, and that's why we are where we are - they set the rules to the game and protesters know this.

But even this has limits...capital is very portable, and governments know this too. Protesters have yet to communicate anything in the way of a "plan" that doesn't involve nationalizing industry or garnishing wages/wealth outright.

[Michael Hardner]

Two points:

1) The US is still importing H1-B labour for high paying jobs that some Americans can't/won't do. Those jobs exist "onshore".

2) The US is still the largest manufacturing nation on the planet. Productivity gains means that "jobs" don't exist just for "jobs" sake alone.

1) H1-B labour still costs more than offshoring.

2) Nobody said that they did but the question still stands.

Your take is different than bb's: you're saying that the jobs can/will go away and he seems to think they won't.

[Michael Hardner]

But even this has limits...capital is very portable, and governments know this too. Protesters have yet to communicate anything in the way of a "plan" that doesn't involve nationalizing industry or garnishing wages/wealth outright.

They (OWS, tea party) haven't got to that point yet. All that they know so far is that they're angry.

[bush_cheney2004]

1) H1-B labour still costs more than offshoring.

Correct...so why would companies be doing it? The point is that the flow of labour is bi-directional.

2) Nobody said that they did but the question still stands.

Your take is different than bb's: you're saying that the jobs can/will go away and he seems to think they won't.

Employment is not static...never has been. Greatest employment was during WW2...but nobody is asking for that.

[bush_cheney2004]

They (OWS, tea party) haven't got to that point yet. All that they know so far is that they're angry.

The Tea Party has already achieved part of their objectives...OWS less so beyond getting attention. Nothing in Canada on either front.

[Michael Hardner]

Correct...so why would companies be doing it? The point is that the flow of labour is bi-directional.

Yes, so when a Democrat says "we created XYZ jobs" and leaves out the number of jobs lost he's partially right, I guess.

Employment is not static...never has been. Greatest employment was during WW2...but nobody is asking for that.

Yes, mathematics is delightful. The protesters won't be satisfied though.

The Tea Party has already achieved part of their objectives...OWS less so beyond getting attention. Nothing in Canada on either front.

But they're still angry, although in diminished numbers.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, so when a Democrat says "we created XYZ jobs" and leaves out the number of jobs lost he's partially right, I guess.

Government does not create jobs. It just enables conditions that may be favourable.

Yes, mathematics is delightful. The protesters won't be satisfied though.

It's not about satisfying the protesters...we had bigger/better protests against the Iraq War. Let 'em protest and freeze their asses off.

But they're still angry, although in diminished numbers.

Again...so what. My kid use to stamp his feet when not getting his way too.

[blueblood]

The incentive to look at Asia... 50 years later...

When ? And Tech ? How so... those jobs also have gone offshore and are still going.

That incentive started in the fifties/60s. Look at the GDP growth history of Japan.

The jobs are either here or will be coming. He'll have you seen some of those "campuses" that google and apple have? Then there is biotech, energy production, agriculture, workers will have to retool and may have to relocate to where the jobs are. North Dakota must be looking good for some people right now...

[Michael Hardner]

That incentive started in the fifties/60s. Look at the GDP growth history of Japan.

Japan didn't succeed because of offshoring - they had their own innovations and designs that they built on.

The jobs are either here or will be coming. He'll have you seen some of those "campuses" that google and apple have? Then there is biotech, energy production, agriculture, workers will have to retool and may have to relocate to where the jobs are. North Dakota must be looking good for some people right now...

Good luck with it, but I don't believe it. Skilled and unskilled jobs will continue to go global, and there will always be more people than jobs in the unskilled sector.

[bush_cheney2004]

Japan didn't succeed because of offshoring - they had their own innovations and designs that they built on.

The US helped to rebuild Japan in its own image after WW2...was that "offshoring" too?

Good luck with it, but I don't believe it. Skilled and unskilled jobs will continue to go global, and there will always be more people than jobs in the unskilled sector.

It has always been thus...why would it ever change?