You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #13: Welcome to the Devils Advocate. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Economy Donate to DU
Code_Name_D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-25-03 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Welcome to the Devils Advocate.
Jobs Retraining.
Every coutry has got a few industries that are going the way of the DoDo where people need to be retrained. Look for things subsidised like farming, or coal mining (in Germany). Of coarse pulling things like this off is hard, so I'm dubious too that the 20bill is going help.

But that is the lie, isn't it. Textiles and other forms of heavy manufacturing has already gone the way of the Dodo. But if that is true, then where are all the textiles and other products coming from? If their is a new jacket for sale on a rack some where, than textiles has NOT gone the way of the Dodo. They have instead gone to sweat shops in other countries, using slave or near slave labor. Jobs are only being displaced not ended.

Of course, some retraining is necessary. And Clinton did push through a strong retraining program with vary persuasive arguments behind it. Clinton presumed that globalization was here to stay, and that we should expect low tech jobs to continue migrating to 3rd world countries. That we should adapt to this new reality. The jobs retraining programs was that adaptation. Clinton argued, and quite convincingly might add, that we should retrain the low tech labor force into a high tech one. Move from textiles and manufacturing, to service and technical position such as electronics and IT.

But last year, the critical flaw in that resonating was revealed when high tech electronics, engineering, IT, bio-tech, and other high end jobs fields began moving from the US to places like India, China, and Russia. To take advantage of highly training and educated workers who still had few personal liberties or options but to take these low paying, yet highly technical jobs. Other jobs that can not be transplanted are being taken up by immigrant workers who are recruited on mass at home, and brought in to take over these jobs at a fraction of the pay given to US workers.

The short coming of jobs retraining is the fact that no job is safe. And in this "lightning speed" economy, a thriving field when a displaced worker enrolls in retraining, may be on the way to being depopulated when he or she graduates within two to six years. But that worker may only get a few years of productivity out of his training, before job transplantation inevitably hits his field, and forced him or her to repeat the process.

Tax Incentives for Job Creation.
I believe the 5K is one time.

You are correct. I concede my error here when I tried to argue that this plan was to compete with foreign workers, but is in fact an incentive to higher new workers.

Here's the deal. Employers have to a financial risk when hiring someone. They have to interview, train, establish trust, and pay the guy a few months before he's useful. Giving them some money to offset some of this cost is the idea.

If you make the incentive too high though you're right companies will just hire and fire to keep collecting the money. This isn't profitable for most "good" jobs. If you hire a programmer to work on a project, the first few months will be spent teaching him about the code he'll work on. That'll cost more than 5 grand.


It is interesting to note that that CEO's are paid vast sums of money because they take risks and manage risks, but that the risk to higher new workers need to be off-set to encourage new highers. If this is truly a risk, then why are proven workers not retained, minimizing the risk? The opposite is happening as corporations now use a "just in time" work force model. But to make maters WORSE, it seems that the corps have their own retraining program, using the current labor force to train the near slave labor force to take over the jobs.

Step one: pay for workers retraining. Step two: subsidize new highers. Sounds increasingly like a managed economy.

Review trade agreements.
Dude, China keeps it's currency low to take US manufacturing jobs. This is basically a subsidy on China's exports by the Chinese government. If they would float thier currency those industries might be able to compete here in the US. The flip side is the high stable dollar makes them want to invest in the US debt and so intrest rates will shoot up, if they do float it. Either way the US is screwed.

Basically the Chinese are screwing the US manufacturing jobs like the US screws 3rd world agricultural industries through subsidies. Are you saying we should let them keep doing this?

I've also heard there are issues where the US government is insuring investments made in China. This should be seen as foriegn aid and made public.


The same can be said of Malaise, S. Korea, Mexico, Chili, Madagascar, and so on. The list is vary long of other countries that do the same thing. As it was designed to be by the NAFTA GATT agreements. The reason many countries are tied to the dollar is to prevent speculative currency attacks.

And the problem isn't that China is not open to foreign products as much as the fact that America doesn't manufacture any thing to sell. And the few exceptions to this are manufactured in third world countries.

Dose this deal suck for America? You bet it dose. Because NAFTA GATT doesn't serve America, but instead serves the American corporations.

My point here is that I am unimpressed by Clarks intentions to review trade deals. Trade deals which are enforced by the NAFTA GATT accords. And what makes my teeth crack with rage is the fact that President Clark doses not have the authority to even challenge these trade agreements. Not "legally" any way.

Tax cuts vs Jobs creation program.
Clark:
Again, this $100 billion, two-year Job Creation Plan will not increase the deficit. It simply moves $100 billion from tax cuts for households making more than $200,000 a year and directs it to job creating funds that will help middle-income and working class families.


Me:
This is not just false, but logically absurd. If it can be argued that the $100bill in tax cuts increases the deficit, and Clark would tell us that he is simply moving the $100bill from the tax cuts to his jobs growth program, than logically, the jobs growth program ALSO increases the deficit.


German Lefty:
So he's proposing changes that don't change the deficit. It'll still stay around 0.5T$, unless of coarse the economy does summersaults causing tax revenue to increase (arguement abused supply siders).


Only if one respects the Bush tax cuts, and considers them to be the working standard. This is not the sign of some one prepared to challenge Bush.

It's politically a very good idea to propose something which "doesn't raise taxes" on average.

I am aware of this political reality. But that in and of itself is part of the problem as the only real solution that fits the problem is denied to us by ideology. Any government that sacrifices the practical to the ideological can not long survive. The only solution to this is to educate the general population about basic economic principals. If Clark is truly the "Second coming Clinton" as some Clark Cluckers would have me believe, than he should be out their trying to educate the public, not bowing to public misconceptions. To do the later, insures that nothing will change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Economy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC