• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

America is "losing jobs" to poorer nations...

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Or is that just a distraction from reality?

Just read it. And no making excuses about who wrote it. Robert B. Reich is a liberal.

<snip from the link>
Mr. Reich, former secretary of labor, is professor of social and economic policy at Brandeis and the author of "Reason: Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America," out in May from Knopf.
</snip from the link>

Just read, try to understand, then comment.:)

"Rather than fret about "losing jobs" to others, we ought to be fretting about the growing number of our young people who are losing their footing in the emerging economy." - I agree 100%, but the problem is that we aren't teaching our children personal responsibility...they seem to think things should be handed to them or provided for them by someone else instead of themselves. Reich is right for once;)

CkG
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Or is that just a distraction from reality?

Just read it. And no making excuses about who wrote it. Robert B. Reich is a liberal.

<snip from the link>
Mr. Reich, former secretary of labor, is professor of social and economic policy at Brandeis and the author of "Reason: Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America," out in May from Knopf.
</snip from the link>

Just read, try to understand, then comment.:)

"Rather than fret about "losing jobs" to others, we ought to be fretting about the growing number of our young people who are losing their footing in the emerging economy." - I agree 100%, but the problem is that we aren't teaching our children personal responsibility...they seem to think things should be handed to them or provided for them by someone else instead of themselves. Reich is right for once;)

CkG

"Any job that's even slightly routine is disappearing from the U.S. But this doesn't mean we are left with fewer jobs. It means only that we have fewer routine jobs. The problem isn't the number of jobs in America; it's the quality of jobs. "

CAD & Co and this Politician is right. Nothing routine about stocking Walmart shelves or washing MCD floors, best jobs and wages ever.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,489
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Or is that just a distraction from reality?

Just read it. And no making excuses about who wrote it. Robert B. Reich is a liberal.

<snip from the link>
Mr. Reich, former secretary of labor, is professor of social and economic policy at Brandeis and the author of "Reason: Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America," out in May from Knopf.
</snip from the link>

Just read, try to understand, then comment.:)

"Rather than fret about "losing jobs" to others, we ought to be fretting about the growing number of our young people who are losing their footing in the emerging economy." - I agree 100%, but the problem is that we aren't teaching our children personal responsibility...they seem to think things should be handed to them or provided for them by someone else instead of themselves. Reich is right for once;)

CkG

"Any job that's even slightly routine is disappearing from the U.S. But this doesn't mean we are left with fewer jobs. It means only that we have fewer routine jobs. The problem isn't the number of jobs in America; it's the quality of jobs. "

CAD & Co and this Politician is right. Nothing routine about stocking Walmart shelves or washing MCD floors, best jobs and wages ever.
What a great quote, DM. Of course, you selectively left out the rest of it (and the best part of it). Big suprise there.

The problem isn't the number of jobs in America; it's the quality of jobs. Look closely at the economy today and you find two growing categories of work -- but only the first is commanding better pay and benefits. This category involves identifying and solving new problems. Here, workers do R&D, design and engineering. Or they're responsible for high-level sales, marketing and advertising. They're composers, writers and producers. They're lawyers, bankers, financiers, journalists, doctors and management consultants. I call this "symbolic analytic" work because most of it has to do with analyzing, manipulating and communicating through numbers, shapes, words, ideas. This kind of work usually requires a college degree.
Gee, I don't see programmer in there anywhere. Why? Because an analyst can write the specs, ship it off to india where 999,999 programmers all can do the same thing. Programmer communicate? hah. I can count the number of programmers I know with "soft skills" on one hand. And I work with literally 100's of them. Of course, that is often evidenced in your posts here...

Face it, you've been left behind.

Rather than fret about "losing jobs" to others, we ought to be fretting about the growing number of our young people who are losing their footing in the emerging economy.
He's speaking directly to you here Dave.

 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Or is that just a distraction from reality?

Just read it. And no making excuses about who wrote it. Robert B. Reich is a liberal.

<snip from the link>
Mr. Reich, former secretary of labor, is professor of social and economic policy at Brandeis and the author of "Reason: Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America," out in May from Knopf.
</snip from the link>

Just read, try to understand, then comment.:)

"Rather than fret about "losing jobs" to others, we ought to be fretting about the growing number of our young people who are losing their footing in the emerging economy." - I agree 100%, but the problem is that we aren't teaching our children personal responsibility...they seem to think things should be handed to them or provided for them by someone else instead of themselves. Reich is right for once;)

CkG

"Any job that's even slightly routine is disappearing from the U.S. But this doesn't mean we are left with fewer jobs. It means only that we have fewer routine jobs. The problem isn't the number of jobs in America; it's the quality of jobs. "

CAD & Co and this Politician is right. Nothing routine about stocking Walmart shelves or washing MCD floors, best jobs and wages ever.
What a great quote, DM. Of course, you selectively left out the rest of it (and the best part of it). Big suprise there.

The problem isn't the number of jobs in America; it's the quality of jobs. Look closely at the economy today and you find two growing categories of work -- but only the first is commanding better pay and benefits. This category involves identifying and solving new problems. Here, workers do R&D, design and engineering. Or they're responsible for high-level sales, marketing and advertising. They're composers, writers and producers. They're lawyers, bankers, financiers, journalists, doctors and management consultants. I call this "symbolic analytic" work because most of it has to do with analyzing, manipulating and communicating through numbers, shapes, words, ideas. This kind of work usually requires a college degree.
Gee, I don't see programmer in there anywhere. Why? Because an analyst can write the specs, ship it off to india where 999,999 programmers all can do the same thing. Programmer communicate? hah. I can count the number of programmers I know with "soft skills" on one hand. And I work with literally 100's of them. Of course, that is often evidenced in your posts here...

Face it, you've been left behind.

Rather than fret about "losing jobs" to others, we ought to be fretting about the growing number of our young people who are losing their footing in the emerging economy.
He's speaking directly to you here Dave.
"I call this "symbolic analytic" work because most of it has to do with analyzing, manipulating and communicating through numbers, shapes, words, ideas. This kind of work usually requires a college degree."

That sure sounds like Project Managers, guess what, PM's are history too, PM jobs by such Co's as IBM have shipped those "High" paying jobs off to India too.

"but only the first is commanding better pay and benefits. This category involves identifying and solving new problems. Here, workers do R&D, design and engineering. Or they're responsible for high-level sales, marketing and advertising. They're composers, writers and producers. They're lawyers, bankers, financiers, journalists, doctors and management consultants."

Ah so everybody has to be either a Lawyer, Banker or Doctor now. Well Banking is being shipped off to India now so that leaves Ambulance chasers and Doctors. Well if everyone is either a Lawyer or Doctor maybe that will lower Health care costs since we can all treat each other?

"He's speaking directly to you here Dave"

Well I was an Engineer, many online are using Modems I helped design but I know many Engineers out of work now and have been for quite some time so don't know where you and Reich get these figures from but it's all good, I know you guys must have meant Janitorial Engineering since that is what they call washing the floors at Walmart and McD's these days and getting paid the highest wages ever too.

 

GrGr

Diamond Member
Sep 25, 2003
3,204
0
76
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Or is that just a distraction from reality?

Just read it. And no making excuses about who wrote it. Robert B. Reich is a liberal.

<snip from the link>
Mr. Reich, former secretary of labor, is professor of social and economic policy at Brandeis and the author of "Reason: Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America," out in May from Knopf.
</snip from the link>

Just read, try to understand, then comment.:)

"Rather than fret about "losing jobs" to others, we ought to be fretting about the growing number of our young people who are losing their footing in the emerging economy." - I agree 100%, but the problem is that we aren't teaching our children personal responsibility...they seem to think things should be handed to them or provided for them by someone else instead of themselves. Reich is right for once;)

CkG

But America's long-term problem isn't too few jobs. It's the widening income gap between personal-service workers and symbolic analysts. The long-term solution is to help spur upward mobility by getting more Americans a good education, including access to college. Unfortunately, just the opposite is occurring. There will be plenty of good jobs to go around. But too few of our citizens are being prepared for them. Rather than fret about "losing jobs" to others, we ought to be fretting about the growing number of our young people who are losing their footing in the emerging economy.

Help get people good educations, including access to college. Those are the operative words. That is Reich's solution. But of course according to CkG, John Galt et al things are fine as they are. All problems can be blamed on the lack of spine in today's youth.

Ckg thinks Reich is talking about "teaching our children personal responsibility". That is a complete perversion of what Reich is saying. Reich isn't talking about individual responsibility . Reich is talking about the need for higher education as the nature of jobs are changing, and the need to prepare young people for these changes. The solution is to give more young people a better education according to Reich. Reich is basically saying that we need more Americans to get access to College so that young people won't be left out of the new economy.
 

smashp

Platinum Member
Aug 30, 2003
2,443
0
0
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Or is that just a distraction from reality?

Just read it. And no making excuses about who wrote it. Robert B. Reich is a liberal.

<snip from the link>
Mr. Reich, former secretary of labor, is professor of social and economic policy at Brandeis and the author of "Reason: Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America," out in May from Knopf.
</snip from the link>

Just read, try to understand, then comment.:)

"Rather than fret about "losing jobs" to others, we ought to be fretting about the growing number of our young people who are losing their footing in the emerging economy." - I agree 100%, but the problem is that we aren't teaching our children personal responsibility...they seem to think things should be handed to them or provided for them by someone else instead of themselves. Reich is right for once;)

CkG

But America's long-term problem isn't too few jobs. It's the widening income gap between personal-service workers and symbolic analysts. The long-term solution is to help spur upward mobility by getting more Americans a good education, including access to college. Unfortunately, just the opposite is occurring. There will be plenty of good jobs to go around. But too few of our citizens are being prepared for them. Rather than fret about "losing jobs" to others, we ought to be fretting about the growing number of our young people who are losing their footing in the emerging economy.

Help get people good educations, including access to college. Those are the operative words. That is Reich's solution. But of course according to CkG, John Galt et al things are fine as they are. All problems can be blamed on the lack of spine in today's youth.

Ckg thinks Reich is talking about "teaching our children personal responsibility". That is a complete perversion of what Reich is saying. Reich isn't talking about individual responsibility . Reich is talking about the need for higher education as the nature of jobs are changing, and the need to prepare young people for these changes. The solution is to give more young people a better education according to Reich. Reich is basically saying that we need more Americans to get access to College so that young people won't be left out of the new economy.


The Problem is also that EVEN with an education, their are limited Jobs. I know Many of my Fellow Recent Graduates and current MBA students who Are utilizing their education in our current service economy by asking if you need a refil on Soda or if Your ready to Order.

Granted one Buddy is pulling down about 75000 as a waiter at a swanky joint but The majority arent
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: smashp
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Or is that just a distraction from reality?

Just read it. And no making excuses about who wrote it. Robert B. Reich is a liberal.

<snip from the link>
Mr. Reich, former secretary of labor, is professor of social and economic policy at Brandeis and the author of "Reason: Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America," out in May from Knopf.
</snip from the link>

Just read, try to understand, then comment.:)

"Rather than fret about "losing jobs" to others, we ought to be fretting about the growing number of our young people who are losing their footing in the emerging economy." - I agree 100%, but the problem is that we aren't teaching our children personal responsibility...they seem to think things should be handed to them or provided for them by someone else instead of themselves. Reich is right for once;)

CkG

But America's long-term problem isn't too few jobs. It's the widening income gap between personal-service workers and symbolic analysts. The long-term solution is to help spur upward mobility by getting more Americans a good education, including access to college. Unfortunately, just the opposite is occurring. There will be plenty of good jobs to go around. But too few of our citizens are being prepared for them. Rather than fret about "losing jobs" to others, we ought to be fretting about the growing number of our young people who are losing their footing in the emerging economy.

Help get people good educations, including access to college. Those are the operative words. That is Reich's solution. But of course according to CkG, John Galt et al things are fine as they are. All problems can be blamed on the lack of spine in today's youth.

Ckg thinks Reich is talking about "teaching our children personal responsibility". That is a complete perversion of what Reich is saying. Reich isn't talking about individual responsibility . Reich is talking about the need for higher education as the nature of jobs are changing, and the need to prepare young people for these changes. The solution is to give more young people a better education according to Reich. Reich is basically saying that we need more Americans to get access to College so that young people won't be left out of the new economy.


The Problem is also that EVEN with an education, their are limited Jobs. I know Many of my Fellow Recent Graduates and current MBA students who Are utilizing their education in our current service economy by asking if you need a refil on Soda or if Your ready to Order.

Granted one Buddy is pulling down about 75000 as a waiter at a swanky joint but The majority arent

Maybe they need to realize that thier is a glut of MBA types now. You need to look at all options.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,591
5
0
Originally posted by: GrGr
But America's long-term problem isn't too few jobs. It's the widening income gap between personal-service workers and symbolic analysts. The long-term solution is to help spur upward mobility by getting more Americans a good education, including access to college. Unfortunately, just the opposite is occurring. There will be plenty of good jobs to go around. But too few of our citizens are being prepared for them. Rather than fret about "losing jobs" to others, we ought to be fretting about the growing number of our young people who are losing their footing in the emerging economy.

Help get people good educations, including access to college. Those are the operative words. That is Reich's solution. But of course according to CkG, John Galt et al things are fine as they are. All problems can be blamed on the lack of spine in today's youth.

Ckg thinks Reich is talking about "teaching our children personal responsibility". That is a complete perversion of what Reich is saying. Reich isn't talking about individual responsibility . Reich is talking about the need for higher education as the nature of jobs are changing, and the need to prepare young people for these changes. The solution is to give more young people a better education according to Reich. Reich is basically saying that we need more Americans to get access to College so that young people won't be left out of the new economy.
the problem is that the children are not being prepared for college. The current school system has been slipping downhill since the mid 70's.
Now those students are the people that control the school system.

Attitudes may be that to grant the student a pass and move them up and out, rather than prepare them for the real world.

If a college has to spend 1-2 years worth of resources to bring a student up to a desired entry level, the student is not able to move on without continual assistance. This is also a drain on resources.

Within the manufacturing realm, the simialr problem exists. A company loses productivity if a worker does not have the basic skills to learn to do the job.

Rework must be done from the foundation up. Start in K-12 by forcing the children to learn. Whining parents have to be ignored.
Develop standard testing that is based on what needs to be learned, not adjusted based on circumstances.

The teachers and school system have to be held accountable as well as the parents and the students. Force retention/hold back of students, not up&out if they can not meet the academic standards of the class level. Work to avoid the drop-out attitude.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Or is that just a distraction from reality?

Just read it. And no making excuses about who wrote it. Robert B. Reich is a liberal.

<snip from the link>
Mr. Reich, former secretary of labor, is professor of social and economic policy at Brandeis and the author of "Reason: Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America," out in May from Knopf.
</snip from the link>

Just read, try to understand, then comment.:)

"Rather than fret about "losing jobs" to others, we ought to be fretting about the growing number of our young people who are losing their footing in the emerging economy." - I agree 100%, but the problem is that we aren't teaching our children personal responsibility...they seem to think things should be handed to them or provided for them by someone else instead of themselves. Reich is right for once;)

CkG

But America's long-term problem isn't too few jobs. It's the widening income gap between personal-service workers and symbolic analysts. The long-term solution is to help spur upward mobility by getting more Americans a good education, including access to college. Unfortunately, just the opposite is occurring. There will be plenty of good jobs to go around. But too few of our citizens are being prepared for them. Rather than fret about "losing jobs" to others, we ought to be fretting about the growing number of our young people who are losing their footing in the emerging economy.

Help get people good educations, including access to college. Those are the operative words. That is Reich's solution. But of course according to CkG, John Galt et al things are fine as they are. All problems can be blamed on the lack of spine in today's youth.

Ckg thinks Reich is talking about "teaching our children personal responsibility". That is a complete perversion of what Reich is saying. Reich isn't talking about individual responsibility . Reich is talking about the need for higher education as the nature of jobs are changing, and the need to prepare young people for these changes. The solution is to give more young people a better education according to Reich. Reich is basically saying that we need more Americans to get access to College so that young people won't be left out of the new economy.
In other words, you're saying Sir Cad should "Just read, try to understand, then comment."

Is there an echo in here?
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Or is that just a distraction from reality?

Just read it. And no making excuses about who wrote it. Robert B. Reich is a liberal.

<snip from the link>
Mr. Reich, former secretary of labor, is professor of social and economic policy at Brandeis and the author of "Reason: Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America," out in May from Knopf.
</snip from the link>

Just read, try to understand, then comment.:)

"Rather than fret about "losing jobs" to others, we ought to be fretting about the growing number of our young people who are losing their footing in the emerging economy." - I agree 100%, but the problem is that we aren't teaching our children personal responsibility...they seem to think things should be handed to them or provided for them by someone else instead of themselves. Reich is right for once;)

CkG

But America's long-term problem isn't too few jobs. It's the widening income gap between personal-service workers and symbolic analysts. The long-term solution is to help spur upward mobility by getting more Americans a good education, including access to college. Unfortunately, just the opposite is occurring. There will be plenty of good jobs to go around. But too few of our citizens are being prepared for them. Rather than fret about "losing jobs" to others, we ought to be fretting about the growing number of our young people who are losing their footing in the emerging economy.

Help get people good educations, including access to college. Those are the operative words. That is Reich's solution. But of course according to CkG, John Galt et al things are fine as they are. All problems can be blamed on the lack of spine in today's youth.

Ckg thinks Reich is talking about "teaching our children personal responsibility". That is a complete perversion of what Reich is saying. Reich isn't talking about individual responsibility . Reich is talking about the need for higher education as the nature of jobs are changing, and the need to prepare young people for these changes. The solution is to give more young people a better education according to Reich. Reich is basically saying that we need more Americans to get access to College so that young people won't be left out of the new economy.
In other words, you're saying Sir Cad should "Just read, try to understand, then comment."

Is there an echo in here?
I think Ckg means that education has to be earned, not given. Today many are given a high school diploma without actually earning it. Our education system has problems and sticking with the status quo is not the solution.


And there are plenty of govement programs for those that want to continue their education.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Liberals pushed globalization, why is this any surprise? Both parties have been co-opted by big business for campain contributions and wall street and press backing.

I prefer nobel prize winning in economics take on it who has no vested intrests because he can give $20000 speeches on his merit rather than positions of power he had and may have in the furture to sell out america.

This is a very indepth article however I think it highlights and explains when comparing reality and theory of Globaliztion, they are far apart. All the critizism of globalaztion are coming true and each one os proven in his article: Namly

1. The effect on the environment due to the over-consumption/throw-away model of most developed nations not allowing for much sustainable development.

2. Taking away influential decision-making from publicly elected governments to privately owned corporations.

3. Specific policies such as structural adjustment are criticized for undermining national sovereignty.

4. More poverty in third world

5. The stability of jobs, would also continue to fall as less regulation means that corporations can easily move from country to country in search of cheapest costs (and labor forces are often very expensive).

6. Only the wealthy nations will benefit, while the poorer ones will suffer the most in this. It will not just be poor people from developing nations, but poor people in industrialized countries too. For example, corporations are able to be freer to move around and avoid substantial taxes.

7. The way that the global financial system is structured benefits the 'core', compared to the 'periphery'. George Soros for example, is worth quoting at length:

8. Inequalities and gaps between those who have and those who do not is already shown to be rising in these early years of globalization.

9. Small Busineses being destroyed

And many many more all backed up by real statistics and leading economists.



Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stiglitz, 58, is hardly the first person to accuse the IMF of operating undemocratically and exacerbating Third World poverty. But he is by far the most prominent, and his emergence as a critic marks an important shift in the intellectual landscape. Only a few years ago, it was possible for pundits to claim that no mainstream economist, certainly nobody of Stiglitz's stature, took the criticism of free trade and globalization seriously. Such claims are no longer credible, for Stiglitz is part of a small but growing group of economists, sociologists and political scientists, among them Dani Rodrik of Harvard and Robert Wade of the London School of Economics, who not only take the critics seriously but warn that ignoring their concerns could have dire consequences. In his new book, Globalization and Its Discontents (Norton), Stiglitz argues that many of the complaints voiced by protesters in recent years -- that IMF structural adjustment programs have caused widespread suffering; that free-trade agreements mainly benefit the rich; that privatization has proved disastrous in many countries -- have a solid basis in fact. Unless the rules of global capitalism are radically altered, he warns, the gap between the world's rich and poor, and hence the social conditions that have fueled instability in places like Pakistan, will not go away anytime soon.

... Asked once what developing countries should do with the annual reports the IMF prepares on member nations, Stiglitz recommended "picking it up, saying 'thank you very much' and dropping it straight in the garbage can."

... To some degree, the mounting criticism from Stiglitz and other quarters has had an impact. IMF officials recently acknowledged the potential risks of capital market liberalization, and both the IMF and World Bank have begun speaking more openly about debt relief and poverty reduction. But while the rhetoric has changed, Stiglitz maintains that a doctrinaire ideology of "free-market fundamentalism" continues to shape policy. The IMF and World Bank are pushing developing countries to privatize their pension systems, for example, which is highly controversial in the First World. The IMF demanded fiscal austerity in Argentina, where unemployment had reached 20 percent and, in December, sparked riots that led to the government's collapse. It preaches the gospel of free trade to developing countries--even though most Western countries built their economies by protecting certain industries and continue to subsidize some domestic producers. The blind push to privatize and deregulate has not only failed to fuel sustainable development, Stiglitz contends, but reflects an idealized vision of how markets function that neither economic theory nor concrete experience supports.

... Stiglitz has done more to damage the IMF's reputation than any other living economist.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Text

Then why won't the press report it? and why do they only show pro-globalizaion pundits to feed your mind?
both have 10X the substance and detail what the liberal wrote
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Or is that just a distraction from reality?

Just read it. And no making excuses about who wrote it. Robert B. Reich is a liberal.

<snip from the link>
Mr. Reich, former secretary of labor, is professor of social and economic policy at Brandeis and the author of "Reason: Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America," out in May from Knopf.
</snip from the link>

Just read, try to understand, then comment.:)

"Rather than fret about "losing jobs" to others, we ought to be fretting about the growing number of our young people who are losing their footing in the emerging economy." - I agree 100%, but the problem is that we aren't teaching our children personal responsibility...they seem to think things should be handed to them or provided for them by someone else instead of themselves. Reich is right for once;)

CkG

But America's long-term problem isn't too few jobs. It's the widening income gap between personal-service workers and symbolic analysts. The long-term solution is to help spur upward mobility by getting more Americans a good education, including access to college. Unfortunately, just the opposite is occurring. There will be plenty of good jobs to go around. But too few of our citizens are being prepared for them. Rather than fret about "losing jobs" to others, we ought to be fretting about the growing number of our young people who are losing their footing in the emerging economy.

Help get people good educations, including access to college. Those are the operative words. That is Reich's solution. But of course according to CkG, John Galt et al things are fine as they are. All problems can be blamed on the lack of spine in today's youth.

Ckg thinks Reich is talking about "teaching our children personal responsibility". That is a complete perversion of what Reich is saying. Reich isn't talking about individual responsibility . Reich is talking about the need for higher education as the nature of jobs are changing, and the need to prepare young people for these changes. The solution is to give more young people a better education according to Reich. Reich is basically saying that we need more Americans to get access to College so that young people won't be left out of the new economy.
In other words, you're saying Sir Cad should "Just read, try to understand, then comment."

Is there an echo in here?
I think Ckg means that education has to be earned, not given. Today many are given a high school diploma without actually earning it. Our education system has problems and sticking with the status quo is not the solution.


And there are plenty of govement programs for those that want to continue their education.
Shhh...;) They don't understand that type of logic. They don't understand that personal responsibility is dying - they don't see the increased dependance on the gov't by people to "solve" things. You know - if people actually took the time to get involved in their childs life and education they may just provide the motivation and direction their child needs.....or they can just let the school try - even though the school system teaches a "normalized" type education. An education that is too rigid and caters to the low end of the "mainstream". We wouldn't want anyone to "fail" so lets make it so they all "FEEL" better.


/end school mini rant

Oh, and to dave - I suggest you learn who Robert Reich is before you go off trying to slander him - he knows a hell of a lot more than you ever will. I rarely agree with him but I have learned from him and other's like him. They have help to mold opinion and have brought different views out into the open in a somewhat logical way.

GrGr - "personal responsibility" and providing for a better education for our young people go hand in hand. They are NOT separate issues IMO and if you have actually read Reich before you'd see that he would agree with my assessment although I'm sure we'd disagree on the path to take to get there;):p

CkG
 

busmaster11

Platinum Member
Mar 4, 2000
2,875
0
0
Excellent article. Finally got around to reading this on a very slow day...

We should stop pining after the days when millions of Americans stood along assembly lines and continuously bolted, fit, soldered or clamped what went by. Those days are over. and stop blaming poor nations whose workers get very low wages. Of course their wages are low; these nations are poor. They can become more prosperous only by exporting to rich nations. When America blocks their exports by erecting tariffs and subsidizing our domestic industries, we prevent them from doing better. Helping poorer nations become more prosperous is not only in the interest of humanity but also politically wise because it lessens global instability.
Certain people need to realize this.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,862
83
91
Originally posted by: Zebo
Liberals pushed globalization, why is this any surprise? Both parties have been co-opted by big business for campain contributions and wall street and press backing.

I prefer nobel prize winning in economics take on it who has no vested intrests because he can give $20000 speeches on his merit rather than positions of power he had and may have in the furture to sell out america.

This is a very indepth article however I think it highlights and explains when comparing reality and theory of Globaliztion, they are far apart. All the critizism of globalaztion are coming true and each one os proven in his article: Namly

1. The effect on the environment due to the over-consumption/throw-away model of most developed nations not allowing for much sustainable development.

2. Taking away influential decision-making from publicly elected governments to privately owned corporations.

3. Specific policies such as structural adjustment are criticized for undermining national sovereignty.

4. More poverty in third world

5. The stability of jobs, would also continue to fall as less regulation means that corporations can easily move from country to country in search of cheapest costs (and labor forces are often very expensive).

6. Only the wealthy nations will benefit, while the poorer ones will suffer the most in this. It will not just be poor people from developing nations, but poor people in industrialized countries too. For example, corporations are able to be freer to move around and avoid substantial taxes.

7. The way that the global financial system is structured benefits the 'core', compared to the 'periphery'. George Soros for example, is worth quoting at length:

8. Inequalities and gaps between those who have and those who do not is already shown to be rising in these early years of globalization.

9. Small Busineses being destroyed

And many many more all backed up by real statistics and leading economists.



Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stiglitz, 58, is hardly the first person to accuse the IMF of operating undemocratically and exacerbating Third World poverty. But he is by far the most prominent, and his emergence as a critic marks an important shift in the intellectual landscape. Only a few years ago, it was possible for pundits to claim that no mainstream economist, certainly nobody of Stiglitz's stature, took the criticism of free trade and globalization seriously. Such claims are no longer credible, for Stiglitz is part of a small but growing group of economists, sociologists and political scientists, among them Dani Rodrik of Harvard and Robert Wade of the London School of Economics, who not only take the critics seriously but warn that ignoring their concerns could have dire consequences. In his new book, Globalization and Its Discontents (Norton), Stiglitz argues that many of the complaints voiced by protesters in recent years -- that IMF structural adjustment programs have caused widespread suffering; that free-trade agreements mainly benefit the rich; that privatization has proved disastrous in many countries -- have a solid basis in fact. Unless the rules of global capitalism are radically altered, he warns, the gap between the world's rich and poor, and hence the social conditions that have fueled instability in places like Pakistan, will not go away anytime soon.

... Asked once what developing countries should do with the annual reports the IMF prepares on member nations, Stiglitz recommended "picking it up, saying 'thank you very much' and dropping it straight in the garbage can."

... To some degree, the mounting criticism from Stiglitz and other quarters has had an impact. IMF officials recently acknowledged the potential risks of capital market liberalization, and both the IMF and World Bank have begun speaking more openly about debt relief and poverty reduction. But while the rhetoric has changed, Stiglitz maintains that a doctrinaire ideology of "free-market fundamentalism" continues to shape policy. The IMF and World Bank are pushing developing countries to privatize their pension systems, for example, which is highly controversial in the First World. The IMF demanded fiscal austerity in Argentina, where unemployment had reached 20 percent and, in December, sparked riots that led to the government's collapse. It preaches the gospel of free trade to developing countries--even though most Western countries built their economies by protecting certain industries and continue to subsidize some domestic producers. The blind push to privatize and deregulate has not only failed to fuel sustainable development, Stiglitz contends, but reflects an idealized vision of how markets function that neither economic theory nor concrete experience supports.

... Stiglitz has done more to damage the IMF's reputation than any other living economist.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Text

Then why won't the press report it? and why do they only show pro-globalizaion pundits to feed your mind?
both have 10X the substance and detail what the liberal wrote
perhaps you should read micheal moores book on globalization. not the fat american bastard, but the head of the wto. world trade is what makes a 125 dollar xbox possible. south american coffee farmers complaining that their being under cut by vietnamese farmers are trying to hold on to jobs that no longer exist. some win, some lose. but efficiency generally goes up, driving costs down for all. i'm sure all those indian software engineers aren't crying about globalization.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: GrGr
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Or is that just a distraction from reality?

Just read it. And no making excuses about who wrote it. Robert B. Reich is a liberal.

<snip from the link>
Mr. Reich, former secretary of labor, is professor of social and economic policy at Brandeis and the author of "Reason: Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America," out in May from Knopf.
</snip from the link>

Just read, try to understand, then comment.:)

"Rather than fret about "losing jobs" to others, we ought to be fretting about the growing number of our young people who are losing their footing in the emerging economy." - I agree 100%, but the problem is that we aren't teaching our children personal responsibility...they seem to think things should be handed to them or provided for them by someone else instead of themselves. Reich is right for once;)

CkG

But America's long-term problem isn't too few jobs. It's the widening income gap between personal-service workers and symbolic analysts. The long-term solution is to help spur upward mobility by getting more Americans a good education, including access to college. Unfortunately, just the opposite is occurring. There will be plenty of good jobs to go around. But too few of our citizens are being prepared for them. Rather than fret about "losing jobs" to others, we ought to be fretting about the growing number of our young people who are losing their footing in the emerging economy.

Help get people good educations, including access to college. Those are the operative words. That is Reich's solution. But of course according to CkG, John Galt et al things are fine as they are. All problems can be blamed on the lack of spine in today's youth.

Ckg thinks Reich is talking about "teaching our children personal responsibility". That is a complete perversion of what Reich is saying. Reich isn't talking about individual responsibility . Reich is talking about the need for higher education as the nature of jobs are changing, and the need to prepare young people for these changes. The solution is to give more young people a better education according to Reich. Reich is basically saying that we need more Americans to get access to College so that young people won't be left out of the new economy.
In other words, you're saying Sir Cad should "Just read, try to understand, then comment."

Is there an echo in here?
I think Ckg means that education has to be earned, not given. Today many are given a high school diploma without actually earning it. Our education system has problems and sticking with the status quo is not the solution.


And there are plenty of govement programs for those that want to continue their education.
Shhh...;) They don't understand that type of logic. They don't understand that personal responsibility is dying - they don't see the increased dependance on the gov't by people to "solve" things. You know - if people actually took the time to get involved in their childs life and education they may just provide the motivation and direction their child needs.....or they can just let the school try - even though the school system teaches a "normalized" type education. An education that is too rigid and caters to the low end of the "mainstream". We wouldn't want anyone to "fail" so lets make it so they all "FEEL" better.


/end school mini rant

Oh, and to dave - I suggest you learn who Robert Reich is before you go off trying to slander him - he knows a hell of a lot more than you ever will. I rarely agree with him but I have learned from him and other's like him. They have help to mold opinion and have brought different views out into the open in a somewhat logical way.

GrGr - "personal responsibility" and providing for a better education for our young people go hand in hand. They are NOT separate issues IMO and if you have actually read Reich before you'd see that he would agree with my assessment although I'm sure we'd disagree on the path to take to get there;):p

CkG
Intersting CAD, yes I know who the "Little" guy is. Interesting that you have such an interest in him as he was the one that was at the helm of the Labor Dept under Clinton which the AT experts claim as the reason for the "slowdown" or "Recession" that only lasted from March 2001 to November 2001 but the current Govet workers changed the start date to October 2001 to say it is all Reich and Clinton's fault.

So it's not Reich and his Boss's fault now?
 

zephyrprime

Diamond Member
Feb 18, 2001
7,505
2
81
The long-term solution is to help spur upward mobility by getting more Americans a good education, including access to college. Unfortunately, just the opposite is occurring. There will be plenty of good jobs to go around. But too few of our citizens are being prepared for them.
That's just not true. The author didn't support this contention at all. More and more college graduates are emerging from the youth of america, not less. And the increase has been very fast. (with the exception being black males who have declining enrollment.)


 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,894
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: zephyrprime
The long-term solution is to help spur upward mobility by getting more Americans a good education, including access to college. Unfortunately, just the opposite is occurring. There will be plenty of good jobs to go around. But too few of our citizens are being prepared for them.
That's just not true. The author didn't support this contention at all. More and more college graduates are emerging from the youth of america, not less. And the increase has been very fast. (with the exception being black males who have declining enrollment.)
Oh no, you going to refute Reich and CAD? You're in for it now. :D
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY