The Red Cross DOES release reports. Do a google search and you'll find tons of them.
If, as you claim, the report cited was fake, then why hasn't the Red Cross stepped up and stated so?
"An alleged report has been leaked; the consensus of opinion among those who I work for is that this report has been severely doctored by whomever released it to the Arab press."
It was leaked to the Wall Street Journal. Why would you believe that the Wall Street Journal was part of the "Arab press"?
All the rent-a-cops that I know of (the ones in the office building where i work) are NOT armed.
I don't think the guy patrolling the school would be armed.
But mercenaries ARE armed.
"I know it's harder to hate them if you're aware that they're just ordinary guys trying to make a living by, for the most part, just being big and looking intimidating."
The word "goon" comes to mind. Someone hired to physically intimidate someone.
The problem is that they do not fall under US law nor military law. If they shoot an Iraqi, who do they answer to?
THAT is the problem. The US government should NOT have anyone in theatre who does not have a clearly defined chain of command. But we do.
"There is abundant evidence in the statements of numerous witnesses that soldiers throughout the 800th MP Brigade were not proficient in their basic MOS skills, particularly regarding internment/resettlement operations."
Get that? They did NOT "KNOW and UNDERSTAND their job". That was in the report.
"Moreover, there is no evidence that the command, although aware of these deficiencies, attempted to correct them in any systemic manner other than ad hoc training by individuals with civilian corrections experience."
Not only didn't they KNOW their job, they thought that having people with CIVILIAN training would compensate for MILITARY training.
"I find that the 800th MP Brigade was not adequately trained for a mission that included operating a prison or penal institution at Abu Ghraib Prison Complex."
Again, they were NOT trained.
"However, I found no evidence that the Command, although aware of this deficiency, ever requested specific corrections training from the Commandant of the Military Police School, the US Army Confinement Facility at Mannheim, Germany, the Provost Marshal General of the Army, or the US Army Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas."
Even though their Chain of Command KNEW they weren't trained, their Chain of Command did NOTHING to fix it (above the company level).
"Almost every witness we interviewed had no familiarity with the provisions of AR 190-8 or FM 3-19.40."
They didn't even KNOW the AR's and FM's appropriate to their mission.
"Numerous witnesses stated that the 800th MP Brigade S-1, MAJ Hinzman and S-4, MAJ Green, were essentially dysfunctional, but that despite numerous complaints, these officers were not replaced."
The word "dysfunctional" applied to officers by a GENERAL in his OFFICIAL report.
Now would you care to tell me what "EVERY basic military trainee is drilled on"?
They were soldiers, but they were SPECIALLY TRAINED (as in Advanced Individual Training) in Military POLICE operations.
You see, every enlisted soldier has a Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) which is his/her PRIMARY mission. This can range from cook to cop to construction.
Their SECONDARY mission is killing and destruction.
The Geneva Conventions only cover POW's and civilians and criminals.
Bush (their Commander in Chief) has SPECIFICALLY stated that some of the people we've captured are NOT covered under the Geneva Conventions, being that they are "unlawful enemy combatants".
When you have the people at the very Very VERY top trying to play word games with the rights of prisoners, you don't expect the people at the bottom to behave themselves.
Most people have stronger reactions to pictures than they do to printed words. If the military is going to control the reaction, the military is going to ban cameras.
When cameras are outlawed, only outlaws will have cameras.
Repeat after me, "There are no X-Files. It was only a TV show."
It would only take ONE agent a few minutes to make the calls to find out the information they needed (police record, major, classes taken, etc). That one agent could then move on to other, more important activities.
Instead, there are TWO agents talking to this kid.
There are TWO agents wasting their time.
This is fine if there are an unlimited number of agents. But there aren't. Therefore, the agents need to spend their time in the wisest fashion.
Travelling to that kid's dorm, waiting for him to show up and then talking to him does NOT sound like the best usage of their time to me.
Terrorists have been attacking other countries for years.
It isn't even Islamic extremism. Look at the Irish Republican Army (IRA).
But the reason that al Queda attacked us is not because we're doing better then their country. It's because they want us OUT of their country (Saudi Arabia).
Check out Bush's connections with the House of Saud. Check out our history of interference and supporting them despite the will of the majority over there.
What I'm wondering about is why TWO agents had to meet with this guy to discuss this.
For everyone who does NOT understand, there are a limited number of agents (FBI, CIA, SS, etc). The more agents handling what are BLATANTLY obvious cases of non-terrorist activity, the FEWER agents doing any actual anti-terrorist work.
You are correct. If any investigation was done, it should have been done quickly and quietly. They can find his major. They can find what classes he's taken. They can find if he has any police record. They do not need to waste the time of two agents.
#1. That the US is importing more jobs than it exports. I'd really like to see that material. My experience is exactly the opposite.
#2. I've seen that report: www.crimsonventures.com/pdf/offshoring_wi n_win_gam e.pdf The claimed "$1.12 to $1.14 of additional economic activity in the U.S." is an ESTIMATE that is based off of non-offshore employment changes.
#3. I don't know about your "vast majority" but I do know that there are a LOT of programming jobs going to India and those are NOT "lower skill jobs".
#4. You don't compare one year to another year. You look at the TREND over 10 years.
#5. It is possible for an industry to make more money while offshoring the employees. DUH!!! That's what this whole discussion is about.
#6. "Far more people loose their jobs to technology or domestic competition than outsourcing." But the difference is that the jobs are still HERE in those cases. It is when the job is filled by someone outside of the country that there is a problem.
#7. "The total outsourcing between 2000 and 2015 is only projected..." Let's stick to facts, okay?
#8. "Outsourced jobs tend to go to countries that emulate the United States..." You mean like CHINA? Get a clue!
"A lot of the reason you see so many complaints about outsourcing on Slashdot tends to be the reinforced tendencies of self-selected sets."
Rather, a lot of the reason is that it is easy to check facts and present individual cases.
"The fact is, outsourcing is just one of the more painful parts of free trade, but free trade improves the lives of everyone."
No it does NOT. It is possible to send jobs to places like China which do NOT improve the lives of people.
"You have to be able to look at the big picture to see that."
I have. And until we can ensure that ANY country that wants "free trade" with us can match or exceed our worker/environmental protections, this is nothing more than hiring the cheapest labour you can find.
Slavery IS a valid economic system. And it does generate a profit.
The first step is to learn what the various types of "malware" are and how each is spread.
#1. Worms #2. Viruses #3. Trojans
Then you have to learn about the security model of each of the systems you are discussing.
Then you have to look at the default installation model ('cause most users will take the default).
Then you have to look at the past patch/release behaviour of the groups developing those systems.
Once you do all of that, you'll find that Linux would be far more resistant than Windows is.
But, until you do all of that, you won't believe anyone who says that.
#1. Linux comes with fewer services installed by default and fewer services run with root level permissions. This limits the spread of worms.
#2. Linux is more resistant to viruses because regular users cannot alter executables.
#3. Which leaves trojans and those are mostly spread by executable email attachments. Take away the ability to execute attachments by clicking on them and you limit the spread of trojans.
So, to be as bad as Windows, a single Linux distribution that ran as root by default would have to be in use by 51%+ of the population and that distribution would have to install the same services and have them actively listening for connections and also have an email client that ran attachments with a single click.
Now you'll see why people mock Microsoft's "security" so much. All of those flaws are in Windows.
Yes, I have a US-centric viewpoint. Duh! I'm in the US.
"The whole point globalization is to remove national barriers to trade therefore allowing other nations to directly prosper from the unequal wealth that the west currently holds."
Yet it does so WITHOUT any of the worker/environmental protections that we have in the US. In essence, it is about hiring cheaper labour.
"It will probably take a generation or two before the whole world really starts to see the direct benifit from these exercises, but overall it will be much better for the world economy as a whole."
That is a belief. Rather than base the future upon a hopeful fantasy, why not take steps NOW to ensure that the future will be better?
Such steps include NOT opening up "free trade" until AFTER a country has the same or better worker/environmental protections that we do?
"As the remaining of the 5/6 of the world's markets open, in general a state of equalization will occur between all nations on the planet."
This is also known as the "race to the bottom".
You didn't think about that, did you? It is possible for "equalization" to result in a LOWER standard of living for everyone except the group currently at the bottom. That sure sounds like a future I want to live in.
"Globalization will prove to the western world formost that we are not at all that great and competing in free markets as we think."
Translation: Globalization will prove that slavery is a viable economic solution.
But I also believe that we should NOT be into NAFTA or the WTO or any other "free trade" agreement until AFTER we have the freedom to work in those countries AND those countries have the same worker/environmental protection laws we have here.
Once we get THOSE in place, then I'm all for free trade.
From your post: "Most jobs will remain unaffected altogether: close to 90 percent of jobs in the United States require geographic proximity. Such jobs include everything from retail and restaurants to marketing and personal care -- services that have to be produced and consumed locally, so outsourcing them overseas is not an option."
Do you want fries with that?
So, instead of working and actually PRODUCING something, we will become a nation of burger flippers.
"There is also no evidence that jobs in the high-value-added sector are migrating overseas."
Which jobs would that be? Any specifics? Please do not say "prostitute".
"The parts of production that are more complex, interactive, or innovative -- including, but not limited to, marketing, research, and development -- are much more difficult to shift abroad."
Incorrect, R & D is moving overseas.
"As an International Data Corporation analysis on trends in IT services concluded, "the activities that will migrate offshore are predominantly those that can be viewed as requiring low skill since process and repeatability are key underpinnings of the work."
Yet I keep seeing complaints about how many PROGRAMMING jobs are moving to India.
But I don't know of anyone who claims that programming is "low skill".
"As for the jobs that can be sent offshore, even if the most dire-sounding forecasts come true, the impact on the economy will be negligible."
Then there are a few paragraphs devoted to debating whether the predictions are good or bad. Whatever. Facts are easier to deal with.
"There is no denying that the number of manufacturing jobs has fallen dramatically in recent years, but this has very little do with outsourcing and almost everything to do with technological innovation."
So, the FACT is that there are FEWER manufacturing jobs. Well DUH!!!!!
Now they are arguing that the FEWER jobs are NOT the result of offshoring.
So, we don't have a "rust belt" because we still crank out the same PRODUCTS in the same QUANTITY but we do it with FEWER PEOPLE?
I don't believe that the FACTS will support that.
We've lost the jobs. They are now being performed overseas.
"If outsourcing were in fact the chief cause of manufacturing losses, one would expect corresponding increases in manufacturing employment in developing countries."
Incorrect. It is possible to lose 100 manufacturing jobs in the US and only gain 10 robot-assisted manufacturing jobs in other countries.
So, the same number of PRODUCTS are being produced, but fewer people are doing it and those people are NOT US citizens.
"The fact that global manufacturing output increased by 30 percent in that same period confirms that technology, not trade, is the primary cause for the decrease in factory jobs."
But the technology is NOT in the US. The jobs are NOT in the US. Rather than pay to upgrade the US factories, the jobs are going overseas.
"What about the service sector?"
Service sector: burger flippers, prostitution, butlers and such.
"For example, a Datamonitor study found that global call-center operations are being outsourced at a slower rate than previously thought -- only five percent are expected to be located offshore by 2007."
Dude, "global call-center" being outsourced would have to go to MARS. We're looking at US jobs here.
"Delta Airlines outsourced 1,000 call-center jobs to India in 2003, but the $25 million in savings allowed the firm to add 1,200 reservation and sales positions in the United States."
Here's a link to show how good Delta is doing.
http://www.newschannel9.com/vnews/1081980359/
And I quote: "The nation's third-largest airline said it lost $387 million dollars."
So, they "save" $25 million by outsourcing, but then they LOSE $387 million?
"An Institute for International Economics analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics employment data revealed th
"This rich vs, poor thing has never proven to actually happen throughout history."
Then you need to read more history.
As I stated, it happened in Medieval Europe.
It is happening in the US right now. A higher percentage of people are falling below the poverty line and a higher percentage of wealth is accumulating in the top 5%.
"History (and nature) both show an equilibrium happening."
Incorrect. If that were so, then we would not be seeing so much money accumulating in the top 5%.
We'd be seeing LESS money.
"The US may have less of a middle class, but that doesn't mean it's going away."
Correct, but you'd have to show that less wealth is accumulating in the top 5%.
"The middle class now lives in New Delhi."
No, what has happened is that some people in a poorer nation have had their income raised. They are now "middle class" for that nation. -but- The total percentage of wealth held by the top 5% continues to grow.
You are under the impression that because someone, somewhere is doing better than s/he did before, then no damage is occuring. You are wrong.
Here are some simple numbers. And before anyone gets stupid, these are just used as examples.
Suppose the entire middle class in the US held about $1 Billion.
You could wipe them out and raise an equal number of Indians to "middle class" making only 1/10th of that (about $100 million).
So, $900 million have been moved from the "middle class" to the top 5%, but you don't see a problem with that.
But we could do the same in China for only $10 million. The top 5% would gain $990 million while the middle class only made $10 million.
And that is the problem. The money is NOT being spread evenly. It is NOT going to those in poverty. It is accumulating at the top.
Therefore, the end result will NOT be what you want to believe (equal standard throughout).
The end result will be a few very rich and a LOT of very poor.
They are paid 1/10th of what a worker here is paid so they can only buy 1/10th of the finished goods produced here.
What you're seeing is a small transfer of capital from the US to other countries which raises the standard of living of a few people in those countries -and- the conglomoration of wealth in the hands of a few in the US.
Two basic classes, the very powerful and the serfs.
Now, look at the US economy. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer while the middle-class shrinks.
You have an overly optimistic view of the future.
Rather than hoping that everyone will, somehow, achieve a more equal economic level, why don't we start working now to preserve and strengthen the middle-class?
Slashdot Mirror
I will assume that you've, somehow, managed to miss the news.
CIA hireling beats prisoner to death. Hireling has not been charged or fired.
Google on CIA death CAIC prisoner Iraq.
The Red Cross DOES release reports. Do a google search and you'll find tons of them.
If, as you claim, the report cited was fake, then why hasn't the Red Cross stepped up and stated so?
"An alleged report has been leaked; the consensus of opinion among those who I work for is that this report has been severely doctored by whomever released it to the Arab press."
It was leaked to the Wall Street Journal. Why would you believe that the Wall Street Journal was part of the "Arab press"?
All the rent-a-cops that I know of (the ones in the office building where i work) are NOT armed.
I don't think the guy patrolling the school would be armed.
But mercenaries ARE armed.
"I know it's harder to hate them if you're aware that they're just ordinary guys trying to make a living by, for the most part, just being big and looking intimidating."
The word "goon" comes to mind. Someone hired to physically intimidate someone.
The problem is that they do not fall under US law nor military law. If they shoot an Iraqi, who do they answer to?
THAT is the problem. The US government should NOT have anyone in theatre who does not have a clearly defined chain of command. But we do.
Here it is, AGAIN!
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4894001/
Let me help you with the hard parts.
"There is abundant evidence in the statements of numerous witnesses that soldiers throughout the 800th MP Brigade were not proficient in their basic MOS skills, particularly regarding internment/resettlement operations."
Get that? They did NOT "KNOW and UNDERSTAND their job". That was in the report.
"Moreover, there is no evidence that the command, although aware of these deficiencies, attempted to correct them in any systemic manner other than ad hoc training by individuals with civilian corrections experience."
Not only didn't they KNOW their job, they thought that having people with CIVILIAN training would compensate for MILITARY training.
"I find that the 800th MP Brigade was not adequately trained for a mission that included operating a prison or penal institution at Abu Ghraib Prison Complex."
Again, they were NOT trained.
"However, I found no evidence that the Command, although aware of this deficiency, ever requested specific corrections training from the Commandant of the Military Police School, the US Army Confinement Facility at Mannheim, Germany, the Provost Marshal General of the Army, or the US Army Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas."
Even though their Chain of Command KNEW they weren't trained, their Chain of Command did NOTHING to fix it (above the company level).
"Almost every witness we interviewed had no familiarity with the provisions of AR 190-8 or FM 3-19.40."
They didn't even KNOW the AR's and FM's appropriate to their mission.
"Numerous witnesses stated that the 800th MP Brigade S-1, MAJ Hinzman and S-4, MAJ Green, were essentially dysfunctional, but that despite numerous complaints, these officers were not replaced."
The word "dysfunctional" applied to officers by a GENERAL in his OFFICIAL report.
Now would you care to tell me what "EVERY basic military trainee is drilled on"?
They were soldiers, but they were SPECIALLY TRAINED (as in Advanced Individual Training) in Military POLICE operations.
You see, every enlisted soldier has a Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) which is his/her PRIMARY mission. This can range from cook to cop to construction.
Their SECONDARY mission is killing and destruction.
These people failed in their PRIMARY mission.
The Geneva Conventions only cover POW's and civilians and criminals.
2 07 07-2004Apr17.html
Bush (their Commander in Chief) has SPECIFICALLY stated that some of the people we've captured are NOT covered under the Geneva Conventions, being that they are "unlawful enemy combatants".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A
When you have the people at the very Very VERY top trying to play word games with the rights of prisoners, you don't expect the people at the bottom to behave themselves.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4894001/
Those idiots in the pictures seem to have had a whole chain of command of idiots who never bothered to train their troops or check their troops.
Un-trained
Un-monitored
Un-professional
They didn't even think what they were doing was wrong.
The Red Cross report didn't have an effect.
The complaints didn't have an effect.
The eye witness accounts didn't have an effect.
A few pictures change everything.
Most people have stronger reactions to pictures than they do to printed words. If the military is going to control the reaction, the military is going to ban cameras.
When cameras are outlawed, only outlaws will have cameras.
The corporate answer is ..... maybe.
Because if they're using a pirated copy of your software, they aren't using a legal copy of Linux.
Every person has a point at which they will switch. The corporation wants to get as close to that point as possible without going over.
So, they kill selected fake keys, but they don't kill them all.
They make it difficult to run a pirated copy, but not impossible.
From Microsoft's viewpoint, it's better to not get money from a pirated installation than it is to lose that machine to Linux.
Even Bush was briefed on it.
2 00 4Apr10?language=printer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A2285-
Known terrorists.
Living in the US.
Possible hijacking.
Possible attack with explosives.
Nothing was done.
You'll have trouble convincing people because most of them are reacting emotionally.
The fertilizer bomb was a unique instance. Every day, millions of people go about their lives in the US without building a fertilizer bomb.
Yet that single instance is used by people who feel threatened to justify any amount of governmental "protection".
If you live in the US and are NOT in a combat zone, you are STATISTICALLY more likely to be killed by someone in your own family than by a terrorist.
What you're seeing is a fear reaction. Fear does NOT understand statistics. Fear does NOT take reasonable precautions.
Repeat after me, "There are no X-Files. It was only a TV show."
It would only take ONE agent a few minutes to make the calls to find out the information they needed (police record, major, classes taken, etc). That one agent could then move on to other, more important activities.
Instead, there are TWO agents talking to this kid.
There are TWO agents wasting their time.
This is fine if there are an unlimited number of agents. But there aren't. Therefore, the agents need to spend their time in the wisest fashion.
Travelling to that kid's dorm, waiting for him to show up and then talking to him does NOT sound like the best usage of their time to me.
Terrorists have been attacking other countries for years.
It isn't even Islamic extremism. Look at the Irish Republican Army (IRA).
But the reason that al Queda attacked us is not because we're doing better then their country. It's because they want us OUT of their country (Saudi Arabia).
Check out Bush's connections with the House of Saud. Check out our history of interference and supporting them despite the will of the majority over there.
Although it is possible.
What I'm wondering about is why TWO agents had to meet with this guy to discuss this.
For everyone who does NOT understand, there are a limited number of agents (FBI, CIA, SS, etc). The more agents handling what are BLATANTLY obvious cases of non-terrorist activity, the FEWER agents doing any actual anti-terrorist work.
You are correct. If any investigation was done, it should have been done quickly and quietly. They can find his major. They can find what classes he's taken. They can find if he has any police record. They do not need to waste the time of two agents.
#1. That the US is importing more jobs than it exports. I'd really like to see that material. My experience is exactly the opposite.
i n_win_gam e.pdf
#2. I've seen that report:
www.crimsonventures.com/pdf/offshoring_w
The claimed "$1.12 to $1.14 of additional economic activity in the U.S." is an ESTIMATE that is based off of non-offshore employment changes.
#3. I don't know about your "vast majority" but I do know that there are a LOT of programming jobs going to India and those are NOT "lower skill jobs".
#4. You don't compare one year to another year. You look at the TREND over 10 years.
#5. It is possible for an industry to make more money while offshoring the employees. DUH!!! That's what this whole discussion is about.
#6. "Far more people loose their jobs to technology or domestic competition than outsourcing." But the difference is that the jobs are still HERE in those cases. It is when the job is filled by someone outside of the country that there is a problem.
#7. "The total outsourcing between 2000 and 2015 is only projected..." Let's stick to facts, okay?
#8. "Outsourced jobs tend to go to countries that emulate the United States..." You mean like CHINA? Get a clue!
"A lot of the reason you see so many complaints about outsourcing on Slashdot tends to be the reinforced tendencies of self-selected sets."
Rather, a lot of the reason is that it is easy to check facts and present individual cases.
"The fact is, outsourcing is just one of the more painful parts of free trade, but free trade improves the lives of everyone."
No it does NOT. It is possible to send jobs to places like China which do NOT improve the lives of people.
"You have to be able to look at the big picture to see that."
I have. And until we can ensure that ANY country that wants "free trade" with us can match or exceed our worker/environmental protections, this is nothing more than hiring the cheapest labour you can find.
Slavery IS a valid economic system. And it does generate a profit.
The first step is to learn what the various types of "malware" are and how each is spread.
#1. Worms
#2. Viruses
#3. Trojans
Then you have to learn about the security model of each of the systems you are discussing.
Then you have to look at the default installation model ('cause most users will take the default).
Then you have to look at the past patch/release behaviour of the groups developing those systems.
Once you do all of that, you'll find that Linux would be far more resistant than Windows is.
But, until you do all of that, you won't believe anyone who says that.
#1. Linux comes with fewer services installed by default and fewer services run with root level permissions. This limits the spread of worms.
#2. Linux is more resistant to viruses because regular users cannot alter executables.
#3. Which leaves trojans and those are mostly spread by executable email attachments. Take away the ability to execute attachments by clicking on them and you limit the spread of trojans.
So, to be as bad as Windows, a single Linux distribution that ran as root by default would have to be in use by 51%+ of the population and that distribution would have to install the same services and have them actively listening for connections and also have an email client that ran attachments with a single click.
Now you'll see why people mock Microsoft's "security" so much. All of those flaws are in Windows.
Yes, I have a US-centric viewpoint. Duh! I'm in the US.
"The whole point globalization is to remove national barriers to trade therefore allowing other nations to directly prosper from the unequal wealth that the west currently holds."
Yet it does so WITHOUT any of the worker/environmental protections that we have in the US. In essence, it is about hiring cheaper labour.
"It will probably take a generation or two before the whole world really starts to see the direct benifit from these exercises, but overall it will be much better for the world economy as a whole."
That is a belief. Rather than base the future upon a hopeful fantasy, why not take steps NOW to ensure that the future will be better?
Such steps include NOT opening up "free trade" until AFTER a country has the same or better worker/environmental protections that we do?
"As the remaining of the 5/6 of the world's markets open, in general a state of equalization will occur between all nations on the planet."
This is also known as the "race to the bottom".
You didn't think about that, did you? It is possible for "equalization" to result in a LOWER standard of living for everyone except the group currently at the bottom. That sure sounds like a future I want to live in.
"Globalization will prove to the western world formost that we are not at all that great and competing in free markets as we think."
Translation: Globalization will prove that slavery is a viable economic solution.
Yep, a small amount of capital can have a big impact on a poor country.
But that does NOT contradict my point about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
But the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer DOES contradict your claim that, eventually, everyone will be at the same level.
Like I said before, it is possible to transfer 90% of the middle class's income to the top 5% AND STILL HAVE A MIDDLE CLASS in India.
The wealth in moving to the top 5%.
Making some poor people less poor does NOT contradict that.
The wealth is moving to the top 5%.
Your prediction is wrong.
But I also believe that we should NOT be into NAFTA or the WTO or any other "free trade" agreement until AFTER we have the freedom to work in those countries AND those countries have the same worker/environmental protection laws we have here.
Once we get THOSE in place, then I'm all for free trade.
From your post:
"Most jobs will remain unaffected altogether: close to 90 percent of jobs in the United States require geographic proximity. Such jobs include everything from retail and restaurants to marketing and personal care -- services that have to be produced and consumed locally, so outsourcing them overseas is not an option."
Do you want fries with that?
So, instead of working and actually PRODUCING something, we will become a nation of burger flippers.
"There is also no evidence that jobs in the high-value-added sector are migrating overseas."
Which jobs would that be? Any specifics? Please do not say "prostitute".
"The parts of production that are more complex, interactive, or innovative -- including, but not limited to, marketing, research, and development -- are much more difficult to shift abroad."
Incorrect, R & D is moving overseas.
"As an International Data Corporation analysis on trends in IT services concluded, "the activities that will migrate offshore are predominantly those that can be viewed as requiring low skill since process and repeatability are key underpinnings of the work."
Yet I keep seeing complaints about how many PROGRAMMING jobs are moving to India.
But I don't know of anyone who claims that programming is "low skill".
"As for the jobs that can be sent offshore, even if the most dire-sounding forecasts come true, the impact on the economy will be negligible."
Then there are a few paragraphs devoted to debating whether the predictions are good or bad. Whatever. Facts are easier to deal with.
"There is no denying that the number of manufacturing jobs has fallen dramatically in recent years, but this has very little do with outsourcing and almost everything to do with technological innovation."
So, the FACT is that there are FEWER manufacturing jobs. Well DUH!!!!!
Now they are arguing that the FEWER jobs are NOT the result of offshoring.
So, we don't have a "rust belt" because we still crank out the same PRODUCTS in the same QUANTITY but we do it with FEWER PEOPLE?
I don't believe that the FACTS will support that.
We've lost the jobs. They are now being performed overseas.
"If outsourcing were in fact the chief cause of manufacturing losses, one would expect corresponding increases in manufacturing employment in developing countries."
Incorrect. It is possible to lose 100 manufacturing jobs in the US and only gain 10 robot-assisted manufacturing jobs in other countries.
So, the same number of PRODUCTS are being produced, but fewer people are doing it and those people are NOT US citizens.
"The fact that global manufacturing output increased by 30 percent in that same period confirms that technology, not trade, is the primary cause for the decrease in factory jobs."
But the technology is NOT in the US. The jobs are NOT in the US. Rather than pay to upgrade the US factories, the jobs are going overseas.
"What about the service sector?"
Service sector: burger flippers, prostitution, butlers and such.
"For example, a Datamonitor study found that global call-center operations are being outsourced at a slower rate than previously thought -- only five percent are expected to be located offshore by 2007."
Dude, "global call-center" being outsourced would have to go to MARS. We're looking at US jobs here.
"Delta Airlines outsourced 1,000 call-center jobs to India in 2003, but the $25 million in savings allowed the firm to add 1,200 reservation and sales positions in the United States."
Here's a link to show how good Delta is doing.
http://www.newschannel9.com/vnews/1081980359/
And I quote: "The nation's third-largest airline said it lost $387 million dollars."
So, they "save" $25 million by outsourcing, but then they LOSE $387 million?
"An Institute for International Economics analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics employment data revealed th
"This rich vs, poor thing has never proven to actually happen throughout history."
Then you need to read more history.
As I stated, it happened in Medieval Europe.
It is happening in the US right now. A higher percentage of people are falling below the poverty line and a higher percentage of wealth is accumulating in the top 5%.
"History (and nature) both show an equilibrium happening."
Incorrect. If that were so, then we would not be seeing so much money accumulating in the top 5%.
We'd be seeing LESS money.
"The US may have less of a middle class, but that doesn't mean it's going away."
Correct, but you'd have to show that less wealth is accumulating in the top 5%.
"The middle class now lives in New Delhi."
No, what has happened is that some people in a poorer nation have had their income raised. They are now "middle class" for that nation.
-but-
The total percentage of wealth held by the top 5% continues to grow.
You are under the impression that because someone, somewhere is doing better than s/he did before, then no damage is occuring. You are wrong.
Here are some simple numbers. And before anyone gets stupid, these are just used as examples.
Suppose the entire middle class in the US held about $1 Billion.
You could wipe them out and raise an equal number of Indians to "middle class" making only 1/10th of that (about $100 million).
So, $900 million have been moved from the "middle class" to the top 5%, but you don't see a problem with that.
But we could do the same in China for only $10 million. The top 5% would gain $990 million while the middle class only made $10 million.
And that is the problem. The money is NOT being spread evenly. It is NOT going to those in poverty. It is accumulating at the top.
Therefore, the end result will NOT be what you want to believe (equal standard throughout).
The end result will be a few very rich and a LOT of very poor.
They are paid 1/10th of what a worker here is paid so they can only buy 1/10th of the finished goods produced here.
What you're seeing is a small transfer of capital from the US to other countries which raises the standard of living of a few people in those countries -and- the conglomoration of wealth in the hands of a few in the US.
Two basic classes, the very powerful and the serfs.
Now, look at the US economy. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer while the middle-class shrinks.
You have an overly optimistic view of the future.
Rather than hoping that everyone will, somehow, achieve a more equal economic level, why don't we start working now to preserve and strengthen the middle-class?
EXACTLY!
The rights of the minority MUST be protected.
If you can't right legislation that protects those rights then we need to re-examine what your legislation is actually intended to protect.
This is all about protecting BUSINESS MODELS at the expense of the RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS.
MS Word, by default, saves all kinds of previous editting.
7 .s html
http://news.softpedia.com/news/2/2004/April/779
Now, what was that about "poor design"?