I like how the researcher feels the need to close off with a "don't antagonise vegetarian groups" political-correctness statement, lest she risks being eaten alive (pun intended).
The funny thing is that statements like yours are the obligatory ones these days (just look at your statement and the responses). Your statement, attacking a position that nobody has taken, is the new political correctness.
many researchers, or at least people reporting research to the media, will play games with statistics to make new research seem more effective or revolutionary than they already are.
I agree, that's a real problem, but that's not what the GP said. They said,
Either someone is intentionally lying here (remember, these people are psychologists and know how to do it)
people complain about AAV but not all the other creoles and vernaculars (from New Yawker to Boston Southie to Alabaman slang to Louisiana patois
No, those all mark one as a hick or lower class. Anybody who doesn't speak like a newscaster in the US will get mocked on occasion, and quietly considered a lower form of life on a frequent basis.
Well I have not research, but I don't think you are being straightforward. Read this Slashdot discussion and a million like it -- the complaints about AAV are far more frequent.
They can all choose to talk however they like, but you can't tell the rest of us that have to like the way it sounds, nor that we have to listen to what we find ugly.
I agree. If you can't appreciate something, nobody can make you and it's mostly your problem. The problem isn't liking or disliking, but racial discrimination.
As long as they are collecting my data, can I use them as an online backup service? If my hard drive goes up in smoke, will they restore my emails? As a taxpayer, I want access to this government resource that I paid for.
The truth is, our country has its own "business" that is seperate of who is in office. The puppet in office maintains the gov's business and rarely changes course. Obama said he would close Gitmo. It's still open.
Obama said he would give us a public option... he lied.
Republicans play to the religious crazy people. Democrats play to the sane people... the result is the same. Corporations and power rule all, and the policies created have nothing to do with the voters.
Cynicism is the refuge of the weak. Your political opponents love that attitude and some actively try to alienate citizens from government for that reason; it just leaves the field wide open for them.
I think the whole Bush/Obama thing is a total distraction - and it works for too many people. It's unfortunate it is in the summary because as I see it what is happening is the that the government is travelling further down the same path - regardless of which party controls which branch. The idea that Obama is better or worse is meaningless, by and large they are exactly the same. And if somehow Romney were to beat Obama in the next election, the largest difference would be the switch in which group was defending and which was attacking the administration -- over the very same actions.
Politics is frustrating and messy and always will be, but everything good that's been accomplished in the world has been accomplished in that environment by people who overcame the challenges, turned away from cynicism, and got involved. Join us!
Answer this honestly - has the operational tempo of the United States military changed significantly?
Yes, beyond a doubt. We ended a war and are winding down another; some attacks on individuals with drones doesn't nearly compensate for pulling 100,000+ soldiers and all their equipment from Iraq.
Also, going forward, we are also reducing the number of troops in the Army and Marines and the overall military budget.
Either someone is intentionally lying here (remember, these people are psychologists and know how to do it)
Are you serious? Your sophisticated analysis is based on the assumption that psychologists are manipulative liars? Is there anything you feel you need to have a basis for stating, or do you just fabricate (or repeat) propaganda and string it together as needed?
autism, hemophilia, etc... things like this used to be very rare because people with these genes tended to not pass them down (due to lower survival rate, or in autism's case due to social stigma attached to mating with one).
Left to nature, contra-survival traits like these weed themselves out in any population, not just human. But nowadays they're being kept alive and allowed to breed wantonly, which might be admirable from a moral standpoint... but it's not doing the human gene pool any favors.
I understand that you have no idea what you are talking about. But given that, why would you choose to say the above, of all things? Why say something destructive?
For my money, this video game works as well as conventional counseling because conventional counseling doesn't work. People get better, sure, but they get better on their own. Time, improving life circumstances, and new friends are what end depression, not lying on a couch talking about your feelings.
Do you have anything to back this up, or are you making it up... or just repeating cynical ignorance that I've heard 1,000 times before? The problem with repeating cynical ignorance is that you can spread misinformation to people who really need it. Next is anecdotal speculation about vaccine effectiveness?
I agree generally with what you said: Language is essential in the ways you describe, and the quality of someone's language is one indicator of the quality of their thinking. Still, I don't agree with how those principles are applied in this discussion:
1) I don't think the form of language indicates quality. Someone can express themselves well (or poorly) in standard English, in a Southern vernacular, in African American Vernacular (AAV -- the other term has become too politically loaded) or in Chinese. One could argue that AAV is exceptionally innovative.
2) The fact that people complain about AAV but not all the other creoles and vernaculars (from New Yawker to Boston Southie to Alabaman slang to Louisiana patois) suggests to me that those people aren't really concerned about everyone speaking 'standard' English, that their motivation is about race. Certainly that doesn't apply to everyone, but let's be frank -- that's what really motivates many of them and everyone knows it.
3) That people put such great emphasis on the issue also suggests another motive. I can hardly remember a time when someone's vernacular, whether AAV or anything else, really impacted my day. As long as they are native English speakers we can understand each other fine (and many who are not native do fine also). People don't like it, and so they are trying to provide a objective justification for their completely subjective problem.
People naturally don't like things that challenge their worldview -- I don't either -- but that's life and the best response is to work hard at learning to overcome that response and respect others, and, if we really want to better ourselves and our society, to learn from them. (English already incorporates terms from many other languages and vernaculars; don't be a schmuck!:) )
it would need adjustments to account for lost entry opportunity,
Very good point; I hadn't thought of that. I wish I could find the original article and see how it was addressed, if at all. (If you are really motivated, it was in Political Science Quarterly, I think in 2011 or 2010).
The offshoring isn't doing much to develop that market though.
Not directly, but it provides jobs and income. Most of China's booming wealth is from exports, and much of that from off-shored manufacturing (though I don't know how much). The factory workers can't all buy iPhones, but they can buy many things that were impossible when they were impoverished subsistence farmers (as hundreds of millions of people still are in China).
Even in a good economy where unemployment is 'only' 5%, if you're part of the 5 in 100, you are 100% broke (or course, that 5% doesn't count the people who gave up looking or took a low paying McJob out of desperation). They are also fairly bad about ignoring that retraining for a new job often means you lose income even when you do get a job because you're inexperienced again. It's all well and good that retraining and volatility in the job market is good for the economy, especially when you're not the one that has to change jobs. Since they're taking one for the team, the 'team' needs to back them up.
I agree completely, and very well said. Policy-makers set themselves too low a bar, and shortchange their constituents, when they measure their performance by aggregate statistics.
I think you have some good points, but to address them individually:
The people making iPhones in China can't afford iPhones. They can afford knock-offs made in China.
There are many people in China who can't afford iPhones, but there are also many people who can (there are many, many people!) In aggregate China is one of the biggest markets in the world for consumer goods (not to mention manufacturing inputs). I think it's the biggest car market in the world and one of the largest phone markets (but don't cite me), for example. There's a reason western corporations are investing so much in selling there.
We DO need to equalize the economies, but doing it too fast and letting the corporations pocket the difference from the 'impedance mismatch' isn't a good way to get there. Antibiotics can knock an infection out in a week, but downing the bottle in one dose is a terrible idea.
I keep hearing all about how globalization creates jobs, but I keep seeing those jobs NOT appearing in the U.S. We need a little friction (not a total halt) in the process to make it work well.
I think you have an excellent point, but in fairness there are many Americans working for foreign companies. For example, IIRC Alabama is the second largest car manufacturing state in the country, due almost entirely to foreign car companies. Also, American businesses profit from globalization, which means they buy more, pay more, and return more to their investors.
Generally, I think the problem is that capital can move much faster than people. The factory can move much faster than the employees can find new jobs. Perhaps the solution is indeed a little more friction, as you say, or some insurance for the people.
I read about one Black Sea European country, maybe the Netherlands, which reached this political and economic solution: In return for allowing businesses a free hand in moving jobs, businesses fund high unemployment insurance (something like 80% of income for many years). As a result, people don't mind losing jobs so much and businesses are politically and economically unencumbered. It's a way to share the wealth of globalization.
(Also, it made me realize that we see employment in a binary sense: You either have a job and can take care of your needs, including housing, food, medical, etc., or you have (almost) nothing at all.)
I would learn some Polish to get by but I would be reading English websites, watching English TV and movies, etc
Why would you want nothing more than to get by for the remainder of your life?
I agree that what you suggest is optimal, but I don't think it's realistic for most people (including me).
There are plenty of potential immigrants who would come here and adapt beautifully. Why not let them in, and keep the others out? Testing overall culture is hard and not at all politically correct, but you can cherry pick things like language. Add a language test for green card renewal and citizenship. Done. You can come here with poor English but you have to learn within a few years
I'd rather let in the people who are most needy, "your hungry, your tired, your poor huddled masses". Also, I'm not sure of the facts here: Does lack of English makes a big difference in outcome, for the immigrant or for the country? How many immigrants don't learn functional English on their own? If it is a problem then maybe English lessons would be a good idea, but I hesitate to make them compulsory (just in the name of basic liberty); poor language skills are not small pox.
As a grownup now with world experiences I realize that if you don't like another culture that's perfectly fine. You don't have to rationalize it at all.
The problem isn't disliking another culture, but discriminating against it, which is common throughout our history: Catholics, Jews, Blacks, Japanese... now Muslims, Latinos. Perhaps you don't discriminate and rationalize it, but many people do. Arguably, it's the worst problem in our society.
Also, I wouldn't agree that it's "perfectly fine". It's a very human thing to do, but it's narrow-minded. As long as you don't act on it then it's your business, but why not try to overcome it and learn something new?
Cutting government spending reduces private sector growth? [citation needed].
First, certainly if you cut the wrong thing it will reduce private sector growth. For example, if we cut all police and fire services, or financial regulation, the resulting problems would cause the private sector would shrink. But those are extreme examples. Generally, it depends on how and where the money is spent. If the government buys $1 billion in gold and dumps it into the ocean, that doesn't help the economy much. Investing in infrastructure and education often does help.
In an economic contraction, the strong consensus of economists is that government spending is very important, that contracting spending during the initial economic crisis was a major cause of the Great Depression, and that the large spending increase beginning in 2009 probably saved us from another depression.
The national economy is not like your personal budget. In your personal budget, if you give someone $100 for a phone, you're out $100 and they are out a phone. But from the perspective of the national economy, the $100 and phone are neither lost nor gained; they are still there, they are just shifted around between people.
Those economic transactions are what makes the economy grow (because presumably you needed the phone more and they needed the $100 more). If the economic situation prevents or scares people from conducting economic activity, it can become a vicious cycle -- the worse the economy becomes, the less people spend, the worse it becomes, etc. We can halt the cycle by pooling our money (via taxes) and having the government conduct economic transactions; that increases economic activity and puts money in pockets to conduct more activity.
Sorry, but I don't have time for citations. I'm sure of the first three paragraphs, though my explanation in the last one may have holes in it. I am not an economist.
Reducing trade will reduce jobs. I just read an article in which Apple said they sell iPhones in 110 countries. I think China just passed the U.S. in iPhone activations. By 2020 China and India will be two of the top three car markets. Only 5% of the world's population is in the U.S.; we want to sell to the other 95%.
One common misconception in economics is that there are only a certain number of jobs to go around, and if someone else is working then fewer jobs are available for me. But think about it: Where are you more likely to get a job and earn more -- in a town where everyone else is employed and doing business with each other, or in a town with high unemployment and where nobody will deal with each other?
The same goes for international trade. We want a world of employed, prospering people; they'll buy from us and we can buy from them (and through specialization and comparative advantage, we'll all get better deals).
Many cannot, but many can; India's is booming and even a fraction of their 1.2 billion people can form a large market. For example, India is projected to be the world's 3rd largest car market by 2020, a top 5 smartphone market by 2016. All those people working in call centers and IT outsourcing want to buy things.
But generally, they don't have to be as wealthy as the U.S. to be improving their lot and to consume.
otherwise what would be the point of shipping jobs there to cut costs
Jobs are shipped there for many reasons, not just to cut costs. Labor is only one element of costs (there's capital, logistics, etc etc.) and costs are only one element of business investment (availability of skills, suppliers, expertise, financing, infrastructure, energy, etc. etc). Here's a good article about off-shoring jobs: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/business/apple-america-and-a-squeezed-middle-class.html
Note it says: "the cost of labor is minimal compared with the expense of buying parts and managing supply chains that bring together components and services from hundreds of companies."
Secondly why would an Indian company hire American workers in America when they can pay a fraction to their own people?
See above re: labor costs. Some things are better done in the U.S,, some in India, etc. A large proportion of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs are Indian; they didn't come for the cheap labor!
Now lets cue up the "economic deniers" telling me I'm wrong.
It's sad that we can't discuss these important issues, learn from each other and move our country (and the world) forward. Most importantly we need to stop telling each other that narrow-mindedness and anger are acceptable or will be taken seriously.
I don't mind immigrants to the US, it has what has made the country so great.....however, I want them to at least sign the guest book on the way in, do it legally, and try to become a citizen.
Immigrants that do it the right way...DO try to learn the language and become part of the melting pot that is (or at least was) the USA.
I agree it should be done legally, but America was built on immigrants who didn't learn the language or blend in, many of whom were illegal (and the ancestors of those complaining). It's always been that way. Per one study I saw, by the third generation ~80% intermarry outside their ethnicity and only 3% speak their grandparents' native tongue at all (the latter is kind of sad).
I know that if I was 40 years old and moved to Poland (to pick a random country), I would learn some Polish to get by but I would be reading English websites, watching English TV and movies, etc. My kids would grow up speaking Polish, and their kids would laugh at Grandpa's funny accent and condescendingly translate.
To be frank, I think many people are uncomfortable with different cultures and change, and try to rationalize their feelings by finding problems with immigration. It's human nature, but America is great because we have overcome it and accepted all.
Have some sympathy for people who have come so far, with so little, to an alien world that speaks another language and is populated by many who hate immigrants just because they're different. Hardly a threat; they are really in need of our help and compassion (and admiration -- I doubt many people would have the guts to leave everything behind for that experience!).
I was just curious. A lot of people posting to this story are not regulars here. That's fine, but I was wondering how they happened to find this story.
Slashdot Mirror
I like how the researcher feels the need to close off with a "don't antagonise vegetarian groups" political-correctness statement, lest she risks being eaten alive (pun intended).
The funny thing is that statements like yours are the obligatory ones these days (just look at your statement and the responses). Your statement, attacking a position that nobody has taken, is the new political correctness.
many researchers, or at least people reporting research to the media, will play games with statistics to make new research seem more effective or revolutionary than they already are.
I agree, that's a real problem, but that's not what the GP said. They said,
Either someone is intentionally lying here (remember, these people are psychologists and know how to do it)
The implication is silly.
We're addressing two different issues ...
people complain about AAV but not all the other creoles and vernaculars (from New Yawker to Boston Southie to Alabaman slang to Louisiana patois
No, those all mark one as a hick or lower class. Anybody who doesn't speak like a newscaster in the US will get mocked on occasion, and quietly considered a lower form of life on a frequent basis.
Well I have not research, but I don't think you are being straightforward. Read this Slashdot discussion and a million like it -- the complaints about AAV are far more frequent.
They can all choose to talk however they like, but you can't tell the rest of us that have to like the way it sounds, nor that we have to listen to what we find ugly.
I agree. If you can't appreciate something, nobody can make you and it's mostly your problem. The problem isn't liking or disliking, but racial discrimination.
As long as they are collecting my data, can I use them as an online backup service? If my hard drive goes up in smoke, will they restore my emails? As a taxpayer, I want access to this government resource that I paid for.
The mission was over. Saddam is dead.
The Iraq war goal was filled.
What was the goal of the war again?
The truth is, our country has its own "business" that is seperate of who is in office. The puppet in office maintains the gov's business and rarely changes course. Obama said he would close Gitmo. It's still open.
Obama said he would give us a public option... he lied.
Republicans play to the religious crazy people. Democrats play to the sane people... the result is the same. Corporations and power rule all, and the policies created have nothing to do with the voters.
Cynicism is the refuge of the weak. Your political opponents love that attitude and some actively try to alienate citizens from government for that reason; it just leaves the field wide open for them.
I think the whole Bush/Obama thing is a total distraction - and it works for too many people. It's unfortunate it is in the summary because as I see it what is happening is the that the government is travelling further down the same path - regardless of which party controls which branch. The idea that Obama is better or worse is meaningless, by and large they are exactly the same. And if somehow Romney were to beat Obama in the next election, the largest difference would be the switch in which group was defending and which was attacking the administration -- over the very same actions.
Politics is frustrating and messy and always will be, but everything good that's been accomplished in the world has been accomplished in that environment by people who overcame the challenges, turned away from cynicism, and got involved. Join us!
Answer this honestly - has the operational tempo of the United States military changed significantly?
Yes, beyond a doubt. We ended a war and are winding down another; some attacks on individuals with drones doesn't nearly compensate for pulling 100,000+ soldiers and all their equipment from Iraq.
Also, going forward, we are also reducing the number of troops in the Army and Marines and the overall military budget.
Either someone is intentionally lying here (remember, these people are psychologists and know how to do it)
Are you serious? Your sophisticated analysis is based on the assumption that psychologists are manipulative liars? Is there anything you feel you need to have a basis for stating, or do you just fabricate (or repeat) propaganda and string it together as needed?
autism, hemophilia, etc... things like this used to be very rare because people with these genes tended to not pass them down (due to lower survival rate, or in autism's case due to social stigma attached to mating with one).
Left to nature, contra-survival traits like these weed themselves out in any population, not just human. But nowadays they're being kept alive and allowed to breed wantonly, which might be admirable from a moral standpoint... but it's not doing the human gene pool any favors.
I understand that you have no idea what you are talking about. But given that, why would you choose to say the above, of all things? Why say something destructive?
For my money, this video game works as well as conventional counseling because conventional counseling doesn't work. People get better, sure, but they get better on their own. Time, improving life circumstances, and new friends are what end depression, not lying on a couch talking about your feelings.
Do you have anything to back this up, or are you making it up ... or just repeating cynical ignorance that I've heard 1,000 times before? The problem with repeating cynical ignorance is that you can spread misinformation to people who really need it. Next is anecdotal speculation about vaccine effectiveness?
Your thoughtful response deserves one in return.
I agree generally with what you said: Language is essential in the ways you describe, and the quality of someone's language is one indicator of the quality of their thinking. Still, I don't agree with how those principles are applied in this discussion:
1) I don't think the form of language indicates quality. Someone can express themselves well (or poorly) in standard English, in a Southern vernacular, in African American Vernacular (AAV -- the other term has become too politically loaded) or in Chinese. One could argue that AAV is exceptionally innovative.
2) The fact that people complain about AAV but not all the other creoles and vernaculars (from New Yawker to Boston Southie to Alabaman slang to Louisiana patois) suggests to me that those people aren't really concerned about everyone speaking 'standard' English, that their motivation is about race. Certainly that doesn't apply to everyone, but let's be frank -- that's what really motivates many of them and everyone knows it.
3) That people put such great emphasis on the issue also suggests another motive. I can hardly remember a time when someone's vernacular, whether AAV or anything else, really impacted my day. As long as they are native English speakers we can understand each other fine (and many who are not native do fine also). People don't like it, and so they are trying to provide a objective justification for their completely subjective problem.
People naturally don't like things that challenge their worldview -- I don't either -- but that's life and the best response is to work hard at learning to overcome that response and respect others, and, if we really want to better ourselves and our society, to learn from them. (English already incorporates terms from many other languages and vernaculars; don't be a schmuck! :) )
it would need adjustments to account for lost entry opportunity,
Very good point; I hadn't thought of that. I wish I could find the original article and see how it was addressed, if at all. (If you are really motivated, it was in Political Science Quarterly, I think in 2011 or 2010).
The offshoring isn't doing much to develop that market though.
Not directly, but it provides jobs and income. Most of China's booming wealth is from exports, and much of that from off-shored manufacturing (though I don't know how much). The factory workers can't all buy iPhones, but they can buy many things that were impossible when they were impoverished subsistence farmers (as hundreds of millions of people still are in China).
Even in a good economy where unemployment is 'only' 5%, if you're part of the 5 in 100, you are 100% broke (or course, that 5% doesn't count the people who gave up looking or took a low paying McJob out of desperation). They are also fairly bad about ignoring that retraining for a new job often means you lose income even when you do get a job because you're inexperienced again. It's all well and good that retraining and volatility in the job market is good for the economy, especially when you're not the one that has to change jobs. Since they're taking one for the team, the 'team' needs to back them up.
I agree completely, and very well said. Policy-makers set themselves too low a bar, and shortchange their constituents, when they measure their performance by aggregate statistics.
It's sad that people actively promote hatred and discrimination, and attack those who object to it.
What do they hope to achieve? Where will it lead for them and for our society?
I think you have some good points, but to address them individually:
The people making iPhones in China can't afford iPhones. They can afford knock-offs made in China.
There are many people in China who can't afford iPhones, but there are also many people who can (there are many, many people!) In aggregate China is one of the biggest markets in the world for consumer goods (not to mention manufacturing inputs). I think it's the biggest car market in the world and one of the largest phone markets (but don't cite me), for example. There's a reason western corporations are investing so much in selling there.
We DO need to equalize the economies, but doing it too fast and letting the corporations pocket the difference from the 'impedance mismatch' isn't a good way to get there. Antibiotics can knock an infection out in a week, but downing the bottle in one dose is a terrible idea.
I keep hearing all about how globalization creates jobs, but I keep seeing those jobs NOT appearing in the U.S. We need a little friction (not a total halt) in the process to make it work well.
I think you have an excellent point, but in fairness there are many Americans working for foreign companies. For example, IIRC Alabama is the second largest car manufacturing state in the country, due almost entirely to foreign car companies. Also, American businesses profit from globalization, which means they buy more, pay more, and return more to their investors.
Generally, I think the problem is that capital can move much faster than people. The factory can move much faster than the employees can find new jobs. Perhaps the solution is indeed a little more friction, as you say, or some insurance for the people.
I read about one Black Sea European country, maybe the Netherlands, which reached this political and economic solution: In return for allowing businesses a free hand in moving jobs, businesses fund high unemployment insurance (something like 80% of income for many years). As a result, people don't mind losing jobs so much and businesses are politically and economically unencumbered. It's a way to share the wealth of globalization.
(Also, it made me realize that we see employment in a binary sense: You either have a job and can take care of your needs, including housing, food, medical, etc., or you have (almost) nothing at all.)
I would learn some Polish to get by but I would be reading English websites, watching English TV and movies, etc
Why would you want nothing more than to get by for the remainder of your life?
I agree that what you suggest is optimal, but I don't think it's realistic for most people (including me).
There are plenty of potential immigrants who would come here and adapt beautifully. Why not let them in, and keep the others out? Testing overall culture is hard and not at all politically correct, but you can cherry pick things like language. Add a language test for green card renewal and citizenship. Done. You can come here with poor English but you have to learn within a few years
I'd rather let in the people who are most needy, "your hungry, your tired, your poor huddled masses". Also, I'm not sure of the facts here: Does lack of English makes a big difference in outcome, for the immigrant or for the country? How many immigrants don't learn functional English on their own? If it is a problem then maybe English lessons would be a good idea, but I hesitate to make them compulsory (just in the name of basic liberty); poor language skills are not small pox.
As a grownup now with world experiences I realize that if you don't like another culture that's perfectly fine. You don't have to rationalize it at all.
The problem isn't disliking another culture, but discriminating against it, which is common throughout our history: Catholics, Jews, Blacks, Japanese ... now Muslims, Latinos. Perhaps you don't discriminate and rationalize it, but many people do. Arguably, it's the worst problem in our society.
Also, I wouldn't agree that it's "perfectly fine". It's a very human thing to do, but it's narrow-minded. As long as you don't act on it then it's your business, but why not try to overcome it and learn something new?
Regardless of the corporate advantages to offshoring, I fail to see why US taxpayer dollars should subsidize asian worker job training.
How about doing it because it helps other people?
It also pay great dividends for our national security and international policies, which depend heavily on political support around the world.
Cutting government spending reduces private sector growth? [citation needed].
First, certainly if you cut the wrong thing it will reduce private sector growth. For example, if we cut all police and fire services, or financial regulation, the resulting problems would cause the private sector would shrink. But those are extreme examples. Generally, it depends on how and where the money is spent. If the government buys $1 billion in gold and dumps it into the ocean, that doesn't help the economy much. Investing in infrastructure and education often does help.
In an economic contraction, the strong consensus of economists is that government spending is very important, that contracting spending during the initial economic crisis was a major cause of the Great Depression, and that the large spending increase beginning in 2009 probably saved us from another depression.
The national economy is not like your personal budget. In your personal budget, if you give someone $100 for a phone, you're out $100 and they are out a phone. But from the perspective of the national economy, the $100 and phone are neither lost nor gained; they are still there, they are just shifted around between people.
Those economic transactions are what makes the economy grow (because presumably you needed the phone more and they needed the $100 more). If the economic situation prevents or scares people from conducting economic activity, it can become a vicious cycle -- the worse the economy becomes, the less people spend, the worse it becomes, etc. We can halt the cycle by pooling our money (via taxes) and having the government conduct economic transactions; that increases economic activity and puts money in pockets to conduct more activity.
Sorry, but I don't have time for citations. I'm sure of the first three paragraphs, though my explanation in the last one may have holes in it. I am not an economist.
Reducing trade will reduce jobs. I just read an article in which Apple said they sell iPhones in 110 countries. I think China just passed the U.S. in iPhone activations. By 2020 China and India will be two of the top three car markets. Only 5% of the world's population is in the U.S.; we want to sell to the other 95%.
One common misconception in economics is that there are only a certain number of jobs to go around, and if someone else is working then fewer jobs are available for me. But think about it: Where are you more likely to get a job and earn more -- in a town where everyone else is employed and doing business with each other, or in a town with high unemployment and where nobody will deal with each other?
The same goes for international trade. We want a world of employed, prospering people; they'll buy from us and we can buy from them (and through specialization and comparative advantage, we'll all get better deals).
"Soon Californians and New Yorkers would not understand one another."? It's like the fall of Rome?
Raise your standards a little. Perhaps cite something to backup this bold prediction?
What is happening to Slashdot?
Indians cannot afford american goods,
Many cannot, but many can; India's is booming and even a fraction of their 1.2 billion people can form a large market. For example, India is projected to be the world's 3rd largest car market by 2020, a top 5 smartphone market by 2016. All those people working in call centers and IT outsourcing want to buy things.
But generally, they don't have to be as wealthy as the U.S. to be improving their lot and to consume.
otherwise what would be the point of shipping jobs there to cut costs
Jobs are shipped there for many reasons, not just to cut costs. Labor is only one element of costs (there's capital, logistics, etc etc.) and costs are only one element of business investment (availability of skills, suppliers, expertise, financing, infrastructure, energy, etc. etc). Here's a good article about off-shoring jobs:
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/business/apple-america-and-a-squeezed-middle-class.html
Note it says: "the cost of labor is minimal compared with the expense of buying parts and managing supply chains that bring together components and services from hundreds of companies."
Secondly why would an Indian company hire American workers in America when they can pay a fraction to their own people?
See above re: labor costs. Some things are better done in the U.S,, some in India, etc. A large proportion of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs are Indian; they didn't come for the cheap labor!
Now lets cue up the "economic deniers" telling me I'm wrong.
It's sad that we can't discuss these important issues, learn from each other and move our country (and the world) forward. Most importantly we need to stop telling each other that narrow-mindedness and anger are acceptable or will be taken seriously.
I don't mind immigrants to the US, it has what has made the country so great.....however, I want them to at least sign the guest book on the way in, do it legally, and try to become a citizen.
Immigrants that do it the right way...DO try to learn the language and become part of the melting pot that is (or at least was) the USA.
I agree it should be done legally, but America was built on immigrants who didn't learn the language or blend in, many of whom were illegal (and the ancestors of those complaining). It's always been that way. Per one study I saw, by the third generation ~80% intermarry outside their ethnicity and only 3% speak their grandparents' native tongue at all (the latter is kind of sad).
I know that if I was 40 years old and moved to Poland (to pick a random country), I would learn some Polish to get by but I would be reading English websites, watching English TV and movies, etc. My kids would grow up speaking Polish, and their kids would laugh at Grandpa's funny accent and condescendingly translate.
To be frank, I think many people are uncomfortable with different cultures and change, and try to rationalize their feelings by finding problems with immigration. It's human nature, but America is great because we have overcome it and accepted all.
Have some sympathy for people who have come so far, with so little, to an alien world that speaks another language and is populated by many who hate immigrants just because they're different. Hardly a threat; they are really in need of our help and compassion (and admiration -- I doubt many people would have the guts to leave everything behind for that experience!).
I was just curious. A lot of people posting to this story are not regulars here. That's fine, but I was wondering how they happened to find this story.
Don't blame the ignorant fuck who is too lazy to enunciate proper English.
Your use of English to make your point is subtle and leaves a strong impression.
Where did all the Anonymous Cowards come from for this story? Obviously most of these people are not regular Slashdotters.
Was the story linked to from some right-wing blog?