"Waitaminnute. Disney? You're honestly comparing a theme park's infrastructure with that of an industrialized nation? Crimony, why not just hand the nation over to Michael Eisner? We'll have Main Street, USA parades in every city, every day! and fireworks, too! Hurrah!"
Supply and demand laws are in operation everywhere. It's a fair comparison. If you want to compare to scale, Disney's GDP and quality of service blows almost all industralized nations away.
Actually, I don't know who Michael Eisner is. Whatever, though. I'm in support of selling the roads to private companies. In all seriousness, private ownership would work better than private roads even on a national scale. For example, no business is going to build shitty roads, when they want customers to shop at their store. Furthermore, advertisement can bring in a whole lot of money, and it increases over time. It's analogous to various websites with advertisements on them, like slashdot, but instead of hits coming from people clicking on the link, you get hits from people reading advertisements. Those auto-accident arguments fall flat on their faces here.
"In case you hadn't noticed, we're quickly going bankrupt. We're living way beyond our menas. We may not pay as much in taxes, but we owe shitloads to the likes of China, and the private sector has, as of yet, been recalcitrant in lowering profit expectations. Net effect: you and I get to digest massive increases in the cost of living, by way of things like insurance and health care costs. We get to watch our cities slowly decay."
Uh. In case you haven't noticed, we're not going bankrupt because we have a free market, and the private sector dominates. We're going bankrupt because of socialism within our government. You're still holding on to that old slight-of-hand trick that dates back to Marx. Free markets do not equal our current "capitalist" society.
See a free market has no government involvement in the markets, and this includes government granted monopolies and the formation of corporations. Marx takes the free market, calls it capitalism, and redefines it as [more or less] "big money exploits the workers, you need government to stop this." That's just plain bullshit. From your resume, I'll assume you're a fairly intelligent guy. You figure it out.
"Of course governments coerce. You're going to have coercion in any human interaction. Free enterprise coerces, too."
When was the last time a free enterprise took, on a large scale, coerced people? I'm not talking about that cozy definition of coercion, as compelling to act or choose. I'm talking about aggressive restraint or enforcement [domination]. You know, how if I decide I don't want socialized health care, and refuse to pay the taxes on it. I get put in jail and my property forfeited [asset forfeiture]... and perhaps shot in the process.
Very sad story at the end of that. If you're educated enough to run your business, all corporations aside, then you should have enough education to get a job other than a sales clerk. Anyone who thinks they deserve their job forever [fear of competing in the market? laziness to improve their skills?], and ends up not continously developing their skills, is going to lose out on a job. I'm not going to weep for such a person.
Like I said earlier... It was almost a nice try on your behalf. No more slight-of-hand tricks though. It's getting annoying.
"Oh, come on! Did you just sleep through the past few years' worth of corporate scandal? Enron is honest, quick servicing, and efficient? Arthur Andersen? The honest businessman has a hard time holding his own against the one who's just out to make money, damn the ethics."
That one falls on its face before it gets away from the starting blocks. Corporate scandal. Corporation. Modern corporation. Intentional government constructs. Market socialism. Corporations do not exist in free markets [or the private sector, if by definition you take it as free markets]. Almost a good try though. Almost.
"History also shows us that when the divide between the classes grows too great, you get great, big, violent, bloody revolts. Human nature shows us that we're opportunistic, fault-riddled beings who are capable of committing mind-bogglingly heinous acts of violence and fraud against one other in the name of power and wealth."
Oh wow! The same mistakes. The division between classes isn't caused by the private sector, or free markets. You're talking about corruption, and increased variance between the wealthy and the poor. Do you know how the wealthy get wealthier, at the expense of the poor? Government regulation, or laws protecting the wealthy elite. In other words, when you have too much democracy [part of us moving from a Limited Republic to a Democracy], it becomes very easy to alter laws in your favor depending on if you have more money than the next guy, or simply more backers.
Most of the revolutions of the past were based upon ideas of well-to-do people, including the French Revolution (instigated by members of the political elite) and the Communists Revolution(s) in Russia (intellectual elites using workers as foot soldiers).
You admit that human beings are faulty, but yet you're promoting systems that put some people in a situation with which human nature is going to lead to exploitation sooner or later? I'll just shake my head on this one.
"As a matter of fact, I have. The trains in France and Germany are simply amazing--fast, reasonably priced, efficient, and a far cry better and more complex than anything Disney runs. Likewise, the roads are in excellent shape, though I rarely used them, as the trains were so good. The UK, well, the trains aren't all that great there. In fact, they're atrocious. Odd, really, seeing as they were privatized some years ago. Must just not have hit their stride yet."
Reasonably priced? Please. You were an American citizen living their, not having to pay the full price through taxes. Their taxes increase every year to pay for those things. That's how it works. When something is perceived as cheap and high-quality, it is used very often. Unfortunately, people start to use more than they're willing to pay for.
German and Scandinavian countries continue to outsource much of the infrastructure of their socialized industries, and they're still losing much.
Not all of the UK's transportation system has been privatized, and much of it is in disarray because fewer and fewer people are utilizing those systems.
Have you ever read any of those unbiased investigations into tobacco smoking causing cancer? The results show that there has never been any conclusive evidence showing that tobacco causes cancer. Most people who smoke tobacco, even for 50 years or more, never even show signs of cancer before they do. Many people who do not smoke, and are not around smokers more than a few minutes per day, get cancer.
You might find it in HTML format on google if you search for "Public Comments solicited in response to the National Toxicology Program" or something similar.
All of those little anti-tobacco industry commercials talking about how tobacco kills people are very effective, but they don't deal with actual scientific facts.
Tobacco companies, being almost exclusively corporations, and therefore intentional government costructs to maximize profit, are being blamed by various clueless environmentalists and the very same people who created them [socialists] who either want to be a part of some cause however erroneous it might be [environmentalists], or a little bit more control [socialists, other authoritarians].
Until you can prove that smoking cigarettes causes cancer, that argument holds no weight.
Even if tobacco does cause cancer [never been proven], if people still do it on their own, voluntarily, you can't complain. That's like banning guns, knives, rope, or swimming pools because they were used by a few people in suicides or in 'accidental' deaths.
The private sector never cares for happiness and success? PLEASE!!!
The private sector and free markets reward apathy and service. Honest, good, and hard working people succeed in free markets. The private sector is a whole lot more efficient than government will ever be, by very definition and nature.
goldspider makes a good point. Government just takes our money. Our money is competed over in the private sector. Only those that are honest, quick servicing, and cost-efficient get money from people in the private sector.
How would we get safer cities with socialized health care? That's such bullshit. The most dangerous cities are cities with draconian gun control laws that don't work.
Happier citizens? Freedom and prosperity makes people happy. History and human nature shows us this.
Better roads and better transit? Bullshit! Have you ever compared private roads to socialized ones? Have you ever compared Disney's roads to socialized ones? What about Disney's monorail? Efficient, clean, and cost-effective. Socialized transportation is wretched, and fails in so many ways. In a socialized system, to get more money, transporation agencies just have to be slow and take longer to get the roads or rails repaired. In the private sector, to get business, they have to do it quickly and for a relatively small amount of me.
Oh yeah, and if socialized societies were "better-educated" and "more informed" than free market societies with minimal government, they wouldn't be going bankrupt and they wouldn't be filled to the brim with corruption. Nice try though, sir.
"So if you're in it for yourself, then no, it doesn't behoove you to support a strong social structure."
Oh, see it does behoove the individual to support a strong social structure. Nice slight-of-hand trick though.
Strong social structure has nothing to do with the inherent corruption of socialized anything. Strong social structure isn't about inefficient centralization, or slowly going bankrupt (European countries, like France and the Netherlands or Canada) on account of their socialized systems, but rather on actually local social structures developed and maintained by people doing so of their own free will -- something that no government can create, simply because governments coerce.
If these corporations and agencies are getting wealthy off of exploiting or poisoning their customers, then what the hell kind of position are they going to be in when they have no more customers left?
Want to talk about not killing, but just infecting? Private studies are done all the time testing different products at the expense of private investors -- including every day citizens. If there's a common denominator between people getting a certain disease and the places they shop, someone will find it.
"And while the analogy of the settlers fleeing oppression and, crucially, poverty in Europe and seeking their luck in the New World might be in some people's heads [1], it's really doesn't apply."
Are you seriously contesting that throughout the past few hundred years, Europeans haven't been coming to the New World to get away from little things like oppression, poverty, and even starvation? Please.
Sure, the leaders of many rebellions and mass exoduses from political, socio-economic, or religiouis oppression might be well-to-do or intellectual "elites", but oppression and poverty is hardly a thing in the heads of the non-poor and the non-oppress.
I don't believe the person you responded to meant that the situation is exactly alike, only quite analogous to it -- and he's right.
Heinlein pretty much hit the nail on the head a few years ago... the next shot for a free society is in outerspace. Sure, projects like the Free State Project might help a little bit, but they're not going to achieve all of their goals.
There's still way too many people on Earth, particularly in power governments (the U.S. Government in the instance of the FSP) that are going to go wave their finger and say "Oh, no you don't!".
You agreed with me, but you're asking me to cite examples of a democracy that did not mangle the shit out of itself? I don't get it?
I certainly am of the opinion that no government can last forever, but let us not bring all forms of government under one roof.
I myself, believe the most stable form of 'government' to be a minarchist-Republic, and I can not imaging finding anything to complain about if it get its tiny hands out of the market.
There's probably something in human nature [yearning for power?] that prevents us from being tyrrany-free, "forever".
Actually, the U.S. isn't supposed to be a Democracy. Democracies are dangerous. There has yet to be a democracy that has not managed to mangle the shit out of itself.
(Tyrrany of the minority (more money, more influence, new laws to keep yourself on top), Tyrranity of the majority (2/3rds majority can imprison the other 1/3.)
The United States is supposed to be a [Limited] Republic, with a written constitution outlining all laws and the limited powers of the government for everyone to be aware of. Those laws and powers are to be represented by democratically elected officials.
The phrase "stable democracy" is really kind of an oxymoron, at least historically -- and I'm sure it is no different today.
What's so "conservative" about multi-billion dollar corporations? They all enjoy the benefits of government support and subsidy [unconservative]. They use government influence to stifle competition [problems of having too much open Democracy, unconservative]. Their very existence is due to Liberalism.
The modern corporation wouldn't exist today without Liberal, Democrats such as Franklin D. Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. While you're all in an uproar over "conservatives" and "right-wingers" being about big business, realize that the modern corporation, and modern "Big business" is about nationalizing industry. I'm quite serious. It's called Market Socialism.
Since "conservative" is about little government and little government influence on the market, then calling corporations "conservative" is a bit foolish, don't you think?
So now that we understand that the modern corporation, and big business, is not about conservatism, we'll take a look at the media. Hmmm. As said by someone else, the significant majority of journalists are proclaimed Liberal.
As you say, Mass-media is usually owned or heavily influenced by massive corporations and government [neither of which is conservative in nature].
Even the so called "Conservative" and "Right-Wingers" on television these days are not even "Conservative" (except Ron Paul). Fuckin' RiNOs is what they are: Republicans In Name Only. NeoCon scumbags. Basically, they're "Conservatives" who decided they liked the power of big government enough, that they've decided to give up their beliefs to move "left" towards the middle, in order to snatch up more voters and power.
The Liberal media is always boasting the success of government programs, especially big government/federal government programs. The only time they're not, is when they're criticizing something superficial and unimportant -- and unlikely to get anyone fired. Oh, or they criticize Bush on issues dealing with the War on Terror and the War in Iraq, but not about anything that Kerry doesn't support either. It's all superficial bullshit.
[It's like someone previously said, the public doesn't care if they're "informed", they just want the security of feeling "informed".
None of the major news sources actually deal with real issues with either of the two major parties. Ralph Nader is correct on what the problem is, but he doesn't know what the solution is because he's head is stuck up his ass.
You know, George W. Bush really is Liberal? He is only "Conservative" superficially, like on gay marriages. The man has increased government size, scope, power, and spending like almost all of the Liberal Presidents, and especially those disgusting "New Deal" Presidents (FDR, Wilson) and the American Stalin (Abraham Lincoln. Fuck him!).
He protects big businesses (subsidies) and believes strongly in welfare. You see, his tax cuts really are a form of welfare. You're not actually saving the amount of money that is supposedly being cut, you're given refunds. Just like welfare, you're expected to start paying it back once you get on your feet again. Unfortunately, while he was "simplifying" the tax code, he was actually making other parts more complicated, and generally making the process more expensive. This isn't something someone who is conservative [small government, little market influence] would do.
I'm getting way too tired and I'm rambling way too much... but I'm just going to say that you should dig a little deeper, and think a little bit more about what it means to be "Liberal" or "Conservative" these days, and then compare that to the people who wear or attack those of either label.
Good night, everypeoples.
[A wise man once said, "If you keep people asking the wrong questions, you do not have to worry about the answers."]
Robert Reich? The von Mises Institute and Lewellyn Rockwell have already done enough to counter his arguments, so I'm not going to bother going into it here. He has also not be successful in any way, in debunking or disproving long held views of Austrian economists.
However, to be fair, I probably will read it at some point... maybe when I find it at the local library or at my University...
Right... so... You have liberals, Liberals, conservatives, Conservatives, and libertarians.
The original use of the term 'liberal' in the United States was by the original liberals, ala, those in favor of small government [the term originates in the Latin (or was it Greek?) term for liberty].
Liberals then hijacked the term to make it in favor of those who support significant changes [growth] in government... either intentionally or not, I don't know...
Contemporary conservatives support little change and little government, considering it not in the best interest for government to be big. I agree with them.
Modern Conservatives tend to not be so conservative, and infact, are very liberal in their spending and in scope of government. However, modern "Conservative" politics breaks down into several factions, from classic conservatives to neo-cons (essentially, liberal spenders).
Libertarians are alot closer to the original term "liberal" than modern Liberals. I'm certainly not claiming Jefferson as a libertarian, but rather as more of a classic liberal, which are not the same thing, only very similar in principle.
If you want to talk about liberal views towards personal freedoms, then I agree with you, the modern Right is little about personal freedoms. However, the original comparison of liberal vs conservative was about size, scope, and power of government.
To review... Then: liberal meant small government or liberty. Now: liberal means liberal spending and large government. When I say Bush is a Liberal, I am calling him a liberal as is defined by today.
The development of the modern corporation, the growth of and the protection of monopolies is not the sign of failures within a free market system [something we are not] but rather a failure in Democracy.
We're not meant to be a Democracy, we're meant to be a [Limited] Republic of democratically elected officials who are meant to uphold the few select laws written in our constitution. Too much democracy fails when those with enough money [wealthy elite, almost always the result of government granted wealth and protection] or those with superior numbers (tyrrany of the minority and tyrrany of the majority, respectively) get together and start making political decisions. If we stuck closer to our republican (Not the GOP, which I despise) roots, we wouldn't have to deal with this mess as laws and protections would be much harder to come by, if not just short of impossible.
I'm assuming by liberal you meant the modern "Liberals" (hijacking the title "liberal" from the original "liberals", ala Jefferson and company). Why do you think they would do any better than our current conservative regime?
For starters, the current regime is not conservative, other than in name only. Bush has proven time and again to be both unconservative in terms of size of government and limit on government spending, as well as by doing something unconservative and favoring big business and socialism.
You do have some good points, though, and I'm not trying to attack you (of course not! why should I?). I'm just joining in on the discussion...
You are right in saying that if the federal government leans too much to one side, they do lose all incentive to moderate themselves. Bush and Kerry are both solid examples of slowly converging on the middle of the political spectrum (LiberalConservative). Unfortunately, when they both start moving towards the middle, the separation between parties becomes blurred. Eventually, you're likely to have an emerging between the parties, and then you'll slowly see government growing even more [Liberal]. The only way to counter-act this seems to be by trying to get Kerry elected, as congress will likely be Republican again. If Kerry is elected, it is very likely that the Conservatives in congress will start acting conservative again.
Personally, I'm tired of the federal government, as I think they are all, with the notable exception of Ron Paul, a bunch of scumbags.
This is one of the ways that open democracies fail. The U.S. was never meant to be a democracy but a [Limited] Republic with democratically elected officials.
Alot of people like to blaim politicians being bought out on the free market (often trying to use the term capitalism, as if they are one and the same). The problem of becoming too democratic is that the most powerful few (tyrrany of the minority/of the wealthy elite) and those of the greatest numbers (tyrrany of the majority) can influence the law to their own will.
If we fought to maintain our Limited Republic more dilligantly, we would not be set up in a system where it is easy to sway the legislature in your favor. When making new laws is just short of impossible, and government does not have the "right" to set in place new legislature at will, you do not see politicians being bought out...
I'm not specifically saying you were doing this, Pig_Hogger, but alot of people here at slashdot need to stop pointing at corporations and saying that capitalism (not to be confused with a free market... since corporations do not naturally exist in a free market) is the problem, totally ignoring the unfolding of our government with the decrease in trust and the rise in illegitimacy issues.
Democracy has been making democracy look bad for the past few thousand years, that's why people as far back as Plato have been warning us of the difficulties.
I'll give a few quotes...
"We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real Liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship." --Alexander Hamilton
# "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." -- John Adams, 1814
"The adoption of Democracy as a form of Government by all European nations is fatal to good Government, to liberty, to law and order, to respect for authority, and to religion, and must eventually produce a state of chaos from which a new world tyranny will arise." -- Duke of Northumberland, 1931
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury." -- Alexander Tytler
"The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections." -- Lord Acton
Let's clarify one thing. I'm not suggesting that just anyone who has the power to do something to someone else is justified by that fact that they are capable of doing whatever they want to the other person. Do not twist my words around.
I'm suggesting that a person has the right to do what they want with their business. If they hire a CEO to run things, then the CEO has that right (instilled in them by the owner).
It is somewhat analogous to prejudism. I have every right to be prejudist toward whomever I wish and if I did not want a black person, gay person, or nonsmoker in my establishment, then I have every right to make that decision as the owner. To forcefully deny a business owner's rights to control over his own business is amoral.
I have no right to tell you who you can and cannot let on your property. How should anyone tell me how I can and cannot run my company?
Still going on with the Carly nonsense? *thumbs up*.
See, I'm not talking about programmers or IT workers in general. I'm talking about those who try to use the system in order to be guarunteed a job. If I'm going to buy goods or services from a particularly company who cannot outsource jobs because of political pressure, then I'm being forced to pay for goods that would be cheaper if said company was allowed to manufacture or produce said goods [or parts of] overseas.
Sure you can say that I still would have the freedom to buy elsewhere, or to produce whatever it is I seek myself. Unfortunately, there is not enough time in the day, nor do I have enough energy [being only human], to take on such a task myself.
Who said anything about killing the slow, weak, and unfortunate? Since when are programmers slow and weak? It is unfortunate that they lost their jobs, but they're perfectly capable of working elsewhere and have the opportunity of even making more money if they choose the best-next career move.
I'm not saying let people who get fired die in the streets. I'm saying don't allow just anyone to be taken care of at the expense of others just because they are all bent out of shape about not having their dream job anymore. You're being a bit too melodramatic with that one.
Ah, but the owner or owners of the company have say over the CEO/CEOs... right? If those who own the business or company prefer to do that, they have every right to decide who to fire or who not to fire, as well as who can and who cannot do the firing. You cannot seriously deny that someone who was hired with the privelege of making such decisions has the right to do fire whoever they want for whatever reason. It is a sad fact of life, that often hurts the worker. However, if that particularly employee was worth it, they would not be fired.
It sounds like you're saying that the worker has the right to tell the CEO or owner what they can and cannot do with their company when it comes to who gets to work and stay there, except if it comes to firing the execs, which you must hate absolutely, being non-management and all......Carly Fiorina? Very clever.
Ah... you misinterpreted my comment about out of work or "underpaid" programmers trying to get ahead at the expense of others. A programmer, or former programmer, who is supporting an organization lobbying to congress on his behalf is doing so for his own benefit --- and it will come at the expense of others if the money [undeniably] saved in outsourcing said job is denied and I am practically forced to pay for the programmer to keep his job.
When jobs are lossed to outsourcing, new jobs [often better jobs] are created. Sometimes this is slow in the going. You cannot get immediate results, so in order to do so, it is wise to conserve your money for times of hardship, or be ready and willing to enter another field until you are able to either return to your previous field or find a suitable replacement career path.
However, it does not require government expending to go up. In fact, government is not a necessity in the process at all.
If you reduce the number of people that can go on unemployment/welfare, reduce the benefits of being on unemployment/welfare, people will be forced to stay off it. Without these often dependency creating institutions, government spending has no "reason" to go up.
"Do the workers who actually built the company into the success that it is deserve to be thrown away so the CEO can make af ew more million dollars this year? Is it the worker or the CEO who is the real expense?"
The owner of the company has the right to choose who to fire and who not to fire. It is their company, not the workers. If he fires workers needlessly, then he might very well have to pay for it in the long run. However, since the jobs are not being destroyed, just outsourced, employees are still being... employed.
I'm quite certain I've already said how that all works out...
Look, I'd rather see a good, honest, and efficient worker keep his job and get paid a solid salary than some pompous CEO making millions. However, if I do not own the company, it is not my decision on who to hire. If the workers do not own the company, it is not their decision. In a society of a free market, government has no place in deciding this either.
It's almost like me saying that you should be paying me for cutting your grass all the time for ten dollars... even if you can have the kid down the street do it for a buck two fifty. What would really put the icing on the cake here, is if I went and used my influence on local politicians [say I promise to campaign or vote for them... which the 13 year old kid cannot do] in order to force you into having to pay me ten dollars to cut your grass.
You know a very similar thing happens all the time... Have you heard about the little girls [I forget where] being forced to stop selling lemonade because they did not have the liscence to do so [something other businesses in the area apparently though unfair?]. Did you hear about the boy who cleaned boats being forced into not running his little 'under the table' venture because he was undercutting someone else's business who did not do a better job but cost more? It's kind of the same thing going on...
Relating Nike, a corporation, to the way outsourcing works in a free market is kind of ironic. Nike, being a corporation, would not have existed in a free market -- and only exists as a means of nationalizing industry. (The modern corporation is a government construct for nationalizing industry... "market socialism".)
I find it disturbing that Nike charges 100 dollars for a product that is not worth 100 dollars, and then easily gets away with it. You know what I do (or don't do) in response? I do not buy Nike shoes. Unfortunately, Nike is succeeding without coercing the buyer. With that in mind, how bad can they be? They will only charge as much as they can get from the consumer.
Also, if you own a company, or make up part of the head of a corporation, then you should be able to reap the profits. However, you know what happens if you do not increase wages overtime? Employee production begins to slow down and falter, and overall profit is effected. In order to continue making higher profits, employees are going to get paid more.
When the economy is doing well [pretty much all the time when government intrusion in the market is limited to nothing or next to nothing], industry has the means of privately funding the education and retraining of workers -- which they're going to need. Do you think a business would start up a company or open up a store without having people with the right job skills available? From personal observation, loans and grants for entering college or for returning to college are as easy to obtain as ever.
Governments tend to quit caring overtime. However, honest businesses that tend to succeed [honesty is a requirement of a successful business when government is not involved.] continue to care.
Not all of the production industries have left. Those that have left are often "replaced" with new ones coming in. What can you do? You can find a job with a shortage of adequately trained laborers. Apparently nursing is the "new IT" industry.
If you need to go back to school for this, you can. College is not the only answer, and you do not have to go to school full time to get there. This last point is especially important for those with families or other dependents [not including cats...].
Apparently, the problem is not that there is no opportunities for being reeducated, the problem is that these opportunities require you to pay for their loans back in their entirety by yourself -- instead of the cost being shared by the rest of society. By problem, I mean the complaint, though it is not admitted.
Instead of being "bitter cynics without even hollow promises of a better future", I recommend making yourself more attractive to potential employers. That's what I offer as a solution.
You know, spending your time on slashdot is not going to help you get a high paying job, or even a stable medium paying job. All it will probably get you is sore eyes.
Actually, I had no idea what the ITAA is. I was just told about their study a ways back. I'm glad you informed me of what they are/about/. The same description you used for the ITAA fits ITers, including "underpaid" (in relation to 90's standards) programmers and software engineers. They're self serving, trying to get ahead at the expense of others. Though I'll admit that the ITers that lost their jobs are often suffering tremendously for it. I'll simply say that it is not my fault.
However, the ITAA is not the authoritative source that I'm basing my arguments on [I was merely stating an organization that, as the title might suggest, is somehow more closely related to the IT field than say... the von Mises Institute or other Austrian economists]. I appreciate the enlightenment, though. At your implicit suggestion, I'll refrain from including such an organization from further debate.
According to the IMF, shockingly, government expending being cut results in the creation of many more jobs. So, lower taxes and reduced government spending results in an overall increase in jobs.
Let's work out why outsourcing creates more jobs. 1. When hiring an employee becomes too expensive, the employee won't be hired. 2. When companies try to outsource, they are going after cheaper labor. a. When labor is outsourced, there is an immediate savings of money. 3. When those foreign markets become strengthened, it means that there are more people looking to buy more goods out there [eventually leading back to America]. 4. Entrepreneurs and those with the know-how feed the needs and wants of foreign economies. a. Job creation and growth of wealth.
Assuming that government keeps its hands out of the pot, the net effect should be an overall increase in real wealth over time.
(It's somewhat simplified, but the same principle can be seen at work when the economy shifted from agricultural to heavy industry. Sure, it was not outsourcing, but the shift worked on similar principles.)
Not everyone is going to make as much money as they did before their original jobs were outsourced, but that's because of supply and demand impacting the labor force. It happens. These new lower wages are not being expended on higher priced products.
Naturally, employees who were making hundreds of thousands of dollars during the 90s aren't going to be making as much money in other jobs. Labor, like any market, is subject to supply and demand. The fact of the matter is, the IT labor pool became flooded worldwide. Now the industry is paying for it with lower wages.
Do these people deserve to make thousands and thousands of dollars more money than the rest of us simply because they did in the past? Of course not... especially not at our expense!
Slashdot Mirror
Even popular science reported [at least on one occasion] that second hand smoke isn't bad for you.
Again, people who want to quit smoking, can achieve breaking the addiction.
We're getting further from the original topic. End of discussion?
"Waitaminnute. Disney? You're honestly comparing a theme park's infrastructure with that of an industrialized nation? Crimony, why not just hand the nation over to Michael Eisner? We'll have Main Street, USA parades in every city, every day! and fireworks, too! Hurrah!"
Supply and demand laws are in operation everywhere. It's a fair comparison. If you want to compare to scale, Disney's GDP and quality of service blows almost all industralized nations away.
Actually, I don't know who Michael Eisner is. Whatever, though. I'm in support of selling the roads to private companies. In all seriousness, private ownership would work better than private roads even on a national scale. For example, no business is going to build shitty roads, when they want customers to shop at their store. Furthermore, advertisement can bring in a whole lot of money, and it increases over time. It's analogous to various websites with advertisements on them, like slashdot, but instead of hits coming from people clicking on the link, you get hits from people reading advertisements. Those auto-accident arguments fall flat on their faces here.
"In case you hadn't noticed, we're quickly going bankrupt. We're living way beyond our menas. We may not pay as much in taxes, but we owe shitloads to the likes of China, and the private sector has, as of yet, been recalcitrant in lowering profit expectations. Net effect: you and I get to digest massive increases in the cost of living, by way of things like insurance and health care costs. We get to watch our cities slowly decay."
Uh. In case you haven't noticed, we're not going bankrupt because we have a free market, and the private sector dominates. We're going bankrupt because of socialism within our government. You're still holding on to that old slight-of-hand trick that dates back to Marx. Free markets do not equal our current "capitalist" society.
See a free market has no government involvement in the markets, and this includes government granted monopolies and the formation of corporations. Marx takes the free market, calls it capitalism, and redefines it as [more or less] "big money exploits the workers, you need government to stop this." That's just plain bullshit. From your resume, I'll assume you're a fairly intelligent guy. You figure it out.
"Of course governments coerce. You're going to have coercion in any human interaction. Free enterprise coerces, too."
When was the last time a free enterprise took, on a large scale, coerced people? I'm not talking about that cozy definition of coercion, as compelling to act or choose. I'm talking about aggressive restraint or enforcement [domination]. You know, how if I decide I don't want socialized health care, and refuse to pay the taxes on it. I get put in jail and my property forfeited [asset forfeiture]... and perhaps shot in the process.
Very sad story at the end of that. If you're educated enough to run your business, all corporations aside, then you should have enough education to get a job other than a sales clerk. Anyone who thinks they deserve their job forever [fear of competing in the market? laziness to improve their skills?], and ends up not continously developing their skills, is going to lose out on a job. I'm not going to weep for such a person.
Like I said earlier... It was almost a nice try on your behalf. No more slight-of-hand tricks though. It's getting annoying.
"Oh, come on! Did you just sleep through the past few years' worth of corporate scandal? Enron is honest, quick servicing, and efficient? Arthur Andersen? The honest businessman has a hard time holding his own against the one who's just out to make money, damn the ethics."
That one falls on its face before it gets away from the starting blocks. Corporate scandal. Corporation. Modern corporation. Intentional government constructs. Market socialism. Corporations do not exist in free markets [or the private sector, if by definition you take it as free markets]. Almost a good try though. Almost.
"History also shows us that when the divide between the classes grows too great, you get great, big, violent, bloody revolts. Human nature shows us that we're opportunistic, fault-riddled beings who are capable of committing mind-bogglingly heinous acts of violence and fraud against one other in the name of power and wealth."
Oh wow! The same mistakes. The division between classes isn't caused by the private sector, or free markets. You're talking about corruption, and increased variance between the wealthy and the poor. Do you know how the wealthy get wealthier, at the expense of the poor? Government regulation, or laws protecting the wealthy elite. In other words, when you have too much democracy [part of us moving from a Limited Republic to a Democracy], it becomes very easy to alter laws in your favor depending on if you have more money than the next guy, or simply more backers.
Most of the revolutions of the past were based upon ideas of well-to-do people, including the French Revolution (instigated by members of the political elite) and the Communists Revolution(s) in Russia (intellectual elites using workers as foot soldiers).
You admit that human beings are faulty, but yet you're promoting systems that put some people in a situation with which human nature is going to lead to exploitation sooner or later? I'll just shake my head on this one.
"As a matter of fact, I have. The trains in France and Germany are simply amazing--fast, reasonably priced, efficient, and a far cry better and more complex than anything Disney runs. Likewise, the roads are in excellent shape, though I rarely used them, as the trains were so good. The UK, well, the trains aren't all that great there. In fact, they're atrocious. Odd, really, seeing as they were privatized some years ago. Must just not have hit their stride yet."
Reasonably priced? Please. You were an American citizen living their, not having to pay the full price through taxes. Their taxes increase every year to pay for those things. That's how it works. When something is perceived as cheap and high-quality, it is used very often. Unfortunately, people start to use more than they're willing to pay for.
German and Scandinavian countries continue to outsource much of the infrastructure of their socialized industries, and they're still losing much.
Not all of the UK's transportation system has been privatized, and much of it is in disarray because fewer and fewer people are utilizing those systems.
Have you ever read any of those unbiased investigations into tobacco smoking causing cancer? The results show that there has never been any conclusive evidence showing that tobacco causes cancer. Most people who smoke tobacco, even for 50 years or more, never even show signs of cancer before they do. Many people who do not smoke, and are not around smokers more than a few minutes per day, get cancer.
p df
http://www.forces.org/evidence/download/fennel.
You might find it in HTML format on google if you search for "Public Comments solicited in response to the National Toxicology Program" or something similar.
All of those little anti-tobacco industry commercials talking about how tobacco kills people are very effective, but they don't deal with actual scientific facts.
Tobacco companies, being almost exclusively corporations, and therefore intentional government costructs to maximize profit, are being blamed by various clueless environmentalists and the very same people who created them [socialists] who either want to be a part of some cause however erroneous it might be [environmentalists], or a little bit more control [socialists, other authoritarians].
Until you can prove that smoking cigarettes causes cancer, that argument holds no weight.
Even if tobacco does cause cancer [never been proven], if people still do it on their own, voluntarily, you can't complain. That's like banning guns, knives, rope, or swimming pools because they were used by a few people in suicides or in 'accidental' deaths.
Ah, ok. I understand where you were coming from now.
I apologize for any perceived hostility.
The private sector never cares for happiness and success? PLEASE!!!
The private sector and free markets reward apathy and service. Honest, good, and hard working people succeed in free markets. The private sector is a whole lot more efficient than government will ever be, by very definition and nature.
goldspider makes a good point. Government just takes our money. Our money is competed over in the private sector. Only those that are honest, quick servicing, and cost-efficient get money from people in the private sector.
How would we get safer cities with socialized health care? That's such bullshit. The most dangerous cities are cities with draconian gun control laws that don't work.
Happier citizens? Freedom and prosperity makes people happy. History and human nature shows us this.
Better roads and better transit? Bullshit! Have you ever compared private roads to socialized ones? Have you ever compared Disney's roads to socialized ones? What about Disney's monorail? Efficient, clean, and cost-effective. Socialized transportation is wretched, and fails in so many ways. In a socialized system, to get more money, transporation agencies just have to be slow and take longer to get the roads or rails repaired. In the private sector, to get business, they have to do it quickly and for a relatively small amount of me.
Oh yeah, and if socialized societies were "better-educated" and "more informed" than free market societies with minimal government, they wouldn't be going bankrupt and they wouldn't be filled to the brim with corruption. Nice try though, sir.
"So if you're in it for yourself, then no, it doesn't behoove you to support a strong social structure."
Oh, see it does behoove the individual to support a strong social structure. Nice slight-of-hand trick though.
Strong social structure has nothing to do with the inherent corruption of socialized anything. Strong social structure isn't about inefficient centralization, or slowly going bankrupt (European countries, like France and the Netherlands or Canada) on account of their socialized systems, but rather on actually local social structures developed and maintained by people doing so of their own free will -- something that no government can create, simply because governments coerce.
Your'e missing a key link.
If these corporations and agencies are getting wealthy off of exploiting or poisoning their customers, then what the hell kind of position are they going to be in when they have no more customers left?
Want to talk about not killing, but just infecting? Private studies are done all the time testing different products at the expense of private investors -- including every day citizens. If there's a common denominator between people getting a certain disease and the places they shop, someone will find it.
"And while the analogy of the settlers fleeing oppression and, crucially, poverty in Europe and seeking their luck in the New World might be in some people's heads [1], it's really doesn't apply."
Are you seriously contesting that throughout the past few hundred years, Europeans haven't been coming to the New World to get away from little things like oppression, poverty, and even starvation? Please.
Sure, the leaders of many rebellions and mass exoduses from political, socio-economic, or religiouis oppression might be well-to-do or intellectual "elites", but oppression and poverty is hardly a thing in the heads of the non-poor and the non-oppress.
I don't believe the person you responded to meant that the situation is exactly alike, only quite analogous to it -- and he's right.
Heinlein pretty much hit the nail on the head a few years ago... the next shot for a free society is in outerspace. Sure, projects like the Free State Project might help a little bit, but they're not going to achieve all of their goals.
There's still way too many people on Earth, particularly in power governments (the U.S. Government in the instance of the FSP) that are going to go wave their finger and say "Oh, no you don't!".
Who is going to buy their food if we're all dead or dying?
Don't be stupid.
You agreed with me, but you're asking me to cite examples of a democracy that did not mangle the shit out of itself? I don't get it?
I certainly am of the opinion that no government can last forever, but let us not bring all forms of government under one roof.
I myself, believe the most stable form of 'government' to be a minarchist-Republic, and I can not imaging finding anything to complain about if it get its tiny hands out of the market.
There's probably something in human nature [yearning for power?] that prevents us from being tyrrany-free, "forever".
wombatmobile, will ya, make me tea?
make love to me?
put on the teley?
To the BBC!
To the BBC!
YEAH! YEAH YEAH!
BBC 1
BBC 2
BBC 3
BBC 4
BBC 5
BBC 6
BBC 7
BBC HEAVEN!
*bows*
[Note tot he audience: Anytime something labelled state-funded or state-sponsored is claimed independent, roll your eyes and demand a refund.]
Actually, the U.S. isn't supposed to be a Democracy. Democracies are dangerous. There has yet to be a democracy that has not managed to mangle the shit out of itself.
(Tyrrany of the minority (more money, more influence, new laws to keep yourself on top), Tyrranity of the majority (2/3rds majority can imprison the other 1/3.)
The United States is supposed to be a [Limited] Republic, with a written constitution outlining all laws and the limited powers of the government for everyone to be aware of. Those laws and powers are to be represented by democratically elected officials.
The phrase "stable democracy" is really kind of an oxymoron, at least historically -- and I'm sure it is no different today.
What's so "conservative" about multi-billion dollar corporations? They all enjoy the benefits of government support and subsidy [unconservative]. They use government influence to stifle competition [problems of having too much open Democracy, unconservative]. Their very existence is due to Liberalism.
The modern corporation wouldn't exist today without Liberal, Democrats such as Franklin D. Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. While you're all in an uproar over "conservatives" and "right-wingers" being about big business, realize that the modern corporation, and modern "Big business" is about nationalizing industry. I'm quite serious. It's called Market Socialism.
Since "conservative" is about little government and little government influence on the market, then calling corporations "conservative" is a bit foolish, don't you think?
So now that we understand that the modern corporation, and big business, is not about conservatism, we'll take a look at the media. Hmmm. As said by someone else, the significant majority of journalists are proclaimed Liberal.
As you say, Mass-media is usually owned or heavily influenced by massive corporations and government [neither of which is conservative in nature].
Even the so called "Conservative" and "Right-Wingers" on television these days are not even "Conservative" (except Ron Paul). Fuckin' RiNOs is what they are: Republicans In Name Only. NeoCon scumbags. Basically, they're "Conservatives" who decided they liked the power of big government enough, that they've decided to give up their beliefs to move "left" towards the middle, in order to snatch up more voters and power.
The Liberal media is always boasting the success of government programs, especially big government/federal government programs. The only time they're not, is when they're criticizing something superficial and unimportant -- and unlikely to get anyone fired. Oh, or they criticize Bush on issues dealing with the War on Terror and the War in Iraq, but not about anything that Kerry doesn't support either. It's all superficial bullshit.
[It's like someone previously said, the public doesn't care if they're "informed", they just want the security of feeling "informed".
None of the major news sources actually deal with real issues with either of the two major parties. Ralph Nader is correct on what the problem is, but he doesn't know what the solution is because he's head is stuck up his ass.
You know, George W. Bush really is Liberal? He is only "Conservative" superficially, like on gay marriages. The man has increased government size, scope, power, and spending like almost all of the Liberal Presidents, and especially those disgusting "New Deal" Presidents (FDR, Wilson) and the American Stalin (Abraham Lincoln. Fuck him!).
He protects big businesses (subsidies) and believes strongly in welfare. You see, his tax cuts really are a form of welfare. You're not actually saving the amount of money that is supposedly being cut, you're given refunds. Just like welfare, you're expected to start paying it back once you get on your feet again. Unfortunately, while he was "simplifying" the tax code, he was actually making other parts more complicated, and generally making the process more expensive. This isn't something someone who is conservative [small government, little market influence] would do.
I'm getting way too tired and I'm rambling way too much... but I'm just going to say that you should dig a little deeper, and think a little bit more about what it means to be "Liberal" or "Conservative" these days, and then compare that to the people who wear or attack those of either label.
Good night, everypeoples.
[A wise man once said, "If you keep people asking the wrong questions, you do not have to worry about the answers."]
Robert Reich? The von Mises Institute and Lewellyn Rockwell have already done enough to counter his arguments, so I'm not going to bother going into it here. He has also not be successful in any way, in debunking or disproving long held views of Austrian economists.
However, to be fair, I probably will read it at some point... maybe when I find it at the local library or at my University...
Right... so...
You have liberals, Liberals, conservatives, Conservatives, and libertarians.
The original use of the term 'liberal' in the United States was by the original liberals, ala, those in favor of small government [the term originates in the Latin (or was it Greek?) term for liberty].
Liberals then hijacked the term to make it in favor of those who support significant changes [growth] in government... either intentionally or not, I don't know...
Contemporary conservatives support little change and little government, considering it not in the best interest for government to be big. I agree with them.
Modern Conservatives tend to not be so conservative, and infact, are very liberal in their spending and in scope of government. However, modern "Conservative" politics breaks down into several factions, from classic conservatives to neo-cons (essentially, liberal spenders).
Libertarians are alot closer to the original term "liberal" than modern Liberals. I'm certainly not claiming Jefferson as a libertarian, but rather as more of a classic liberal, which are not the same thing, only very similar in principle.
If you want to talk about liberal views towards personal freedoms, then I agree with you, the modern Right is little about personal freedoms. However, the original comparison of liberal vs conservative was about size, scope, and power of government.
To review...
Then: liberal meant small government or liberty.
Now: liberal means liberal spending and large government. When I say Bush is a Liberal, I am calling him a liberal as is defined by today.
You see where I'm coming from now?
The development of the modern corporation, the growth of and the protection of monopolies is not the sign of failures within a free market system [something we are not] but rather a failure in Democracy.
We're not meant to be a Democracy, we're meant to be a [Limited] Republic of democratically elected officials who are meant to uphold the few select laws written in our constitution. Too much democracy fails when those with enough money [wealthy elite, almost always the result of government granted wealth and protection] or those with superior numbers (tyrrany of the minority and tyrrany of the majority, respectively) get together and start making political decisions. If we stuck closer to our republican (Not the GOP, which I despise) roots, we wouldn't have to deal with this mess as laws and protections would be much harder to come by, if not just short of impossible.
I'm assuming by liberal you meant the modern "Liberals" (hijacking the title "liberal" from the original "liberals", ala Jefferson and company). Why do you think they would do any better than our current conservative regime?
For starters, the current regime is not conservative, other than in name only. Bush has proven time and again to be both unconservative in terms of size of government and limit on government spending, as well as by doing something unconservative and favoring big business and socialism.
You do have some good points, though, and I'm not trying to attack you (of course not! why should I?). I'm just joining in on the discussion...
You are right in saying that if the federal government leans too much to one side, they do lose all incentive to moderate themselves. Bush and Kerry are both solid examples of slowly converging on the middle of the political spectrum (LiberalConservative). Unfortunately, when they both start moving towards the middle, the separation between parties becomes blurred. Eventually, you're likely to have an emerging between the parties, and then you'll slowly see government growing even more [Liberal]. The only way to counter-act this seems to be by trying to get Kerry elected, as congress will likely be Republican again. If Kerry is elected, it is very likely that the Conservatives in congress will start acting conservative again.
Personally, I'm tired of the federal government, as I think they are all, with the notable exception of Ron Paul, a bunch of scumbags.
Sans the family, right?
This is one of the ways that open democracies fail. The U.S. was never meant to be a democracy but a [Limited] Republic with democratically elected officials.
Alot of people like to blaim politicians being bought out on the free market (often trying to use the term capitalism, as if they are one and the same). The problem of becoming too democratic is that the most powerful few (tyrrany of the minority/of the wealthy elite) and those of the greatest numbers (tyrrany of the majority) can influence the law to their own will.
If we fought to maintain our Limited Republic more dilligantly, we would not be set up in a system where it is easy to sway the legislature in your favor. When making new laws is just short of impossible, and government does not have the "right" to set in place new legislature at will, you do not see politicians being bought out...
I'm not specifically saying you were doing this, Pig_Hogger, but alot of people here at slashdot need to stop pointing at corporations and saying that capitalism (not to be confused with a free market... since corporations do not naturally exist in a free market) is the problem, totally ignoring the unfolding of our government with the decrease in trust and the rise in illegitimacy issues.
Democracy has been making democracy look bad for the past few thousand years, that's why people as far back as Plato have been warning us of the difficulties.
I'll give a few quotes...
"We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real Liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of dictatorship."
--Alexander Hamilton
# "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
-- John Adams, 1814
"The adoption of Democracy as a form of Government by all European nations is fatal to good Government, to liberty, to law and order, to respect for authority, and to religion, and must eventually produce a state of chaos from which a new world tyranny will arise."
-- Duke of Northumberland, 1931
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury."
-- Alexander Tytler
"The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections."
-- Lord Acton
I'll stop before I get even more carried away...
If I came off as being ascerbic, I did not intend to. I think we would agree on alot more than not.
I don't think anybody is listening to us anymore, anyways.
Take care.
Ackhem.
Let's clarify one thing. I'm not suggesting that just anyone who has the power to do something to someone else is justified by that fact that they are capable of doing whatever they want to the other person. Do not twist my words around.
I'm suggesting that a person has the right to do what they want with their business. If they hire a CEO to run things, then the CEO has that right (instilled in them by the owner).
It is somewhat analogous to prejudism. I have every right to be prejudist toward whomever I wish and if I did not want a black person, gay person, or nonsmoker in my establishment, then I have every right to make that decision as the owner. To forcefully deny a business owner's rights to control over his own business is amoral.
I have no right to tell you who you can and cannot let on your property. How should anyone tell me how I can and cannot run my company?
Still going on with the Carly nonsense?
*thumbs up*.
See, I'm not talking about programmers or IT workers in general. I'm talking about those who try to use the system in order to be guarunteed a job. If I'm going to buy goods or services from a particularly company who cannot outsource jobs because of political pressure, then I'm being forced to pay for goods that would be cheaper if said company was allowed to manufacture or produce said goods [or parts of] overseas.
...Carly Fiorina? Very clever.
Sure you can say that I still would have the freedom to buy elsewhere, or to produce whatever it is I seek myself. Unfortunately, there is not enough time in the day, nor do I have enough energy [being only human], to take on such a task myself.
Who said anything about killing the slow, weak, and unfortunate? Since when are programmers slow and weak? It is unfortunate that they lost their jobs, but they're perfectly capable of working elsewhere and have the opportunity of even making more money if they choose the best-next career move.
I'm not saying let people who get fired die in the streets. I'm saying don't allow just anyone to be taken care of at the expense of others just because they are all bent out of shape about not having their dream job anymore. You're being a bit too melodramatic with that one.
Ah, but the owner or owners of the company have say over the CEO/CEOs... right? If those who own the business or company prefer to do that, they have every right to decide who to fire or who not to fire, as well as who can and who cannot do the firing. You cannot seriously deny that someone who was hired with the privelege of making such decisions has the right to do fire whoever they want for whatever reason. It is a sad fact of life, that often hurts the worker. However, if that particularly employee was worth it, they would not be fired.
It sounds like you're saying that the worker has the right to tell the CEO or owner what they can and cannot do with their company when it comes to who gets to work and stay there, except if it comes to firing the execs, which you must hate absolutely, being non-management and all...
Ah... you misinterpreted my comment about out of work or "underpaid" programmers trying to get ahead at the expense of others. A programmer, or former programmer, who is supporting an organization lobbying to congress on his behalf is doing so for his own benefit --- and it will come at the expense of others if the money [undeniably] saved in outsourcing said job is denied and I am practically forced to pay for the programmer to keep his job.
When jobs are lossed to outsourcing, new jobs [often better jobs] are created. Sometimes this is slow in the going. You cannot get immediate results, so in order to do so, it is wise to conserve your money for times of hardship, or be ready and willing to enter another field until you are able to either return to your previous field or find a suitable replacement career path.
However, it does not require government expending to go up. In fact, government is not a necessity in the process at all.
If you reduce the number of people that can go on unemployment/welfare, reduce the benefits of being on unemployment/welfare, people will be forced to stay off it. Without these often dependency creating institutions, government spending has no "reason" to go up.
"Do the workers who actually built the company into the success that it is deserve to be thrown away so the CEO can make af ew more million dollars this year? Is it the worker or the CEO who is the real expense?"
The owner of the company has the right to choose who to fire and who not to fire. It is their company, not the workers. If he fires workers needlessly, then he might very well have to pay for it in the long run. However, since the jobs are not being destroyed, just outsourced, employees are still being... employed.
I'm quite certain I've already said how that all works out...
Look, I'd rather see a good, honest, and efficient worker keep his job and get paid a solid salary than some pompous CEO making millions. However, if I do not own the company, it is not my decision on who to hire. If the workers do not own the company, it is not their decision. In a society of a free market, government has no place in deciding this either.
It's almost like me saying that you should be paying me for cutting your grass all the time for ten dollars... even if you can have the kid down the street do it for a buck two fifty. What would really put the icing on the cake here, is if I went and used my influence on local politicians [say I promise to campaign or vote for them... which the 13 year old kid cannot do] in order to force you into having to pay me ten dollars to cut your grass.
You know a very similar thing happens all the time... Have you heard about the little girls [I forget where] being forced to stop selling lemonade because they did not have the liscence to do so [something other businesses in the area apparently though unfair?]. Did you hear about the boy who cleaned boats being forced into not running his little 'under the table' venture because he was undercutting someone else's business who did not do a better job but cost more? It's kind of the same thing going on...
Relating Nike, a corporation, to the way outsourcing works in a free market is kind of ironic. Nike, being a corporation, would not have existed in a free market -- and only exists as a means of nationalizing industry. (The modern corporation is a government construct for nationalizing industry... "market socialism".)
I find it disturbing that Nike charges 100 dollars for a product that is not worth 100 dollars, and then easily gets away with it. You know what I do (or don't do) in response? I do not buy Nike shoes. Unfortunately, Nike is succeeding without coercing the buyer. With that in mind, how bad can they be? They will only charge as much as they can get from the consumer.
Also, if you own a company, or make up part of the head of a corporation, then you should be able to reap the profits. However, you know what happens if you do not increase wages overtime? Employee production begins to slow down and falter, and overall profit is effected. In order to continue making higher profits, employees are going to get paid more.
When the economy is doing well [pretty much all the time when government intrusion in the market is limited to nothing or next to nothing], industry has the means of privately funding the education and retraining of workers -- which they're going to need. Do you think a business would start up a company or open up a store without having people with the right job skills available? From personal observation, loans and grants for entering college or for returning to college are as easy to obtain as ever.
Governments tend to quit caring overtime. However, honest businesses that tend to succeed [honesty is a requirement of a successful business when government is not involved.] continue to care.
Not all of the production industries have left. Those that have left are often "replaced" with new ones coming in. What can you do? You can find a job with a shortage of adequately trained laborers. Apparently nursing is the "new IT" industry.
If you need to go back to school for this, you can. College is not the only answer, and you do not have to go to school full time to get there. This last point is especially important for those with families or other dependents [not including cats...].
Apparently, the problem is not that there is no opportunities for being reeducated, the problem is that these opportunities require you to pay for their loans back in their entirety by yourself -- instead of the cost being shared by the rest of society. By problem, I mean the complaint, though it is not admitted.
Instead of being "bitter cynics without even hollow promises of a better future", I recommend making yourself more attractive to potential employers. That's what I offer as a solution.
You know, spending your time on slashdot is not going to help you get a high paying job, or even a stable medium paying job. All it will probably get you is sore eyes.
Actually, I had no idea what the ITAA is. I was just told about their study a ways back. I'm glad you informed me of what they are /about/. The same description you used for the ITAA fits ITers, including "underpaid" (in relation to 90's standards) programmers and software engineers. They're self serving, trying to get ahead at the expense of others. Though I'll admit that the ITers that lost their jobs are often suffering tremendously for it. I'll simply say that it is not my fault.
However, the ITAA is not the authoritative source that I'm basing my arguments on [I was merely stating an organization that, as the title might suggest, is somehow more closely related to the IT field than say... the von Mises Institute or other Austrian economists]. I appreciate the enlightenment, though. At your implicit suggestion, I'll refrain from including such an organization from further debate.
According to the IMF, shockingly, government expending being cut results in the creation of many more jobs. So, lower taxes and reduced government spending results in an overall increase in jobs.
Let's work out why outsourcing creates more jobs.
1. When hiring an employee becomes too expensive, the employee won't be hired.
2. When companies try to outsource, they are going after cheaper labor.
a. When labor is outsourced, there is an immediate savings of money.
3. When those foreign markets become strengthened, it means that there are more people looking to buy more goods out there [eventually leading back to America].
4. Entrepreneurs and those with the know-how feed the needs and wants of foreign economies.
a. Job creation and growth of wealth.
Assuming that government keeps its hands out of the pot, the net effect should be an overall increase in real wealth over time.
(It's somewhat simplified, but the same principle can be seen at work when the economy shifted from agricultural to heavy industry. Sure, it was not outsourcing, but the shift worked on similar principles.)
Not everyone is going to make as much money as they did before their original jobs were outsourced, but that's because of supply and demand impacting the labor force. It happens. These new lower wages are not being expended on higher priced products.
Naturally, employees who were making hundreds of thousands of dollars during the 90s aren't going to be making as much money in other jobs. Labor, like any market, is subject to supply and demand. The fact of the matter is, the IT labor pool became flooded worldwide. Now the industry is paying for it with lower wages.
Do these people deserve to make thousands and thousands of dollars more money than the rest of us simply because they did in the past? Of course not... especially not at our expense!
Ah... somebody who disagrees with me mods me as a Troll.
I'm not surprised... Surely it was one of slashdot's finest... *akhem*.