In a world where average is officially over, there are many things we need to do to buttress employment, but nothing would be more important than passing some kind of G.I. Bill for the 21st century that ensures that every American has access to post-high school education."Nothing would be more important" than sending every American, qualified or not, to college, in a never-ending arms race of more education, with Americans scurrying along to compete against the Chinese and each other.
Oh, and with around 1 million legal immigrants a year, and plenty of illegal immigrants too. It's almost as if Friedman and other allegedly economically literate folks have never heard of supply and... what's the other one?.. yes, that's it, demand! (Thanks to Martin B. for that idea.)
But, no, mustn't ever mention the immigration-driven unemployment of Americans. That would be to, I don't know, question diversity, or worse, to question whether immigration could possibly have any downside whatsoever. I mean, immigration can't possibly have any opportunity cost, any impact of social trust or the welfare rolls, or the current record-high unemployment rate. No, immigration is a pure, unalloyed good, which is why Friedman can so easily forgo any mention of it in a discussion of factors that affect unemployment.
So, we must continue to blow up the education bubble, which has the added bonus of higher employment for the diversitycrats and all those others who take Thomas Friedman seriously.
Friedman, in another life, would have been a fluffer for porno films. In this one he's a puffer. Same thing, really.
ReplyDeleteFriedman is every bit as vapid and frivolous as Maureen Dowd, a worse writer, and a whore. To that lady's credit, she appears to have developed enough humility to no longer even pretend to be anything but a trivial chick writer, whereas the gentleman persists in applying his fatuousness to Weighty Topics.
ReplyDeleteTo his credit, sole credit, he doesn't give it away cheap. He's done very well by his fellatory talents. In fact, I think he may be so stupid he's actually managed to maintain his innocence of soul throughout it all.
Education! Education! Education! How even the pseuds who take the NYT seriously cannot plainly perceive the man's blistering stupidity, I do not know.
Friedman is Jewish, graduated summa cum laude from Brandeis University, and attended Oxford on a Marshall Scholarship. In other words, he almost certainly has an IQ north of 130.
ReplyDeleteHe presents the intractable paradox of the current Western "elite" - highly intelligent people who consistently say and do exceptionally stupid things.
Not dumb at all. He is articulating a well-thought-out plan to spur employment gains in the one industry that still seems to be growing: the Educational Industry.
ReplyDeleteWe might all be sitting around in mud huts, but by God we'll have a PhD on every wall!
Friedman is Jewish, graduated summa cum laude from Brandeis University, and attended Oxford on a Marshall Scholarship. In other words, he almost certainly has an IQ north of 130.
ReplyDeleteFriedman is the classic Clever Silly, if you are familiar with the term.
People need to get it through their thick skulls that beyond a certain point, which might not be beyond eighth grade, more education doesn't make people smarter.
ReplyDeleteRather smarter people are capable of profiting from higher levels of education. Dumber people aren't.
There is too much credential effect with higher levels of education these days enabling better starter jobs, but the main reason the more highly educated people earn lots more is that they have higher IQ's.
Indeed. Having relatives who teach in the public schools, I can tell you that a big part of the problem is that the least intelligent and/or poorest performing students receive the lion's share of both attention and asset allocation. This goes for kids who have all manner of "learning disabilities" as well as kids who are just plain dumb. Rampant egalitarianism. Constant hand-wringing and brainstorming by school districts and school administrators about how to improve the performance of poor students. The classroom teachers are overwhelmed trying to deal with all the BS. Meanwhile the high IQ kids are given short shrift. And then we wonder why the even bright American students can't do higher level math and why the U.S. can no longer compete with Asia.
DeleteSpread the word: the Davidson Foundation, among others, now provides resources specifically for +3 s.d. kids. If your kids are smart, get them tested and get them help NOW.
Delete-bbtp
I had never heard of this organization - thanks for the link. I have passed it along to a friend who has 2 very, very bright kids (don't know their IQs, or even if they have been tested) in the 'best' public elementary school in her town, where they spend a good part of their day acting as teaching assistants to the dumber kids who aren't behavior problems. The actual teacher devotes most of her time to managing the badly-behaved kids.
DeleteOne of my young family members is involved with Davidson; they do great work, especially in showing very bright kids that they are not alone.
DeleteChina has thought seriously about the social necessity of providing gainful employment to those on the middle of the bell curve. It's about time we did likewise.
ReplyDeleteThey think seriously about employment because real civil unrest concentrates the minds of rulers wonderfully.
DeleteA serious political class would realize that finding a solution to the large-scale structural unemployment, brought about by ongoing globalization, must be their highest priority. But we don't have a serious, responsible political class, we have a world-historical class of venal clowns, and the only riots and "unrest" are among the usual gang of thugs whose rioting isn't correlated to unemployment, anyway. So all we get are bubble-onians proposing "more education" and "stapling green cards" and other "solutions" that are relevant only to the continuing individual prosperity of the people backing them.
I wonder whether Friedman has ever used his massive brain to read Gottfredson's "Why g Matters: The Complexity of Everyday Life"? (Available here: www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/reprints/1997whygmatters.pdf ) Gottfredson remarks that "Even the most optimistic observers have concluded that [skills and jobs training] fails to improve general skills and, at most, increases the number of low-aptitude men who perform at minimally acceptable levels, mostly in lower-level jobs."
ReplyDeleteThe ugly truth is that more education evidently solves very little. But of course this is a Hatefact because, if it is true, we cannot use education to Close The Gap and Win The Future.
-bbtp
He's just another court intellectual.
ReplyDeleteY'know, setting aside the last paragraph, that's almost an interesting piece.
ReplyDeleteBut then you get this:
"In a world where average is officially over, there are many things we need to do to buttress employment, but nothing would be more important than passing some kind of G.I. Bill for the 21st century that ensures that every American has access to post-high school education."
...at which point you realize that either (a) he has no idea what he's talking about, or ((b) he's lying through his teeth.
Both. And I'd like to see something bad happen to Friedman. A long, drawn out and painful thing...
DeleteThe comments at the Times at least point out that half the population are below average in terms of IQ.
ReplyDeleteMaybe all of the elites need to read Kurt Vonnegut's Player Piano http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Player_Piano that envisioned a future where a doctorate would be required for virtually every job.
ReplyDeleteFriedman isn't "Stupid" or say "stupid things", anymore than Marx or Freud were "Stupid". If you assume Friedman believes what he writes and is a patriotic American, concerned only with what's best for the USA, then the only one who's "stupid" - is you.
ReplyDelete"It's almost as if Friedman and other allegedly economically literate folks have never heard of supply and... what's the other one?.. yes, that's it, demand! (Thanks to Martin B. for that idea.)"
ReplyDeleteI believe this observation was first made by Steve Sailer. But then, I find that many of my best original ideas are other people's ideas.
It's funny to see how Friedman has finally given up his old schtick - the brilliant, hi-tech, economic future that awaits us all in the sun-drenched uplands of neo-liberal economic prosperity, and replaced it with a new one: Suck it up and deal with it, loser! All those sage augers of our once glorious future may just as well quote what Otter said to Flounder:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOXtWxhlsUg
...finally given up his old schtick - the brilliant, hi-tech, economic future that awaits us all in the sun-drenched uplands of neo-liberal economic prosperity, and replaced it with a new one: Suck it up and deal with it, loser!
DeleteAnd he and his ilk didn't skip a beat transitioning from one to the other. It was in the early 'aughties that I began to notice this whiplash switch from "globalisation is win-win! We just need to make a few minor allowances for the tiny minority of citizens who will lose out" to "Well of course you have to be willing to reduce yourself and your children to the living standards of Third World crapholes. Where do you get the idea that you're entitled to live in the safe, decent country your (evil evil evil btw) ancestors built?"
I no longer get riled about them - sociopaths and their willing dumb whores will be with us always. (I'll admit that I'd not be above enjoying the sight of them getting their just deserts, in this world, good and hard. I just don't let them interfere with my righteous sleep and digestion anymore.) No, what breaks my heart is that the vast majority of Americans still pitifully believe, not that they're going to have to suck it up and deal (which the non-parasites do realize), but that there's really a pony in that neoliberal globalist manure pile.
..."that ensures that every American has access to post-high school education."
ReplyDeleteThey already do. It's called the community college system.
California's SB-1143 shines a light on the fact that the overwhelming majority of students fail post-secondary.
In California the state taxpayer subsidizes each (full time equivalent, i.e. every 12 units) student with just over $4,100 each and every semester. After SIX years fewer than a quarter graduate or transfer.
Our college has a student body of 10,000. Each spring 300 or so students graduate. The rest just spin their wheels.
The other dirty secret is that we are paid based on our enrollments as they stand the second week of the semester. Many faculty then actively seek to reduce their workloads by encouraging students to drop. Less work, same pay.
I often ask my very liberal colleagues to consider that if we're this screwed-up/inefficient imagine what the rest of the bureaucracy looks like.
PS Students pay $300 for 12 units. The state pays us $4,400 for each 12 units. When I ask students "who" subsidizes their tuition with that $4100 most can't answer. Occasionally someone will answer, "the government". When I ask where the state gets this money few can answer. I was a liberal before I started teaching in California. We ARE doomed...
The gP will undoubtably be closed
ReplyDeleteRemember white men were thought to be superior athletes fifty years ago and look what has happened
Anonymous wrote:
Delete"Remember white men were thought to be superior athletes fifty years ago and look what has happened"
Reference please. I call BS. The fact that the term "great white hope" is 100 years old strongly suggests that black superiority in athletics has been grudgingly acknowledged for a very long time.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128245468
Tim Howells
A rebuttal is just a mouse click away: Caste Football
DeleteI had a look. I see a lot of talk there about white dispossession, which is real enough. I can easily believe that anti-white discrimination exists in sports these days. I don't see any claims there being made at that link that whites are superior to blacks in sports. Do you? Please point out an exact quote - I don't see it.
DeleteTim Howells
Thanks for your reply. My understanding is that the most skilled position in football is the position of quarterback. It is also my understanding that in a league that is over 70% black most of the starting quarterback positions are held by whites. A league with so many blacks and so few (successful) black quarterbacks suggests that blacks are not the equal of whites at this, the most skilled and demanding job in football. Also, only one black quarterback has ever won a super bowl .
DeleteThe website that I linked to does indeed argue that whites make better athletes :
It then means that White players are smarter. That means they can absorb more of the complicated playbooks that are a feature of today’s football. It means they are quicker to analyze defensive schemes, alignments, audibles, game situations. All of the intangibles that make the difference in a hotly contested football game. No amount of physical advantage can make up for being in the wrong place or doing the wrong thing; a lot of speed in the wrong direction is just wasted movement.
[...] it’s all about the ability to make split-second adjustments based on complicated signals and signs, from a playbook the size of an encyclopedia. Who is going to be better at that? Smart guy or not so smart guy?
[...]
Next, hand-eye coordination. ... White players are typically used at the quarterback position, perhaps the ultimate test of hand-eye coordination in our society, and also as kickers, the ultimate in foot-eye coordination (an even harder skill). They are also used as centers, punters, long snappers, and whenever they are used as receivers: referred to as possession receivers (in other words good hand-eye coordination). The NFL already uses White players at every position where skill with the ball is critical. A pro football team could not operate well without White players at those positions.
He writes at far greater length on this subject at the above link.
So that this discussion is not solely about football, however, let me add the Duke Blue Devils who are apparently the fourth-winningest men's basketball program of all time, and Wladimir Klitschko, who holds the WBO and IBF heavyweight boxing titles.
Let me also point out that the blackest team by far in European soccer is that of France. Somehow, even with all that "superior" talent, France is not exactly dominating all those supposedly weak white teams in intra-European play. For the FIFA World Rankings wikipedia has this to say:
Following the team's disastrous 2010 FIFA World Cup campaign, ... After dropping to 27th in the FIFA World Rankings in September 2010, its lowest ranking ever, France is currently ranked 15th.
Thanks for those quotes - but look at what they say, for example:
Delete"No amount of physical advantage can make up for being in the wrong place or doing the wrong thing; a lot of speed in the wrong direction is just wasted movement."
These guys are arguing that high intelligence can sometimes compensate for lack of athleticism. i.e. they accept black athletic superiority, but are arguing that there are still niches for whites in sports due to higher intelligence. Personally I think they are grasping at straws here (for the most part), but this is a long way from what you originally claimed - that "white men were thought to be superior athletes fifty years ago." Still waiting for some support for that statement.
Tim Howells
The problem with many posters signing as Anonymous is that one can lose track of who is who. The second anonymous who responded to you (me) is NOT the one who wrote: "The gP will undoubtably be closed.
DeleteRemember white men were thought to be superior athletes fifty years ago and look what has happened". I did not write this.
I am a different anonymous who responded to your mainstream assertion that blacks are superior athletes. Pointing out that blacks can't quarterback as well as whites (the most important position on a football team) is not grasping at straws. Pointing out that an all black soccer squad can't beat an all white soccer squad most of the time is not grasping at straws.
If your contention is that blacks are superior athletes then one should expect them to fill more starting quarterback positions than whites since one can draw far more money as a professional quarterback than in any other starting role in football. A superior athlete will play the position that will best recompense him for his time and effort. Your supposedly superior black athletes are not doing this. Are you suggesting that the NFL pays out its richest contracts to inferior players?
Another highly skilled sports position is that of a baseball pitcher. The WSJ had an article about the dearth of black pitchers in the major leagues: Where Are Baseball’s Black Pitchers?
Blacks are declining in representation in all starting positions in baseball despite the fact that the contracts are considerably more lucrative in baseball than in football because there is no salary cap in baseball. Again, one would think that a superior athlete would follow the money. Rationally, a superior athlete would try to earn as much money within the small time frame when he is young and healthy. It is like the best and brightest today go into investment banking instead of engineering etc. because that's where the money is. Why aren't these supposedly superior black athletes going into baseball where far richer contracts are to be had?
Again, a simple test can determine who is the superior athlete: follow the money. As the previous link shows there are many blacks on this list but there are certainly many whites on the list as well which might be hard to explain given your contention that whites make for inferior athletes. Why are all these inferior white athletes making so much money?
When you write "high intelligence can sometimes compensate for lack of athleticism" I see that you and I have different definitions of athleticism.
Delete'Athleticism' as defined by Webster's New World College dictionary: physical prowess consisting variously of coordination, dexterity, vigor, stamina, etc.
Note the inclusion of the word 'coordination' in this definition. This is the very concept that is emphasized in the Caste Football article when he writes about ball control. The term 'dexterity' is noteworthy here as well.
I get the sense that your definition of athleticism is mostly about brute physical strength and speed and that if one uses one's brain to boost one's odds of winning a sports match than that's 'compensating', a term which sounds a lot like 'cheating'.
My definition of what constitutes a good athlete includes what's between his ears as well. If my player makes a better pitch selection (baseball) or play selection (football) then that is not 'compensating'; that is simply being a better athlete.
This disagreement as to how to even define the term 'athleticism' renders this entire discussion a mugs game. After all, how can one argue as to who makes for the better athlete if we cannot even agree on what it means to be an athlete? Therefore, I am cordially signing off from this discussion.
Alabama’s immigration reform again cuts unemployment
ReplyDeletehttp://dailycaller.com/2012/01/20/alabamas-immigration-reform-again-cuts-unemployment/
I guess Reality is so stupid it's fallen for the lump of labor fallacy, eh? (If only Reality had assured access to higher education, it would know better.)
Delete"This goes for kids who have all manner of "learning disabilities" as well as kids who are just plain dumb."
ReplyDeleteThere are some pretty smart people with learning disorders, but for every smart one there are many dim ones. Unfortunately learning disorders can't be reliably determined by IQ tests( eg, doing well on certain sub-tests and very poorly on others)which is a big shame.
Most read article? But hardly a week ever goes by when Tom Friedman doesn't pen an article peddling this new-economy hokum. It's nothing new or exciting.
ReplyDeleteI'm starting to believe that Friedman's columns are designed as a sort of salve for upper class guilt over the bad economy. See, factors such as a gluttonous banking industry, high immigration during a recession, rampant offshoring or the high American Dollar aren't the cause of unemployment & low wages. It's the fact that not enough Americans are getting college degrees in computer science and etc. The deserving dumb, if you will. There's also some evidence that Obama buys into this stuff aswell, as he stated once that Tom Friedman's writing has an influence on him.
It would be a condign punishment were his job as a scribbler be outsourced to some freelance writer in Bangalore for 1/10th of his wage. Maybe then he'd start singing to a different tune.
nothing would be more important than passing some kind of G.I. Bill for the 21st century that ensures that every American has access to post-high school education.
ReplyDeleteWhat the HELL are you talking about? Every American ALREADY DOES have "access" to a post-high school education. NOTHING stops ANYONE from attending college except lack of motivation. There are even schools for complete dummies!
Oh, and with around 1 million legal immigrants a year, and plenty of illegal immigrants too. It's almost as if Friedman and other allegedly economically literate folks have never heard of supply and... what's the other one?.. yes, that's it, demand!
Oh, and let's not forget the eternal contradiction. We need more educated people and a higher quality workforce... that's why we're importing millions of uneducable, dimwitted, violence-prone Third World peasants.
Don't people like this ever go away? Seems he's been touted over the years as some great visionary while going about his job of peddling snake oil. I'd like to know how much money he's accumulated over the years being a shill.
ReplyDeletePolitical correctness imposes certain strictures on public debate. Because a huge majority of immigrants are non-white, mentioning immigration unfavorably is easily equated with 'nativism', 'xenophobia', 'racism', etc by the media. All other considerations, including vitally important considerations like jobs and unemployment, are less important -- vastly so.
ReplyDeleteIt's that simple.
Regarding Friedman in particular, wie schon gesagt he's not particularly smart or inventive, certainly not in an iconoclastic sort of way. So he comes off as even more vapidly stupid than usual when discussing subjects like this. But he is by no means alone in that.
Dr. Sewell Mayo, who regularly tosses an unwanted copy of The Coupon Times onto my lawn, strongly supports Friedman. "My studying at, you know, Harvard were not only like fun but the degree in Delivery Science is the main reason for my six straight weeks of employment, you know what I'm sayin'?"
ReplyDeleteThrough its many decades of anemic GDP growth, India had a well-educated population. Trouble was there was no work. National education levels have little impact on how successful a country is in attracting venture capital or retaining manufacturing and tech industries within one's borders.
ReplyDeleteWell, Friedman seems to want to set himself up as court ideologue for globalization. Perhaps he is seeing a global elite of college degree holding Americans who are lording their information economy over the peons who get to work in the factories and fields all over the flat earth.
ReplyDeleteBut sending everyone to college? A skilled plumber can make more money and be a heck of a lot more useful than a graduate of a womyn's studies major.
[Friedman] presents the intractable paradox of the current Western "elite" - highly intelligent people who consistently say and do exceptionally stupid things.
Sam Francis coined "anarcho-tyranny; perhaps this is genius-stupidity?
We ARE doomed...
Remember, he who stockpiles MREs and generator fuel in the coming days shall be king! Or at least a middleweight warlord...
I see from his Wiki entry that Friedman's "standard speaking fee" is $75 000. What exactly is going on there? I assume it's that he promotes the interests of immigration-boosting, job-exporting corporations in his writing, and these corporations repay him by pretending his speeches are worth $75 000 apiece.
ReplyDeleteyes. that's how the corporate oligarchy reward their media and academic shills.
DeleteThomas Friedman doesn't understand why everyone else doesn't just do what he did and marry a billionaire heiress.
ReplyDeleteWhy, precisely, are you so against the prospect of educating the American work force? As much as you might malign Friedman for his Jewishness, liberalism, or whatever else, he doesn't make an entirely invalid point by suggesting that having a more educated work force might, in the end, be a beneficial thing for this country. And he's not saying that Americans must be "forced" to go to college, as you blindly assert, but that college should be made affordable, a not unreasonable suggestion considering the cost of a four-year college degree in this country.
ReplyDeleteManufacturing jobs for the most part are not coming back to this country. China, the Southeast Asians, and (eventually) the Africans will always be able to manufacture goods more cheaply than we can, and unless Americans are willing to take major pay cuts and cut existing labor laws, that is not going to change. America's future prosperity therefore, like it or not, will depend on its ability to boast an educated, skilled workforce that outperforms and outcompetes those of other nations. Making college more affordable (as Friedman suggests) is a reasonable step forward.
If you don't agree with this, I don't see what in the flipping hell you'll agree with.
Why, precisely, are you so against the prospect of educating the American work force?
DeleteThere's education, and there's "education". An example of the latter: anybody who can read this post and think that Mangan is mocking Friedman because Mangan is anti-education and anti-skilled-work-force.
It's 2012, anon. If you're still at the stage that you're parroting discredited neoliberal econo-bullshit as some sort of deep economic insight, you need to, well, educate yourself. Your second paragraph is duckspeak, which probably explains why you think another duckspeaker like Friedman is saying something of import.
One of these days, even a dimwit like Friedman will grasp what the loss of a manufacturing base really means, which is vastly more than just the (bad enough) loss of blue-collar jobs. He's probably too thick, or too much of a paid shill, to figure out that it was long-term policy, not forces of nature, and not "education" or lack thereof, that set in motion this disaster. But sheesh, even ol' Tom seems to be dimly aware that he has to move away from the "service economy" shuckin' and jivin'.
Here's a hint, anon: you claim we must give up all of our manufacturing jobs to Asians and Africans, because they can do it cheaper. Well, guess what? They (Asians, anyway) can "outperform and outcompete" our "educated, skilled workforce" by exactly the same criteria that apply to unskilled labor, and no amount of training or "affordable college education" is going to change that. And they'll have the unmatchable advantage of now possessing what we gave away - the broad, deep manufacturing base, with its generational knowledge base, R&D, suppliers, etc. (Yes, R&D follows where manufacturing goes. Please tell me you're not one of those people who think that the Chinese have been doing nothing for the last twenty years but the low-value-added manufacturing.)
If you don't agree with this, I don't see what in the flipping hell you'll agree with.
One can hardly agree with the "answer" of somebody who doesn't even understand the question.
Educating them for what? To be taxi drivers, call-centre workers, Wal-Mart cashiers? When there are no (good, high-paying) jobs, over-educating people is an exercise in futility.
ReplyDeleteManufacturing jobs for the most part are not coming back...
This is news to high-wage countries such as Germany and Japan. South Korea and Singapore are also not exactly following America's lead down the economic drain in regard to losing their manufacturing advantage. Perhaps their elites are not quite as hostile as ours are.
You seem to be under the impression that the only jobs that are now, or ever, will be available in this country are low-paying service jobs. These jobs will always exist, no matter how well-educated our population becomes. But to think that this is somehow a valid argument for collectively sitting on our asses, saying "oh fuck it all," and ignoring the necessity of creating a more highly educated populace in an increasingly 21st century economy is one of the more stupid things I've had the pleasure of coming across this week.
ReplyDeleteNo, having more college graduates in this country is not going to mean that everyone is going to have a high-tech, well-paying job. No one is saying that, except for some of the exceptionally intelligent people to be found commenting on this blog. What commentators ARE saying is that, in a 21st century economy where an increasing number of countries are competing to create and compete for high-paying jobs, having more people equipped with technical college degrees (e.g. engineers, software engineers, scientists, etc.) MAY, for some incomprehensible reason, turn out to be an advantage.
One last thing: You seem to think that Germany, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea may, to some extent, serve as economic models. All of these countries have higher college grad rates than we do.
Those countries separate out the unable long before college. Kids who can't pass the exams don't go to the academic high schools. They are diverted to trade/vocational schools. The higher college graduation rates you see in those countries reflects the fact that the college-attending population already has had a good bit of the dim, lazy, or non-academically inclined people removed from the mix, so it's not especially surprising that a greater proportion of them are graduating.
DeleteI doubt anybody here thinks it's ok to 'sit on our asses'. I suspect most would support a vocational education track, and a revamp of public education; whereas now we are devoting most of our resources to trying to bring the underachievers up, we really need instead to focus on helping the average and high-achievers go as far as they can, since they are the only ones capable of getting those technical college degrees you spoke so highly of.
"You seem to think that Germany, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea may, to some extent, serve as economic models. All of these countries have higher college grad rates than we do."
DeleteIrrelevant, as these countries do not have our demographics. If Germany was 25% black and "Hispanic" its college graduation rates would be a lot lower than they are.
"One last thing: You seem to think that Germany, Japan, Singapore, and South Korea may, to some extent, serve as economic models. All of these countries have higher college grad rates than we do."
DeleteAnd a good many of those college graduates are probably just as superfluous as they are here. German universities graduate lots of people with six year degrees in history, germanics, philosophy, etc., so that they are prepared for their jobs as glorified clerks in some government ministry or insurance company. But, then again, perhaps reading Goethe's "The Sorrows of Young Werther" or those uplifting, feel-good novellas by Heinrich von Kleist are excellent preparation for a bright eyed young humanities student facing a lifetime of bureaucratic drudgery.
"What commentators ARE saying is that, in a 21st century economy where an increasing number of countries are competing to create and compete for high-paying jobs, having more people equipped with technical college degrees (e.g. engineers, software engineers, scientists, etc.) MAY, for some incomprehensible reason, turn out to be an advantage."
ReplyDeleteTariffs.
Let it be that these other countries not have access to American markets unless they pay for it.
Give me tariffs and I'll agree, you can spend those tax dollars on funding community colleges to teach to read the population of smart-but-poor people who were undereducated by the fuxxated public K-12 system. Deal?
Manufacturing jobs for the most part are not coming back to this country. China, the Southeast Asians, and (eventually) the Africans will always be able to manufacture goods more cheaply than we can
ReplyDeleteThose are choices which we collectively have made. We can chose to make others instead. We do not have to chose to set up factories in China and give to Chinese workers jobs which were formerly done in America.
But if we do decide to send all work to wherever in the world it can be done most cheaply, then it's a waste of time and money to try to educate Americans any further. An engineer in India or a computer programmer in Russia will, for the foreseeable future, be much cheaper than their American counterparts. Training even more Americans as engineers and computer programmers won't alter that.
In the Friedman scheme of things the "problem" with American workers is that they make too much money, and the "solution" is for them to make a lot less so that they can compete more equally with workers in other parts of the world.
DeleteThose are choices which we collectively have made. We can chose to make others instead. We do not have to chose to set up factories in China and give to Chinese workers jobs which were formerly done in America.
Who you callin we, dude.
There be alot of people out there who did not say this be ok and they be pissed. Don't look like they can hold it together for much longer, and then we be seeing Civil War II.
"Manufacturing jobs for the most part are not coming back to this country."
ReplyDeleteThis was a conscious betrayal of the public by a political elite who are bought and paid for by globalists through campaign funding.
It is a political issue - not an economic one.
If you are a group that is good at arbitrage, would not your best strategy be to create more opportunities for arbitrage?
DeleteThis "betrayal of the public" you speak of is exactly in the rights of any company operating in a capitalistic, free market system. You speak of "globalists," as if they belong to some evil, shadowy, organization intent on screwing people over -- no, they, much like you, are free-market capitalists who desire to maximize profit while minimizing the degree of government influence over their affairs.
DeleteIf you believe the freedom of companies to utilize foreign labor should be restricted, then you're siding with both the unions and the liberals. That, I'm sure, is not something you want to do.
If you believe the freedom of companies to utilize foreign labor should be restricted, then you're siding with both the unions and the liberals.
DeleteI'm siding with the nationalists; you seem to be siding with the cosmopolitans.
[word verification irony: 'ancester']
If you are a group that is good at arbitrage, would not your best strategy be to create more opportunities for arbitrage?
ReplyDelete