Questions about the "New Economy"

[Cassius23]

Now I'm hoping the very smart people here at DU may be able to answer some of these questions in a way that isn't quite as mean and pessimistic as mine are.

The basic idea is this.

According to a lot of the pro-globalization economists, we are living in a world in which in order to make the most money you have to be willing to totally retrain yourself every five years, have health benefits that aren't linked to a specific job, and that most of the money will be made by stockholders.

1. What job is supposed to replace the ones that were/are outsourced?

If computer programming, a lot of manufacturing, accounting, as well as a whole slew of well paying jobs are either outsourced, made obsolete or yes, what are we supposed to be looking for as far as jobs. An article in Wired states that "concept and design" work will be the next big thing. The downside in that argument is A. companies are notorious about not wanting to spend for R&D and B. Even if they spend lots of cash on R&D, not everyone wants to design widgets.

2. What about the mental health consequences to the life that globalization requires?

Who is going to pay for the bills that come as a cost of the massive anxiety that is generated when one has to be constantly afraid of their career going poof once every 5 years?

3. Furthermore, what about people who can't instantly adjust to a new career track when their old one has gone poof?

Not everyone can learn a whole new skillset every 5 years. Some people can only do a few things(they do them very well, but only a few things)

4.(Quoted from another poster) Who is going to pay for everyone to change careers every 5 years. Currently it costs a minimum of $2,000 to train a new skillset, sometimes it can cost as much as $100,000. In our current economy switching careers is somewhat of a luxury. In this "new economy" it will be essential, but out of the cost range of the people who will be doing the switching.

So, DUers.

Any ideas? Answers?

I just wish I knew what I could do to quickly and efficiently redress this issue.

::EDIT::

5. How can middle and lower class individuals in the US benefit?

Most of the people that are supposted to benefit from globalization are stock holders. However, stockholders usually are in the top 5% as far as wealth goes, so "the majority" ends up being the wealthiest of Americans. Also, the cost savings that make it down to the customer are dwarfed by the lowered wages because of cost cutting measures.

[brentspeak]

1. The pro-globalization economic "experts" basically have no idea what they're talking about

They are eggheads feted by corporate stooges, and are immune from themselves being outsourced and downsized.

[Double T]

2. Manufacturing jobs WERE supposed to be replaced by service sector jobs......

which have NOW been outsourced to other nations. corporate america and wall street robber barons continue to grab ALL the wealth by lowering the standards of the products THEY produce and by utilizing slave and lower cost labor found in many countries all over the world. The future of America and American jobs looks very bleak as factories continue to close and tens of thousands of Americans continue to lose their good paying jobs. The phony American economy will eventually collapse as less disposable income is available and more Americans can NOT find decent paying work to supply THEM with the basic essentials of everyday life. Unfortunately, history is repeating itself and the greed-mongers will get theirs in the end......THEN 'WE' will start ALL OVER AGAIN.

[area51]

3. The pro-globalization traitors ...

... just want decent Americans to shut up & die. They want us to go back to the robber baron era of the 1800s and we are well on the way there. Pro-globalization vermin have no answers to your excellent questions; it's that they don't give a rat's ass about anyone but themselves.

[tabasco]

22. Well said.

I agree completely.

I was glad to hear Senator Webb reference the robber baron era last night.

[The2ndWheel]

4. We need to make a pill for that

That'll shut people up nicely.

The simple answer would be to stop the whole process. The simple answer would be to slow down. However, we seem to be in a hurry to get to a destination that doesn't exist.

[Yavin4]

5. The Future For Most of Us Will Be: Debt Speculators

That's their plan for us. They want us to borrow massive amounts of money and use it on speculative investments like housing, the stock market, etc. That's all that's left for the common man. All mass mfg. will be done out of China. All IT support will be done out of India. Heck, even healthcare will be done overseas.

For the rest of us, we will either be servants to the very wealthy or massive debt speculators. Borrow money. Buy an asset. Sell the asset at a profit greater than the debt.

[Cassius23]

6. Or we can try to live off the grid..

I mean, it is possible to live with a very, very small amount of money.

Of course, then we have the "end of life" concerns as far as retirement and inability to maintain the level of work that goes into living what I have come to call a "low capital lifestyle"

[pitohui]

56. yeah i get my bypass surgery and my hodgkin's chemotherapy off the grid

off the grid is only viable for those satisfied to die at age 40 or 45 as nature intended, those who do not have access to modern health care still have a life expectancy of age 45 -- the example here would be pine ridge reservation in south dakota

it is not acceptable or possible to live w.out modern medical technology unless you want the old time life that was ugly, brutish, and short

the good long life requires technology which requires money

if you live lifelong off the grid w. no real income, such that you have no health care/insurance, you need not plan for retirement, odds are v. high you will be dead

my neighbor got hodgkin's disease (cancer) at age 38, my co-worker got cervical cancer at age 25, my friend got rheumatoid arthritis at age 22

don't tell me about off the grid, it is nonsense and would only work for those who got lucky in the physical health lottery and never got ill or injured

[LiberalEsto]

7. Good questions

My kids, aged 23 and 20, don't know what to do. One's a nanny, one's a waitress. Both quit college. They've seen Daddy's computer programmer co-workers lose their jobs. They've seen Mom's journalism job prospects disappear as more and more papers lay off staff.

They know everything is being outsourced, and that investing heavily in a career is often not worth it because of the huge burden of student loans.

And I honestly don't know what to tell them.

[Selatius]

10. To be frank, the only jobs left will be low-pay service sector jobs for your children

It's not that the service sector is inherently bad.

The problem with the service sector is that it is largely un-unionized. As a result, employers in this sector see no need to pay better wages and offer better benefits to their workers. Manufacturing paid so much not just because it was once an essential part of the US economy but because workers were unionized and fought for better conditions. Unfortunately, for some reason, these unions did not branch out into the service sector.

You think a job at Starbucks pays low with poor benefits? It doesn't have to. IWW (Industrial Workers of the World) has begun a program to fight for better wages, better hours, better benefits at several starbucks outlets they've successfully unionized. If you want a better future, you must struggle for it.

[LiberalEsto]

12. Starbucks near us just unionized

It's a Starbucks in Rockville, MD. I was so glad to hear it.

I think the coming union organizing battles of the next decade are going to be as difficult as the ones in the early part of the 20th Century. My husband's cousin is a Teamsters organizer.

[rman]

8. Globalization insider and anti-globalist Joseph Stiglitz

...might be able to answer your questions.

- former chief economist at the World Bank
- former economic adviser to Clinton
- Nobel Prize for Economy
- author of "Globalization and Its Discontents" and "Making Globalization Work"
- professor at Columbia Business School
http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Stiglitz

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Stiglitz

Joseph Stiglitz's Keynote Address at the University of San Francisco Securities
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6908101108622328125&q=Stiglitz

[Cassius23]

11. He does look very interesting.

I'll be picking up his book Friday when I get paid. I would get it now, but I'm kindof out of cash and all. :(

[Selatius]

9. Three words: SERVICE SECTOR JOB

That's what you will end up with.

In the service sector, you can clean hotel rooms for Hyatt, flip burgers at Burger King, or work as a clerk for Citi Bank. Other options include getting into the tourism industry--although I think hotel work sort of overlaps into that, since they're prevalent in tourist traps--getting into the casino industry, starting up your own small business, or working as a sales clerk at Wal-Mart. These jobs are difficult to outsource to China, India, and elsewhere, especially jobs that require face-to-face interaction with consumers.

The only way to replace the wages lost is not to depend on the federal government exclusively. What you need to do and what all workers need to do is to unionize and restore the lost wages. The government can help though, mainly by neutering right-to-work laws. Instead, they should read that if a non-union worker wants to join a union shop, he should be allowed to do so. The change comes in that he no longer automatically enjoys the same benefits as unionized workers. In order for him to achieve the same benefits, he must join the union. Under current laws, he gets the same benefits as unionized workers, which weighs down unions by creating a massive "freeloader" or "freerider" problem.

[A HERETIC I AM]

13. At 47 I recently started what amounts to my 4th career...

But my primary "Trade" was Truck Driver - a skill i can use anywhere in the world. (Trucks are trucks around the globe. the only difference is what side the steering wheel is on)

I think the modern worker has to stay flexible and be prepared to change.

I don't have an answer to just exactly how everyone else should do it, however. I just know my experience.


BTW your statement;

"However, stockholders usually are in the top 5% as far as wealth goes, so "the majority" ends up being the wealthiest of Americans"

Is not true. If you have ever owned even one share of a Mutual Fund, then you are/were a Stock holder. Many millions of average wage earners in this country own Mutual Funds in their 401(K)'s or IRA's. The idea that only the top 5% or only the richest Americans own shares of Stocks is simply incorrect.

[hfojvt]

45. no, it is basically correct

Lots of people own stocks, but that does not really make them 'stockholders'. 1% of the population owns 39% of the wealth and 20% of the population owns 84% of the wealth. My own $50-60,000 in wealth may make me 50th percentile, but it is a tiny drop in a humongous ocean and is not near enough to live off of for a significant length of time.

[A HERETIC I AM]

50. The fact that people own stocks makes them EXACTLY stockholders.

You may have $50 - $60,000 but so do tens of millions of other Americans, the large percentage of them invested in the Equity markets. If you think that all the money that changes hands on the NYSE or the NASDAQ boards every day is the sole property of the top 1% of the population you would be wrong.

It is a tidy illusion to think that the rich own everything but they don't. Don't sell your fellow Americans short. Mutual fund and stock ownership is not exclusive to the wealthy.

BTW, the only way you are going to make your 50 - 60 K grow at any rate substantially better than a CD is by investing in Equities and depending on how old you are and how much you are willing to add to that figure on a regular basis, you might just be very surprised at how large and how fast that figure can grow.

www.fincalc.com for some interesting and helpful financial calculators.

[hfojvt]

55. the bulk of that equity is in my house

so putting $1000 in Wal-mart stock does not make me a shareholder the way it does for a Walton heir. A rise in the stock price may make a little bit of money for me, but it makes alot more for them. The statistic I posted says 20% own 84% of the wealth.

Yes, I have read that my state managed retirement fund has grown at 10% for the last 5 years. That would be nice. A $16,000 IRA would grow to $25,768 in just that short a time, versus a mere $20,420 in a 5% CD. However, when I looked into a mutual fund that a investment friend was selling, I found the Military Industrial Complex. So, no thanks, I will forego the extra small gains to keep from helping to fund, even in my insignificantly small way, their destruction of our world.

It is a Republican spin point to praise and help shareholders when they know tanj well who gets MOST of the help.

[A HERETIC I AM]

60. I am not going to try and sell you anything, much less an idea.......

but there are over 10,000 Mutual Funds available. The fact that the ONE you looked into contained defense companies does not mean the entire M/F universe is so tainted.

A quick search on Google for "Socially Responsible Investing" offers this as the 1st website on the list;

http://www.socialinvest.org/

Look to the left under "Investors" on the home page and click on SRI Mutual Funds. you get this;

http://www.socialinvest.org/areas/sriguide/mfpc.cfm

There are hundreds of ways to invest that don't offend your sensibilities. I am not being snarky here, please understand. Merely pointing out an avenue that you may have been unaware. Some of those funds have performed extremely well. Type "Green Investing" into Google and you will get more results.

You bring up Wal-Mart stock (Perhaps intentionally ironically) and suggest that a thousand dollars worth of stock does not put you on the same level as it does a Walton heir. Well of course not. But you DO get to vote and you are entitled to attend Shareholder Meetings and vote on board members. If you own ONE SINGLE SHARE of any company then you ARE a shareholder.

I trust the last sentence in your post wasn't meant to infer i am a Republican, merely because i defend or promote the individual investor. I am as liberal as they come but i see no point in not participating in the equity markets merely because i might be concerned my part is small.

[eridani]

58. And if the market takes a serious dive before you retire, then what?

Small pissant stockholders are irrelevant, because we can't possibly live of returns on our investments.

[A HERETIC I AM]

61. If you are properly diversified, a dive won't affect you as much......

Of course, you probably won't believe that, but there you go.

BTW...would you call a person who worked all her life, never made more than $40,000 a year but retired at 61 and is ABLE to live off her investments an "(irrelevant)Pissant stockholder"?

I know such a woman personally. She is a relatively unsophisticated investor (which means when i met her, she didn't know the difference between a stock and a bond and a Mutual Fund) but did the right thing by participating in the markets through her companies 401(K) and a personal IRA which she contributed to regularly.

[eridani]

62. Most of my coworkers were diversified--and it didn't do squat for them

I'm ahead of them with my CDs and savings bonds. I'd call her as irrelevant as someone who won the same amount of money in the lottery. She'd be wiped out by a serious illness, since she still has 4 years to get through without Medicare. If 1% of the population owns the vast majority of stocks, it doesn't impress me that a few average people who are statistical flukes also share in a tiny amount of the boodle.

[A HERETIC I AM]

64. Well, in that case you should just stay with CD's

Statistical flukes or not, there are millions and millions out there just like her. But, since your experience is so much broader than mine and it seems to be all negative, perhaps you should just stay with your 4.5% returns.

BTW, if you are ahead of anyone who was supposedly diversified while you were just in CD's and savings bonds, i would suggest they either got bad advice or made really poor investing decisions.

Best of luck.

[eridani]

65. Investing is gambling

The millions of small fry are outweighed by the fat cats who own five times as much as they do collectively. I am still entirely dependent on earned income despite a net worth (not including house) of ~$300K. Illness or accident could make that vanish in a couple of months, if not overnight. Same is true for all the rest of the small fry--being lucky enough to not have that shit happen to you does not make you smarter or morally superior.

[ProfessorGAC]

14. First, There Is No "New Economy"

That's a made up term by intellectually lazy economists and pundits who are looking for an excuse to explain what's going on.

Economies undergo significant transition to "new economies" over periods of decades or even centuries, not in 8 to 10 years.

The purpose of all the rhetoric upon which your questions are based is to obfuscate the fact that the financial folks behind these penny-wise, pound foolish decisions don't care about the future, don't recognize the consequnces, or don't really know what they're doing.

Instead, this nonsense has been promulgated to make the public think THEY are the folks who don't understand and should just take the slings and arrows of the economy. They won't explain further because they want the people to feel like peons who couldn't possibly understand. In fact, they don't explain it because there's nothing to explain.

These are all short-term, shortsighted financial decisions for which there are no really good explanations other than people, claiming to be long term investors, trying to get richer, quicker.
The Professor

[Yavin4]

16. Once Again, The Professor's Post Shows His Brilliance

"These are all short-term, shortsighted financial decisions for which there are no really good explanations other than people, claiming to be long term investors, trying to get richer, quicker."

Exactly. Globalization is nothing more than a crap shoot, short term business decision designed to reap fast profits with no regard to long term political and economic considerations. What happens if one day China tells the world to go screw itself. What then? China could literally destroy the world without firing a single shot.

[Yavin4]

15. In the end, Workers Will Have To Do What They Did At The Start of the Industrial Revolution

Form unions. If only crappy paying service sector jobs are available, then the workers will form unions to make the crappy service sector jobs pay better. At one time, all mfg jobs paid crappy wages and abused their workers until the people put an end to it.

Libertarian economists simply do not understand that workers will not swallow their poverty and go away. Whenever the private sector does not compensate fairly, then the workers will pressure either their government or their employers to do so.

Case in point, more and more local governments are forcing WalMart to offer health benefits because so many of their workers file for government benefits. The WalMart family is among the wealthiest families in the world, and that corporation could easily provide health benefits at little or no cost because of their sheer size.

[The2ndWheel]

17. And business will have find a way around unions

then workers will form unions, business will find a way around them, then they'll form, then around, form, around, form, around...endlessly going in circles, ending up nowhere, telling ourselves that our lives have meaning and purpose.

[Greyhound]

27. You are right and I think we should also mention the rapidly closing

window of opportunity. Once the mega-nations (China and India) have their own consumer class of sufficient size they will finally abandon the U.S. entirely. We are still the market that makes their advancement possible so we can still stop this process, but that will not be true forever.

[hfojvt]

47. I think though that unionized grocers and meat-packers

used to pay better too. Back in 1984 I new a guy going to vet school who was making $9 an hour working part time at a grocery store. Of course he had been there for 8 years or so, but when I graduated my first job only paid $8.54 and I worked with a computer programmer making $2 an hour less. Of course, we did both get promotions after a year, me to $10.45 and he to $8.54, and with two more promised in the following years. Still, $9 an hour was darn good money for the time.

[blues90]

18. Pretty scray shit isn't it ?

I managed to stay with the same career for 32 years . Before that during the 60's one could learn on the job or work a trade job that paid very well . I did all sorts of work before settling on the big mistake of the auto mobile repair field but it provided an income through the miserable 80's .

I advanced to a manager position then suddenly without warning the company hired a cut throat general manager and I was one of 13 people he fired to bring with him his own crew , all for the at will employment claus where you can do nothing about it .

Since then the auto motive repair field has fallen and there is not a job to be found .

At 57 I have to try to start all over again and have not a clue what that would be . Most jobs pay little and are looking for youger people .

So if things don't go my way soon I guess it's time to visit the golden gate bridge .

Talk about meds for stress and anxitey , here I am entirely stressed out and I can't go through this every 4 or 5 years . so perhaps I will be living off the land in some remote wooded area or freeze trying .

This economy is a sick joke at best and a trauma to the mind with a death wish at worst .

[The2ndWheel]

19. What's that I hear?

The cry of a Luddite? Not a bad thing by the way. Unfortunately, you're not going to win talking like that.

[raccoon]

21. Gosh, you're so helpful, aren't you? :sarcasm: nt

[The2ndWheel]

23. I try

At least he's 57, I'm 28. The future needs us less and less.

[lectrobyte]

24. I've got a friend only slightly younger than the "Luddite" with a

bachelor's degree and 30 years experience in IT. He's been unemployed / underemployed for the last 5 years, what would you suggest they do?

[Cassius23]

26. Well, according to the research I've done...

Some of the conventional arguments have been, well, for him/her to starve. Others say that he/she should learn a whole new skill set(which, past around 40, seems to be pretty difficult), while still others feel that your friend should be supported by the government.

In short, sadly, nobody has a real good answer, I'm afraid.

[lectrobyte]

29. I'm fine with learning new skills. The question, is, though, what skills

would folks here suggest?

[Cassius23]

30. Well, right now right now...

in IT the skills to know are Documentum(a document storage system used by big drug companies for storing documents electronically, the only one that is approved by the FDA for storage of documents electronically) and VoIP(voice over IP).

However, getting training in these is quite expensive.

[The2ndWheel]

33. Learn how to be trainable

Doing anything else would just result in you dying while trying. You'll die anyway, but at least you won't be obsolete for too long when you're rendered obsolete.

[blues90]

36. That's the question

Personally at 57 I don't feel I would be happy at starbucks or some computer job . In order to keep going people need to feel they are doing something that makes them feel positive and useful . Now as a teen many jobs are just temp stepping stones but I am far from a teen and from what I see out there now being a live off the land would feel much better than this rat in a box race .

[pitohui]

57. at his age it doesn't much matter what skills

age discrimination is real, they won't hire him anyway

learning new skills for many people past 40 is just another way to increase their debt

[raccoon]

43. Even if someone past 40 or 50 learns a new skills set, getting

a job is difficult. Age discrimination is alive and well.

[blues90]

54. That's so true , I can vouch for that

[The2ndWheel]

28. I don't know

Other than what every other person has had to do in the face of progress; accept it, or have whatever centralized power structure do something to you that you don't want them to. That's about all there is in this world of, by, and for the large scale.

Your friend has more work experience than I have time on this planet. Where do I go for help?

[blues90]

25. Perhaps I am

Just the fact that in order for cars with their inefficient internal combustion gas burning engines to meet smog standards there was a vast , expensive pile of components over the years to make repair and purchase expensive while never solving the problem .

Technology has it's costs to many people who where quite happy to work a good day without fogging their minds to keep up with progress . It was called a craft or a trade now it's considered mass production for the sole purpose to make the rich richer . We were told of time savers , well now we use that time saved to keep up with the job market and work two jobs instead of one .

[The2ndWheel]

31. "while never solving the problem"

Now we're getting somewhere.

It is amazing though. We never seem to solve anything. We push the problem into the future, but then have to deal with a bigger and more complex problem, which also never gets solved, only pushed into the future....

Time is a funny thing too. We're more efficient at using our time(an artificial construct), yet we end up doing more with our increased free time. Just like the more efficient we make cars, the further we travel, and the more people travel further, and the more roads we build, the more gridlock we end up with, etc.

We can't stop it though, that's the best part. If we did, billions around the world would die. So we have to keep up, we have to be trained again and again. To what end, nobody seems to know. We have no destination, but we will get there quickly.

[blues90]

35. No we never do solve anything .

All we have done was ignore the same old problems of humanity , poverty , education , ext and push forward with technology .

How much more can be done to advance things until the end is reached ?

I feel the end is near because we only expand and speed this process up .

People will continue to ignore this and try to adapt until they reach the end with no return .

Man was not designed to live and function in such a spead up high tech world , we are still running on the basic human mindset for the most part with burnout just around the corner . Otherwise so many people would not be on pills to speed up and then slow dowm meds to bring themselves back into the real mode then they see the reality and have a drink or three to get past that .

[Deja Q]

20. The hard truth to swallow:

1. Military (the same discussion took place 30+ years ago, even on "All in the Family" - a politically-themed TV series)

2. Irrelevant. We are not people. We are tools. Resources. Hence the term "human resources"

3. Military.

4. Ask your boss. Like all the other bosses, he will say you have to keep up with skills training.

5. Become an optimist.

[ItNerd4life]

32. Profits are personal, the effects of profits are social

I read that somewhere, wish I could remember where. Anyway, it helps explain why we have pollution laws and why we now need to start creating social laws. Businesses only focus on short term profits and to hell with the environment (pollution) or society. We need to create laws that allow businesses to function, without destroying society.

Some white collar jobs that will be in high demand for the next 10 years:
Project Managers
International business/law experts

Not sure if there will be many blue collar jobs or how many other white collar jobs available. But, it is a problem and we need to create laws that protect the low and middle income people of this country.

[nashville_brook]

34. this "retraining" idea is being misapplied from computer tech

it's standard for computer tech people (network engineers, software developers) to retrain to other languages and platforms. the difference is, they are still computer tech people.

if you're a manufacturing foreman, this doesn't translate.
if you're a machinist, this doesn't translate.
if you're just about anything but a computer tech person, THIS DOESN'T TRANSLATE.

[Cassius23]

38. Hence the post, I'm afraid.

As someone who is in the IT field and wants to get out of my particular aspect of IT(help desk), I have seen how hard it is first hand to get into even another IT field, much less a whole new career.

The idea of being a machinist or someone that expected to do basically the same thing and finding out that I have to become a project manager, etc is horrifying.

[nashville_brook]

41. i was a print designer

and retrained myself numerous times between platforms (windows, yech) and programs -- back when there were competing software packages (adobe vs macromedia... anyone remember aldus?). then i taught myself digital video editing and web design (you know the drill... accept the job then buy the "quickstart" book and hope you can meet deadline).

then i got sick. since 2002 i've had chronic pain resulting from a spinal infection. the pain itself is almost okay to deal with on the job -- it's the exhaustion that results from the pain that has kicked my ass. i can't think like i used to be able to. if i exert myself on monday, i'll be "on my back" tuesday, wednesday and thursday.

my field required heroic effort and energy when i was well -- pulling all-nighters and fighting tooth and nail for every project. i'm beat now. there's no way i can keep a job with this illness, much less excel at the rate required to keep pace.

[Sir Jeffrey]

37. Consider this...

Most deficit spending at the federal level is on defense i.e. building massive and unnecessary weapons/munitions in order to line the pockets of the elite. The deficit spending is financed by foreign govts who purchase bonds to loan the US money. The two countries that loan us the most money are China and Japan. They import a lot of goods into the US.

Soooooo...what does that have to do with anything?

If the US were to take effective action to stop free trade to help the average American, they would most likely have to impose some sort of tariff on imported goods. We import billions of dollars worth of goods from China and Japan. If we imposed tariffs and other protectionist measures, they would most likely stop loaning the US money to finance the deficit spending the military contractors want so bad. Then we would either have to cut social programs at home or cut military spending, and they are not about to cut military spending in a time of fake wars on terra.

Deficit spending is a joke. The politicans of today give their friends billions in no bid contracts and tax cuts, and they leave their kids and grandkids with the bill.

Now to answer your questions...

"1. What job is supposed to replace the ones that were/are outsourced?"

Shitty service jobs like McDonalds. The lie that we would see good jobs coming back to the US was a line of bullshit that was effectively debunked by Perot in 1992. Regardless of your opinion of him about other issues, I would recommend going back and reading one of Perot's books or speeches for background. He predicted all of it and tried to warn us.

"2. What about the mental health consequences to the life that globalization requires?"

Nobody cares outside of the bleeding hearts like us, and we don't matter that much anyway.

"3. Furthermore, what about people who can't instantly adjust to a new career track when their old one has gone poof?"

They will have to find a way on their own. Two jobs, three jobs, borrowing money from family, etc. just like people my age have had to do for a decade.

"4. (Quoted from another poster) Who is going to pay for everyone to change careers every 5 years. Currently it costs a minimum of $2,000 to train a new skillset, sometimes it can cost as much as $100,000. In our current economy switching careers is somewhat of a luxury. In this "new economy" it will be essential, but out of the cost range of the people who will be doing the switching."

The cost of education is now primarily shifted to the student to finance via student loans. Of course this was not the case 15 years ago and prior when our wonderful elites were in school. They scrambled up the ladder and then kicked it over. Now anyone in need of retraining will have to borrow the money or take a dramatic loss in income and benefits. Besides, if you have to get retrained and take out thousands in student loans, the student loan companies that have bought off the politicians will eagerly loan you money at interest.

"5. How can middle and lower class individuals in the US benefit?"

They don't for the most part. The cost of goods at the store is low, but that is about it.

A few years ago Bill Bradley wrote an excellent op-ed for the NY Times describing the shift to a service based economy. I would recommend reading it if you can find it. He talked about the importance of having three tiers in our economy: at bottom a manufacturing base, in the middle a service base, and the apex would be the elites. We have watched the elites outsource the maufactufing base in order to increase their profits. He talked about how dangerous it was to rely on other countries to produce your goods.

[Cassius23]

39. True, but something else to keep in mind.

"" 2. What about the mental health consequences to the life that globalization requires?"

Nobody cares outside of the bleeding hearts like us, and we don't matter that much anyway. "


They also didn't care about the farmland in Ephesus, and we see the results in the end(nowadays Ephesus is where people go to see old deserted buildings). When researching Rome, one is struck by the sheer madness and illogic of many of the decisions that were made. It wasn't until much later that they realized that many Romans, especially those in power, contracted lead poisioning due to the pipes they used for running water(it is worth noting here that the basis of the word "plumbing" is the Latin word for lead).

I think that the bleeding hearts such as ourselves are usually the canaries in the mine, I'm afraid.

A small consolation to be sure, but a consolation nonthless.

[Sir Jeffrey]

46. This bothers me...

It seems like we are intentionally co-opting the worst elements of Spartan and Roman society.

[blues90]

40. This is so depressing , it's difficult to think about

However I do think about it all the time and I know damn well any job outsourced is a job gone forever , I cannot kid myself about this for a second .

This makes one like me really wonder if through out my working life I have made all the wrong choices . What I should have done while it was still possible is found a section of land and built a small house or a trailer and lived on the bare nothing . Now I would be ok instead of what I deal with these days of horror .

[nashville_brook]

42. deficit spending and the global trade deficit are NOT "jokes."

and, it's the job of government to bring our economy into balance.

Perot did a great job of getting people to throw up their hands in exhaustion -- Clinton and Gore actually DID SOMETHING about it by cultivating high tech industries right here at home.

just sayin' -- it's not all gloom and doom. there are solutions, it's just going to take another democratic administration to get the ball rolling.

[Sir Jeffrey]

44. NAFTA came into effect in 1994...

with a Democrat in the WH and Democrats in control of Congress.

Perot warned people that we would hear the "giant sucking sound" of our jobs being sent out of country. He was right about that on ALL accounts.

And your claim that people threw their hands up in desperation is accurate. What were people supposed to do? Both major parties were in favor of NAFTA.

Now I have a lot of problems with Perot's stance on a number of issues, but NAFTA was one place where he was right.

And your claim that Clinton/Gore cultivated the high tech industries is a bit of a stretch, but as another poster pointed out those jobs are being shipped to India so we're double-screwed.

And are you really saying in your post that deficit spending to cover tax cuts, military appropriations and war funding to the tune of 9 trillion is NOT a joke?

[nashville_brook]

48. not a joke -- a tragedy. big diff.

[Sir Jeffrey]

49. How about a sick joke? nt

[leftofthedial]

51. the model you describe is accurate unfortunately

it also is utterly impossible

[HughBeaumont]

52. Read my Journal.

Lots of important points that you raised that none of the neo-lib pro-offshore people (sadly, there are some on DU) can answer. Either because they don't want to or that they really don't care one way or the other . .. they got theirs.

Offshoring is long on theory but short on benefits. Unless you're wealthy.

[Yavin4]

53. The Key To Everything Is The Cost of Debt

As long as debt is relatively cheap and easily accessible, things will continue as normal. When the debt gets expensive, then all Hell will break loose.

Our entire economy is built on a house of debt. People have adjusted to outsourcing by borrowing, buying, and selling homes. They're playing debt games, but only if the debt is cheap. When the Fed raised interest rates above 4%, then Bush and the Republicans were cooked. Yes, the war in Iraq is the biggest reason, but my hunch is that if interest rates were still at 1% like they were in 2003-04, then the Republicans would have hung on to the Congress at least.

[eridani]

59. Lavorare meno!! Lavorare tutti!!

Sounds operatic and revolutionary in Italian, but more prosaically, "Work less, and everybody works." More productivity means fewer and fewer people make more and more stuff while living in a system that tells them if they aren't making stuff or owning the means of production, they can't have any of the stuff. Not sustainable at all.

http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC37/Bush2.htm

[ProfessorGAC]

63. Fa Bene!

You know what that means! And most astute, as well. However, if properly managed, productivity gains per worker can be a very powerful leverage in both the continuation of growth and expansion of the middle class. It happened in the 20's, the 50's and the 90's and is provable through analysis. The problem now isn't the gain in per worker productivity, is the managing of those gains. That is where the execution has been poor.
The Professor