Osborn's Epiphany

[Milton Bradley]

So today, I am sitting talking with friends, and Osborn walks into the room , and lays this bomb on all of us.


"In the 80's, and 90', the big story being talked about on the news was America's unskilled workforce, and how it was hard to employ all the unskilled workers in todays high tech world.


Fast forward to today, and the story has changed somewhat. Today, the highly skilled workforce costs to much to employ, so corporate America outsources the American job market to India, Pakistan, the Far East, and now Central, and South America."


Proving, it behoovs one to pay attention to what is being said, even if it takes twenty five years to catch them in their lies, they can be caught.


Discuss...


And, now, back to your regularly scheduled disenfranchisment.

[tusaki]

I'm sorry, it's not really clear to me what was lied about and by whom.

[Osborn F Enready]

Tusaki, lets here some theoretical thought, or some deductions.

I think it is fairly obvious what has happened, but then again, if you read my thread on what is wrong with the government you would probably see where it was coming from.

Tools of the establishment, playthings of Kings.

[tusaki]

Fine, my deduction would be that he implies the government lied about "the lack of skilled employment" first and about "the cost of labor" later.

However, for the government to lie, they must first know it isn't true. The call for more skilled employment in the 80's was not limited to the US alone. The politicians in western Europe also called for a better educated population. In the 80's and 90's there was a tech boom, and society was modernizing at unprecedented levels. In the late 90's, south east Asia, India and China played catch-up. And their workforce is much cheaper than ours, no matter what. This emerged as a political problem only now, so now the call is to lower the cost of labor in western societies.

I agree that the (any) government is too short sighted, and only willing to look a few days ahead. However, I do not think you can show me one study, published in the 80's which points out the problems of globalization and outsourcing.

I think it is too simplistic to point a shaky finger to the government and say "they must have known!".

[Osborn F Enready]

I am more saying, I think they helped create the problem, instead of un-knowingly creating the problem.

I don't think everyone is working in complete complicity, and co-ordination. Just that they have an agenda, to create problems in certain areas, to aid the passing of certain legislation that is very restrictive and couldn't be passed without a superficial problem to create the need for the answer.

In other words, if they have an answer, but no problem, create the problem to facillitate the answer desired to best benefit mutual agendas. If you can dress up a bad idea enough to look noble, people will vote in their demise giving it the benefit of the doubt based on the premonition of "the government looking out for their best intrests."

The creation of never-ending turmoil, permanently keeping off balance the basis of reality and morality.

[RVonse]

The big question is where is this all going to end????

Now that the U.S. no longer has any manufacturing base and is soon not to have the information jobs of the service sector, what are all the laid off workers going to do? Where are these workers going to come up with the money to make the payments on their new homes they have just re-financed? Where are they going to come up with the money to pay for their kids to go to college in order to learn a skill for a job they can't find here? And where are they going find the money to pay for all the cheap crap they have been buying at Wal Mart?

Do you think the government has worked this out yet?

[G. Adams]

If I was a conspiracy theorist, I might suggest that the government see's this as a good thing, a desperate population will listen to radical ideas. You may see a large shift in style of US politics in the next decade or so.

[Sonart]

Oh, good grief...

Back in the 60's the U.S. was a manufacturing powerhouse, the world's industrial giant. Detroit ruled. Industrial labor ruled. 20 years later, Japan, Korea, Germany and other post-war nations began taking over manufacturing and taking our manufacturing jobs. OH, MY GOSH, THEY LIED TO US!!

Jeez, Osborn, get a clue. Both things are true.

Twenty years ago, with new, lower cost industrial competition, we began leading the world into the information and technology era, so we were losing manufacturing jobs to low-cost competition but gaining technical jobs, so Osborn's point A is true.

Twenty years later, even lower cost developing countries -- read; China, etc. -- are taking manufacturing jobs away from the countries that took it away from us, while other low-cost modernizing nations are creating hi-tech jobs, so Osborn's point B is also true.

No one lied to us. You guys just want to invent an issue to attack whoever you're implying put out "the big story". The world simply changes, duh.

.

[RVonse]

Ok, the world simply changes. But then but you do have to agree the changes haven't been so good for us, right?

Maybe our government has just been stupid or maybe Osborn is really onto something here.

[G. Adams]

If you have a free market these changes are inevitable, but in time the market will evolve and the US will find it's comparative advantages.

[RVonse]

"If you have a free market these changes are inevitable, but in time the market will evolve and the US will find it's comparative advantages."




I pray that I am wrong but the only evolution that I can forsee is that: (1) Either 3rd world economies are going to have to "come up" to the US standard of living or (2)The US is going to have to adjust its standard of living downward to theirs. And I sincerely hope that it is the former and not the later.

But either way it will not be a fun ride getting there.

[Sonart]

Quote by: RVonse Ok, the world simply changes. But then you do have to agree the changes haven't been so good for us, right?

#1.... So? We lost in the 70's and 80's when we continued thinking our economy, based on consumer manufacturing of shoddy, built-in obsolescence, could continue to compete in a global economy newly risen from the ashes of WWII.

#2.... says who? The world economy changed dramatically during the 90's and we benefited greatly from it when we gave up our smokestack economy and led the way in technology.

We lose when we make assumptions that the world somehow owes us global dominance and cling to old competitive ways. We win when we inovate and move forward.

For example, we could be leading the way right now into a new energy economy, if we didn't have the fossil-fuel industry running the White House.

Quote by: RVonse I pray that I am wrong but the only evolution that I can forsee is that: (1) Either 3rd world economies are going to have to "come up" to the US standard of living or (2)The US is going to have to adjust its standard of living downward to theirs. And I sincerely hope that it is the former and not the later.

Likely a combination of the two. Bare in mind that America's economic dominance is relatively recent and, in a sense, artificial. Coming out of WWII, America, untouched by the war, had turned into an industrial giant while the rest of the world would spend the next 20 years digging itself out of the debris. Here, labor could get pretty much anything it wanted because we were a manufacturing monopoly. However, once competition began developing, our workforce had priced itself out of the market. Hence the collapse of labor as an economic force.

Again, the world doesn't owe us the highest standard of living in the world, and unless we can continue providing something no one else can, we're going to have to accept some leveling of the playing field.... yes, both a rise in others and a lowering of ours to a more competitive level.


.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: tusaki Fine, my deduction would be that he implies the government lied about "the lack of skilled employment" first and about "the cost of labor" later. However, for the government to lie, they must first know it isn't true. The call for more skilled employment in the 80's was not limited to the US alone. I agree that the (any) government is too short sighted, and only willing to look a few days ahead. However, I do not think you can show me one study, published in the 80's which points out the problems of globalization and outsourcing. I think it is too simplistic to point a shaky finger to the government and say "they must have known!".

I think this is the perfect example of corporate politics leaving the Boardroom, and entering the public arena.


This was what corporate America wanted us to believe, this was the "official story" being trumpeted in the news on a fairly regular basis for many years.


No sooner than employers got the highly skilled workforce that they desired, they changed the rules of the game, and used special interest lobbying to forward legislation that would enable them to outsource (NAFTA, GATT, CAFTA...) the jobs because of highly skilled workers expect to be highly paid, and that is not in the interest of the Stockholders.


Ever wonder why we never needed these complicated "Free Trade Agreements" before late last century?


The problem is not only the government, who pass the legislation, but also the corporations who write it, and use unfair advantage (special interests lobbying) to forward their agenda by circumventing the traditional legal process.


Then there is the whole issue of the definition of the term "free trade" used by documents such as NAFTA, GATT, etc...


We learned that there two definitions of the term "Free Trade".


To talk to an economist, they would tell you that free trade means the ability of any person to buy any product from any other person without government interference, no matter where that person may reside.


The definition of "free trade" used in government documents such as N.A.F.T.A. , G.A.T.T. , the World Monetary Fund , and The World Trade Organization is quite different. They're definition of free trade specifically states that the products being produced are more mobile than the facility that creates them.


As we see in our current ecomy, they is a massive outflux of jobs leaving the U.S. for foreign shores, and it all seem to come from companies that trade on the Stock Exchange. The fact that they are responsible to show the most profit for the shareholders means they must seek the cheapest operating cost, witch means outsourcing to the cheapest product available. Many even move there factories, thereby violating the treaty we signed, and negating any good effcts it might have had here at home.


It is all very sinister.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Milton Bradley So today, I am sitting talking with friends, and Osborn walks into the room , and lays this bomb on all of us. "In the 80's, and 90', the big story being talked about on the news was America's unskilled workforce, and how it was hard to employ all the unskilled workers in todays high tech world. Fast forward to today, and the story has changed somewhat. Today, the highly skilled workforce costs to much to employ, so corporate America outsources the American job market to India, Pakistan, the Far East, and now Central, and South America." Proving, it behoovs one to pay attention to what is being said, even if it takes twenty five years to catch them in their lies, they can be caught. Discuss... And, now, back to your regularly scheduled disenfranchisment.

So it's an epiphany to Osborn that the world economic picture has changed since the 80s and 90s?? One has to wonder what rock Osborn has been living under to just now notice the changes that have been ongoing, constant, and driven by both major U. S. political parties with the common goal of an economic system that encompasses ALL nations, big, small and in between. GATT, NAFTA, AUSFTA, the WTO, MAI, out-sourcing of jobs, mass employment of "undocumented" aliens, and inumerable other economic "adjustments" have so far totally escaped Osborn's scrutiny?

The real epiphany is that any post by Osborn is now subject to increased scrutiny and skepticism based on his inability to demonstrate any degree of knowledge of current economic events, international treaties, and demographic changes. A huge loss of face here.

[Milton Bradley]

There is more to the story than just an understanding of economics. Political maneuvering, and unethical legislation also play a big part in this.


Ross Perot was one of the people trying to point this out. Not that he got a lot of help from the media spreading his message.


So the government should take no responsibility in allowing corporate America to outsource jobs?


There is also a certain irony about how the media managed to stay ahead of the curve on reporting the story that told of future corporate needs (high tech work force) so American's could prepare, but they managed to miss most of the stories about legislative loopholes that allow for corporate outsourcing of not only jobs, but the actual corporation, and its profits. I suspect they did not want us prepared to deal with the governments role in this.

[Osborn F Enready]

Zeebadee said:
So it's an epiphany to Osborn that the world economic picture has changed since the 80s and 90s??

I say:
No, actually Zee I was noticing how if you stepped outside the media box, and looked at things from a different angle, you notice things you may not have noticed otherwise. I was bringing out to debate, what I considered an intresting perspective on what "actually happened" with the economy, since we can now look back at large periods at our leisure, and compare what "actually happened" to the story the media was being fed by the political machine, and in turn feeding to the viewers.

Zeebadee said:
One has to wonder what rock Osborn has been living under to just now notice the changes that have been ongoing, constant, and driven by both major U. S. political parties with the common goal of an economic system that encompasses ALL nations, big, small and in between.

I say:
Yea, well the rock is called life. It is called having a job where you work too much, and make too little. A job that sucks up the overwhelming majority of your waking hours, and leaves little time for idle intrest seeking, let alone following along with the ACTUAL news, which is much harder to get than tuning in the boob tube to your favorite propaganda network. It's called normalcy now, to have no time to enjoy lifes simple pleasures such as watching, helping and teaching a child as they grow up. This is in what we call an "Advanced Society", where life is supposed to be made easier through the use of technology. Once the economy forced me to have some idle time, I obliged, and used that time by educating myself about the world around me, and how it affects me, and I affect it. It is impossible to do this without noticing how my own government has become one of the biggest liars I believe I have ever encountered.

Zeebadee said:
GATT, NAFTA, AUSFTA, the WTO, MAI, out-sourcing of jobs, mass employment of "undocumented" aliens, and inumerable other economic "adjustments" have so far totally escaped Osborn's scrutiny?

I say:
That is your assumption, because you have never "noticed" me posting about any of them. I made a subtle, in passing, vocal observation which Milton decided to share in the form of a thread on Volconvo, and now you want to attack me personally about my education (which you know nothing about, other than the little I have shared in this forum.) because I didn't happen to attach every possible angle that could remotely affect the situation in my statement? Sounds like you either had really, REALLY high expectations of me, or you have some type of personal grudge against me. Either way, your opinion of me is rather irrelevant to me.

I would say if you would like to solicit my opinion on something, please do. I will give you an educated opinion, or an off the cuff opinion, whichever you prefer.

Zeebadee said:
The real epiphany is that any post by Osborn is now subject to increased scrutiny and skepticism based on his inability to demonstrate any degree of knowledge of current economic events, international treaties, and demographic changes.

I say:
WOW, you surmised all that from reading a post, I didn't even type? You are pretty impressive! Do you have a 1-900 number like Ms. Clio? Do you have your own psychic hotline? To think you could make that statement now clearly lets me understand why I found it so pointless to use logic with you in other debate threads. Thanks for clearing that up.

ZeebaDee said:
A huge loss of face here.

I say:
ROFLMAO... as if I care. If certain people are so pretentious that casual generalized observations throw them into a tizzy, I would hate to see them watch an episode of Seinfeld. They would probably resemble the Tasmanian Devil cartoon character.

[castille]

Change happens. Life changes. Countries change. The world changes.

Deal with it.

[Samildanach]

Mexicans....mexicans are your comparative advantage.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready No, actually Zee I was noticing how if you stepped outside the media box, and looked at things from a different angle, you notice things you may not have noticed otherwise. I was bringing out to debate, what I considered an intresting perspective on what "actually happened" with the economy, since we can now look back at large periods at our leisure, and compare what "actually happened" to the story the media was being fed by the political machine, and in turn feeding to the viewers.

But that's not what the original post said. An epiphany is a sudden intuitive realization of some fact, not a look back in time to something that "actually happened". The original post says you walked into the room and dropped a "bomb" on everyone - "Hey, things aren't the same as they used to be". I, naively believing everything Volconvo posters say, took that at face value. Evidently this wasn't really an epiphany at all. 10,000 gomens.

[Osborn F Enready]

One mans junk is another mans treasure.

Guess it depends on how you feel about casual observations provoking thought.

I never even proposed a theory on why the situation evolved how it did. I have some of my own, and some of others that I believe hold some water. I never claimed to be an economist. If it were a free market, I wouldn't need to be.