The lack of compassion displayed by newcrasher is equaled only by his incisive rhetoric. Rather than badmouth those who have not experienced similar good fortune, your time might be better spent thanking your lucky stars.
The points made regarding labor flight to Asia are on the money. In the face of declining earnings and corporations’ slavish obeisance to the NYSE, item #1 on any CEO’s checklist for profit-making is cut costs!. Labor is the easiest expense to slash (everything from payrolls to benefits). The radical increase in labor productivity resulting from the hi-tech boom has made this step even more attractive. With Item #1 done, Big Money will rarely look deeper for the “real” cause of declining profits.
An observation about export of hi-tech service positions to India - double whammy attractive proposition to U.S. corps: 1) lower per-hour wages; 2) a better-educated and higher-motivated workforce. In the U.S., not only is the labor pool insufficiently trained (just check your county school system’s board scores), there is a distinct sense of entitlement among the educated elite that is at odds with the boot-strapping pioneer reputation newcrasher so eloquently identifies as the American ideal.
Also well-considered are the posts regarding “real” effect of public policy on the economy. Short-term is psychological and political, but as has been mentioned, long-term effects are in large part a sum of the short-term policy decisions. Don’t dismiss short-term, politically-motivated moves by a particular administration as “not real” in their impact on the economy. “Real” changes depending upon your frame of reference.
Indeed, government does not literally create jobs unless it opens hires more mail carriers. But what is being underestimated in these posts is the power government has over the environment in which corporations function. That environment can have a VERY real impact on job creation. OSHA standards and healthcare requirements are an excellent previously posted example. The government makes the regulations; in the current environment, corporations view those regulations as an impediment to reducing labor costs. Labor rights public policy has in this case had a very real impact on the reduction of jobs in a particular sector.
Am I saying there should be no U.S. labor standards? Christ, no - I like only working 40-wk with benefits. But when public policy ignores the consequences of government actions, we end up with things like two successive tax cuts resulting in a $470+billion deficit.
To those who claim that no administration really has a right to claim credit for growth and consequently no blame for decline, you need to re-read your history books. With the Clinton administration in particular, they inherited a tax increase levied by Bush I (which cost him reelection, mind you) and by demonstrating a commitment to services in exchange for maintaining that tax increase, they solidified the trust of the labor force in the administration. At the same time, an administration commitment to free trade and corporate tax incentives solidified the trust of business. Far from executing dollars-and-cents microeconomic meddling a la the Fed, the Clinton administration focused on the business environment factors over which it had real influence. In hindsight, the only blunder was that they trusted corporate America TOO much - that companies were responsible enough to self-regulate financially. What we got was Enron and WorldCom. It’s not unlike a teenager who asks “PLEASE, Mom, can I stay out until midnight”, and upon being granted permission promptly gets stoned and doesn’t show up until morning.
Bush II knows less about economics than my cat. His responses have been textbook conservate ideology. There will be no job creation in the environment this administration has fostered (in the U.S., that is). Come election time, we can best judge the incumbent by asking has he/she made it easier for people to achieve their goals, or harder. The answer on this one is pretty self-evident.
