Greenspan: Workers need more skills

[kalian]

http://cbs.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7BFE757538%2DEE6E%2D467B%2DB917%2D6E4F559BDEB9%7D&siteid=mktw

Protectionism is no answer to the "palpable unease" many workers feel about their job security, he said.

"The protectionist cures being advanced to address these hardships will make matters worse rather than better," he said.

Rather than bemoaning the job losses and shutting off trade, the only solution to outsourcing "is to boost the skills, and thus earning potential, of those workers lower on the skill ladder," he said.

"These workers will need to be equipped with the skills to compete effectively for the new jobs that our economy will create," Greenspan said.

...more...

:mad:
OK, this is just getting ridiculous. I mean.. :wtf: ?!
Its not about "boosting skills" or whatever...Americans are highly
trained. The issue here is that CORPORATIONS want to have CHEAPER
manual labor...whether it be making jeans or troubleshooting a
computer. What the hell is wrong with these people?! :mad:
So, I have to get DEEPER into debt to "upgrade" my skills yet I have
NO GUARANTEE that I will get a job that will permit me to start
paying off my "education" bills...
Pathetic...just plain pathetic...

[LuLu550]

1. just how much time does one need to

learn how to say "do you want fries with that?"

Did you hear how they want to call fast food jobs,"manufacturing jobs" because the workers assemble the burgers? I kid you not. Just saw it on Lou Dobbs.

[kalian]

5. Yup...I posted an article earlier in the day about that....

[david_vincent]

2. An alternative approach

would be to simply ban all legal holidays, thereby boosting
America's productivity.

<sarcasm>

[GOPFighter]

19. And weekends, don't forget weekends!

And next we can move to 10-hour workdays. Oh, there's so much room her for productivity gains!

[POed_Ex_Repub]

3. And I thought that was what my Computer Sience degree was for..

But what's the point if any skilled labor is just going to be moved offshore?

[Frangible]

4. Unfortunately for Mr. Greenspan

The US doesn't have an educational/skill advantage anymore. Protectionism isn't the best thing, no... BUT WHY DO WE HAVE TO GIVE TAX INCENTIVES FOR PEOPLE TO SELL OUT AMERICAN JOBS TO CHINA AND INDIA?

Arrrg.

Oh yeah, those new jobs being created? Burger flipping. Below the cost of living. Whoopty doo.

[lams712]

16. That's an important point that I hope will become part of the....

....mainstream discussion, the fact that wanting to CLOSE THE LOOPHOLES IN OUR TAX LAWS that allow corporations to set up shop overseas DOES NOT EQUAL "protectionism".

[peacetalksforall]

6. I had the impression that the key reason 'they' hated Clinton so much

was the economic one...he pushed for surplus and the net boom accelerated it and 'they' were scared that so many people were becoming wealthy.

'They' want us dumb, scraping, needy...with no time to know what they're doing. 'They' cannot allow a middle class.

[will work 4 food]

10. EXACTLY

'They' want us dumb, scraping, needy...with no time to know what they're doing. 'They' cannot allow a middle class. :argh:

[Momof1]

7. Please explain to me why all the displaced workers in my area

Are being trained on computers???

This doesn't make sense, if all the computer jobs are being out sourced.

AAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHH.........

So now what is the next skill that we need to learn, that won't be out sourced. Let me guess...get a job at the 700 Club.:eyes: :eyes:

[Demobrat]

8. The educational system in this country is part of the scam.

Can't get a job? Go to school. Still can't get a job? Go back to school. Still unemployed? Get another degree. Still can't find work? Oops, you picked the wrong career, better go back to school.

[kalian]

9. Bingo!

:toast:

[Art_from_Ark]

20. The problem is, all that schooling costs $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

and someone who is forced into that viscious circle you have so aptly described is going to run out of bucks sooner or later.

Of course, there's always Hamburger U.:argh:

[mhr]

11. BSEE, MBA, Commercial Pilot, Honorably Discharged Naval Officer

How much more training do I need Mr. Greenspan?

[yella_dawg]

12. BS Computer Science, MS Computer Science...

Does that mean a PhD will get me a job?

F**king asshole.

[ghengisjim]

21. Uhm nice degrees youve got there

So market yourself and get a job? Im confused and totally with Greenspan on this one. What are companies supposed to do? They are trying to maximize profit. Its capitalism, we have to compete with workers on a global market, just as corporations have to compete with other corporations on a global market.

[mhr]

26. Seems That You Are Really Out Of Step On This One

How does 1,430 resumes out the door strike you for marketing.

Have not heard from a company or headhunter in two years.

[ghengisjim]

38. man im really not digging on you

I have no idea why that is and I would love to find an answer. Software jobs are going overseas, I have heard that, because programmers from places like india are good and are willing to work for less. I really don't know what to say though --- if you have really sent out that many resumes and been looking around for a job with your credentials, well... Now I might start worrying for my own sake. But once again, I don't feel entitled to a job, I can't harp on that enough. If there is someone overseas that is willing to work for less than me in real wages, then by all means, they should be the one that is hired, not me.

[mhr]

46. So How Would You Expect To Pay Your Mortgage?

How would you put food on your family?

How would you pay for the auto?

etcetera,

Etcetera,

ETCETERA!

[ghengisjim]

51. We can only gripe about so much...

Without giving a suggestion for how we can solve these problems. Yes, jobs are leaving, and yes, to some extent, some of our workers are (lets face it) getting outcompeted. And please please dont take anything I say personally, I could very well have to deal with what many of you and other american workers are going through right now... But what do we do about it? I dont think the answer is protectionalism. And I dont think the answer is communism. So what is it?

[mhr]

53. How Can One Be "Outcompeted" For A Job That Has Left The Country

never to return.

There is no marketplace for world jobs because corporations can relocate capital but people are tied to countries and locales.

It is a false notion that any human can compete for any job anywhere when the rules of immigration and migration prevent movement.

There have been many documented stories over the last three years of high-tech workers forced to retrain their replacements and are then let go. Some of these more mobile workers sought the same job overseas to be told by the new host country that the job can only be filled by a native citizen. Search for examples yourself.

So in essence, the corporations have engineered a situation where their capital is free to roam the globe but labor is not. Hence the argument of being "outcompeted" is laid to waste. The workers never had a chance because the playing field IS NOT LEVEL.

I think many here understand your studies and how seductive the arguments look in black and white. However, those of us that live in the real world know those paper arguments for what they are - fancy hyperbole designed to snow the masses and dismiss objections.

If you are truly interested in economics, this forum has already provided you with enough grist for several PHD dissertations.

[mhr]

50. Continuing, One Educates Himself, Plays By The Rules, And Works Hard

By the reasoning presented, if one cannot find gainful employment then to bad so sad. This is the flaw in the argument.

The trickle down free traders don't account for all those that succeed personally but "the system" marginalizes and discards.

What would you have those of us in this situation do? The only conclusion to that question is that adherents of this theory expect us to die. We are obviuosly useless and expendable.

So in effect, the free traders and trickle down adherents have no concern for society and human beings, only commerce.

Their rallying cry is

Profit Today,
Profit Tomorrow, and
Profit Forever.

Humans be DAMNED!

[yella_dawg]

27. Ummm...

Do you have any clue what the demand is for a Senior Software Engineer? A good bit less than zero. If I had the money to relocate, to take classes, or whatever, it might be different, but I doubt it. Go back to listening to Rush.

[ghengisjim]

37. i DONT listen to rush

but why has no one really addressed my primary concern? Does everyone feel entitlement to a job? I don't!

[rapier]

13. code

He lied, of course. He didn't have the nerve to say the obvious. Low skilled workers, that would be 70% of workers, need to learn how to get by on lower pay. Much much much lower pay.

If workeers here could be trained to get by on $50 a month like Chineese workers then there wouldn't be all this moaning about stinking jobs. Al's "productivity miracle' starts and ends with lower wages.

When listening to this stuff remember this simple rule to decode what is being said. Productivity increase means lower wages. Retrained means lower wages. This code has been used successfully in order to make the economic realtites of the global economy palatable to voters. One may even agree that 'free trade' necessitates lower wages in the US and that this is a good thing. The thing is that voters in a democracy won't buy it. (Which is one reason why democracy will die) The main thing is that NOBODY can say out loud that lower wages for the majority are the ultimate result of these economic trends, for obvious reasons. To do so would be political suicide.

Being facetious I might suggest that workers learn phrases like "yes massa" or 'no massa' or if the boss let's you take a break in the shade with some watermelon on a hot summer day use 'this shore is libbin boss', to successfully integrate into the new order.

[ghengisjim]

24. so slavery = the result of free trade?

Look I am getting a degree in engineering so I am not going to be in the lower class, working class, but I DO NOT feel entitled to a job when I graduate. If there is someone from India that is willing to work for much less than me and do the same thing as me, then he or she should be the one getting the job, not me. Many people won't accept this fact because they do not have vision and only want job security in the short run. There is a tradeoff in the short run --- job security for productivity. But ultimately if you opt for job security now (in the short run), you short EVERYONE on job security in the long run. I don't understand this 'Its gone too far' approach to many of you. You are either a capitalist, and you understand the benefits of free trade and individual rights, or you are a socialist and you value job security in the short run over all else.

Just look at communist Russia. Their working class had job security... For a while. Then they were outcompeted by thriving capitalists, and now where has their precious job security gone?

Doesn't matter your party affiliation --- if you are objective about what is in our country's long term best interest, you say, free trade is a good thing. Global competition is a good thing. Productivity and increase in GDP is a good thing. Am I right?

[Sorry.]

31. race to the bottom

well, er no not really. Thing is 'free trade' is the west's panacea for everything, from low growth to under development. It hasn't (and doesn't) really worked that way. All of the major economies grew through proctecting their domestic industries from competition and domestic accumulation to invest in infrastructure and education. You used the example of the Soviet Union and it's an excellent one - it's one of very few nations to make a significant economic transformation inside one or two decades (1920s/30s, then again in the 1940s/50s). Why? Import substitution, selling huge quantities of raw materials to invest in new technology and drag the economy artificially into modernity.

You also have to place yourself in the realities of modern economics. It's easier than ever to move your manufacturing workforce (and increasingly your service workforce too) to somewhere cheaper. And there will always be workers more impoverished than you are, and willing to do the work for less. In that situation our hard fought worker's rights, social provision and minimum wage isn't worth shit, because its constantly undermined.

Western workers have rights because they're unionised and fought for them, not because wealthy capitalists decided to throw people a bone. And we stop fighting for them, then they'll rapidly dissapear. Productivity is meaningless if social inequality goes up and real wages go down - which is exactly what is happening

[amazona]

58. the halflife of an engineering degree is five years

Probably before your student loan is paid off, you will be out of a job and out of your career field...forever. Sorry. There is reason why "only fools and foreigners" major in engineering these days, as they say around here.

Give him time, folks. He hasn't met the real world yet. But he will.

Lord, yes, he will.

No one learns from someone else's bitter experience. Only time will teach.

[PA Democrat]

14. Yeah the skill of pyrokinesis

How would you be able to identify corporate CEO's, fat cat lobbyists, and their political enablers?

They would be the ones walking around with their own personal fire extinguishers.

[lams712]

15. Improving skills is good in theory, but it does NOT explain...

...what's going on in the world right now. There are now two basic types of job loss going on in the US to foreigners, and NEITHER have to do with a LACK OF SKILLS OF US WORKERS. The first kind is the manual labor factory-type jobs going to places like Taiwan, Singapore, Vietnam, Mexico, etc. IT'S NOT LIKE CORPORATIONS LEFT THE US BECAUSE OUR WORKERS LACKED SKILLS AND THE FOREIGN WORKERS HAD THEM (unless you count the ability to work for like a dollar a day, then I can proudly say that US workers do lack that "skill"). The second type (a situations very simliar to the first)is a little more highly skilled type work, like customer service and technical support jobs that are being outsourced to places like Ireland and India. But again, these jobs were not lost because of Americans lacking skills to do these jobs. They were lost because they could be done cheaper.

So ANYONE trying to blame US workers losing jobs due to "lack of skills" is leading the dicussion of policy prescriptions down a very blind alley.

[rapier]

18. notes

See my post above. I am not kidding in the least about Al using code, the 'lack of skills" thing being a part of it. This wasn't a real proposal. It is just pro forma BS because he cannot say what the truth is. Al and everyone with an ounce of sense know that more training is not the answer. Certainly Al knows that there is now almost zero computer code written in the US today. Huge numbers of those IT degreed American jobs of the last decade have been outsoruced. Caput. Just like that. In 4 years just gone. Who would have thunk it.
None of them have the balls to say outloud that Americans are paid too much. The only exception being when unions enter the discussion which is the ultimate code for bashing US workers.

I might have some respect for Al and economic/financial/political elite if they would at least have the honesty to admit they welcome lower wages, or at least accept that they are necessary and inevitable under current trends. But no, they lie and speak in code.

[ghengisjim]

22. That makes sense, but...

If we want to promote global capitalism, and a global increase in wealth and productivity, then we cannot say that American workers are entitled to jobs because they are American. If other workers are willing to work for cheeper elsewhere, then by all means, their standard of living goes up.

What are you advocating? REQUIRING that corporations have to hire American workers? And then get trounced by foreign companies on global markets? This argument doesn't make too much sense.

[jwcomer]

25. I take issue with the assumptions underlying your semantics

Why do people think globalization and "capitalism" are for the best? They are not the same as democracy, nor do they necessarily promote democracy. One is an economic system while the other is a political system. Unregulated capitalism and globalism will inevitably result in a form of totalitarianism similar to fascism but perhaps lacking in fanatical nationalism. Surely Democracy is the ideal which we want to foster, but by allowing globalism to be equated with democracy we have undermined that which IS in our best interest. America may have had a fast growing economy for the last 20 years relative to our more socialist inclined European colleagues, but it has been at a tremendous cost to our livilihoods in terms of health care and quality of life. Is that tradeoff ultimately worth it? Particularly considering that the benifits of that extra growth have gone almost entirely to a minority class of citizens. If we are ever going to reverse our present trends, we MUST change the semantics with which we frame the debate, or else we are doomed from the outset.

In summary, there are assumptions built into the sematics with which you have framed your questions. By accepting them at the outset, you have in effect begged the question and this is why "{the} argument doesn't make too much sense."

[ghengisjim]

29. I think capitalism is the best because it works

Capitalism promotes productivity and competition, and this competition is what makes it superior to socialism. I am very very resolute in this belief. And I totally disagree about you saying that pure capitalism leads to fascism. You must at the very least develop this idea a little bit before you say it as though it is an accepted fact. Pure democracy would seem to lead to fascism, not capitalism... Pure democracy is not a 2 party system, it is a 50 party system based on pure majority. Sounds like 1930's Germany to me.

I mean, what in the world can the economic system have to do with fascism? I want to believe you but I can't even give myself the chance unless you develop and explain an idea like that.

That's like saying that humans have better reading comprehension when they are moving their head towards the letters they are reading. What in the bloody ...

[lams712]

44. We have socialism NOW

It's a corporate-welfare socialism and our present economy would collapse without the government intervention. Capitialism is a failed economic system that hasn't existed since before the Great Depression. It had a tendency to severe boom and bust cycles, culminating in the biggest bust of all, the Great Depression. It took socialism to bring the economy back and to smooth out the boom and bust cycles (which we, of course, still have, but to a much lesser degree). It really comes down to a question as to what type of socialism are we going to have. We can have our current corporate-welfare form (which is really similar to National Socialism, i.e. fascism) or we can have a more democratic socialism which takes the needs of the vast majority of people into account in making these econommic/political decisions. I opt for the latter myself.

[lams712]

28. Most workers aren't necessarily "willing" to work cheaper.....

....they are exploited and live under repressive regimes that crush dissent and prohibit unionization. There's a reason why places like China, Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan, etc. are considered to have a "good business climate", and it's not because of the weather!!!!!

Also, I don't believe many progressives want to "promote global capitalism", fighting NAFTA, the WTO, etc. are a manifestation of a desire to NOT promote global capitalism. No country has developed their economy by embracing global capitalism. Looking throughout history, we can see many country that have developed their economy internally (Great Britain, the US, Japan, etc.). It was only when they had econmic power that they became "free traders" (like how the US is now).

Most "trade" takes palce between branches of multi-national corporations, so I'm not too worried about American companies "getting trounced in foreign markets", since that type of trade is not taking place.

[ghengisjim]

30. Who is to lose from global capitalism except special interests?

In our book there is a section on trade. It's a really good book, and I have to say, there is consensus amoung economists on this issue. Basically it states that free trade of resources, goods, and services (including labor), is in the best interest of all parties involved, except for some interests on both sides that lobby against free trade. But AS A HOLE, specialization and exchange is a wonderful thing.

I just don't understand how people think they are entitled to a job --- I certainly don't feel that way. As Americans we are not entitled to jobs. As humans we are not entitled to jobs. As people we are not entitled to anything other than as many rights as possible.

When there is a tariff on sugar, who loses out? Consumers. Who has something to gain? The corrupt suppliers of sugar who are selling sugar here for ten times the world's market price. Which is the actual price of sugar. Corruption, plain and simple.

[yella_dawg]

34. You don't seem to define free trade the way I do...

US corporations currently depend heavily on tax breaks, government R&D, various monetary incentives, in short, corporate welfare. Corporate fraud and illegal behavior of various sorts seem to pop up every time I look around. Corporations currently garner significant advantages from our government, with ever weakening restrictions, whether that be operational constraints such as environmental laws, or environmental constraints like good accounting practices, anti-trust restrictions and financial responsibility. Yet corporations are in trouble everywhere. Enron was only one of many that crashed in the last cycle. The airlines are in severe trouble. I suspect that genuine free trade, such as no governmental support other than globally bid contracts, no tax relief, no R&D support, would soon demonstrate that corporate business practices are hardly efficient. The infrastructure provided to US businesses are valuable beyond belief to daily operations. I wonder how Wal-Mart would fare if it had to operated in an environment where the government didn't actively support transportation through highways, energy cost containment, and so on.

You can't have it both ways. What you suggest is not free trade, but corporate fascism.

[idlisambar]

35. check this out

There is not complete consensus among economists even on free trade. The theory of comparitive advantage that you are reading about has serious problems, see this Powerpoint presentation...

http://debunking-economics.com/Download/free_trade.PPT

[ghengisjim]

36. That presentation was far from professional

And even further from believable.

Comparative advantage works --- Specialization and exchange work, and free trade works. I didn't make it all the way through when I realized that whoever made the slides was probably a pothead.

What public goods the government provide are available to all; big and small corporations alike. Sure, there are lots of examples of crony capitalism in large companies, and these issues need to be addressed. But overall, I don't see the government playing favorites to large corporations, although I haven't really been exposed to these tax breaks and such that you speak of.

[idlisambar]

45. all right

It's obvious you have already made up your mind for now and are unwilling to engage in meaningful searching.

Just so you know, the analysis made, if you had gotten to it, is not original to this "pothead" author, and if you become a serious student of economics you will encounter it again.

[ghengisjim]

47. why did you link me to that powerpoint presentation?

If that was the work done researching someone else's stuff, which is mainsteam, then why did it seem so unprofessional and simply thrown-together like they just skimmed over that Economics Debunked book the night before?

Yes, economics deals with models to describe what happens in the real world. When we describe acceleration due to gravity and do not account for air resistance, we do not throw out all classical work done on describing motion because our model is not exactly on par with reality.

That was part of his presentation --- he said, well.. economists assume everything is perfect, and their curves are concave. Well, NO crap, man, that's why they are economists and are using models. The guy's thesis was basically, well... The real world isn't quite like these models which try to describe the real world, so let's throw out all their models alltogether and start from scratch.

Im sorry if you authored that presentation.

[idlisambar]

52. Don't worry, I didn't author it

Actually the author of "Debunking Economics" did. I think he uses it when he gives presentations at conferences for non-economists. His style is a bit irreverent which puts some people off, but he knows what he is talking about. I think he may be working on a sequel to "Debunking Economics" which deals with the same points in book form.

The point you make about models and reality in economics is acknowledged, and is actually the subject of chapter 7 in "Debunking Economics".

...
...

If you are really interested, much of the slideshow's critique of comparative advantage is rooted in this paper I believe (there is no link to it that I know of)...

J.S. Metcalfe and I. Steedman, "Heterogeneous Capital and the Heckscher-Ohlin-Samuelson Theory of Trade", in Parkin, M. and Nobay, A. (eds.), Essays in Modern Economics, Longmans, 1973.

The HOS model is the modern version of Ricardo's original.

There are plenty of critiques of free trade/comparative advantage as well from the world of development economics...

http://homepage.newschool.edu/~AShaikh/globalizationmyths.pdf

[lams712]

59. Free trade works ONLY if both (or rather ALL ) countries...

....are at full employment.

Also, NO COUNTRY HAS DEVELOPED DUE TO FREE TRADE.
Great Britain, the US, Japan, etc. all developed their economies INTERNALLY first, then adopted "free trade" when their country's firm had market power.

The theory of free trade does work, but not in the REAL WORLD (yet).

As an old economics saying goes "...if the model and the world are in conflict, SO MUCH WORSE FOR THE WORLD...".

[lams712]

43. You're relying too much on textbooks, which give only a general idea.

The "textbook" example of trade does not exist the way Adam Smith first theorized it over 200 years ago with the "comparative advantage" theory. Most textbooks, when discussing trade (or any other economic issue) assume a full employment economy with a perfectly competetive market, WHICH DOES NOT EXIST IN THE REAL WORLD. Most industries are oligopolies who use trade as a means to extract natural resources and cheaper labor from foreign countries. The terms of trade are also based on inequal relationships. It is very specious as to who really benefits from trade admist the realities of inequalty. The textbooks are right in that the show what could happen under the right conditions, but those consitions do not exist in the real world, and may never have existed.

If Americans don't have jobs, they also have less $$$$ to buy stuff, lowering the level of effective demand, which leads to economic stagnation. We need good jobs here in the US, and I will support any candidate committed to that ideal.

[kalian]

39. Well...duh!

Seriously, people have spendt tens of thousands of dollars on
"higher education" just to be more "attractive" on their resume.
That money = DEBT.
People cannot accept lower wages since it would not be possible to
have a sustainable lifestyle. They have to pay off this debt...and
not to mention their mortgage, car payments and the ever present
credit card debt.

[Sorry.]

32. mobile capital doesn't help the third world

thing is that third world workers don't get a higher standard of living. They get whatever shit they're prepared to the job for. If those demands rise, or the workforce gets too militant, the jobs will go somewhere that cheaper and more obedient (see capital flight from Mexico right now for an example).

Bottom line - mobile capital vs static labour = stronger hand for capital = worse wages and worse conditions for everyone, third world workers included.

[kalian]

41. Actually....

it depends. For some, making 5 dollars per day is a fortune...and
that's the irony of the whole thing. Those people are quite content
for what these corporations are willing to pay them. The other
option is starvation...or selling off their children.
Seriously, we're viewing this with our cultural filters and thus
we think that its "bad" while for them...everything is "good".

I still believe though that the basice premise is that corporations
are out to screw everybody...except their shareholders.

Its the new paradigm shift in global economics...

[Sorry.]

49. a few people, for a short while

no cultural filters here. Just the realisation that a few years making $5 a day for a small proportion of the population doesn't balance out the fact that in the long run developing world labour is going to be hurt just as badly as we are by corporations playing static workforces off against each other.

And the solution for both us and them is the same. Strong, organised, militant labour forces to physically bully their employers into paying them what they deserve.

[rapier]

33. Why does Al lie?

This thread is for discussion of Al Greenspans comments on worker training.

I advocate that Al tell the obvious truth. That American wages, combined with benefits of course, are too high vis a vis the rest of the world and have to fall. That's all. He knows it. Most here know it in their guts to some degree.

Let's keep the discussion there. Not on the nature of what is called capitalism or delving into macro economics. There are plenty of other places here for that.

The point is of utmost importance. Even if you vehemently disagree that American wages have to fall can there be one iota of doubt that Al doesn't believe it? NO! It's too obvious using ANY classical or new wave economic analysis. If Al, or any politician or any financial or bussiness leader cannot state the truth as they see it what does that say?

Training my ass. What a load of crap. If he would say real income drops from the last 3 years for the lower4/5ths of workers are a good start, far better than the inflation adusted income stagnation of the previous 30 years, in making America competitive again but much much more needs to be done on this issue then I would laud Al for truth telling. I might not like it but let's have some truth.

I know of course, the truth is too awful. Even a totalitarian dictatorship would be hard pressed to keep order saying such a thing. People always expect more. In a system where voting still sort of counts saying such a thing is impossible. Yet the reality presages lots of trouble ahead for politicians and elites of all stripes. They will go to ANY length to mask the effect. The one being tried now is to inflate financial and especially residential real estate assets to offset the income drops. Oops, macro economics slipped in. Sorry.

[ghengisjim]

40. but macro is FUN

I dont know I can't help commenting on it. At this point I feel like a little kid delving into something new --- even though I know I am a strong capitalist at heart, I have just learned all these cool new terms and want to get discussing the concepts. Sorry

[kalian]

42. Because he has been instructed to do so by his masters....

just that simple really...

[ghengisjim]

48. I guess because he needs to?

Right now the Feds goal is to closely map Real GDP as close to potential GDP as possible. The FED is COMPLETELY autonomous from government policy. There are assurances built into the system to make this happen. Al is not calling GW up every night asking him what he can do to get GW reelected. Thats not how it works. So maybe he lies if he is lying to stabilize our Real GDP and get it closer to potential real GDP? Im not too sure.

[modrepub]

17. Can we outsource Alan and his kin?

Seriously, what new skills are these people talking about? This is almost as bad as the comment about workers needing to work longer before they can collect social security. Let's see old Alan pick up a shovel and dig some ditches or do some other manual labor. What a pompous ass...

[cap]

23. so maybe we should all join unions

and learn new skills and upgrade our existing ones!!!! :)


Somehow, I dont think thats what Greenspan and CEOs really want. This is wage busting pure and simple.

[Codeblue]

54. Well how can we really decrease

wages when the cost of living is higher than it has ever been? Even middle-class people are making just enough money...if wages decrease and the cost of living remains the same or increases, then quality of life goes down for everybody. Decreasing wages is not the answer I don't think. People in this country are already too poor, and only getting more poor by the minute.

[skippysmom]

57. Exactly

If wages fall, the cost of living has to fall. Otherwise you'll have a huge underclass and we'll look like a 3rd world country.

Because of course, the rich's wages won't fall.

[mhr]

55. Mass Layoffs In January See

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x385112

[duvinnie]

56. the "new repub economy"

will need lots of workers skilled in memorizing, people skills, and powers of
persuasion.

why? we will need good little missionaries soon in all those infidel countries
we are invading. isnt that what the brits did: after the infantry did the
dirty work, bring in the preachers to clean up and keep em in line?