Displaying 31 To 60 Of 125 Comments How Many US Jobs Can You Fit Inside This Cargo Container? C’Lady: Thanks very much for the kind words. I’m glad you commented because I’ve been ‘following’ you around the planet. (Hmm, that sounds a bit sinister, doesn’t it?) Anyway, your posts have been excellent. Just wanted to pass it along. Abby, and you, are correct about imports (and exports) creating jobs in this country. These are often good, high-paying jobs. No disagreement here. But a manufacturing job is different in that by its very existence, it creates other jobs — purchasing, engineering, etc. That’s why I think mfg jobs are so important. As to your question on immigrants in containers, I could not find any statistics — though I did look. You are correct, we don’t look for people in containers. Neither do we do a good job of looking for contraband or theats, either. Other countries don’t need nuclear missiles to deliver a bomb to our shores. All they need is an uninspected cargo container. » Posted By SequimBob2 On April 2, 2011 @ 6:48 pm You brought a giant smile to my face with this post. A friend and I get together to talk about investments once a week. We’ve been following investment service that provides recommendations. They have a great track record with a very high success ratio with their picks. My friend was upset because one of the recommended stocks went down. “But the other stocks are ahead,” I told him. He said, “Yeah, but I want to win on everyone.” Ahh, the human condition. Thanks for sharing. » Posted By SequimBob2 On April 1, 2011 @ 1:08 pm Abby: You are correct. “Free Trade” is a word of art that has a specific meaning for professionals in the trade. (Hmm, accidental pun.) Anyway, the issue for me is jobs within our borders. I tended to use the term Free Trade interchangeably with global trade. My focus was not duty or tariff-focused. Jobs have moved offshore because some companies needed to do that to survive. Other jobs moved offshore because of their corporations’ desire to be global in focus and capability. Other jobs moved off shore in search of higher returns. And still other jobs moved off shore because it was simply easier to do it that way and obtain a higher ROI. I believe our country has a vital interest in retaining jobs here. Obviously, to do so it has to make business sense. We’re all answerable to accountants — well, everyone but Washington. I advocate investing in automation and high technology in order to keep jobs here at home. If job producers in this country only have allegiance to higher profits, then I believe the jobs picture in this country will remain dark and gloomy. » Posted By SequimBob2 On April 1, 2011 @ 12:16 pm Hi, PW: I did run into some info along the lines of what you’re talking about. To be honest, though, I seemed to find more questions than answers. One thing I tumbled upon was the belief that GDP numbers are overstated due to higher levels of imports than have been measured. This goes to the issue that we don’t truly have our arms (or numbers) around the behemoth (thank you, WTS) that is global trade. For example, the computer industry accounted for a significant amount of the growth during the late 2000’s, yet one source I found says that we are actually losing marketshare due to the and that the growth being reported is a false signal due poor measurements. To Abby’s point earlier, computers contain a lot of offshore components — to the point that they are really more of transshipment than domestic production. If the numbers aren’t accurately reported, we get false signals from our economic atltimeter. As I mentioned to Abby, I’m not sufficiently informed to speak to tariffs, but my instinct is that corporations are manipulating the system to maximize their profits and minimize their tax exposure. Given the number of major corporations that manage to pay no taxes, I suspect they are equally adept at keeping the tariff man at bay. The other thing I ran across that might be of interest were that virtually all of the government projections regarding the job-creation impact of TARP appeared to be off dramatically. (Reality appears to have been much lower than projections.) I was stunned to find that economists can’t seem to agree on much of anything — to include the best way to calculate GDP. My belief is that we entered the global trade arena in a higher ocean than our competitors. With the advent of globalization, the US ‘economic’ water will seek out its own level. Unfortunately, that means we will be raising the boats of other countries, but we are lowering our own. » Posted By SequimBob2 On April 1, 2011 @ 11:47 am Abby: Welcome! I am delighted to have a “trained professional” here to help with the discussion… and keep me straight. As I began doing the research for my math project, the factors bearing on the problem became complex pretty quickly. What I soon realized is that we do not necessarily measure the right things. So there are data gaps in our economic instrument panel. Exports and trade certainly create jobs, but a manufacturing job loss is a bit of an iceberg. It’s all the “other” jobs… those beneath the surface… purchasing, supplier jobs, engineering, contracts, management, accounting, HR, etc., that are also lost when products are moved offshore. I think of it as an economic eco system. I’m not bashing service jobs, so I hope that was not what you took away from the piece. I’m criticizing the easy surrender of our manufacturing jobs to other countries. I’m criticizing the idea that we can have a truly healthy economy without manufacturing. I’m also advocating for an industrial policy that helps keep manufacturing jobs in this country. (I used to work in Flint, MI and have seen what happens when jobs leave.) I really can’t speak to tariffs and their impact on trade, but I hope you will. In the end, my point is this. We import two trillion dollars worth of goods into this country. Some of these imports create jobs, but I think for the most part the result of imports is a loss of US manufacturing jobs. Some of these jobs were destined to depart with advent of global trade. Others, I think, could have been saved if we, as a country, had a more effective industrial policy — and if our leaders truly valued the importance of these jobs and their contribution to our society. Unfortunately, we are governed by a the-markeplace-is-the-best-policy-maker philosophy. While this approach certainly works for corporations, I don’t think it works so well for America as a whole. Thanks so much for adding to the debate. » Posted By SequimBob2 On April 1, 2011 @ 11:16 am My objection is not so much with Free Trade as with the commonly held belief that we did not need to manufacture things in this country. Germany took a different path and their government worked with industry to retain a viable manufacturing base. Germany’s competitive edge comes in the form of quality, high-end, high quality goods. This approach has worked for them. In the US, we just abandonned the field — choosing to make money by moving it around. Not too long ago the best and brightest graduating from top schools chose finance over manufacturing. (Two guys at a bar are hitting on the same lady. One says he’s a hedge fund manager. The other says he is a manufacturing plant manager. All things being equal, the plant manager will probably be watching pay-per-view as the hedge fund manager and his ‘date’ go out on the town.) Manufacturing was, and still is, not considered sexy. More importantly, it is not considered essential. A non-US company bought out the manufacturing company I worked for. They would send in their execs and tell us we needed to be buying off shore that we could get cheaper components overseas. We were constantly fending off efforts to out-source our in-house work (and jobs) as well. Everything was finance and accounting-driven. I always felt my job was to employ Americans, buy and build American. Mine was a minority view. » Posted By SequimBob2 On April 1, 2011 @ 10:38 am Cher: Thanks for the reply. When you get a moment, please check out the following “Crisis” letter to the President: http://www.scribd.com/doc/13043261/Crisis-Letter-to-President I found a lot of interesting information during my ‘container ship’ journey. This graph-filled letter was particularly on-target and comprehensive. I think you’ll enjoy reading through it. » Posted By SequimBob2 On April 1, 2011 @ 10:11 am Kesmarn: I posted my reply to your post as a direct comment to the article rather than you. Sorry for the error. Anyway, I tried to answer your question. Nice chatting with you on the topic. » Posted By SequimBob2 On April 1, 2011 @ 8:09 am Agrippa: I do think automation represents an opportunity for the US. You are correct; we can’t compete on touch-labor cost to touch-labor cost, but we can innovate and automate. That automation would allow us to bring jobs back into this country. Some argue that automation defeats the purpose that we’re replacing people with robots, but we need people to engineere, build, maintain support the robots (forgive Orwellian comparison). Equally important is that some of the subcomponent parts can come back to the US as well. It’s doable, if not likely You are also correct about the resistance to establishing an industrial policy that upsets the status quo. As I mentioned in the post, if you are top corporate exec or part of the top 1%, the current system is working just fine for you. » Posted By SequimBob2 On April 1, 2011 @ 8:05 am WTS: One of the reasons I included the photo of the ship sailing by our local lighthouse was that it captured the sheer size of the ships. Ours is NOT a small lighthouse and the ship is not terribly close to it, so the comparison is somewhat reduced from reality. The ships are just huge. » Posted By SequimBob2 On April 1, 2011 @ 7:56 am Kesmarn: Re: Outsourcing and loss of technical jobs as well You make a great point. When we export a product’s manufacture overseas, we not only lose the touch labor to produce the item, we lose the supporting engineering, program management, marketing, accounting, purchasing, warehousing, IT and HR jobs that supported the touch labor job. The ironic thing about the idea of wealth redistribution (from rich to poor) — the ‘socialist monster’ that the Tea Party and right wing so love to demonize is that a reverse wealth redistribution is the reality. Chernynkaya has covered this extremely well in her recent DP postings. In answer to your specific question, I favor corporations and the wealthy paying their fair share of taxes. I don’t think of it as wealth redistribution, but I guess some would argue that it is. When a nation’s wealth is concentrated in the hands of only a few, it’s not a good thing and that is exactly where we are today. I had the pleasure and privilege of doing a lot of work with other countries. I remember when we sent a proposal to Indonesia and the propspective customer sent three engineers to ask questions about our technical proposal. These guys were incredibly bright and extremely well prepared. No work came of the job. They were simply attempting to gather intel to assist them in doing the job “in-house.” Same experience in dealing with Koreans and Chinese. By the time I finished answering their questions, they knew more about my proposals than I did. My point is that a lot of policy makers believed that other countries were not capable of taking our high-tech work. They assumed that the ‘easy’ touch labor jobs would be what went overseas. Fact is, the folks overseas are highly educated and willing to work hard and more than capable of taking both our low tech AND high-tech jobs. We need an industrial policy in this country. We need our politicians to quit fighting about whether or not a plant is union or non-union and worry more about whether or not there is a plant at all. Thanks for responding to the post. » Posted By SequimBob2 On April 1, 2011 @ 7:52 am WTS: BTW, I failed to mention how much I really like the art you chose for your post. The pic causes me to pause every time I see it… a powerful piece and a good choice. » Posted By SequimBob2 On April 1, 2011 @ 1:55 pm Yeah, ’tis with some chagrin that I find myself on the same side of the aisle as Mr. Alito. If you ever hear me agree with Clarence Thomas, however, I’d appreciate it if you would send in an intervention team. 🙂 As for where we go from here, I’m just anxiously waiting for the 2012 polls to open. I’ll be there with as many neighbors as I can muster. I don’t relish the prospect of living in Kochville, USA. In the meantime, I’ll continue to think… ponder… and consider the thoughts of others as I orbit the planet. What a great site! » Posted By SequimBob2 On March 29, 2011 @ 11:29 am WTS: Compliments on inspiring a lot of thoughtful discussion with your post. I’ve been thinking about censorship of late following the Supreme Court ruling on the Westboro protest case. The fact is I’m still thinking and pondering… and thinking some more. I can’t imagine anything I would find much harder than burying a child — unless that act required me to first run a gauntlet of protesters with signs reading, “Thank God for Dead Soldiers” and such. In his dissent with the majority ruling, Justice Alito said, “In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims…” I agree with Alito, but maybe this is the proverbial slippery slope I’ve always been warned about. Still thinking. Thank you. » Posted By SequimBob2 On March 29, 2011 @ 3:11 am KQuark: Disingenuous on whose part? I provided the website, you can drill down in the budget as far as you would like. It goes to twenty-three pages in case you are curious. Here is the first drill-down… [+] Military defense 737.5 billion Disingenuous would have been to use the number and NOT disclose that it contained other related costs — such as VA benefits. In response to your other points… I don’t begrudge VA benefits to any vet. I am a vet. My wife retired from the VA, so I know a bit about the organization. That said, when the country is being told that we can’t afford Medicare and Social Security, I think it is fair to ask folks to look at the total cost of the military — to include pensions, VA benefits, etc. As for ideology, I’m up front with it. I think taxes need to be raised on corporations. I think if we are going to go to war the American people should be asked to pay for it. I think we spend entirely too much on Defense. And, yes, I’m a huge fan of teachers. In short, I have a POV. Finally, for you to tell me what I would or would not ‘begrudge’ is presumptuous. For you to allege half-truths is offensive. I am entirely capable of being wrong. I make mistakes. When brought to my attention I try and correct them and learn from them. I also try to make a positive contribution to the discussion on this site. I also try to treat everyone, and their ideas, on this site with respect. If you believe I’m wrong on a point, so state if you wish, but kindly limit your attacks to my ideas, not my character. » Posted By SequimBob2 On March 28, 2011 @ 1:40 pm Cher: Amazing post today. Isn’t it incredible what you can accomplish once you decide to give up sleep? I appreciate your continuing to drive home the message about the budget caper being pulled off in Congress. The debt and deficit has been manufactured to convince Americans that Social Security and Medicare must be cut. This position is being taken as an absolute truth — like the gravitational pull of planets. Well, there is more than one major body in our budget orbit — and while entitlements are part of the equation without a doubt, take a look at the one nobody is talking about… [+] Pensions…….$805.6 Billion *Includes foreign military aid, Veterans benefits, foreign economic aid The above are from the President’s proposed 2012 budget. Re: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/united_states_total_spending_pie_chart#usgs302F0 Corporate tax rates (as a percentage of GDP) have been cut in half. See: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/08/tax-base-as-of-gdp/ Restore these tax collection rates and the annual deficit would be sliced by almost half. OK, here are my questions (you know I always have questions): (1) Are Dems afraid of the tax argument? There are other alternatives to simply slicing entitlements. We could, for example, reconsider whether we in this country would rather have healthcare — or continue on as the world’s policeman. (2) Why is Defense apparently off the table? (3) Why is there so little messaging coming from the Dems on these issues? I feel like a not-too-bright boxer who is getting pummeled in the ring and my manager keeps telling me to lower my guard more ’cause the other guy is getting tired. As always, thanks for what you do. » Posted By SequimBob2 On March 28, 2011 @ 10:09 am Cher: Re: Palin — a handful of questions for you. What took so long for the Palin star to fall to earth? Is it that the GOP establishment deemed her more threat than base-motivating asset and turned on her? How big a factor was the post Tucson speech? Is she any less popular amongst her base — or simply viewed as unelectable? What about her following? Will the Palinites simply move over to Bachmann for their daily dose of Freedom-Liberty-God-Bless-America speeches? » Posted By SequimBob2 On March 27, 2011 @ 11:39 am Cher: I’d like to add a couple of more charts to your most excellent collection. » Posted By SequimBob2 On March 26, 2011 @ 8:24 am Hi, Cher: LOVED the charts, graphs and stats on income, wealth and taxes. Great job! You’d think with all these facts out there that the Dems could convince folks that: (a)We’re not broke; we’re just subsidizing the super wealthy, and (b) that restoring sensible tax rates in this country will not kill jobs. We had the Bush Tax Cuts for eight years. The cuts didn’t create jobs, yet the myth remains stronger than steel. » Posted By SequimBob2 On March 25, 2011 @ 7:50 am Now that’s funny! lol » Posted By SequimBob2 On March 29, 2011 @ 7:59 pm An Argument Against US Intervention in Libya First, Caru, my apologies for diverting the discussion somewhat away from your points. KQuark: I think you and I are focused on different aspects of the action. I’m looking at things more from a tactical level. Many of your points are more strategic and global. I agree with your point that tie-downs in Iraq and Afghanistan change the equation. I was, admittedly frustrated, by the President’s no-boots-on-the-ground position because I saw that as forcelosing tactical options. I apologize for giving you the impression I was advocating a full-fledged ground war with lots of troops. I do think since the US chose to get involved that we ought to put advisers and Special Operations Forces on the ground and provide C-130 gunship and A10 support. Perhaps other nations will fill the adviser and special forces role as you suggested. As I understand it, the rebel force movements have ground to a halt. Rebels in Khadafi-friendly cities are at risk. I still think this situation has the potential of getting uglier on the ground than we’ve seen thus far. With that, sir, I withdraw from the field. Take care. » Posted By SequimBob2 On March 25, 2011 @ 3:18 pm I don’t have the impression the US is ‘wringing hands.’ We haven’t lost anything as yet, although by making the move the President is certainly more exposed politically. The US did not go in alone, so I’m not sure about the point you are making. As for the credibility issue, this President is under attack from so many directions… so I do worry about it. Allow me the privilege of worrying, OK? 🙂 » Posted By SequimBob2 On March 25, 2011 @ 2:57 pm Not changing the tune, although I may. I’m still working through this whole thing. Anyway, I wasn’t clear. I’m not advocating infantry battalions or brigades. Sorry for the confusion. My bad. As for Special Forces, I’m OK with SAS. Not familiar with CIGN. I’m just sayin’ when the President said “no ground forces,” he foreclosed an option that tactically I’d like to have seen held open. Understand why he did it. I’m all for it not always being the US, so I agree with you on that point. » Posted By SequimBob2 On March 25, 2011 @ 2:51 pm The President has a number of things right in the prosecution of this effort. He got the Arab League on board — at least at the start. He got UN and NATO participation, so he did what he could to minimize the US-invading-another-Arab-country criticism. The President said that Khadafi must go. When he did this, he put his credibility on the line. Given the US resources in comparison to other participant countries, militarily we are still the 800LB gorilla on this venture. I just don’t think he accomplishes much by saying, “The Canadians in charge.” It appears to me we are taking and failing to take military action based upon politics. The President has to take politics into consideration; I don’t. From a pure tactics standpoint — as I read the tea leaves, the Libyan rebels do not have the training, logistical support and military hardware to advance. The only thing protecting the rebels from total military defeat is “coalition” air power. I’m having trouble seeing a successful end game that fits the President’s stated timeline. I feel the same way about Libya as I did about the first IRAQ war. We should have gone on in to Baghdad then, but we pulled back due to political considerations. The result. We fought that war twice and we’re still in Iraq. As for Kosovo, I think Libya is a different tactical and military situation. Tell me how you think air power alone can bring the conflict to a close — without Khadafi accidentally ending up under a cruise missile strike. In a protracted stalemate situation, I think the rebels lose and that which we hoped to avoide (civilian casualties) will be the result. To be clear, I’m not advocating putting traditional ground forces on the ground, but I do think Special Forces teams would go a long way toward bringing the conflict to a speedier close. In fact, I’d be surprised if they aren’t already there. » Posted By SequimBob2 On March 25, 2011 @ 1:12 pm KQuark: Nice to hear from you. I’m a devotee of the Powell Doctrine. This probably comes from my being Viet Nam era vet. Here’s the doctrine: “[w]hen a nation is engaging in war, every resource and tool should be used to achieve decisive force against the enemy, minimizing US casualties and ending the conflict quickly by forcing the weaker force to capitulate.” As I mentioned previously, I’m not sure that the President made the right decision in going in. Having made it, however, I believe we should put boots on the ground – no half measures. Having said this, here are my as-yet unanswered questions (also part of the Powell Doctrine: – What US vital national security interest threatened? » Posted By SequimBob2 On March 25, 2011 @ 12:26 pm Caru: Thank you for publishing this. Like you, I share your uncertainty about the course of action we have taken. Popular opinion seems to be on the side of having taken the action — for humanitarian reasons. And it may turn out to have been the right thing to do, but I’m skeptical. Murphy’s law is alive and well in all military conflicts. What I am 100% certain about is that this half-assed military approach (air campaign only) that we’re taking is a really bad idea. If countries could win wars from the air, they wouldn’t spend all that money on armies.) The President seems to want to keep a two-arm-length distance from the engagement. That may work in politics (although I doubt it), but it doesn’t work on the battlefield. Where’s the Powell Doctrine when we need it? Wars are easy to get into, notoriously hard to get out of — and even harder to control. But unlike Poker, if we’re not all-in, we are not likely to be successful. I suspect one casualty of this latest war will be President Obama’s credibility. The paper veneer that we’re not pulling the strings on this war already has a few holes in it. And this nonsense about not targeting Khadafi. He’s a military commander thus he’s a target and the President went so far as to say he had to go. So, if we’re going to do this, let’s go do it. No half measures. » Posted By SequimBob2 On March 25, 2011 @ 7:00 am Cher: Let’s say the Republicans are unable to beam Scotty up for another term as Wisconsin Governor. He will have become a martyr for the Right-Wing cause and will be retired to a heaven-like job at a designated Koch brothers controlled organization. His allegiance doesn’t appear to be to the electorate. Scotty serves a higher power. BTW, did you see this news? 2) PLUM LINE: Huffington Post yanks Breitbart from front page » Posted By SequimBob2 On March 24, 2011 @ 1:38 pm Cher: So why is The Huffington Post giving him [Breitbart] a platform? ANS: The same reason HuffPo covers Sarah Palin’s nonsense tweets, the generation of ‘clicks.’ It has to be all about the Benjamins, ’cause Breitbart brings nothing the journalism table — other than perhaps being a walking study of racism. Re: Buyer’s Remorse — I hope there is a severe case of voter remorse setting in, but I’m skeptical. Two years after Republican policies wrecked the economy, voters put them back in charge of the House. Voters fell for the “Trust us; we’re all about jobs” and “Government is the problem” scams. » Posted By SequimBob2 On March 24, 2011 @ 8:19 am Some Not Very Strong Arguments Against Action in Libya K7: I’ll begin by saying I’m not sure if the President made the right call or not on going into Libya. I will say, from my perspective, that the President has failed to make the case for war to the American people. A compelling US national interest has not been explained — at least to my satisfaction. I object to the actions in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan for a number of reasons. One major reason is that the American people are not being asked to pay for any of these wars We are simply amassing more debt at a time when McConnell and Boehner keep declaring the country to be broke. If any circumstance is important enough for this country to go to war or take military action, then I want to be taxed right-up front for the cost. In fact, I want all Americans to get an immediate bill for the wars. When they get their paychecks and see a larger withholding, I want them to be asking whether or not “it is worth it.” Your comment about fighter pilots ‘loving to mix it up’ struck me as off. I’m not a fighter pilot, but was a ‘cannon cocker’ and a paratrooper in a prior life. I participated in several three-week exercises in which every single year 16 or 17 died — just playing with the toys. It’s a dangerous profession and you are correct that those in it understand its dangers. I do not think that most who join or remain in the service do so to ‘mix it up,’ but rather choose the military for the close-knit culture, camaraderie and the sense of a higher purpose. I believe that too much of our nation’s resources are expended on Defense. The US spends $665B a year while Canada gets by with only $21B. So, when the nation is talking about cutting Medicare and Social Security for millions of its citizens, I think cost is a relevant issue — and a valid basis to object to military actions. I think what bothered me the most about the approach you took with your post is that you were discounting (more than countering) people’s concerns or objections about the action in Libya. Perhaps their concerns are not fully fleshed-out. Perhaps their objections are even incorrect in some respects. But here’s the thing, as a guy who has been told (without prior warning) to be ready to move a platoon to the airport in 90 minutes for deployment to the Middle East, I like people being troubled. I like their questions and objections. These are a valid part of a system which you and other commenters noted, isn’t working very well. Next to last comment. Maybe we should be in Libya. If so, I would be very interested to hear the rationale and basis — more so than counters to people’s concerns. So, go ahead, educate me. Last comment. I feel strongly we should have never gone into Iraq the second time. I think we got there because people were not skeptical enough of the reasons being given for going to war. When people express concerns about Libya — which is literally just days old, they are working through it in real time. They may come around to your point of view eventually — or they may not. Either way, expressing one’s doubts, concerns and objections is a healthy part of the process. OK, allow me one bonus comment: Presidents can spend soldiers’ lives, but only the American people, by paying attention, can make sure he spends them wisely. » Posted By SequimBob2 On March 22, 2011 @ 4:58 pm “While it is a relief to see Arizona realizing that bigotry is bad for business, it is not the end of harsh, shortsighted laws.” Cher, as noted in your post, the rejection of the proposed anti-immigration laws by the AZ legislature has less to do with rejecting bigotry and more to do with the economics of ensuring a ready and cheap labor source. Big business stepped in and reminded AZ lawmakers who funds their election campaigns. » Posted By SequimBob2 On March 22, 2011 @ 8:54 amComments Posted By SequimBob2
[+] Veterans 124.7 billion
[+] Foreign military aid 14.9 billion
[+] Foreign economic aid 48.1 billion
[+] Health Care….$866.1 Billion
[+] DEFENSE……..$925.2 Billion*
– Do we have a clear attainable objective?
– Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
– Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
– Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
– Is the action supported by the American people?
– Do we have genuine broad international support?
«« Back To Stats Page
Home Stats