Posts filed under “Politics”
I recieved an email (several in fact) from a person all hot and bothered about the investment possibilities of outsourcing:
“This is a potential huge money maker! I’m going to invest in all these companies that are outsourcing, and make a mint!”
I don’t know how savvy an investment strategy that might be, as we are already deep into the outsourcing process. The low hanging fruit have already been picked. The same is probably true for the outsourcing firms themselves (although that is less conclusive).
But the questioner got me thinking about this issue from a research perspective. How can one find the companies — by region or industry — and quantify who is outsourcing? There are clear economic and political consequences of this issue.
In delving deeper into this, I discovered Job Tracker. The site claims to be able to able to track what companies are sending jobs overseas by ZIP code, industry or company.
It seems to be a pretty helpful tool — for politics, as well as financial research — if it works as advertised.
Heres their spiel:
Corporations increasingly are shipping U.S. jobs overseas, with America’s middle-class hardest hit. Since January 2001, the nation has lost 2.7 million manufacturing jobs, and some studies say 14 million white-collar jobs could be sent overseas in the years ahead.
Unfair trade deals and large tax breaks often encourage corporations to export jobs overseas.
I’d like to ask for some feedback on this: Is it helpful, complete, accurate. I’m curious as to how well this works.
Also of interest: Has organized labor actually gotten web savvy? That’s a big story in itself. I cannot recall ever seeing a significant usage of the internet by the AFL-CIO in this manner. Outsourcing is exactly the sort of bread and butter issue that would lend itself well to an internet based advocacy.
Let’s see how long it takes to get from my superficial observation and analysis to mainstream media discussion.
US website tracks job exporters
Indo-Asian News Service, September 18
I normally do not address anything 9/11 related on this day. I said my piece on it the day after, and prefer to leave it at that.
However, something I read yesterday struck a chord with me. The notoriously right wing Op-Ed pages of the WSJ has one of the most intriguing commentaries on this political race I have ever read. It is by Mark Helprin, a contributing editor at Wall Street Journal.
I approach anything on that page with a presumption that it will be coming from the far right wing of the political spectrum. That, in and of itself, does not make it wrong. Many of history’s most respected and intellectually rigorous thinkers were conservatives. Do not allow the present crew of charlatans and prevaricators to bias you against intelligent rhetoric, regardless of origin.
My own viewpoint tends towards the pragmatic. I prefer not to think in terms of left or right, but rather in the language of execution: competance versus incompetance, intelligent versus foolish. This leads me to hold some rather unusual viewpoints: I would much rather see a policy whose goals I disagree with — excepting extremes — executed competently, than have something I am in favor of hamhandedly mismanaged. Poor execution of a favorable goal actually does far far more damage than the crisp, well-executed policies I may be against, be they smartly done.
One need think no further than Iraq to understand this concept.
Which leads me to Helprin’s editorial: Competance is the key theme underlying his worldview. He writes of how unprepared we were for 9/11, despite the myriad warnings ignored by 4 Presidents. Even worse, three years after 9/11, he is essentially dumfounded that we have done nothing — or worse — to prepare for the next assault, all but guaranteed to be coming our way.
Finally, he finds the incompetance demonstrated by the present Commander-in-Chief — “in appearance a denizen of the Pleistocene, who recites slogans that he believes but does not understand” — to be frightening. Despite that, or perhaps because of it, he remains astounded that the challenger cannot articulate a message of our horrific vulnerbility in terms that are clear and persuasive. Given the current adminisitration’s failure to take the appropriate steps to protect this nation, it is simply dumfounding that his opponent is so mute.
An incendiary excerpt — none too flatterring to either candidate — is below:
“Our strategy has been deeply inadequate especially in light of the fact that we have refused to build up our forces even as our aims have expanded to the point of absurdity. We might have based in northern Saudi Arabia within easy range of the key regimes that succor terrorism, free to coerce their cooperation by putting their survival in question. Our remounted infantry would have been refreshed, reinforced, properly supported, unaffected by insurgency, and ready to strike. The paradigm would have shifted from conquer, occupy, fail, and withdraw — to strike, return, and re-energize. At the same time, we would not have solicited challenges, as we do now, from anyone who sees that although we may be occupying Iraq, Iraq is also occupying us.
We have abstained from mounting an effective civil defense. Only a fraction of a fraction of our wealth would be required to control the borders of and entry to our sovereign territory, and not that much more to discover, produce, and stockpile effective immunizations, antidotes, and treatments in regard to biological and chemical warfare. Thirty years ago the entire country had been immunized against smallpox. Now, no one is, and the attempt to cover a minuscule part of the population failed miserably and was abandoned. Not only does this state of affairs leave us vulnerable to a smallpox epidemic, it stimulates the terrorists to bring one about. So with civil aviation, which, despite the wreckage and tragedy of September 11, is protected in an inefficient, irresponsible, and desultory fashion.