Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • by ziggy (25) on 2004.08.08 12:39 (#33205) Journal
    Congratulations, JJohn. You are the recipient of my monthly plug for The Clock of the Long Now [amazon.com]!

    The reason why there is high unemployment is because of the business cycle. Whoever is in office can do very little to change that, and close to nothing during four years in office.

    The bad economy in 1992 was the result of plans and policies from the late 1980s. The seeds of change that Clinton put into place didn't really take effect until his second term. The long term economic instability that W had to deal with since 2001 were the result of policies from the Clinton administration and longer term trends that stretch back to the Reagan era and before.

    If the economy is going to recover by 2008, it will mostly be the result of stuff that is happening today, or policies of the W administration currently in effect. Voting for Kerry, Bush, Nader, LaRouche or Schwarzenegger won't change things very much. We'll still see outsourcing and offshoring, unskilled tech staff from the bubble years still out of work in the tech sector, and we'll still see severe pressures on Social Security and health care.

    It's not that choosing a President based on economic issues is pointless. It's important to remember that business and government work on two totally independant timescales. Just like Stewart Brand describes in the Clock of the Long Now. ;-)

    So choose based on which set of policies you prefer, not on who makes the better sounding promises for economic employment in the tech sector. Whatever anyone promises between now and November, all of them will be ultimately undeliverable.

    • You are the recipient of my monthly plug for The Clock of the Long Now!

      Thank you for the nod, Zig.

      Normally, I'd agree with you. Bush seems to be more culpable than other presidents for the regression in jobs, particularly in the tech market.

      • Rather than discourage or stay neutral, Bush has given tax credits for companies offshoring jobs
      • His Commerce Secretary Don Evans suggested that those who have lost jobs to offshoring "stop whining"
      • The U.S. Chamber of Commerce gives advice to companies
      • I respect your position, but I'm not going to get involved in the offshoring debate (again). It's an easy issue to take a shallow sound-bite of a position that is easy to express and fundementally wrong. I am not accusing you of being simple-minded here, but I've heard a lot of people equate no jobs at home == jobs going to India == very bad policy. And that bothers me.

        But offshoring is also about sending jobs to Ireland, Canada, Australia and elsewhere. Most detractors conveniently forget this part

      • Rather than discourage or stay neutral, Bush has given tax credits for companies offshoring jobs

        This is false. Those tax credits do exist, but they existed before Bush took office. Also, offshoring is a very small problem, accounting for 2.5% of major layoffs in 1Q 2004.

        And what would Kerry's plan do? It would tax foreign income right away, instead of allowing it to be deferred. Kerry would also LOWER the corporate tax rate, by 1.75 percent, and they would keep the tax credit that you're bemoaning, t