Still Hating America.

[Replaced_Texan]

So a small dispute arose in Katy, Texas (not Houston). A muslim group wanted to build a community center on property they bought. They asked a guy if he could move the cattle he'd had grazing on that land to move it. He thought they'd asked him to move. Guy got pissed off. So he started holding pig races on his farm on Fridays to irritate the Muslims. Muslims said "we don't really care. We just don't eat pigs. Racing them isn't going to bother us."

Story embarrassingly (for those of us who live near Katy, Texas) hits the national press.

With something like this, sooner or later, the Daily Show gets wind and has fun. They were here a few days ago, shooting footage of the pig races (complete with sausage on a stick).

According to the Houston Press, the guy is fairly optimistic that he'll come out looking Ok.

Baker says he knows what The Daily Show is all about, but -- somehow -- he thinks he won't be made to look a fool in the report.

Correspondent Rob Riggle, he says, "came out and had a blast. I don't know how it's going to come off, but Rob had a great time. He was quite hilarious because he was standing out here and messing with -- because the Muslims had a service that day, and he was standing out there on the corner shaking his fist at them back. It was hilarious...He was like, 'Hey man, are they trying to flip me off? Hey motherfucker!' I was like, 'Whoa.'"

One assumes that the Half Hour News Hour is quick to follow up this story.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
What point? The point that some people lose because of free trade.

That wasn't his point. He was hypothesizing that 90% of the population loses under free trade, and asking why they should support free trade. I don't know for sure, but I bet he'd agree that the true number is south of there.

If you're going to write such a long post, you might as well try to include something that responds to the person you're ostensibly talking to.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
Put a cork in it. I am actually learning something here.

See? That's totally inappropriate for this board.

[SlaveNoMore]

taxwonk
I don't really expect they'll ever come knocking on my door. But then, I'm not a panic-stricken, bloodthirsty lunatic looking for a scapegoat.

That being said, it might be prudent not to open your door if stranger's come a' callin':

Two cousins were arrested Wednesday on federal charges of conspiring to wage holy war against Americans overseas, including U.S. military forces in Iraq.

Zubair A. Ahmed, 27, of suburban North Chicago, and Khaleel Ahmed, 26, of Chicago, were accused along with three other men who already had been under indictment on charges of plotting acts of terrorism against Americans overseas.

The fresh indictment returned by a grand jury in Cleveland added the two Chicago-area men to the roster of defendants and brought additional charges against the three other men....

[Tables R Us]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Unlike Tables, I'm willing to assume that the gains from free trade outweigh the losses, for the country as a whole. I didn't think he was suggesting that 90% of the population would lose out -- I understood his post as presenting that hypothetical to make more real the fact that there will be many losers, and that they have a political voice.

Yes, Spanky did not address my point. India and China intend to provide engineering services, legal services, medical services, financial services, and other sophisticated services from abroad using broadband. GE started offshoring some IP legal work; other companies have offshored engineering services. This will only spread. If US professionals (like attorneys) have to compete with Indian professionals making 20% of US wages, they will suffer. There won't voluntarily accept lower wages, so they'll vote against this. It's not like they can all become upper level management at big companies and make as much as they did before. They'll be screwed.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
Yes, Spanky did not address my point. India and China intend to provide engineering services, legal services, medical services, financial services, and other sophisticated services from abroad using broadband. GE started offshoring some IP legal work; other companies have offshored engineering services. This will only spread. If US professionals (like attorneys) have to compete with Indian professionals making 20% of US wages, they will suffer. There won't voluntarily accept lower wages, so they'll vote against this. It's not like they can all become upper level management at big companies and make as much as they did before. They'll be screwed.

Sophisticated Indian counsel doesn't make 20% of US wages.

Their rates are on par with Detroit.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That wasn't his point. He was hypothesizing that 90% of the population loses under free trade, and asking why they should support free trade. I don't know for sure, but I bet he'd agree that the true number is south of there.

If you're going to write such a long post, you might as well try to include something that responds to the person you're ostensibly talking to.

The first thing I pointed in my post is that the people hurt by free trade is at most ten percent. That was a direct response to his post. In my last post I pointed out there was no reason the losers should support free trade but everyone else should. Again, a direct response.

If you are going to comment on my posts you should at least read them, or if you do read them make an attempt to comprehend what they say.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
Yes, Spanky did not address my point. India and China intend to provide engineering services, legal services, medical services, financial services, and other sophisticated services from abroad using broadband. GE started offshoring some IP legal work; other companies have offshored engineering services. This will only spread. If US professionals (like attorneys) have to compete with Indian professionals making 20% of US wages, they will suffer. There won't voluntarily accept lower wages, so they'll vote against this. It's not like they can all become upper level management at big companies and make as much as they did before. They'll be screwed.

Yes, such professoinals will suffer. But everyone else that has to use such services will benefit. The cost saving will make our system much more efficient, and will free up money that will create all sorts of new jobs. Yes these professionals will fight this trend but hopefully the majority of Americans that benefit from it will not let the the professionals create artificials barriers to defend their inflated billables.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
The first thing I pointed in my post is that the people hurt by free trade is at most ten percent. That was a direct response to his post. In my last post I pointed out there was no reason the losers should support free trade but everyone else should. Again, a direct response.

He posed a hypothetical. You fought it instead of answering it.

Everyone here went to law school. It's not like we haven't seen that tried before.

[Tables R Us]

Originally posted by Spanky
Yes, such professoinals will suffer. But everyone else that has to use such services will benefit. The cost saving will make our system much more efficient, and will free up money that will create all sorts of new jobs. Yes these professionals will fight this trend but hopefully the majority of Americans that benefit from it will not let the the professionals create artificials barriers to defend their inflated billables.

Sooooo, people in unionized manufacturing jobs lose, people in high-end white collar jobs lose. Who wins? If you are saying the only people that win are upper management and superstar inventors, actors, musicians, etc, then you are re-shaping the economy in a way that leads to massive inequality and isn't politically viable without marginal tax rates of 70% or 90% to redistribute money from them to everyone else. Soooo, I repeat, are you willing to have that level of income and wealth redistribution? The natives are getting restless about free trade and immigration. They will protect themselves. Maybe with protectionism. Maybe with very heavy progresive taxation. Maybe with something else. But they will protect themselves.

Rich people aren't going to get a free lunch. You're an economist, you know there's no such thing as a free lunch.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tables R Us
Sooooo, people in unionized manufacturing jobs lose, people in high-end white collar jobs lose. Who wins? If you are saying the only people that win are upper management and superstar inventors, actors, musicians, etc, then you are re-shaping the economy in a way that leads to massive inequality and isn't politically viable without marginal tax rates of 70% or 90% to redistribute money from them to everyone else.

He doesn't have to be able to tell you what industries will grow to pick up that slack to be right, you know.

And more importantly, if you think corporate America (and the rest of the world wanting access to U.S. capital) will ever outsource more than it most routine work overseas, you are kidding yourself.

[Tables R Us]

Originally posted by Adder
He doesn't have to be able to tell you what industries will grow to pick up that slack to be right, you know.

Creating new jobs won't do any good. The problem is that India and China target ALL high value jobs. And they have huge numbers of poor workers that will chase them. They will bid down the returns on almost ALL labor relative to capital.

Originally posted by Adder
And more importantly, if you think corporate America (and the rest of the world wanting access to U.S. capital) will ever outsource more than it most routine work overseas, you are kidding yourself.

China and India are counting on them doing just that. Last Sunday's edition of Barron's says China expects 30% of US white collar jobs to be offshored.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
He posed a hypothetical. You fought it instead of answering it.

Everyone here went to law school. It's not like we haven't seen that tried before.

Okay. i just read an interesting article on global warming. It turns out that as the salt water sea levels rise, fresh water levels will fall. Hypo: If this had happened 40 years earlier would Teddy Kennedy be elected President in 1972? Hint- think what will happen with brackish waters.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Adder
He doesn't have to be able to tell you what industries will grow to pick up that slack to be right, you know.

And more importantly, if you think corporate America (and the rest of the world wanting access to U.S. capital) will ever outsource more than it most routine work overseas, you are kidding yourself.

As work is outsourced, the Indian middle class gets healthier and healthier and more able to sustain growth on its own. India (to a much lesser extent China) is a place a company can both develop a market and hire lower cost labor. And there are plenty of strong Indian Companies - one of them just bought the Ritz in Boston.

[Tables R Us]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
As work is outsourced, the Indian middle class gets healthier and healthier and more able to sustain growth on its own. India (to a much lesser extent China) is a place a company can both develop a market and hire lower cost labor. And there are plenty of strong Indian Companies - one of them just bought the Ritz in Boston.

Most workers do their saving over a career of 30 years. If wages equalize 10 or 20 years from now, many workers and all retirees who depemd on them are screwed. If wages equalize more than 30 years from now, almost all current workers are screwed.