Offshoring: It's Not Fair

[mg]

Why should a company have to move its facilities to a
foreign country to get lower employee costs when it's so
much easier just to import third-world immigrants to the
U.S.?




-----------------------------------------
The commission finds no national interest
in continuing to import lesser-skilled
and unskilled workers to compete in the
most vulnerable parts of our labor force.
Many American workers do not have adequate
job prospects. We should make their task
easier to find employment, not harder.
-- Barbara Jordan, Chairwoman U.S.
Commission on Immigration Reform

[wolfbat359]

Post by mg
Why should a company have to move its facilities to a
foreign country to get lower employee costs when it's so
much easier just to import third-world immigrants to the
U.S.?
-----------------------------------------
The commission finds no national interest
in continuing to import lesser-skilled
and unskilled workers to compete in the
most vulnerable parts of our labor force.
Many American workers do not have adequate
job prospects. We should make their task
easier to find employment, not harder.
-- Barbara Jordan, Chairwoman U.S.
Commission on Immigration Reform

I thought you said Dems liked Immigration????

[mg]

On Thu, 10 May 2018 14:02:52 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359

Post by wolfbat359

Post by mg
Why should a company have to move its facilities to a
foreign country to get lower employee costs when it's so
much easier just to import third-world immigrants to the
U.S.?
-----------------------------------------
The commission finds no national interest
in continuing to import lesser-skilled
and unskilled workers to compete in the
most vulnerable parts of our labor force.
Many American workers do not have adequate
job prospects. We should make their task
easier to find employment, not harder.
-- Barbara Jordan, Chairwoman U.S.
Commission on Immigration Reform

I thought you said Dems liked Immigration????

That was tongue-in-cheek; I was just kidding.

[El Castor]

Post by mg
On Thu, 10 May 2018 14:02:52 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359

Post by wolfbat359

Post by mg
Why should a company have to move its facilities to a
foreign country to get lower employee costs when it's so
much easier just to import third-world immigrants to the
U.S.?
-----------------------------------------
The commission finds no national interest
in continuing to import lesser-skilled
and unskilled workers to compete in the
most vulnerable parts of our labor force.
Many American workers do not have adequate
job prospects. We should make their task
easier to find employment, not harder.
-- Barbara Jordan, Chairwoman U.S.
Commission on Immigration Reform

Barbara Jordan has been dead for 20 years.

Post by mg

Post by wolfbat359
I thought you said Dems liked Immigration????

That was tongue-in-cheek; I was just kidding.

Of course Dems like immigration. Dems thrive on lower class, poorly
educated, not terribly bright voters. A flood of Hispanic labor is
their meat and potatoes. 27.3 million Latinos were eligible to vote in
2016, and moree every day.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/14/key-facts-about-the-latino-vote-in-2016/

Problem is, US Blacks are waking up to the fact that those Latinos are
taking their jobs. Kanye West speaks out and Trump's numbers are up
among Blacks. Ironically, some Latinos support him because those
already here see their jobs being taken by new arrivals. Dems need to
wake up.

[mg]

On Thu, 10 May 2018 23:49:43 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Thu, 10 May 2018 14:02:52 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359

Post by wolfbat359

Post by mg
Why should a company have to move its facilities to a
foreign country to get lower employee costs when it's so
much easier just to import third-world immigrants to the
U.S.?
-----------------------------------------
The commission finds no national interest
in continuing to import lesser-skilled
and unskilled workers to compete in the
most vulnerable parts of our labor force.
Many American workers do not have adequate
job prospects. We should make their task
easier to find employment, not harder.
-- Barbara Jordan, Chairwoman U.S.
Commission on Immigration Reform

Barbara Jordan has been dead for 20 years.

Post by mg

Post by wolfbat359
I thought you said Dems liked Immigration????

That was tongue-in-cheek; I was just kidding.

Of course Dems like immigration. Dems thrive on lower class, poorly
educated, not terribly bright voters. A flood of Hispanic labor is
their meat and potatoes. 27.3 million Latinos were eligible to vote in
2016, and moree every day.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/14/key-facts-about-the-latino-vote-in-2016/
Problem is, US Blacks are waking up to the fact that those Latinos are
taking their jobs. Kanye West speaks out and Trump's numbers are up
among Blacks. Ironically, some Latinos support him because those
already here see their jobs being taken by new arrivals. Dems need to
wake up.

Yes, I think that's true. Here are a couple of example articles:

Black American Leadership Alliance Marches on U.S. Capitol to Protect
American Jobs
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/black-american-leadership-alliance-marches-on-us-capitol-to-protect-american-jobs-210998401.html

Civil Rights Leader: Illegal Immigrants Hurt The Black Community
http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/21/civil-rights-leader-illegal-immigrants-hurt-the-black-community/

[Gary]

On Thu, 10 May 2018 23:49:43 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Thu, 10 May 2018 14:02:52 -0700 (PDT), wolfbat359

Post by wolfbat359

Post by mg
Why should a company have to move its facilities to a
foreign country to get lower employee costs when it's so
much easier just to import third-world immigrants to the
U.S.?
-----------------------------------------
The commission finds no national interest
in continuing to import lesser-skilled
and unskilled workers to compete in the
most vulnerable parts of our labor force.
Many American workers do not have adequate
job prospects. We should make their task
easier to find employment, not harder.
-- Barbara Jordan, Chairwoman U.S.
Commission on Immigration Reform

Barbara Jordan has been dead for 20 years.

Post by mg

Post by wolfbat359
I thought you said Dems liked Immigration????

That was tongue-in-cheek; I was just kidding.

Of course Dems like immigration. Dems thrive on lower class, poorly
educated, not terribly bright voters. A flood of Hispanic labor is
their meat and potatoes. 27.3 million Latinos were eligible to vote in
2016, and moree every day.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/14/key-facts-about-the-latino-vote-in-2016/
Problem is, US Blacks are waking up to the fact that those Latinos are
taking their jobs. Kanye West speaks out and Trump's numbers are up
among Blacks. Ironically, some Latinos support him because those
already here see their jobs being taken by new arrivals. Dems need to
wake up.

Blacks are waking up. At first they thought the illegals were simply
destroying America's culture. Which didn't bother them. But they are
now seeing that all these Latinos are taking jobs from black people.
Now.. they are upset !

[El Castor]

Post by mg
Why should a company have to move its facilities to a
foreign country to get lower employee costs when it's so
much easier just to import third-world immigrants to the
U.S.?

Companies "offshore" administration to avoid state and federal taxes,
labor laws, and regulation, and in some cases get access to a higher
quality work force. That will probably decline in view of Trump's tax
cuts. Farming out manufacturing to foreign sources, like Foxconn, is
often the only way a company can compete in terms of product price
with foreign competition. Importing foreign factory workers won't
work. Foxconn, Apple's subcontractor that assembles iPhones, pays
Chinese workers $2.50 an hour, and they put in 60 hours a week. We
have laws. That couldn't happen here. But, Foxconn recently replaced
60,000 workers with robots. Maybe that could happen here.

[mg]

On Thu, 10 May 2018 23:26:54 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
Why should a company have to move its facilities to a
foreign country to get lower employee costs when it's so
much easier just to import third-world immigrants to the
U.S.?

Companies "offshore" administration to avoid state and federal taxes,
labor laws, and regulation, and in some cases get access to a higher
quality work force. That will probably decline in view of Trump's tax
cuts. Farming out manufacturing to foreign sources, like Foxconn, is
often the only way a company can compete in terms of product price
with foreign competition. Importing foreign factory workers won't
work. Foxconn, Apple's subcontractor that assembles iPhones, pays
Chinese workers $2.50 an hour, and they put in 60 hours a week. We
have laws. That couldn't happen here. But, Foxconn recently replaced
60,000 workers with robots. Maybe that could happen here.

Imagine if every single country in the world had a Foxconn-type of
manufacturing plant, or perhaps a many of them, what would that do to
wages? Or if every person on the planet had to compete with people all
over the world for a job, how low would world-wide wages be?

In the US, is the only reason that people like you and me and many
people on this newsgroup were able to live the good life was that we
didn't have to compete worldwide?

[El Castor]

Post by mg
On Thu, 10 May 2018 23:26:54 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
Why should a company have to move its facilities to a
foreign country to get lower employee costs when it's so
much easier just to import third-world immigrants to the
U.S.?

Companies "offshore" administration to avoid state and federal taxes,
labor laws, and regulation, and in some cases get access to a higher
quality work force. That will probably decline in view of Trump's tax
cuts. Farming out manufacturing to foreign sources, like Foxconn, is
often the only way a company can compete in terms of product price
with foreign competition. Importing foreign factory workers won't
work. Foxconn, Apple's subcontractor that assembles iPhones, pays
Chinese workers $2.50 an hour, and they put in 60 hours a week. We
have laws. That couldn't happen here. But, Foxconn recently replaced
60,000 workers with robots. Maybe that could happen here.

Imagine if every single country in the world had a Foxconn-type of
manufacturing plant, or perhaps a many of them, what would that do to
wages? Or if every person on the planet had to compete with people all
over the world for a job, how low would world-wide wages be?
In the US, is the only reason that people like you and me and many
people on this newsgroup were able to live the good life was that we
didn't have to compete worldwide?

Problem is, we don't live in isolation. Apple sells more than half of
it's iphones overseas. If Apple had to make them here they would cost
far more, most Americans couldn't afford one, and Apple couldn't sell
overseas because Samsung and Chinese companies would price them out of
the water. Result -- there would be no Apple. We need robots.

[mg]

On Fri, 11 May 2018 12:46:01 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Thu, 10 May 2018 23:26:54 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
Why should a company have to move its facilities to a
foreign country to get lower employee costs when it's so
much easier just to import third-world immigrants to the
U.S.?

Companies "offshore" administration to avoid state and federal taxes,
labor laws, and regulation, and in some cases get access to a higher
quality work force. That will probably decline in view of Trump's tax
cuts. Farming out manufacturing to foreign sources, like Foxconn, is
often the only way a company can compete in terms of product price
with foreign competition. Importing foreign factory workers won't
work. Foxconn, Apple's subcontractor that assembles iPhones, pays
Chinese workers $2.50 an hour, and they put in 60 hours a week. We
have laws. That couldn't happen here. But, Foxconn recently replaced
60,000 workers with robots. Maybe that could happen here.

Imagine if every single country in the world had a Foxconn-type of
manufacturing plant, or perhaps a many of them, what would that do to
wages? Or if every person on the planet had to compete with people all
over the world for a job, how low would world-wide wages be?
In the US, is the only reason that people like you and me and many
people on this newsgroup were able to live the good life was that we
didn't have to compete worldwide?

Problem is, we don't live in isolation. Apple sells more than half of
it's iphones overseas. If Apple had to make them here they would cost
far more, most Americans couldn't afford one, and Apple couldn't sell
overseas because Samsung and Chinese companies would price them out of
the water. Result -- there would be no Apple. We need robots.

I think that one could probably divide wage earners in the US into two
types; those who have to compete against foreign competition of one
sort or another and those who don't. Manufacturing has been one type
of work in which American workers have had to compete for a long time
now, since at least the mid-70s, I suppose.

However, there are other types of work, besides manufacturing, where
Americans have to compete and there are types where they don't, or at
least not very much. In general, I suppose government jobs, for
example, have traditionally been one type of work in which Americans
haven't had to compete with foreign workers.

If you were advising a grand child in high school on career choices,
now days, how would you advise him?

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by mg
On Fri, 11 May 2018 12:46:01 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Thu, 10 May 2018 23:26:54 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
Why should a company have to move its facilities to a
foreign country to get lower employee costs when it's so
much easier just to import third-world immigrants to the
U.S.?

Companies "offshore" administration to avoid state and federal taxes,
labor laws, and regulation, and in some cases get access to a higher
quality work force. That will probably decline in view of Trump's tax
cuts. Farming out manufacturing to foreign sources, like Foxconn, is
often the only way a company can compete in terms of product price
with foreign competition. Importing foreign factory workers won't
work. Foxconn, Apple's subcontractor that assembles iPhones, pays
Chinese workers $2.50 an hour, and they put in 60 hours a week. We
have laws. That couldn't happen here. But, Foxconn recently replaced
60,000 workers with robots. Maybe that could happen here.

Imagine if every single country in the world had a Foxconn-type of
manufacturing plant, or perhaps a many of them, what would that do to
wages? Or if every person on the planet had to compete with people all
over the world for a job, how low would world-wide wages be?
In the US, is the only reason that people like you and me and many
people on this newsgroup were able to live the good life was that we
didn't have to compete worldwide?

Problem is, we don't live in isolation. Apple sells more than half of
it's iphones overseas. If Apple had to make them here they would cost
far more, most Americans couldn't afford one, and Apple couldn't sell
overseas because Samsung and Chinese companies would price them out of
the water. Result -- there would be no Apple. We need robots.

I think that one could probably divide wage earners in the US into two
types; those who have to compete against foreign competition of one
sort or another and those who don't. Manufacturing has been one type
of work in which American workers have had to compete for a long time
now, since at least the mid-70s, I suppose.
However, there are other types of work, besides manufacturing, where
Americans have to compete and there are types where they don't, or at
least not very much. In general, I suppose government jobs, for
example, have traditionally been one type of work in which Americans
haven't had to compete with foreign workers.
If you were advising a grand child in high school on career choices,
now days, how would you advise him?

If I had a grandchild, I would advise him/her to pursue what they had a passion for and become an expert at it and not worry about wages. Take whatever they offer. Within reason of course. You need some goal that you can actually reach. Don't run for president of the US. It's a waste of time. If you like something that is taught in a trad school, go there first and maybe college later when you have a basic understanding of what is going on. That way you don't have to study too hard and will get good grades.

[mg]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by mg
On Fri, 11 May 2018 12:46:01 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Thu, 10 May 2018 23:26:54 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
Why should a company have to move its facilities to a
foreign country to get lower employee costs when it's so
much easier just to import third-world immigrants to the
U.S.?

Companies "offshore" administration to avoid state and federal taxes,
labor laws, and regulation, and in some cases get access to a higher
quality work force. That will probably decline in view of Trump's tax
cuts. Farming out manufacturing to foreign sources, like Foxconn, is
often the only way a company can compete in terms of product price
with foreign competition. Importing foreign factory workers won't
work. Foxconn, Apple's subcontractor that assembles iPhones, pays
Chinese workers $2.50 an hour, and they put in 60 hours a week. We
have laws. That couldn't happen here. But, Foxconn recently replaced
60,000 workers with robots. Maybe that could happen here.

Imagine if every single country in the world had a Foxconn-type of
manufacturing plant, or perhaps a many of them, what would that do to
wages? Or if every person on the planet had to compete with people all
over the world for a job, how low would world-wide wages be?
In the US, is the only reason that people like you and me and many
people on this newsgroup were able to live the good life was that we
didn't have to compete worldwide?

Problem is, we don't live in isolation. Apple sells more than half of
it's iphones overseas. If Apple had to make them here they would cost
far more, most Americans couldn't afford one, and Apple couldn't sell
overseas because Samsung and Chinese companies would price them out of
the water. Result -- there would be no Apple. We need robots.

I think that one could probably divide wage earners in the US into two
types; those who have to compete against foreign competition of one
sort or another and those who don't. Manufacturing has been one type
of work in which American workers have had to compete for a long time
now, since at least the mid-70s, I suppose.
However, there are other types of work, besides manufacturing, where
Americans have to compete and there are types where they don't, or at
least not very much. In general, I suppose government jobs, for
example, have traditionally been one type of work in which Americans
haven't had to compete with foreign workers.
If you were advising a grand child in high school on career choices,
now days, how would you advise him?

If I had a grandchild, I would advise him/her to pursue what they had a passion for and become an expert at it and not worry about wages. Take whatever they offer. Within reason of course. You need some goal that you can actually reach. Don't run for president of the US. It's a waste of time. If you like something that is taught in a trad school, go there first and maybe college later when you have a basic understanding of what is going on. That way you don't have to study too hard and will get good grades.

Yes, indeed. It goes without saying that people have to enjoy the work
they do. It's no picnic getting up every morning and going to work
when the alarm goes off, year after year, especially if you don't like
your job.

However, given the situation with H-1B Visas, I wouldn't advise a
grand child to major in any of the "STEM" careers, for instance:

"H-1B visas make STEM careers unattractive to American students"
http://www.machinedesign.com/blog/h-1b-visas-make-stem-careers-unattractive-american-students

[islander]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by mg
On Fri, 11 May 2018 12:46:01 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Thu, 10 May 2018 23:26:54 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
Why should a company have to move its facilities to a
foreign country to get lower employee costs when it's so
much easier just to import third-world immigrants to the
U.S.?

Companies "offshore" administration to avoid state and federal taxes,
labor laws, and regulation, and in some cases get access to a higher
quality work force. That will probably decline in view of Trump's tax
cuts. Farming out manufacturing to foreign sources, like Foxconn, is
often the only way a company can compete in terms of product price
with foreign competition. Importing foreign factory workers won't
work. Foxconn, Apple's subcontractor that assembles iPhones, pays
Chinese workers $2.50 an hour, and they put in 60 hours a week. We
have laws. That couldn't happen here. But, Foxconn recently replaced
60,000 workers with robots. Maybe that could happen here.

Imagine if every single country in the world had a Foxconn-type of
manufacturing plant, or perhaps a many of them, what would that do to
wages? Or if every person on the planet had to compete with people all
over the world for a job, how low would world-wide wages be?
In the US, is the only reason that people like you and me and many
people on this newsgroup were able to live the good life was that we
didn't have to compete worldwide?

Problem is, we don't live in isolation. Apple sells more than half of
it's iphones overseas. If Apple had to make them here they would cost
far more, most Americans couldn't afford one, and Apple couldn't sell
overseas because Samsung and Chinese companies would price them out of
the water. Result -- there would be no Apple. We need robots.

I think that one could probably divide wage earners in the US into two
types; those who have to compete against foreign competition of one
sort or another and those who don't. Manufacturing has been one type
of work in which American workers have had to compete for a long time
now, since at least the mid-70s, I suppose.
However, there are other types of work, besides manufacturing, where
Americans have to compete and there are types where they don't, or at
least not very much. In general, I suppose government jobs, for
example, have traditionally been one type of work in which Americans
haven't had to compete with foreign workers.
If you were advising a grand child in high school on career choices,
now days, how would you advise him?

If I had a grandchild, I would advise him/her to pursue what they had a passion for and become an expert at it and not worry about wages. Take whatever they offer. Within reason of course. You need some goal that you can actually reach. Don't run for president of the US. It's a waste of time. If you like something that is taught in a trad school, go there first and maybe college later when you have a basic understanding of what is going on. That way you don't have to study too hard and will get good grades.

If you are setting a course for your life, it doesn't hurt to set lofty
goals. As in navigating, you can set your course by the north star,
knowing that you will never reach it, but at least you are going in the
right direction.

The difficulty that a lot of kids have in my experience is that they
don't know how to synthesize a plan on how to proceed. Simply following
one's passion doesn't tell a kid what the first step might be. They
need to understand that a lofty goal is accomplished in small steps
including many that might fail. Success is taking that first step,
followed by another and another, all headed toward a life goal.

Otherwise, I disagree with you about settling for a supposed "easy"
school. I found that the best schools have the best teachers and other
support for students. The best schools are the easiest IMV.

[El Castor]

Post by islander

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by mg
On Fri, 11 May 2018 12:46:01 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Thu, 10 May 2018 23:26:54 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
Why should a company have to move its facilities to a
foreign country to get lower employee costs when it's so
much easier just to import third-world immigrants to the
U.S.?

Companies "offshore" administration to avoid state and federal taxes,
labor laws, and regulation, and in some cases get access to a higher
quality work force. That will probably decline in view of Trump's tax
cuts. Farming out manufacturing to foreign sources, like Foxconn, is
often the only way a company can compete in terms of product price
with foreign competition. Importing foreign factory workers won't
work. Foxconn, Apple's subcontractor that assembles iPhones, pays
Chinese workers $2.50 an hour, and they put in 60 hours a week. We
have laws. That couldn't happen here. But, Foxconn recently replaced
60,000 workers with robots. Maybe that could happen here.

Imagine if every single country in the world had a Foxconn-type of
manufacturing plant, or perhaps a many of them, what would that do to
wages? Or if every person on the planet had to compete with people all
over the world for a job, how low would world-wide wages be?
In the US, is the only reason that people like you and me and many
people on this newsgroup were able to live the good life was that we
didn't have to compete worldwide?

Problem is, we don't live in isolation. Apple sells more than half of
it's iphones overseas. If Apple had to make them here they would cost
far more, most Americans couldn't afford one, and Apple couldn't sell
overseas because Samsung and Chinese companies would price them out of
the water. Result -- there would be no Apple. We need robots.

I think that one could probably divide wage earners in the US into two
types; those who have to compete against foreign competition of one
sort or another and those who don't. Manufacturing has been one type
of work in which American workers have had to compete for a long time
now, since at least the mid-70s, I suppose.
However, there are other types of work, besides manufacturing, where
Americans have to compete and there are types where they don't, or at
least not very much. In general, I suppose government jobs, for
example, have traditionally been one type of work in which Americans
haven't had to compete with foreign workers.
If you were advising a grand child in high school on career choices,
now days, how would you advise him?

If I had a grandchild, I would advise him/her to pursue what they had a passion for and become an expert at it and not worry about wages. Take whatever they offer. Within reason of course. You need some goal that you can actually reach. Don't run for president of the US. It's a waste of time. If you like something that is taught in a trad school, go there first and maybe college later when you have a basic understanding of what is going on. That way you don't have to study too hard and will get good grades.

If you are setting a course for your life, it doesn't hurt to set lofty
goals. As in navigating, you can set your course by the north star,
knowing that you will never reach it, but at least you are going in the
right direction.
The difficulty that a lot of kids have in my experience is that they
don't know how to synthesize a plan on how to proceed. Simply following
one's passion doesn't tell a kid what the first step might be. They
need to understand that a lofty goal is accomplished in small steps
including many that might fail. Success is taking that first step,
followed by another and another, all headed toward a life goal.
Otherwise, I disagree with you about settling for a supposed "easy"
school. I found that the best schools have the best teachers and other
support for students. The best schools are the easiest IMV.

... and also, affordable. (-8

[islander]

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by mg
On Fri, 11 May 2018 12:46:01 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Thu, 10 May 2018 23:26:54 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
Why should a company have to move its facilities to a
foreign country to get lower employee costs when it's so
much easier just to import third-world immigrants to the
U.S.?

Companies "offshore" administration to avoid state and federal taxes,
labor laws, and regulation, and in some cases get access to a higher
quality work force. That will probably decline in view of Trump's tax
cuts. Farming out manufacturing to foreign sources, like Foxconn, is
often the only way a company can compete in terms of product price
with foreign competition. Importing foreign factory workers won't
work. Foxconn, Apple's subcontractor that assembles iPhones, pays
Chinese workers $2.50 an hour, and they put in 60 hours a week. We
have laws. That couldn't happen here. But, Foxconn recently replaced
60,000 workers with robots. Maybe that could happen here.

Imagine if every single country in the world had a Foxconn-type of
manufacturing plant, or perhaps a many of them, what would that do to
wages? Or if every person on the planet had to compete with people all
over the world for a job, how low would world-wide wages be?
In the US, is the only reason that people like you and me and many
people on this newsgroup were able to live the good life was that we
didn't have to compete worldwide?

Problem is, we don't live in isolation. Apple sells more than half of
it's iphones overseas. If Apple had to make them here they would cost
far more, most Americans couldn't afford one, and Apple couldn't sell
overseas because Samsung and Chinese companies would price them out of
the water. Result -- there would be no Apple. We need robots.

I think that one could probably divide wage earners in the US into two
types; those who have to compete against foreign competition of one
sort or another and those who don't. Manufacturing has been one type
of work in which American workers have had to compete for a long time
now, since at least the mid-70s, I suppose.
However, there are other types of work, besides manufacturing, where
Americans have to compete and there are types where they don't, or at
least not very much. In general, I suppose government jobs, for
example, have traditionally been one type of work in which Americans
haven't had to compete with foreign workers.
If you were advising a grand child in high school on career choices,
now days, how would you advise him?

If I had a grandchild, I would advise him/her to pursue what they had a passion for and become an expert at it and not worry about wages. Take whatever they offer. Within reason of course. You need some goal that you can actually reach. Don't run for president of the US. It's a waste of time. If you like something that is taught in a trad school, go there first and maybe college later when you have a basic understanding of what is going on. That way you don't have to study too hard and will get good grades.

If you are setting a course for your life, it doesn't hurt to set lofty
goals. As in navigating, you can set your course by the north star,
knowing that you will never reach it, but at least you are going in the
right direction.
The difficulty that a lot of kids have in my experience is that they
don't know how to synthesize a plan on how to proceed. Simply following
one's passion doesn't tell a kid what the first step might be. They
need to understand that a lofty goal is accomplished in small steps
including many that might fail. Success is taking that first step,
followed by another and another, all headed toward a life goal.
Otherwise, I disagree with you about settling for a supposed "easy"
school. I found that the best schools have the best teachers and other
support for students. The best schools are the easiest IMV.

... and also, affordable. (-8

The best schools seem to have the best student financial aid programs --
if the kid is smart.

[El Castor]

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by mg
On Fri, 11 May 2018 12:46:01 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Thu, 10 May 2018 23:26:54 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
Why should a company have to move its facilities to a
foreign country to get lower employee costs when it's so
much easier just to import third-world immigrants to the
U.S.?

Companies "offshore" administration to avoid state and federal taxes,
labor laws, and regulation, and in some cases get access to a higher
quality work force. That will probably decline in view of Trump's tax
cuts. Farming out manufacturing to foreign sources, like Foxconn, is
often the only way a company can compete in terms of product price
with foreign competition. Importing foreign factory workers won't
work. Foxconn, Apple's subcontractor that assembles iPhones, pays
Chinese workers $2.50 an hour, and they put in 60 hours a week. We
have laws. That couldn't happen here. But, Foxconn recently replaced
60,000 workers with robots. Maybe that could happen here.

Imagine if every single country in the world had a Foxconn-type of
manufacturing plant, or perhaps a many of them, what would that do to
wages? Or if every person on the planet had to compete with people all
over the world for a job, how low would world-wide wages be?
In the US, is the only reason that people like you and me and many
people on this newsgroup were able to live the good life was that we
didn't have to compete worldwide?

Problem is, we don't live in isolation. Apple sells more than half of
it's iphones overseas. If Apple had to make them here they would cost
far more, most Americans couldn't afford one, and Apple couldn't sell
overseas because Samsung and Chinese companies would price them out of
the water. Result -- there would be no Apple. We need robots.

I think that one could probably divide wage earners in the US into two
types; those who have to compete against foreign competition of one
sort or another and those who don't. Manufacturing has been one type
of work in which American workers have had to compete for a long time
now, since at least the mid-70s, I suppose.
However, there are other types of work, besides manufacturing, where
Americans have to compete and there are types where they don't, or at
least not very much. In general, I suppose government jobs, for
example, have traditionally been one type of work in which Americans
haven't had to compete with foreign workers.
If you were advising a grand child in high school on career choices,
now days, how would you advise him?

If I had a grandchild, I would advise him/her to pursue what they had a passion for and become an expert at it and not worry about wages. Take whatever they offer. Within reason of course. You need some goal that you can actually reach. Don't run for president of the US. It's a waste of time. If you like something that is taught in a trad school, go there first and maybe college later when you have a basic understanding of what is going on. That way you don't have to study too hard and will get good grades.

If you are setting a course for your life, it doesn't hurt to set lofty
goals. As in navigating, you can set your course by the north star,
knowing that you will never reach it, but at least you are going in the
right direction.
The difficulty that a lot of kids have in my experience is that they
don't know how to synthesize a plan on how to proceed. Simply following
one's passion doesn't tell a kid what the first step might be. They
need to understand that a lofty goal is accomplished in small steps
including many that might fail. Success is taking that first step,
followed by another and another, all headed toward a life goal.
Otherwise, I disagree with you about settling for a supposed "easy"
school. I found that the best schools have the best teachers and other
support for students. The best schools are the easiest IMV.

... and also, affordable. (-8

The best schools seem to have the best student financial aid programs --
if the kid is smart.

But smart, or not, leaving those kids with a life long burden of
student debt is not nice. The US higher education system is burdened
with a vast and very costly bureaucracy. The answer (it seems to me)
is to better understand the purpose of higher education, and admit why
it is so costly.

[islander]

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by mg
On Fri, 11 May 2018 12:46:01 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Thu, 10 May 2018 23:26:54 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
Why should a company have to move its facilities to a
foreign country to get lower employee costs when it's so
much easier just to import third-world immigrants to the
U.S.?

Companies "offshore" administration to avoid state and federal taxes,
labor laws, and regulation, and in some cases get access to a higher
quality work force. That will probably decline in view of Trump's tax
cuts. Farming out manufacturing to foreign sources, like Foxconn, is
often the only way a company can compete in terms of product price
with foreign competition. Importing foreign factory workers won't
work. Foxconn, Apple's subcontractor that assembles iPhones, pays
Chinese workers $2.50 an hour, and they put in 60 hours a week. We
have laws. That couldn't happen here. But, Foxconn recently replaced
60,000 workers with robots. Maybe that could happen here.

Imagine if every single country in the world had a Foxconn-type of
manufacturing plant, or perhaps a many of them, what would that do to
wages? Or if every person on the planet had to compete with people all
over the world for a job, how low would world-wide wages be?
In the US, is the only reason that people like you and me and many
people on this newsgroup were able to live the good life was that we
didn't have to compete worldwide?

Problem is, we don't live in isolation. Apple sells more than half of
it's iphones overseas. If Apple had to make them here they would cost
far more, most Americans couldn't afford one, and Apple couldn't sell
overseas because Samsung and Chinese companies would price them out of
the water. Result -- there would be no Apple. We need robots.

I think that one could probably divide wage earners in the US into two
types; those who have to compete against foreign competition of one
sort or another and those who don't. Manufacturing has been one type
of work in which American workers have had to compete for a long time
now, since at least the mid-70s, I suppose.
However, there are other types of work, besides manufacturing, where
Americans have to compete and there are types where they don't, or at
least not very much. In general, I suppose government jobs, for
example, have traditionally been one type of work in which Americans
haven't had to compete with foreign workers.
If you were advising a grand child in high school on career choices,
now days, how would you advise him?

If I had a grandchild, I would advise him/her to pursue what they had a passion for and become an expert at it and not worry about wages. Take whatever they offer. Within reason of course. You need some goal that you can actually reach. Don't run for president of the US. It's a waste of time. If you like something that is taught in a trad school, go there first and maybe college later when you have a basic understanding of what is going on. That way you don't have to study too hard and will get good grades.

If you are setting a course for your life, it doesn't hurt to set lofty
goals. As in navigating, you can set your course by the north star,
knowing that you will never reach it, but at least you are going in the
right direction.
The difficulty that a lot of kids have in my experience is that they
don't know how to synthesize a plan on how to proceed. Simply following
one's passion doesn't tell a kid what the first step might be. They
need to understand that a lofty goal is accomplished in small steps
including many that might fail. Success is taking that first step,
followed by another and another, all headed toward a life goal.
Otherwise, I disagree with you about settling for a supposed "easy"
school. I found that the best schools have the best teachers and other
support for students. The best schools are the easiest IMV.

... and also, affordable. (-8

The best schools seem to have the best student financial aid programs --
if the kid is smart.

But smart, or not, leaving those kids with a life long burden of
student debt is not nice. The US higher education system is burdened
with a vast and very costly bureaucracy. The answer (it seems to me)
is to better understand the purpose of higher education, and admit why
it is so costly.

Let the buyer beware. The best schools have programs that reward merit
without burdening the student with heavy debt. The worst schools have
arrangements with the banks that offer credit, but little else. That
has almost nothing to do with the cost of education except that people
are desperate to give their kids a higher education and an assumed
advantage in a highly competitive world.

Education is expensive, but the ROI is high in a social context. Why
are Republicans so reluctant to provide support, even to reduce the
interest charged to students who apply for federal aid?

[El Castor]

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by mg
On Fri, 11 May 2018 12:46:01 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Thu, 10 May 2018 23:26:54 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
Why should a company have to move its facilities to a
foreign country to get lower employee costs when it's so
much easier just to import third-world immigrants to the
U.S.?

Companies "offshore" administration to avoid state and federal taxes,
labor laws, and regulation, and in some cases get access to a higher
quality work force. That will probably decline in view of Trump's tax
cuts. Farming out manufacturing to foreign sources, like Foxconn, is
often the only way a company can compete in terms of product price
with foreign competition. Importing foreign factory workers won't
work. Foxconn, Apple's subcontractor that assembles iPhones, pays
Chinese workers $2.50 an hour, and they put in 60 hours a week. We
have laws. That couldn't happen here. But, Foxconn recently replaced
60,000 workers with robots. Maybe that could happen here.

Imagine if every single country in the world had a Foxconn-type of
manufacturing plant, or perhaps a many of them, what would that do to
wages? Or if every person on the planet had to compete with people all
over the world for a job, how low would world-wide wages be?
In the US, is the only reason that people like you and me and many
people on this newsgroup were able to live the good life was that we
didn't have to compete worldwide?

Problem is, we don't live in isolation. Apple sells more than half of
it's iphones overseas. If Apple had to make them here they would cost
far more, most Americans couldn't afford one, and Apple couldn't sell
overseas because Samsung and Chinese companies would price them out of
the water. Result -- there would be no Apple. We need robots.

I think that one could probably divide wage earners in the US into two
types; those who have to compete against foreign competition of one
sort or another and those who don't. Manufacturing has been one type
of work in which American workers have had to compete for a long time
now, since at least the mid-70s, I suppose.
However, there are other types of work, besides manufacturing, where
Americans have to compete and there are types where they don't, or at
least not very much. In general, I suppose government jobs, for
example, have traditionally been one type of work in which Americans
haven't had to compete with foreign workers.
If you were advising a grand child in high school on career choices,
now days, how would you advise him?

If I had a grandchild, I would advise him/her to pursue what they had a passion for and become an expert at it and not worry about wages. Take whatever they offer. Within reason of course. You need some goal that you can actually reach. Don't run for president of the US. It's a waste of time. If you like something that is taught in a trad school, go there first and maybe college later when you have a basic understanding of what is going on. That way you don't have to study too hard and will get good grades.

If you are setting a course for your life, it doesn't hurt to set lofty
goals. As in navigating, you can set your course by the north star,
knowing that you will never reach it, but at least you are going in the
right direction.
The difficulty that a lot of kids have in my experience is that they
don't know how to synthesize a plan on how to proceed. Simply following
one's passion doesn't tell a kid what the first step might be. They
need to understand that a lofty goal is accomplished in small steps
including many that might fail. Success is taking that first step,
followed by another and another, all headed toward a life goal.
Otherwise, I disagree with you about settling for a supposed "easy"
school. I found that the best schools have the best teachers and other
support for students. The best schools are the easiest IMV.

... and also, affordable. (-8

The best schools seem to have the best student financial aid programs --
if the kid is smart.

But smart, or not, leaving those kids with a life long burden of
student debt is not nice. The US higher education system is burdened
with a vast and very costly bureaucracy. The answer (it seems to me)
is to better understand the purpose of higher education, and admit why
it is so costly.

Let the buyer beware. The best schools have programs that reward merit
without burdening the student with heavy debt. The worst schools have
arrangements with the banks that offer credit, but little else. That
has almost nothing to do with the cost of education except that people
are desperate to give their kids a higher education and an assumed
advantage in a highly competitive world.
Education is expensive, but the ROI is high in a social context. Why
are Republicans so reluctant to provide support, even to reduce the
interest charged to students who apply for federal aid?

Perhaps because they believe (as I do) that the cost of a college
education is dependent upon the availability of funds to pay for it.
Making more funds available will simply increase the cost of the
education.

[islander]

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by mg
On Fri, 11 May 2018 12:46:01 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Thu, 10 May 2018 23:26:54 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
Why should a company have to move its facilities to a
foreign country to get lower employee costs when it's so
much easier just to import third-world immigrants to the
U.S.?

Companies "offshore" administration to avoid state and federal taxes,
labor laws, and regulation, and in some cases get access to a higher
quality work force. That will probably decline in view of Trump's tax
cuts. Farming out manufacturing to foreign sources, like Foxconn, is
often the only way a company can compete in terms of product price
with foreign competition. Importing foreign factory workers won't
work. Foxconn, Apple's subcontractor that assembles iPhones, pays
Chinese workers $2.50 an hour, and they put in 60 hours a week. We
have laws. That couldn't happen here. But, Foxconn recently replaced
60,000 workers with robots. Maybe that could happen here.

Imagine if every single country in the world had a Foxconn-type of
manufacturing plant, or perhaps a many of them, what would that do to
wages? Or if every person on the planet had to compete with people all
over the world for a job, how low would world-wide wages be?
In the US, is the only reason that people like you and me and many
people on this newsgroup were able to live the good life was that we
didn't have to compete worldwide?

Problem is, we don't live in isolation. Apple sells more than half of
it's iphones overseas. If Apple had to make them here they would cost
far more, most Americans couldn't afford one, and Apple couldn't sell
overseas because Samsung and Chinese companies would price them out of
the water. Result -- there would be no Apple. We need robots.

I think that one could probably divide wage earners in the US into two
types; those who have to compete against foreign competition of one
sort or another and those who don't. Manufacturing has been one type
of work in which American workers have had to compete for a long time
now, since at least the mid-70s, I suppose.
However, there are other types of work, besides manufacturing, where
Americans have to compete and there are types where they don't, or at
least not very much. In general, I suppose government jobs, for
example, have traditionally been one type of work in which Americans
haven't had to compete with foreign workers.
If you were advising a grand child in high school on career choices,
now days, how would you advise him?

If I had a grandchild, I would advise him/her to pursue what they had a passion for and become an expert at it and not worry about wages. Take whatever they offer. Within reason of course. You need some goal that you can actually reach. Don't run for president of the US. It's a waste of time. If you like something that is taught in a trad school, go there first and maybe college later when you have a basic understanding of what is going on. That way you don't have to study too hard and will get good grades.

If you are setting a course for your life, it doesn't hurt to set lofty
goals. As in navigating, you can set your course by the north star,
knowing that you will never reach it, but at least you are going in the
right direction.
The difficulty that a lot of kids have in my experience is that they
don't know how to synthesize a plan on how to proceed. Simply following
one's passion doesn't tell a kid what the first step might be. They
need to understand that a lofty goal is accomplished in small steps
including many that might fail. Success is taking that first step,
followed by another and another, all headed toward a life goal.
Otherwise, I disagree with you about settling for a supposed "easy"
school. I found that the best schools have the best teachers and other
support for students. The best schools are the easiest IMV.

... and also, affordable. (-8

The best schools seem to have the best student financial aid programs --
if the kid is smart.

But smart, or not, leaving those kids with a life long burden of
student debt is not nice. The US higher education system is burdened
with a vast and very costly bureaucracy. The answer (it seems to me)
is to better understand the purpose of higher education, and admit why
it is so costly.

Let the buyer beware. The best schools have programs that reward merit
without burdening the student with heavy debt. The worst schools have
arrangements with the banks that offer credit, but little else. That
has almost nothing to do with the cost of education except that people
are desperate to give their kids a higher education and an assumed
advantage in a highly competitive world.
Education is expensive, but the ROI is high in a social context. Why
are Republicans so reluctant to provide support, even to reduce the
interest charged to students who apply for federal aid?

Perhaps because they believe (as I do) that the cost of a college
education is dependent upon the availability of funds to pay for it.
Making more funds available will simply increase the cost of the
education.

Funny how Republican thinking always favors the privileged. Your
thinking is an example of looking at education as a fixed size pie with
competition for the pieces. Yet, in arguing for tax cuts, your argument
is that with enough spending the size of the pie will increase and
everyone will benefit. Do you not see the contradiction in your argument?

[El Castor]

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by mg
On Fri, 11 May 2018 12:46:01 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Thu, 10 May 2018 23:26:54 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
Why should a company have to move its facilities to a
foreign country to get lower employee costs when it's so
much easier just to import third-world immigrants to the
U.S.?

Companies "offshore" administration to avoid state and federal taxes,
labor laws, and regulation, and in some cases get access to a higher
quality work force. That will probably decline in view of Trump's tax
cuts. Farming out manufacturing to foreign sources, like Foxconn, is
often the only way a company can compete in terms of product price
with foreign competition. Importing foreign factory workers won't
work. Foxconn, Apple's subcontractor that assembles iPhones, pays
Chinese workers $2.50 an hour, and they put in 60 hours a week. We
have laws. That couldn't happen here. But, Foxconn recently replaced
60,000 workers with robots. Maybe that could happen here.

Imagine if every single country in the world had a Foxconn-type of
manufacturing plant, or perhaps a many of them, what would that do to
wages? Or if every person on the planet had to compete with people all
over the world for a job, how low would world-wide wages be?
In the US, is the only reason that people like you and me and many
people on this newsgroup were able to live the good life was that we
didn't have to compete worldwide?

Problem is, we don't live in isolation. Apple sells more than half of
it's iphones overseas. If Apple had to make them here they would cost
far more, most Americans couldn't afford one, and Apple couldn't sell
overseas because Samsung and Chinese companies would price them out of
the water. Result -- there would be no Apple. We need robots.

I think that one could probably divide wage earners in the US into two
types; those who have to compete against foreign competition of one
sort or another and those who don't. Manufacturing has been one type
of work in which American workers have had to compete for a long time
now, since at least the mid-70s, I suppose.
However, there are other types of work, besides manufacturing, where
Americans have to compete and there are types where they don't, or at
least not very much. In general, I suppose government jobs, for
example, have traditionally been one type of work in which Americans
haven't had to compete with foreign workers.
If you were advising a grand child in high school on career choices,
now days, how would you advise him?

If I had a grandchild, I would advise him/her to pursue what they had a passion for and become an expert at it and not worry about wages. Take whatever they offer. Within reason of course. You need some goal that you can actually reach. Don't run for president of the US. It's a waste of time. If you like something that is taught in a trad school, go there first and maybe college later when you have a basic understanding of what is going on. That way you don't have to study too hard and will get good grades.

If you are setting a course for your life, it doesn't hurt to set lofty
goals. As in navigating, you can set your course by the north star,
knowing that you will never reach it, but at least you are going in the
right direction.
The difficulty that a lot of kids have in my experience is that they
don't know how to synthesize a plan on how to proceed. Simply following
one's passion doesn't tell a kid what the first step might be. They
need to understand that a lofty goal is accomplished in small steps
including many that might fail. Success is taking that first step,
followed by another and another, all headed toward a life goal.
Otherwise, I disagree with you about settling for a supposed "easy"
school. I found that the best schools have the best teachers and other
support for students. The best schools are the easiest IMV.

... and also, affordable. (-8

The best schools seem to have the best student financial aid programs --
if the kid is smart.

But smart, or not, leaving those kids with a life long burden of
student debt is not nice. The US higher education system is burdened
with a vast and very costly bureaucracy. The answer (it seems to me)
is to better understand the purpose of higher education, and admit why
it is so costly.

Let the buyer beware. The best schools have programs that reward merit
without burdening the student with heavy debt. The worst schools have
arrangements with the banks that offer credit, but little else. That
has almost nothing to do with the cost of education except that people
are desperate to give their kids a higher education and an assumed
advantage in a highly competitive world.
Education is expensive, but the ROI is high in a social context. Why
are Republicans so reluctant to provide support, even to reduce the
interest charged to students who apply for federal aid?

Perhaps because they believe (as I do) that the cost of a college
education is dependent upon the availability of funds to pay for it.
Making more funds available will simply increase the cost of the
education.

Funny how Republican thinking always favors the privileged. Your
thinking is an example of looking at education as a fixed size pie with
competition for the pieces. Yet, in arguing for tax cuts, your argument
is that with enough spending the size of the pie will increase and
everyone will benefit. Do you not see the contradiction in your argument?

I'm the one who has consistently argued that at least the first four
years of college could be available on the Internet with some local
attendance -- mainly for testing -- thereby eliminating the need for
marble columns, $500 text books, and acres of professors,
administrators, janitors, counselors, landscapers, parking lots, and
football fields. It could be essentially free -- or very low in cost.

[islander]

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by mg
On Fri, 11 May 2018 12:46:01 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Thu, 10 May 2018 23:26:54 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
Why should a company have to move its facilities to a
foreign country to get lower employee costs when it's so
much easier just to import third-world immigrants to the
U.S.?

Companies "offshore" administration to avoid state and federal taxes,
labor laws, and regulation, and in some cases get access to a higher
quality work force. That will probably decline in view of Trump's tax
cuts. Farming out manufacturing to foreign sources, like Foxconn, is
often the only way a company can compete in terms of product price
with foreign competition. Importing foreign factory workers won't
work. Foxconn, Apple's subcontractor that assembles iPhones, pays
Chinese workers $2.50 an hour, and they put in 60 hours a week. We
have laws. That couldn't happen here. But, Foxconn recently replaced
60,000 workers with robots. Maybe that could happen here.

Imagine if every single country in the world had a Foxconn-type of
manufacturing plant, or perhaps a many of them, what would that do to
wages? Or if every person on the planet had to compete with people all
over the world for a job, how low would world-wide wages be?
In the US, is the only reason that people like you and me and many
people on this newsgroup were able to live the good life was that we
didn't have to compete worldwide?

Problem is, we don't live in isolation. Apple sells more than half of
it's iphones overseas. If Apple had to make them here they would cost
far more, most Americans couldn't afford one, and Apple couldn't sell
overseas because Samsung and Chinese companies would price them out of
the water. Result -- there would be no Apple. We need robots.

I think that one could probably divide wage earners in the US into two
types; those who have to compete against foreign competition of one
sort or another and those who don't. Manufacturing has been one type
of work in which American workers have had to compete for a long time
now, since at least the mid-70s, I suppose.
However, there are other types of work, besides manufacturing, where
Americans have to compete and there are types where they don't, or at
least not very much. In general, I suppose government jobs, for
example, have traditionally been one type of work in which Americans
haven't had to compete with foreign workers.
If you were advising a grand child in high school on career choices,
now days, how would you advise him?

If I had a grandchild, I would advise him/her to pursue what they had a passion for and become an expert at it and not worry about wages. Take whatever they offer. Within reason of course. You need some goal that you can actually reach. Don't run for president of the US. It's a waste of time. If you like something that is taught in a trad school, go there first and maybe college later when you have a basic understanding of what is going on. That way you don't have to study too hard and will get good grades.

If you are setting a course for your life, it doesn't hurt to set lofty
goals. As in navigating, you can set your course by the north star,
knowing that you will never reach it, but at least you are going in the
right direction.
The difficulty that a lot of kids have in my experience is that they
don't know how to synthesize a plan on how to proceed. Simply following
one's passion doesn't tell a kid what the first step might be. They
need to understand that a lofty goal is accomplished in small steps
including many that might fail. Success is taking that first step,
followed by another and another, all headed toward a life goal.
Otherwise, I disagree with you about settling for a supposed "easy"
school. I found that the best schools have the best teachers and other
support for students. The best schools are the easiest IMV.

... and also, affordable. (-8

The best schools seem to have the best student financial aid programs --
if the kid is smart.

But smart, or not, leaving those kids with a life long burden of
student debt is not nice. The US higher education system is burdened
with a vast and very costly bureaucracy. The answer (it seems to me)
is to better understand the purpose of higher education, and admit why
it is so costly.

Let the buyer beware. The best schools have programs that reward merit
without burdening the student with heavy debt. The worst schools have
arrangements with the banks that offer credit, but little else. That
has almost nothing to do with the cost of education except that people
are desperate to give their kids a higher education and an assumed
advantage in a highly competitive world.
Education is expensive, but the ROI is high in a social context. Why
are Republicans so reluctant to provide support, even to reduce the
interest charged to students who apply for federal aid?

Perhaps because they believe (as I do) that the cost of a college
education is dependent upon the availability of funds to pay for it.
Making more funds available will simply increase the cost of the
education.

Funny how Republican thinking always favors the privileged. Your
thinking is an example of looking at education as a fixed size pie with
competition for the pieces. Yet, in arguing for tax cuts, your argument
is that with enough spending the size of the pie will increase and
everyone will benefit. Do you not see the contradiction in your argument?

I'm the one who has consistently argued that at least the first four
years of college could be available on the Internet with some local
attendance -- mainly for testing -- thereby eliminating the need for
marble columns, $500 text books, and acres of professors,
administrators, janitors, counselors, landscapers, parking lots, and
football fields. It could be essentially free -- or very low in cost.

It will happen naturally, but there will always be a demand for legacy
admission to Harvard.

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by El Castor

Post by islander
Let the buyer beware. The best schools have programs that reward merit
without burdening the student with heavy debt. The worst schools have
arrangements with the banks that offer credit, but little else. That
has almost nothing to do with the cost of education except that people
are desperate to give their kids a higher education and an assumed
advantage in a highly competitive world.
Education is expensive, but the ROI is high in a social context. Why
are Republicans so reluctant to provide support, even to reduce the
interest charged to students who apply for federal aid?

Perhaps because they believe (as I do) that the cost of a college
education is dependent upon the availability of funds to pay for it.
Making more funds available will simply increase the cost of the
education.

Well, they are going to need a lot more funds to pay for pensions like this. I can live pretty well on 16K a month. I wouldn't have to buy groceries at the swap meet anymore.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/05/23/california-teachers-struggle-as-school-administrators-get-generous-pensions/

"Take former Beverly Hills Superintendent Steve Kessler. He went from making $112,000 as a school principal to $249,000 as superintendent.

Thanks to that 120 percent pay raise over his last three years, the highest statewide, his pension is set for life at just over $16,700 a month."

[b***@gmail.com]

Post by islander

Post by b***@gmail.com
If I had a grandchild, I would advise him/her to pursue what they had a passion for and become an expert at it and not worry about wages. Take whatever they offer. Within reason of course. You need some goal that you can actually reach. Don't run for president of the US. It's a waste of time. If you like something that is taught in a trad school, go there first and maybe college later when you have a basic understanding of what is going on. That way you don't have to study too hard and will get good grades.

If you are setting a course for your life, it doesn't hurt to set lofty
goals. As in navigating, you can set your course by the north star,
knowing that you will never reach it, but at least you are going in the
right direction.
The difficulty that a lot of kids have in my experience is that they
don't know how to synthesize a plan on how to proceed. Simply following
one's passion doesn't tell a kid what the first step might be. They
need to understand that a lofty goal is accomplished in small steps
including many that might fail. Success is taking that first step,
followed by another and another, all headed toward a life goal.
Otherwise, I disagree with you about settling for a supposed "easy"
school. I found that the best schools have the best teachers and other
support for students. The best schools are the easiest IMV.

My easiest school was the military electronics school in San Diego in 1968. Being drafted was the best thing that ever happened to me. I graduated 2nd in my class and 4th in a subsequent class. I always loved electronics since I was a child. I built my first crystal radio when I was 12 and took a electronics class in 7th grade. We had a vacant lot next door so I could string a 75 foot long wire antenna for the the crystal radio. I had some sort of stake in the ground to ground the other end of the antenna but I forget the details. If I did it today, I would pour a lot of water on the ground stake to make a good ground connection. The resistance of a electrical connection from here to China isn't much if you can make a good connection.

[islander]

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by islander

Post by b***@gmail.com
If I had a grandchild, I would advise him/her to pursue what they had a passion for and become an expert at it and not worry about wages. Take whatever they offer. Within reason of course. You need some goal that you can actually reach. Don't run for president of the US. It's a waste of time. If you like something that is taught in a trad school, go there first and maybe college later when you have a basic understanding of what is going on. That way you don't have to study too hard and will get good grades.

If you are setting a course for your life, it doesn't hurt to set lofty
goals. As in navigating, you can set your course by the north star,
knowing that you will never reach it, but at least you are going in the
right direction.
The difficulty that a lot of kids have in my experience is that they
don't know how to synthesize a plan on how to proceed. Simply following
one's passion doesn't tell a kid what the first step might be. They
need to understand that a lofty goal is accomplished in small steps
including many that might fail. Success is taking that first step,
followed by another and another, all headed toward a life goal.
Otherwise, I disagree with you about settling for a supposed "easy"
school. I found that the best schools have the best teachers and other
support for students. The best schools are the easiest IMV.

My easiest school was the military electronics school in San Diego in 1968. Being drafted was the best thing that ever happened to me. I graduated 2nd in my class and 4th in a subsequent class. I always loved electronics since I was a child. I built my first crystal radio when I was 12 and took a electronics class in 7th grade. We had a vacant lot next door so I could string a 75 foot long wire antenna for the the crystal radio. I had some sort of stake in the ground to ground the other end of the antenna but I forget the details. If I did it today, I would pour a lot of water on the ground stake to make a good ground connection. The resistance of a electrical connection from here to China isn't much if you can make a good connection.

I wonder how many of our generation built a crystal radio. I did. As a
child, I was always building things like spotlights to aim at my model
planes at night in my room. When I was 12, I struck up a friendship
with a neighbor who repaired TVs in his garage. He had the patience to
teach a curious kid how to read schematics and taught me to use the test
equipment. When I was old enough to get a job as a bag-boy at a local
grocery store (a miserable job) there was a microwave tower being
constructed within view of the parking lot. I would look up at the men
working on that tower and envied them. I guess that I always knew that
a career in electronics would be the key to escaping poverty. I was
damn well not going to be poor!

[El Castor]

Post by islander

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by islander

Post by b***@gmail.com
If I had a grandchild, I would advise him/her to pursue what they had a passion for and become an expert at it and not worry about wages. Take whatever they offer. Within reason of course. You need some goal that you can actually reach. Don't run for president of the US. It's a waste of time. If you like something that is taught in a trad school, go there first and maybe college later when you have a basic understanding of what is going on. That way you don't have to study too hard and will get good grades.

If you are setting a course for your life, it doesn't hurt to set lofty
goals. As in navigating, you can set your course by the north star,
knowing that you will never reach it, but at least you are going in the
right direction.
The difficulty that a lot of kids have in my experience is that they
don't know how to synthesize a plan on how to proceed. Simply following
one's passion doesn't tell a kid what the first step might be. They
need to understand that a lofty goal is accomplished in small steps
including many that might fail. Success is taking that first step,
followed by another and another, all headed toward a life goal.
Otherwise, I disagree with you about settling for a supposed "easy"
school. I found that the best schools have the best teachers and other
support for students. The best schools are the easiest IMV.

My easiest school was the military electronics school in San Diego in 1968. Being drafted was the best thing that ever happened to me. I graduated 2nd in my class and 4th in a subsequent class. I always loved electronics since I was a child. I built my first crystal radio when I was 12 and took a electronics class in 7th grade. We had a vacant lot next door so I could string a 75 foot long wire antenna for the the crystal radio. I had some sort of stake in the ground to ground the other end of the antenna but I forget the details. If I did it today, I would pour a lot of water on the ground stake to make a good ground connection. The resistance of a electrical connection from here to China isn't much if you can make a good connection.

I wonder how many of our generation built a crystal radio. I did. As a
child, I was always building things like spotlights to aim at my model
planes at night in my room. When I was 12, I struck up a friendship
with a neighbor who repaired TVs in his garage. He had the patience to
teach a curious kid how to read schematics and taught me to use the test
equipment. When I was old enough to get a job as a bag-boy at a local
grocery store (a miserable job) there was a microwave tower being
constructed within view of the parking lot. I would look up at the men
working on that tower and envied them. I guess that I always knew that
a career in electronics would be the key to escaping poverty. I was
damn well not going to be poor!

Also did the crystal radio thing, and assembled two or three Heathkits
and numerous model planes and gliders. Before the Internet I was an
avid short wave listener -- long wire antenna on the roof. (-8

[islander]

Post by El Castor

Post by islander

Post by b***@gmail.com

Post by islander

Post by b***@gmail.com
If I had a grandchild, I would advise him/her to pursue what they had a passion for and become an expert at it and not worry about wages. Take whatever they offer. Within reason of course. You need some goal that you can actually reach. Don't run for president of the US. It's a waste of time. If you like something that is taught in a trad school, go there first and maybe college later when you have a basic understanding of what is going on. That way you don't have to study too hard and will get good grades.

If you are setting a course for your life, it doesn't hurt to set lofty
goals. As in navigating, you can set your course by the north star,
knowing that you will never reach it, but at least you are going in the
right direction.
The difficulty that a lot of kids have in my experience is that they
don't know how to synthesize a plan on how to proceed. Simply following
one's passion doesn't tell a kid what the first step might be. They
need to understand that a lofty goal is accomplished in small steps
including many that might fail. Success is taking that first step,
followed by another and another, all headed toward a life goal.
Otherwise, I disagree with you about settling for a supposed "easy"
school. I found that the best schools have the best teachers and other
support for students. The best schools are the easiest IMV.

My easiest school was the military electronics school in San Diego in 1968. Being drafted was the best thing that ever happened to me. I graduated 2nd in my class and 4th in a subsequent class. I always loved electronics since I was a child. I built my first crystal radio when I was 12 and took a electronics class in 7th grade. We had a vacant lot next door so I could string a 75 foot long wire antenna for the the crystal radio. I had some sort of stake in the ground to ground the other end of the antenna but I forget the details. If I did it today, I would pour a lot of water on the ground stake to make a good ground connection. The resistance of a electrical connection from here to China isn't much if you can make a good connection.

I wonder how many of our generation built a crystal radio. I did. As a
child, I was always building things like spotlights to aim at my model
planes at night in my room. When I was 12, I struck up a friendship
with a neighbor who repaired TVs in his garage. He had the patience to
teach a curious kid how to read schematics and taught me to use the test
equipment. When I was old enough to get a job as a bag-boy at a local
grocery store (a miserable job) there was a microwave tower being
constructed within view of the parking lot. I would look up at the men
working on that tower and envied them. I guess that I always knew that
a career in electronics would be the key to escaping poverty. I was
damn well not going to be poor!

Also did the crystal radio thing, and assembled two or three Heathkits
and numerous model planes and gliders. Before the Internet I was an
avid short wave listener -- long wire antenna on the roof. (-8

Hmmm. We have that in common. I was a big fan of Heathkits and built
several of them. Too bad that they didn't make it. Also built model
planes. One that I was especially proud of was balsa sticks and tissue
paper, powered by a rubber band. I followed the instructions
religiously and when it came time for a test flight I started cranking
up the rubber band the recommended number of turns. About half way
through the whole thing collapsed in my hands. Arghhh! I had much
better luck with a balsa plane with a jetex engine. That baby could
fly! Re. short wave, I collected QSL cards for a while.

[El Castor]

Post by mg
On Fri, 11 May 2018 12:46:01 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Thu, 10 May 2018 23:26:54 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
Why should a company have to move its facilities to a
foreign country to get lower employee costs when it's so
much easier just to import third-world immigrants to the
U.S.?

Companies "offshore" administration to avoid state and federal taxes,
labor laws, and regulation, and in some cases get access to a higher
quality work force. That will probably decline in view of Trump's tax
cuts. Farming out manufacturing to foreign sources, like Foxconn, is
often the only way a company can compete in terms of product price
with foreign competition. Importing foreign factory workers won't
work. Foxconn, Apple's subcontractor that assembles iPhones, pays
Chinese workers $2.50 an hour, and they put in 60 hours a week. We
have laws. That couldn't happen here. But, Foxconn recently replaced
60,000 workers with robots. Maybe that could happen here.

Imagine if every single country in the world had a Foxconn-type of
manufacturing plant, or perhaps a many of them, what would that do to
wages? Or if every person on the planet had to compete with people all
over the world for a job, how low would world-wide wages be?
In the US, is the only reason that people like you and me and many
people on this newsgroup were able to live the good life was that we
didn't have to compete worldwide?

Problem is, we don't live in isolation. Apple sells more than half of
it's iphones overseas. If Apple had to make them here they would cost
far more, most Americans couldn't afford one, and Apple couldn't sell
overseas because Samsung and Chinese companies would price them out of
the water. Result -- there would be no Apple. We need robots.

I think that one could probably divide wage earners in the US into two
types; those who have to compete against foreign competition of one
sort or another and those who don't. Manufacturing has been one type
of work in which American workers have had to compete for a long time
now, since at least the mid-70s, I suppose.
However, there are other types of work, besides manufacturing, where
Americans have to compete and there are types where they don't, or at
least not very much. In general, I suppose government jobs, for
example, have traditionally been one type of work in which Americans
haven't had to compete with foreign workers.
If you were advising a grand child in high school on career choices,
now days, how would you advise him?

The threat isn't cheap foreign labor, it's even cheaper robot labor.
So, tech if he had the brains for it, and was so inclined -- otherwise
any robot resistant occupation like electrician, plumber, or ...

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/01/these-are-the-robot-proof-jobs-of-the-future-pew-research.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/26/jobs-future-automation-robots-skills-creative-health
http://www.businessinsider.com/careers-that-are-safe-from-automation-2017-5
https://www.ft.com/content/0c7906d6-be89-11e5-9fdb-87b8d15baec2
http://fortune.com/2016/07/11/skills-gap-automation/

[mg]

On Fri, 11 May 2018 18:16:08 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Fri, 11 May 2018 12:46:01 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Thu, 10 May 2018 23:26:54 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
Why should a company have to move its facilities to a
foreign country to get lower employee costs when it's so
much easier just to import third-world immigrants to the
U.S.?

Companies "offshore" administration to avoid state and federal taxes,
labor laws, and regulation, and in some cases get access to a higher
quality work force. That will probably decline in view of Trump's tax
cuts. Farming out manufacturing to foreign sources, like Foxconn, is
often the only way a company can compete in terms of product price
with foreign competition. Importing foreign factory workers won't
work. Foxconn, Apple's subcontractor that assembles iPhones, pays
Chinese workers $2.50 an hour, and they put in 60 hours a week. We
have laws. That couldn't happen here. But, Foxconn recently replaced
60,000 workers with robots. Maybe that could happen here.

Imagine if every single country in the world had a Foxconn-type of
manufacturing plant, or perhaps a many of them, what would that do to
wages? Or if every person on the planet had to compete with people all
over the world for a job, how low would world-wide wages be?
In the US, is the only reason that people like you and me and many
people on this newsgroup were able to live the good life was that we
didn't have to compete worldwide?

Problem is, we don't live in isolation. Apple sells more than half of
it's iphones overseas. If Apple had to make them here they would cost
far more, most Americans couldn't afford one, and Apple couldn't sell
overseas because Samsung and Chinese companies would price them out of
the water. Result -- there would be no Apple. We need robots.

I think that one could probably divide wage earners in the US into two
types; those who have to compete against foreign competition of one
sort or another and those who don't. Manufacturing has been one type
of work in which American workers have had to compete for a long time
now, since at least the mid-70s, I suppose.
However, there are other types of work, besides manufacturing, where
Americans have to compete and there are types where they don't, or at
least not very much. In general, I suppose government jobs, for
example, have traditionally been one type of work in which Americans
haven't had to compete with foreign workers.
If you were advising a grand child in high school on career choices,
now days, how would you advise him?

The threat isn't cheap foreign labor, it's even cheaper robot labor.
So, tech if he had the brains for it, and was so inclined -- otherwise
any robot resistant occupation like electrician, plumber, or ...
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/01/these-are-the-robot-proof-jobs-of-the-future-pew-research.html

The above site seems to be recommending STEM jobs which are not the
kind of jobs that I would recommend to a grand child of mine. Here's
why:

"H-1B visas make STEM careers unattractive to American students
http://www.machinedesign.com/blog/h-1b-visas-make-stem-careers-unattractive-american-students

"How H-1B Visas Are Screwing Tech Workers"
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/silicon-valley-h1b-visas-hurt-tech-workers/

"The STEM Crisis Is a Myth"
https://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-is-a-myth

"What STEM shortage? Electrical engineering lost 35,000 jobs last
year"
https://www.computerworld.com/article/2487847/it-careers/what-stem-shortage--electrical-engineering-lost-35-000-jobs-last-year.html

Post by El Castor
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/26/jobs-future-automation-robots-skills-creative-health
http://www.businessinsider.com/careers-that-are-safe-from-automation-2017-5
https://www.ft.com/content/0c7906d6-be89-11e5-9fdb-87b8d15baec2
http://fortune.com/2016/07/11/skills-gap-automation/

[El Castor]

Post by mg
On Fri, 11 May 2018 18:16:08 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Fri, 11 May 2018 12:46:01 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Thu, 10 May 2018 23:26:54 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
Why should a company have to move its facilities to a
foreign country to get lower employee costs when it's so
much easier just to import third-world immigrants to the
U.S.?

Companies "offshore" administration to avoid state and federal taxes,
labor laws, and regulation, and in some cases get access to a higher
quality work force. That will probably decline in view of Trump's tax
cuts. Farming out manufacturing to foreign sources, like Foxconn, is
often the only way a company can compete in terms of product price
with foreign competition. Importing foreign factory workers won't
work. Foxconn, Apple's subcontractor that assembles iPhones, pays
Chinese workers $2.50 an hour, and they put in 60 hours a week. We
have laws. That couldn't happen here. But, Foxconn recently replaced
60,000 workers with robots. Maybe that could happen here.

Imagine if every single country in the world had a Foxconn-type of
manufacturing plant, or perhaps a many of them, what would that do to
wages? Or if every person on the planet had to compete with people all
over the world for a job, how low would world-wide wages be?
In the US, is the only reason that people like you and me and many
people on this newsgroup were able to live the good life was that we
didn't have to compete worldwide?

Problem is, we don't live in isolation. Apple sells more than half of
it's iphones overseas. If Apple had to make them here they would cost
far more, most Americans couldn't afford one, and Apple couldn't sell
overseas because Samsung and Chinese companies would price them out of
the water. Result -- there would be no Apple. We need robots.

I think that one could probably divide wage earners in the US into two
types; those who have to compete against foreign competition of one
sort or another and those who don't. Manufacturing has been one type
of work in which American workers have had to compete for a long time
now, since at least the mid-70s, I suppose.
However, there are other types of work, besides manufacturing, where
Americans have to compete and there are types where they don't, or at
least not very much. In general, I suppose government jobs, for
example, have traditionally been one type of work in which Americans
haven't had to compete with foreign workers.
If you were advising a grand child in high school on career choices,
now days, how would you advise him?

The threat isn't cheap foreign labor, it's even cheaper robot labor.
So, tech if he had the brains for it, and was so inclined -- otherwise
any robot resistant occupation like electrician, plumber, or ...
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/01/these-are-the-robot-proof-jobs-of-the-future-pew-research.html

The above site seems to be recommending STEM jobs which are not the
kind of jobs that I would recommend to a grand child of mine. Here's
"H-1B visas make STEM careers unattractive to American students
http://www.machinedesign.com/blog/h-1b-visas-make-stem-careers-unattractive-american-students
"How H-1B Visas Are Screwing Tech Workers"
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/silicon-valley-h1b-visas-hurt-tech-workers/
"The STEM Crisis Is a Myth"
https://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-is-a-myth
"What STEM shortage? Electrical engineering lost 35,000 jobs last
year"
https://www.computerworld.com/article/2487847/it-careers/what-stem-shortage--electrical-engineering-lost-35-000-jobs-last-year.html

Post by El Castor
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/26/jobs-future-automation-robots-skills-creative-health
http://www.businessinsider.com/careers-that-are-safe-from-automation-2017-5
https://www.ft.com/content/0c7906d6-be89-11e5-9fdb-87b8d15baec2
http://fortune.com/2016/07/11/skills-gap-automation/

You asked me a question, and I answered it as best as I could. Where
did MotherJones, Spectrum, and Computerworld come from? Here, again
was, and is, my answer.

The threat isn't cheap foreign labor, it's even cheaper robot labor.
So, tech if he had the brains for it, and was so inclined -- otherwise
any robot resistant occupation like electrician, plumber, or ...

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/01/these-are-the-robot-proof-jobs-of-the-future-pew-research.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/26/jobs-future-automation-robots-skills-creative-health
http://www.businessinsider.com/careers-that-are-safe-from-automation-2017-5
https://www.ft.com/content/0c7906d6-be89-11e5-9fdb-87b8d15baec2
http://fortune.com/2016/07/11/skills-gap-automation/

[mg]

On Fri, 11 May 2018 22:59:01 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Fri, 11 May 2018 18:16:08 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Fri, 11 May 2018 12:46:01 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Thu, 10 May 2018 23:26:54 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
Why should a company have to move its facilities to a
foreign country to get lower employee costs when it's so
much easier just to import third-world immigrants to the
U.S.?

Companies "offshore" administration to avoid state and federal taxes,
labor laws, and regulation, and in some cases get access to a higher
quality work force. That will probably decline in view of Trump's tax
cuts. Farming out manufacturing to foreign sources, like Foxconn, is
often the only way a company can compete in terms of product price
with foreign competition. Importing foreign factory workers won't
work. Foxconn, Apple's subcontractor that assembles iPhones, pays
Chinese workers $2.50 an hour, and they put in 60 hours a week. We
have laws. That couldn't happen here. But, Foxconn recently replaced
60,000 workers with robots. Maybe that could happen here.

Imagine if every single country in the world had a Foxconn-type of
manufacturing plant, or perhaps a many of them, what would that do to
wages? Or if every person on the planet had to compete with people all
over the world for a job, how low would world-wide wages be?
In the US, is the only reason that people like you and me and many
people on this newsgroup were able to live the good life was that we
didn't have to compete worldwide?

Problem is, we don't live in isolation. Apple sells more than half of
it's iphones overseas. If Apple had to make them here they would cost
far more, most Americans couldn't afford one, and Apple couldn't sell
overseas because Samsung and Chinese companies would price them out of
the water. Result -- there would be no Apple. We need robots.

I think that one could probably divide wage earners in the US into two
types; those who have to compete against foreign competition of one
sort or another and those who don't. Manufacturing has been one type
of work in which American workers have had to compete for a long time
now, since at least the mid-70s, I suppose.
However, there are other types of work, besides manufacturing, where
Americans have to compete and there are types where they don't, or at
least not very much. In general, I suppose government jobs, for
example, have traditionally been one type of work in which Americans
haven't had to compete with foreign workers.
If you were advising a grand child in high school on career choices,
now days, how would you advise him?

The threat isn't cheap foreign labor, it's even cheaper robot labor.
So, tech if he had the brains for it, and was so inclined -- otherwise
any robot resistant occupation like electrician, plumber, or ...
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/01/these-are-the-robot-proof-jobs-of-the-future-pew-research.html

The above site seems to be recommending STEM jobs which are not the
kind of jobs that I would recommend to a grand child of mine. Here's
"H-1B visas make STEM careers unattractive to American students
http://www.machinedesign.com/blog/h-1b-visas-make-stem-careers-unattractive-american-students
"How H-1B Visas Are Screwing Tech Workers"
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/silicon-valley-h1b-visas-hurt-tech-workers/
"The STEM Crisis Is a Myth"
https://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-is-a-myth
"What STEM shortage? Electrical engineering lost 35,000 jobs last
year"
https://www.computerworld.com/article/2487847/it-careers/what-stem-shortage--electrical-engineering-lost-35-000-jobs-last-year.html

Post by El Castor
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/26/jobs-future-automation-robots-skills-creative-health
http://www.businessinsider.com/careers-that-are-safe-from-automation-2017-5
https://www.ft.com/content/0c7906d6-be89-11e5-9fdb-87b8d15baec2
http://fortune.com/2016/07/11/skills-gap-automation/

You asked me a question, and I answered it as best as I could. Where
did MotherJones, Spectrum, and Computerworld come from? Here, again
was, and is, my answer.
The threat isn't cheap foreign labor, it's even cheaper robot labor.
So, tech if he had the brains for it, and was so inclined -- otherwise
any robot resistant occupation like electrician, plumber, or ...
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/01/these-are-the-robot-proof-jobs-of-the-future-pew-research.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/26/jobs-future-automation-robots-skills-creative-health
http://www.businessinsider.com/careers-that-are-safe-from-automation-2017-5
https://www.ft.com/content/0c7906d6-be89-11e5-9fdb-87b8d15baec2
http://fortune.com/2016/07/11/skills-gap-automation/

The subject of this thread was competition from foreign workers which
I see as currently the biggest threat to American wage earners. If you
prefer to talk about the threat from factory automation, or even
individual robots, that's fine.

However, with Chinese workers making $2.50 an hour and with the
government importing foreign workers on H1B visas, and with
immigration from third-world countries, at high levels, I personally
see foreign competition as the biggest problem for the American
worker.

When the day comes that they do invent individual robots, btw, I doubt
if corporations will even be able to keep one of them running for
$2.50/hr. The power consumption alone would probably be more than
that.

[El Castor]

Post by mg
On Fri, 11 May 2018 22:59:01 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Fri, 11 May 2018 18:16:08 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Fri, 11 May 2018 12:46:01 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Thu, 10 May 2018 23:26:54 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
Why should a company have to move its facilities to a
foreign country to get lower employee costs when it's so
much easier just to import third-world immigrants to the
U.S.?

Companies "offshore" administration to avoid state and federal taxes,
labor laws, and regulation, and in some cases get access to a higher
quality work force. That will probably decline in view of Trump's tax
cuts. Farming out manufacturing to foreign sources, like Foxconn, is
often the only way a company can compete in terms of product price
with foreign competition. Importing foreign factory workers won't
work. Foxconn, Apple's subcontractor that assembles iPhones, pays
Chinese workers $2.50 an hour, and they put in 60 hours a week. We
have laws. That couldn't happen here. But, Foxconn recently replaced
60,000 workers with robots. Maybe that could happen here.

Imagine if every single country in the world had a Foxconn-type of
manufacturing plant, or perhaps a many of them, what would that do to
wages? Or if every person on the planet had to compete with people all
over the world for a job, how low would world-wide wages be?
In the US, is the only reason that people like you and me and many
people on this newsgroup were able to live the good life was that we
didn't have to compete worldwide?

Problem is, we don't live in isolation. Apple sells more than half of
it's iphones overseas. If Apple had to make them here they would cost
far more, most Americans couldn't afford one, and Apple couldn't sell
overseas because Samsung and Chinese companies would price them out of
the water. Result -- there would be no Apple. We need robots.

I think that one could probably divide wage earners in the US into two
types; those who have to compete against foreign competition of one
sort or another and those who don't. Manufacturing has been one type
of work in which American workers have had to compete for a long time
now, since at least the mid-70s, I suppose.
However, there are other types of work, besides manufacturing, where
Americans have to compete and there are types where they don't, or at
least not very much. In general, I suppose government jobs, for
example, have traditionally been one type of work in which Americans
haven't had to compete with foreign workers.
If you were advising a grand child in high school on career choices,
now days, how would you advise him?

The threat isn't cheap foreign labor, it's even cheaper robot labor.
So, tech if he had the brains for it, and was so inclined -- otherwise
any robot resistant occupation like electrician, plumber, or ...
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/01/these-are-the-robot-proof-jobs-of-the-future-pew-research.html

The above site seems to be recommending STEM jobs which are not the
kind of jobs that I would recommend to a grand child of mine. Here's
"H-1B visas make STEM careers unattractive to American students
http://www.machinedesign.com/blog/h-1b-visas-make-stem-careers-unattractive-american-students
"How H-1B Visas Are Screwing Tech Workers"
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/silicon-valley-h1b-visas-hurt-tech-workers/
"The STEM Crisis Is a Myth"
https://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-is-a-myth
"What STEM shortage? Electrical engineering lost 35,000 jobs last
year"
https://www.computerworld.com/article/2487847/it-careers/what-stem-shortage--electrical-engineering-lost-35-000-jobs-last-year.html

Post by El Castor
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/26/jobs-future-automation-robots-skills-creative-health
http://www.businessinsider.com/careers-that-are-safe-from-automation-2017-5
https://www.ft.com/content/0c7906d6-be89-11e5-9fdb-87b8d15baec2
http://fortune.com/2016/07/11/skills-gap-automation/

You asked me a question, and I answered it as best as I could. Where
did MotherJones, Spectrum, and Computerworld come from? Here, again
was, and is, my answer.
The threat isn't cheap foreign labor, it's even cheaper robot labor.
So, tech if he had the brains for it, and was so inclined -- otherwise
any robot resistant occupation like electrician, plumber, or ...
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/01/these-are-the-robot-proof-jobs-of-the-future-pew-research.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/26/jobs-future-automation-robots-skills-creative-health
http://www.businessinsider.com/careers-that-are-safe-from-automation-2017-5
https://www.ft.com/content/0c7906d6-be89-11e5-9fdb-87b8d15baec2
http://fortune.com/2016/07/11/skills-gap-automation/

The subject of this thread was competition from foreign workers which
I see as currently the biggest threat to American wage earners. If you
prefer to talk about the threat from factory automation, or even
individual robots, that's fine.
However, with Chinese workers making $2.50 an hour and with the
government importing foreign workers on H1B visas, and with
immigration from third-world countries, at high levels, I personally
see foreign competition as the biggest problem for the American
worker.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Robots are rapidly replacing human labor all
over the world. For instance, the single commonest manual labor job in
the US is truck driver. Within 10 years, those jobs will be gone, and
so will many white collar jobs. What will remain will be manual labor
requiring adaptation to an unpredictable variety of situations, like
electricians and plumbers. The world is changing.

Post by mg
When the day comes that they do invent individual robots, btw, I doubt
if corporations will even be able to keep one of them running for
$2.50/hr. The power consumption alone would probably be more than
that.

You're out of touch. Take a look

Similar operation in China ...

[mg]

On Sat, 12 May 2018 02:12:17 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Fri, 11 May 2018 22:59:01 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Fri, 11 May 2018 18:16:08 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Fri, 11 May 2018 12:46:01 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Thu, 10 May 2018 23:26:54 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
Why should a company have to move its facilities to a
foreign country to get lower employee costs when it's so
much easier just to import third-world immigrants to the
U.S.?

Companies "offshore" administration to avoid state and federal taxes,
labor laws, and regulation, and in some cases get access to a higher
quality work force. That will probably decline in view of Trump's tax
cuts. Farming out manufacturing to foreign sources, like Foxconn, is
often the only way a company can compete in terms of product price
with foreign competition. Importing foreign factory workers won't
work. Foxconn, Apple's subcontractor that assembles iPhones, pays
Chinese workers $2.50 an hour, and they put in 60 hours a week. We
have laws. That couldn't happen here. But, Foxconn recently replaced
60,000 workers with robots. Maybe that could happen here.

Imagine if every single country in the world had a Foxconn-type of
manufacturing plant, or perhaps a many of them, what would that do to
wages? Or if every person on the planet had to compete with people all
over the world for a job, how low would world-wide wages be?
In the US, is the only reason that people like you and me and many
people on this newsgroup were able to live the good life was that we
didn't have to compete worldwide?

Problem is, we don't live in isolation. Apple sells more than half of
it's iphones overseas. If Apple had to make them here they would cost
far more, most Americans couldn't afford one, and Apple couldn't sell
overseas because Samsung and Chinese companies would price them out of
the water. Result -- there would be no Apple. We need robots.

I think that one could probably divide wage earners in the US into two
types; those who have to compete against foreign competition of one
sort or another and those who don't. Manufacturing has been one type
of work in which American workers have had to compete for a long time
now, since at least the mid-70s, I suppose.
However, there are other types of work, besides manufacturing, where
Americans have to compete and there are types where they don't, or at
least not very much. In general, I suppose government jobs, for
example, have traditionally been one type of work in which Americans
haven't had to compete with foreign workers.
If you were advising a grand child in high school on career choices,
now days, how would you advise him?

The threat isn't cheap foreign labor, it's even cheaper robot labor.
So, tech if he had the brains for it, and was so inclined -- otherwise
any robot resistant occupation like electrician, plumber, or ...
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/01/these-are-the-robot-proof-jobs-of-the-future-pew-research.html

The above site seems to be recommending STEM jobs which are not the
kind of jobs that I would recommend to a grand child of mine. Here's
"H-1B visas make STEM careers unattractive to American students
http://www.machinedesign.com/blog/h-1b-visas-make-stem-careers-unattractive-american-students
"How H-1B Visas Are Screwing Tech Workers"
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/silicon-valley-h1b-visas-hurt-tech-workers/
"The STEM Crisis Is a Myth"
https://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-is-a-myth
"What STEM shortage? Electrical engineering lost 35,000 jobs last
year"
https://www.computerworld.com/article/2487847/it-careers/what-stem-shortage--electrical-engineering-lost-35-000-jobs-last-year.html

Post by El Castor
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/26/jobs-future-automation-robots-skills-creative-health
http://www.businessinsider.com/careers-that-are-safe-from-automation-2017-5
https://www.ft.com/content/0c7906d6-be89-11e5-9fdb-87b8d15baec2
http://fortune.com/2016/07/11/skills-gap-automation/

You asked me a question, and I answered it as best as I could. Where
did MotherJones, Spectrum, and Computerworld come from? Here, again
was, and is, my answer.
The threat isn't cheap foreign labor, it's even cheaper robot labor.
So, tech if he had the brains for it, and was so inclined -- otherwise
any robot resistant occupation like electrician, plumber, or ...
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/01/these-are-the-robot-proof-jobs-of-the-future-pew-research.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/26/jobs-future-automation-robots-skills-creative-health
http://www.businessinsider.com/careers-that-are-safe-from-automation-2017-5
https://www.ft.com/content/0c7906d6-be89-11e5-9fdb-87b8d15baec2
http://fortune.com/2016/07/11/skills-gap-automation/

The subject of this thread was competition from foreign workers which
I see as currently the biggest threat to American wage earners. If you
prefer to talk about the threat from factory automation, or even
individual robots, that's fine.
However, with Chinese workers making $2.50 an hour and with the
government importing foreign workers on H1B visas, and with
immigration from third-world countries, at high levels, I personally
see foreign competition as the biggest problem for the American
worker.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Robots are rapidly replacing human labor all
over the world. For instance, the single commonest manual labor job in
the US is truck driver. Within 10 years, those jobs will be gone, and
so will many white collar jobs. What will remain will be manual labor
requiring adaptation to an unpredictable variety of situations, like
electricians and plumbers. The world is changing.

I agree that computers and automation will continue to replace many
jobs, but so does offshoring, immigration, and temporary foreign
worker programs, including "STEM" jobs:
-----------
"STEM Grads Are at a Loss
Those who claim there's a STEM skills shortage are ignoring the
evidence."
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/09/15/stem-graduates-cant-find-jobs

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
When the day comes that they do invent individual robots, btw, I doubt
if corporations will even be able to keep one of them running for
$2.50/hr. The power consumption alone would probably be more than
that.

You're out of touch. Take a look
http://youtu.be/sjAZGUcjrP8
http://youtu.be/UtBa9yVZBJM
Similar operation in China ...
http://youtu.be/FBl4Y55V2Z4

It's a matter of semantics I suppose, and we've talked about this
before, I call that sort of thing "industrial automation", or "factory
automation", or "material handling automation", etc. I, personally,
don't call it "robots", or "robotics", but some people do. This sort
of automation is advancing rapidly, but it dates back hundreds of
years, or more. The waterwheel is one example that comes to mind.

As a steel worker who lost his job after 20 years due to the plant I
worked for being antiquated and lacking "continuous casting", among
other things, I'm very familiar with what effect automation (and the
lack of it) can have on jobs.

[El Castor]

Post by mg
On Sat, 12 May 2018 02:12:17 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Fri, 11 May 2018 22:59:01 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Fri, 11 May 2018 18:16:08 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Fri, 11 May 2018 12:46:01 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Thu, 10 May 2018 23:26:54 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
Why should a company have to move its facilities to a
foreign country to get lower employee costs when it's so
much easier just to import third-world immigrants to the
U.S.?

Companies "offshore" administration to avoid state and federal taxes,
labor laws, and regulation, and in some cases get access to a higher
quality work force. That will probably decline in view of Trump's tax
cuts. Farming out manufacturing to foreign sources, like Foxconn, is
often the only way a company can compete in terms of product price
with foreign competition. Importing foreign factory workers won't
work. Foxconn, Apple's subcontractor that assembles iPhones, pays
Chinese workers $2.50 an hour, and they put in 60 hours a week. We
have laws. That couldn't happen here. But, Foxconn recently replaced
60,000 workers with robots. Maybe that could happen here.

Imagine if every single country in the world had a Foxconn-type of
manufacturing plant, or perhaps a many of them, what would that do to
wages? Or if every person on the planet had to compete with people all
over the world for a job, how low would world-wide wages be?
In the US, is the only reason that people like you and me and many
people on this newsgroup were able to live the good life was that we
didn't have to compete worldwide?

Problem is, we don't live in isolation. Apple sells more than half of
it's iphones overseas. If Apple had to make them here they would cost
far more, most Americans couldn't afford one, and Apple couldn't sell
overseas because Samsung and Chinese companies would price them out of
the water. Result -- there would be no Apple. We need robots.

I think that one could probably divide wage earners in the US into two
types; those who have to compete against foreign competition of one
sort or another and those who don't. Manufacturing has been one type
of work in which American workers have had to compete for a long time
now, since at least the mid-70s, I suppose.
However, there are other types of work, besides manufacturing, where
Americans have to compete and there are types where they don't, or at
least not very much. In general, I suppose government jobs, for
example, have traditionally been one type of work in which Americans
haven't had to compete with foreign workers.
If you were advising a grand child in high school on career choices,
now days, how would you advise him?

The threat isn't cheap foreign labor, it's even cheaper robot labor.
So, tech if he had the brains for it, and was so inclined -- otherwise
any robot resistant occupation like electrician, plumber, or ...
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/01/these-are-the-robot-proof-jobs-of-the-future-pew-research.html

The above site seems to be recommending STEM jobs which are not the
kind of jobs that I would recommend to a grand child of mine. Here's
"H-1B visas make STEM careers unattractive to American students
http://www.machinedesign.com/blog/h-1b-visas-make-stem-careers-unattractive-american-students
"How H-1B Visas Are Screwing Tech Workers"
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/silicon-valley-h1b-visas-hurt-tech-workers/
"The STEM Crisis Is a Myth"
https://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-is-a-myth
"What STEM shortage? Electrical engineering lost 35,000 jobs last
year"
https://www.computerworld.com/article/2487847/it-careers/what-stem-shortage--electrical-engineering-lost-35-000-jobs-last-year.html

Post by El Castor
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/26/jobs-future-automation-robots-skills-creative-health
http://www.businessinsider.com/careers-that-are-safe-from-automation-2017-5
https://www.ft.com/content/0c7906d6-be89-11e5-9fdb-87b8d15baec2
http://fortune.com/2016/07/11/skills-gap-automation/

You asked me a question, and I answered it as best as I could. Where
did MotherJones, Spectrum, and Computerworld come from? Here, again
was, and is, my answer.
The threat isn't cheap foreign labor, it's even cheaper robot labor.
So, tech if he had the brains for it, and was so inclined -- otherwise
any robot resistant occupation like electrician, plumber, or ...
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/01/these-are-the-robot-proof-jobs-of-the-future-pew-research.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/26/jobs-future-automation-robots-skills-creative-health
http://www.businessinsider.com/careers-that-are-safe-from-automation-2017-5
https://www.ft.com/content/0c7906d6-be89-11e5-9fdb-87b8d15baec2
http://fortune.com/2016/07/11/skills-gap-automation/

The subject of this thread was competition from foreign workers which
I see as currently the biggest threat to American wage earners. If you
prefer to talk about the threat from factory automation, or even
individual robots, that's fine.
However, with Chinese workers making $2.50 an hour and with the
government importing foreign workers on H1B visas, and with
immigration from third-world countries, at high levels, I personally
see foreign competition as the biggest problem for the American
worker.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Robots are rapidly replacing human labor all
over the world. For instance, the single commonest manual labor job in
the US is truck driver. Within 10 years, those jobs will be gone, and
so will many white collar jobs. What will remain will be manual labor
requiring adaptation to an unpredictable variety of situations, like
electricians and plumbers. The world is changing.

I agree that computers and automation will continue to replace many
jobs, but so does offshoring, immigration, and temporary foreign
-----------
"STEM Grads Are at a Loss
Those who claim there's a STEM skills shortage are ignoring the
evidence."
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/09/15/stem-graduates-cant-find-jobs

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
When the day comes that they do invent individual robots, btw, I doubt
if corporations will even be able to keep one of them running for
$2.50/hr. The power consumption alone would probably be more than
that.

You're out of touch. Take a look
http://youtu.be/sjAZGUcjrP8
http://youtu.be/UtBa9yVZBJM
Similar operation in China ...
http://youtu.be/FBl4Y55V2Z4

It's a matter of semantics I suppose, and we've talked about this
before, I call that sort of thing "industrial automation", or "factory
automation", or "material handling automation", etc. I, personally,
don't call it "robots", or "robotics", but some people do. This sort
of automation is advancing rapidly, but it dates back hundreds of
years, or more. The waterwheel is one example that comes to mind.
As a steel worker who lost his job after 20 years due to the plant I
worked for being antiquated and lacking "continuous casting", among
other things, I'm very familiar with what effect automation (and the
lack of it) can have on jobs.

Automation, robots, or whatever you want to call it, is not just about
manufacturing. Remember the record store and book store? The local
Sears is closing. JC Penny's and electronics stores are long gone, and
strip malls all over the country are in trouble. They weren't put out
of business by H1B workers. It's technology, technology, technology!
Where does it all end? I have no idea, but I suspect that despite dire
predictions, the population is going to decline, along with already
plummeting fertility rates. There is no unwritten law that requires a
a 5 day, 40 hour work week. That is going to change. AI is becoming
increasingly important -- and smarter by the day. Maybe in a couple of
hiundred years we will begin o look like the Borg, or become little
more than zoo animals. (-8

[mg]

On Sat, 12 May 2018 11:55:34 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Sat, 12 May 2018 02:12:17 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Fri, 11 May 2018 22:59:01 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Fri, 11 May 2018 18:16:08 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Fri, 11 May 2018 12:46:01 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Thu, 10 May 2018 23:26:54 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
Why should a company have to move its facilities to a
foreign country to get lower employee costs when it's so
much easier just to import third-world immigrants to the
U.S.?

Companies "offshore" administration to avoid state and federal taxes,
labor laws, and regulation, and in some cases get access to a higher
quality work force. That will probably decline in view of Trump's tax
cuts. Farming out manufacturing to foreign sources, like Foxconn, is
often the only way a company can compete in terms of product price
with foreign competition. Importing foreign factory workers won't
work. Foxconn, Apple's subcontractor that assembles iPhones, pays
Chinese workers $2.50 an hour, and they put in 60 hours a week. We
have laws. That couldn't happen here. But, Foxconn recently replaced
60,000 workers with robots. Maybe that could happen here.

Imagine if every single country in the world had a Foxconn-type of
manufacturing plant, or perhaps a many of them, what would that do to
wages? Or if every person on the planet had to compete with people all
over the world for a job, how low would world-wide wages be?
In the US, is the only reason that people like you and me and many
people on this newsgroup were able to live the good life was that we
didn't have to compete worldwide?

Problem is, we don't live in isolation. Apple sells more than half of
it's iphones overseas. If Apple had to make them here they would cost
far more, most Americans couldn't afford one, and Apple couldn't sell
overseas because Samsung and Chinese companies would price them out of
the water. Result -- there would be no Apple. We need robots.

I think that one could probably divide wage earners in the US into two
types; those who have to compete against foreign competition of one
sort or another and those who don't. Manufacturing has been one type
of work in which American workers have had to compete for a long time
now, since at least the mid-70s, I suppose.
However, there are other types of work, besides manufacturing, where
Americans have to compete and there are types where they don't, or at
least not very much. In general, I suppose government jobs, for
example, have traditionally been one type of work in which Americans
haven't had to compete with foreign workers.
If you were advising a grand child in high school on career choices,
now days, how would you advise him?

The threat isn't cheap foreign labor, it's even cheaper robot labor.
So, tech if he had the brains for it, and was so inclined -- otherwise
any robot resistant occupation like electrician, plumber, or ...
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/01/these-are-the-robot-proof-jobs-of-the-future-pew-research.html

The above site seems to be recommending STEM jobs which are not the
kind of jobs that I would recommend to a grand child of mine. Here's
"H-1B visas make STEM careers unattractive to American students
http://www.machinedesign.com/blog/h-1b-visas-make-stem-careers-unattractive-american-students
"How H-1B Visas Are Screwing Tech Workers"
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/silicon-valley-h1b-visas-hurt-tech-workers/
"The STEM Crisis Is a Myth"
https://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-is-a-myth
"What STEM shortage? Electrical engineering lost 35,000 jobs last
year"
https://www.computerworld.com/article/2487847/it-careers/what-stem-shortage--electrical-engineering-lost-35-000-jobs-last-year.html

Post by El Castor
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/26/jobs-future-automation-robots-skills-creative-health
http://www.businessinsider.com/careers-that-are-safe-from-automation-2017-5
https://www.ft.com/content/0c7906d6-be89-11e5-9fdb-87b8d15baec2
http://fortune.com/2016/07/11/skills-gap-automation/

You asked me a question, and I answered it as best as I could. Where
did MotherJones, Spectrum, and Computerworld come from? Here, again
was, and is, my answer.
The threat isn't cheap foreign labor, it's even cheaper robot labor.
So, tech if he had the brains for it, and was so inclined -- otherwise
any robot resistant occupation like electrician, plumber, or ...
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/01/these-are-the-robot-proof-jobs-of-the-future-pew-research.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/26/jobs-future-automation-robots-skills-creative-health
http://www.businessinsider.com/careers-that-are-safe-from-automation-2017-5
https://www.ft.com/content/0c7906d6-be89-11e5-9fdb-87b8d15baec2
http://fortune.com/2016/07/11/skills-gap-automation/

The subject of this thread was competition from foreign workers which
I see as currently the biggest threat to American wage earners. If you
prefer to talk about the threat from factory automation, or even
individual robots, that's fine.
However, with Chinese workers making $2.50 an hour and with the
government importing foreign workers on H1B visas, and with
immigration from third-world countries, at high levels, I personally
see foreign competition as the biggest problem for the American
worker.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Robots are rapidly replacing human labor all
over the world. For instance, the single commonest manual labor job in
the US is truck driver. Within 10 years, those jobs will be gone, and
so will many white collar jobs. What will remain will be manual labor
requiring adaptation to an unpredictable variety of situations, like
electricians and plumbers. The world is changing.

I agree that computers and automation will continue to replace many
jobs, but so does offshoring, immigration, and temporary foreign
-----------
"STEM Grads Are at a Loss
Those who claim there's a STEM skills shortage are ignoring the
evidence."
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/09/15/stem-graduates-cant-find-jobs

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
When the day comes that they do invent individual robots, btw, I doubt
if corporations will even be able to keep one of them running for
$2.50/hr. The power consumption alone would probably be more than
that.

You're out of touch. Take a look
http://youtu.be/sjAZGUcjrP8
http://youtu.be/UtBa9yVZBJM
Similar operation in China ...
http://youtu.be/FBl4Y55V2Z4

It's a matter of semantics I suppose, and we've talked about this
before, I call that sort of thing "industrial automation", or "factory
automation", or "material handling automation", etc. I, personally,
don't call it "robots", or "robotics", but some people do. This sort
of automation is advancing rapidly, but it dates back hundreds of
years, or more. The waterwheel is one example that comes to mind.
As a steel worker who lost his job after 20 years due to the plant I
worked for being antiquated and lacking "continuous casting", among
other things, I'm very familiar with what effect automation (and the
lack of it) can have on jobs.

Automation, robots, or whatever you want to call it, is not just about
manufacturing. Remember the record store and book store? The local
Sears is closing. JC Penny's and electronics stores are long gone, and
strip malls all over the country are in trouble. They weren't put out
of business by H1B workers. It's technology, technology, technology!
Where does it all end? I have no idea, but I suspect that despite dire
predictions, the population is going to decline, along with already
plummeting fertility rates. There is no unwritten law that requires a
a 5 day, 40 hour work week. That is going to change. AI is becoming
increasingly important -- and smarter by the day. Maybe in a couple of
hiundred years we will begin o look like the Borg, or become little
more than zoo animals. (-8

I picture humans living in high-rise buildings, in cheap apartments,
owned by the company store (like the John Henry song), or owned by the
government, where husbands and wives work 8-12 hours a day and are
treated very much like zoo animals. In other words, things will be
similar to what they are now, but a lot worse.

However, what I was wondering about when I started this thread is
right now, at the current time, what would be a good occupation for a
young person to enter and I can't think of very many answers. The
medical field is good, I think, because of the lack of competition and
union jobs, like in the government are probably good, but might not
last very long. Jobs in public universities seem to be really good. It
looks like those people pretty much write their own ticket with the
legislatures giving them a blank check.

Probably the best answer, I suppose, is for husband and wife to both
get two or three degrees before they have children and then hope for
the best.

[El Castor]

Post by mg
On Sat, 12 May 2018 11:55:34 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Sat, 12 May 2018 02:12:17 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Fri, 11 May 2018 22:59:01 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Fri, 11 May 2018 18:16:08 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Fri, 11 May 2018 12:46:01 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Thu, 10 May 2018 23:26:54 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
Why should a company have to move its facilities to a
foreign country to get lower employee costs when it's so
much easier just to import third-world immigrants to the
U.S.?

Companies "offshore" administration to avoid state and federal taxes,
labor laws, and regulation, and in some cases get access to a higher
quality work force. That will probably decline in view of Trump's tax
cuts. Farming out manufacturing to foreign sources, like Foxconn, is
often the only way a company can compete in terms of product price
with foreign competition. Importing foreign factory workers won't
work. Foxconn, Apple's subcontractor that assembles iPhones, pays
Chinese workers $2.50 an hour, and they put in 60 hours a week. We
have laws. That couldn't happen here. But, Foxconn recently replaced
60,000 workers with robots. Maybe that could happen here.

Imagine if every single country in the world had a Foxconn-type of
manufacturing plant, or perhaps a many of them, what would that do to
wages? Or if every person on the planet had to compete with people all
over the world for a job, how low would world-wide wages be?
In the US, is the only reason that people like you and me and many
people on this newsgroup were able to live the good life was that we
didn't have to compete worldwide?

Problem is, we don't live in isolation. Apple sells more than half of
it's iphones overseas. If Apple had to make them here they would cost
far more, most Americans couldn't afford one, and Apple couldn't sell
overseas because Samsung and Chinese companies would price them out of
the water. Result -- there would be no Apple. We need robots.

I think that one could probably divide wage earners in the US into two
types; those who have to compete against foreign competition of one
sort or another and those who don't. Manufacturing has been one type
of work in which American workers have had to compete for a long time
now, since at least the mid-70s, I suppose.
However, there are other types of work, besides manufacturing, where
Americans have to compete and there are types where they don't, or at
least not very much. In general, I suppose government jobs, for
example, have traditionally been one type of work in which Americans
haven't had to compete with foreign workers.
If you were advising a grand child in high school on career choices,
now days, how would you advise him?

The threat isn't cheap foreign labor, it's even cheaper robot labor.
So, tech if he had the brains for it, and was so inclined -- otherwise
any robot resistant occupation like electrician, plumber, or ...
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/01/these-are-the-robot-proof-jobs-of-the-future-pew-research.html

The above site seems to be recommending STEM jobs which are not the
kind of jobs that I would recommend to a grand child of mine. Here's
"H-1B visas make STEM careers unattractive to American students
http://www.machinedesign.com/blog/h-1b-visas-make-stem-careers-unattractive-american-students
"How H-1B Visas Are Screwing Tech Workers"
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/silicon-valley-h1b-visas-hurt-tech-workers/
"The STEM Crisis Is a Myth"
https://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-is-a-myth
"What STEM shortage? Electrical engineering lost 35,000 jobs last
year"
https://www.computerworld.com/article/2487847/it-careers/what-stem-shortage--electrical-engineering-lost-35-000-jobs-last-year.html

Post by El Castor
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/26/jobs-future-automation-robots-skills-creative-health
http://www.businessinsider.com/careers-that-are-safe-from-automation-2017-5
https://www.ft.com/content/0c7906d6-be89-11e5-9fdb-87b8d15baec2
http://fortune.com/2016/07/11/skills-gap-automation/

You asked me a question, and I answered it as best as I could. Where
did MotherJones, Spectrum, and Computerworld come from? Here, again
was, and is, my answer.
The threat isn't cheap foreign labor, it's even cheaper robot labor.
So, tech if he had the brains for it, and was so inclined -- otherwise
any robot resistant occupation like electrician, plumber, or ...
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/01/these-are-the-robot-proof-jobs-of-the-future-pew-research.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/26/jobs-future-automation-robots-skills-creative-health
http://www.businessinsider.com/careers-that-are-safe-from-automation-2017-5
https://www.ft.com/content/0c7906d6-be89-11e5-9fdb-87b8d15baec2
http://fortune.com/2016/07/11/skills-gap-automation/

The subject of this thread was competition from foreign workers which
I see as currently the biggest threat to American wage earners. If you
prefer to talk about the threat from factory automation, or even
individual robots, that's fine.
However, with Chinese workers making $2.50 an hour and with the
government importing foreign workers on H1B visas, and with
immigration from third-world countries, at high levels, I personally
see foreign competition as the biggest problem for the American
worker.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Robots are rapidly replacing human labor all
over the world. For instance, the single commonest manual labor job in
the US is truck driver. Within 10 years, those jobs will be gone, and
so will many white collar jobs. What will remain will be manual labor
requiring adaptation to an unpredictable variety of situations, like
electricians and plumbers. The world is changing.

I agree that computers and automation will continue to replace many
jobs, but so does offshoring, immigration, and temporary foreign
-----------
"STEM Grads Are at a Loss
Those who claim there's a STEM skills shortage are ignoring the
evidence."
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/09/15/stem-graduates-cant-find-jobs

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
When the day comes that they do invent individual robots, btw, I doubt
if corporations will even be able to keep one of them running for
$2.50/hr. The power consumption alone would probably be more than
that.

You're out of touch. Take a look
http://youtu.be/sjAZGUcjrP8
http://youtu.be/UtBa9yVZBJM
Similar operation in China ...
http://youtu.be/FBl4Y55V2Z4

It's a matter of semantics I suppose, and we've talked about this
before, I call that sort of thing "industrial automation", or "factory
automation", or "material handling automation", etc. I, personally,
don't call it "robots", or "robotics", but some people do. This sort
of automation is advancing rapidly, but it dates back hundreds of
years, or more. The waterwheel is one example that comes to mind.
As a steel worker who lost his job after 20 years due to the plant I
worked for being antiquated and lacking "continuous casting", among
other things, I'm very familiar with what effect automation (and the
lack of it) can have on jobs.

Automation, robots, or whatever you want to call it, is not just about
manufacturing. Remember the record store and book store? The local
Sears is closing. JC Penny's and electronics stores are long gone, and
strip malls all over the country are in trouble. They weren't put out
of business by H1B workers. It's technology, technology, technology!
Where does it all end? I have no idea, but I suspect that despite dire
predictions, the population is going to decline, along with already
plummeting fertility rates. There is no unwritten law that requires a
a 5 day, 40 hour work week. That is going to change. AI is becoming
increasingly important -- and smarter by the day. Maybe in a couple of
hiundred years we will begin o look like the Borg, or become little
more than zoo animals. (-8

I picture humans living in high-rise buildings, in cheap apartments,
owned by the company store (like the John Henry song), or owned by the
government, where husbands and wives work 8-12 hours a day and are
treated very much like zoo animals. In other words, things will be
similar to what they are now, but a lot worse.

Well Mister gloom and doom, I think you are way off base.

Post by mg
However, what I was wondering about when I started this thread is
right now, at the current time, what would be a good occupation for a
young person to enter and I can't think of very many answers. The
medical field is good, I think, because of the lack of competition and
union jobs, like in the government are probably good, but might not
last very long. Jobs in public universities seem to be really good. It
looks like those people pretty much write their own ticket with the
legislatures giving them a blank check.

The links I posted were focused on jobs that will be resistant to
computerization and robotics. Believe it or not, that is where we are
headed. I would hope that at least the first four years of college
will be available soon on-line -- and be respected.

BTW -- Back when I worked for a living I had a lot of experience with
H1Bs -- mostly Indian. They were brought in as a group of 20 - 30 to
do a specific programming project that might take three months, and
then they were gone. They were strictly project workers. Serious, hard
working people, and very convenient since they could be supplied in
the quantity needed on short notice. I recall a smaller three person
project. An American contractor, and two subodinates were bought in.
The guy in charge just up and disappeared after about a month.

Post by mg
Probably the best answer, I suppose, is for husband and wife to both
get two or three degrees before they have children and then hope for
the best.

[Gary]

On Sat, 12 May 2018 11:55:34 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
On Sat, 12 May 2018 02:12:17 -0700, El Castor

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
The subject of this thread was competition from foreign workers which
I see as currently the biggest threat to American wage earners. If you
prefer to talk about the threat from factory automation, or even
individual robots, that's fine.
However, with Chinese workers making $2.50 an hour and with the
government importing foreign workers on H1B visas, and with
immigration from third-world countries, at high levels, I personally
see foreign competition as the biggest problem for the American
worker.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Robots are rapidly replacing human labor all
over the world. For instance, the single commonest manual labor job in
the US is truck driver. Within 10 years, those jobs will be gone, and
so will many white collar jobs. What will remain will be manual labor
requiring adaptation to an unpredictable variety of situations, like
electricians and plumbers. The world is changing.

I agree that computers and automation will continue to replace many
jobs, but so does offshoring, immigration, and temporary foreign
-----------
"STEM Grads Are at a Loss
Those who claim there's a STEM skills shortage are ignoring the
evidence."
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/09/15/stem-graduates-cant-find-jobs

Post by El Castor

Post by mg
When the day comes that they do invent individual robots, btw, I doubt
if corporations will even be able to keep one of them running for
$2.50/hr. The power consumption alone would probably be more than
that.

You're out of touch. Take a look
http://youtu.be/sjAZGUcjrP8
http://youtu.be/UtBa9yVZBJM
Similar operation in China ...
http://youtu.be/FBl4Y55V2Z4

It's a matter of semantics I suppose, and we've talked about this
before, I call that sort of thing "industrial automation", or "factory
automation", or "material handling automation", etc. I, personally,
don't call it "robots", or "robotics", but some people do. This sort
of automation is advancing rapidly, but it dates back hundreds of
years, or more. The waterwheel is one example that comes to mind.
As a steel worker who lost his job after 20 years due to the plant I
worked for being antiquated and lacking "continuous casting", among
other things, I'm very familiar with what effect automation (and the
lack of it) can have on jobs.

Automation, robots, or whatever you want to call it, is not just about
manufacturing. Remember the record store and book store? The local
Sears is closing. JC Penny's and electronics stores are long gone, and
strip malls all over the country are in trouble.

Sounds like our town. A few years ago, our shopping mall was
anchored at one end by Sears and the other by JC Penney. Sears left
four years ago and Penneys left last year. We use to have several
books stores in town. I doubt if we have one left.

Post by El Castor
They weren't put out
of business by H1B workers. It's technology, technology, technology!
Where does it all end? I have no idea, but I suspect that despite dire
predictions, the population is going to decline, along with already
plummeting fertility rates. There is no unwritten law that requires a
a 5 day, 40 hour work week. That is going to change. AI is becoming
increasingly important -- and smarter by the day. Maybe in a couple of
hiundred years we will begin o look like the Borg, or become little
more than zoo animals. (-8