US Elections 2012 Part I: The Primaries/Caucus

[Vexx]

It is beginning to look like underemployment is a permanent feature of US society. And given the "HR department" list of reasons not to hire -- going for a job that pays less, they won't hire ... being unemployed, they won't hire ... not meeting the job "requirements" exactly, they won't even interview.

"Yeah, I know 8.1 of that...." "No, we're looking for 8.11 candidates, we can't seem to find any though but goodbye"

And then the "we need H1-Bs" comes out because they "can't find qualified candidates" when in fact they've simply made the requirements absurd.

And I'm pretty absolutely sure I'm being sidelined in many interviews because of my age as well as being "overqualified/overpaid/over..."

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

One thing to note here, most of the money from the sale of goods doesn't go to China, it goes to the US company that designed it and owns the brand. The "smart" high paying work is done in the US, the "stupid" low paying work is done in China. Most of the money from the sale goes to the US. It's a bit like Tropical Fruit, as you know the average farmer in South America gets maybe a 10th of the sale price(if he's lucky...) for his produce.

Not much consolation for all the displaced factory workers though.

There are two issues with this:
1. The "US Company" having the money isn't a consolation if the company then only invest in further developments in China. The Company being American in name only means rich CEOs and their inflated bonuses. The "smart" high paying work just isn't enough to sustain the United States, and never mind that very few people ever become qualified. Having high paying jobs is not going to help anyone when most people can never get access to them. Worse, companies are trying to move those jobs to China as well.

Low paying jobs are how people get their feet through the door in an industry. Without them, you can never become more qualified. In China most factory workers aim to use their salaries to get better education, so they can advance their own careers as thy work. This option is now all but cut off in the US.

[Mr. DJ]

Originally Posted by Vexx

It is beginning to look like underemployment is a permanent feature of US society. And given the "HR department" list of reasons not to hire -- going for a job that pays less, they won't hire ... being unemployed, they won't hire ... not meeting the job "requirements" exactly, they won't even interview.

"Yeah, I know 8.1 of that...." "No, we're looking for 8.11 candidates, we can't seem to find any though but goodbye"

And then the "we need H1-Bs" comes out because they "can't find qualified candidates" when in fact they've simply made the requirements absurd.

And I'm pretty absolutely sure I'm being sidelined in many interviews because of my age as well as being "overqualified/overpaid/over..."

A friend of mine had a job lined up at Firestone, but got rejected at the end because they found someone "more qualified." I guess they don't like training new employees unless they absolutely have to, which is a damn shame.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Vexx

"Yeah, I know 8.1 of that...." "No, we're looking for 8.11 candidates, we can't seem to find any though but goodbye"

And then the "we need H1-Bs" comes out because they "can't find qualified candidates" when in fact they've simply made the requirements absurd.

I'm unemployed myself and looking for work, so I sympathise, but I think they only raise the requirements because they can. If they have 5 openings and 100 applicants, they'll naturally raise the requirements so that they're down to 5. If it was 50 openings and only 20 applicants, they wouldn't be able to afford being so picky.

Ultimately, the root cause is that there's too many applicants and too few jobs, and no individual HR department is at fault for that.

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

There are two issues with this:
1. The "US Company" having the money isn't a consolation if the company then only invest in further developments in China. The Company being American in name only means rich CEOs and their inflated bonuses. The "smart" high paying work just isn't enough to sustain the United States, and never mind that very few people ever become qualified. Having high paying jobs is not going to help anyone when most people can never get access to them. Worse, companies are trying to move those jobs to China as well.

A lot of that cash doesn't go to just CEOs and shareholders, there's also all the design work, which is still performed by americans. If we look at the iphone, say, only the final assembly and maybe the casing manufacture takes place in China. That might be ~10% of the iphone's price. All the chips inside are manufactured in Korea, Japan, Germany, the USA etc. Not only that, but a good 1/3 of the final cost to consumer goes towards the retailer and shipping, which is all in the US. Combine that with the expensive design and testing work that all takes place in the USA, then I'd say a good 50% or more of the money from every sale is going to people in the US. The same goes for many other goods.

A lot more work takes place in the US then you might think, but a lot of it is "invisible". 80% of the components in a product might be made in the USA, but if the final assembly takes place in China, it still gets slapped with the "Made in China" label.

That's not to say that America hasn't lost a lot of industrial jobs, it has, but I think a lot more of it is due to the simple fact that modern factories don't need 5000 people to do simple repetitive tasks any more, we have robots for that. Instead it needs 300 highly skilled people to keep the whole thing running.

Low paying jobs are how people get their feet through the door in an industry. Without them, you can never become more qualified. In China most factory workers aim to use their salaries to get better education, so they can advance their own careers as thy work. This option is now all but cut off in the US.

There is definitely a real lack of entry level work, I'll give you that, but I don't think the kind of routine factory work being exported to China would serve such a capacity. As an engineer, working on an assembly line won't give me any more of the skills to work in a factory then working as a barista in Starbucks. While the setting for assembly line work and engineering work might look the same, the substance of both types of work is very different.

Assembly line work is in my view a dead end career-wise. In terms of industry, you need to be either a technician (skilled use of machinery for manufacture and repair) or an engineer (design of machinery, industrial processes etc.) to have a real career ahead of you. Both of those types of work are not easily exported.

And anyway, even if a factory opened in the US tomorrow, you wouldn't see the massive number of jobs you see in a Chinese plant, as all those menial repetitive tasks will have been automated away in an American plant. There'd only be work for those with skills.

As I see it, the big growth area for a post industrial economy like the US, is to shift not to mass manufacture of many identical things, but the specialized manufacture of fewer unique things. That requires a lot more labour, and can also produce more value for the consumer. We also should simply shift to working less hours. Why have one person working 40 hours and earning 100,000 a year, when you can have 2 people working 20 hours and earning 50,000 a year. Perhaps they should emulate the communist French and mandate maximum working hours.

[Kyuu]

Someone send this video over to Romney:

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

I'm unemployed myself and looking for work, so I sympathise, but I think they only raise the requirements because they can. If they have 5 openings and 100 applicants, they'll naturally raise the requirements so that they're down to 5. If it was 50 openings and only 20 applicants, they wouldn't be able to afford being so picky.

Ultimately, the root cause is that there's too many applicants and too few jobs, and no individual HR department is at fault for that.

From the breezes I'm getting, that isn't the issue. The managers are complaining they know people they'd love to hire (i.e. qualified) but they don't get through the HR sieve, hence my "8.1" vs "8.11" remark. HR is coming up *empty* because they over-sift and then saying they need to H1-B. It is an actual flaw in the hiring process that has been accelerating as HR keeps over-riding manager input into the hiring process.

To use a Hitchhiker's Guide reference, we have "B Ark" people in control of the hiring process for "A" and "C" ark people. That is probably a mostly American phenomenon.

It is one reason I don't even bother applying or contracting with anything but small companies any more. I just try the "large corp" route applying periodically for the lulz.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Vexx

From the breezes I'm getting, that isn't the issue. The managers are complaining they know people they'd love to hire (i.e. qualified) but they don't get through the HR sieve, hence my "8.1" vs "8.11" remark. HR is coming up *empty* because they over-sift and then saying they need to H1-B. It is an actual flaw in the hiring process that has been accelerating as HR keeps over-riding manager input into the hiring process.

To use a Hitchhiker's Guide reference, we have "B Ark" people in control of the hiring process for "A" and "C" ark people. That is probably a mostly American phenomenon.

It is one reason I don't even bother applying or contracting with anything but small companies any more. I just try the "large corp" route periodically for the lulz.

Maybe so. But that sounds to me like something that would vary from company to company. The ones with the more flexible HR should (in theory) outcompete the inflexible HR.

Though it does sound like a problem you'd find with large companies over smaller ones. Generally, I've found the smaller places have been a lot better at looking past the numbers and qualifications to the real person behind the CV.

[Ledgem]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Assembly line work is in my view a dead end career-wise. In terms of industry, you need to be either a technician (skilled use of machinery for manufacture and repair) or an engineer (design of machinery, industrial processes etc.) to have a real career ahead of you. Both of those types of work are not easily exported.

I don't know about this. It's certainly not the type of job experience that will give you great mobility to enter higher-level jobs, but if gives you experience that you could theoretically sell to get into management. If you can figure out how to optimize the work flow or manage people, you're exhibiting skills and behaviors that you can use to upgrade your job.

Based on what I've heard, that's how things used to be done. The problem is that today there are a lot of people going for degrees in business. Many of these people skip the entry-level work with their degree and jump straight into the managerial roles that entry-level workers used to be promoted to. This creates a problem where it's much harder for the entry-level workers to advance, unless they have a degree... in which case they might as well have skipped the entry-level work in the first place.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

And anyway, even if a factory opened in the US tomorrow, you wouldn't see the massive number of jobs you see in a Chinese plant, as all those menial repetitive tasks will have been automated away in an American plant. There'd only be work for those with skills.

I've heard it argued a few times that automation will eventually create a backlash, because it will make too many jobs redundant. At the moment I think that outsourcing has played a much greater role than automation in taking away entry-level jobs/unskilled labor positions, though.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

As I see it, the big growth area for a post industrial economy like the US, is to shift not to mass manufacture of many identical things, but the specialized manufacture of fewer unique things. That requires a lot more labour, and can also produce more value for the consumer. We also should simply shift to working less hours. Why have one person working 40 hours and earning 100,000 a year, when you can have 2 people working 20 hours and earning 50,000 a year. Perhaps they should emulate the communist French and mandate maximum working hours.

Most Americans would never go for that. Many people see millionaires and billionaires and aspire to "strike it rich" like them. Never mind that the chances for many are pretty low. There's the idea that with a lot of hard work and a bit of luck, you, too, can be rich and famous. If you're poor, then it's your own fault, or so the thinking goes... but then, when these people do become poor, suddenly it's someone else's faul, usually the government's.

Greed is a problem in American society, but it's not all bad. When the recession began to really take its toll on business, there were stories of some businesses where workers all agreed to take pay cuts so that some of their colleagues wouldn't need to be laid off. You can interpret multiple reasonings behind such decisions, but in practice it's somewhat similar to the French idea.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

I am going to play Devil's advocate here; maybe what the GOP should strive to be, is to become more like China?

You have social issues under state control. Abortion and Gay Marriage issues are determined by the government and everyone else just accepts it. And then there is the massive tax cuts for entrepreneurs and how the regulations can be ignored if you just bribe the right people. But then if someone really rocks the boat by being too corrupt, they get executed. (Nothing prevents moral hazard like executions) Oh, and of course, no health care for anyone who didn't save up for their own retirement.

Isn't that the ideal way modern GOP likes to govern?

EDIT:
Obama called Romney's views to be "Extreme". Interesting that the news outlets all put the quotation marks around the word "extreme" as if there was room for debate.
The GOP is so far Right as it is now, that the only political parties who share their views are nations like Iran. I know that everyone like to think of themselves as "moderates". But at some point a line needs to be drawn; if nearly everyone in the rest of the world is to your left, how the HELL can you still claim to hold the central moderate position?

The line "I am not crazy! Everyone else is, I am the only sane one around here" came to mind. It is sad that Obama even need to mention that Romney hold extreme positions; it showed that most of the voters still don't see it. Because everyone outside America already know that.

[ganbaru]

Storm Isaac forces Republicans to rework convention script
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...87P01H20120827
I read about this storm a week ago, am I the only one ?

[GDB]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Storm Isaac forces Republicans to rework convention script
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...87P01H20120827
I read about this storm a week ago, am I the only one ?

They had to do the same thing four years ago. They're too stupid and/or penny-pinching to not schedule this crap during hurricane season in areas likely to be hit by hurricanes.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I don't know about this. It's certainly not the type of job experience that will give you great mobility to enter higher-level jobs, but if gives you experience that you could theoretically sell to get into management. If you can figure out how to optimize the work flow or manage people, you're exhibiting skills and behaviors that you can use to upgrade your job.

It certainly gives you experience of handling assembly lines (EG the ideal foreman, a skilled position, is someone who previously worked on a line themselves), but as I said earlier, the trend is towards less and less assembly line work, so handling a legion of unskilled, unmotivated assembly line workers, to me, is an obsolete skill. In a way, we're going back to how things used to be. Before Ford the skill was in the worker, not the machine. So it shall be again.

Based on what I've heard, that's how things used to be done. The problem is that today there are a lot of people going for degrees in business. Many of these people skip the entry-level work with their degree and jump straight into the managerial roles that entry-level workers used to be promoted to. This creates a problem where it's much harder for the entry-level workers to advance, unless they have a degree... in which case they might as well have skipped the entry-level work in the first place.

Very true, yes. However, I think the future is not in megacorps with 1000s of employees, but in small businesses who are specialised and do contract work. In these small places promotion is a lot less rigid, if you're good you'll be promoted, with or without a degree. Ultimately, in the free market, the less rigid places will win.

I've heard it argued a few times that automation will eventually create a backlash, because it will make too many jobs redundant. At the moment I think that outsourcing has played a much greater role than automation in taking away entry-level jobs/unskilled labor positions, though.

I'm not so sure. The automation of routine labour has been going on for a long time. The first backlash against took place around 1800 (The Luddites). Since then, if anything, the backlash to technology has grown less fierce. Generally, every time an automation technology is introduced one group of people lose their livelihoods, but the economy has always managed to adjust, eventually. Compared to the Luddites, who were largely weavers, when computer printing completely destroyed the printing trade, the printers faded away with nary more then a whimper.

Most Americans would never go for that. Many people see millionaires and billionaires and aspire to "strike it rich" like them. Never mind that the chances for many are pretty low. There's the idea that with a lot of hard work and a bit of luck, you, too, can be rich and famous. If you're poor, then it's your own fault, or so the thinking goes... but then, when these people do become poor, suddenly it's someone else's faul, usually the government's.

I wouldn't be so sure. In particular, if we look at women with children, a lot of them desire more "work life balance", in order to devote more time to their children, while still maintaining some kind of professional career. Likewise, a lot of men are shedding traditional gender roles too, and want to spend more time with their families.

Enough people will demand flexitime and lower hours that the companies who offer this will gain the best talent, and also a motivated workforce who feel their employers actually care.

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

I am going to play Devil's advocate here; maybe what the GOP should strive to be, is to become more like China?

You have social issues under state control. Abortion and Gay Marriage issues are determined by the government and everyone else just accepts it. And then there is the massive tax cuts for entrepreneurs and how the regulations can be ignored if you just bribe the right people. But then if someone really rocks the boat by being too corrupt, they get executed. (Nothing prevents moral hazard like executions) Oh, and of course, no health care for anyone who didn't save up for their own retirement.

Isn't that the ideal way modern GOP likes to govern?

For all their cries of "Freedom" I think the GOP has a heavy dose of old old style conservatism (the idea that society should be controlled by the elites and tradition). In this way, they do share some similarities with the Communists in China. Both want citizens to give up greater freedom and autonomy in order to ensure "Stability" (in the Chinese case) and "Public Morality" (In the American case), both are ultimately the same thing.

Also, the GOP's championing of freedom is selfserving. They champion freedom for themselves (wealthy people) not freedom for everyone.

[ganbaru]

Interview: Romney blasts Obama for a 'vituperative' campaign
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...ign/57331498/1
As usual, complaining about the Democrate using method over-used by the GOP against him.

[GDB]

So, if the democrats are following the GOP's method of attacks, how long before they start calling Romney an elitist for using the word "vituperative" (in addition to all the other obvious stuff)? Can the use of that word be worthy of calling him an "elitist east coast liberal"?


Romney: "I don't think everybody likes me."

Now that he's admitted that the democrat attacks are working, does he really expect them to stop?

[Kyuu]

This image is very accurate:

Spoiler:

Face it. That's who they represent.

[ganbaru]

^ I would agree if it wasn't for the ''rape fans'', this one is a bit off.
''Woman haters'' or even ''Foetus Lovers'' sould be more appropriate, no ?

[ganbaru]

Romney clinches Republican nomination
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...d89_story.html

But the usual happy choreography of a convention roll-call came on a day of headaches for GOP bosses. Unhappy supporters of Texas Rep. Ron Paul, another presidential candidate, booed and chanted as the party adopted rules that could weaken their power in future elections. During the roll call, Ron Paul supporters from Nevada gave their five delegates to Romney with obvious reluctance.
When those rules were put to the convention for a vote, Paul supporters shouted “No,” and “Seat Maine now!” They shouted down one speaker, and forced Republican party chairman Reince Priebus to wield his gavel and demand order.

So the big GOP party have some issue...

Fact checking for thee, but not for me
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...03a7_blog.html

... As Buzzfeed reports this morning, top Romney advisers say their most effective ads are the ones attacking Obama over welfare, and that they will not allow their widespread denunciation by fact checkers as false slow down their campaign one little bit:

“Our most effective ad is our welfare ad,” a top television advertising strategist for Romney, Ashley O’Connor, said at a forum Tuesday hosted by ABCNews and Yahoo! News. “It’s new information.”...
The Washington Post’s “Fact Checker” awarded Romney’s ad “four Pinocchios,” a measure Romney pollster Neil Newhouse dismissed.
“Fact checkers come to this with their own sets of thoughts and beliefs, and we’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers,” he said.

[james0246]

The debt clock has to he one of the funniest props I've seen in at one of these conventions (right up there with the Grecian columns at Obama's convention). That being said the "We Built It" slogan has to be one of the stupidest Presidential slogans in years. Not due to the actual message (which is okay, even if weird for the Republican Party), but the fact that it is a blantant misrepresentation of reality. Are the Republican constituents really that stupid?

Edit: The moving background behind the speakers is very distracting. I'm getting a little motion sickness while watching CSPAN...

[GDB]

GOP "Updates" platform to bar all abortions and gay marriage.

So first they lambast the one guy for saying it isn't rape if she gets pregnant. Then their presidential representative and his running mate say abortion would be okay in the case of rape. Then the GOP takes the platform of "no abortions for any reason ever". Do these people think that there aren't records of these things?

And looking at some of these changes, holy crap. Their "Job Growth" idea is to make the economy better. That's it. They don't say how they intend to do that, just that it's the way to do it and not through stimulus packages. What?

They back a constitutional amendment that would make gay marriage illegal (by making it so marriage is just man and woman), yet they say it'd be cool for states to allow it? What the hell? Contradictions much? Also, lol at "less government" by implementing more government power.

HEALTH CARE:

It states that a Republican president on his first day in office would use his waiver authority to halt progress in carrying out the health care act pushed through by President Barack Obama and that Republican victories in November would guarantee that the act is never implemented. It proposes a Republican plan based on improving health care quality and lowering costs and a system that promotes the free market and gives consumers more choice.

Can the president even do that? I'm not a huge law buff or anything, so I'm not sure, but it seems like it'd be out of the president's hand to just "stop" a law like that.

DEFENSE:

The platform says Republicans are "the party of peace through strength" and support the concept of American exceptionalism — "the conviction that our country holds a unique place and role in human history." It criticizes the current administration for its weak positions toward such countries as North Korea, China and Iran and its reductions in military spending. The Republican national military strategy "restores as a principal objective the deterrence using the full spectrum of our military capabilities."

NOT ENOUGH WAR!@!!@!@!!!!

[DonQuigleone]

I think American Exceptionalism is a very dangerous idea. Holding your country is unique, special and plays by it's own special rules is simply a recipe for decline, stagnation and pointless wars and bad diplomacy.

You might love how you're so special, all the other countries in the world mightn't agree with you.