Lessig

Is there necessarily a link between increased technology jobs in China and India (examples that you gave) and lost jobs for Americans? I am not so convinced that the data supports that conclusion; the technology sector is growing horizontally, not just vertically. However, even if Americans are “losing” jobs to China and India, I’m not so convinced that this is a problem. America has benefited for decades from intellectual flight from other countries, but technology now creates an opportunity for intellectuals to stay at home and bring value not only to America (as Americans and others hire and use their expertise) but also to boost their own economies by staying at home (not that immigrants should not be welcome, of course we should welcome them should they want to leave their homelands – many, however, do not, and technology now allows them to stay at home and make a decent living). In the U.S. we are a flexible, growing economy. Silicon Valley has had its bumps, but from a larger perspective the U.S. is still very close to what has been traditionally believed to be the static unemployment level. I think we’re all better off by using the increasingly better intellects of the Chinese and Indian technology minds: doing so is in fact an example of a strength of U.S. entrepreneurism, not a problem with it; using the best minds worldwide and creating great new products from them. Also, increasing labor standards worldwide is a noble objective, but don’t you think that doing so is often a (perhaps caché) form of market protectionism?

I think Edwards is exactly right to be concerned about loosing out in the technology age. It is a great humanitarian situation to have a company like Dell set up shop in India (note: Dell employs talented Indian workers with comparatively excellent salaries, not like the slave labor trade used by Nike) yet we need to provide incentives for companies to stay here too. Here is an article about Intel's chairman forecasting the future, if we don't do something to change it. The most powerful countries and people of the future age will necessarily be the leaders in technology. We are now completely dependent on technology for our job markets, our national security, our education, our environment, etc. We need a leader who is aware of this because if we just let everything go the way it is going, America and the rest of the world will be doomed one day from a high-school kid's backyard science experiment. This is the heart of why I am supporting you Mr. Edwards. I am extremely excited to hear more of your views unfold in depth.

Patrick Ryan:

even if Americans are “losing” jobs to China and India, I’m not so convinced that this is a problem...technology now creates an opportunity for intellectuals to stay at home and bring value not only to America (as Americans and others hire and use their expertise) but also to boost their own economies by staying at home...using the best minds worldwide and creating great new products from themfrom a larger perspective the U.S. is still very close to what has been traditionally believed to be the static unemployment level.

The unemployment level is higher (maybe far higher) than the percentage you see reported in the newspapers, because that number was finagled to only reflect those people drawing unemployment pay ("new jobless claims" is the commonly-quoted statistic). Once your unemployment benefits run out, you magically fall off the list of the unemployed. Similarly, the homeless don't count as unemployed because they aren't actively searching for work and filling out the forms at the employment office.

andrew:

we need to provide incentives for companies to stay here too.

Here's the issue in a nutshell. We are reaping the rewards of a sky-high cost of living compared to the "developing" world, standardization of business practices that enable decent-quality production regardless of location, and the relatively recent phenomenon of safe and rapid communications around the world. I guarantee you that if the cost of living in India were the same as the cost of living in the U.S., we would not have a problem with companies moving their operations to India. Similarly if it took 3 months to get products transported from India as opposed to 1 week to get it from Peoria and what you got from India broke in two months while Peoria's product lasted 20 years, most companies would do business with Peoria. In a free-market environment, it is only common sense that companies will produce products where the labor costs are lowest; and that boils down to just about anywhere BUT here at home.

So what can we ask Senator Edwards to do? Should he advocate raising tariffs on all imports to the point where domestic sources are price-competitive? Should he demand that foreign governments strongarm their industries to raise the wages of their citizens to where they are equivalent to what American workers are paid for similar work?

I submit that there is NOTHING that ANY candidate can do. We are going to have to suffer for a while, as our quality of life is brought down closer to the quality of life in other countries. Along the way we will have to see the ratio of our cost of living vs. the cost of living in other countries decrease, either through decline in our cost of living (through privation and hardship) or increase in the cost of living in those countries. It's not going to be a lot of fun for us, and it's going to take more than a few years for the imbalance to work itself out.

The changes coming from an increasingly international marketplace for labor cannot be stopped by our leaders. At best, they can affect the pace and nature of the changes - while trying to encourage the creation of jobs that can only be done by a highly-skilled workforce that constantly learns and adapts. It will take leadership and vision for a president to lead America forward in a global economy - instead of the more popular route of trying to preserve the status quo. It will be even harder for a democrat when the unions come calling. Good luck, Senator.

Rob asks a good question:
"That’s easy to say and it sounds like common sense; but the unanswered question is “move on and get re-trained in what?” What do we do in America that isn’t capable of being done overseas, and being done more cheaply because of a lower cost of labor and resources?"

The short answer is that we don't know, and we don't have to know. The government needs to provide funds for any sort of training for displaced workers. The market will take care of the rest. Displaced workers will individually seek new opportunities; some will train themselves advantageously while others will not. Businesses, who are in the job of making money, will research new opportunities, and some of the displaced/re-trained workers will benefit from these new ventures.

We are moving from a somewhat global economy to a truly global economy - the internet and lower-cost telecommunications cost are obviating the economic cost of distance. We shouldn't strive to prop up jobs that are more cheaply down out of our borders - we should provide incentives to workers and businesses to build new markets.

I was very impressed with you last night, Senator Edwards. As I southernor myself, I am glad to see someone stand up and show how the south is not backward at all.

As of now, you've got my vote.

One should note that some of the labor cost differential is as a result of indirect government subsidies.

When workers are imprisoned, as they are in the PRC, for labor union activities, it artifically lowers wages.

Of course, our trade policy is not concerned with THAT.

For places like China to be in our good graces, all they have to do is crush a few thousand bootleg Britney Spears CDs.

I'd be more favorably inclined if they started crushing the REAL Spears CDs. ;)

john edwards, you purposefully misconstrued what howard dean meant when he referred to the confederate flag, you know you did, and you continue to refuse to apologize for it. you calculated the political advantage you could gain by slandering a fellow democrat, you disregarded the cost your devisive mischaracterization has on race relations in america, and you contributed to the ongoing success of the republican southern strategy by insisting, as the republicans do, that "liberal yankees" just can't "understand" the south. you're no fool, senator, you are a trial lawyer, trained in the manipulation of language, and you knew howard dean was not saying, in effect, "all southerners embrace the confederate flag as a symbol of their racism." people, no matter where we're from, are not as stupid as you would like. this won't be forgotten. enjoy your ashton kutcher endorsement. you've been punk'd.

"When workers are imprisoned, as they are in the PRC, for labor union activities, it artifically lowers wages." How exactly does that happen, Matthew?

Mike from Fusionplex, I think Matthew's point is that imprisoning people for labor activities prevents unions from forming and keeps them from lobbying industry to raise wages. This artificially lowers wages as a net result, by giving industry far too much control over the process.

Thad, the guy who asked that question about Dean's statement (a question you refer to as slander) doesn't seem to share your view. Please read what he said about Dean's answer and Edwards' response then if you still want to discuss it, take it to another forum, where it might be on topic.

Your comparison of the number of graduating engineers in China vs in the US is a bit misleading. We're talking about a country with more then 4 times our population (~4.43x, china: 1,286,975,468 vs US: 290,342,554 from CIA factbook, estimates of course). If our rates were identical as a percentage of population, china would be at 443,000+ already, so 500,000 vs 100,000 isn't all that different.

Not that I don't agree that we should be stressing science in school more then is done today. Luckily, I was one of those kids that was exicited about science... well, not chemistry. :)

What is Senator Edwards position and Senate voting record on patent policy? What could we expect President Edwards to do with regards to patents?
Thanks!

I know it's not the time or place to be doing this (I apologize to you, Lessig), but to reiterate some comments from above:

Democrats should be uniting to defeat Bush. Everyone knows what Dean meant....a situation that could have been diffused quickly has only been escalated. His words were a little too cute, and could have been chosen better, but he's no racist and should not have to apologize.

You may now continue with your discussion of tech jobs in foreign markets//

Thanks for putting the pressure on Dean it was pretty obvious his efforts to pander to southern whites and play the race card on the souls of black people simply is not the right formula to rally the troops behind. Again thank you senator for confronting Dean ......

Rob said

"Can we for once stick to actual issues that affect our lives, and not pick our candidates based on how they stand on the Pledge of Allegiance or school prayer, or whether they wear boxers or smoked pot?"

People are doing exactly that, Rob. Smoking marijuana does affect people's lives, that's why there are so many people organized on the issue. It's important enough to their lives to ask all the candidates what their stance is on the issue of medical marijuana (including asking about local vs. federal disparities). Medical marijuana is apparently important enough to people to change the law locally so they can legally do what they want or need to do. It would be nice if Sen. Edwards would talk more about technological and legal issues relevant to this blog (something on copyright policy, for instance), but maybe that will come later. For now, it appears that people are saying it looks mighty bad that Sen. Edwards would arrest others for doing something medically prescribed that he did (presumably without medical prescription).

The implication being, I guess, that if a candidate smoked pot at some point in the past he would be amenable to legalizing it? I don't know if that holds water. Anyway, pot makes absolutely no difference to me as a political issue. I don't smoke it, won't smoke it, and it won't resolve the issue of our jobs being lost overseas, of increasingly draconian efforts by big media conglomerates to control what we see and hear, or of nuclear programs in North Korea and Iran. The question at the CNN forum did not mention medical MJ at all; it was just the typical titillating, stir-the-pot kind of irrelevant question that we've seen all too much of in recent years. This is our serious political discourse?

Mark Ashton:

The idea that H1B visas steal jobs from Americans is just ridiculous...If we welcome them to our country, and particularly if they decide to naturalize, an American job is created, not taken away.

This is the old tech-bubble era argument that there aren't enough "qualified" American engineers to fill the positions, so we are forced to import workers from overseas. I don't buy this logic. If there is an opening at a company and an H1B worker is hired to fill it, that position is NOT filled by an American worker. You can't tell me that there aren't any American workers available out there, especially nowadays. Even if (as Mark suggests) they decide to get naturalized and become American citizens, that still doesn't change the fact that they have filled a position that could have been filled by someone who was already here.

Don't misunderstand: I don't think the H1B program is a totally bad thing. The H1B people who come over here and work are good people, they work hard and do a good job. But the fact remains that they are replacing American workers, at a time when there are plenty of American workers around looking for a job. They are further diluting the labor market, enabling employers to get away with paying lower salaries than they would have had to if there were no H1B workers available. Yes, they do contribute to our economy while they are here, but so would an American worker, and every dollar they send home or take home when they leave is a dollar taken out of our economy that wouldn't have been if an American was in the position. That's just the stark reality.

I apologize for emulating "scott huminsky" with these long posts. I love this discourse.

David Thomson:

Oh wowie, does Scott Huminski and Indymedia.org truly represent the real power in today’s Democrat Party?

The estimable Mr. huminsky is a crank with an axe to grind against Howard Dean. Why he thinks posting in a John Edwards discussion will further his agenda is beyond me. Gotta love America.

Senator Edwards:

Call me jaded but I see nothing that the President, nor Congress can do to keep jobs from leaving America for overseas. I may be simple-minded, but when capital can move around the world and IP-protection is fairly consistent within the global trading community, capital will always move to the place with the least costs. Nothing the US government can do short of imposing massive tarrifs (which would probably end up in WTo or NAFTA trade courts) can stem the tide of capital's march. There's plenty of economic issues related to capital flight, but they are out of the scope of this piece.

If you want my respect as a leader do 2 things:
1. make realistic moves to curb corporate influence in the government arena. I'm not talking about removing the corproate voice from political activity, but let's level the playing field a little in terms of who benefits from legislation, tax breaks, and campaign financing.
2. redress the balance in income disparity. You don't need to rob Peter to pay Paul, but it is obvious that income disparity is a significant contributor to political activity (or lack thereof) in my social circles. When a CEO makes 100s of times as much money as his average employee, moves jobs overseas, has the company's stock value remain the same or even dip lower and yet still get six or seven figures in compensation something is wrong.

I heard there are 40 millionaries in the Senate this morning. This country seems to be run by the rich, for the rich. If you can break that perception (even better if you can break the reality) then you have my respect.

Bottom line: lead by principled example and change the system rather than make stands and claims for things that would never work within the existing system.

With cheers for John Edwards' completely honorable intentions, I would like to respond to Andrew's response above (I am a different Andrew) and several other people's apathetic stance (including Rob's response to my original comment (sheesh, we need threads!)) on global technological economies and what essentially leads to free trade. All of this discussion, in terms of intermingling America's interests with the World's interests is ultimately best served when a leader approaches the situation, at least at this point in time, much like the captain of a ship. If you just say, as some of you commenteers have been saying, that there is nothing we can do about loosing tech sector jobs and influence to other countries, aside from imposing mean and unruly penalties, you are completely mislead and uninformed about the kinds of influences a single person can have, let alone the weight of a well influenced policy behind an entire nation and you will stand by and watch your ship in peril. Edwards willingness to even recognize the wellwafe of other developing countries, outshines Bush from the get-go. As you can infer from John Edwards' foreign policy, the number one most important thing that we need to do, and the thing that George Bush has failed the greatest at, is be good neighbors to the rest of the world. Instead of going around and telling everyone that that we can do whatever we want, the UN is powerless under us -do as we say or we will take your country away from you, this and that, which is itself the cause of a nearly universal anti-American sentiment shared by the rest of the world- we need someone who is willing to help protect our interests as a country while going out into the world and playing fair with everyone else. Yet, by simply putting our money where our mouth could be instead and leading the world into the information age, by assuring America's good and growing standard of living, which will require concentrating on the future and surviving as a business dependent on technology, necessarily the rest of the world will continue to intertwine itself with us, especially with a foreign policy like Edwards where we are for the world, knowing that that all people should be treated equally everywhere, not just in America, in the hopes that one day all nations can enjoy the same freedom and opportunities that we enjoy here in America, plus much more. It sounds like a dream but this must be worked towards, or it will never happen. What we need is a President who is unwilling to let anything "just happen". John Edwards has my support completely.

Tell it to the Iraqis who would still be getting tortured and murdered by Saddam’s minions if Edwards had his way.

As opposed to being tortured and murdered by Bush's minions?

I did not comment on Greg Thrasher's post because I didn't see anything I could add to it. Al Sharpton has as much right to run for President as anyone else does. He has a message and he delivers it well. The fact that I would not vote for him does not give me the right to demand his exit from the race; he himself will make that determination, or the voters will next spring. There should be no prior restraint on free speech, isn't that the way a lawyer would say it? Senator Edwards deserved Greg's credit for treating Sharpton's policy statements seriously.

I have no idea who Brad DeLong is and only a passing familiarity with Paul Krugman, so that reference to authority scores no points with me.

Rob wrote:

The implication being, I guess, that if a candidate smoked pot at some point in the past he would be amenable to legalizing it?

No, the article I linked to was quite explicit. Sen. Edwards admitted to doing something (illegally) that he would imprison others for doing semi-legally (legally in their state, illegally federally). Legalization would obviously address the article's author's issues, but that's not the only option. Getting the federal government out of arresting and prosecuting medical marijuana users is another possibility. I'm sure the group would be happy to tell you other ways in which their needs could be met, if you were willing to listen to what they had to say.

Anyway, pot makes absolutely no difference to me as a political issue. I don’t smoke it, won’t smoke it, and it won’t resolve the issue of our jobs being lost overseas, of increasingly draconian efforts by big media conglomerates to control what we see and hear, or of nuclear programs in North Korea and Iran.

I wonder why we are spending so much money to put so many people in prison (corporate-owned prisons, too) for non-violent drug offenses. And not just any people--a disproportionate number of them are non-white, which raises further questions. I also wonder why the federal government is putting people who get genuine relief from smoking pot into the no-win situation of acting legally state-wide but acting illegally federally. Prison reform, state's rights, and drug disparities are some of the issues this issue connects to. I don't think I'm alone in recognizing this. Your lack of compassion for the plight of these people says more about you than it does to bolster your attempt to dismiss the issue as unimportant.

I try very consciously, when posting in a public forum like this, to refrain as much as possible from impugning the motives of a poster who I don't know from Adam (or Eve). I do not lack compassion for the plight of people in pain who are unable to take pain-killing drugs for whatever reason and see medical MJ as their only hope of having a semi-normal life. In fact I support the legalization of all illegal narcotics for use under a doctor's prescription- as long as there are sufficient controls to ensure that those narcotics are indeed used as directed and not resold on the street.

What I lack compassion for are moronic questions like whether a candidate smoked pot or wears boxers or plays a saxophone. These give little or no insight to what a candidate's policy positions are going to be, and should not be tolerated in a forum intended to help the voters decide which candidate to vote for. If the question had been phrased in terms of medical marijuana I would not object; but it wasn't and therefore I object most strenuously.

As for the rest of your post, J.B., you might be surprised to learn that I completely agree with you and would be interested in Senator Edwards' responses. Unfortunately it looks like he's probably going to be too busy to give you an answer.

I wanted to applaud Senator Edwards for reprimanding Howard Dean for his condescending comments that were obvioulsy a ploy to reach out to voters who feel no connection to his campaign at all. It is simply appalling to think that somewhere in Dean's mind he felt that what he said was anywhere close to appropriate. Edwards represented his constituents of North Carolina and more importantly the nation as a whole when he attacked Dean for his poor choice of words. Edwards is very articulate, honest, and smart man who will make a fine president.

I agree with Steph. This week's "guest" blogging has been a real disappointment. What a missed opportunity to reach out to voters.

On outsourcing, Bob writes: "The changes coming from an increasingly
international marketplace for labor cannot be stopped by our leaders."

Why not? Should unions also be abolished? Should monopolies such
as Microsoft be left alone in the 'free marketplace'?

The point is, the US is not anarchy; there are limitations in place
so things don't get out of control.

(Also, do you think other countries don't impose high tariffs on foreign
goods? The playing field is not level to begin with, ignoring the different
labor costs.)

The vast difference in labor costs results in American jobs, American money,
and American strategic advantage being shipped overseas.

Outsourcing means:

- Loss of US jobs.

- Loss of income tax on lost US jobs, and sales tax on consumer goods bought
via those US jobs.

- Loss of strategic advantage.

This is essentially a form of international socialism -- fueling the world's
advancement, at America's expense.

I have just read where Dean has backpedaled and offered up apologies to people of color and southern whites for his flagwaving( wrong flag) pitch. Again thank you senator for your influence and principled posture in regards to this issue. Again given our country's ugly racial history where people of color were not only held in contempt for centuries but killed just because of the hue of thier skin your pressure on Dean was right and on the money!!!!

I thought you were the one that was pandering on Rock the vote. And find my take on the issue where you demanded an apology to be nothing but pure demagoguery. Excert[s frp, tjos article explain it better than I can. Full article is at my name.

By Derrick Z. Jackson, 11/7/2003
Boston Globe
NO ONE ACCUSED Howard Dean of whistling Dixie in February when he tried to appeal to Southern white men or to Southern black people about Southern white men.

"You know all those white guys riding around with Confederate flags in the back of their pickup trucks? Well, their kids don't have health insurance either."

Dean said this before a group of African-Americans at a hamburger joint in Spartanburg, S.C. A Newsday story said, "This blunt appeal to a commonality of racial interests won the moment and a burst of applause."

That same month in Washington at the Democratic National Committee winter meeting, Dean said, "I intend to talk about race during this election in the South because the Republicans have been talking about it since 1968 in order to divide us. . . . White folks in the South who drive pickup trucks with Confederate flag decals in the back ought to be voting with us and not them, because their kids don't have health insurance either and their kids need better schools, too."

That brought a standing ovation.

That makes very curious the catcalls nine months later from Dean's rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination. Last Saturday, Dean said in the Des Moines Register, "I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks. We can't beat George Bush unless we appeal to a broad cross-section of Democrats."

As if this was the first time they heard it, the other candidates drew crossbows. John Kerry said it was "craven." Joseph Lieberman said it was "reckless." Dick Gephardt said "I will be the candidate for guys with American flags."

At this week's Rock the Vote forum in Boston, John Edwards told Dean, "The last thing we need in the South is somebody like you coming down and telling us what we need to do." Al Sharpton said Dean sounded "more like Stonewall Jackson than Jesse Jackson." Sharpton also said, "Maynard Jackson said that the Confederate flag is America's swastika. . . . I don't think you're a bigot, but I think that is insensitive."

That last dig showed how fast Sharpton and the Democratic candidates get lost without a compass. Maynard Jackson, Atlanta's first African-American mayor who died this summer, gave Dean some of the loudest applause at the DNC meeting.

"Dean blew the roof off today," Jackson said. "There was no mealy-mouth wishy-washiness about it. It was very gutsy."

Donna Brazile, the campaign manager for the 2000 presidential campaign of Al Gore and Lieberman, and no mealy-mouth herself, said Dean's words were "the medicine to cure my depression." Referring to the Democrats' fear of squarely taking on Bush's policies, Brazile, despite her neutrality, said, "Anybody who gets us off the floor and out of the fetal position, I'm for."

The Democrats should stop trying to mop the floor with Dean's Confederate flag and grab their opportunity before it is lost. There is a health care crisis that cuts across race. There is a public education crisis that cuts across race. There is a jobless economic "recovery" that cuts across race. The Republicans have successfully distracted huge swaths of white males from those problems, exploiting various codes that blame everyone except straight white men for America's problems.

In the Deep South, ties to the Confederacy remain a powerful political code. In 2001, white voters in Mississippi voted overwhelmingly to retain the current flag, which includes the Confederate symbol, over the wishes of African-American voters who wanted a new flag. This week, former Republican National Committee chairman Haley Barbour won the Mississippi governor's race after defiantly refusing to disavow the use of his photo by the Council of Conservative Citizens, a group tied to the old segregationist white citizens councils. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney came to Mississippi to campaign for Barbour.

While Barbour played to the code, Dean was trying to crack it. Some political analysts talk as if the white South is locked up forever for the Republicans. Had the Democrats won just one other state in 2000, Bush would not be in the White House. Clinton had the economic message to win several Southern states in both 1992 and 1996.

Dean has since apologized for invoking Confederate imagery. He should drop the Confederate line because it risks its own distraction, narrowly stereotyping Southern white males when too many white men all across America, broadly stereotyped as "NASCAR dads," have been persuaded to vote for codes against their best economic interests.

Dean should not drop the cause. The real apology should come from the other Democratic candidates for not joining it. Dean was the first to get off the floor to say the Democrats cannot win unless they tell white men how code politics is killing them in the pocketbook. Back in February, Maynard Jackson said Dean's bluntness "stole the show." The other candidates are merely jealous that Dean stole the issue of white men while they are still talking their way out of the fetal position.

Derrick Z. Jackson's e-mail address is jackson@globe.com.

A.LaP. writes:

"And the 'class warfare' horse is already out of the barn. In America we have a government now which is a wealth protection society for the already wealthy, and which doesn't want to reward work, innovation, effort, etc, with wealthy."

I disagree. We have a government that allows the son of a mill worker to become a millionaire and a US Senator, such as John Edwards.

I went to college via US government federal loans, worked hard through school, worked hard upon graduation, and now have a very good career. I have zero guilt about my achievements.

America is the land of opportunity for any American willing to work hard, and work smart. Just as John Edwards.

 

very interesting, regards from bajar musica