posted
Diane and I ended up watching a lot more of the Democratic Convention last night than we intended. Thought I'd post a few quotes and have them discussed, blasted, praised or ignored.
(Decided to limit this to sharing some text from Gore's remarks)
Al Gore surprised me. I think his speech last night was a better presentation than any he gave when he was running in 2000. I was relieved to hear that he was instructed to depart from the more shrill tone of some of his speeches in recent months. I believe the tone he hit last night is more effective actually reaches more people:
quote:Friends, fellow Democrats, fellow Americans, I'll be candid with you. I had hoped to be back here this week under different circumstances, running for re-election.
But you know the old saying: You win some, you lose some. And then there's that little-known third category.
I didn't come here tonight to talk about the past. After all, I don't want you to think I lie awake at night counting and recounting sheep.
***
These challenges we now confront are not Democratic or Republican challenges; they are American challenges - that we all must overcome together.
It is in that spirit, that I sincerely ask those watching at home who supported President Bush four years ago: did you really get what you expected from the candidate you voted for?
Is our country more united today?
Or more divided?
Has the promise of compassionate conservatism been fulfilled?
Or do those words now ring hollow?
For that matter, are the economic policies really conservative at all?
Did you expect, for example, the largest deficits in history? One after another? And the loss of more than a million jobs?
By the way, I know about the bad economy. I was the first one laid off. And while it's true that new jobs are being created, they're just not as good as the jobs people have lost. And incidentally, that's been true for me too.
Unfortunately, this is no joke for millions of Americans. And the real solutions require us to transcend partisanship.
So that's one reason why, even though we meet here as Democrats, we believe this is a time to reach beyond our party lines to Republicans as well.
I also ask tonight for the help of those who supported a third party candidate in 2000. I urge you to ask yourselves this question: Do you still believe that there was no difference between the candidates?
***
Wouldn't we be safer with a president who didn't insist on confusing al-Qaida with Iraq? Doesn't that divert too much of our attention away from the principal danger?
I want to say to all Americans this evening that whether it is the threat to the global environment or the erosion of America's leadership in the world, whether it is the challenge to our economy from new competitors or the challenge to our security from new enemies, I believe that we need new leadership that is both strong and wise.
And we can have new leadership, because one of our greatest strengths as a democracy is that when we are headed in the wrong direction, we can correct our course.
When policies are clearly not working, we can change them. If our leaders make mistakes, we can hold them accountable even if they never admit their mistakes.
posted
Bill Clinton was amazing last night. I'm usually fairly unimpressed with speeches, but damn. I miss that man.
Though the opening to the convention was freaking terrible. Glenn Close and various other idjits getting up and whining about September 11 -- it was just tragic, so tragic, on a beautiful morning, oh wow it was tragic, thank you goodnight. Gah. You're not Republicans -- you're supposed to be better than whoring out September 11 for political purposes.
I really enjoyed the rest of it, though. Damn I miss Bill Clinton. And Hillary Clinton's a damn good speaker, too -- I'd be interested in seeing her run in 2008.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's some of Clinton's speech. I found it interesting that the person most impressed with this approach - of the MSNBC commentators I heard - was Bill Scarborough, a Republican and conservative. He thinks this really does play right to Kerry's greatest strength and Bush's greatest weakness - as reflected in what misgivings polls report about the direction of the country and Bush as a leader:
quote:More importantly, we have great new champions in John Kerry and John Edwards. Two good men with wonderful wives-Teresa a generous and wise woman who understands the world we are trying to shape. And Elizabeth, a lawyer and mother who understands the lives we are all trying to lift. Here is what I know about John Kerry. During the Vietnam War, many young men -- including the current president, the vice president and me-could have gone to Vietnam but didn't. John Kerry came from a privileged background and could have avoided it too. Instead he said, send me.
When they sent those swift-boats up the river in Vietnam, and told them their job was to draw hostile fire-to show the American flag and bait the enemy to come out and fight-John Kerry said, send me. When it was time to heal the wounds of war and normalize relations with Vietnam-and to demand an accounting of the POWs and MIAs we lost there-John Kerry said, send me.
When we needed someone to push the cause of inner-city kids struggling to avoid a life of crime, or to bring the benefits of high technology to ordinary Americans, or to clean the environment in a way that creates jobs, or to give small businesses a better chance to make it, John Kerry said send me.
Tonight my friends, I ask you to join me for the next 100 days in telling John Kerry's story and promoting his plans. Let every person in this hall and all across America say to him what he has always said to America: Send Me. The bravery that the men who fought by his side saw in battle I've seen in the political arena. When I was President, John Kerry showed courage and conviction on crime, on welfare reform, on balancing the budget at a time when those priorities were not exactly a way to win a popularity contest in our party.
He took tough positions on tough problems. John Kerry knows who he is and where he's going. He has the experience, the character, the ideas and the values to be a great President. In a time of change he has two other important qualities: his insatiable curiosity to understand the forces shaping our lives, and a willingness to hear the views even of those who disagree with him. Therefore his choices will be full of both conviction and common sense.
***
Their opponents will tell you to be afraid of John Kerry and John Edwards, because they won't stand up to the terrorists -- don't you believe it. Strength and wisdom are not conflicting values -- they go hand in hand. John Kerry has both. His first priority will be keeping America safe. Remember the scripture: Be Not Afraid.
posted
Clinton following polls? That is what got him 8 years. It's a good thing they didn't give him the "are the economics really conservative" line.
It just seems like a lot of armchair QBing to me. Was there any attempt to explain how they would have better addressed the financial challenges that arose from Sept 11?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
When starting throwing up opposites, it's was something out of a book.
quote:Now, how do they pay for that deficit? First, by taking the Social Security surplus that comes in every month and endorsing the checks of working people over to me to pay for the tax cuts. But it's not enough.
So then they have to go borrow money. Most of it they borrow from the Chinese and the Japanese government.
Sure, these countries are competing with us for good jobs, but how can we enforce our trade laws against our bankers? I mean, come on.
So if you think - if you believe it is good policy - if you believe it is good policy to pay for my tax cuts with the Social Security checks of working men and women and borrowed money from China and Japan, you should vote for them. If not, John Kerry's your man.
We Americans must choose for president...
... we've got to choose for president between two strong men who both love their countries, but who have very different world views: our nominee, John Kerry, who favors shared responsibility, shared opportunity and more global cooperation; and their president and their party in Congress who favor concentrated wealth and power, leaving people to fend for themselves and more unilateral action.
I think we're right for two reasons.
First of all, America just works better when more people have a chance to live their dreams.
And, secondly, we live in an interdependent world in which we cannot possibly kill, jail or occupy all of our potential adversaries. So we have to both fight terror and build a world with more partners and fewer terrorists.
The delivery was charming and wonderful.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure there were any long-term financial challanged that arose from September 11th, to my knowledge all the companies that had offices in the World Trade Center are still alive, including the insurance company my mother works for Seabury & Marsh (now known as Marsh), who owned the floors that the second plane crashed into, and had three Vice-Presidents perish (they were having an executive conference) is still thriving. One could point at the stock market drop immediatly after, but the market was already falling, and I have the feeling that it would have gone down (albiet not as fast) even if September 11th didn't happen, insurance companies and airlines were already in trouble. Economics is a strange animal that can't be affected drastically by any single event or person, after all Black Tuesday was caused by a million factors leading up to it, and could even be stopped by J.P. Morgan --as he found out when walking onto the floor of the New York Stock Exchange yelling out that he was confident of the stock market was safe and that he was investing the majority of his money into bonds. Thus, I doubt Bush or Clinton can do anything about the financial state of the United States, the only person that has anything close to that sort of power is Allan Greenspan...who luckily is pretty much apolitical (goodness, I don't envy that man). In that way, I'm not sure i bite what the democrats are saying.
With that aside, I still don't like Bush's economic policies for the fact that even though he can't do anything, he isn't helping it either. Economics is based strongly upon trust, and economically, he hasn't shown himself fiscally trustworthy. He spent away one of the largest surpluses and turned it into THE LARGEST deficit our nation has ever seen. More importantly though, he's produced the most secrative administration ever. Even when Enron fell into bankrupcy his administration would not release any information to the public about it's financial dealings. Bankers and investors don't like that, they make financial decisions on information, not the lack thereof. Satyagraha
Posts: 359 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dean just got a HUGE screaming, stomping, sign-waving ovation at the DNC. Must have gone on for five minutes, he really had to tell them to stop. C-SPAN cut to Terry McAuliffe, Democratic chairman, looking totally stunned and not sure whether to clap or not. It was just awesome.
posted
Dragonee. Yeah, it was a doomsday prediction and not necessarily true at all. I do feel a little bad about that. But delivery was wonderful. *shakes his head* Darn that Clinton.
quote:He spent away one of the largest surpluses and turned it into THE LARGEST deficit our nation has ever seen/
I don't know if this is true. I'm young, but I remember the late 80s.
-----
The best bit about Dean's speech was when he mentioned what the girl and her bike and all of what he had sacrificed to give him, and it was weird, but he really did give the feeling that he respected their sacrifices and wasn't going to let that go to waste. It was strange and compelling.
quote: I'm not sure there were any long-term financial challanged that arose from September 11th
I sure hope for your party's sake that you are not the only one who believes this, because it will not sell the broad base of independents, Reagan democrats, and the like. Don't wrassle a contradiction to tell me my reality doesn't exist just so you can win an argument. Explain to me again what Gore or Kerry would have done differently to prevent the bust after Sept 11.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Just asserting an economic dip happened because of 9/11 doesn't mean it happened. Sure there was an immediate dip from the increased feeling of insecurity, but very little real value changed. The idea that a terrorist attack somehow devalues companies that didn't even have property involved in the attack (as in, by far most of the companies in the US) is silly.
The attack on Iraq has had orders of magnitude more effect on the economy. Heck, each public statement by greenspan has had orders of magnitude more effect on the economy.
Do you have any reasons for 9/11 having some mystical effect on the economy other than "the economy had problems in the time after 9/11"?
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Explain to me again what Gore or Kerry would have done differently to prevent the bust after Sept 11."
Wby don't you start by proving that the bust was a consequence of 9/11? It seems that this would be a prerequisite.
Moreover, I suspect you don't really want any answers -- because, after all, that WOULD be genuine armchair QBing. I can come up with all kinds of recommendations after the fact, but these are blessed with hindsight. To be fair, let's just restrict ourselves to looking at the things Bush did that we knew were stupid and irresponsible as he was doing them. It's a long enough list that we won't run out of conversational topics, and we won't have to worry about second-guessing him from our comfy armchairs.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu and Tom, the travel industry alone took a huge hit after 9/11. This isn't just about airlines; it's about cruises, hotels, vacation rentals, and all the touristy things that go along with it.
I know that locally in the DC area things were very bad. And these things cause ripple effects - less construction, less heavy equipment purchases, less retail sales. The list goes on.
quote:Wow. Have you been ignoring the national press since 9/11, do you take really good amnesia-inducing drugs, or is this an intentional blind spot?
Oh, I'm sure Democrats have also whored out September 11, if not to the extent Republicans have -- but I hold them to higher standards. Preaching about how tragic tragedies are in order to get a sympathetic audience shaking their heads sadly disgusts me, no matter who does it.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pooka: prevent? Nothing short of divine intervention can start or prevent a bust, not in the way you think of preventing, that's my point September 11th just encouraged an existing trend. And by "long-term" I don't mean "presidential term" I mean it by 10-20 year trends, the recession didn't start on September 11th. And what might Kerry or Edwards do in the post-11th situation? Who knows, but probably something along the lines of strengthening Social Security for workers that are out of jobs, encourage businesses to hire in-country instead of tell Congress we don't have to worry about US jobs being outsorced. These are all things any two-bit economist knows. Satyagraha
posted
Uh, bernie, outsourcing doesn't hurt american business, its just an unavoidable consequence of relative advantage, which is what drives all of economics. Fighting outsourcing just leads to greater inefficiencies, which lead to problems.
Dags, the Fed's reports show that non-business travel was back up to normal within a year and improving steadily since then. Business travel was and is down, but there is significant evidence this is largely due to the use of substitutes that businesses were forced to try immediately post 9/11, such as that business transactions haven't particularly decreased. Instead, the biggest thing I see as driving economic problems post 9/11 in the Fed reports is lackluster consumer spending in most categories, which was happening before 9/11.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know - within a year. That's a lot of time to have an impact on a lot of people's livelihood.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aye, sorry I have this horrible thing where i tend to put those that are on social security to suppliment their income along with unemployment benefits. On the note of outsourcing, I'm not talking about IT outsourcing, it's a very different animal from manufacturing outsourcing, IT outsourcing doesn't produce material goods, which is something we've been pushing out of the country for years. I tend to think about Rome, who stopped producing any goods and only imported, a purely consumer economy that produced nothing.
edit: I've got nothing against outsourcing...in of itself...I've got something against doing nothing to replace the lost jobs, at least FDR pretended to do something in making public works projects. Satyagraha
posted
There are however really good reasons that somethings shouldn't be outsourced. For instance, collection agencies. Then, if they get the wrong J. Smith in AnyTown you can't convince them you're not who they think you are and have no recourse since you can't stick it to an indian company that's half a world away.
posted
It is and it isn't. In the context we're talking about, it isn't, since we're talking about ongoing effects.
One year is not a long term financial challenge, not to the entire economy of a country when its only affecting a small sliver of the economy. And that was just a maximum time frame, I believe most non-commerical travel was normalized within 6 months.
posted
It's been a few hours, and I'm still mulling over Al Sharpton's speech in my head. It wasn't as good as Edwards', Clintons', Obama's, and he didn't come of too off too incredibly competent or deep, but he did seem angry. And it was a naked anger.
And I only felt it when he said:
quote: Mr. President, as I close, Mr. President, I heard you say Friday that you had questions for voters, particularly African- American voters. And you asked the question: Did the Democratic Party take us for granted? Well, I have raised questions. But let me answer your question.
You said the Republican Party was the party of Lincoln and Frederick Douglass. It is true that Mr. Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, after which there was a commitment to give 40 acres and a mule.
That's where the argument, to this day, of reparations starts. We never got the 40 acres. We went all the way to Herbert Hoover, and we never got the 40 acres.
We didn't get the mule. So we decided we'd ride this donkey as far as it would take us.
Mr. President, you said would we have more leverage if both parties got our votes, but we didn't come this far playing political games. It was those that earned our vote that got our vote. We got the Civil Rights Act under a Democrat. We got the Voting Rights Act under a Democrat. We got the right to organize under Democrats.
Mr. President, the reason we are fighting so hard, the reason we took Florida so seriously, is our right to vote wasn't gained because of our age. Our vote was soaked in the blood of martyrs, soaked in the blood of good men (inaudible) soaked in the blood of four little girls in Birmingham. This vote is sacred to us.
This vote can't be bargained away.
This vote can't be given away.
Mr. President, in all due respect, Mr. President, read my lips: Our vote is not for sale.
And there's a whole generation of young leaders that have come forward across this country that stand on integrity and stand on their traditions, those that have emerged with John Kerry and John Edwards as partners, like Greg Meeks, like Barack Obama, like our voter registration director, Marjorie Harris, like those that are in the trenches.
And we come with strong family values. Family values is not just those with two-car garages and a retirement plan. Retirement plans are good. But family values also are those who had to make nothing stretch into something happening, who had to make ends meet.
I was raised by a single mother who made a way for me. She used to scrub floors as a domestic worker, put a cleaning rag in her pocketbook and ride the subways in Brooklyn so I would have food on the table.
But she taught me as I walked her to the subway that life is about not where you start, but where you're going. That's family values.
And I wanted somebody in my community -- I wanted to show that example. As I ran for president, I hoped that one child would come out of the ghetto like I did, could look at me walk across the stage with governors and senators and know they didn't have to be a drug dealer, they didn't have to be a hoodlum, they didn't have to be a gangster, they could stand up from a broken home, on welfare, and they could run for president of the United States.
By this time, tears are coming to my eyes, and I don't know why. I cry watch watching sports movies and women's gymnastics, but nothing else usually gets that closely inside, and I realize what it is. You see, in my imagination, when Bush leaned over that podium asking me, "What has the Democratic Party done for you, Lately?" And he is just leaning over there real sly, and that picture is in my head, and his timber and his voice. Then the look on Sharpton's face on the television, that look of real anger. And it dawned me why I'm crying, and why Sharpton's angry.
I've watched the speech again and I'm sure about it.
Bush went to the Urban League and called me a whore. He isn't trying to buy my car. He isn't trying to buy my house. (I have neither, but that's beside the point.) He is trying to buy me. He walked into the Urban League and tried to buy me. He didn't talk about principles. He didn't try to win me over with dignity. He tried to buy me. Play let's make a deal with my soul. And maybe that's how it works. And maybe special interests can work like that. But when you try to buy a whole person. Read the excerpt and think about the visual. *shakes his head* Sharpton put it in perspective for one moment. He is still a jive turkey and a so and so, but on stage, I saw a confused and angry little boy who was not going to be bought by for any amount of money. Nice work, Rev. Sharpton.
posted
Seconded. Sharpton's a good man, and he's fighting the good fight -- as far as Bush goes, it's an insult to black intellect and honor everywhere to claim black people desire profit over justice.
If it's any comfort, the ruling conservative party in the United States has no history of giving either. The party's banking on the hope that black people aren't just greedy, they're also stupid. If you were ever bought, you'd never be paid for.
Sharpton's also the only speaker I noticed making any admission that Latinos live in the same shitty neighborhoods as blacks, end up in the same dead ends. He's the only one I heard speak against the growing segregation in schools -- and damn, I was proud as hell when he had the spine to say if conservatives had their way during the civil rights movement, Clarence Thomas wouldn't be sitting on the Supreme Court today. I have very little claim to ethnicity, but I'm damn proud to have Sharpton speak up for my father's countrymen and minorities across the country.
posted
I wonder what would have happened in Al Gore had been in office as president on september 11th 2001 when the trade centers were destroyed.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In Al Gore? Probably sadness, a little ulcerated tissue, and some insomnia. Is that what you meant?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"outsourcing doesn't hurt american business"
Well, I'm not ENTIRELY sure that's true. While it leads to greater business efficiency, it also leads to a workforce lacking in the skills that are being outsourced. Since these skills are becoming increasingly entry-level tech, this means that there are fewer entry-level tech jobs available in this country -- and while that might not be a bad thing, the simple fact is that these jobs have, historically, served as on-the-job training for the mid- and upper-level tech jobs, the ones that are currently driving our productivity innovations. So where, in fifteen years, are the new mid-level techs going to get their job skills?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps I should qualify. Outsourcing does not hurt american business considered in aggregate. It will, however, increase the fluidity of the job market.
As for your scenario, Tom, there are several things: 1) tech support as provided by India (for instance) is pretty much all scripted. They'd do this in the US too, except it costs more to pay people. This is not an entry level tech job, this is an entry level decision-tree navigation job.
2) Many things we think of as entry level tech jobs aren't outsourceable. There will always be positions for night monitors for server farms, for instance (server farms will still be in part constrained by locaility for good service for at least the next decade or so). Or positions overseeing computer labs. Thus there will always be entry level computer jobs as long as there are computers around to be supported and monitored, et cetera.
3) As India's tech economy matures, they won't be such great competition. Any firm in India that can do programming with great skill is going to be commanding comparable wages to a firm in the US that can do it (this is already mostly true in the high end).
4) Service matters. The graphic design industry has been hugely undercut by idiots who think they can do design and charge a pittance. Yet the graphic design industry isn't suffering from a lack of new blood, or even really having problems with business, except in certain entry level markets, or with people who aren't good at customer service. A real designer provides not just superior product, but superior service to a hack.
5) Most IT work in the US is done in house, and this hasn't been really affected by outsourcing at all. Sensitive business applications are done in house for a wide variety of reasons, and will never be exported on a large scale (particularly to other countries where the ideas represented would not be so well protected from others) because those reasons are independent of the availability and efficiency of outside labor.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Many things we think of as entry level tech jobs aren't outsourceable.
quote:Any firm in India that can do programming with great skill is going to be commanding comparable wages to a firm in the US that can do it (this is already mostly true in the high end).
A lot of ASIC design jobs, especially digital ASIC, are moving to India, or at least so I hear. These are certainly tech jobs, and many of them are not just entry level, but entire design teams. If you believe the word on the street, it costs about half as much to pay an Indian engineer to do the same design work as an American engineer, with the Indian engineer being able to afford a much higher standard of living. I have a hard time seeing how one industry maturing in India is going to inflate prices there enough that an engineer in India wouldn't need a lot less money than an American for a comparable standard of living.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu, I tried to do some research but didn't get around to it, so I'll say: 1) You're right that was only one sector, but its effects, though not enough to spin the economy downward on their own, were greater than you seemed to think. 2) There were other sectors hurt by 9/11 - this is what I wanted to research.
I don't think 9/11 was the sole cause of the slump. I think it slowed the recovery by a lot, however, mainly because it caused people to be a little less hesitant about putting capital into risky ventures. This is a simplification from a lot of reading over 2 years, so I don't expect you to take my word on it. But the effect of mood on the economy is real.
Dagonee P.S., good analysis on IT outsourcing.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think 9/11 had a distinct effect on the economy, I just don't think its this dominating thing as many do. Note that the things I cited as being significantly greater are some of the largest economic influences in the modern world: a war, and the comments of the man who controls the valuation of the most respected currency in the world. And I think its effect furthermore has been pretty much entirely subsided and coopted by time and substitute effects (for instance, I don't think insecurity about 9/11 adds to the insecurity felt about where the war on terror will go next -- I think the latter dominates the former).
And yes, attitude is the single greatest economic influence -- too often we forget that values are human-wrought. This is one reason I become extremely upset when anyone with a bully pulpit talks up a recession as inevitable (as the Bush administration, among others, has done several times).
saxon -- Except who says Indian engineers will be willing to settle for a comparable standard of living? They're going to want whatever they can get. As outsourcing to India increases, firms are going to start playing outsourcing companies off against each other for the simple reason that so long as the total expense is even a bit less than the in-US expense for similar work, the companies will be willing to pay it. Right now this isn't an option as Indian engineers are still primarily competing against each other. But as long as the supply remains plentiful US demand will shift there more and more until the pay is at a comparable marginal rate.
In fact, discouraging outsourcing prolongs this process, because it artificially depresses the demand for Indian IT labor. This in turn creates a higher pressure on companies for outsourcing as Indian work remains a far better deal, meaning the companies which can figure out how to do it are going to do it longer and are going to undermine their competitors who can't do it, creating negative market effects (due to the influence of externalities on competition). If instead US firms are able to utilize outsourced work freely, that's a benefit for them (and all their customers, as it will result in higher expenditures on other areas of busienss and lower prices), and a benefit for India as it improves their economy.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, many companies are shutting down their tech support departments in other countries because so many customers complained of difficulty understanding the person on the other end and vice versa.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to add my two cents, I've been watching the DNC and have been loving it. Very inspiring! Sure, some of it is propaganda, but it's got me and my friends all pumped up for the election. We're probably going to have a voting party after we vote...sitting in front of the TV screaming. Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And, don't forget, there is also a large amount of, for lack of a better word, 'insourcing' where skilled labor is flown in from other countries.
Will it maybe even out in the long run? Probably. In the meantime, it sucks being the person who worked hard for many years to learn skills, only to see those skills go down the tubes. I can tell you from personal experience that many people in these 'entry level' jobs are people who were running networks in Fortune 500 companies a few years a go. They work in tech support now because it's ALL THEY CAN GET.
What really galls many people is that while companies can bring labor in from other countries, the rest of us are forced(edit: not a good choice of words. I mean to say, because there really is no IT work in other countries to be had, unless you get lucky) to work here in the US. So, while it's easy to kind of sit on high and say that the market will work itself out, it sucks for the rest of the people on the ground who actually have to work in that environment and depend on it for their living.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
But delivery was wonderful. *shakes his head* Darn that Clinton. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
