Will the Green Jobs of the Future end up like the IT jobs in India

[FreakinDJ]

We have all heard this before as Wealthy Wall St. influences corrupted our government and lobbied for the destruction of the USA Manufacturing base.

“These are Jobs American workers won’t do”

“America’s economy doesn’t need those jobs”

“We are going to retrain you”

Now take a quick look around your neighborhood at all the “Foreclosed” signs and just tell me how well the “Global Economy / Free Trade” crap has worked out for you

Take a look at what used to be your “Retirement Nest Egg” and just tell me “What has a MultiNational Corporation done for you lately?

I want to see a show of hands - Who wants to go down this path yet again?

[obliviously]

1. I have few answers

but one thing is for sure, What is going on isn't working for me!

[rucky]

2. What's kicking our ass in green jobs is we're slow to innovate

and don't support R&D nearly enough.

Europe will lead the way in this technology.

[FreakinDJ]

5. Your WRONG on that

All the R&D is done in the United States

Check Intel - all their R&D is performed in the United States and the bulk of the manufacturing is performed overseas.

We are still the technological leaders - we just give away all the production jobs

[rucky]

7. That's how it was with IT, but...

Germany leads in solar:
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5449

Germany leads in wind:
http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Wind/2008_data.htm#fig2

Brazil's leading in biofuel
Portugal using wave farms
Spain & Germany in PV technology

From what I've read, my money's on Germany & Spain leading the way on this.

[FreakinDJ]

8. and Intel already gave China 12" wafer technology

if your not familure with High-Tech then you should really use goggle first before ASSUMING

[rucky]

9. I just took your last statement - about US leading in R&D - at face value.

So are they or aren't they?

[FreakinDJ]

13. I just told you - ALL R&D performed in USA

for most folks they would understand that to mean the innovation is here in the USA

Innovation
–noun
1. something new or different introduced: numerous innovations in the high-school curriculum.
2. the act of innovating; introduction of new things or methods.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Origin:
1540–50; < LL innovātiōn- (s. of innovātiō). See innovate, -ion

So why do you Hate America

[Deja Q]

26. Intel also opened up a state-of-the-art, 32nm, manufacturing plant in Arizona.

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3513&cp=5

Intel probably has the right to do what it wants, but I'm sure they had worked with obeying anti-espionage and other laws.

Of course, it's not the 1950s anymore either...

[Hello_Kitty]

40. Intel extorted a massive tax break out of AZ too.

We are so broke that we are firing teachers and cutting basic services, while we handed Intel $100 million dollars. Now Craig Barrett (who has a very nice home in Scottsdale) has the nerve to sit there and tell us that we aren't "investing enough education" and this will cause companies like his to consider leaving. Well, how about giving us back the tax break, Craig?

[Hello_Kitty]

3. Not me!

But I predict that DU's resident Globilization Humpers will be along in a minute to bash you for being a "racist".

[ChromeFoundry]

6. Yep...

If you put the words "India" and "outsourcing" in the same article and don't speak of all the benefits it brings to the US workforce, you might as well hang a target on your back. When offshoring work to India becomes less profitable than another destination, these same people will be bitching and moaning that US Corporations are greedy, that India deserves these jobs, that Brazilians are stealing their jobs, that globalization is good only when they get to choose the short list of destinations for the work.

[Deja Q]

31. Well said!!!

:yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock::yourock:

K&R your response

[FreakinDJ]

45. With the present economy I'll bitch about any country of then America

Look around yourself - WE need the jobs here

[pampango]

10. Ahh, the "globalist" vs. "nativist" debate (to allow each side to label the other) -

a mainstay of progressive debate here. Now President Obama wants the developed world to allow more imports from Africa to help them develop their economies without depending on aid.

[Hello_Kitty]

11. Oh hi.

Right on schedule. :hi:

[ChromeFoundry]

14. you didn't seem all that suprised...

I know I'm not. :rofl:

[Hello_Kitty]

15. I'm starting to know each one's schtick by heart. eom

[OhioChick]

16. Damn, you called that quick. n/t

[pampango]

22. I prefer to consider myself "consistent" but I suppose if you don't agree

with my opinion that could be considered a "schtick".

(I would never accuse you of having predictable schtick.) :hi:

[pampango]

20. It took me an hour instead of a minute. Sorry about that.

How about that Obama wanting the West to be more open to exports from Africa?

[Deja Q]

25. Who'se closed to that idea? Africa would undoubtedly do a better job than China or India...

Trouble is, the problem isn't being addressed: The US economy and its people, who are up diarrhea river without a paddle.

[pampango]

29. My guess is those who complain about the tariff differential between the rich and poor countries

would be the ones who closed to that idea. Just because Africa doesn't export much now (other than oil from a few countries) doesn't mean that some African countries couldn't become the next China or India (neither of which exported much thirty years ago).

[Hello_Kitty]

35. That's nice but where are we in the West going to get the money to pay for them?

We need good paying jobs to buy stuff, even if it's "cheap" stuff.

[pampango]

36. In 2008 we were the third largest exporting country, close behind Germany and China,

way ahead of #4 Japan. We can use the money from exports to buy goods from poor countries.

[Hello_Kitty]

38. Right, because an availability of goods means everyone has money in their pockets to pay for them.

NOT.

[FreakinDJ]

12. Show me 1 other country not engaged in protecting their economy

China 25-50% tarrifs on american made goods entering their country
India 20-40% tarrifs on american made goods entering their country
Philippines 40%

Ah - thats right - we can allow the theives on Wall St to export bad loans that American Tax payers can pay $Trillions to shore up, but we can't provide good jobs for hard working class Americans

Now that is a formula that works

[Deja Q]

24. Would you make an OP pointing that out?

With a link so people won't preemptively call you a racist or anything; we know how the myopic react around here to the G-word issue... ("globalization", which really means "migration" and NOT "expansion")

[pampango]

28. I believe that the US and the rest of the developed world agreed to allow tariffs for the developing

world in the hopes of promoting economic development in poor countries. Thirty years ago China and India exported almost nothing (kind of like Africa now - except for the countries there with oil), so it probably seemed like a symbolic gesture for the most part. Now China's economy can thrive without those tariff advantages and it is not as poor as it once was.

It has had some degree of success in China and India, not so much in the Philippines and elsewhere. At this point you could argue that trading rules should be reformed so that the Third World does not have any tariff advantages over the West or that as poor countries develop successfully their tariff advantages should diminish and then disappear. President Obama seems to want to encourage exports from Africa to the West, in order to help Africa's development. My guess is that he wants low tariffs on Africa's exports to the West, while allowing Africa to have some tariff advantages on imports from the West.

[Hello_Kitty]

33. The lovely goal of "promoting economic development in poor countries" is secondary

The primary goal is to make the already obscenely wealthy even more wealthy.

And if China's economy can thrive without the tariffs on our goods, why are they still there?

[pampango]

37. China still has tariffs on our goods because we agreed to it in the last world trade negotiations.

I agree that they don't qualify as a Third World economy anymore and shouldn't have the tariff provisions that truly poor countries have. I know that world trade negotiations have been bogged down for years, but they need to be changed.

[Hello_Kitty]

39. Who's "we"? I wasn't consulted and neither were you. eom

[pampango]

43. By "we" I meant our government. If you prefer to use "they", then substitute that pronoun into

my post. But you're right that it rarely consults you or me. Nonetheless it does take binding action on our behalf (if not in our interests). Perhaps international trade agreements (maybe all laws?) should be subject to popular referendum (or some other mechanism) rather than just legislative approval, so that the people are more effectively consulted.

[FreakinDJ]

41. Trade Sanctions with China and India are a 1 way St.

I looked on China's Tax Law / Tariff Policy website and as far as they are concerned they have no trade pact with the USA

So just when does generosity become a disease

The Disease being the Rich MultiNational Corporations dumping millions of dollars into Washington in the form of campaign contributions to keep this loop-sided trade policy enforced.

Clinton was a total sell out telling workers they will be "Retrained" only to watch those same new IT jobs of the future off-shored to India and China as well. What could you expect from a man whose wife was a corporate lawyer for Wall-Mart (1 of the largest importers of cheap Chinese and Indian made goods)

I believed in Obama because he knows what urban Blythe is, he knows what jobless men with out a future in sight go through on a day to day basis. I fully expected him to encourage jobs for Americans as a means to help those same men and women

[pampango]

42. China doesn't have trade pact with the US, but they were admitted to the WTO/GATT (Clinton's

achievement?) and are subject to the trading rules that membership entails. The last successful international trade agreement allowed different tariff levels for developing vs. developed countries, so China and India benefit in that way. I don't see a problem with tariff breaks for truly poor countries (President Obama wants to open up the West to more imports from Africa to help development there), but China (certainly) and India (arguably) have progressed to the point that they should not benefit from the different tariff levels which may have been appropriate when they were very poor like much of Africa is today.

[FreakinDJ]

44. A what point do you admit it is a FAILED POLICY

Do you admit it is Failed Policy when the Chinese Government (a communist government) use the proceeds to build up and arm it’s military rather then improve the living conditions of it’s people.

Or when they become the country with the highest rate of air pollution. Pollution the crosses 7000 mile of ocean and finds it’s way to America and Canada.

Or when they are caught using “Prison Labor Camps” to build the good they are exporting to your country.

Or when India and China break off negotiations over the unreasonably high tarrifs they impose goods from your country

Or when 10s of 1000s of your own citizens are displaced from the manufacturing jobs that used to be the backbone of the American economy

Your explanation sounds so warm and fuzzy but in practice it's Bullshit

[pampango]

46. Are you against tariff differentials for really poor countries or just China and India?

Seems that you and I agree that China doesn't need the higher tariffs that they impose. However, those tariffs are not the result of a bilateral trade agreement with the US, but of China's membership in the WTO and the tariff rules that go with it. We can't unilaterally kick them out of the WTO or change their tariffs. We can withdraw from the WTO ourselves (as we can from any international organization we belong to) and either go it alone (the Bush doctrine in diplomacy and climate change which we could apply to trade) or negotiate bilateral trade agreements with select countries (perhaps a variant of the Bush doctrine - coalitions of the willing, in terms of trading with the US).

President Obama seemed to be supporting lower tariffs in the West for goods exported from Africa as part of his speech in Ghana. Is that not a good policy?

[FreakinDJ]

48. Why does being against Globalization equate Bigotry with you

Why ask the question “Are you against tariff differentials for really poor countries or just China and India?”

It is the “just China and India” I paticulary take offense to

But lets attempt to keep the conversation in perspective

1 It was China and India that left the negotiating table with the WTO basically claiming they were not interested any more.
2 Every other industrialized country (including the EU) protects and maintains their manufacturing infustructure.
3 Currently US Trade policy is run by Wall St. Whole industries are being shipped overseas to the destruction of the many for the Huge Profit by the few

That is what I take offense to

Take a look at Argentina during the 90s to see an example of Globalization run amuck. It completely destroyed that country and it is slowly destroying this country too.

[pampango]

49. Why does a question about different tariffs for poor countries equate with an accusation of bigotry

with you?

"Why ask the question “Are you against tariff differentials for really poor countries or just China and India?”"

Because China and India were the two countries you focused on in your posts 41 and 44.

"It is the “just China and India” I paticulary take offense to"

I couldn't tell from your posts whether you were opposed to different tariff levels for poor countries in general or for China and India in particular, since those were the two countries you talked about.

"1 It was China and India that left the negotiating table with the WTO basically claiming they were not interested any more."

The main reason WTO negotiations collapsed was the Bush administration's refusal to agree to protections for poor farmers in the Third World. Protection of pharmaceutical company patents in the Third World was another issue hasn't been resolved. Blame China and India if you wish.

'The negotiations collapsed on July 29 (2008) over issues of agricultural trade between the United States, India, and China.<25> In particular, there was insoluble disagreement between India and the United States over the special safeguard mechanism (SSM), a measure designed to protect poor farmers by allowing countries to impose a special tariff on certain agricultural goods in the event of an import surge or price fall.'

'The mechanism allows countries to protect poor farmers by imposing a tariff on imports of specified goods, if the price of those goods drop or there is a surge in imports. However, the United States, China and India could not agree on the threshold that would allow the mechanism to be used, with the United States arguing that the threshold had been set too low.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doha_Development_Round#Collapse_of_negotiations_2

"2 Every other industrialized country (including the EU) protects and maintains their manufacturing infustructure."

The EU has a tariff on non-agricultural goods of 3.9%, while the US' tariff is 3.3%. 62.3% of these goods enter the EU with no tariffs at all (free trade agreements), while 54.5% enter the US with no tariff, so only 37.7% (in the EU) and 45.5% (in the US) are subject to even those small tariffs.

20.1% of China's exports go to the EU, while 19.1% go to the US (as of 2006), so it's not like there are great tariff barriers in Europe that keep out Chinese products. If you have evidence of the EU's protection of its manufacturing infrastructure, I'm always interested in learning something new.

http://stat.wto.org/CountryProfile/WSDBCountryPFView.aspx?Language=E&Country=CN
http://stat.wto.org/CountryProfile/WSDBCountryPFView.aspx?Language=E&Country=US
http://stat.wto.org/CountryProfile/WSDBCountryPFView.aspx?Language=E&Country=E27

All I have time for now.

[FreakinDJ]

50. EU has trade barriers to protect manufacturing

Many trade barriers remain high in the EU

We find that trade integration is indeed lower in countries and industries where technical barriers to trade are high
http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/2831

PRE-CANCUN WTO MEETING REPORT SHOWS
EU TRADE BARRIERS KILL ONE
PERSON EVERY 13 SECONDS

It is widely acknowledged that it was trade that enabled the "Asian Tiger" countries - Japan, Hong Kong, South Korea, etc - to develop as manufacturing economies. Opening their economies to the rest of the world allowed them to attract the investment in physical and human capital that brought them comparative advantages in the manufacture of a widening range of products.
http://www.cne.org/pub_pdf/2003_09_04_EU_barriers_kill_PR.htm

[pampango]

51. Nonetheless, China exports more to the EU than to the US.

Your first linked article "Many trade barriers remain high in the EU" discusses trade barriers that remain between EU countries ("...many barriers to trade (especially non-tariff barriers such as technical barriers to trade) continued to impede intra -European trade") not trade between the EU and others, like China, India or the US.

Your second article accurately describes the EU's protection of its farmers - one of the main reasons for the collapse of the WTO negotiations - but not its manufacturing infrastructure (other than textiles).

"...the EU has a low industrial tariff of five per cent, its agricultural tariffs are far higher." Note that it is not alleged that the EU protects its manufacturing base (just a 5% industrial tariff), but its agricultural sector.

"...the agricultural subsidy handed out by the EU under the rules of the Common Agricultural Policy. This amounts to $41 billion a year, or $14,000 per European Union farmer (though half the spending goes to the biggest 17 per cent of farming enterprises). The CAP subsidy affects agricultural producers in the developing world in three main ways:

1. It completes the effect of tariffs and other barriers in shutting them out of a market in which they would otherwise have a comparative advantage. For example, the EU spends Euros 2.7 billion each year on subsidising European farmers to grow sugar beet, while it maintains high tariff barriers against sugar imports from the developing world.

2. It generates immense surpluses of foodstuffs that cannot be sold within the EU at the prevailing intervention prices. Much of these surpluses are exported at very low prices that undercut those charged by the unsubsidised producers of the developing world. A prime case of this is sugar sales in the Middle East. Countries like Sudan are crowded out of the sugar market in Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

3. Some of the surpluses are exported at subsidised prices to developing countries, thereby crowding out domestic producers. In Jamaica, some 3,000 dairy farmers are being driven out of business by imported milk powder from the EU. 5,500 metric tons are sent there each year at a cost to the European taxpayers of $3m. Many of the farmers are women. "

[bvar22]

52. Not only that,

...but according to Thom Hartmann last week, China just implemented a $Trilllion "Economic Stimulus".
It will be available ONLY to Chinese companies owned by Chinese using ONLY products 100% produced in China.

[galileoreloaded]

17. You mean he wants to race the Chinese to secure Africa's natural resources

and open up African natural resources to American business, right? Hey, 6 billion and counting, and everybody has to eat, or die.

Nobody even wants to TALK about population, so instead we send in the World Bank and the IMF to do what they do. This way, we Americans get to exploit 3rd world countries and maintain our standard of living (relatively speaking of course), very similarly to the way we have done it the last 50 years.

The best part is that the same standard of living many hear are desperately attempting to restore ("living" wage, health care, etc.) was purchased, no, balanced on the back of the poor in places most of us haven't heard of.

My, my, how little we want to admit our sins.

No animosity directed at you pampango, you just made me think of it.

[Hello_Kitty]

34. Dragging the U.S. down to fight with the 3rd world over scraps isn't going to help anyone

Yes, we in the developed world need to change our consumption patterns. Globalization is not going to lead to that.

[Deja Q]

23. If it's expansion, nobody's job would have been hurt. What people are seeing is migration.

That HAS hurt.

Would you care to explain that, since nobody else does? (Apart from me, but I haven't mentioned the "E-word versus M-word" for some time now...)

[OhioChick]

4. Those "green jobs" are already being sent to India & China...

US offshores 22,000 green jobs to India

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=3850836

Evergreen Solar announces some China plans (New Green Jobs already outsourced)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=3857739

[scheming daemons]

18. Yes... we shouldn't even TRY to create a "green economy" with new jobs so this can't happen...

:eyes:

assinine.

[ChromeFoundry]

19. I didn't read that into the OP

I read this post as to preemptively plan a way for this work to benefit US workers, rather than some other country. But hey, it's a free country...so I guess you are allowed to twist things outside of their original meaning. The National Enquirer and O'Reilly do it all the time.

[bvar22]

53. It is not unreasonable to expect that "Stimulus" jobs...

...financed by our tax money actually stimulate our economy?
No?

[Deja Q]

21. Uh-oh. Expect a certain group of wankers to berate you until the end of time...

:(

K&R, BTW.

[Peacetrain]

27. So yell "uncle" before we start?

It would be an interesting concept of construction and delivery of windmills overseas.. Have you seen the size of those things.. and oh yeah maintenance in India.. yep that is going to work.. Growing bio fuels there, plants to extract the bio fuels..

This is not an easily exportable job

[Deja Q]

32. Interesting take,

thank you. :)

[L0oniX]

30. The Green jobs will all go to Greenland where they rightfully belong. n/t

:sarcasm:

[Greyhound]

47. Barring some very unlikely event that literally reforms the US government and kills

it's masters, the answer is an unequivocal yes.

Every middle-class job in the US that can be outsourced or off-shored will be. I would think that, by now, that has become completely clear.
:kick: