T Nation

Voting for Spite?

With the election growing closer and things heating up I am wondering how many people are backing John Kerry out of revenge more so than who is best for the job. A lot of people in this country are still sore about the 2000 election and will do just about anything to try and bring justice to the situation.

There is just so much anger directed toward Bush. I mean I don’t remember there being such a security issue when the democratic party was going to give Kerry the party nomination, but the republican event for Bush looks to have security high on the list, fearing violent protesters.

It is just terrible in my opinion the politics has become this nasty, it is more about people winning a contest than whether we end up with the right man for the job. I fear once something like this is put into action it will spiral out of control only causing more political feuds in the future. I hope I am wrong.

I myself would rather vote for the man with more integrity, than to try and find the guy who is lying less than the other guy. Being president means making a lot of hard choices, and not always are they the right ones, but standing up for what you believe in and standing by your decisions is quite a good quality in my mind. So even if you disagree with some of the things Bush has done, at least he has done what he believes is right at the time, not just what he thinks will please everyone.

Here is an interesting article I found on Yahoo that kind of led me to write about this, it shows how people can gain pleasure and satisfaction from getting revenge. I find myself feeling these same emotions when I want revenge. Especially when driving, if someone is going slow, and backing up the freeway, It feels so good to think about getting in front of that person and going 10 miles/hr slower than they are to give them a taste of their own medicine. Damn the thought of that is so satisfying!

Revenge Is Indeed Sweet, Study Finds

By LAURAN NEERGAARD, AP Medical Writer

WASHINGTON - Dirty Harry had it right: Brain scans show revenge really might make your day. Planning revenge sparks enough satisfaction to motivate getting even ? and the amount of satisfaction actually predicts who will go to greater lengths to do so, report Swiss researchers who monitored people’s brain activity during an elaborate game of double-cross.
That may not sound too surprising. Just consider the old saying, “Revenge is sweet.” But beyond helping to unravel how the brain makes social and moral decisions, the study illustrates growing interest in the interaction between emotion and cognition ? which in turn influences other fields such as how to better model the economy.
The new study chips “yet another sliver from the rational model of economic man,” said Stanford University psychologist Brian Knutson, who reviewed the Swiss research. “Instead of cold, calculated reason, it is passion that may plant the seeds of revenge,” he said.
People often are eager to punish wrongdoers even if the revenge brings them no personal gain or actually costs them something. From a practical standpoint, that may seem irrational.
In research reported in Friday’s edition of the journal Science, University of Zurich scientists used PET scans to monitor the brain activity of game players to determine what motivates that type of revenge.
Two players could either trust and cooperate with each other so they both earned money. Or one could double-cross the other and keep an unfair share. Sometimes the double-cross was deliberate; other times, rules of the game dictated it. The victim could retaliate by fining the double-crosser different amounts, but sometimes had to spend his own money to impose that fine.
All 14 players chose revenge whenever the double-cross was deliberate and the retaliation free. Only three retaliated when the double-cross wasn’t deliberate. Twelve of 14 players punished a deliberate double-cross even if it cost them additional money.
The PET scans showed a brain region known to be important for enjoyment and satisfaction ? the dorsal striatum ? became active in those players who decided to retaliate. It wasn’t an afterglow from revenge, but satisfaction from anticipating it.
When the retaliation cost them money, a second brain region that helps weigh costs and benefits got involved, too, but the striatum remained key. The level of activity actually predicted which players would spend more money to get revenge.
“Their behavior does not reflect blind revenge that follows from overwhelming emotions,” cautioned study co-author Ernst Fehr, director of the University of Zurich’s economic research institute. “They reduce punishment if it is costly for them in the same way as they reduce buying goods if the goods become more expensive.”
Moreover, that same satisfaction-causing brain circuitry seems to be involved in the evolution of human cooperation, providing incentive to get along with strangers in setting social norms, the researchers write in Science. Punishing violators of those norms even if you personally don’t stand to gain may be the flip side.
The study involved only men, and more work is needed to see if women and people of varying social and income groups react similarly, Stanford’s Knutson said.
But the research is important as scientists try to dissect how emotion interacts with analytical decision-making, he stressed.
“For a long time, sociologists and economists have not paid a lot of attention to people’s feelings, especially before an event,” Knutson explained. “It’s almost like your mind imagines the outcome before it happens. That’s a lot of what motivates behavior.”

In our political system there are two choices. This leaves me with a choice of

  1. Voting for Bush who I think has done a horrible job. He embodies everything I dislike about the republican party and nothing of it that I like. This is my opinion and nothing will change from now to election day to make me vote for him.

  2. Voting for Kerry who I really think is the wrong person for the job but I think he will do a better job than Bush. Again he has the same (but opposite) flaws of Bush for me, but I haven’t seen him screw up (in my eyes) on as large of a scale as Bush. Again this is my opinion and I don’t want to get blasted for it by the majority of this board.

  3. Not voting and being one of the millions of Americans who do not partake in our political system.

So I can:

  1. Vote for a guy that I think is an asshole (Bush)

  2. Vote for a guy that I think is an asshole (but not as big of one yet) (Kerry)

  3. Or be an asshole and not vote.

The choice is clear!

If you want higher taxes, more social spending (welfare), Gay marriage, more power in the trial lawyers hands…Then vote for Kerry!

If you want a strong defense, lower taxes, believe in the sanctity of one man one woman marriage, oppose trial lawyers making billions of dollars (then driving up costs to companies which in turn raise their prices to you and me)…Then vote for President Bush.

If you are an ultra liberal who thinks that all corporations are evil and that trees talk…vote for Ralph Nadar.

If you are between the ages of 18 and 23 do what most of you do every four years…stay home!

At least you are basing it on somewhat of a track record. I think there are a lot of people out there that hated Bush just because he was not Gore.

I personally have one thing that I like about Kerry, he claims he will change the rules to help with jobs leaving the country. Bush didn’t implement these rules, but hasn’t done much about them either. If Kerry gets in, and this doesn’t change it will really piss me off. All our jobs going to india and other places is what is killing our job growth, in my opinion.

Zeb it’s not that simple. What if you agree with some things (I’m liberal socially but conservative fiscally). I tend to put social issues first though.

This may be because I’m young and naive (25 yrs old) and it may change later but right now I just can’t vote for a republican of W’s nature.

I’m not going to say that bush lied or anything like that. I understand that he had bad inteligence, but it does seem that it is always “someone elses fault” with him, and I don’t like that.

And it’s not like Republicans don’t spend an absurd amount of our tax dollars also. They just complain about it while they are doing it.

Moderateextreme,

Thanks for this extremely thoughtful post. We have frequently remarked upon this phenomenon on this board.

You wrote: “it is more about people winning a contest than whether we end up with the right man for the job.”

Kevin Kovachs wrote: “1. Voting for Bush who I think has done a horrible job. He embodies everything I dislike about the republican party and nothing of it that I like. This is my opinion and nothing will change from now to election day to make me vote for him.”

Might I use Kevin’s quote as the example that proves your point? I suppose that “nothing will change from now to election day” includes capturing Bin Laden and finding huge cache’s of WMD? I call this fanaticism.

Kevin has come up short in life. Therefore, he is out to get the successful.

For some reason, Kevin chooses to look past the fact that John Kerry has seven SUV’s and flies his hair stylist across country for a one-thousand dollar haircut!!! As long as the candidate has the letter “D” behind the name, it’s fine with Kevin.

For some reason, he doesn’t understand that John Kerry doesn’t care one bit about Kevin. A guy who marries wealth (twice) and films his exploits during wartime, has no room in his heart for anyone but himself.

However, I do not think all is lost. There are some registered Democrats who are beginning to look toward W. I think these people realize that the Dem party is on the wrong track and John Kerry is a symptom of this. I applaud those people for their willingness to keep an open mind.

Have a great day!!!

JeffR

I am typically more republican than democratic, but really I consider myself neutral. I voted for Bush last time because Gore was transparent, trying to ride the coattails of the best politican I have ever seen “billy”. That guy could convince anyone of just about anything. Gore just didn’t have it.
Honestly though I was considering voting for Kerry for a while there. I don’t like Bush’s envirnmental record. I sometimes think he is too linked to oil, but after reading more about Kerry, his terrible flip flop voting record, his inablity to just take a stand instead of just pleasing the group he is talking to, and his weathly wife that gives money to some pretty shaky places that have links to terrist groups, I changed back to favor Bush.

Democrates make me feel all warm and fuzzy, but government just gets more conveluted, and more programs are put in place to pity people, and make it easier to not be accountable. Bottom line democrates say “we will take care of you” republicans say “take care of your own damn self, have some respect for yourself, and take matters into your own hands” And since I think too many people get a free ride off of my hard work, I tend to get a little upset at times.
Joke-
Demorcratic bodybuilder: what? you cant build muscles on your own, here come with me over to this leg extension machine and I will help you count your reps and sets.

Republican bodybuilder: Get over there and sqaut damn it, and when you are done with that here are some deadlifts.

[quote]moderatextreme wrote:
I personally have one thing that I like about Kerry, he claims he will change the rules to help with jobs leaving the country. Bush didn’t implement these rules, but hasn’t done much about them either. If Kerry gets in, and this doesn’t change it will really piss me off. All our jobs going to india and other places is what is killing our job growth, in my opinion.
[/quote]

I know where your comming from because I used to believe my teachers (90% of whom were democrats) when they would complain about outsourcing. However, I have seen that outsourcing is often completely different than the way they discribed it. I think this article could help me explain it:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/wm467.cfm

Ten Myths about Jobs and Outsourcing
by Tim Kane, Brett D. Schaefer, and Alison Fraser
WebMemo #467

April 1, 2004

The American economy never rests?at this moment, in fact, economic growth is vigorous. Yet every time there is a slight dip in the acceleration of output, jobs, or incomes, the undying myths of a sputtering, backfiring economy rise again. Today, many of those myths concern the ills of outsourcing.

The plain facts, however, lay all of today?s myths about outsourcing to rest. But there is still a real danger that politicians working with incomplete or incorrect information will hobble American competitiveness. Scapegoating poor Third World countries, ?Benedict Arnold CEOs,? and free trade will not improve the U.S. economy or labor market, but would likely cause great harm. Robert McTeer of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas summed up the promise of government action on outsourcing well: ?If we are lucky, we can get through the year without doing something really, really stupid.?[1]

Myth #1: America is losing jobs.

Fact: More Americans are employed than ever before.

The household employment survey of Americans indicates that there are 1.9 million more Americans employed since the recession ended in November 2001. There are 138.3 million workers in the U.S. economy today?more than ever before.[2]

Myth #2: The low unemployment rate excludes many discouraged workers.

Fact: Unemployment is dropping, despite a surging labor force.

Not only is the unemployment rate low in historical terms at 5.6 percent, but the workforce has been growing?there are now 2.03 million more people in the labor force than in late 2001. Without a higher rate of unemployment or a shrinking workforce, there is no evidence of growing discouragement.[3]

Myth #3: Outsourcing will cause a net loss of 3.3 million jobs.

Fact: Outsourcing has little net impact, and represents less than 1 percent of gross job turnover.

Over the past decade, America has lost an average of 7.71 million jobs every quarter.[4] The most alarmist prediction of jobs lost to outsourcing, by Forrester Research, estimates that 3.3 million service jobs will be outsourced between 2000 and 2015?an average of 55,000 jobs outsourced per quarter, or only 0.71 percent of all jobs lost per quarter.

Myth #4: Free trade, free labor, and free capital harm the U.S. economy.

Fact: Economic freedom is necessary for economic growth, new jobs, and higher living standards.

A study conducted for the 2004 Index of Economic Freedom confirms a strong, positive relationship between economic freedom and per capita GDP. Countries that adopt policies antithetical to economic freedom, including trying to protect jobs of a few from outsourcing, tend to retard economic growth, which leads to fewer jobs.

Myth #5: A job outsourced is a job lost.

Fact: Outsourcing means efficiency.

Outsourcing is a means of getting more final output with lower cost inputs, which leads to lower prices for all U.S. firms and families. Lower prices lead directly to higher standards of living and more jobs in a growing economy.

Myth #6: Outsourcing is a one-way street.

Fact: Outsourcing works both ways.

The number of jobs coming from other countries to the U.S. (jobs ?insourced?) is growing at a faster rate than jobs lost overseas. According to the Organization for International Investment, the numbers of manufacturing jobs insourced to the United States grew by 82 percent, while the number outsourced overseas grew by only 23 percent.[5] Moreover, these insourced jobs are often higher-paying than those outsourced.[6]

Myth #7: American manufacturing jobs are moving to poor nations, especially China.

Fact: Nations are losing manufacturing jobs worldwide, even China.

America is not alone in experiencing declines in manufacturing jobs. U.S. manufacturing employment declined 11 percent between 1995 and 2002, which is identical to the average world decline.[7] China has seen a sharper decline, losing 15 percent of its industrial jobs over the same period.

Myth #8: Only greedy corporations benefit from outsourcing.

Fact: Everyone benefits from outsourcing.

Outsourcing is about efficiency. As costs decline, every consumer benefits, including those who lose their jobs to outsourcing. A 2003 study by Michael W. Klein, Scott Schuh, and Robert K. Triest, which includes dislocation costs in its calculations, shows the benefits of trade outweighing its costs by 100 percent.[8]

Myth #9: The government can protect American workers from outsourcing.

Fact: Protectionism is isolationism and has a history of failure.

Proposals to punish businesses that outsource jobs, institute tariffs, or change tax rules will carry unintended consequences if enacted. Such measures would injure U.S. firms that export goods and services and erode U.S. competitiveness, often in unexpected ways. Recent steel tariffs, for example, cost jobs in dozens of industries while raising prices for consumers.[9]

Myth #10: Unemployment benefits should be extended beyond 26 weeks.

Fact: Jobless benefits are already working

The median duration of unemployment is now 10.9 weeks; most workers are covered by existing benefits, which last for 26 weeks. Extending today?s coverage to 39 weeks would cost billions of dollars and have little impact.

Conclusion

America’s workers deserve a more informative, less partisan debate on outsourcing. The negative impact of outsourcing on the economy and American employment has been greatly exaggerated, and the benefits of outsourcing almost entirely ignored.

Tim Kane, Ph.D., is Research Fellow in Macroeconomics in the Center for Data Analysis, Brett Schaefer is Jay Kingham Fellow in the Center for International Trade and Economics (CITE), and Alison Fraser is Director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, at The Heritage Foundation.

[quote]moderatextreme wrote:
Democrates make me feel all warm and fuzzy, but government just gets more conveluted, and more programs are put in place to pity people, and make it easier to not be accountable. Bottom line democrates say “we will take care of you” republicans say “take care of your own damn self, have some respect for yourself, and take matters into your own hands” And since I think too many people get a free ride off of my hard work, I tend to get a little upset at times.
[/quote]

Again something I want to respond to. Remeber that Bush wants relious and other types of organizations to help people who are really in need. So, why are these organizations any better than the government helping? Well, because these much smaller organizations lack much of the bureaucracy and therefore do a better job at helping people without as much corruption or without making the government bigger.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Moderateextreme,

Thanks for this extremely thoughtful post. We have frequently remarked upon this phenomenon on this board.

You wrote: “it is more about people winning a contest than whether we end up with the right man for the job.”

Kevin Kovachs wrote: “1. Voting for Bush who I think has done a horrible job. He embodies everything I dislike about the republican party and nothing of it that I like. This is my opinion and nothing will change from now to election day to make me vote for him.”

Might I use Kevin’s quote as the example that proves your point? I suppose that “nothing will change from now to election day” includes capturing Bin Laden and finding huge cache’s of WMD? I call this fanaticism.

Kevin has come up short in life. Therefore, he is out to get the successful.

For some reason, Kevin chooses to look past the fact that John Kerry has seven SUV’s and flies his hair stylist across country for a one-thousand dollar haircut!!! As long as the candidate has the letter “D” behind the name, it’s fine with Kevin.

For some reason, he doesn’t understand that John Kerry doesn’t care one bit about Kevin. A guy who marries wealth (twice) and films his exploits during wartime, has no room in his heart for anyone but himself.

However, I do not think all is lost. There are some registered Democrats who are beginning to look toward W. I think these people realize that the Dem party is on the wrong track and John Kerry is a symptom of this. I applaud those people for their willingness to keep an open mind.

Have a great day!!!

JeffR[/quote]

Where did you get this load of shit from.

I haven’t come up short at all in life. In fact I’ve been very fortunate. My dad made enough money so that my mom didn’t have to work. He worked very hard, I don’t remember how many 80 hour weeks he put in. He paid for both me and my sister to go to a quality university. I got good marks while in college which I graduated from in May 2003. I have a job I love (I work in public health and bioterrorism preparedness) and am going to start my master’s degree next month. I am also in the process of buying a house. So I don’t really think I’ve came up short.

Now I haven’t been glued to the news but last I heard we haven’t found WMD’s or Bin Laden (and I’m pretty sure it won’t happen in the next few months). I guess if it does happen I’ll give Bush some credit (mostly on the WMD thing because I think we should have already got Bin Laden).

Where in my post did you see me say that Kerry was some great guy. I called him an asshole and said I didn’t think he was the man for the job. But only 2 people have a chance at being president and I like one of them less than the other.

Also I’m not someone who will only vote democrat. I would vote for McCain if he was running much faster than I would vote for Kerry.

Sorry for the rant but your statement while knowing nothing about me really pissed me off.

[quote]PoKeJeRk wrote:
moderatextreme wrote:
I personally have one thing that I like about Kerry, he claims he will change the rules to help with jobs leaving the country. Bush didn’t implement these rules, but hasn’t done much about them either. If Kerry gets in, and this doesn’t change it will really piss me off. All our jobs going to india and other places is what is killing our job growth, in my opinion.

I know where your comming from because I used to believe my teachers (90% of whom were democrats) when they would complain about outsourcing. However, I have seen that outsourcing is often completely different than the way they discribed it. I think this article could help me explain it:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/wm467.cfm

Ten Myths about Jobs and Outsourcing
by Tim Kane, Brett D. Schaefer, and Alison Fraser
WebMemo #467

April 1, 2004

The American economy never rests?at this moment, in fact, economic growth is vigorous. Yet every time there is a slight dip in the acceleration of output, jobs, or incomes, the undying myths of a sputtering, backfiring economy rise again. Today, many of those myths concern the ills of outsourcing.

The plain facts, however, lay all of today?s myths about outsourcing to rest. But there is still a real danger that politicians working with incomplete or incorrect information will hobble American competitiveness. Scapegoating poor Third World countries, ?Benedict Arnold CEOs,? and free trade will not improve the U.S. economy or labor market, but would likely cause great harm. Robert McTeer of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas summed up the promise of government action on outsourcing well: ?If we are lucky, we can get through the year without doing something really, really stupid.?[1]

Myth #1: America is losing jobs.

Fact: More Americans are employed than ever before.

The household employment survey of Americans indicates that there are 1.9 million more Americans employed since the recession ended in November 2001. There are 138.3 million workers in the U.S. economy today?more than ever before.[2]

Myth #2: The low unemployment rate excludes many discouraged workers.

Fact: Unemployment is dropping, despite a surging labor force.

Not only is the unemployment rate low in historical terms at 5.6 percent, but the workforce has been growing?there are now 2.03 million more people in the labor force than in late 2001. Without a higher rate of unemployment or a shrinking workforce, there is no evidence of growing discouragement.[3]

Myth #3: Outsourcing will cause a net loss of 3.3 million jobs.

Fact: Outsourcing has little net impact, and represents less than 1 percent of gross job turnover.

Over the past decade, America has lost an average of 7.71 million jobs every quarter.[4] The most alarmist prediction of jobs lost to outsourcing, by Forrester Research, estimates that 3.3 million service jobs will be outsourced between 2000 and 2015?an average of 55,000 jobs outsourced per quarter, or only 0.71 percent of all jobs lost per quarter.

Myth #4: Free trade, free labor, and free capital harm the U.S. economy.

Fact: Economic freedom is necessary for economic growth, new jobs, and higher living standards.

A study conducted for the 2004 Index of Economic Freedom confirms a strong, positive relationship between economic freedom and per capita GDP. Countries that adopt policies antithetical to economic freedom, including trying to protect jobs of a few from outsourcing, tend to retard economic growth, which leads to fewer jobs.

Myth #5: A job outsourced is a job lost.

Fact: Outsourcing means efficiency.

Outsourcing is a means of getting more final output with lower cost inputs, which leads to lower prices for all U.S. firms and families. Lower prices lead directly to higher standards of living and more jobs in a growing economy.

Myth #6: Outsourcing is a one-way street.

Fact: Outsourcing works both ways.

The number of jobs coming from other countries to the U.S. (jobs ?insourced?) is growing at a faster rate than jobs lost overseas. According to the Organization for International Investment, the numbers of manufacturing jobs insourced to the United States grew by 82 percent, while the number outsourced overseas grew by only 23 percent.[5] Moreover, these insourced jobs are often higher-paying than those outsourced.[6]

Myth #7: American manufacturing jobs are moving to poor nations, especially China.

Fact: Nations are losing manufacturing jobs worldwide, even China.

America is not alone in experiencing declines in manufacturing jobs. U.S. manufacturing employment declined 11 percent between 1995 and 2002, which is identical to the average world decline.[7] China has seen a sharper decline, losing 15 percent of its industrial jobs over the same period.

Myth #8: Only greedy corporations benefit from outsourcing.

Fact: Everyone benefits from outsourcing.

Outsourcing is about efficiency. As costs decline, every consumer benefits, including those who lose their jobs to outsourcing. A 2003 study by Michael W. Klein, Scott Schuh, and Robert K. Triest, which includes dislocation costs in its calculations, shows the benefits of trade outweighing its costs by 100 percent.[8]

Myth #9: The government can protect American workers from outsourcing.

Fact: Protectionism is isolationism and has a history of failure.

Proposals to punish businesses that outsource jobs, institute tariffs, or change tax rules will carry unintended consequences if enacted. Such measures would injure U.S. firms that export goods and services and erode U.S. competitiveness, often in unexpected ways. Recent steel tariffs, for example, cost jobs in dozens of industries while raising prices for consumers.[9]

Myth #10: Unemployment benefits should be extended beyond 26 weeks.

Fact: Jobless benefits are already working

The median duration of unemployment is now 10.9 weeks; most workers are covered by existing benefits, which last for 26 weeks. Extending today?s coverage to 39 weeks would cost billions of dollars and have little impact.

Conclusion

America’s workers deserve a more informative, less partisan debate on outsourcing. The negative impact of outsourcing on the economy and American employment has been greatly exaggerated, and the benefits of outsourcing almost entirely ignored.

Tim Kane, Ph.D., is Research Fellow in Macroeconomics in the Center for Data Analysis, Brett Schaefer is Jay Kingham Fellow in the Center for International Trade and Economics (CITE), and Alison Fraser is Director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, at The Heritage Foundation.[/quote]

Sorry for a mini-hijack, but as long as we’re talking outsourcing, which is probably the most demogogued issue in the whole of politics at the moment, I thought I would give this little anecdote, which those of you in CA should find especially troubling - and, just to be a partisan hack, I will note that Democrats control the CA legislature:

http://www.dynamist.com/weblog/archives/001292.html

The California Assembly commissioned a study, from the respected Public Policy Institute of California, on the economic effects of outsourcing jobs overseas.
http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=545
The study found that outsourcing actually increases employment in California. Now the Assembly is sitting on the study. Dan Weintraub has the story:

[Begin excerpt]A new analysis commissioned by the Legislature suggests that sending American jobs overseas, far from being a blow to employment, can actually help preserve existing jobs and create new ones.

The paper, prepared by the Public Policy Institute of California, warns lawmakers against trying to stem the practice by prohibiting offshoring in state contracts, noting that such a ban would drive up the cost of services and take money away from other programs in the budget.

I have seen a copy of the report, sent 10 days ago to the Assembly Office of Policy Planning and Research, which requested it in May. But that office has yet to release the document publicly, and a spokeswoman for the researchers who prepared it said the paper is still a draft that is being reviewed by the Assembly for possible revisions.

"It's a work that is very close to being completed," said Abby Cook, spokeswoman for the policy institute. "We're waiting for some final feedback."

That feedback is not likely to be warm from the Democrats who control the Legislature. Many of them have jumped on the outsourcing issue, hoping to demonstrate their affinity with working people.

The last thing they want is a study done in their name that claims shipping jobs overseas is not only good for the economy, but for workers as well.

But that, more or less, is the conclusion of the 47-page report, for which authors Jon Haveman and Howard Shatz culled all the recent research on the issue and examined trends in California employment. While conceding that data on the latest trends are still in short supply, Haveman and Shatz wrote that offshoring is probably overrated as an economic phenomenon for good or ill, but that, if anything, it is likely to be a net positive.

"Because of the dynamics of the U.S. economy and offshoring's expected effect on productivity, the overall, longer-run effect of offshoring may be to increase living standards at home," they wrote....

That's not just economic theory. The numbers in the real world support this view. Between 1991 and 2001, wrote Haveman and Shatz, U.S. firms that expanded their employment abroad also increased their domestic employment by 5.5 million workers. Their share of overall U.S. employment also increased during this period.[End excerpt]

The LAT has more:

[Begin excerpt]"What data are available suggest that the number of jobs being offshored is small relative both to the overall labor market and to the number of people working in the relevant at risk-occupations," the report says. "The bigger challenge for California is the ? movement of jobs from California to elsewhere in the United States."

The report warns that foreign countries might retaliate by limiting their purchases of California goods, and that the state may end up spending more taxpayer money if it hires only companies offering domestic workers, because the higher labor costs will make the contract prices larger.

"At a time when California is considering decreases in help to the poorest Californians and making other difficult spending choices, limits on offshoring will aid above-average wage earners," the report said.

The Assembly's Office of Policy Planning and Research, which commissioned the report for $25,000, has not released it, but a copy, dated Aug. 12, was obtained by The Times.[End excerpt] 

That passage appears in an article reporting that the legislature has passed the first of six anti-outsourcing bills. A bill to “prohibit the state from hiring outside service contractors, such as software companies and call centers, if they planned to use foreign workers for the jobs” is headed to the governor’s desk. Only a girly-man would sign it.

Kevin,

You sound like a great guy! I think as you move along in life you will become tired of the democrats picking your pocket. Eventually you will vote republican. In fact I am hoping that you might even do it this time around!

I know President Bush is not everything that he should be. In fact, I have stated a few times in the past that I originally supported Steve Forbes for President. I am for a fair flat tax, but that is for another post.

Right now Forbes is not running. I have a clear choice between someone who wants to raise my taxes, (including capital gains taxes-Try selling a house, or investing in the stock market!) and someone who wants to lower them! While I agree with Bush relative to his stance on terrorism, and many other issues. The most pressing need that this country has is fair taxation. The economy will simply go through the roof if we could begin to look at taxes in the proper light.

We have got to stop punishing those folks like you and I, who want to earn more money and are not afraid to work!

Give Bush another look.

Take care,

Zeb

Thanks ZEB. While I don’t always agree with your side of the political spectrum you always seem to keep things in perspective and have good reasoning behind what you believe.

I have been thinking about my political affiliation alot these last few months (after being an anybody but Bush guy for so long). While I don’t think I will vote for Bush this election, I wouldn’t say that voting Republican in the future is out of the question.

All I really want from a political party is for someone to come up with something that works to make our country better. Not the same old tired ideas. I do agree with you on taxes though. But I do not understand economy enough to really judge the pro’s and con’s of either side of the debate.

Kevin:

I couldn’t ask for more than that! Thanks for keeping an open mind.

As far as the economy goes, it simply makes economic and moral sense for people to keep more of their hard earned dollars. I am sure you agree with me on this one.

If Joe Jones Grosses $1000 per week and under our current tax system is only able to keep $500 that means that he has $500 less to spend, save pr invest. I dont think you have to be a
world class economist to realize that the $500 that will not get spent on a new Television, cloths, exercise equipment etc harms the economy.

Ask yourself this: What will the government (state and federal) do with Joe Jones money? How many bureaucrats will keep a job that may not be needed? How many one person jobs
currently performed by three people would have to be dropped?

Now if the $500 would go directly to assist children who are in need,then I would be the first in line to say “please tax me at 50%.” Unfortuneately, there is so much waste and fraud at that level much of the money simply falls into big black bureaucrat holes!

On the other hand when Joe is out spending that $500 on a new power saw he is helping the economy. When more “power saws” are sold, more people are employed to sell them and to manufacture them. And of course this is true of whatever Joe decides to spend that extra $500 on. This means that more people will be employed, who will in turn spend and invest more money!

Want to see a booming economy? A flat tax of 20% across the board, with no loop holes (no one making under 30-k is taxed at all). Get government out of the way and the economy will boom like never before!

President Bush has mentioned a flat tax as recently as two weeks ago. I have no idea if he will mention it at the republican national convention. Hoewever as long as there is a republican in the White House we have a shot at it.

That doesn’t sound so bad does it? Thanks for considering the republican ticket.

Best of Luck To You,

Zeb

Sigh, I dream of a (low) flat tax…

Zeb,

Here’s to a flat TAX!!!

It seems far and away the most intelligent and fair way. Enough of the Democrats pitting rich versus poor. I agree no loopholes. I trully hope W. pushes this concept.

There was also some discussion of repealing the income tax in favor of a fixed sales tax. I am interested in that as well.

Kevin,

I stand corrected!!! Your last post was a breath of fresh air to me. In my opinion, voting is the highest civil duty we perform. Like any duty, it takes work. We must try to remove media bias and other confounders from each bit of information we receive. Only then, can we make a trully informed decision. The internet has opened my eyes. I’m stunned by the degree of media bias that I have been subjected to throughout my life. I find myself wondering if events and issues would have been different had we had access to the internet in the past. For example, the SwiftVets’ group may have received far less (if any notice) without the internet. It took months for CNN to discuss it at all. As you know, the SwiftVets raise issues that are critical to our selection of commander in chief. Issues like: Does the CIC have the confidence of the military? How will that CIC respond to criticism? Will he encourage open discussion of his policies or will he try to shut it down with lawyers.

This is why this board is invaluable to me. This board allows us to challenge our conceptions. We will only know if our ideas are solid if they can withstand scrutiny.

I have been very open about my own personal biases. That being said, I think there are many things about the current administration that have been misrepresented in the media. If you remove the media bias and concurrent negative interpretation of most events, I think you will find that some of the administration’s solutions are not only thoughtful but ingenious.

See you later!!!

JeffR

Libertarians anyone? Low taxes for sure! Their statement is this: We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Kevin,
You sound like a great guy! I think as you move along in life you will become tired of the democrats picking your pocket. [/quote]

Hilarious!!!

George W Bush is the BIGGEST SPENDING PRESIDENT in our nation’s history!!!

Bush has spent more than any “tax and spend liberal”, and WE BORROW MONEY FROM CHINA and other nations, to pay for Bush’s free-spending ways!

Let me say it again: we are borrowing money from other nations including China, in order to pay for tax reductions to the wealthy elite like Bill Gates and Donald Trump, as well as your piddly little tax break (unless you are a fat cat, and then your tax cut is hefty).

All Bush is doing is running up a huge debt, and then he will pass that mess on to the next president. All in a crass effort to buy the next election, by giving tax cuts during a recession and while we fight two wars.

I’m not voting against Bush out of spite… if he were doing a good job I’d consider keeping him around, for the sake of continuity. But George Bush is INCOMPETENT as president, he is in WAY too deep with the job of president, and he has bungled the job badly! He’s been the worst president in modern history!!! It’s not even close!!!

We need SMART and COMPETENT people in the White House!

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Kevin:

Want to see a booming economy? A flat tax of 20% across the board, with no loop holes (no one making under 30-k is taxed at all). Get government out of the way and the economy will boom like never before!

Zeb[/quote]

I wonder about this too, but some of the government policies are needed I have to think. The problem is not that we are being taxed too much, the problem is that our tax money never seems to help anything, and they have to constantly get more because they waste it, or it keeps going to the same programs and the same people keep getting rich from it.

I hate our system, it is so big and confusing we have no idea what happens to our money, just that they take it