What is missing from Bernie Sanders vocabulary
-
Democrat
Colorado Springs, CO
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
I have spent time reading about both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton on the issues of importance. I like them both, and certainly Bernie Sanders has knack for hitting the right buttons to energize liberals and progressives. Hillary doesn't have that same level of skill, but if I remove the emotion, I like Hillary's words better as being a more realistic assessment of the world we live in...and not the world we used to live in. Bernie Sanders is perhaps best recognized as an advocate for workers, and as such he has opposed every trade deal that he has had an opportunity to vote or comment on while in Congress. His opposition is not just a no vote, but rather he has made passionate speeches and pleas in Congress and just about everywhere else where he will be given a podium to oppose trade deals...all trade deals. In fact he has gone so far as to advocate for America's withdrawal from the World Trade Organization entirely, which would have the effect of going back to tariff wars on imports and exports. Along those lines, he has also opposed comprehensive immigration reform because of his perceived impact of guest workers on American jobs. He has called it a "massive effort to attract cheap labor, a great disservice to American workers." However, to be clear, he supports the Dream Act, or that part of immigration reform. He just is opposed to the guest worker program as it pertains to skilled labor. I have combed through his articles and speeches related to trade and jobs, and I cannot find any mention of jobs lost to automation and robots. Yet from the various articles I have read by people knowledgeable in this field, those job losses have been larger than any lost to trade deals. Not only that, but the changing market place for goods and services, means that some jobs always go away and others are created even without trade. Yet Bernie Sanders conflates total jobs lost or displaced for any reason in the same discussions about "bad trade deals", quoting numbers from the EPI, but never ever mentioning that many of those jobs were lost to automation and just the changing market place. I mean who works at Blockbuster? This article in the Atlantic, Scarce Skills, Not Scarce Jobs, addresses how jobs are being lost to automation and computers and other jobs are being created to run those computers and robots. The problem is that we do not have the right programs in place to retrain workers whose jobs have been lost to robots or trade deals. Bernie Sanders has been a strong advocate for education and job retraining, but somehow this program hasn't worked as hoped or should. And although there are lots of jobs to be filled, Americans do not have the skill sets to fill those jobs...or perhaps the resources or inclination to even retrain for those jobs. By placing the blame for jobs lost entirely on trade deals, he is rallying the workers to his cause that somehow if we can only scrap the TPP and other trade deals, our American jobs are protected forever. That line of thinking might get him votes in the election, but it's not going to bring back those jobs lost in the past or future due to automation or changing markets. Is he pandering to a niche group of displaced workers? It certainly appears that way to me. Globalization is here to stay. We cannot become isolationists with tariffs and tariff wars. Rather we need to take a hard look at our education programs and job retraining programs and fix those programs. The obstacle here as we well know it, is the Republicans. The Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) that Nancy Pelosi just defeated does need to be made stronger, so I agree with Pelosi in that regard. Fix the TAA and other education initiatives, and we don't have to be picking away at trade deals. The countries that can compete in the global economy of the 21st century are those that put high priority on education. In that regard I highly support Bernie Sander's "free college tuition for all" bill that he has taken up in the Senate. If one looks at what other countries are doing to compete, those that put high emphasis on education starting from pre kindergarten level are the ones that will succeed. Unfortunately, America's attitudes towards education and teachers has to change as well. We are not there right now and haven't been for some time. We need an honest discourse on jobs and education rather than pandering.
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Schmidt Wrote:I have spent time reading about both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton on the issues of importance. I like them both, and certainly Bernie Sanders has knack for hitting the right buttons to energize liberals and progressives. Hillary doesn't have that same level of skill, but if I remove the emotion, I like Hillary's words better as being a more realistic assessment of the world we live in...and not the world we used to live in. Bernie Sanders is perhaps best recognized as an advocate for workers, and as such he has opposed every trade deal that he has had an opportunity to vote or comment on while in Congress. His opposition is not just a no vote, but rather he has made passionate speeches and pleas in Congress and just about everywhere else where he will be given a podium to oppose trade deals...all trade deals. In fact he has gone so far as to advocate for America's withdrawal from the World Trade Organization entirely, which would have the effect of going back to tariff wars on imports and exports. Along those lines, he has also opposed comprehensive immigration reform because of his perceived impact of guest workers on American jobs. He has called it a "massive effort to attract cheap labor, a great disservice to American workers." However, to be clear, he supports the Dream Act, or that part of immigration reform. He just is opposed to the guest worker program as it pertains to skilled labor. I have combed through his articles and speeches related to trade and jobs, and I cannot find any mention of jobs lost to automation and robots. Yet from the various articles I have read by people knowledgeable in this field, those job losses have been larger than any lost to trade deals. Not only that, but the changing market place for goods and services, means that some jobs always go away and others are created even without trade. Yet Bernie Sanders conflates total job lost or displaced for any reasn in the same discussions about "bad trade deals", quoting numbers from the EPI but never ever mentioning that many of those jobs were lost to automation and just the changing market place. I mean who works at Blockbuster? This article in the Atlantic, Scarce Skills, Not Scarce Jobs, addresses how jobs are being lost to automation and computers and other jobs are being created to run those computers and robots. The problem is that we do not have the right programs in place to retrain workers whose jobs have been lost to robots or trade deals. Bernie Sanders has been a strong advocate for education and job retraining, but somehow this program hasn't worked as it hoped or should. And although there are lots of jobs to be filled, Americans do not have the skill sets to fill those jobs...or perhaps the resources or inclination to even retrain for those jobs. By placing the blame for jobs lost entirely on trade deals, he is rallying the workers to his cause that somehow if we can only scrap the TPP and other trade deals, our American jobs are protected forever. That line of thinking might get him votes in the election, but it's not going to bring back those jobs lost in the past or future due to automation or changing markets. Is he pandering to a niche group of displaced workers? It certainly appears that way to me. Globalization is here to stay. We cannot become isolationists with tariffs and tariff wars. Rather we need to take a hard look at our education programs and job retraining programs and fix those programs. The obstacle here as we well know it, is the Republicans. The Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) that Nancy Pelosi just defeated does need to be made stronger, so I agree with Pelosi in that regard. Fix the TAA and other education initiatives, and we don't have to be picking away at trade deals. The countries that can compete in the global economy of the 21st century are those that put high priority on education. In that regard I highly support Bernie Sander's "free college tuition for all" bill that he has taken up in the Senate. If one looks at what other countries are doing to compete, those that put high emphasis on education starting from pre kindergarten level are the ones that will succeed. Unfortunately, America's attitudes towards education and teachers has to change as well. We are not there right now and haven't been for some time. We need an honest discourse on jobs and education rather than pandering. Schmidt, as always you analyze things correctly; the thing is that the course we have taken since WWII is still moving in the same direction; this downward spiral is un-stoppable; keep on printing money; keep on having wars; try to control the world financially; having 480 plus US bases around the world; spending all our printed money on war equipment and embassy's; having more and more broke cities; much higher cost of living due to climate change which is ruining crops etc. I could go on and on. No new president can solve these things, unless there is a full concentration on internal issues and not on trying to run the world and set it to our liking. See also what a new member just wrote about the Iraq war; more of the same things are happening now; the Pentagon is totally quiet about what they are doing in the middle east as well things on the financial markets will be impacted by badly written laws dictating other countries. Etc.
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
that is pretty comprehensive. you've obvious done some research. clinton over bernie? removing the passion? think you are somewhat correct on that. hillary is calculating and bernie says what he believes. you will not get much of that from ms clinton. the proof of that is in how it takes days for her to respond with an answer. they study, calculate the best move and then use the words they feel people with identify with. she is totally calculating. you see that is how she addresses things like tpp and the oil pipeling. you cannot get a straight answer from her. veiled references to wall street greed, but she has made her trek to wall street already and i have no doubt she made her assurances to them. assurances she would not upset their little apple cart and not seek breaking up to big to fail banks. not prosecute them for their crimes (as did obama and got big money from them). anyone believing she is gonna fight for wall street reform are whistling in the dark. keystone she probably will support and the tpp also, yet you cannot get her to actually say it...fearing alienating the left and surely lose the election. she is a clever calculating person and i wouldn't trust her. bernie at least speaks what he believes and will do, unlike her. the difference between her and bernie? bernie says it and she obfuscates, speaks double-speak and walks around it. i'll take bernie any day!
-
-
Democrat
Colorado Springs, CO
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
egresor -- First welcome to the Democratic Hub. You'll find your opinions welcome here, but some will disagree with you. Those of us that have been on here for a long while have developed pretty thick skins. Yes, it is refreshing to hear Bernie Sanders talk his views, which are honest and sincere, but maybe impractical to get implemented. He has a niche following of liberals/progressives/union members, and his rhetoric is largely directed at their needs. But putting that aside, the problem with our elections and media is that no one is allowed to "misspeak". As Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama well know, every word is scrutinized for "gotchas" as their opponents and media looking for a scoop spend hundreds of hours combing through old tapes. And even when there is no "there" there, they'll try make something out of it. The classic example that I have referenced in one of my blog articles is the Washington Post's "Fact Checker" that gave President Obama four Pinocchios (a whopper of a lie) because he interchanged "act of terror" with "act of terrorism," with regard to the attack on the Benghazi consulate. "Some readers may object to this continuing focus on words, but presidential aides spend a lot of time on words. Words have consequences. Is there a difference between “act of terror” and “act of terrorism”?" I found the entire discussion ridiculous, but it just goes to show to what lengths the media will scrutinize not only every word and phrase, but also the body gestures or the way they said it. Candidates like Hillary have lived under the microscope so she has learned to parse her words very carefully. If Bernie Sanders is the nominee, well I'm sure Fox News and the Republicans have an encyclopedia full of things he said that will be used against him. That's the reality of the ruthless campaigns. In Romney's campaign against Obama, they lifted a clip of Obama quoting John McCain and made it sound like it was Obama's position and that he had flip flopped on the issue. Totally dishonest, but hey, anything goes. Bernie should be more careful of what he says, but then again he might not care as maybe he doesn't see himself getting the nomination. Jared -- Yes, I agree with you. It's going to be a tough campaign.
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
i'll have to read that atlantic article later, but what you say they are saying doesn't quite ring true. i suppose it is somewhat true, but i have serious doubts automation is the real reason why america is losing jobs. it sounds like ship jobs overseas for cheaper labor and then say it's the american workers fault for not being skilled enough? it certainly is true about there being skilled jobs and not the people trained to do them, but who is to blame for that? the american workers? no, american politicians cutting school findings and refusing to support programs that would eliminate it. are those jobs being shipped out of the country high skilled jobs mentioned in the headline of that article. if it says it and backs it up with facts? ok, i apologize, but without that real evidence? no... they are cheap labor jobs. jobs americans would have to be paid more for. big businesses are not going to those countries for their higher educated work forces and to blame american workers for it is wrong. what is the business answer? fix it so american workers are trained? fund educational programs to have a trained work force? have you seen any of that? perhaps doing like germany and with an apprentice type system? a system that trains their own labor force? no---it's ship the jobs overseas and increase profits to astounding levels...and who can dent big business is doing well? while average americans suffer? skimmed throught it and it is true that automation is more and more and americans need trained, but that is not the cause of america losing jobs. the cause was big businesses getting access to low wagecountries and bringing the goods back into this country. that's what cost america jobs, that and our trade policies with korea dumping steel (before it was japan dumping steel--remember) so what happened to the steel industry? they got sold out. our leaders allow korea and others to dump without penalty and what would the effect of that be...pretty simple---job loses. american steel jobs are lost. ask steel manufacturers if they can compete on a level playing ground and they will tell you they can can blow the socks off competition, but not with others dumping. who can compete with that? our trade negotiators with japan came up with a deal and then went to work for those japanes companies they were negotiated with...and everybody in just fine with that? sort of like if you have a small shop selling goods in a small town and walmart comes to town...with their predatory tactics. who can compete with walmart prices? not many. thanks for the article link. it was interesting, but not the cause of job loses. maybe future and current evolving, but not how we got like we are now? that is big businesses and politicians in their pocket selling us out. btw wikipedia on the atlantic had this assessment On September 10, 2012, Salon criticized the current iteration of The Atlantic beginning with, "The magazine's features are always engaging but often seem to lack critical historical perspective", and the provocative, "Is the Atlantic making us stupid?" not a very good reommendation. reading that article quick scan...it seems still true.
-
Democrat
Colorado Springs, CO
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
egresor -- thanks for your comments. I'm not saying trade agreements have worked out entirely as planned. Yes there have been accusations of dumping and some of those were taken to the WTO. However, my whole point is that there are jobs being lost and created every day in our economy, and technology accounts for much of them, but also market forces. Some of the greatest job losses in history occurred in 1929 at the start of the Great Depression and we cannot blame those on trade policies. The Great Recession likewise accounted for a bunch of bankruptcies and job losses, and very few of those can be attributed to trade policies. I tried to find the article you attempted to link to, but I couldn't find it my search. I read Salon, the Nation, Truthout, AlterNet and all of those liberal/progressive websites. I generally agree with most of them, say 90 percent, but on the issue of trade, it looks like I am alone amongst friends, on my views. I wrote a blog article a while ago on what is really happening to jobs in America. One of the websites that I have visited and referenced is the Peterson Institute. One of their papers, NAFTA's Bad Rap, was written in 2008 before the Great Recession set in in a big way. I found the Peterson Institute and their analysis more professional than either the Heritage Foundation on the right or the Economic Policy Institute on the left. The EPI as you may know is the brain child of the unions and was fully funded by the unions for the first five years of their existence. I like a lot of what the EPI does, but I am cautious of their findings. Their numbers for job losses for NAFTA do not hold up under scrutiny. Read the Peterson Institute article. They have other articles backing up their analyses. As you also know Barack Obama has been a champion of trying to get a Jobs bill passed in Congress. After the Stimulus in 2009, he was unable to get another jobs bill past the Republican opposition that said no to everything out of spite. We can all agree that the job retraining program needs fixing, and Nancy Pelosi understands that fully. The media don't seem to want to pick up on that point much. They rather relish in the "defeat of Obama". There are lots of jobs available in America, and it's sad that companies have to go outside the USA to bring in skilled people under H-1B visas. We would be better off training or retraining our own, but that would require a major risk and investment by some smaller companies. That's where the Federal government could do a lot more if the program was given the proper oversight and funding. I could go on further, but I'll just let you digest the Peterson Institute article above first. I do appreciate your commentary. Most people on this website disagree with me on the TPP and trade.
-
-
-
-
Democrat
Colorado Springs, CO
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
lonely bird --- I stand by my comments. In this global economy jobs are being lost for a multitude of reasons, automation being the biggest factor, but changing markets for gadgets like smart phones, also have an impact on jobs. For anyone with the right skills, there is no reason why they cannot find a job provided that they are willing to uproot their families and relocate. That in itself is one reason why some people cannot find a job...for various reasons are unable to relocate. The skilled jobs today require a higher aptitude for using equipment that is largely "computer controlled". An employer is not willing to turn over a million dollar piece of equipment to a person lacking the basic knowhow on how to run that equipment. So how does that person get trained to use that piece of equipment? It requires training and a commitment from the employee and his boss that he will stay around once trained. Many of these new jobs don't require a college degree, but they do require a higher level of aptitude that can be gained from a community college specialized set of courses. That's why President Obama's free community college makes good sense. Here's another article of interest, an interview with René Bryce-Laporte, the outgoing program manager for Skills for America's Future: The Atlantic: Why Jobs Go Unfilled Even in Times of High Unemployment Companies say too many applicants just don't have the right skills. Partnerships between employers and community colleges are looking to fix that. About 40 years ago, only one in four jobs required more than a high school education, but now about two in three jobs require more training. And workers now really need to think of learning as a lifelong task. That's a huge shift from the days when you did one job that never changed for one employer and then you retired. Working in a factory requires a different kind of skill than it used to--the same is true in agriculture, even. I serve on a board in Arkansas, and we went to a town in the Delta that has a farm that used to have a couple hundred people working in the field. Now it employs two people, operating all the machines. I've seen some surveys with employers who talk about problems finding workers with traditional workplace skills--showing up to work on time, having basic literacy, needing workers who can problem-solve. That's not new technology in play--some employers have always complained about these skills being absent. ---------------------------------------- Read the entire article. What is broken in our country is not our trade agreements (although I agree they need some fixing), but rather our education system, and by that I don't just mean the basic formal education one gets in academic institutions, but rather a commitment to lifelong training and retraining as technology evolves. When I graduated from college, I used a slide rule and was pretty good at it. That and my CRC book of math tables is all I needed to solve complex problems. Those skills became quickly obsolete, and I retrained myself again and again, not only in basic skills, but also those directly applicable to my profession. My company called it "continuous improvement" and me and my colleagues were forever attending courses to keep up with the latest and greatest in technology. From my blog article on jobs: "The year 2014 is seen by many economists as a banner year for American businesses and job growth, yet some 27,000 of those businesses still filed for bankruptcy in the courts. Thankfully jobs added in the more efficient businesses and new start-ups more than offset the job losses due to bankruptcy lay-offs." Those employees working for bankrupt companies were not so fortunate. They probably lacked the skills sets to take one of the new jobs out there, and the financial resources to get trained for those jobs. That's why we need a federal sponsored and funded job retraining program with teeth. Not just a feel good program. That's why Nancy Pelosi needs to hold out on the TAA until it can be strengthened.
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Schmidt Wrote:lonely bird --- I stand by my comments. In this global economy jobs are being lost for a multitude of reasons, automation being the biggest factor, but changing markets for gadgets like smart phones, also have an impact on jobs. For anyone with the right skills, there is no reason why they cannot find a job provided that they are willing to uproot their families and relocate. That in itself is one reason why some people cannot find a job...for various reasons are unable to relocate. The skilled jobs today require a higher aptitude for using equipment that is largely "computer controlled". An employer is not willing to turn over a million dollar piece of equipment to a person lacking the basic knowhow on how to run that equipment. So how does that person get trained to use that piece of equipment? It requires training and a commitment from the employee and his boss that he will stay around once trained. Many of these new jobs don't require a college degree, but they do require a higher level of aptitude that can be gained from a community college specialized set of courses. That's why President Obama's free community college makes good sense. Here's another article of interest, an interview with René Bryce-Laporte, the outgoing program manager for Skills for America's Future: The Atlantic: Why Jobs Go Unfilled Even in Times of High Unemployment Companies say too many applicants just don't have the right skills. Partnerships between employers and community colleges are looking to fix that. About 40 years ago, only one in four jobs required more than a high school education, but now about two in three jobs require more training. And workers now really need to think of learning as a lifelong task. That's a huge shift from the days when you did one job that never changed for one employer and then you retired. Working in a factory requires a different kind of skill than it used to--the same is true in agriculture, even. I serve on a board in Arkansas, and we went to a town in the Delta that has a farm that used to have a couple hundred people working in the field. Now it employs two people, operating all the machines. I've seen some surveys with employers who talk about problems finding workers with traditional workplace skills--showing up to work on time, having basic literacy, needing workers who can problem-solve. That's not new technology in play--some employers have always complained about these skills being absent. ---------------------------------------- Read the entire article. What is broken in our country is not our trade agreements (although I agree they need some fixing), but rather our education system, and by that I don't just mean the basic formal education one gets in academic institutions, but rather a commitment to lifelong training and retraining as technology evolves. When I graduated from college, I used a slide rule and was pretty good at it. That and my CRC book of math tables is all I needed to solve complex problems. Those skills became quickly obsolete, and I retrained myself again and again, not only in basic skills, but also those directly applicable to my profession. My company called it "continuous improvement" and me and my colleagues were forever attending courses to keep up with the latest and greatest in technology. From my blog article on jobs: "The year 2014 is seen by many economists as a banner year for American businesses and job growth, yet some 27,000 of those businesses still filed for bankruptcy in the courts. Thankfully jobs added in the more efficient businesses and new start-ups more than offset the job losses due to bankruptcy lay-offs." Those employees working for bankrupt companies were not so fortunate. They probably lacked the skills sets to take one of the new jobs out there, and the financial resources to get trained for those jobs. That's why we need a federal sponsored and funded job retraining program with teeth. Not just a feel good program. That's why Nancy Pelosi needs to hold out on the TAA until it can be strengthened. Schmidt; you are talking about a "global" economy; you are forgetting that the US is destroying that; what do you want to sell to the middle east; what do you want to sell to Africa/; What do you want to sell to Europe,which has a huge problem with the Euro/Greece etc. China does not need us; Russia hates us. So if you look at the trade picture, it does not look all that good. Ask Caterpillar etc. Just keeping the economy flowing on the war industry and printing money does nor work either eventually. The trade agreements may look good, but in practice they create again bureaucracy which limits flexibility as well added paperwork cost etc. All these things put a brake on "free" trade. Also the US efforts to control all bank movements worldwide of US and foreign companies have an effect on smooth trade. So I'm of the opinion that job growth here will not further improve because of our foreign policies. not just skill levels is an issue.
-
Democrat
Colorado Springs, CO
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
So the US Trade pictures doesn't look that good? Department of Commerce: U.S. Exports Hit New Annual Record, Reaching $2.35 Trillion in 2014 Wow we must be destroying a lot of economies. And if our trade picture "does not look all that good" what is your definition of "good"? Yes there is a lot of bureaucracy with trade agreements. That's one of the goals that Obama is trying to fix with the Trans Pacific Partnership. Get rid of a lot of the red tape so that small businesses can also engage in the lucrative overseas markets. "U.S. exports in 2013 supported 11.3 million jobs, an increase of 1.6 million export-supported jobs since 2009." "Recognizing that 95 percent of consumers live outside our borders, the Obama Administration is taking concrete steps to make it easier for U.S. companies to begin exporting or expand international sales."
-
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Schmidt Wrote:So the US Trade pictures doesn't look that good? Department of Commerce: U.S. Exports Hit New Annual Record, Reaching $2.35 Trillion in 2014 Wow we must be destroying a lot of economies. And if our trade picture "does not look all that good" what is your definition of "good"? Yes there is a lot of bureaucracy with trade agreements. That's one of the goals that Obama is trying to fix with the Trans Pacific Partnership. Get rid of a lot of the red tape so that small businesses can also engage in the lucrative overseas markets. "U.S. exports in 2013 supported 11.3 million jobs, an increase of 1.6 million export-supported jobs since 2009." "Recognizing that 95 percent of consumers live outside our borders, the Obama Administration is taking concrete steps to make it easier for U.S. companies to begin exporting or expand international sales." Schmidt read what lonely said. I'm looking ahead, but tell me what was the biggest export item? that will change soon because of our policies worldwide. Read the Fatca thing which was attached to one of the agreements; which never was scrutinized by our government and via a sneaky way stuck onto it; this will have huge consequences for our currency as well trade. Read Ron Paul's statement as well.
-
Are you sure you want to delete this post?
Trade is an incredibly crazy topic. I worked for 30 years in exports and I don't see the future as promising. Automation ? Yes that applies to some corporations but most common goods don't need robotics to be made. I saw a show that went through the building of a Tesla (start to finish) and that was massive automation. Common goods: tools, clothes, toys, furniture, (most things) etc. can be assembled anywhere by anyone so you might as well do it where you can pay slave labor, not pay payroll taxes, retirement, healthcare and insurance costs, and not have govt. agencies like the EPA. No concerns for workman's comp. or proper disposal of waste materials. No Christmas party or company picnic to pay for. Suddenly you can manufacture that lamp for 1.18 instead of 6.75. Don't believe that jobs left the USA for any reason aside from massive increases in profits. Topic: What is missing from Bernie Sanders vocabulary ? I won't win and if I'm the parties candidate it won't even be close. http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2016-president/
|