DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**estheticianI** · 03-02-2006, 08:09 PM

I used an example that would have been applicable a hundred years ago, because I'm not sure what 'should be disappearing' jobs would be protected from what 'not yet here' innovation under such a misguided policy - I'm smart, but my future-telling abilities are rather limited. Perhaps a more timely observation would compare steel-mill jobs to internet jobs, tho that's still rather dated.

Perhaps. But what in, and who should pay for it? Using my example above, the government would most likely pour lots of taxpayer money down holes like 'improved buggy-whips', 'improved buggies', and 'horse hybridization' rather than internal combustion engines, mass production, and other innovations that private industry brought forth at no or minimal cost to the taxpayer.

I followed your "auto" analogy quite well (good choice) and tried to continue it simply because I don't know what the next innovation will be either. I can understand letting go of the "horse and buggy" jobs to make room for the newer state-of-the-art jobs so long as they are already available. Even the internet jobs, call centers etc.. have been sent to India and such.

I suggested the R&D because there is no new innovation that I am (or you are) aware of. Even if one did develop, who is to say those jobs don't get outsourced as well? As far as who should pay for it I don't know either. If it is left to industry leaders there is no guarantee the new product will be produced in the US so it may not help create jobs. Hybrid vehicles are one option but it is very easy for foreign manufacturers to do the same as the goal is global, and market share will depend on it in a few years.

I see the concern of jobs being outsourced as the long term problem. Perhaps I am worrying for nothing, but I would rather do that than get caught off-guard.

You offer interesting outlooks, thank you.

03-02-2006, 08:09 PM	#38
estheticianI Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 503 Senior Member	I used an example that would have been applicable a hundred years ago, because I'm not sure what 'should be disappearing' jobs would be protected from what 'not yet here' innovation under such a misguided policy - I'm smart, but my future-telling abilities are rather limited. Perhaps a more timely observation would compare steel-mill jobs to internet jobs, tho that's still rather dated. Perhaps. But what in, and who should pay for it? Using my example above, the government would most likely pour lots of taxpayer money down holes like 'improved buggy-whips', 'improved buggies', and 'horse hybridization' rather than internal combustion engines, mass production, and other innovations that private industry brought forth at no or minimal cost to the taxpayer. I followed your "auto" analogy quite well (good choice) and tried to continue it simply because I don't know what the next innovation will be either. I can understand letting go of the "horse and buggy" jobs to make room for the newer state-of-the-art jobs so long as they are already available. Even the internet jobs, call centers etc.. have been sent to India and such. I suggested the R&D because there is no new innovation that I am (or you are) aware of. Even if one did develop, who is to say those jobs don't get outsourced as well? As far as who should pay for it I don't know either. If it is left to industry leaders there is no guarantee the new product will be produced in the US so it may not help create jobs. Hybrid vehicles are one option but it is very easy for foreign manufacturers to do the same as the goal is global, and market share will depend on it in a few years. I see the concern of jobs being outsourced as the long term problem. Perhaps I am worrying for nothing, but I would rather do that than get caught off-guard. You offer interesting outlooks, thank you.
	Quote