I don't think it's silly, as some have argued, to demand that Barack Obama repudiate his pastor; the first rule of being famous in America is that if someone close to you insults your country, you are required to denounce this. Perhaps it is not fair, but there you are; Pat Robertson took his after 9/11, and don't we all wish he'd taken it all the way off the air?
So I tune in to watch the speech, and I'm pretty happy with it: he's acknowledging that both sides have some reason behind the way they feel about these matters, but that nothing will get better until we all get to work on letting it go.
And then he has to go and make possibly the stupidest remark in this entire campaign--or at least, Best in Class (you can't really expect him to outdo a television anchor.) "This time we need to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you will take your job, it's that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit."
This is jaw-droppingly, head-shakingly, soul-cringingly, "Oh my God, maw, I think my eardrum just exploded" stupid.
"Don't be afraid of the people who don't look like you--be afraid of the people who don't look like you, and have the nerve to live somewhere else." They'll sneak over the border at night, steal your job, and sell it to some wetback hooker in Juarez.
I understand the political logic that forces Barack Obama to spend a fair amount of time hating on trade. But I sort of feel--call me a starry-eyed idealist though you will--that a speech urging Americans not to hate and fear people who are different from them, should perhaps itself forgo urging Americans to hate and fear people who are different from them. You know, to set a good example for the children.
Needless to say, CNN loves it.
Wait, I don't see how that sentence tells us to hate people who are going to get the job overseas.
You can be concerned about American jobs being sent overseas without hating or fearing the people who might get those jobs.
In fact, what he's saying seems reasonable. He seems to be saying that it's not the fault of the people who end up taking your jobs that you don't have your job. It's the fault of the company who gives those jobs to someone else that you don't have your job.
He doesn't say where we go from there, which is the issue. But it's pretty clear (to me) that he isn't advocating hating or fearing anyone.
"if someone close to you insults your country, you are required to denounce this"
The 'insults your country' part is putting it mildly. Obama's spiritual advisor claimed that the US government created the AIDS virus in order to wipe out African-Americans (and, I suppose, Africans as well).
Perhaps I misunderstand, but I read his comment to mean "Don't be afraid of the people who don't look like you--be afraid of the people who DO look like you, and have the nerve to ship your job somewhere else." Am I missing something or how did you get your interpretation?
"In fact, what he's saying seems reasonable. He seems to be saying that it's not the fault of the people who end up taking your jobs that you don't have your job. It's the fault of the company who gives those jobs to someone else that you don't have your job."
After all, it has to be someone else's fault, right? Someone, somewhere clearly owes us each a job. So the message is - Don't hate people, hate companies, because they are born (how exactly does that work?) with the obligation to hire people, whether those people contribute or not. If we don't all get what we want, we should just find a big corporation to blame.
freddiemac, it's still all about them fowriners takin' owr jowrbs, whether they sneak across the border, or whether the jowrbs are stolen by them sitting in their own countries.
I think that's a pretty radical interpretation of that remark. I heard it as "blame the corporation", not "blame Sanjit in Bangalore".
In fact, I've now read the sentence a few times and STILL don't get the undertone you sensed. He's quite clearly pinning the blame on the Corp. He doesn't want you to hate someone different from you -- he wants you to realise that the person responsible is Mr 50 Million Dollar Bonus at HQ.
Tremendous speech-- at least, it reads tremendously, I didn't see it.
You can't expect a politician looking for American votes to say that it's not a problem when Americans lose jobs.
To what extent will the dollar's slide tend to halt outsourcing? After all, now corporations can pay American wages in cheap dollars.
Ann, you don't have to think that the corporation "owes" you a job to believe that it's the corporation's fault that you don't have your job anymore.
It is simply true that it's the result of an action of the corporation that causes your job loss. It might further be true that it's a reasonable action on the part of the corporation to move the job overseas.
The question is, are there are things we can do to make it more advantageous for corporations to keep jobs in America? Asking that question need not involve arguments that put moral blame on a corporation or make the issue something we are "owed".
You can count on so few things these days; it's good to see Megan McAntoinette is still the same. Clueless.
Megan, you do remember the Edwards campaign, right? Two Americas?
Megan
I can tell the difference between the Nike Corporation that makes mega-bucks and the working class Indonesians who make nickels and dimes for putting together running shoes. Why can't you?
Obama clearly focused on corporate decisions, and did not play on fears of foreign workers.
Joe
Katie Lin -
I guess I don't understand your use of the word 'fault', then. It might be a good policy discussion to talk about encouraging job creation (I wouldn't focus on clinging to past jobs, necessarily, but on attracting either old or new jobs, whatever makes sense today). But if companies are simply responding to other conditions, including possibly the inability of US workers (or US government regulation or taxes, or whatever) to compete, how is it the fault of the corporations that those conditions exist? Or is it their fault because you expect them to ignore practical realities?
He is, in fact, advocating people taking care of people, and opposing people walking on other people for personal gain. Your response is overblown. Take it easy.
Must not question the market and the corporations? The markets and the board of directors are all knowing and all wise. They always allocate resource optimally…..
Meanwhile the U.S. manufacturing sector has pretty much been decimated. A lot of voters who depended on this sector for their livelihood are quite understandably p***ed off. But apparently they we can't have someone address their concerns. I mean couldn't they retrain? Learn new skills? Visualbasic or something...
Ann,
By 'fault' I mean 'cause'. I don't mean to imply any normative judgment, which I thought I made clear above.
I also thought I made it clear that they shouldn't be expected to ignore what you call "practical realities" and that their actions might be reasonable.
But they are still a cause. And as a result, they have fault. And Obama is right to say that we should focus on them and not workers when we try to see what we can do to make it practical for them to keep jobs here.
I sincerely hope that the "it" that you want stopped is the ignorant, small-minded view on the world that you have. Clueless indeed.
Nice useless, ad-hominem attack Kevan. You should be proud of yourself.
If this comment thread were useful, it would have degenerated into "outsourcing is the real problem, like Obama said" vs. "no it's not, and anyway we can't do anything about it, and if we try it will make things worse." That's where the real substance is here in my opinion.
I think he's talking to Democrats today, its biased and political, but in an inspirational way.
I like the speech. But it is very good defense, not really building bridges.
But he's talking to Democrats, who are black or educated or both.
Moving past racism would leave out lecturing white people.
Quite frankly, equating a concern that US corporations have been incentivized to maximize profits at all costs and in particular by moving US jobs over seas, with preaching hatred of all people who are not US citizens, may be the most off point excuse for journalistic insight in the history of political commentary. Congratulations!!!
Money quote from the Obama speech:
That’s absolutely correct, every so often my pastor will yell “g** **** America!” from the pulpit and accuse the government of inventing AIDS to wipe out black people. Happens all the time and it hasn’t stopped me from writing my church a check for 20K and sending my kids there. Yep it’s exactly the same thing.
Wow, these comments are a fascinating insight into the human psyche.
Here's a key question. Why is outsourcing (and even more bizarrely, trade) such a big fear today? What makes this method of losing a job so much more sinister and frightening than losing a job to domestic competition, automation, or layoffs? Comparatively speaking of all the many ways to lose a job, outsourcing is not the most common. Yet it is certainly one of the most bemoaned. Perhaps because, for some, losing a job to people who look different seems worse than losing a job some other way? It's very difficult to interpret the excessive fear of trade and outsourcing without considering the element of xenophobia.
Michael,
You are implicating that Obama's speech impugnes foreigners for taking jobs. A literal reading of the transcripts suggests that he is refraining from attacking job takers, be they in another country or not, but rather job movers. I still fail to see how you and Megan get that sort of reading from the text. Clearly one of us has problems with reading comprehension.
Megan, I think you're overreacting. In a big way.
In no way is Obama advocating the kind of Lou Dobbs-esque xenophobia that has gripped the nation and that Republicans, in particular, are exploiting through racialized language for political gain. I think his stance on trade is a legitimate one and his statement here also legitimate - but also one that invites disagreement. Obama's the first presidential candidate I've seen in my lifetime that seems to actually invite disagreement for positive reasons (Clinton does so, but for her own self-interest).
I'd really like to understand how you interpreted what you did from that statement, because your post doesn't adequately address it.
I didn't hear Obama's speech - did he then denounce anything about union, US regulatory environment or tax code that encouraged corps to outsource overseas? The most troubling thing about this Obama/Wright situation is the repeated assertions that "blacks/black churches indulge in this rhetoric all the time as a way to blow off steam"....WTF?!?!?! Is this not staggering and staggeringly offensive? I am white, have worked with blacks, hired blacks, had black friends, etc. and all this time I wasn't aware that the entire community felt justified in lying about and villifying whites? Whites can't even use a word once associated with blacks 50 years ago- in an innocent context - but it is OK that blacks/black churches are openly hostile (and dishonorably so) cause you know, they're still mad.?? For the record, all you sniveling reverse-racists, crazed feminists, whatever: People are frequently bad to other people and life is hard - that accounts for 90% of daily strife, no conspiracies needed. I personally, am "anti-people"....the position with the most predictive validity.
Megan, you do remember the Edwards campaign, right? Two Americas?
Yeah, there's the one America that Edwards owns and lives in, and the other half of America, that the rest of us crowd into. Those two, right?
Waxowski, I like the way you think!
Robin - I think it's because it has the implicit undertone that America is losing its power. If some other American company beats out an American company and I'm fired as a result, that's tough for the people who lose their jobs. But at least the general public good is being served. If the jobs go overseas, that "means" America has lost something while some other country has gained. (Comparative advantage isn't a very easy concept to grasp, for most people). There's no chance that the competitor company is going to do well enough to make up the lost jobs.
I also think it's bemoaned more, mainly by the people who didn't directly lose their jobs because of it. If a guy just got a pink slip, it doesn't matter if Chang in China, Bob down the street, or Archibald McLoaded III in the boardroom benefits. He's equally mad regardless.
like all obama's stuff, it is very eloquent, at times beautifully emotive, but where it verges on policy it dives into nonsense:
"Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze – a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many."
well, actually, the unfolding chaos is caused by a housing market bubble.
any fool who has been paying attention to the news over the past year knows this. obama knows this. we all know this. trying to scapegoat it on corporations, accountants, lobbyists and "the few" is demagogy that is as deliberate as it is mendacious, and as dangerous as it is unserious.
This post is an astonishing display of poor skills in reading comprehension.
Megan,
Your criticism on this point might make sense only if anyone who disagrees that market mechanisms offer adequate security to vulnerable people is ipso facto engaging in fearmongering and irrationality. But economics is a complicated field full of controversy, whereas suffering and catastrophic risk are undeniable and are bound to evoke views different from your own. It sounds almost as though you are saying everyone must agree precisely with your views on free trade and globalization, that the mere fact of their disagreement means someting awful about them. So your position as expressed in this req comes across as strikingly arrogant. Just saying.
And Obama is right to say that we should focus on them and not workers when we try to see what we can do to make it practical for them to keep jobs here.
Why is it the company's job to make sure that its resources are located in the US?
Quite frankly, equating a concern that US corporations have been incentivized to maximize profits at all costs
By whom? Stockholders demanding performance? Perhaps we should not allow anyone to buy stock in companies that outsource then?
What makes this method of losing a job so much more sinister and frightening than losing a job to domestic competition, automation, or layoffs?
The fact that it can easily be made sinister by politicians and people whose personal and/or political interests differ from a company's operational ones.
Hahahaha. I had the exact same thought on the exact same line: http://pegobry.tumblr.com/post/29198562
I almost want to dare to say, great minds etc.?
Megan et al,
I've re-read it several times after all the comments, and I've realized you're just over-thinking it. Don't think about freedom and choices and trade offs and responsibilities et cetera.
Bask in the imagery. Picture a "job" as a thing, like a shiny golden ball that you're holding in your arms. A lot of people see those scary Mexicans running around and worry that scary Mexican will come steal my golden ball. Obama is saying that instead, Big Corporation will come steal your ball and hand it to scary Indian, like an unfair teacher who doesn't understand that it's really your ball and that "he started it!"
So he's not complaining about scary Indian, he's complaining about big stupid doody-head teacher who takes your ball away and gives it to scary Indian.
Obama's statement defines the "real problem" exclusively.
So Obama's statement means that if a corporation replaces me with a machine for nothing but a profit, it's not the real problem.
So Obama's statement means that if a corporation replaces me with a non-union worker in another state for nothing but a profit, it's not the real problem.
So Obama's statement means that if a corporation replaces me with a younger and thus cheaper worker for nothing but a profit, it's not the real problem.
In all of those cases, I lose my job because of the profit-seeking of a greedy corporation, and as far as Obama's statement is concerned, that's just hunky-dory. It's only a "real problem" if the loss of my job is to a foreigner.
So, yes, Ms. McArdle's analysis is exactly right; it's an appeal to xenophobia. Wearing the colors of a critique of capitalism, sure, but xenophobia just the same.
Megan, I do think you're a little off base on this one; you're totally misinterpreting what was said. As has been said above, the issue wasn't with the individuals in foreign countries who are taking the jobs that are offered to them, rather, it is with the American companies that are selling out American workers under the guise of "free trade" to make a quick buck.
Anyone with a conscience should be rightfully concerned about this trend. For all the hype about the "new economy", the gains have mostly gone to a small privileged subset of clever workers with advanced degrees. And certainly they've gained. The best of the "creative class" can set their own terms and almost design the job of their dreams as never before, and make big money doing it. In days past, anyone in this country willing to work could get a stable job with benefits and a union that paid well enough such that they could live decently or raise a family. And for all perception the upper classes have of factory work as dirty, demeaning, and dangerous, I think there was also a certain satisfaction in it for the worker, in the sense that people could go and work hard and actually see their labor go toward building something tangible, and make a decent living.
I think what bothers people is that this era is drawing to an end, and what follows it isn't necessarily an improvement. We're not necessarily used to things getting worse as time goes on in this country (and as human beings in general; would people consider this to be progress?) You might blithely say that jobs are being created to replace those which are going overseas or being eliminated by technology, but what does it mean to the guy on the ground to go from a good stable job at the local factory to working at Wal-Mart or McDonalds or irregular general labor?
Not everyone is smart enough or motivated enough or even in the financial position to obtain a college degree, and even fewer are in the position to obtain a college degree in a field with high growth and earnings potential (e.g. medicine, law, science, engineering). From what some people are saying here, it is OK, just natural selection to throw folks aside because they aren't clever enough to offer enough "value add" over a machine or a laborer in the third world? I think that is inhuman.
It's ridiculous to call offshoring a case of competitive advantage. It's not a foreign country manufacturing goods indigenously and selling them to the US and vice versa. It's an American company building things in another country and shipping them back to the States to sell to Americans. It's just labor arbitrage under the guise of "trade".
I think American companies are obligated to do right by American workers because they benefit from the power of the American government. But if you dislike this sort of argument, consider that it's also in their best interest of companies to do right by American workers. Consumer spending fuels economic growth, and when good jobs are replaced by bad, consumers have less money to spend. The effects of this both on the economy and on social stability have, I think, been cloaked by the availability of easy credit over the last fifteen years or so, but I have to wonder if this isn't all going to change a little bit given our current economic crisis.
So, I think a little angst is understandable. Maybe people wouldn't care so much about what was happening to their job if they didn't need one to survive.
To acknowledge common fears of an economic process—whether or not they’re well-founded and whether or not they’re used to justify sound policies—is fundamentally different from trying to foment fear of other people based on demographic generalizations. This isn’t a slight distinction, but a massive one.
I can tell the difference between the Nike Corporation that makes mega-bucks and the working class Indonesians who make nickels and dimes for putting together running shoes.
Joe, I can tell that Nike is offering jobs to those working class Indonesians, and that Obama wants to stop them.
Obama is promising to make his listeners better off at the expense of those poverty stricken Indonesians everyone claims to care about so much.
If you have a problem with racism, do you have a problem with that?
"Anyone with a conscience should be rightfully concerned about this trend."
As ad just said above, incredibly poor Indonesians and others are being given a chance at a better life. How can you say that "anyone with a conscience" should be concerned that poor people in other countries are being allowed to help themselves? I might argue that anyone with a conscience should be celebrating this trend.
"We're not necessarily used to things getting worse as time goes on in this country"
But in what way are they getting worse? Your basic complaint is that some people are far more able than others to contribute, and that if we allow those people to keep a substantial portion of what they contribute to the overall economy, they will end up with a lot more than those who are contributing little and yet keeping most or all of what they put in.
The only solution to this 'problem' is to prevent people from contributing too much, which means that we all as a group will have less. The only advantage would be that it would allow those unable or unwilling to make large contributions to society to pretend that they're really doing as much as anyone.
It's the 'politics of personal spite' - we should hurt everyone for the sheer pleasure of causing the most harm to the most capable. Implementing your vision would mean that we would indeed have to accept that things would not get better in the future. But that's not where we're headed (so far), and I don't think that's where most people want to go.
wow...you totally missed the point he was making there, Megan.
It's not "be afraid". It's "lets forget about our differences and worry about the problems that affect us all, whether you're black or white, losing your job affects you in the same way."
I doubt that it is altruism that drives corporate managers to offshore manufacturing. I would be much more inclined to believe that the real draw is the rather lax regulatory environment offshore (with regard to the environment, occupational safety, hell, almost anything) compared to the developed world and the money to be saved by replacing "useless, unskilled" American workers with foreign competitors making pennies on the dollar. With the money thus saved, they can further pad out their already exorbitant salaries, bonuses, and stock options. After reading expositions regarding the conditions in sweatshops and maquiladoras operated in the third world, I have to wonder how how much of an improvement it really is for folks in the third world.
What would really help third world countries is if they were able to develop their own indigenous industries, but this is difficult to do when the global market has already been conquered by Western companies, and their intellectual classes are being siphoned off by Western nations. The West is just using them while their labor is cheap and their people are disposable. Once their standard of living creeps up enough to shift the balance in the costing equation, they'll end up unemployed with a bunch of shuttered factories just like their hapless American counterparts, while American managers move onto the next pool of low-cost labor to exploit.
My argument is ultimately that in some regards, people don't get to pick "how much they contribute". Some people are born smarter than others. Some people happen to be really good at something that is in low demand. While I am not advocating entirely a classless society, I don't feel that people should be overly punished for factors outside of their control. I think that society has an obligation to smooth out some of the iniquities of natural selection; otherwise what good does it serve? Society is a synthetic construct; we can make it more or less "fair" if we choose.
The people at the top are already wildly successful. What end does it serve to put a bunch of guys making a decent wage in a factory out of work, so a few guys in the executive suite can be "filthy rich" instead of just "rich"? There need to be some limits; either self-imposed by more ethical bosses, or externally imposed by the government in the form of income redistribution. Ever since the end of the sixties, the income of the average worker has stagnated, and income inequality has been skyrocketing. We're right on the path to a new gilded age here. Is that progress?
Obama is arguing that companies should be discouraged from hiring foreigners eg Indonesians rather than Americans. If Indonesians are poorer than Americans (and they are), he is NOT trying to help the poor.
He is trying to benefit the poorer Americans at the expense of much poorer Indonesians.
After reading expositions regarding the conditions in sweatshops and maquiladoras operated in the third world, I have to wonder how how much of an improvement it really is for folks in the third world.
You want them fired in their own best interests?
"After reading expositions regarding the conditions in sweatshops and maquiladoras operated in the third world, I have to wonder how how much of an improvement it really is for folks in the third world."
You could try asking them! When I lived in Asia, I was surprised by the depth of the resentment against the anti-sweatshop movement. They viewed the anti-sweatshop people as enemies trying to keep them from getting ahead.
"My argument is ultimately that in some regards, people don't get to pick "how much they contribute". Some people are born smarter than others....."
I agree. Some people are born better able to contribute - smarter, more talented, more attractive personalities, healthier, whatever. That's a fact of life. The situation we face is that we all end up with more if those that are born most able to contribute put in very long hours,often in stressful jobs, and if everyone has an incentive to do as much as possible to find a way to contribute (or to choose leisure but accept the lower payout that comes with less contribution). In the current system, people are free to choose how much to contribute, subject to the limits of their natural abilities, but the rewards for more effort are greatest for those we need most.
We can equalize nature, at least economically (so that some people would still be more attractive, charming, better at sports, healthier, etc. but equal on the monetary scale), or we can accept this fact of life and give everyone good incentives, in order to give everyone more. We can all be poor together, or we can all be better off, but with some even better off than others.
Note that arguing that inequality is bad in and of itself is different from arguing that we should help the poor. I'm all for a safety net, and we can quibble about how many comforts everyone should have. And we always have to regulate to prevent (as much as possible) people from stealing rather than earning their wealth. But if some are becoming more and more capable of contributing, and thus are earning more and more reward, then why is that bad or a problem? We should be grateful that they're doing so much more than 'their share'.
FUCK YOU, a) don't use the word wetback and b) if you think the biggest threat to the American worker is something aside from international competition you are a fucking moron. This is why nobody likes libertarians, and Republicans use you like the stupid suckers you are.
"if you think the biggest threat to the American worker is something aside from international competition"
The biggest threat to the American worker is the lack of international competition. If the US auto and steel industries had been forced to compete in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, they wouldn't have self-destructed. Granted, some union workers got excess wages as they rode their employers down into the dirt, so it was fun for some while it lasted, but it was the lack of competition that led to the problems Detroit is facing now.
Everybody Knows, if you object to international competition because it threatens the American Worker, do you also object to automation?
If not, why not?
For a reasonably intellegent person, you show a remarkable lack of understanding of this very simple point.
A Rose is still a rose - by any other name
An ILLEGAL alien is still an ILLEGAL alien, by any other name or terminology. A wetback was used to describe a person who entered this Country ILLEGALLY via the river.
Whether it be by foot, by truck, by van or sports car or boat or plane or bus, ILLEGAL entry is still illegal entry.
ILLEGAL means a law is being broken. Whether we agree with the law ... ILLEGAL means illegal.
Either way ... the fundamental fact is based upon the ILLEGAL entry.
So what is wrong with saying: "The wetback entered the Country illegally, whereby he is an ILLEGAL alien ..."
A crook is still a crook ... a criminal is still a criminal ... illegal alien is still illegal ... by any other name.
If you follow the law ... you will not be called anything.
Or you could be called a law abiding citizen or just someone who morally obeys the rules of a Country or a State or a City or the rules of your friends when you are in their house or the rules of the Church when you are in their congregation ....
A rose by any other name is still a rose.
Brian Pinette
Cedar Park, Texas
ogirx esumvaz iwhcfun cybzaw bkavxuj hwdyjfl tewlr