First let's review yesterday's NGO goal----it can be summed by what I shout all the time-----the Wall Street 1% have 5% of citizens across all population groups----black, brown, white citizens----women, labor, disabled citizens---and that includes are immigrant groups----Latino, Asian, African. The Clinton Wall Street global corporate neo-liberal caucus now has its branch----NEW DEMOCRATS ---which are primarily the immigrant rich and their 5%....Latino, Asian, African 1% and they are the leaders of NGO organizations geared towards immigrant needs as with CASA de Maryland. Global NGOs have used these far-right neo-liberal NGOs overseas for decades tied to International Economic Zones and building those structures in developing nations where those citizens do not have a clue as to what good policy or good politicians mean. They are easily FOOLED BY PROGRESSIVE POSING ON LABOR AND JUSTICE ISSUES. Americans should not be fooled by NGOs creating their own public policy and then bringing citizens to support these policies and politicians---
THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO KNOW WHAT POLICIES ARE BAD AND RESOURCES TO BUILD AROUND THESE BAD NGO GOALS.
This ties into my discussion last week about how far-right 1% Wall Street Libertarian Marxism gets tied to people just wanting to be left-leaning Marxists. It is why US cities deemed International Economic Zones----like Baltimore have these global NGOs tie their non-profits and people tied to them gathering in places like RED EMMAS. We must look at politics and policy as a whole-----please stop allowing them to tie Americans to single issue discussion.
THIS IS WHY CASTRO IS ONE OF HILLARY'S CHOICES FOR VP----AND IT IS WHY SO MANY LATINOS AS WITH BLACK CITIZENS ARE COMING TO VOTE FOR HILLARY WHEN THE CLINTONS HAVE DECADES OF HARMING THE 99% OF BOTH GROUPS
This is behind the BLACK AND BROWN COALITION AS WELL----AS A VOTING GROUP---BUT AS I SHOUT TO 99% OF BLACK AND BROWN CITIZENS---THESE LEADERS ARE NOT WORKING FOR YOU AND ME---THEY ARE SHOW ME THE MONEY WALL STREET PLAYERS. I try to emphasize to all the 5% working for 1% Wall Street no matter the population group ---
WALL STREET AND GLOBAL CORPORATIONS HAVE FOR CENTURIES BEEN RICH, WHITE MEN---THEY MAY SPREAD THE WEALTH TO BUY SUPPORTERS BUT THEY ALWAYS TAKE THAT WEALTH BACK.
21st Century Education, Immigration, and Workforce Task Force
Rep. Joaquin Castro (TX-20)
Rep. Elizabeth Esty (CT-05)
Rep. Jared Polis (CO-02)
The New Democrat Coalition's Vision for Comprehensive Immigration Reform (Drafted April 2013):
Over the last decade, it has become increasingly clear that our immigration system is broken. Members of the business community, unions, faith leaders and the American public have called on Congress to pass a comprehensive immigration reform that not only brings the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants who live in our communities out of the shadows, but that also provides a realistic solution to stop unlawful immigration and create a fair and efficient immigration system.
One Giant Global Labor Pool?
Below the boiling political rhetoric, a real threat America's workers face is the potential for U.S. wages to sink to overseas levels
March 22, 2004 — 12:00 AM EST
Americans have become increasingly worried over the past year about the lack of job growth in an otherwise strong economy, amid fears that the "offshoring" of white-collar work is a key culprit. This has helped make jobs -- those sent overseas and those not created at home -- one of the hottest issues in the 2004 Presidential campaign (see BW Cover Story, 3/22/04, "Where Are the Jobs?").
A number of economists are worried, too -- but, unlike the politicians, not about how many jobs the U.S. will create between now and November. They're concentrating instead on an aspect of international job competition that hasn't yet gotten much notice: The conceivably widespread impact, at some point, on U.S. incomes and living standards.
It may sound premature to be concerned about that. For instance, no one has even been able to pinpoint precisely how many white-collar positions have moved overseas of late -- and many economists doubt that the number is high enough to make it a primary cause of sluggish employment gains. Even if a few hundred thousand jobs have departed for low-wage countries such as China and India in recent years, that number pales beside the routine job flux in the U.S., points out Harvard University trade economist Robert Z. Lawrence. In 2002, the latest year for which full data is available, 32.1 million jobs in the U.S. disappeared, while 31.7 million were created, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Even so, the recent transfer to other countries of so-called knowledge work -- jobs requiring lots of education and creative skills -- could be a signal of what lies ahead. For a precedent, look at what globalization has done to the pay of less-skilled U.S. factory workers over the past three decades or so. As low-wage countries developed the ability to produce things such as apparel, electronics, and textiles, Americans in those industries found themselves competing with people who'll work for a tenth of their pay. This has exerted downward pressure on U.S. factory wages that continues today.
True, the domestic economy usually plays a larger role in wage-setting than does foreign competition. That became clear during the boom of the late 1990s, when red-hot demand for employees who were in short supply more than offset the globalization effect and lifted pay of even the lowest-skilled Americans. Still, in non-boom times the downward tug from abroad is powerful. It's probably one reason average inflation-adjusted wages in the U.S. have slumped by 0.1% in the past year. Without the countervailing force of full employment in America, foreign competition rules.
That's why the spread of global labor competition to the top of the skill ladder could be so significant. The ability of U.S. companies to find architects, engineers, programmers, and financial analysts in places like India for a fraction of what they cost at home almost certainly will create a dampening effect, sooner or later, on the pay of the 80% of U.S. employees who until now have been unaffected by such global job competition. "White-collar offshoring will make the wage outlook worse for high-skilled Americans, no question," says Brookings Institution economist William T. Dickens.
Indeed, trade theory suggests that the impact ultimately could be larger for high-skilled workers than it has been for the lesser-educated. As the world increasingly begins to look like one big labor pool, market forces should tend to move wages everywhere toward the same level for similar work, all else being equal. After all, employers won't pay more for labor in one country if they can easily get the same work done elsewhere for less. They wouldn't remain competitive for long if they did.
Problem is, all else isn't necessarily equal: Wages tend to move toward equilibrium only after productivity is factored into the equation. If American apparel workers earn $10 for making 10 shirts, their pay starts to come under pressure only when a Mexican worker can churn out the same quality shirts for less than $1 each. That has happened with apparel, so the U.S. has lost many clothes-making jobs. But U.S. skill and technology have made many factories at home more productive than their foreign counterparts -- one reason that all American factory jobs haven't shifted abroad.
The question that white collar offshoring raises is whether American professionals are more productive than their Chinese or Indian rivals. If the answer is no, the result could be sobering. Many of the highest-skilled jobs that are fleeing offshore seem to depend more on brainpower than on capital or technology -- the last lines of defense in manufacturing. After all, a software programmer with sufficient smarts and education needs only an office, a computer, and plenty of caffeine to do a good job. So if an Indian programmer can produce as much high-quality code as an American one, wage equalization for programmers may occur at a faster pace than it has for apparel workers.
One lesson of today's new variety of offshoring is that "U.S. [white-collar] workers are being put in direct competition with similarly skilled workers around world," says economist Gary Burtless, a colleague of Dickens' at Brookings.
This should be the real worry for Americans who are anxious about the departure of white-collar jobs. At the moment, even with unemployment in the U.S. running at 6% or so, most well-educated Americans still can find a job if they want one. Even taking into account discouraged workers who have dropped out of the labor market would add only another percentage point or two to the official jobless rate.
Yet even a reasonably modest loss of white-collar jobs to other countries could disrupt the income and living standards of many more Americans than the tens or hundreds of thousands who end up out of work. Wages are largely set by supply and demand across entire labor markets. As those become more global, two things could happen: First could come displacement -- a U.S. job goes elsewhere. Then could come the secondary effect of a U.S. labor surplus in a variety of highly skilled professions. For example, if enough programmers lose their jobs, it will swell the pool of those looking for such work in the U.S. -- driving down pay throughout the industry.
How can the U.S. avoid that? It can't entirely because globalization has a life of its own. But striving to keep American workers ahead of the pack would help. To achieve that, federal and state governments as well as Corporate America must put a much stronger focus on education and training. The U.S. has been struggling to improve its kindergarten through 12th-grade schooling for years, with only middling success so far. Plenty more needs to be done, especially for smart kids from lower-income families who still often don't get the educational and social support they need to succeed in school.
The U.S. needs to invest more in higher education, too. As the echo baby-boom generation moves through its college years, its numbers are straining the capacity of universities. Yet most states, which provide the education for 80% of all American college students, are cutting back on college spending because of fiscal crises. Unless a way is found to make college more affordable to those who are getting left behind, the U.S. could find itself on the sidelines in the increasingly intense global competition to turn out the best brains.
The full effects of white-collar outsourcing could take a number of years to develop -- and the impact in America could be muted if overseas professionals demand compensation that starts to approach that in the U.S. And given the enduring demand for college-educated employees in the U.S., they're still likely to fare better than less-skilled workers once the economy starts to create more jobs.
Even so, an important lesson of 2004 is this: The immunity from global competition that U.S. white-collar employees have enjoyed for so long has started to vanish.
When the American people allowed CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA to control our politics---we allowed them to take us from national politics to global politics---so WE THE PEOPLE MUST LOOK TOWARDS GLOBAL PUBLIC POLICY TO KNOW FROM WHERE WALL STREET GLOBAL POLS ARE COMING. Stop listening to them posing progressive on labor and justice issues tied to American political history---they are posing progressive as they connect the US to this global corporate campus/global factory structure existing for decades overseas.
The global economics of trade has as its central element HUMAN CAPITAL because human capital is where much of operational costs that take profit lies----AMERICANS NEED TO SHAKE RACE AND CLASS ISSUES BECAUSE GLOBAL WALL STREET SEES EVERYONE IN AND NO ONE OUT OF THIS GLOBAL HUMAN CAPITAL DISTRIBUTION.
This is as well the only thing our Congressional pols----our US Department of Justice and state AGs are looking towards---they are ignoring US Constitional rights and Federal and state laws as they are now international business and law only.
Global NGOs go to developing nations build education structures and identify those citizens achieving an education status that then sends them to global factories----or global campuses. Most end trapped in the third world nations working in developing nation conditions----some made it to Europe and US from this same NGO human capital structure where they have a few decades of experiencing first world, developed life. These few decades have seen this immigrant population density grow as global NGOs expand the human capital distribution goals from filling overseas International Economic Zones---to making the US cities International Economic Zones. This is why US cities like Baltimore are filling fast with immigrants and the US NGOs are fast creating the non-profits geared towards societal structures.
THINK ABOUT THE PLANNED ECONOMIC CRASH DELIBERATELY CONSTRUCTED TO BRING MASSIVE DEBT AND STARVED GOVERNMENT COFFERS SETTING THE STAGE FOR THE IMF AND GLOBAL FOUNDATIONS TO COME TO THE RESCUE OF US CITIES.
The timing of this crash and IMF intervention fuels the movement of immigrants to America and to those US cities deemed International Economic Zones to provide a ready workforce used to working for third world wages---as the IMF will push in these contracts.
This article is long but please glance through to be familiar of all the public policy issues tied to Wall Street global pols goals.
Globalization and International Trade
Author: Dr. Jean-Paul Rodrigue
1. The Flows of Globalization
In a global economy, no nation is self-sufficient. Each is involved at different levels in trade to sell what it produces, to acquire what it lacks and also to produce more efficiently in some economic sectors than its trade partners.
An exchange of goods or services across national jurisdictions. Inbound trade is defined as imports and outbound trade is defined as exports. Subject to the regulatory oversight and taxation of the involved nations, namely through customs.
As supported by conventional economic theory, trade promotes economic efficiency by providing a wider variety of goods, often at lower costs, notably because of specialization, economies of scale and the related comparative advantages. The main theoretical foundations of international trade include:
- Mercantilism. A trade system where a nation tried to impose a positive trade balance (more exports than imports, particularly value-wise) on other nations to favor the accumulation of wealth. This system was prevalent during the colonial era and often undertaken by charter companies receiving a monopoly on trade. Mercantilism represents the antithesis of free trade since trade relations are controlled and aligned to benefit one partner at the expense of the other. Still, mercantilism established the foundations of a global trading system, albeit an unequal one.
- Neomercantilism. A more recent trade system, which like mercantilism leans on establishing a positive trade balance to meet economic development goals. Export-oriented strategies can be considered a form of neomercantilism, particularly if a government establish an incentive and subsidy system (e.g. free trade zones), which confers additional advantages to the factors of production. Neomercantilism can also be a response by some governments to the competitive and disruptive consequences of free trade, particularly if the trade partners are engaged in neomercantilist strategies. The outcome is tariff and non-tariff measures regulating trade and protecting national commercial sectors that are perceived to be subject to unfair competition. Therefore, neomercantilist strategies can be controversial and subject to contention.
- Absolute advantages. Based on a nation (or a firm) able to produce more effectively in an economic sector while using less resources (e.g. capital, labor). It therefore has an absolute advantage over its competitors. Global efficiency can thus be improved with trade as a nation can focus on its absolute advantages, trade its surplus and import what it lacks. The drawback of this perspective is that in theory nations having no absolute advantages should not be involved in trade.
- Comparative advantages. Even if a nation (or a firm) has absolute advantages over a wide array of economic sectors, it can focus on the sectors it has the highest comparative advantages (the difference of its production costs and those of its competitors) and import goods in sectors it has less comparative advantages. The comparative productivity increases the total production level since that even if a nation (or a firm) has no absolute advantages, it can focus on sectors where the total productivity gains are the most significant.
- Factor endowments. Expands the comparative advantages perspective by underlining that trade is related to the factors endowments of a nation. The most basic endowments are capital, land and labor. A nation will export goods to which it has notable factor endowments and imports goods in which it has scarce factor endowments. As such, nations that have low cost labor available will focus in labor intensive activities while nations having high capital endowments will focus in capital intensive activities. Factor endowments can be improved through capital and human resources investments.
The globalization of production is concomitant to the globalization of trade as one cannot function without the other. Even if international trade (or long distance trade since there were no nations in the modern sense) has taken place centuries, as ancient trade routes such as the Silk Road can testify, trade occurred at an ever increasing scale over the last 600 years to play an even more active part in the economic life of nations and regions. This process has been facilitated by significant technical changes in the transport sector. The scale, volume and efficiency of international trade have all continued to increase since the 1970s. As such, space / time convergence was an ongoing process that implied a more extensive market coverage that could be accessed with a lower amount of time. It has become increasingly possible to trade between parts of the world that previously had limited access to international transportation systems. Further, the division and the fragmentation of production that went along with these processes also expanded trade. Trade thus contributes to lower manufacturing costs.
Without international trade, few nations could maintain an adequate standard of living. With only domestic resources being available, each country could only produce a limited number of products and shortages would be prevalent. Global trade allows for an enormous variety of resources – from Persian Gulf oil, Brazilian coffee to Chinese labor – to be made more widely accessible. It also facilitates the distribution of a wide range of manufactured goods that are produced in different parts of the world to global markets. Wealth becomes increasingly derived through the regional specialization of economic activities. This way, production costs are lowered, productivity rises and surpluses are generated, which can be transferred or traded for commodities that would be too expensive to produce domestically or would simply not be available. As a result, international trade decreases the overall costs of production worldwide. Consumers can buy more goods from the wages they earn, and standards of living should, in theory, increase.
International trade demonstrates the extent of globalization with increased spatial interdependencies between elements of the global economy and their level of integration. These interdependencies imply numerous relationships where flows of capital, goods, raw materials and services are established between regions of the world. International trade is also subject to much contention since it can at time be a disruptive economic and social force as it changes the conditions in which wealth is distributed within a national economy, particularly due to changes in prices and wages.
2. The Setting of the Contemporary Global Trade System
International trade, both in terms of value and tonnage, has been a growing trend in the global economy. It is important to underline when looking at the structure of global trade that it is not nations that are trading, but mostly corporations with the end products consumed in majority by individuals. The nation is simply a regulatory unit where data is collected since freight movements crossing boundaries are subject to customs oversight and tabulated as trade flows. Inter and intra corporate trade is taking place across national jurisdictions is accounted as international trade. The emergence of the current structure of global trade can mainly be articulated within three major phases:
- First phase (immobile factors of production). Concerns a conventional perspective on international trade that prevailed until the 1970s where factors of production were much less mobile. Prior to the end of World War I, global trade was mainly structured by colonial relations, but was fairly unregulated. There was a limited level of mobility of raw materials, parts and finished products. After World War I international trade became fairly regulated with impediments such tariffs, quotas and limitations to foreign ownership. Trade mainly concerned a range of specific products, namely commodities, (and very few services) that were not readily available in regional economies. Due to regulations, protectionism and fairly high transportation costs, trade remained limited and delayed by inefficient freight distribution. In this context, trade was more an exercise to cope with scarcity than to promote economic efficiency.
- Second phase (mobility of factors of production). From the 1980s, the mobility of factors of production, particularly capital, became possible. The legal and physical environment in which international trade was taking place lead to a better realization of the comparative advantages of specific locations. Concomitantly, regional trade agreements emerged and the global trade framework was strengthened from a legal and transactional standpoint (GATT/WTO). In addition, containerization provided the capabilities to support more complex and long distance trade flows, as did the growing air traffic. Due to high production (legacy) costs in old industrial regions, activities that were labor intensive were gradually relocated to lower costs locations. The process began as a national one, then went to nearby countries when possible and afterwards became a truly global phenomenon. Thus, foreign direct investments surged, particularly towards new manufacturing regions as multinational corporations became increasingly flexible in the global positioning of their assets.
- Third phase (global production networks). There is a growth in international trade, now including a wide variety of services that were previously fixed to regional markets and a surge in the mobility of the factors of production. Since these trends are well established, the priority is now shifting to the geographical and functional integration of production, distribution and consumption with the emergence of global production networks. Complex networks involving flows of information, commodities, parts and finished goods have been set, which in turn demands a high level of command of logistics and freight distribution (see concept 3). In such an environment, powerful actors have emerged which are not directly involved in the function of production and retailing, but mainly taking the responsibility of managing the web of flows.
3. Trade Costs and Facilitation
The facilitation of trade involves how the procedures regulating the international movements of goods can be improved so that actors involved in international trade have move efficient formalities. For regulatory authorities, trade facilitation improves their effectiveness as well as reducing the risk of custom duty evasion. It depends on the reduction of the general costs of trade, which considers transaction, tariff, transport and time costs, often labeled as the "Four Ts" of international trade. These trade costs are derived from two main sources:
- Separation factors. These are usually exogenous factors separating two trade partners such as distance, transportation costs, travel time, as well as common attributes shared by trade partners. These usually involves being part of an economic agreement (e.g. a free trade zone), which is facilitated when partners have a common boundary.
- Country specific factors. Relates endogenous to factors that are either related to the origin or the destination of trade. This usually involves customs procedures (tariffs and non-tariffs), the overall performance of the national transport and logistic sector and how well an economy is connected to the international transport system through its gateways (mostly ports and airports).
United Nations estimates have underlined that for developing countries a 10% reduction in transportation cost could be accompanied with a growth of about 20% in international and domestic trade. Thus, the ability to compete in a global economy is dependent on the transport system as well as a trade facilitation framework:
- Distribution-based. A multimodal and intermodal freight transport system composed of modes, infrastructures and terminals that spans across the globe. It insures a physical capacity to support trade and its underlying supply chains.
- Integration-based. Customs procedures, tariffs, regulations and handling of documentation. They insure that trade flows abide to the rules and regulations of the jurisdictions they cross. Cross-border clearance, particularly in developing countries, can be a notable trade impediment with border delays, bottlenecks and long customer clearance times.
- Transaction-based. Banking, finance, legal and insurance activities where accounts can be settled and risk mitigated. They insure that the sellers of goods and services are receiving an agreed upon compensation and that the purchasers have a legal recourse if the outcome of the transaction is judged unsatisfactory or is insured if a partial or full loss incurs.
The quality, cost, and efficiency of these services influence the trading environment as well as the overall costs linked with the international trade of goods. Many factors have been conductive to trade facilitation in recent decades, including integration processes, standardization, production systems, transport efficiency and transactional efficiency:
- Integration processes, such as the emergence of economic blocks and the decrease of tariffs at a global scale through agreements, promoted trade as regulatory regimes were harmonized. One straightforward measure of integration relates to custom delays, which can be a significant trade impediment since it adds uncertainty in supply chain management. The higher the level of economic integration, the more likely the concerned elements are to trade. International trade has consequently been facilitated by a set of factors linked with growing levels of economic integration, the outcome of processes such as the European Union or the North American Free Trade Agreement. The transactional capacity is consequently facilitated with the development of transportation networks and the adjustment of trade flows that follows increased integration. Integration processes have also taken place at the local scale with the creation of free trade zones where an area is given a different governance structure in order to promote trade, particularly export oriented activities. In this case, the integration process is not uniform as only a portion of a territory is involved. China is a salient example of the far-reaching impacts of the setting of special economic zones operating under a different regulatory regime.
- Standardization concerns the setting of a common and ubiquitous frame of reference over information and physical flows. Standards facilitate trade since those abiding by them benefit from reliable, interoperable and compatible goods and services which often results in lower production, distribution and maintenance costs. Measurement units were among the first globally accepted standards (metric system) and the development of information technologies eventually led to common operating and telecommunication systems. It is however the container that is considered to be the most significant international standard for trade facilitation. By offering a load unit that can be handled by any mode and terminal with the proper equipment, access to international trade is improved.
- Production systems are more flexible and embedded (see concept 3). It is effectively productive to maintain a network of geographically diversified inputs, which favors exchanges of commodities, parts and services. Information technologies have played a role by facilitating transactions and the management of complex business operations. Foreign direct investments are commonly linked with the globalization of production as corporations invest abroad in search of lower production costs and new markets. China is a leading example of such a process, which went on par with a growing availability of goods and services that can be traded on the global market.
- Transport efficiency has increased significantly because of innovations and improvements in the modes and infrastructures in terms of their capacity and throughput. Ports are particularly important in such a context since they are gateways to international trade through maritime shipping networks. As a result, the transferability of commodities, parts and finished goods has improved. Decreasing transport costs does more than increasing trade; it can also help change the location of economic activities. Yet, transborder transportation issues remain to be better addressed in terms of capacity, efficiency and security.
- Transactional efficiency. The financial sector also played a significant role in integrating global trade, namely by providing investment capital and credit for international commercial transactions. For instance, a letter of credit may be issued based upon an export contract. An exporter can thus receive a payment guarantee from a bank until its customer finalizes the transaction upon delivery. This is particularly important since the delivery of international trade transactions can take several weeks due to the long distances involved. During the transfer, it is also common that the cargo is insured in the event of damage, theft or delays, a function supported by insurance companies. Also, global financial systems permit to convert currencies according to exchange rates that are commonly set by market forces, while some currencies, such as the Chinese Yuan, are set by policy. Monetary policy can thus be a tool, albeit contentious, used to influence trade.
All these measures are expected to promote the level of economic and social development of the concerned nations since trade facilitation relies on the expansion of human, infrastructure and institutional capabilities.
4. Global Trade Flows
The nature of what can be considered international trade has changed, particularly with the emergence of global value chains and the trade of intermediary goods they involve. This trend obviously reflects the strategies of multinational corporations positioning their manufacturing assets in order to lower costs, and maximize new market opportunities. International trade has thus grown at faster rate than global merchandise production, with a growing complexity of distribution systems supported by supply chain management practices. The structure of global trade flows has shifted with many developing economies having a growing participation in international trade with an increasing share of manufacturing activities.
Globalization has been accompanied by growing flows of manufactured goods and their growing share of international trade. The trend since the 1950s involved a relative decline in bulk liquids (such as oil) and more dry bulk and general cargo being traded. Recently, the share of fuels in international trade has increased, mainly due to rising energy prices. Another emerging trade flow concerns the increase in the imports of resources from developing economies, namely energy, commodities and agricultural products, which is a divergence from their conventional role as exporters of resources. This is indicative an economic diversification as well as increasing standards of living. There are however significant fluctuations in the growth rates of international trade that are linked with economic cycles of growth and recession, fluctuations in the price of raw materials, as well as disruptive geopolitical and financial events.
The geography of international trade remains dominated by a few large economic blocs, mainly in North America, Europe and East Asia (Coastal China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan), which are commonly referred as the triad. Alone, the United States, Germany and Japan account for about a quarter of all global trade, with this supremacy being seriously challenged by emerging economies. Further, G7 countries account for half of the global trade, a dominance which has endured for over 100 years. A growing share is being accounted by the developing countries of Asia, with China accounting for the most significant growth both in absolute and relative terms. Those geographical and economic changes are also reflected over trans-oceanic trade with Trans-Pacific trade growing faster than Trans-Atlantic trade.
Neo-mercantilism is reflective of global trade flows as several countries have been actively pursuing export-oriented economic development policies using infrastructure development, subsidies, and exchange rates as tools. This strategy has been followed by developing economies and is associated with growing physical and capital flow imbalances in international trade. This is particularly reflective in the American container trade structure, which is highly imbalanced and having acute differences in the composition of imports and exports. Still, these imbalances must be looked at with caution as products are composed of parts manufactured in several countries with assembly often taking place in a low cost locations and they are then exported to major consumption markets. In international trade statistics, a location assumes the full value of finished goods imported elsewhere while it may have only contributed to a small share of the total added value. Electronic devices are illustrative of this issue.
Regionalization has been one of the dominant features of global trade as the bulk of international trade has a regional connotation, promoted by proximity and the establishment of economic blocs such as NAFTA and the European Union. The closer economic entities are, the more likely they are to trade due to lower transport costs, less potential delays in shipments, common customs procedures and linguistic and cultural affinities. The most intense trade relations are within Western Europe and North America, with a more recent trend involving trade within Asia, particularly between Japan, China, Korea and Taiwan as these economies are getting increasingly integrated.
5. Global Trade at a Threshold?
At the beginning of the 21st century, the flows of globalization have been shaped by four salient trends:
- An ongoing growth of international trade, both in absolute terms and in relation to global national income. From 1970 to 2010 the value of exports has grown by a factor of 48 times if measured in current dollars, while GDP increased 22 times and population increased 1.8 times.
- A substantial level of containerization of commercial flows, with container throughput growing in proportion with global trade. Containerization tends to grow at a rate faster than trade and GDP growth.
- A higher relative growth of trade of emerging economies, particularly in Pacific Asia that focus on export-oriented development strategies that have been associated with imbalances in commercial relations.
- The growing role of multinational corporations as vectors for international trade, particularly in terms of the share of international trade taking place within corporations and the high level of concentration of their head offices.
As both maritime and air freight transportation depend on petroleum, international trade remains influenced by fluctuations in energy prices. The paradox has become that periods of high energy prices usually impose a rationalization of international trade and its underlying supply chains, However, periods of low or sharply declining energy prices, which should benefit international transportation, are linked with economic recessions. Environmental issues have also become more salient with the growing tendency of the public sector to regulate components of international transportation that are judged to have negative externalities. Also, international trade enables several countries to mask their energy consumption and pollutant emissions by importing goods that are produced elsewhere and where environmental externalities are generated. Thus, international trade has permitted a shift in the international division of production, but also a division between the generation of environmental externalities and the consumption of the goods related to these externalities.
Baltimore is a few decades ahead of other US cities in building these NGO structures because Johns Hopkins and Wall Street Baltimore Development has been the driver of these global trade and distribution of human capital policies. When I moved to Baltimore I heard citizens saying they didn't like this branch of Hopkins and it is centered on the fact Hopkins was that global structure in developing nations tied to global NGOs like far-right ZOROS Open Society and HUMANIM educating those citizens and then sending them around the world to work in International Economic Zones---in Hopkins' case---to those corporations tied to its global corporate structure. Hopkins is big on global Department of Defense/NSA technology industries---global health and education industries----so that is to where many of those human capital were directed---and of course these few decades some immigrants made their way to the US and Baltimore.
Remember, the Master Plan of Baltimore Development Corporation drafted in late 1980s---early 1990s had as a goal this structure of Baltimore as International Economic Zone under Trans Pacific Trade Pact operating in the US as global corporations do overseas and this is to what goal Baltimore City Hall and Baltimore Maryland Assembly pols have been working----AND NONE OF THIS IS DEMOCRATIC----IT IS ALL FAR-RIGHT WALL STREET GLOBAL CORPORATE NEO-CON/NEO-LIBERAL.
This global NGO was tied to global ZOROS Open Society and HUMANIM in creating these education/human capital distribution structures that DID NOT BENEFIT THE DEVELOPING NATION COMMUNITIES.
J R Soc Med. 2005 Nov; 98(11): 487–491.
Brain drain from developing countries: how can brain drain be converted into wisdom gain?
Sunita Dodani and Ronald E LaPorte
AbstractBrain drain is defined as the migration of health personnel in search of the better standard of living and quality of life, higher salaries, access to advanced technology and more stable political conditions in different places worldwide. This migration of health professionals for better opportunities, both within countries and across international borders, is of growing concern worldwide because of its impact on health systems in developing countries. Why do talented people leave their countries and go abroad? What are the consequences of such migrations especially on the educational sector? What policies can be adopted to stem such movements from developing countries to developed countries?
The future of those immigrant workers making it to the US will end with these same conditions as US International Economic Zone cities like Baltimore are allowed to operate as they do in overseas developing nations----with Trans Pacific Trade Pact and help from the IMF.
- Baltimore, MD
Current program areas
In its early years, Jhpiego was recognized as an expert in reproductive health and family planning. As the organization has grown and become more field-based, its programming areas have grown and expanded. As of 2015, Jhpiego's primary program areas are:
- Maternal, newborn, and child health
- Family planning and reproductive health
- HIV/AIDS prevention and care
- Infection prevention and control
- Malaria prevention and treatment
- Cervical cancer prevention and treatment
- Tuberculosis (TB)
- Urban and community health
- Education and training
National media always makes it seem US citizens are being prepared to work here in the US in what are global corporate structures in US cities when the reality is ----Wall Street and global corporations WANT TO SHAKE IT UP---MOVING BRINGING AMERICANS INTO THIS GLOBAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM so we will see Americans moving globally like Asian and Latin American citizens have for decades caught in this human capital distribution structure. Yes, both low-income and white collar US citizens and Latinos having lived and worked in the US for decades.
The global non-profit 'Jhpiego (jhpiego.org) was only one such global human capital recruiting corporations----and the global human service corporation below is as well only one and AON is simply a more formal corporate structure moving from global non-profit to corporation. It could well be that Johns Hopkins non-profit structure rolled into a global corporate format.
AON GLOBAL HUMAN SERVICES
Products and Services
HR Delivery: Moving Toward Globally Coordinated Approaches
Our research indicates that many companies are moving toward global coordination of their HR program design and service delivery. Although this shift is in progress, many organizations are beginning to realize that significant opportunities to standardize and gain efficiencies remain.
In this new brief, we take a closer look at how four global organizations are making this shift. As we learn about their journey toward shared services, we answered three key questions:
How have companies evolved their service delivery approaches to meet changing business needs?
Have companies been able to create truly “global” service delivery?
What were the major obstacles faced and key lessons learned?
Access the brief below for an overview of these findings.
Trends in Global
HR Shared Services
Talent & Organization
About This Study
In 2009, Aon Hewitt completed a
groundbreaking study exploring how
HR organizations were responding to
the demands of increased globalization.
One of the study’s key findings was that
companies are moving toward more
globally coordinated approaches to
HR program design and service delivery.
And while some have achieved
standardization and efficiencies in HR,
significant opportunities remain for
This research brief more thoroughly
explores the topic of global HR shared
services. While not a new concept,
shared services remains a key focus
area for many HR organizations
seeking improvements in their approach
to service delivery. In this research, we
spoke with four global organizations to
learn about their journey toward shared
Questions we sought to
■ How have companies evolved their
service delivery approaches to meet
changing business needs?
■ Have companies been able to create
truly “global” service delivery?
■ What were the major obstacles faced
and key lessons learned?
This brief provides an overview of
Trends in Global HR Shared Services 1
In today’s global economy, organizations
are delivering their products and services
to an increasingly dispersed and diverse
customer base. In Aon Hewitt’s 2009
Global HR Study, 55% of companies
described their business operations as
either “Global” or “Transitioning to
Global.” This ongoing business shift has
profound HR implications. As companies
expand into new markets, the complexity
and scope of HR issues increase dramatically.
HR organizations are clearly responding
to the challenge. In our Global HR Study,
30% of participants described their HR
organizational structures as global (defined
as global centers of expertise and a global
operations group). Further, as the graphic
below illustrates, many participants were
planning global initiatives, such as HR
process and structure redesign and global
HR is increasingly focused on transforming
service delivery, as business leaders seek
higher service levels while pushing for lower
HR costs. Many organizations are driving
improvements through establishing shared
service centers. In a recent Aon Hewitt
survey on HR outsourcing trends in the
United States, 61% of organizations said
they were either undergoing or had
completed initiatives to establish shared
services centers.1 In addition, 74% of
companies in the 2009 Global HR Study
said they were planning to consolidate
transactional work into service centers in
the next 12 to 24 months. Of those, 44%
were planning to consolidate across
multiple regions or globally.
I'm using CASA de Maryland here but there are lots of immigrant groups Asian, Latino, African----all tied to International Open Society/HUMANIM/ global non-profit jhpiego.org tied as well to the US International Economic structures in each state. Montgomery County is the zone tied to global corporate headquarters circling Washington DC so this is to where the 1% immigrant citizens in a state gain wealth. Prince George's County and Baltimore are the current International Economic Zones moving both citizens and immigrants into density as these zones will be geared to global corporate factories more than rich corporate headquarters.
The connections to global NGOs for immigrant workers started in their own nations----as they were distributed around the world they saw similar global NGOs waiting at the end of the distribution----here in the US ---that is what we see here in Baltimore. This is how labor and justice issues overseas are brought to the US and these immigrants in this global human capital distribution pool have no idea as to what is good or bad in policy or politicians.....BUT THE LEADERS OF THESE SOCIAL/LABOR NGOS DO!
- CASA de Maryland - Wikipedia, the free...en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CASA_de_Maryland CASA de Maryland (CASA) (English: CASA of Maryland) is a Latino and immigration advocacy-and-assistance organization based in Maryland. It is active throughout the state, but has major foci in Prince George's County, Montgomery County and Baltimore. ... The opening was applauded by local labor groups, immigrant advocates, ...
Whereas global human capital NGOs have focused on structure taking people from developing nations and orienting them to conditions in third world International Economic Zone global corporate factories or to US cities---now they are building these same human capital structure to take Americans to those third world nations and International Economic Zones. This starts with orienting Americans here in our US cities-----and ends with having global NGOs meeting Americans overseas and orienting them to that third world global corporate campus/global factory. THIS IS TO WHAT ALL THOSE FUNDS FROM CONGRESS-----OUR STATE ASSEMBLY----OUR BALTIMORE CITY HALL TIED TO CONSTANT TALK OF GLOBAL JOB READINESS----JOB TRAINING----HAS GONE. HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS and US citizens in cities have yet to gain employment! Of course this is the immigrant human capital movement into states and US cities---but at the same time these structures for Americans going overseas are being built.
ONE WORLD/ONE RELIGION/ONE LABOR UNION----
OPEN SOCIETY OPEN BORDERS
Open Society East East Beyond Borders Program to Close in 2013
December 19, 2013
Open Society East East Beyond Borders Program to Close in 2013In 2013, the Open Society Foundations will conclude its East East Beyond Borders program. Open Society will continue to support collaboration among nongovernmental and civil society organizations in a range of ways. East East Beyond Borders is no longer considering project proposals for funding.
East East Beyond Borders expanded across the globe with resources available to nongovernmental and civil society organizations in Africa, Asia, Central and Eastern Europe, and Latin America.
The program promoted and supported the movement of ideas by linking communities of practice and communities of influence to engage in practical collaborative actions. It supported initiatives within themes encompassing good governance and public policy, rights protection and social inclusion, and global perspectives and international dialogue.
The Open Society Foundations are honored to have supported the many grantees and partner organizations that worked with the East East Beyond Borders program. We salute their ongoing work to share experience, knowledge, expertise, and innovative ideas to strengthen and advance open societies around the world.
Open Borders MAY sound progressive and if it wasn't being pushed by a far-right 1% Wall Street global corporate NGOs and pols----it would be. The goal of open borders is just this movement of global human capital between nations and now including the US. We hear OPEN BORDERS here in Baltimore from the Wall Street Baltimore Development Corporation 'justice' non-profits selling this as good for the 99% of immigrants.
This is where being a REAL social Democrat becomes hard because to shout out against OPEN BORDERS makes it sound I am against immigrants but as I tell my immigrant friends---IT IS NOT PROGRESSIVE TO BUILD IMMIGRANT DENSITY SIMPLY TO THROW PEOPLE INTO GLOBAL CORPORATE FACTORIES ----and that is the goal of OPEN SOCIETY/OPEN BORDERS.
Immigrant leaders sell this policy as good because they are the 1% enriched by these policies that will enslave 99% of immigrants taking American citizens with them.
We know Wall Street global pols are heading towards being LIBERTARIANS----
'Under libertarian principles, do they have the right to do that? Of course they do. Their actions are entirely peaceful. They’re not burglarizing, stealing, murdering, or otherwise violating the libertarian non-aggression principle'.
Open Borders and the Real World
By Bionic Mosquito
May 24, 2016
Jacob Hornberger has written a column on open borders. He doesn’t mention my name, but it is pretty clear to whom he is writing. I won’t go through Hornberger’s post line by line; instead, I will focus on his challenge. Forgive the lengthy quote, but the full challenge must be presented:
Consider the following hypothetical. Ever since I presented it many years ago, there has not been one single libertarian advocate of government-controlled borders who has ever been able to refute the principles set forth in the hypothetical. Unless and until any libertarian advocate of government-controlled borders successfully refutes the principles set forth in this hypothetical, the government-controlled borders paradigm will continue to stand as fatally flawed.
Two brothers own adjoining ranches in New Mexico, one on the Mexican side of the border and one on the U.S. side. There is no fence dividing the ranches. There is only an imaginary line known as the U.S.-Mexico border, which also demarks the property line between the two ranches. There is a U.S. highway that runs east-west and abuts the northern border of the U.S. brother’s property. The highway is located 10 miles from the border.
One day, the American brother invites the Mexican brother to come to his home for dinner. The Mexican brother accepts.
Under libertarian principles, do they have the right to do that? Of course they do. Their actions are entirely peaceful. They’re not burglarizing, stealing, murdering, or otherwise violating the libertarian non-aggression principle.
Is the Mexican brother guilty of trespass? Of course not. Trespass is when a person goes onto another person’s property without the owner’s consent and permission. The Mexican brother is going to where he has been invited.
The principles (including the principles that are implied) can’t be refuted because the principles are a pure libertarian theory (absent the coincident state border between their properties, as there is no way to derive state borders from libertarian theory). If all we need to do is agree on the theory, we can stop here.
However, Hornberger offered a hypothesis; let’s test it in the real world to see if it is true. I will break down Hornberger’s hypothetical into its main – and relevant to libertarian theory – components:
The implied first step is that the government has no say about who crosses political borders.
Pete invites his brother Miguel to his property.
Pete places a condition on this invitation – it is an invitation for dinner.
Miguel accepts the invitation.
Pete finalizes the agreement by allowing Miguel into his home and serving him dinner.
The implied last step is that Miguel will not be a burden to any of Pete’s neighbors.
Otherwise, it is just one more example of government social engineering and forced integration. In other words, just another government program meant to ensure that people clamor for more government.
Does this mean that I advocate government involvement in deciding who crosses borders? Not at all. But I do advocate that without the legal ability for individuals to enforce the above six conditions, open borders libertarians are merely calling for bigger government.
I am not a “libertarian advocate of government-controlled borders.” From a strictly libertarian perspective, I do nothing more than present the case: there can be no such thing as libertarian open borders in this world where state borders exist.
From the time I began writing on this topic, I will say my position has evolved – by degrees, but not in direction. Through examining Hornberger’s hypothetical case I will say the same. I thank him for helping me to further clarify my thoughts: that the government eases or eliminates all restrictions on immigration does not complete the libertarian circle – it does nothing to address the remaining and necessary points of Hornberger’s hypothesis.
Private property owners have no legal means to defend their property if only the first step is taken. Further, they will have even fewer means as society demands more government action as a result. I don’t have to rely on hypotheticals to make my point – we are living through a real-world example of step one being implemented without steps two through six.
Hornberger offers: Pete voluntarily made the offer. Miguel accepted the offer. Pete guaranteed that Miguel would not be a burden to his neighbors. This is very libertarian, but it isn’t part of the deal when all the government does is open its borders. Until the additional steps are part of the deal, there is no such thing as libertarian open borders in a world of state borders, and certainly not one that conforms to Hornberger’s example.
What do libertarians do until then? I don’t know – perhaps an advocate of open borders can offer a suggestion; if they prefer even more government interventions they can keep advocating for fully open borders – without any of the subsequent conditions in Hornberger’s hypothetical. I am not the one advocating for open borders; it isn’t my problem to solve.
Advocates who say “let’s just open the borders and deal with a completely voluntary system later” are no better than most economists and all politicians: they fail to comprehend (or willingly close their eyes to or secretly hope for) the second and third order effects in the process that have been unleashed – call it the seen and the unseen.
Unless they address the entire equation – and not just regarding the government easing of restrictions – they are advocating for NAP violations and more government programs. Don’t believe me? See Germany. This is where “open borders” without the subsequent libertarian conditions will lead. This is what the libertarian open borders crowd does not face.
Without this, where will libertarianism be? It is a long fall from the top of the ivory tower for those who only focus on theory without considering application and consequences in the real world.
A long fall. That’s where libertarianism will be; splattered at the bottom.
Finally, I went the entire post without mentioning culture – I had no need, although there were several opportunities. But it is something libertarians might want to consider about the world populated by humans (tough for many libertarians, I have come to realize). Let’s just say cultural change driven by voluntary means is a great experience – it is also unavoidable in human experience, thankfully.
Cultural change driven by governmental eliminating immigration requirements without also including Hornberger’s conditions above is only an open door to societal breakdown and therefore more calls for government intervention (do you think this might be the plan? Less common culture = more government? Very Gramscarian of you).
This reality can be ignored in an ivory tower, but it will not disappear. In Germany and throughout Europe they are already paying for it.
In other words, individuals voluntarily make and accept invitations; they may also set conditions on the invitation. How can any libertarian disagree with this? I don’t.
Now, how does that hypothetical construct work in today’s world of state borders? The German government has, at least for a time last year, removed almost all conditions for transiting borders – step one from above. This is why I keep pointing to it for libertarian open-borders advocates to deal with. (By the way, Jacob, none has).
So, let’s go to the German real as opposed to Hornberger’s hypothetical. The government removed all restrictions (I know, not all and not permanently, but as close as we have seen in this world in some time). But where is the voluntary invitation? Where is the conditionality? What is libertarian about no one having to offer an invitation but the visitors / immigrants come anyway? In other words: where is Hornberger’s complete hypothetical – six steps?
Now, you might say “bionic, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step” or some such ancient Chinese saying. “The government has fully opened the borders; let’s give the government time to make it a fully voluntary system.” And I would agree in theory (while I was belly-laughing at the thought in reality) unless one concludes the remaining steps have little chance to be implemented in any case and no chance to be implemented if the first step is taken without the rest. Let me explain….
Let’s take the implied last step, as it is easiest to examine: Miguel will not be a burden to any of Pete’s neighbors. But is this how it is working out in Germany? No matter what Hornberger says about immigration and the government enforced social programs being two different issues, it is not working this way in Germany; the violation of this last step has followed the first step just as sure as night follows day.
“Bionic, those programs already exist – complain about them separately.” Well, if two wrongs make a right, OK (or to turn Block’s famous example on its head – maybe I will ask the slave master to whip me even more because I haven’t been whipped enough).
But consider: it isn’t just the expansion of current welfare programs; it is even worse, as the government introduces new welfare programs specifically for the immigrants – such as language skills, job training skills, etc., as they are doing in Germany. Programs with their own bureaucracy; programs that will develop their own entrenched interests; programs that would not even exist were it not for the “open borders” implied step one.
In addition to opening the border, did the German government also say “each German resident is only obliged to support individuals he personally invited; each German resident can decide if they want to house or assist the immigrants in some manner; each village or community can decide if they want to offer community centers for residence, training programs for language and job skills; each resident can decide if he wants to pay the cost to support these new arrivals.”?
These are Hornberger’s conditions for open borders; without these conditions in place, what kind of “open borders” exactly is Hornberger calling for? Did the German government allow Friedrich and Abdul to jointly agree to the same conditions, while not burdening Hans with the cost?
No. A central government (Germany) and an even more centralized government (the EU) are cramming things down the throat of the much more decentralized governments (towns, communities, etc.) and down the throats of individuals.
Open borders without steps two through six do not mean no government involvement – it just means different government involvement. It doesn’t facilitate local or individual decision making but expands centralized control.
Who benefits by this? We know the answer. Most libertarians claim to be against this answer while singing songs towards its aggrandizement.
The government will never offer an out clause to Hans on the “open borders” issue because it would then open the question of property owners having the right to discriminate against anyone – no matter the country of origin. And after the flood of immigrants take advantage of this unconditional open door, the government will have less reason to offer steps two through six when the people – previous residents and immigrants alike – call on the government to “do something about” whatever…just as we are witnessing in Germany.
This is why Hornberger’s hypothetical doesn’t work in the real world of state borders – his example doesn’t work because the government will not allow discrimination by a property owner; the government will not allow an individual to “opt out” of the support program – they are instead forced to “opt in.” His example doesn’t work because even if (and also because) the government removes all immigration restrictions, the people – residents and immigrants alike – will demand “more” from the government, not less. Again, see Germany – open borders without Hornberger’s libertarian conditions resulting in calls for “more” from the government.
Not only is “more” demanded from the government, but the freedoms previously in place are removed. Consider the great risks now presented to the Schengen agreement – thirty years old and formalized into a treaty in 1999. No border checkpoints at all for travelers between member countries. If this disappears (several countries have already implemented internal EU border controls), it is because Germany took only the first step – the step libertarian advocates for open borders insist can stand alone: Merkel said all are welcome.
Imagine: Germany and the EU open its external borders to non-Europeans while Germany and several other countries introduce new controls on the internal European borders for Europeans! It would be hilariously funny if it wasn’t true.
And this is why no advocate for open borders takes up my challenge. Libertarian open borders practice only works consistently with the libertarian theory in this world if Hornberger’s entire example is implemented, and not just the implied first step. An agreement between Pete and Pedro is required; an agreement that imposes no unwanted burden on anyone else.
While Democratic voters are being DUPED into thinking all of this is progressive and pro-immigrant----Republicans know the goals are far-right Libertarian -----they hate suspending the US Constitution as regards movement of immigrants-----and they know Libertarians are behind it. This is as well why both left-leaning and right-leaning religious citizens are now shouting because they KNOW where there is far-right Libertarianism there will be LIBERTARIAN MARXISM----
As I said---the immigrants coming from Asia and Latin America are often tied to what some think is left-leaning worker's empowerment-----when it is tall tied to global Wall Street/global corporations/and colonialism.
I hear Baltimore black citizens from underserved communities tied to freemasonry organizations using the terms of merchantilism and global markets knowing they have no idea of what the big picture of this looks like.
Social Democrats can be protective of immigrants and employment WITHOUT breaking down all US structures that will later protect them.
Clinton neo-liberals and Bush/Hopkins neo-cons are simply breaking down all protections for global labor pools.
The Corner The one and only. Soros & Fellow Billionaires for Open Borders Lobby GOP on Amnesty
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/362532/soros-fellow-billionaires-open-borders-lobby-gop-amnesty-mark-krikorian
Open Borders or Open Society?
By Jen Kuznicki | July 22, 2014 | 2:20 PM EDT
Anyone concerned about the survival of the greatest nation on earth knows that our national sovereignty depends in part on knowing who is coming in to the country, having defined borders and laws pertaining to immigration enforced.
Anyone interested in open borders and challenging immigration law that sets definitions and restrictions therefore, either doesn't understand the consequences, or knows damn well that the nation will not survive-and that ideologically-driven person is our nation's enemy.
In a report out of Michigan, a protest was organized over the prospect now seemingly beyond the people's control, that the federal government under the leadership of Barack Obama will be sending dozens of the tens of thousands of children who have come into the nation through our southern border, to the small town of Vassar. Filled with anger and resentment against the open border policies of this president, the people demonstrating described the move as anarchy.
But, within the report, it was revealed that the move was being organized by a foundation called the Heartland Alliance:
"Grosse Pointe Park-based Wolverine Human Services is negotiating a contract with anti-poverty organization Heartland Alliance in Chicago to provide temporary housing to 12- to 17-year-old males from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala."
The Heartland Alliance is a group funded in part, along with numerous groups across the country that deal in immigration and refugee crises, by George Soros by way of his Open Society Foundation.
But, isn't an open society what we want?
Yes, however the Open Society Foundation promotes the opposite of an open society by advocating open borders.
When a massive influx of peoples who do not know America's founding and are not made to assimilate to the American way of life, the opposite of an open society takes shape. It is the closing off of certain groups of peoples, those who speak their own language and continue the customs and practices of their home country within ours that breaks down the civil society and forms large groups of politically malleable people who will respond only to those who allow them to remain in a tribal mentality.
The twisting of Karl Popper's version of the open society is Soros' life work. Popper wrote two volumes on the Open Society, which was understood to be the way for countries where communism fell, to be able to rise from the ashes. It is compatible with the founding of America and it rejects Plato's version of societal organization with the heavy-hand of government and his philosopher kings. Where Popper wished to open a society to knowledge and tolerance, Soros wishes to create a tribalist society prevalent in communistic strongholds. Yet, Soros uses Popper's phrase and describes himself as a follower. Soros is the enemy that Popper described in his book, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol I.
The non-governmental organizations throughout the United States funded by open borders advocates are acting as the go-between of our government and illegal immigrants, with the philosophical bend of Marx. There is no introduction to these illegals of the meaning of American values as described by our founding. They are given legal representation to ultimately be able to move freely within our borders, through false claims of refugee status, and are led into the shadows that the left screeches they wish to be extricated from.
A true open society is what our founding literally organized. A nation where all men are created equal with certain rights that the government cannot take away. But you have to be part of the nation that honors the rule of law. It is not possible to attain an open society with open borders, where law is ignored by the executive branch, because equality cannot be reached.
If it is our government's plan to create equality, tell me, will the third world peoples have the equality of middle class working citizens, or will redistribution create the opposite? Will the middle class become equal to the third world?
Our nation's founding must be defended vigorously, and that is what is represented by the thousands of ordinary people who demonstrate against the placement of these minor illegals into our States.
Barack Obama's radicalism is making it possible for America to lose its sovereignty through open borders, because a nation that knows freedom can be undermined by introducing masses that don't.
“The unemployment rate gave a false impression,” said Valerie Wilson, an economist and vice president of research at the National Urban League Policy Institute. “People have left the labor force.”
Remember--in this shift of US labor to part-time and non-profit with low wages it is women and people of color hitting those jobs. As this article shows as well women and people of color are a majority of those long-term workforce dropouts.
While immigrant labor takes the gains----they are still burdened in all industry categories by wage theft and abusive labor conditions. White men were hired back in higher numbers after the 2008 crash largely tied to the trades/constuction industry and being moved into traditionally women labor industries like teaching and health care. Watch as US International Economic Zone policies and global corporate campus/global factory structures are installed and white men will be pushed out of those industries as well in large numbers.
The goals of 1% Wall Street and global pols is to totally dismantled US labor structures and quality of life bringing them to third world status. This will mean US workers will be left largely unemployed next decade---black, brown, and white as immigrants flood the labor market in US International Economic Zones. During this time US workers will be educated to the idea of being global labor force by global NGOs calling this SOCIAL BENEFIT.
Unemployment falls as Blacks stop looking for jobs
By Freddie Allen -NNPA Washington Correspondent- | Last updated: Jan 22, 2014 - 11:56:32
WASHINGTON (NNPA) - The unemployment rate for Blacks dipped to 11.9 percent in December, according to the Labor Department, largely because likely workers, discouraged after months of searching for jobs with little prospects, have simply stopped looking.
According to the Labor Department, the unemployment rate for Black men over 20 dipped from 12.1 percent in November to 11.5 percent in December and the jobless rate for White men fell at half that rate, from 5.9 percent in November to 5.6 percent in December. The unemployment rate for Black women over 20 was 11.1 percent in November and 10.4 percent in December.
The unemployment rate for White women over 20 remained flat from November to December at 5.3 percent, the lowest rate for all adult worker groups.
“The unemployment rate gave a false impression,” said Valerie Wilson, an economist and vice president of research at the National Urban League Policy Institute. “People have left the labor force.”
Steven Pitts, economist at the Labor Center at the University of California at Berkeley, Calif., agrees.
“A good portion of the drop in the unemployment rate came from people dropping out of the labor force,” he said.
The labor force participation rate, the measure of workers who are employed and actively looking for work, was 62.8 percent in December, the lowest rate since 1978.
Considered a more accurate barometer of the workforce than the unemployment rate, the participation rate for Blacks was 60.5 percent in November and 60.2 percent in December compared to Whites who also experienced a decline from 63.2 percent in November to 63 percent in December. The economy shed more than 300,000 workers in December and only added 74,000 jobs.
December’s jobs report comes on the heels of back-to-back months that added more than 200,000 jobs to the economy.
“This report is disappointing,” said Ms. Wilson. “There were a lot of expectations that things would continue on this level.”
The average unemployment rate for Blacks was 13.8 percent in 2012 and decreased to 13.1 percent in 2013. The average jobless rate for Whites was 7.2 percent in 2012 and 6.5 percent in 2013.
The average participation rate for Blacks was 62.6 percent in 2012 declining to 61.2 percent in 2013. The participation rate for Whites fell from 64 percent in 2012 to 63.5 percent in 2013.
“In December there were 20.6 million workers who were either unemployed or underemployed (10.4 million officially unemployed, 7.8 million involuntary part-time workers, and 2.5 million marginally attached),” wrote Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute. “Racial and ethnic minorities have been particularly hard-hit by underemployment.”
According to EPI, the underemployment rate for Blacks was 21 percent and the underemployment rate for Whites was 11 percent.
Not only do Blacks suffer disproportionate rates of underemployment, long-term unemployment, due to a number of factors including discrimination in hiring practices, continues to plague the Black community.
“The biggest challenge besides the labor force participation rate is long-term unemployment that affects African Americans disproportionately,” said Ms. Wilson. She added, “It was very short-sighted of Congress to allow unemployment compensation to expire.”
Shortly after Christmas, Congress let the benefits expire for 1.3 million Americans. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, if Congress fails to reach a deal to extend Emergency Unemployment Compensation program, almost 5 million jobless workers will lose that economic lifeline by the end of the year.
Some critics of the EUC program argue that it encourages dependence on the government and that workers lack the skills required for available jobs, which increases the unemployment rate.
Ms. Shierholz countered that in today’s economy the “lack of demand for goods and services makes it unnecessary for employers to significantly ramp up hiring”
Ms. Wilson agreed.
“In order for people to get hired, demand has to increase,” said Ms. Wilson. “If people have jobs they will spend more money.”