Zalatix
Zalatix's JournalWelcome to the global market. American workers NEED NOT APPLY. Thank you, free traders.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/20/apple-ireland-jobs_n_1440012.html?ref=topbarApple: Ireland Headquarters To Add 500 New Jobs
DUBLIN (Reuters) - Apple is to hire 500 people in Ireland in the latest boost to the indebted euro zone country's multinational sector, one of the few bright spots in a struggling economy.
The consumer electronics giant will increase the headcount at its European headquarters in the southern city of Cork over the next 18 months from 2,800 at present, a spokesman for the company said.
He said the jobs would "support our growing business across Europe," but he did not say what kind of jobs would be created. The Cork operation provides distribution, supply chain management and back office functions.
Bailed out by the EU/IMF in late 2010 and midway through a punishing eight-year austerity drive, Ireland has an unemployment rate of 14.3 percent, its highest since 1993 and more than three times the level of 2007.
While workers are still being laid off as consumer spending continues to shrink, Dublin has succeeded in attracting Google and Facebook thanks to its low corporate tax rates and educated, English-speaking workforce within the eurozone.
Generics drug maker Mylan on Wednesday announced it would hire 500 people in Ireland.
Here we go again! Consumer spending outruns paychecks.
First to take the hit is savings. Next? Credit cards.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/30/consumer-spending-february-income-growth_n_1390931.html
Americans spent more even as their income barely grew. To make up the difference, many saved less.
Consumer spending rose 0.8 percent last month, the Commerce Department said Friday. The biggest increase since July coincided with the best three-month hiring stretch in two years.
The quest for an acceptable education and its role in the financial collapse
Now this leads to some scary conclusions... simply wanting a good school is irresponsible if you can't afford it.
Talk about locking people into a cycle of poverty. Now how will these schools fund themselves in the wake of the ongoing economic malaise?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-s-goodman/public-education-costs-foreclosure-crisis_b_1438942.html?ref=business
What does all this have to do with troubled homeowners and relief from unaffordable mortgages? A great deal. Though the study is principally concerned with the impact of restrictive zoning policies (which tend to exclude lower-income and minority households), it serves as a potent antidote to the phony notion that people threatened with foreclosure are largely undeserving of help because they squandered their dollars on unnecessary pleasures. It brings home the fact that many people now behind on their mortgages got there not because of stupidity or gluttony, but because of the high cost of satisfying a societal imperative: They wanted to put their children in good schools.
"There's a lot of pressure on low- and even moderate-income families, really up and down the income ladder, to spend as much money as they can to buy access to high-scoring schools," says Brookings senior research analyst Jonathan Rothwell, the study's author.
Many people now in trouble knew perfectly well that they were paying absurd, bubble-inflated prices for their homes while relying on mortgages with dangerous terms, but they also grasped that the only alternative was to compromise the quality of their children's education. In an era when the reach for Harvard begins at conception, economizing and accepting mediocre schooling is a choice that could seemingly subject a parent to risk of child abuse accusations.
For lower-income and minority households in particular, aiming for better schools amounts to the cornerstone of a rational strategy for upward mobility. Academic literature has found that low-income and minority students who attend schools boasting higher test scores tend to succeed far beyond their counterparts in lower-achieving schools.
Offshoring is all about excluding American workers from the job market. Plain and simple.
People who don't want to be excluded from jobs producing goods or services for the market in their own country are not xenophobes. They simply do not want to be discriminated against inside their own country.
There are very few jobs for Americans serving markets outside the United States. We are being outright singled out and excluded from our own market. Discriminated against. BANNED FROM EMPLOYMENT.
Offshoring is purely about discriminating against Americans and driving them out of work. Sending jobs overseas does not create better jobs here, and never have. It results in fewer jobs here and those jobs pay less, too. To date there has never been a large scale creation of good paying jobs by offshoring. High paying manufacturing jobs have not been replaced by high paying service jobs - no pro-offshoring pundit has ever been able to argue this. There has been no net job benefit from globalism for America.
Americans have a right not to be discriminated against. We have a right to fight back, fight back hard, and keep fighting until the discrimination ends.
Which sexist comment is most likely to get punished by a DU jury?
"Women don't get in trouble as much as men do"
"Men don't get in trouble as much as women do"
I'm referring to this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002583577
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/18/us/secret-service-women/index.html
Which sexist comment is most likely to get punished by a DU jury?
"Women don't get in trouble as much as men do"
"Men don't get in trouble as much as women do"
I'm referring to this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002583577
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/18/us/secret-service-women/index.html
Would you support global solidarity over a global government?
Here's my proposal: toss out the WTO, toss out the UN, and replace them with a network of treaties and gatherings of worker's parties from around the world. Each workers party reflects the interests of their own country and they share information with workers parties in other nations. Instead of unaccountable representatives gathering passing laws to enforce upon individual nations, the workers of every country elect delegates to go exchange ideas with other workers' delegates. Of course many countries already have workers parties, but I am proposing something different: that we actually replace the WTO and UN with them.
Also... can we trust such a system to care about racial equality, women's rights and the environment? I simply do not think that it is worth cramming our values down another nation's throat with things like the WTO (who dared to tell the United States we couldn't label our own TUNA) or the UN. And we've had far too many examples of foreign military intervention turning disastrous (see: blowback, UN rape scandals, etc.).
There's got to be a way we can bring about solidarity around the world without the heavy handed element of international force. How can you run international agencies with military backing without forcing your values on an unwilling populace? How can you liberate a clearly oppressed people, say, Syria, without creating even MORE problems in the process (say, igniting a Sunni-Shiite holy war)?
So why aren't they sending the drones after Ted Nugent?
Or do we only send them after scary brown citizens who issue threats?
Fuck the one world Government and borderless societies. We need more fragmenting.
I have learned the horrors of a unified world first hand.
It's bad enough living in the United States and having to share a single nation with the Tea Party and the various Plutocrat minions who want to turn the whole country into a social Darwinistic jungle. It's politically incorrect to want to see these animals wiped out, but I do have a right to wish that I didn't live in the same country as them. I do have a right to wish America would split up so they can take their poisonous beliefs across the border and fuck up their own nation and leave my side of the border alone.
I have a God given right not to want my wife and daughter's reproductive rights endangered by misogynist voters across the border or across the ocean. I don't want to share my sovereignty with entire NATIONS of people who feel that women cannot drive.
I want more fragmenting. Because I am already forced to compromise with people who want to wipe out large swaths of the working class in a huge purge, and I don't want to be around them or live in a nation influenced by them - that's bad enough. I will not tolerate being forced to further compromise with people who want to control even more of my freedoms.
If you feel like you need the Government to control how many kids you have (I'm talking to you, China), go ahead; I'm not interested in wasting lives to "democratize" you like George W Bush did to Iraq. But keep your shit within your borders. If you want to starve your poor by eliminating welfare, again, I can't afford to waste the lives to put your country down. But don't expect me to prefer unity with such animals over further fragmentation. If you don't like women having the right to drive then that's on you - but keep your world separate from mine. If you like censoring information by firewalling the Internet and arresting democracy protesters, then great - but keep that to your side of the fence.
Global unity means accepting more and more compromises with Plutocrats, misogynists, fascists and tyrants. Global unity will never, ever result in the growth of freedom. Ever.
For our isolationistic nationalism loving DU'ers out there (WARNING: SATIRE!!!)
=======================================
SATIRE ALERT SATIRE ALERT SATIRE ALERT SATIRE ALERT
=======================================
HOW DARE you want a job producing goods and services for your own country. Why should you be employed when there are poor people outside the country waiting desperately for a job?
You should hate yourself for wanting a job making iPads and answering phone calls from American citizens. That's racist. All you unemployed brown people in America, REJOICE in your poverty - you aren't poor enough. You should want to give up more of your standard of living to help the third world. What are you, a bunch of John Birch Society racists???
So what if your kids are going hungry, or you're homeless? Don't you realize that America's dumpsters are a land of plenty compared to the farms of China? So what if Americans find it harder to put food on the table than Chinese citizens... that means the system is working! Keep sacrificing, to make China a better place!
So what if China and India are growing markets and you are excluded from getting jobs to service those markets? You're a filthy isolationist American, you don't deserve jobs anywhere, much less to produce anything for other nations. You don't even deserve jobs to serve your own fellow citizens.
If you were a real citizen of the world you would not stop until every job in America is given over to a poor immigrant or a poor citizen in another country. Anything else would be racist, isolationist and nationalistic.
Sheesh. Wanting to feed your own family. Your world citizenship is hereby revoked.
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Dec 16, 2011, 10:30 PMNumber of posts: 8,994
