The Gold Standard: Generator and Protector of Jobs

     According to Mr. Price, returning to the gold standard would also return jobs as well to the US. An interesting proposition that is worthy of investigation. Check it out. -----lee

Hugo Salinas Price

16 June 2010

     The abandonment of the gold standard in 1971 is closely tied to the massive unemployment the industrialized world has suffered in recent years; Mexico, even with a lower level of industrialization than the developed countries, has also lost jobs due to the closing of industries; in recent years, the creation of new jobs in productive activities has been anemic at best.

     The world's financial press, in which leading economists and analysts publish their work, never examines the relationship between the abandonment of the gold standard and unemployment, deindustrialization, and the huge chronic export deficits of the Western world powers. Might it be due to ignorance? We are reluctant to think so, given that the articles appearing in the world's leading financial publications are written by quite intelligent analysts. Rather, in our opinion, it is an act of self-censorship to avoid incurring the displeasure of the important financial and geopolitical interests that are behind the financial press.

     In this article we discuss the relationship between loss of the gold standard and the present financial chaos, which is accompanied by severe "structural imbalances" between the historically dominant industrial powers and their new rivals in Asia.

To continue ....

The Robot in the Next Cubicle

By Eric Spitznagel

January 14, 2011, 11:11PM EST

     Between the global economic downturn and stubborn unemployment, the last few years have not been kind to the workforce. Now a new menace looms. At just five feet tall and 86 pounds, the HRP-4 may be the office grunt of tomorrow. The humanoid robot, developed by Tokyo-based Kawada Industries and Japan's National Institute of Advanced Industrial Sciences and Technology, is programmed to deliver mail, pour coffee, and recognize its co-workers' faces. On Jan. 28, Kawada will begin selling it to research institutions and universities around the world for about $350,000. While that price may seem steep, consider that the HRP-4 doesn't goof around on Facebook, spend hours tweaking its fantasy football roster, or require a lunch break. Noriyuki Kanehira, the robotic systems manager at Kawada, believes the HRP-4 could easily take on a "secretarial role...in the near future." Sooner or later, he says, "humanoid robots can move [into] the office field."
     Robotic workers aren't completely new. General Motors (GM) employed one on an assembly line in 1961, and—according to World Robotics, an annual report produced by the Frankfurt-based International Federation of Robotics—there are currently 8.6 million robots in use around the world. Many of them have been doing jobs that humans can't do in places humans can't go, such as plugging oil leaks in the Gulf of Mexico. As a result of breakthroughs in technology, however, a new breed of machines may soon be filing papers and pushing the mail cart. In a 2007 issue of Scientific American, Bill Gates predicted that the future would bring a "robot in every home." In the foreseeable future, though, it may be a robot in every cubicle—or at least every third cubicle.

For more...
 

U.S. business group opposes "Buy American" plan

 This kind of action by the US Chamber of Commerce make's one all kind of warm and fuzzy doesn't it? What with this latest news item and GE's CEO heading the Jobs and Competitiveness commission while shipping jobs to China, clearly the business community is focused and united on one issue: profits first and foremost and country second, a distant second, perhaps third. When is the business community going to realize that they cannot ignore the country of their origin and ruthlessly and callously neglect their responsibilities to the community that nurtured them when a young company and cast it off in tough economic times. I suspect never. ------lee

By Doug Palmer

WASHINGTON | Fri Jan 30, 2009 3:40pm EST

     A top U.S. business group stepped up efforts on Friday to kill a "Buy American" provision that has angered U.S. trading partners, and the White House said it was reviewing its position on the measure.
     "Some have slammed the U.S. Chamber for opposing 'Buy American' provisions, calling our position 'economic treason,'" Thomas Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce said in a statement. "Try 'economic patriotism'," he said.
     "Such provisions would cost American jobs, trigger retaliation from our trading partners, slow economic recovery by delaying shovel-ready infrastructure projects and cede our leadership role as a long-standing proponent of free and fair trade and global engagement."
     The House of Representatives approved the measure this week as part of an $825 billion bill to kick-start the U.S. economy. In the House bill, the "Buy American" measure would require all public works projects funded by the stimulus package to use only U.S.-made iron and steel.
     European steelmakers object, saying that would violate U.S. commitments under the World Trade Organization's government procurement pact. Other critics say that is less than clear cut and could depend on how the measure was implemented.
     Several leaders at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland this week warned that national moves to counter the economic crisis might lead to protectionism.
     British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Canadian Finance Minister Jim Flaherty and Indian Trade Minister Kamal Nath all warned of the risks of protectionism during this week's World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
     U.S. Vice President Joe Biden told CNBC on Thursday he believed it was "legitimate to have some portions of Buy American" in the stimulus plan and disagreed with those who said it was a harbinger of protectionism.
     But White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said on Friday the Obama administration was examining the measure to see if it violated U.S. trade obligations. "The administration will review that particular provision and will make a determination of it ... It understands all of the concerns," Gibbs said.
'NOT A GOOD WAY TO BEGIN'
  
For  more ...

Trade Goods, Not People

Interesting article from American Conservative magazine.  Interesting, in that it ignores the history of tariffs and their success in American economic history, and the contrasting destruction of the British economy via free trade in the 19th century.   Article tries to argue against the import of workers, but thinks if the same workers work for less off shore and flood our market with their goods that will somehow work better.  Check out this book by Ravi Batra, "The Myth of Free Trade."  A close reading of this, in many other ways excellent, article, will convince one, unintentionally, of the absolute necessity of tariffs as part of a full employment policy.

One other quibble--the author seems to take the view that the destruction of our culture is the product of short sightedness.  I prefer a more sinister explanation.

At any rate, the Tea Party agenda should be to end outsourcing, offshoring and illegal immigration, oh yes, bring back tariffs.  First party to do this locks up Congress for at least one, maybe two, generations.---rng

Conservatives must confront the economics of immigration.

 

By William W. Chip 

 

     When conservative icon Paul Weyrich died in December of 2008, the Democrats had just won the White House and increased their majorities in the House and Senate. Virtually from his deathbed, Weyrich judged that conservatism had become a movement “without a serious agenda or a means of explaining such an agenda to the public.”

     What would Weyrich have made of the Republican Party’s 2010 comeback? In the contest for power, does having a “serious agenda” really matter? The GOP’s “Pledge to America,” with almost as many photographs as paragraphs, was a pale imitation of New Gingrich’s 1994 “Contract With America,” and it dropped from sight almost as soon as it was released.

     Does having a “means of explaining” the conservative agenda really matter? Time and again we watched painfully sincere Tea Party candidates wander into incoherence when asked even the simplest questions about how they would go about “taking back” their country.
     For Republicans and the Tea Party, promising to extend the Bush tax cuts, repeal Obamacare, and restrain deficit spending proved to be a winning agenda. But it was hardly a serious one. Obamacare was hated mainly because seniors and others perceived that spending on their own healthcare would be curtailed.
     What is the conservative plan to reduce the federal deficit without touching Medicare? “Stimulus spending,” a cornucopia of Democratic earmarks, may have produced monster deficits and few jobs, but what other means does Congress have to counter a recession? Republicans might prefer tax cuts to spending increases, but equivalent tax cuts would have produced equivalent deficits. Moreover, given the determination of American households and businesses to “deleverage,” tax cuts were no more likely than government spending to pump up aggregate demand.
     Inscribed on a stone arch over an entry to the Yale Medical School is a Latin phrase that translates roughly as “most of your patients get better no matter what you do to them.” Republican leaders may be betting that, no matter what Congress does in the next two years, the economy will improve, and grateful voters will reward the GOP for sound economic stewardship.
     If the Great Recession were only a more severe version of a typical business downturn, these Republican leaders might be proven right. Unfortunately, for them and for the rest of us, when the financial dislocations stemming from the subprime mortgage debacle come to an end, it will become evident that the economic anxieties of ordinary Americans have more intractable causes than improvident home equity loans.
     Those causes are mostly rooted in globalization of the economy and the ability and willingness of billions of foreign workers to do the same work that most Americans do, as well as they do it, and for much less compensation. Cutting taxes and government spending may be good things in themselves, but they do not constitute a “serious agenda” for dealing with the threats to our standard of living posed by the changing balance of global economic power.
     In order to pass the Weyrich test, a conservative agenda for addressing the challenge of economic globalization must be both “serious,” in the sense of addressing rather than avoiding the toughest issues, and explicable to the public, even by a politician. I would add an additional test: it must be easy to distinguish from its liberal alternatives.
     Globalization is a complex phenomenon, but its origins are not hard to understand. Twentieth-century advances in medical care and food production engendered population explosions in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, while comparable advances in transportation and communications, coupled with the decline of socialist ideology, put these billions of otherwise isolated Third World peoples into economic contact with much wealthier First World producers and consumers.

To continue.... 

Yes, Immigrants Create Jobs, And No, They’re Not A Net Benefi

from vdare.com

James Fulford  12:04 am

31 October 2010

     Economist Tyler Cowen [Email him]has an Op-Ed in the New York Times called How Immigrants Create More Jobs October 30, 2010.

     It’s based on a study called “Immigration, Offshoring and American Jobs,” by Giovanni Peri [Email him]of the University of California, Davis, and two others, one of whom is a Professore at an Italian University, which means that, in effect, this offshoring study was partly offshored.

     For George Borjas‘ comments on Peri’s work, see here.

     I am prepared to admit that immigrants do create jobs for a number of people:

• Border Guards
• Police Officers
• Prison Guards
• Social Workers
• Teachers
• Doctors And Nurses
• Funeral Directors

     But now, of course, because the scale of the immigrant invasion, those jobs require knowledge of Spanish, which means that the jobs will go to immigrants.

     And in terms of the free market, immigrant entrepreneurs frequently create jobs for other immigrants, usually their wives’ relatives, in motels and convenience stores. What they do not do is create more jobs than they take, or provide a net benefit to the American nation.

For more...

Immigrant Job Grab Continuing

National Data, 

By Edwin S. Rubenstein 

from vdare.com
January 11, 2011 

The U.S. economy added 103,000 jobs in December, well below expectations of most economists. Offsetting the gloom: the private sector accounted for all of the job growth (governments actually shed 10,000 jobs), while the unemployment rate fell to 9.4% from 9.8%.[See the BLS news release here.]

The economy needs to create about 125,000 jobs a month just to keep up with growth in the U.S. labor force—which (not usually reported) includes immigrants entering the labor market along with recent high school and college graduates, many of them the U.S.-born children of immigrants. That threshold was more than met last month, according to the often-ignored Household Survey of employment.

The Household Survey reports 297,000 new jobs were created in December, the largest hiring increase since August. For the third successive month VDARE.COM’s American Worker Displacement Index (VDAWDI) fell in December, as Hispanic job gains lagged those of non-Hispanics:

• Total employment: up 297,000 (0.21 percent)
• Hispanic employment: up 17,000 (0.09 percent)
• Non-Hispanic employment: up 280,000 (0.24 percent)

VDARE.COM’s American Worker Displacement Index (VDAWDI) fell to 125.9 in December, as Hispanics gained jobs at about one-third the rate of non-Hispanics: 

To continue...

Spinning Unemployment in a Collapsing Empire

from vdare.com
January 09, 2011

By Paul Craig Roberts

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported Friday that the economy gained only 103,000 new jobs in December—not enough to keep up with population growth—but the rate of unemployment (U.3) fell from 9.8% to 9.4%. If you are confused by the report, you are among the many.

In truth, what fell was not the number of unemployed people but the number of unemployed people who are actively looking for work. Those who have become discouraged and have ceased looking for work are not considered to be in the work force and are not counted as unemployed in the U.3 measure. The unemployment rate fell because discouraged workers increased, not because employment rose.

The BLS counts short-term discouraged workers (less than one year) in its U.6 measure of unemployment. That unemployment rate is 16.7%.  When statistician John Williams (shadowstats.com) adds the long-term discouraged, the US unemployment rate as of December 2010 was 22.4%.

The question to ask yourself is: why does the media focus on the unemployment measure that does not count any discouraged workers? The answer is that the U.3 measurement only counts 42% of the unemployed and makes the situation appear to be a lot better than it is.

Where are the 103,000 new jobs?  As I have reported for years, the jobs are in non-tradable domestic services: waitresses and bar tenders, health care and social assistance (primarily ambulatory health care services), and retail and wholesale trade.

Today the United States has only 11,670,000 manufacturing jobs, less than 9% of total jobs. Yet, despite America’s heavy dependence on foreign manufactures and foreign creditors, the idiots in Washington think that they are a superpower standing astride the world like a colossus.

John Williams reports that "the level of payroll employment still stands below where it was a decade ago, despite the U.S.population growing by more than 10% in the same period. The structural impairments to U.S. economic activity continue to constrain normal commercial activity, preventing any meaningful recovery in business activity."

Another way of saying this is that American corporations have taken American jobs offshore and given them to the Chinese. So much for big business patriotism.

Williams also reports that, unless it is finagled, next month’s BLS benchmark revision of payroll employment data will lower the level of previously reported employment by more than 500,000.

Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke used his testimony before the Senate Budget Committee last Friday to warn that the U.S. government must get its budget deficit under control or "the economic and financial effects would be severe."  Here Bernanke is acknowledging that the Federal Reserve cannot indefinitely print money in order to finance wars and bailouts of the mega-rich.

But how is the government to get its budget under control?  The U.S. government, regardless of political party or president, is committed to American hegemony over the world. The Congress has just passed the largest military budget in history, and there is no indication that any of America’s wars and military occupations are near an end.

The financial crisis is not over, with more foreclosures and more losses for the financial sector that will result in more taxpayer bailouts for those "too big to fail."  John Williams says that the double-dip is already happening, just disguised by faulty statistics, and that the deficit implications are horrendous and are likely to result in hyperinflation as the Federal Reserve will have to monetize the otherwise un-financeable deficits.

The dollar is also in danger, its role as reserve currency undermined by the Federal Reserve’s creation of more and more dollars.  Temporarily, the dollar is buttressed by the grief that Wall Street’s sale of fraudulent derivative financial instruments to Europe has caused the euro.

The Republicans will try to destroy Social Security and Medicare in order to pay for wars and bailouts. If Americans are capable of realizing that they are threatened on a much greater level by the Republicans’ evisceration of the social safety net than they are by terrorists, the Republican assault on what they call "the welfare state" will fail.

The fallback target will be private pensions, assuming any survive plunder by the Wall Street investment banks. Pension funds could be required to invest in Treasury debt or they could face a levy. In the Clinton administration, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Alicia Munnell proposed confiscating 15% of all pension assets on the grounds that they had accumulated tax free. Certainly Washington will steal Americans’ pensions, just as Washington has stolen Americans’ civil liberties, in order to continue the empire’s wars of hegemony.

Increasingly, the rest of the world views America as the single source of its financial and political woes. While the superpower massacres Muslims in the Middle East and Central Asia, people in the rest of the world have learned from WikiLeaks that the U.S. government manipulates, bribes, threatens, and deceives other governments in order to  have those governments serve the U.S. government’s interest at the expense of the interests of their own peoples.

The American Imperial Empire rests on puppet governments that are increasingly distrusted and hated by the peoples under their rule. Like the Soviet Union’s Eastern European empire, the American Empire is ruled not directly but through puppet states.

to read complete article

U.S. changes how it measures long-term unemployment

     I've trained myself to always be suspicious when the BLS starts fiddling with labor statistics especially in the middle of a recession. This is one of those times. To state the obvious, the overall outlook from this action by the BLS is not good. -----lee.  

By Rick Hampson, USA TODAY

December 28, 2010

     So many Americans have been jobless for so long that the government is changing how it records long-term unemployment.

     Citing what it calls "an unprecedented rise" in long-term unemployment, the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), beginning Saturday, will raise from two years to five years the upper limit on how long someone can be listed as having been jobless.

     The move could help economists better measure the severity of the nation's prolonged economic downturn.

     The change is a sign that bureau officials "are afraid that a cap of two years may be 'understating the true average duration' — but they won't know by how much until they raise the upper limit," says Linda Barrington, an economist who directs the Institute for Compensation Studies at Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations.

     Likening recessionary unemployment spikes in recent decades to a storm at sea, she says, "The waves are getting higher, and we want to understand the intricacies of how they're made up."

     The change involves the form used for the bureau's Current Population Survey, based on interviews with thousands of the unemployed. Currently, no matter how much longer than two years someone has been out of work, the form allows interviewers to check off only "99 weeks or over." Starting next month, jobless stints of "260 weeks and over" can be selected on the response form.

     "The BLS doesn't make such changes lightly," Barrington says. Stacey Standish, a bureau assistant press officer, says the two-year limit has been used for 33 years.

     A two-year limit hampers economists' ability to compare this recession's effect on the job market with another severe one in the early 1980s, Barrington says.

     Although "this feels like something we've not experienced" since the Great Depression, she says, economists need more information to be sure.

     The change will not affect how the unemployed are counted or the unemployment rate is computed nor how long those eligible for unemployment benefits receive them. Analysts call the move a sign of the times.

     "We realize more and more people are unemployed longer than 99 weeks, so we need to break it down further," Standish says.

     Long-term unemployment has grown markedly over the past few years. The BLS says the average length of unemployment has increased from 29.4 weeks in November 2009 to 34.5 weeks last month. Nearly 10% of the USA's 15.1 million jobless have been looking for work for two years or more.

     Rick Bartz, 59, of Cary, N.C., a purchase and supply expert, was laid off by Sony Ericsson's struggling North Carolina operation eight months ago.

     "It puts a lot of stress on me and the wife," he says. "She gets tired of me not being able to find something." He says that lately he's been able to get just a few interviews.

     Some workers despair. "I don't know when I'll work again," says Ricky Browner, 30, of Passaic, N.J., who lost his construction job two years ago. "This thing goes on and on."

     Heidi Shierholz, a labor economist at the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington think tank, says most economists expect hiring to remain sluggish in 2011 before improving in 2012.

For more information and chart...

Georgia Legislature set to target illegal immigration

What is the "Tea Party" going to do about Arizona being sued by the federal government for defending their own borders?  How about defunding Homeland Security and the Justice Department.  That is why the Constitution gives Congress the purse strings.  Time to check and balance.---rng


Finally, some common sense is being applied to the immigration and birthright issues and their effects on jobs. Let's see what President Obama and his minions have to say about this. -----lee

Metro Atlanta / State News 11:11 p.m.

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

By Jeremy Redmon

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution 

     Complaining that the federal government has fallen down on the job, Georgia lawmakers are putting a big bull’s-eye on illegal immigration this year.

     The state’s legislative session won't begin until Monday. But lawmakers got started weeks ago, “prefiling” bills that would block illegal immigrants from attending state colleges and punish government contractors who hire them. Yet more legislation is on the way. Much more.

     A pair of Republican lawmakers is preparing to file omnibus legislation in each chamber some time in the coming days. On Tuesday, Rep. Matt Ramsey -- a co-chairman of a special study committee on immigration -- outlined for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution what the legislation will likely include:

     Complaining that the federal government has fallen down on the job, Georgia lawmakers are putting a big bull’s-eye on illegal immigration The state’s legislative session won't begin until Monday. But lawmakers got started weeks ago, “prefiling” bills that would block illegal immigrants from attending state colleges and punish government contractors who hire them. Yet more legislation is on the way. Much more.

     A pair of Republican lawmakers is preparing to file omnibus legislation in each chamber some time in the coming days. On Tuesday, Rep. Matt Ramsey -- a co-chairman of a special study committee on immigration -- outlined for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution what the legislation will likely include:

• Ways to encourage more communities to apply to join a federal immigration enforcement program called 287(g). Through the program, local police officers and sheriff's deputies are given the power to question people about whether they are in the country legally and issue arrest warrants, prepare charging documents, and detain and transport people for immigration violations;

• Measures to toughen an existing Georgia law requiring state and local government contractors to ensure their employees are eligible to legally work in the United States. The legislation could also include incentives for other private employees to participate in E-Verify, a federal work authorization program;

• Provisions to ensure the identification people use to get public benefits in Georgia are “secure and verifiable.”

     Ramsey said he and other legislators are also studying a tough new Arizona law that allows police officers to check the immigration status of people they stop for questioning. The Obama administration has argued that it is the federal government's responsibility to enforce immigration laws, and it successfully sued to halt key parts of Arizona's law last year.

For more ...

Immigration debate crux: jobs impact Experts weigh how illegal workers affect US employment.

It's all about supply and demand.  The more you have of any commodity, including labor, the less you pay for it.  Economists only have trouble understanding this when it applies to the working and middle class employees as this article from 2006 indicates.---rng

I will put this as delicately as I can. The economists for JP Morgan Chase etc. are paid hacks for these companies. Their research is suspect because they are beholden to the bankers who make loans to large construction corporations and agribusinesses. I don't think they are trying hard enough when they say they don't have enough data to make econometric models. But that's just me. ----lee.

By Ron Scherer, 

Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor /

March 30, 2006

NEW YORK

     Seal the border. Round up all the illegal immigrants and send them back to their home countries. Start a whole new agency to handle only invited guest workers.

     Would that open up more jobs for American citizens?

     This is one of the key questions being posed as the US considers the economics of illegal immigration - with no easy solutions to the challenges in sight.
     As Congress debates a new immigration bill, some economists believe any restrictions are likely to be disruptive to a variety of industries, from construction to hospitality to agriculture. At the very least, restrictions could add to employers' costs as they scramble to attract new workers with higher wages. But new regulations might also be good for those without much education or marketable skills: Business might be forced to train them. And those in lower wage brackets might see their wages rise as they face less competition for jobs.
     "Do undocumented workers take away jobs from Americans?" asks Anthony Chan, chief economist at JPMorgan Private Client Services in Columbus, Ohio. "My best guess is that they take some jobs away. Some Americans are willing to work at those jobs at low salaries, but not all [Americans are]."
     Analysts are quick to point out that the economics of undocumented immigration are complex. Few models have been crafted that try to look at how the US economy would perform without tapping into inexpensive labor for some jobs.
     "We can't run econometric models. The numbers aren't good enough," says David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor's in New York.
     One challenge in performing any calculations is agreeing on the number of undocumented workers. Only estimates exist, and they range from 9 million to 20 million. The conventional estimate is 11 million. But no one really knows for sure.
     By way of contrast, the Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates how many people out of a workforce of 143 million are unemployed. Last month, 7,193,000, or 4.8 percent, were out pounding the pavement.
The Center for Immigration Studies, which is in favor of some restrictions on immigration, recently issued a report looking at jobs and undocumented workers. One of its conclusions was that between March 2000 and March 2005, only 9 percent of the net increase in jobs for adults went to people born in the US.
     "This is striking because natives accounted for 61 percent of the net increase in the overall size of the 18- to 64-year-old population," writes Steve Camarota, director of research.
     Howard Hayghe, an economist at the Department of Labor, confirms that this number is correct. But he also points out that by 2005, the economy was doing a better job of producing jobs - and the percentage of native-born residents finding jobs rose to 41 percent. In other words, the stronger economy absorbed more workers of all educational levels. "The more office buildings you build, the more people you need to clean them. The more roads you build, the more workers you need," says Mr. Hayghe.

For more...

Take This Job and Ship It: White-Collar Service Jobs Now Most Vulnerable to Offshoring

This article is worth a look-see if you are a college graduate. As the saying goes read it and weep-then protest. ------lee

from Public Citizen

The chart below, which lists the top 100 jobs most likely to be offshored in the next 10-20 years, was taken from the paper "How Many U.S. Jobs Might Be Offshorable?" by Alan S. Blinder. This paper created a sensation when it was published March 2007 thanks to its estimates that 29% of U.S. jobs could be offshored, including high-paying service jobs. Blinder, a professor at Princeton who served on President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisors and on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, is a "free trader down to his toes," yet he took a hard look at the data and found that far more jobs are vulnerable to offshoring than anyone had ever imagined. Blinder developed an "Offshorability Index" (OI) which ranks jobs based on their potential for being offshored. We extracted the top 100 most vulnerable occupations and presented them in this summary table. Blinder used occupational categories from the Department of Labor's O*Net database - click the O*Net links below for detailed descriptions each occupation.

Additionally, the Economic Policy Institute has extended the Blinder analysis and mapped his results onto data regarding educational levels and geographic area. The resulting paper, "The Characteristics of Offshorable Jobs," released on November 14, 2007, makes another surprising point: the demographic most vulnerable to offshoring is those persons with at least a four-year college degree.

To read more...