Matching Grant Challenge
alexPureWhen I met Alexander Cockburn, one of his first questions to me was: “Is your hate pure?” It was the question he asked most of the young writers he mentored. These were Cockburn’s rules for how to write political polemics: write about what you care about, write with passion, go for the throat of your enemies and never back down. His admonitions remain the guiding stylesheet for our writers at CounterPunch. Please help keep the spirit of this kind of fierce journalism alive by taking advantage of  our matching grant challenge which will DOUBLE every donation of $100 or more. Any of you out there thinking of donating $50 should know that if you donate a further $50, CounterPunch will receive an additional $100. And if you plan to send us $200 or $500 or more, CounterPunch will get a matching $200 or $500 or more. Don’t miss the chance. Double your clout right now. Please donate. –JSC (This photo of Alexander Cockburn and Jasper, on the couch that launched 1000 columns, was taken in Petrolia by Tao Ruspoli)
 Day 19

Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.

Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.

CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.

The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.

Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive  books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)

pp1

or
cp-store

To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683

Thank you for your support,

Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel

CounterPunch
 PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558

The "Knowledge Job" Deficit

The High-Tech "Competitiveness" Smokescreen

by JOHN PARDON

"Competitiveness" is a much-abused buzz-word with which "free trade" enthusiasts often salt their writings. No more prominent or public an example can be found than the influencial New York Times’ columnist Tom Friedman. When Friedman talks about economic issues, critics of the corporate managed state would do well to pay close attention.

In an April 15 New York Times column entitled "Bush Disarms Unilaterally", Friedman criticises the Bush administration for "taking little interest in America’s economic competitiveness" while "focused on projecting U.S. military strength abroad". Admonishing his readership that our "economic competitiveness" is the "underlying engine of our strength", Friedman urges a big-government solution to this situation: a "New New Deal to make more Americans employable in 21st-century jobs. The hypocrisy of this man is incredible.

In previous columns and in his new book about globalisation, free trade (and, implicitly, offshore outsourcing of American jobs,) Friedman celebrates the movement of industrial and high technology work out of the United States to nations such as India and China. He considers this situation a "win-win" for Americans but he can’t point to "21st-century jobs" created in the U.S. for Americans as a consequence of offshore outsourcing. (Sorry Tom, the growing number of low-skilled and low-paying nontradeable services jobs in the U.S. economy are not the "21st-century" jobs you imagine.)

Months ago, while writing from India, Friedman noted well-known "American" corporate branded products in use by Indian companies and employees engaged in doing work once performed in the U.S. by American workers. Based upon the simple appearance of some familiar brand names on the products in evidence, Friedman announced in triumph that "American products" were being consumed by Indians – a "win" for American workers.

The truth that Friedman forgot to share or was to ignorant to discern is that the only thing "American" about the products was their brand names; the computers and bottled water used by the Indian offshore workers were likewise made offshore with foreign labor. (Even the "innovative" and "knowledge age" development of the products is increasingly done offshore by non-Americans.)

Now, Friedman is warning that the flattened "global economic playing field" is "enabling young Indians and Chinese to collaborate and compete with Americans more than ever before." Friedman the outsourcing proponent and apologist for global labor arbitrage (i.e., replacing American middle class workers with low-wage Third World workers) is now warning of the dark threat of declining U.S. "economic competitiveness"

Sadly, or perhaps inevitably, Friedman fails to either acknowledge or comprehend the fact that the very outsourcing and "free trade" policies he has breathlessly praised are at the core of why Americans cannot compete for the "21st century jobs". The "flattening" of which Friedman speaks is the result of political action — laws which have enabled American corporations to simultaneously move work offshore while continuing to sell goods and services produced by foreign workers in the U.S. market without restriction. Businesses are able to offshore jobs and pay Third World wages while continuing to sell the goods and services at "American prices".

The "21st century jobs" of which Friedman speaks are in high technology and science. They are the knowledge age jobs requiring advanced education often focused on scientific, engineering and/or technical areas of study. Information technology ("IT"), computer science, computer engineering, biotechnology, pharmaceutical research, engineering and other areas are involved. These are the well-paying, "high labor cost" jobs which multinational corporations have targeted for elimination or sharp reduction in high labor cost developed nations such as the U.S.

So, while corporatations are busily drawing up outsourcing plans, and eliminating their costly American knowledge workers on the basis of labor cost savings, Tom Friedman is urging the Bush administration to spend more money on national projects such as high-speed broadband and internet access by mobile phone. This is ludicrous.

The nonsense continues. Friedman thinks that more American innovation will occur if tax law changes alter the treatment of stock options. This, he says, will allow "U.S. high tech firms" to "attract talent".

Friedman is silent about the declining number of Americans entering high tech areas of study because they fear outsourcing or replacement by low wage foreign workers in the U.S. under a form of corporate welfare known as "non-immigrant visa" (NIV) programs. The sad fact is that formerly "American" high-tech firms treat their American workforce as a costly disadvantage and are rapidly shedding American workers — noteably highly-educated and experienced software engineers and programmers. It’s cheaper to use Indian and Chinese workers in the U.S. under NIV programs or offshore work to "subsidiaries" and foreign outsourcing firms, you see…

Against such a backdrop of massive job outsourcing and use of NIV replacement workers, it is truly ridiculous for Friedman to attack Bush administration cuts in the "Pentagon’s budget for basic science and technology research" or "slash[ing] the 2005 budget of the National Science Foundation by $100 million".

What is the point of spending money on funding for research and education in the sciences if American citizens — American workers are not the beneficiaries of this spending?

Friedman does not have an answer. He has shown that he does not have the capacity to rationally discuss the real problems of American competitiveness. The demands for a costly "big government" "New New Deal" to make the American economy "competitive" and stimulate the creation of "21st-century jobs" indicate that at the core, the "free trade" policies of politicians and outsourcing policies of business have failed. They are destroying the American middle class and creating an environment in which knowledge-age jobs can only exist offshore in developing nations or will be filled in the U.S. by imported low-wage NIV workers.

It does not have to be like this. Perhaps the only point with which one may agree with Friedman is with this, "Economics is not like war. It can be win-win." The first action which policy makers must undertake is to re-examine the rules of international trade with an eye toward benefitting American workers and maintaining a middle class society which will offer widening middle class employment opportunities for American workers. The present "trade" and "business" policies rationalised by terms such as "competitiveness" guarantee the loss of the knowledge age jobs by Americans will not be reversed.

JOHN PARDON is a software engineer and writer. In 2004 Pardon summarised the job loss situation faced by American information technology workers in a widely-read Computerworld article, "Lost Your Job Yet?". Pardon is the policy analyst for Rescue American Jobs (and a supporter of the ITPAA (www.itpaa.org) and WashTech.