UK pretends it still has a navy; "Right wot's all this then", says Admiralty

[Admiral Yi]

Honestly, I don't care that much.  Also I should note that Myanmar is not 90 miles off our coast.  I have noticed that you have conflated sanctions and embargo.  We do not embargo
Syria or Myanmar.  So got anything else?

To be consistent, you have to go past not caring that much to not caring at all.  And you have to be in favor of lifting the sanctions.

Not sure how sanctions and embargos are distinguishable for the purposes of our discussion.

On the other hand your point about Myanmar's relative location is a real humdinger and I've got no suitable response to it.

Oh, I forgot myself.  You never answered my question: "If it's a game breaker for the US and Cuba why is it not a game breaker for the US and China?"

It's not a game breaker for the US and China because no one is advocating any change in US policy towards China.  In other words, it's not a game breaker because the games are different.

[Josquius]

Well maybe your dumb company should invest in training its dumb prospective employees.

The problem with this from an employer's POV is that there is no way to guarantee the employee will be around long enough to amortize the training investment.

In this economy?
I don't think people will be willingly jumping ship. :p

[Admiral Yi]

In this economy?
I don't think people will be willingly jumping ship. :p

Berkut may a somewhat combative poster, but he hasn't shown himself to be a liar yet, so when he says that the US labor market for computer geeks is tight I'm inclined to believe him.

[Berkut]

If X industry could not find best-qualified employees in the past, before globalization, before even national labor mobility had entirely developed, what did they do?  Close up shop?  Or did they simply take on more of the responsibility of bringing new employees up to speed than they currently do?

I imagine it depended on the circumstances. In some cases, I am sure a lack of qualified workers simply resulted in some business not growing as quickly as they could otherwise. Do you think that would be a good solution? The companies in the US that are growing should just stop and be crushed by competition from other countries that are not full of reactionary dumbasses who insist that we "hire Americans!" even if there aren't enough Americans who can do the work? Surely that would make America a stronger global competitor!

But the US was importing labor long before "globalization".

[Ed Anger]

I hate foreigners. Get off my lawn.

[Berkut]

In this economy?
I don't think people will be willingly jumping ship. :p

Berkut may a somewhat combative poster, but he hasn't shown himself to be a liar yet, so when he says that the US labor market for computer geeks is tight I'm inclined to believe him.

As of May 2011 (a bit dated, but the quickest data I could find) the unemployment rate for the IT industry was 3.8% while the national average at that time was 9.1%.

So yeah, it simply is not an issue in the IT industry right now. I got laid off from my job in January of last year, and found a job making 12% more within weeks, and job making about 23% more a few months later.

And I still get multiple calls a week from recruiters looking to fill spots. In Rochester, NY - which has a terrible overall economy.

[Admiral Yi]

You're getting old and flabby Throbs.  Previously you would have taken issue with the combative.

[Ideologue]

If X industry could not find best-qualified employees in the past, before globalization, before even national labor mobility had entirely developed, what did they do?  Close up shop?  Or did they simply take on more of the responsibility of bringing new employees up to speed than they currently do?

I imagine it depended on the circumstances. In some cases, I am sure a lack of qualified workers simply resulted in some business not growing as quickly as they could otherwise. Do you think that would be a good solution? The companies in the US that are growing should just stop and be crushed by competition from other countries that are not full of reactionary dumbasses who insist that we "hire Americans!" even if there aren't enough Americans who can do the work? Surely that would make America a stronger global competitor!

But the US was importing labor long before "globalization".

In your industry's case, foreign workers may actually be necessary in order to sustain growth.  My problem is when it leads to displacement, or wage depression, or effective wage depression given the differential in U.S. education costs and foreign education costs.

P.S. foreigners grabbing LL.M.s to sit for several American state bars can just go die.

[Neil]

Poor Ide.  The US post-secondary education system isn't really all that useful to most individual Americans, even though it's incredibly valuable to the United States as a whole.

[Razgovory]

Honestly, I don't care that much.  Also I should note that Myanmar is not 90 miles off our coast.  I have noticed that you have conflated sanctions and embargo.  We do not embargo
Syria or Myanmar.  So got anything else?

To be consistent, you have to go past not caring that much to not caring at all.  And you have to be in favor of lifting the sanctions.

Not sure how sanctions and embargos are distinguishable for the purposes of our discussion.

On the other hand your point about Myanmar's relative location is a real humdinger and I've got no suitable response to it.

Oh, I forgot myself.  You never answered my question: "If it's a game breaker for the US and Cuba why is it not a game breaker for the US and China?"

It's not a game breaker for the US and China because no one is advocating any change in US policy towards China.  In other words, it's not a game breaker because the games are different.

Looking for a "Gotcha" moment Yi?  And me not caring much is entirely consistent.  Myanmar's sanctions have been relaxed recently.  They also serve some sort of purpose beyond pandering to an important demographic in a swing State.  If the Cuban embargo was intended to serve as some sort of economic coercion then it has long since failed to achieve effects in the Cuban Government.  Sanctions and embargo are different though similar.  Try looking up the differences.  I'm not against sanctions in general, but usually you do so with a clear goal in mind.  Your statement about China is simply incorrect.  There's plenty of people who want to change  US policy toward China.  You have everything from people who want to push the Chinese harder on currency and trade laws to people like Ide and Seedy who would want to simply nuke the bastards.

Work a little harder, and perhaps you can indeed get me.

[Admiral Yi]

Looking for a "Gotcha" moment Yi?

Don't have to look very hard.  They're falling from the sky.

[Razgovory]

Looking for a "Gotcha" moment Yi?

Don't have to look very hard.  They're falling from the sky.

You could stop all if it by simply conceding.

[Sheilbh]

I've not followed this but a couple of things screamed out at me.  Indonesia and Nigeria are democracies Raz.

And I think we should consider the slow lifting of sanctions on Burma considering the steps they've taken this past year which have been weird, remarkable and surprising.

The weird thing for me is that part of the reasons sanctions are strict on Cuba is because they're a 'state sponsor of terrorism'.  They're on the list with Sudan, Syria and Iran.  The difference is, of course, that the Cubans don't really sponsor terrorism.  The evidence by the State Department on Cuba was that there's no proof that they've severed ties with FARC and that there's been some contact with ETA.  They may as well mention that they historically did support the PIRA.  But I think it's very difficult to justify keeping them on that list for anything but nakedly political reasons.  It seems to me to devalue the importance of action against sponsors of terrorism if the list is actually just used in this way.

[Razgovory]

Both Nigeria and Indonesia have those witch murders and stuff.

[garbon]

I really hate stuff.