We're SUPPOSED to Lose those Jobs Overseas

Stephen Colbert had a piece on the other night about goats stealing American jobs (see below) that cracked me up, but also got me thinking about posting on this topic. So much has been made about Americans losing their jobs to illegal immigrants (though this isn't exactly true - they do the jobs few Americans are actually willing to do) and workers in China and India, especially in this tough economy. Many candidates use the "I'll keep American jobs at home" line while campaigning. (Other popular campaign tactics this year: bigotry, profanity, and porn - Carl Paladino does all 3! Way to go, Carl!). Of course, the dirty little secret is: we're supposed to lose these jobs. It is a function of larger economic issues. The truth is, you can't fix this problem simply by going at corporations - yes, I know, I can't believe I just wrote that. You have to address the education system, instead, something that most ignore.

So, here's how it works. We're a rich country. We happen to be capital rich (vs. labor rich), like most (if not all) developed industrial countries. If we do the economically efficient thing, we should focus on capital, not labor - capital is our comparative advantage. In the long-run, we want to export our abundant factor, capital, while importing the scarce factor, labor. Pretty simple...do what you're best at, and buy from others the thing you're not so good at (labor), which they happen to be best at. Each part of this maximizes economic efficiency, which lets us all get optimal goods for the lowest price (labor rich countries get capital for lower prices than they would if they decided to produce these factors themselves - hence the importance of international capital in poor countries).

Are we seriously still having this argument? Climate change is real, folks.

I'll admit it. I'm one of those people who on the whole ignores the midterm elections. I've never lived in a state where shake-ups could happen during a mid-term election and so I've become comfortable with the idea of just 'sit and watch' over the years. But this year's primaries have shot this complacent little ecologist right out of her chair and up on two feet with both arms flailing. Why? Because I suddenly noticed a consistent line being towed by several of the senatorial candidates.

In New Hampshire, all of the GOP potentials are in agreement that climate change due to humans has not been proven. New Mexico GOP candiadates think that "it's not real." In Alaska GOP/Tea Party candidate Joe Miller "hasn't heard about it." Wisconsin hopeful Ron Johnson "absolutely does not believe in the science of man-caused climate change." In fact the only GOP candidate supporting climate action is Mike Castle, from Delaware.

I'm equally frustrated with the candidates on every side who won't vocally speak out in support of the overwhelming scientific evidence that global warming is happening seemingly because it's just not a popular stance. By not advocating for climate change action, these candidates are complicitly contributing to the idea that climate change might not be real.

How can we still be having this argument? Have we landed back in 1992? Cause I really don't want to have to go through the horror of having to wear braces and headgear all over again. Seriously though, in case you're on the fence about this whole "global warming thing", here are a couple of models that I think help explain the problem.