When BHO or any other politician utters trite promises about creating jobs for the little people, we, their Lilliputian subjects, should be able to pipe-up about the regulatory barriers to entering the workforce erected by the very same people.
• A license to speak to tourists without which you go to jail for 90 days • A test to “practice” flower-arranging • $30,000 mandatory outlay for an embalming room, if you want to open a funeral parlor
“How are these laws able to get enacted?” asks RT? “Lobbyists and special interest groups infiltrate politics on the federal and local level. They urge lawmakers to pass regulations that benefit them, and keep the competition out. The result: an America growing increasingly regulated. According to the Institute of Justice, in the 1950’s 1 in 20 occupations required a government permit. Today it’s one in three. And all this red tape is costing taxpayers billions.”
Lewd licensure is not a function of BHO’s administration alone, although he has increased the number of billions transferred from the private economy to the blood-sucking bureaucracy.
I would, however, counter that the culprits here are not the lobbyists, who have not taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and work to benefit not factions, but all folks. Politicians have the power to refuse to enact these laws. However, as always, it seems that, psychologically, it is easier for news agencies and the people to blame corporations, Wall Street and K Street, instead of the bums who capitulate to these special interests.
Government has skewed the job market royally. In anticipation of the windfall from Obamacare, an enormous, probably artificial, expansion of the health-care sector is underway. This could explain the fact that biomedical engineers are so sought after; the specialty is among the best career choices for 2012. Computer software engineers are also in demand.
High unemployed and contracting wages in a well-educated population should make it much more viable to do in America engineering work that was previously done offshore.
Alas, there is another state-orchestrated central plan that impedes the employment of “25,000 unemployed U.S.-born individuals with engineering degrees who have a Master’s or PhD and another 68,000 with advanced degrees not in the labor force. There were also 489,000 U.S.-born individuals with graduate degrees who were working, but not as engineers.” (The Center for Immigration Studies)
• “In 2010, there were 25,000 unemployed U.S.-born individuals with engineering degrees who have a Master’s or PhD and another 68,000 with advanced degrees not in the labor force. There were also 489,000 U.S.-born individuals with graduate degrees who were working, but not as engineers.
• There are 101,000 U.S.-born individuals with an engineering degree who are unemployed.
• There are an additional 244,000 U.S.-born individuals under age 65 who have a degree in engineering but who are not in the labor market. This means they are not working nor are they looking for work, and are therefore not counted as unemployed.
• In addition to those unemployed and out of the labor force, there are an additional 1.47 million U.S.-born individuals who report they have an engineering degree and have a job, but do not work as engineers.
• Relatively low pay and perhaps a strong bias on the part of some employers to hire foreign workers seems to have pushed many American engineers out their profession.
• There are many different types of engineering degrees. But unemployment, non-work, or working outside of your field is common for Americans with many different types of engineering degrees. (Detailed employment figures for specific types of engineers are provided” at The Center for Immigration Studies.)
“In one of last year’s most disappointing moments,” writes Joe Guzzardi of VDARE.COM, “the House overwhelmingly passed (389-15) H.R. 3012, the Fairness for High Skilled Immigrants Act that would eliminate the annual per-country caps on employer-sponsored green cards.”
“Skilled labor—from roughly everywhere—displaces educated Americans, disproportionately white and Asian Americans.(See Ed Rubenstein on immigration and college graduates.) Some of those lose their homes, some commit suicide, and we’ve published an article by a writer, Simon Krejsa, who was living in a homeless shelter.” (VDARE.COM)
Increased legal immigration in the middle of an unemployment crisis! Now that’s patriotism!
Meet Maurice Johnson, “an unemployed, homeless Boston man who has a Masters Degrees in Plasma Physics from Dartmouth College and in Electrical Engineering and acoustics from Purdue University. Johnson’s resume includes a 10 year career at Lockheed Aerospace & Aerodyne Research Corp.” (Link)
H-1B Hogs Swindling ‘Average’ Americans explains that, in America’s labyrinthine visa system, “The O-1 visa is the visa reserved for individuals with extraordinary abilities. More significantly, there is no cap on the number of O-1 visa entrants allowed. Access to this limited pool of talent is unlimited. My point vis-à-vis the O-1 visa is this: The primary H-1B hogs—Infosys (and another eight, sister Indian firms), Microsoft, and Intel—are forever claiming that they are desperate for talent. But, in reality, they have unlimited access to individuals with unique abilities through the open-ended O-1 visa program—that is if they really wanted it.”
The primary H-1B hogs don’t want for extraordinary talent, available via the unlimited 0-1 Visa; what these corporate pigs want is a multicultural workforce with which to replace Americans. My contacts within the bowels of this Beast are forever telling me about Human Resources directives to “hire someone who does not look like YOU, Honky!” (Not quite in those words, but you get the drift.) Don’t ask me why, but creating a Tower of Babel of a work force is what the much-heralded multinationals live for. Diversity is no strength—it contributes nothing but misery in the workplace.
But boy, is it de rigueur.
UPDATE I (Feb. 6): This guy could be teaching America’s stupid kids math and science, but the unions that run the gulag of public education do not allow entry to highly qualified individuals with higher degrees, unless they are “reeducated.” The upshot of union stranglehold is that union-certified, borderline-retarded women (mostly) with education degrees are teaching math. They might be able to cover the two examples in the textbook, but cannot instill what they lack: an understanding of this most crucial subject. There are plenty engineers and scientists (some retired), to whom math is second nature, who could bring American kids up to the level, if allowed.
Feminists once aimed to unseat men, now they are actively engaged in queering them:
“Seven of the 18 women who are currently CEOs of Fortune 500 companies—including Xerox’s (XRX) Ursula Burns, PepsiCo’s (PEP) Indra Nooyi, and WellPoint’s (WLP) Angela Braly—have, or at some point have had, a stay-at-home husband. So do scores of female CEOs of smaller companies and women in other senior executive jobs. Others, like IBM’s (IBM) new CEO, Ginni Rometty, have spouses who dialed back their careers to become their powerful wives’ chief domestic officers.
This role reversal is occurring more and more as women edge past men at work. Women now fill a majority of jobs in the U.S., including 51.4 percent of managerial and professional positions, according to U.S. Census Bureau data. Some 23 percent of wives now out-earn their husbands, according to a 2010 study by the Pew Research Center. And this earnings trend is more dramatic among younger people. Women 30 and under make more money, on average, than their male counterparts in all but three of the largest cities in the U.S.”
Buried within the Bloomberg Business Week edifying report above is that the “recession” is, more than anything, a man recession:
“During the recent recession, three men lost their jobs for every woman. Many unemployed fathers, casualties of layoffs in manufacturing and finance, have ended up caring for their children full-time while their wives are the primary wage earners. The number of men in the U.S. who regularly care for children under age five increased to 32 percent in 2010 from 19 percent in 1988, according to Census figures. Among those fathers with preschool-age children, one in five served as the main caregiver.”
