Posted on 08/04/2004 12:47:43 PM PDT by Willie Green
For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.
Amid the layoffs that have become a routine result of corporate downsizing, mergers, and outsourcing, there is a growing trend: older supply chain managers who can’t find new jobs. Between February 2000 and January 2002, for example, the re-employment of workers between the ages of 55 and 64 sank from 58.8% to 52.5%, the lowest rate since 1994. “There is absolutely no question that if you are an older worker, your chances of being re-employed are much smaller,” says Sara Rix, a senior policy analyst at American Association of Retired Persons.
ping
Obviously the supply chain is so longer in this country. USA jobs have the flush chain. Oust all free traders from both parties in November.
you really should get a life, you know ROFLMAO
Here's the news, Willie: If you're between 55 and 64, nobody is hiring you no matter what your profession or trade.
I second that.
It sure seems that way. Of course I worked for NASA, too, so that is a second black mark on my record.
Come on, Willie, do you really think citing stats from 2000 to 2002 are even relevant ? Those stats are before the economic recovery started kicking in in July of 2003, after the 2003 tax cuts took effect.
You really must be getting desperate to think such old figures represent anything that is relevant today.
And today, Commerce Department figures came in supporting the ISM manufacturing figures, as well as strong numbers in the ISM non-manufacturing sector of the economy.
In truth, I think you are an isolationist, as opposed to a true conservative, Willie. You are stuck in the past. It is one thing to fight for the US to maintain it's sovereignity and autonomy politically and militarily, but it is a total disconnect from reality to not adapt and adjust to the reality of a global economy. To try to withdraw to within our own borders would be economic suicide.
The staff at Purchasing Magazine believe the figures are relevant.
Considering that they focus specificly on this demographic, I consider their perspective to have high credibility.
In truth, I think you are an isolationist, as opposed to a true conservative,
(((yawn)))
yeah, yeah, yeah...
You One Worlders always resort to redefining "true conservatism" to undermine conservative virtues of independence, self-sufficiency, self-reliance, etc. etc.
As if being economicly dependent on OPEC or China is "good" for us... Baloney.
I don't know about GISM....hmmm.... but anyone over fifty anywhere had best not lose their job. You won't get another one.
"The staff at Purchasing Magazine believe the figures are relevant.
Considering that they focus specificly on this demographic, I consider their perspective to have high credibility."
Do you also give them the same credibility when they recommend outsourcing certain tasks to India, China, etc.?
Of course I do.
In the corporate environment within which they work, that would be the logical business decision under current regulatory and taxation conditions. I have never denied that. In fact, that is why I so stridently advocate changing our tax and regulatory policies: so that the Purchasing Managers' analysis would shift to favor domestic supply sources.
In fact, that's all the more reason to believe the staff of Purchasing Magazine rather than the phoney-globaloney "spin" that's put out by the Institute of Supply Management. Their disengenous hype about how domestic manufacturing is supposedly prospering in the United States is directly contradicted by the overwhelming practice of outsourcing production offshore. On this issue, the ISM has no credibility, the staff of Purchasing Magazine does.
Thanks for the direct answer and clarification. What specific changes would you make to the tax and regulatory policies to address these issues?
Correction. You can get another job, if you are in good health, can walk as spry as the youngest worker, and are willing to start over at the bottom at a much lower salary.
This is the reality of age discrimination in our workplace today. It doesn't matter which political party is in power. The only defense against this reality is to save your money to tide yourself over for the lean days of your later years. And work is available, but it may involve you starting your own home-based business.
To shift capital investment flow from seeking offshore opportunities back to pursuing domestic opportunities, I would shift tax policy by reducing the corporate income tax, offsetting revenues to be collected by a relatively low, flat-rate revenue tariff to be levied on all imported goods. Tort reform and relaxation of obstructionist environmental regulations would further enhance domestic investment opportunities.
I finally pole-vaulted into retirement. I feel sorry for those who financially don't have that option.
It looks like we are closer to agreement philosophically than I once thought. I'm not knowledgeable enough about the potential effects of the tarriff proposal in your post to argue with or support it. However, I understand the concept and I understand the constitutionality basis of the argument. One of the negatives I can see with it is the potential for "trade wars". That is one of the main reasons I am supportive of the NRST, of course that is with the requirement that all income taxes and corporate taxes be outlawed at the Federal level.
The repeal of income and corporate taxes and the implementation of the NRST would accomplish two things. First, it would make the business/governmental environment very attractive for all corporations and with the lowest global government interference in the market, many foriegn companies would relocate to our shores. Second, it would in effect price foriegn goods above domestic goods. The foriegn goods would not only have the NRST, but they would also have their own governments taxes and regulatory costs in the price where US produced goods would only have the NRST added to the price.
We are in 100% agreement on the tort reform and environmental regulation relaxation aspect of your response. I would add right to work laws that would allow any employee to opt out of joining a union. I suspect that we differ on that point.
I'm not looking to hijack your thread into a NRST discussion, but if you would clarify how a tariff would be more beneficial given my POV above, that would be beneficial.
Trade wars erupt from pandering to influential special interests. They're characterized by extraordinarily intricate, complex, confusing and inconsistant tariff schedules and trade agreements that favor one special interest over another, whether that is one industry over another or one nation over another.
A uniform, flat-rate "revenue tariff" avoids all that complexity and is consistant with the principles of TRUE free trade. The same simple tariff rate is applied to everyone and every item, regardless of other political influences. The only purpose a revenue tariff serves is to raise funding for the Treasury, nothing else. Adhere to that fundamental principle and there can be no trade war.
Today's politicians pretend to denounce trade wars to disguise the fact that we're already deeply involved in one. On the behalf of transnational corporations, our own government demands that other nations alter their sovereign regulation of property rights for the sole purpose of plundering the full market potential of the American Middle Class. This may coincide with corporate objectives of maximizing profitablity, but it is certainly not in the best interests of the American People.
I have no problems with right-to-work laws.
I don't believe that anybody should be forced to join a union if they don't want to.
However, I do recognized their right to join one if they wish, and that it is sometimes necessary to do so to balance the negotiating power in the employer/employee relationship.
Do you ever see positive articles about Thebusheconomy? If so, why do you never post them?
It's the insurance, stupid!
(not really calling you stupid)
I see it.
I choose to ignore it.
If you can't discuss the articles that I choose to post, that's tough beans for you.
And I honestly don't give a rat's patoot about what you try to imply otherwise.
I just asked you a question. I'm trying to find out what your point is. I don't automatically believe anyone, even people who say you have an agenda, so I thought I'd get the truth from the horse's mouth.
If you can't answer the question honestly, it stands to reason you have a personal agenda. Score one for your dissent.
It stands to reason that anybody who participates in this forum does so to express their political views.
Those who imply that such motivation is somehow "tainted" are merely being hypocritical.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.