Because the real unemployment rate is above 22%.
Posted on 11/22/2011 10:36:04 PM PST by WilliamIII
U.S.-based multinational corporations added 1.5 million workers to their payrolls in Asia and the Pacific region during the 2000s, and 477,500 workers in Latin America, while cutting payrolls at home by 864,000, the Commerce Department reported.
The faster growth abroad was concentrated in emerging markets, such as China, Brazil, India and Eastern Europe, according to economists Kevin Barefoot and Raymond Mataloni, of the U.S. Commerce Department.
"Judging by the destination of sales by affiliates in those countries," the economists wrote in a recent survey, "the goal of the U.S. multinational corporations' expanded production was to primarily sell to local customers rather than to reduce their labor costs for goods and services destined for sale in the U.S., Western Europe and other high-income countries."
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
I do wonder about the multi-national corporations which are so powerful. Just because they support something, that doesn’t make it good policy. They are among the strongest supporters of open borders, for example.
The support socialized medicine hardcore too. It’s way cheaper to hand that off to x government and therefore to the lower class tax payers than pay it themselves.
Because the real unemployment rate is above 22%.
Union participation in the private sector is at an all time low, less than 7% of the labor force.
That depends, in the service sector labor costs are the lions share. In manufacturing the cost of labor averages only 10%. On a macro economic scale the percent of GDP that goes to wages is only 50% (approx.)
That is such crap. This is the BS Free Traitors have been pedaling for years. The cost of labor in manufacturing is around 10%. So even if the shoes or whatever are made in the USA the MOST the price would go up is around 10% - AT THE MOST.
Good point. The Fortune 500 generally support open borders, but that doesn’t mean that Freepers have to salute these folks in the name of Capitalism. The same should go with off-shoring. Just because the big businesses like it, doesn’t mean I have to.
I thought Ross Perot was kooky when he ran for president (and elected Bill Clinton). But in my dotage I’m starting to see wisdom in his warnings about off-shoring. How is our unemployment ever going to go down if we accept the idea that America should let the rest of the world make our products.
So only around 50% of the populace is really employed in a fashion not rooted in taxpayer funding for the feeding cycle.
It’s not the government or any particular political party—all controlled by certain influential constituents, whose hopes are in those glamorous foreign countries.
You are contradicting yourself. If labor is only 10% why is cheap foreign labor a problem in the first place? Chinese shoes should cost only 10% less according to your theory.
Your post is Clintonian. We are discussing protectionism and it’s effect on cost of retail goods. The official unemployment figures is entirely another subject.
It does not matter what the true unemployment is because even the unemployed get checks from the government. And even they will find they can’t afford stuff made in USA.
Yeah, that is odd. :’) The rate is more like 14%, or about half again what the official figure is; the higher, actual figure includes those who have decided that living on public assistance and/or living *with* someone on public assistance, and/or working cash-only off-the-books odd jobs while waiting for their SSI or SSD to kick in is much better than full-time employment.
Around here, I’d hate to think of what the level of unemployment must be. And the number of people with “food stamps” (called the Bridge Card here in Michigan, it’s the EBT low-fraud version of the fraud-replete food stamps of yesteryear) would surprise most people, even people who live here. But OTOH, most of the people I work with are working on degrees (not in anything productive, but still), and a good number of them work more than one job, which is what I should be doing, although that could take a job away from someone who doesn’t have one.
This isn't theory it is fact. Labor is only 10% of the retail price on average of manufactured goods. Do your own research. All of this off-shoring is to "save" pennies on the dollar.
Planet "Free Trade" is a bizarre place, you must be its President/Leader.
So if China has less than 10% advantage in labor costs, and they have to pay the shipping freight on top of that, we should have no problem manufacturing everything here?
Manufacturing here in the USA is never a problem. There is no instance of a failing manufacturer , one that was approaching bankruptcy, and moved their production to China thereby saving the company. The reality is already profitable companies moved overseas to make a few more pennies on the dollar and left the taxpayer with the bill, to pay for the social welfare costs.
You sound like the people who claim "If we send the illegal aliens home lettuce will cost $5 per head".
Utter bunk.
I tried to buy American made shoes. Can’t afford them.
But why believe me, go to your friendly shoe store and look
for yourself. Then post me a note on brand & price, TIA.
Here’s a whole flock of BOOTS for under the $199 you conjecture for SNEAKERS:
Fifty years ago I generally wore Chippewa hiking boots that cost the equivalent of 200 gallons of gasoline.
These boots are generally a quarter of that.
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.