Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Brave New Globalist World (What is the real intention of the multinational corporations?)
interventionmag.com ^ | July 30, 2003 | Lawrence J. McNamee

Posted on 08/05/2003 6:05:13 PM PDT by comnet

It took generations of hard working, sacrificing Americans to build our economic system, a system now being dismantled by small-minded, greedy globalists. By Lawrence J. McNamee

As Americans witness the flight of their manufacturing and now white-collar service sector jobs to Asia and Latin America and other nations with low wages, some are asking, "What is the real intention of the U.S.-based multinational corporations?" Perhaps economic globalism represents an attempt to equalize incomes of the First World and Third World. Yet this policy is impoverishing American workers and providing highly exploitative, low-paying jobs elsewhere. This could be discounted as just misguided economic policy if the policy was not making the highest investment incomes in the world higher still.

When the United States shifted from a nation where most personal wealth came from some form of productive labor to one derived from the value of stock holdings, short-term thinking and shallow, self-serving policies took root. At that point the very nature of the game of capitalism changed for the United States and for the world. The speculative economy can be reported as doing well, while the productive economy and its workers' incomes are marginalized. Hence, we have our current "jobless recovery."

Today IBM contemplates firing thousands of American software engineers so that the company can employ thousands of Indian software engineers. The Indian professionals will work for a fraction of the salaries currently paid their U.S. counterparts. This is what commentator Kevin Phillips calls "the race to the bottom." In theory, minimized wages yield minimized costs which result in maximized profits. Unfortunately, this also increases unemployment and reduces the quality of life in the United States.

Such short-term economic thinking has the potential to turn the "race to the bottom" into a race to global ruin. Men are not angels, and appeals to the marketplace or to modernism are only a thin coating of gloss on the ugly surface of unchallenged greed. When coal miners went on strike in 1902, President Theodore Roosevelt asked mine workers and mine owners to come to the nation's capital and negotiate in good faith. Representatives of the mine workers arrived, while representatives of the mine owners refused, citing a sort of "divine right of capitalists" as their reason. Roosevelt threatened to nationalize the mines if the owners continued to refuse to negotiate. Divine right took a fast turn and the owners sent their men to Washington and the matter was resolved.

Even in this age of lightning-fast communication, there remains such a thing as the national interest. Until globalist corporate America understands it is the national interest, and not short-term profits and stock market prices, that represents the ultimate "bottom line," this erosion of the economic infrastructure of the United States will continue. More jobs will disappear here and the gains to our neighbors will be small and temporary. The clock is ticking off a countdown to the end of the political-economic system that took so much of America's strength and heart to build. At least two hundred and fifteen years of innovation and sacrifice is being downsized to nothing.

Lawrence McNamee is a History Instructor and writer in San Antonio, Texas. He is the proud son of a retired American industrial worker.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: corporations; globalist; multinational
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-108 next last

1 posted on 08/05/2003 6:05:13 PM PDT by comnet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: comnet
What is the real intention of the U.S.-based multinational corporations?

To make enough bucks to survive corrupt unions, overtaxation,
and onerous regulations.  Try it sometimes.  It's not easy.
2 posted on 08/05/2003 6:09:55 PM PDT by gcruse (http://gcruse.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: comnet; dennisw; Tamodaleko; Destro; Honorary Serb
"The analogy between the terms "global" [2] and "universal" is misleading. Universalization has to do with human rights, liberty, culture, and democracy.

By contrast, globalization is about technology, the market, tourism, and information. Globalization appears to be irreversible whereas universalization is likely to be on its way out. At least, it appears to be retreating as a value system which developed in the context of Western modernity and was unmatched by any other culture.

Any culture that becomes universal loses its singularity and dies. That's what happened to all those cultures we destroyed by forcefully assimilating them. But it is also true of our own culture, despite its claim of being universally valid. The only difference is that other cultures died because of their singularity, which is a beautiful death. We are dying because we are losing our own singularity and exterminating all our values. And this is a much more ugly death."

see: The Violence of the Global by Jean Baudrillard

3 posted on 08/05/2003 6:11:33 PM PDT by DTA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
You forgot frivolous lawsuits.
4 posted on 08/05/2003 6:11:54 PM PDT by Trailerpark Badass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DTA
We are dying because we are losing our own singularity

Not to mention the purity of our internal waters.

5 posted on 08/05/2003 6:14:47 PM PDT by gcruse (http://gcruse.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Trailerpark Badass
You're right. I should have added that.
6 posted on 08/05/2003 6:15:14 PM PDT by gcruse (http://gcruse.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: comnet
America is burning while our politicians fiddle!
7 posted on 08/05/2003 6:21:11 PM PDT by chainsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DTA
Globalisim is the ruination of the nation
8 posted on 08/05/2003 6:22:44 PM PDT by Destro (Know your enemy! Help fight Islamic terrorisim by visiting www.johnathangaltfilms.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: comnet
Until globalist corporate America understands it is the national interest, and not short-term profits and stock market prices, that represents the ultimate "bottom line," this erosion of the economic infrastructure of the United States will continue.

I am a 50% shareholder of a close corporation -- so I am interested in learning when a corporation becomes part of the globalist corporate America complex. Will my corporation become a sentient member of evil corporate America when it employs 10 people or 50 people or a 100 people. Or does a corporation have to employ tens of thousands of people before it becomes evil? Hopefully, someone can define for me what the cutoff point is so that I will know when to stop expanding my business so that it doesn't become evil incarnate and instead continues to be run for profit for the benefit of its shareholders, its employees and its customers.

9 posted on 08/05/2003 6:24:20 PM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: comnet
They want the same thing every corporation wants - power. Power to make a profit.

As with all human forces and forms, it depends upon the use/mis-use of their power to measure their direction. Are you a good corp or a bad corp?
10 posted on 08/05/2003 6:24:27 PM PDT by martian_22 (Zoom, zoom....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: comnet
The USA was founded by Pioneers and grew to what it is today from entrepreneurialism. Part of the American dream was to come here, be free and OWN your own business.

Now adays, these large corporations (most of them) are nothing more than mini regime conditioning.

The Board of Directors keeps all the wealth and throws enough 'perks' to the employees to keep them coming back. Not much different than ShareCroppering.

Between corporate conditioning and our educational system, people from the babyboomer generation and on don't even know how to start and run a business.

WorldCom, Tyko, Enron, Global Crossing, Qwest, and more are just as much the crooks and a harm to our traditional values of the USA.
11 posted on 08/05/2003 6:31:06 PM PDT by Calpernia ('Typos Amnesty Day')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
What is the real intention of the U.S.-based multinational corporations?

To make enough bucks to survive corrupt unions, overtaxation, and onerous regulations. Try it sometimes. It's not easy.

Here's what it's not:

Until globalist corporate America understands it is the national interest, and not short-term profits and stock market prices, that represents the ultimate "bottom line," this erosion of the economic infrastructure of the United States will continue.

12 posted on 08/05/2003 6:32:11 PM PDT by Cacophonous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
FBI to focus on varied counter-intelligence

WASHINGTON: The FBI believes more foreign spies than ever are operating in the United States to get a hold of everything from cutting-edge computer software to scientific research and sensitive defence technology.

Even as it concentrates on preventing terrorism, the FBI is overhauling its counterintelligence efforts to blunt the threat.

Agents are less focused on finding spies among diplomats and embassies --hallmarks of the long Cold War with the Soviet Union, and more interested in espionage directed at corporations, research centres and universities.

"Left unchecked, such a situation could greatly undermine US national security and US military and economic advantage,'' FBI Director Robert Mueller told Congress recently.

For instance, the FBI believes China has more than 3,000 front companies in the United States whose real purpose is to direct espionage efforts.

Many of the thousands of Chinese visitors, students and business people who come to this country each year also have a government intelligence task to perform, authorities say. The FBI ranks China as the greatest espionage threat to the United States in the next 10 years to 15 years.

"They figured out that what they want is throughout the United States, not just embassies, not just consulates,'' David Szady, FBI assistant director for counterintelligence, said in an interview with The Associated Press. "It's a major effort."

China is not alone. Russia remains an espionage power, and the United States also must be vigilant against adversaries such as Iran and North Korea. Friendly countries such as Taiwan and India also pose a threat.

There are 40,000 foreign diplomatic officials in the United States, some of whom are intelligence officers. Saudi Arabia alone has 900 officials in this country.

Modern espionage can range from finding out where an aerospace company produces gyroscopes for satellites to socialising with a US nuclear research scientist in hopes of gaining scraps of knowledge. In one recent case, adhesive maker Avery Denison estimated a $50 million loss after a spy sold company secrets to a Taiwanese conglomerate.

To meet this challenge, the FBI has transferred 167 agents into counterintelligence and set up an anti-espionage operation for the first time in all 56-field offices. Each is putting together a comprehensive survey of the potential espionage targets in their domain to give the FBI its first broad national picture.

At the same time, the bureau must learn from mistakes like the case of Wen Ho Lee, a former Los Alamos National Laboratory scientist initially charged in 1999 with 59 counts of mishandling nuclear weapons information. Lee eventually pleaded guilty to a single charge and, in an extraordinary move, President Bill Clinton issued an apology and said Lee's long captivity can't be justified based on the outcome. "The FBI did a poor job in that case," Szady said.

The FBI in early 2001 caught one of its own, Robert Hanssen, but he had been spying for the Soviet Union and Russia for years, resulting in at least three deaths of US informants and an immense intelligence loss.

Partly to blame, FBI officials say, was the drift away from counterintelligence after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. The number of agents doing the work was cut by 30 percent -exact numbers are classified and there was a perception that catching spies was a dead-end for FBI careers.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, it became clear to Mueller that the FBI would have to revamp its counter terrorism and counterintelligence operations to meet threats coming from all corners of the globe.

Mueller made fighting espionage the No. 2 priority behind stopping terrorism, with the same philosophy of tracking and stopping spies rather than waiting to prosecute them. Training was strengthened, the career track resurrected and a cadre of intelligence analysts is being built.

Preventive efforts include FBI meetings with corporate executives, university officials and others to gauge vulnerabilities. It also means undercover work at conferences that draw foreign scientists and development of intelligence assets who describe for an FBI agent what the foreign government wants.

The FBI still is examining what went wrong in the case of Katrina Leung, a Chinese-born woman recruited in Los Angeles by FBI Agent James J. Smith to provide information about the Beijing government.

Prosecutors say Leung actually was a Chinese spy who used her long-term affair with Smith to get access to sensitive government documents. She has pleaded innocent. Smith also faces charges.

Szady said FBI headquarters would exercise greater oversight of intelligence assets, with far greater attention paid to red flags that might indicate a source has been compromised. In the Leung case, little was done after top FBI officials learned that she had passed classified information to China's intelligence service.


13 posted on 08/05/2003 6:33:05 PM PDT by comnet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cacophonous
For instance, the FBI believes China has more than 3,000 front companies in the United States whose real purpose is to direct espionage efforts.
14 posted on 08/05/2003 6:33:44 PM PDT by comnet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: comnet
As if that were not bad enough, commet - and it is - American corporations no longer consider themselves American, but "internationalist", "globalist", etc. (pick your favorite euphimism for Marxism". Sickening.

But hey! I can but lots of cheap crap at WalMart! Woohoo!

15 posted on 08/05/2003 6:40:44 PM PDT by Cacophonous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
>>>>Hopefully, someone can define for me what the cutoff point is so that I will know when to stop expanding my business so that it doesn't become evil incarnate and instead continues to be run for profit for the benefit of its shareholders, its employees and its customers.

Oh please! You mean to try to claim that you don't know the difference between expanding a legitimate business versus a large institutional "Publicly Traded" company with dismal reports? The companies of recent scandals had easy access to billions of dollars of public money,
and they drank the "easy money", Kool-Aid. The problem is, easy money comes with strings attached called performance covenants (sales, profits, cash flow).

If a performance covenant is breached, then the money is usually due to be paid back immediately. So what do they do? Go Bankrupt.

16 posted on 08/05/2003 6:44:28 PM PDT by Calpernia ('Typos Amnesty Day')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DPB101
Ping. See post #13
17 posted on 08/05/2003 6:48:15 PM PDT by Calpernia ('Typos Amnesty Day')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia
Corporations can't regulate you out of business, they can't tax you to death and they can't put you in jail. Until they can, I will focus my concern on institutions that can do these things to me.

Also, I think a quick reality check is in order. Corporations are not sentient entities. They are organizations that are made up of people. People in these organizations make decision, not the organizations themselves. So if you have a problem with a corporation, the problem is not with the intangible business vehicle that is otherwise known as a corporation, but with the people who run it.

18 posted on 08/05/2003 6:52:03 PM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: comnet
"What is the real intention of the U.S.-based multinational corporations?" Perhaps economic globalism represents an attempt to equalize incomes of the First World and Third World.

While that may be the political agenda of government bureaucrats, it is NOT the intention of transnational corporations. Their motivation is much simpler: to profit from the economic disparities that exist globally, without concern for the implications for the people of any particular nation. At this point in time, they view the American Middle Class merely as a market to plunder, and not as a workforce to employ. Once we are beaten down to parity with the global poverty level, they may (or may not) return to establish production facilities within our borders.

19 posted on 08/05/2003 7:00:47 PM PDT by Willie Green (Go Pat Go!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green

"Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains."

--Thomas Jefferson to Horatio G. Spafford, 1814. ME 14:119

"We are infinitely better off without treaties of commerce with any nation."

--Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1815.

"I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

--Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1816. FE 10:69


20 posted on 08/05/2003 7:03:01 PM PDT by Willie Green (Go Pat Go!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
It's about profit. And you have to make more profit each quarter. That is the bottom line. Humans are only a capital expense, consider them as such. Perhaps that is why we call them "Human Resources" instead of "personnel"?


21 posted on 08/05/2003 7:04:23 PM PDT by BiffWondercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: BiffWondercat
It's about profit.

Yeah, that is what most businesses are about. Maybe we should follow through on the logic of your post and attempt to eliminate the profit motive like the Communists did for 70 years in the Soviet Union.

22 posted on 08/05/2003 7:07:30 PM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: BiffWondercat
Correction, that would be "Operational Costs". Humans are quite replaceable and are by no means a fixed depreciation cost like capital is. Forgive my business ignorance...

23 posted on 08/05/2003 7:10:30 PM PDT by BiffWondercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
I have no idea what you said in response to my post.
24 posted on 08/05/2003 7:13:07 PM PDT by Calpernia ('Typos Amnesty Day')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
The Earth is flat.

--unknown.


25 posted on 08/05/2003 7:14:28 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia
It is pretty straightforward. Corporations have little or no power compared to the power of the state. If you are concerned about the exercise of arbitrary power, your concern should be focused on governmental institutions rather than on businesses.

By the way, have you ever owned stock in a publicly traded corporation?

26 posted on 08/05/2003 7:17:42 PM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
My feeble arguments are not enough to counter the wise arguments upon this forum. I just want to make profit for getting f****** with my own tax dollars, that's all.





27 posted on 08/05/2003 7:25:32 PM PDT by BiffWondercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
I don't play with stocks.

>>>>It is pretty straightforward. Corporations have little or no power compared to the power of the state. If you are concerned about the exercise of arbitrary power, your concern should be focused on governmental institutions rather than on businesses.

I still don't see how this is in response to my post. I see you as changing the subject. Turn the focus from corporations to state governing.

28 posted on 08/05/2003 7:27:32 PM PDT by Calpernia ('Typos Amnesty Day')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: BiffWondercat
I just want to make profit for getting f****** with my own tax dollars, that's all.

And who takes your tax dollars? Here is a hint -- it is not a corporation.

29 posted on 08/05/2003 7:28:34 PM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: comnet
National boundaries will disappear.
30 posted on 08/05/2003 7:31:04 PM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy; Willie Green
Healthy SIMPLE food on the table . . .

A small roof to keep the rain off your head in a climate not too hot nor too cold . . .

A change of clothes and a body of water to wash them in (who needs a tub?). . .

A large expanse of nature in which to hunt, hike, climb, fish, and gather . . .

Affordable health care . . .

Self-defense . . .

Some books (though a perversion, a necessary one today) . . .

And a steady source of a modest income to afford the modest expense of it all . . . .

That's what's really important; that's all one needs--and we had a lot more of it thirty years ago. The rest is crap.

But the rest is what Globalism offers at the expense of the foregoing.

31 posted on 08/05/2003 7:31:36 PM PDT by Age of Reason
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia
This was part of your initial argument:

Now adays, these large corporations (most of them) are nothing more than mini regime conditioning.

I presumed from this statement that you are arguing that corporations somehow form a threat to the average person. You then followed this statement up with a remark to me about large publicly traded corporations getting lots of easy money and then going out of business.

Now, if your argument is the former that corporations have too much power, that is at least an argument that can be responded to. If, however, your argument is that most large publicly traded corporations are evil because people invest money in them and then some of them go out of business, that is not an argument that can be responded to because it is simply not true.

32 posted on 08/05/2003 7:38:29 PM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: comnet
"In theory, minimized wages yield minimized costs which result in maximized profits. Unfortunately, this also increases unemployment and reduces the quality of life in the United States"

As the CEO for Boeing commented after revealing their plans to move jobs to India, "Americans are not entitled to their standard of living".

33 posted on 08/05/2003 7:42:03 PM PDT by MissAmericanPie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: comnet
The #1 reason why companies are going overseas and taking the jobs with them is THE INCOME TAX!!!!!!!!!!

We are being lied to. The income tax is by far the biggest non manufacturing cost for every business.

When you make a business act as an unpaid agent for the government, and you make these businesses spend money on collecting this tax, you destroy the productivity of the worker and the profitability of the business.

Don't forget all the government regulations and the unfunded mandates and you have a mess that we have today.

Time to get the central planners the hell out of government and kill the IRS and the central banks once and for all.

34 posted on 08/05/2003 7:44:06 PM PDT by Radioactive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: clamper1797; sarcasm; BrooklynGOP; A. Pole; Zorrito; GiovannaNicoletta; Caipirabob; Marauder; ...
ping

This is just a brief argument against the multinational's raping of the American economy.

on or off this list let me know
35 posted on 08/05/2003 7:47:58 PM PDT by harpseal (Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
>>>I presumed from this statement that you are arguing that corporations somehow form a threat to the average person

Yes they do.

>>>You then followed this statement up with a remark to me about large publicly traded corporations getting lots of easy money and then going out of business.

Yes, see: Global Crossings, WorldCom, soon to be Qwest, Etc...

>>>>Now, if your argument is the former that corporations have too much power,

Not just with the corps. Look for the deal makings with credit facilities, corrupt politicians, preferred stock share holders et al.

>>>My comment: mini regime conditioning

Communist countries are run by capitalists. They run their counties like corporations. That is what can happen if capitalism is not regulated. We in this country are being overrun by multi conglomerate companies. They buy up every thing and make it impossible for small business to exist. Small enterprises are what made this country great. So support small companies in your endeavors. Buy from the little guy instead of super Wal-mart. I always stop at those vegetable stands on the roadside. That is real freedom and another way to fight communism.

And see post 13: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/958830/posts?page=13#13
36 posted on 08/05/2003 7:53:19 PM PDT by Calpernia ('Typos Amnesty Day')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia
So I'll ask my question again. When does a corporation become a threat -- when it is publicly traded -- is that the cutoff line? I want to find out from you when corporations become a problem. If a business earns more than a $1,000,000 is it a problem? Or does a business become too powerful when it it makes $10,000,000. Or is the tipping point $100,000,000. I know when people become bad. It is when they do something like murdering somebody or raping somebody. But I am unclear on this point with respect to corporations because just as guns don't kill people, neither do corporations. So, I'm trying to get a handle on how and when a corporation becomes bad. Do they have to actually do something to be considered bad or do they become bad simply by having too much in sales.
37 posted on 08/05/2003 8:04:48 PM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: comnet
THIS IS CERTAINLY A SIGNIFICANT PART OF THE EVIL GLOBAL STRATEGY.

They really don't care that much if they run the global economy into the ground. They want 1/3 to 2/3 less population anyway--all the easier to manage a smaller population of serfs.

And wars, disasters etc. along the way all play into their hands very helpfully.

Thankfully, God's a better General.
38 posted on 08/05/2003 8:04:49 PM PDT by Quix (PLEASE SHARE THE TRUTH RE BILLDO AND SHRILLERY FAR AND WIDE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
Oh good. I guess we are done with this silly circle. Cause I answered your question originally in my first post to you: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/958830/posts?page=16#16
39 posted on 08/05/2003 8:09:47 PM PDT by Calpernia ('Typos Amnesty Day')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: BiffWondercat
Foreign workers costing U.S. jobs?

Import of cheap labor by corporations seen driving wages down

Posted: August 1, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jon Dougherty © 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

Corporations allowed to import large numbers of lesser-paid foreign workers to fill jobs in the United States, coupled with numerous "free trade" agreements, have caused depressed wages and unemployment for American workers, say economists and experts.

Worse, they say, some firms are set to import even more foreign workers, despite current unemployment levels standing at their highest in years.

According to Eagle Forum founder, syndicated columnist and author Phyllis Schlafly, the "scandal" of the H-1B and L-1 visa programs "is why this year's college graduates face the worst job market in recent memory."

"The big argument for the tax cut [recently] signed by President Bush is that it will create much-needed jobs," she writes in the June issue of "The Phyllis Schlafly Report," her organization's monthly newsletter. "But one big question remains: Will those jobs be created for Americans, or will corporations simply hire more job-seekers from India and China?"

The visa programs, authorized in the 1990 Immigration Act, "allow corporations to import up to 65,000 cheap skilled workers from foreign countries to fill alleged labor shortages," said Schlafly. The common claim of a labor shortage advanced by some corporations, she said, "was always a fiction and now is nonsense."

In June, unemployment rose to 6.4 percent, up from 6.1 percent in May, representing 9.4 million jobless Americans, the Labor Department reported. Though the department said new claims for unemployment fell last week to 388,000 – the third week in a row new jobless claims have dropped off – a separate report said U.S. corporations are reporting cheaper labor costs.

"U.S. employers incurred a much smaller increase in the cost of hiring and retaining workers during the second quarter of 2003 than they did in the previous three months," said the Dow Jones news service, rising only 0.9 percent from April to June. "The cost of wages and salaries grew even more slowly, rising just 0.6 percent."

Schlafly, in her report, says some U.S. job sectors are being hit harder than others, resulting in unemployment rates surpassing the national level.

Citing U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics figures, Schlafly wrote: "Unemployment among American electronic engineers has soared to 7 percent, and among computer hardware engineers to 6.5 percent."

"Despite hundreds of thousands of unemployed American engineers and computer specialists, corporations continue to import foreigners at the same time … they lay off U.S. citizens," said the report.

Recently completed free-trade deals also have some lawmakers and economists concerned about the future of American workers and wages they are paid.

Writing in the Chicago Sun-Times, Thomas Roeser, quoting banker and manufacturer John E. Jones, is critical of free-trade policies because, he claims, they have depressed American wages for 30 years.

"Jones says one reason is that 'free trade economists preach that whatever produces the lowest possible cost is best. All things being equal, everyone would agree that this is true. But if you need not consider anything but cost, a slave economy is better because it is lower cost,'" Roeser writes.

According to Roeser, Jones says "real wages" for Americans peaked in 1973, ''shortly after the U.S. became an unprotected economy in 1971," when they were 176 percent of what real wages were in 1946. Jones also says real wages have fallen to just 92 percent of what they were in the mid-1940s.

Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times reported in July illegal immigration was "undermining American workers" and pulling down wages while pushing taxes higher, especially in California – now saddled with a $38 billion budget deficit.

Also, immigration-reform group Project USA criticized Bush administration trade policy last week as further endangering American workers.

"The Chile/Singapore free-trade agreements will allow 'American' corporations to move an unlimited number of 'employees' from those countries to ours," the group said, in a statement. "In other words, multinational corporations not the American people will dictate the number of foreigners allowed into the United States."

The Federation for American Immigration Reform, another group opposed to unrestricted immigration, also criticized the trade agreements as detrimental to U.S. workers.

Said FAIR, "making these provisions especially dangerous, the Bush administration is touting them as a model to be replicated in future trade agreements with numerous other countries."

Longtime critic of corporate work-visa abuse Rob Sanchez, writing in May 2002, said, "These trade bills are unique from other types of immigration laws in one major way: They cannot be repealed by Congress without the consent of the country the agreement was made with.

"Once these agreements are passed, American workers will be powerless to stop the flood of workers that will arrive to compete with them in the job market," Sanchez said.

On his website, Sanchez says over 17 million visas to allow foreigners to work in the U.S. have been issued since 1985. "By the end of the year 2001, more than 890,000 H-1B workers were employed in the United States," he said.

"With 18 million Americans struggling to find full-time employment, the Bush administration has no business making agreements with foreign nations to flood the labor market with an unlimited amount of imported labor," added ProjectUSA.

Schlafly believes Americans were duped into accepting the loss of millions of jobs, mostly in the manufacturing sector.

"When U.S. corporations built hundreds of plants in Third World countries, we were told not to worry because we were keeping the service jobs," she writes. "Now the high-paying white-collar service jobs are going overseas, too, particularly jobs for engineers and computer specialists." "Follow the money," says Schlafly. "The big corporations hire aliens from India and China at half or a third the [U.S.] wages, work them long hours without overtime pay and treat them like indentured servants unable to quit for a better job.

"What makes this racket possible is the partnership between corporations and government," she said.

40 posted on 08/05/2003 8:13:30 PM PDT by comnet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia; vbmoneyspender
Corporations have little or no power compared to the power of the state.

I don't believe that this holds true for large transnational corporations whose annual revenues often exceed the GNP of many industrialized nations.

41 posted on 08/05/2003 8:15:31 PM PDT by Willie Green (Go Pat Go!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
What corporations help HITLER ?
42 posted on 08/05/2003 8:15:41 PM PDT by comnet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: comnet
What corporations help HITLER ?

So did married couples. Do you propose to outlaw marriage on that basis?

43 posted on 08/05/2003 8:20:30 PM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
I don't understand your fixation on corporations. The power of any multinational corporation is as a mooncast shadow compared to the power of the state. For example, when I look at my paycheck and see that 25% has been deducted, that isn't a corporation pulling that money out of my paycheck.
44 posted on 08/05/2003 8:24:18 PM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
a package of 34 treaties, all of which were ratified by a show of hands -- no recorded vote.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a325b3f5d31.htm
45 posted on 08/05/2003 8:25:50 PM PDT by comnet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: gcruse
purity of our internal waters

I suspect women sense your power, and seek your life essence...do you deny it to them?

http://www.blogcritics.org/archives/2003/03/26/200441.php

46 posted on 08/05/2003 8:27:29 PM PDT by fourdeuce82d
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
DR. CARROLL QUIGLEY
ON THE WORLD'S SECRET POWER STRUCTURE



http://www.bankindex.com/read.asp?ID=1346
47 posted on 08/05/2003 8:27:40 PM PDT by comnet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
A Corporation only takes my money in exchange for goods and/or services, that I have freely consented to, of which cost and a profit are accounted into. No Problem, that is capitalism as my meger reason can grasp it. I do not have that option with government. I will in no way (cuss) argue that they don't piss it away in massive amounts and take far more power than they are entitled to under the Constition!

(Mr Gopher is staring down a .223 at this point...)

But, do not complain to me. Go buy a politician like everybody else does, or get up a special interest group to scream loud if enough (or in a PC way) to get what you want.

I would rather not have the world's best machinists and hardware in the hands of China, as it and much of our money seems to be headed. Cut your own throat as you see fit.
Seeing how I make money off of both I have no compunction against you making more profit. Actually, the worse things get the more I stand to make, so get your ass back to work!







48 posted on 08/05/2003 8:27:43 PM PDT by BiffWondercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: DPB101
Ping to post 40
49 posted on 08/05/2003 8:34:11 PM PDT by Calpernia ('Typos Amnesty Day')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
The power of any multinational corporation is as a mooncast shadow compared to the power of the state

Are you suggesting that multinational corporations don't utilize their economic resources to exert influence over Congress and government policies for their own benefit?

50 posted on 08/05/2003 8:36:41 PM PDT by Willie Green (Go Pat Go!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-108 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson