CAFTA PUTS U.S. SOVEREIGNTY AND CONSTITUTION UNDER ATTACK

Union wages being "uncompetitive with other countries" is a polite way of saying "We can make a S#@T-load more by shifting the manufacturing base somewhere else instead of correcting the problem at home.

I didn't try and make a value judgment, just a statement of fact. There are lots of things that the government can do to "protect" the wages, but wage earners are also consumers.

Do you really believe that the sweatshops would cease to exist if union workers were paid less? Would illegal aliens stop being hired if Americans volunteered to do their work?

Again, making me sound like Simon Legree doesn't eliminate the issue. You pose two unrelated questions. The first one begs for countries to do something not in their national interest (from their perspective). Equalizing wages in some fashion is the issue, and from the tone of your post, not one that the US should contribute to. As for the second issue, whether we like it or not, illegals are doing work others won't. I'm not sure how to resolve the issue other than close the borders and see what happens. Again, the consumer will ultimately feel the pain, and consumers aren't unionized, so they don't count.

BTW it's interesting that as the Chinese become further empowered by our trade policy they may just use the power the West has endowed them with to someday kill American soldiers, as they have done in the past. How can we empower a nation that has recently threatened us with nuclear attack?

I don't know. I'm not an apologist for our trade policies, nor for MFN with China. But I assume that this government does not want to lose out to the EU and other trading blocks. In short, our economy demands such trade.

"Giving up our soveereignty to other powers" should be reworded as " slowly giving up our concept of nationhood to one world government."

Yes, I agree. But from an economic perspective, we are becoming one global marketplace whether we like it or not. How long before the political distinctions are lost is anyone's guess. But yes, it will happen.

If all the time, money, and energy spent on fighting these trade agreements were spent on eliminating the above, we would be more than competitive with the "slave labor" wages.

I tend to agree in general, but as has been pointed out earlier, these agreements do contain other more political agenda items which do cause some of the concerns. But yes, in fact from a wage perspective, we are pricing ourselves out of the world marketplace. I don't see any backing off of that.

But yes, in fact from a wage perspective, we are pricing ourselves out of the world marketplace.

I would say from a cost perspective rather than a wage perspective. As you know, wages are just a part of total costs of goods.

I submit that union work rules cost us more than union wages; that the threat and costs of lawsuits affect our manufactrurers, distributors, and resellers quite a bit increasing their costs, as well as the loss of risk taking and entreprenuership which give us new, cheaper products; that unnecessary regulations are a big impediment to our economic competitiveness; that high and misapplied taxes are a detriment to business; government subsidies distort the market and raise costs, tariffs on imports to protect special interests like coffe and sugar distort the market and trade; government involvement in hiring and firing practices distort business decisions; the costs of health care and other benefits are greatly increased by government polocies; and on and on.

Wages are the least of these concerns in our business costs and competitiveness.

Thanks. Yes. Interesting to finally hear from the Republican Wing of the Republican Party. 'Bout time. And we just learned today that Minnesota's First District Congressman, Gil Gutnecht (R-MN CD1) has decided he's against CAFTA after all he has heard. Had enough of the slippery slope of losing our sovereignty...and abdicating Congressional authority and U.S. jurisdiction. The global provisions in CAFTA that 'umbrella' outwards to suck in all other trade agreement disputants, WTO, NAFTA, etc. are scaring any real conservative that looks at them.

The next guys here who likely will have to do a 180 are Mark Kennedy and John Kline. They are generally solid conservatives, but may have gotten roped into agreeing to really bad promises to the White House to support this turkey.

Time to put the Constitution before politics. If that burns bridges, so be it. The Base will remember...and defend any real patriots. And they will also remember who sold them out for political candy...

We have the choice to accept their rulings or not to

Our Congress and president has given them the power to harm us economically if we do not kowtow.

A sovereign nation making descisions in the best interest of its people doesn't do things like that.

If we were a sovereign nation they would have absolutely NO POWER TO LEVY FINES or any other kind of punitive action against us!

I submit that union work rules cost us more than union wages; that the threat and costs of lawsuits affect our manufactrurers, distributors, and resellers quite a bit increasing their costs, as well as the loss of risk taking and entreprenuership which give us new, cheaper products; that unnecessary regulations are a big impediment to our economic competitiveness; that high and misapplied taxes are a detriment to business; government subsidies distort the market and raise costs, tariffs on imports to protect special interests like coffe and sugar distort the market and trade; government involvement in hiring and firing practices distort business decisions; the costs of health care and other benefits are greatly increased by government polocies; and on and on. Wages are the least of these concerns in our business costs and competitiveness.

Disagree. Yes, there are many costs that go into a manufactured package, but by far the costs of salaries and wages together with the associated life, health and retirement packages make up the lion's share of costs. And with unions, the costs of health care and other benefits are greatly increased by the bargaining process, not governmental policies. Generally, the only place the government gets involved there is social security, 1/2 of which comes out of wages, and the funding for retirement plans. The government now requires that pension plans are actually funded rather than the creation of a debt note in the financials.

Lawsuits are problematic, but unless you are big tobacco, nothing like wages. Take a look at any annual report and look at the cost of sales, most of which is cost of goods manufactured. It can range from 1/2 to 80 percent of sales.

Again, I don't really care one way or the other, nor am I making value judgements about unions. They exist, and they drive up costs significantly. This includes union workrules which I consider part of salaries and wages.

If we were a sovereign nation they would have absolutely NO POWER TO LEVY FINES or any other kind of punitive action against us!

Sure they would. Other nations charge tariffs on our goods all the time. Some even ban some of our products from their countries. Tariffs are no different than fines.

What are they going to do if we don't pay the fine? The worse they could do is put us back to where we were before any agreement.

You say you disagree but then you lump the cost of bennies, SS, and work rules with wages to get a total hourly burden. That is what I was saying, wages are just a small part of costs. There are many hidden costs that don't fit under "labor" on a spreadsheet.

Just a few small examples of hidden costs that come to mind are the outlawing of DDT and asbestos. Each of those are unnecessary government actions which increase the costs of American goods. Each requires that more expensive and less effective products be used in their stead. That raises the cost of goods sold.

With asbestos, sometime inert and harmless asbestos that is already in place in older buildings must be taken out and replaced. That costs money and the money must be recouped either in taxes or the price of goods.

The costly and time consuming process of getting new drugs and medical devices through to FDA approval raises the cost of medical care. That raises medical cost and must be recovered somewhere.

Medical care started rising sharply after approval of Medicare in 1965 and soon insurance rates started climbing to cover them. That raises the costs of employer provided health coverage and must be recovered in the costs of goods and services.

The Americans with Disabilities Act required costly and unnecessary modifications to parking places, entrance ramps, doorways, restrooms, and the workspace, even for companies who had no disabled workers nor customers or clients who entered the building. That cost has to be recovered in the cost of goods and services.

Many companies face frequent lawsuits that have no merit and pay settlements to avoid the lengthy and costly litigation. Those suits range from product liability, slipping in the parking lot, employee discrimination, employee disability, as well as product liability. That is not just with the "monsters" like big tobacco, it is with every kind of company.

Ask Jesse Jackson. He makes millions a year in just threatening discrimination suits. A company that is sued can be required to turn over almost every piece of paper ever produced internally just to comply with the plaintiffs discovery process. That is how Jackson hit Texaco for a big jackpot. Some employee had written a memo to another that had a hint of racial overtone and the whole company was branded as a result, saying it was corporate culture.

Another area is the government regulations dealing with employees, what an employer can and cannot do. That plus the threat of lawsuits gives rise to corporate policies that are counter productive and injurious to productivity. Employees are uncomfortable not knowing what they can say and do with each other. Many exploit that. Regardless, it is not condusive to high productivity.

Along that line there is another aspect of unions that kill our industries. Not only do the unions control the hiring and firing process, they have basically eliminated the firing process, they also say who can and cannot be promoted. The employer cannot choose the best person for a job, he must take the one with the most union seniority. That is not competitive.

Those are just a few of the things that increase our costs of providing goods and services but not nearly all.

I rest my case for awhile but I am willing to go on.Oh yes, some employees spend the bulk of their workday on FreeRepublic rather than working. That harms our productivity. :-)

You say you disagree but then you lump the cost of bennies, SS, and work rules with wages to get a total hourly burden. That is what I was saying, wages are just a small part of costs. There are many hidden costs that don't fit under "labor" on a spreadsheet.

Yes, the total wage package is what one must look to. But that is a union dictated package and that is the largest piece of the pie by far. They have created a nice standard of living for their members but have pretty much priced themselves out of the world market.

As for the other items, I can't disagree. It all adds up in the long run, some more than others depending on the industry. Not surprisingly, Europe has many of the same government rules and unfunded mandates. But with the substantial cost of labor packages in the US, it's not surprising to find companies relocating their services and even manufacturing to much less costly areas.

I rest my case for awhile but I am willing to go on.Oh yes, some employees spend the bulk of their workday on FreeRepublic rather than working. That harms our productivity. :-)

Yes, I've heard some stats showing as high as 40% internet use during business hours. But I'm sure the unions would not permit that from their members...Take care.

When trade was unilateral, it was nation to nation. Because the WTO makes trade multilateral, it is one nation, us, against many.

If we don't pay the fines, which are not tariffs btw, they can conduct a multilateral campaign against us. It puts US citizens in a very bad position, whether you say we have to pay the fines or not. It only makes ammunition for the other nations of the world and it doesn't have to be that way. But you see the internationalists who put America in that position, like it, because we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

Why would a loyal government put their nation into that situtation?

It depends on to whom they are loyal.

bttt