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

Skip to comments.

America will continue to bleed jobs

Posted on 02/01/2003 11:27:51 PM PST by FightingForFreedom

Wages will not equalize between U.S. and foreign countries for a very long time, if ever. The problem is supply differences. The 100 million or so American workers are vastly outnumbered by the potential number of Chinese, Indian, and other developing nation's manufacturing and knowledge workers. The standard of living differential is also too great. The balancing act for U.S. and multi-national businesses that are outsourcing our jobs is to make sure they don't kill the golden goose (the American consumer) before they've generated an even bigger goose to take to slaughter in China, India, and other targeted markets. Remember, producing cheaply means nothing if there's nobody to buy the products. And no one has been as well-trained as the American consumer to buy, buy, buy, no matter how much in debt one becomes! As a software engineer, I've seen this problem coming for at least 5 years now, but it was well masked by the artificial high-tech bubble through March 2000. I'm not sure that there is an answer at this point -- the genie is out of the bag, so to speak. Once one company in an industry has convinced the govt to open a market in one undesirable country or other, all other companies with which it competes are forced to do the same. Bottling up the genie is notoriously difficult.


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Business/Economy; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-240 next last
To: DBtoo
Well you'd be stupid to do such a thing, now wouldn't you?

Provided I were given the choice, yes I would, which is exactly what I'm saying. I'm better off buying goods I actually want at lower prices as opposed to higher ones. The whole country is better off when I am forced to constantly reevaluate the value of my work to the public. Only a free market can do that, not tariffs, quotas, gov't job programs, tax-credits, or well intentioned and naive politicians.

151 posted on 02/02/2003 8:42:01 AM PST by 1tin_soldier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: DBtoo
But they also had more time for each other so it's a trade-off.

Yes. In fact just last century it wasn't uncommon for a man and his sons to spend 14 hours a day working the fields. Oh, how I yearn for the good ol' days.

152 posted on 02/02/2003 8:47:55 AM PST by 1tin_soldier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Torie
The screed is close to incoherent, and has almost no nexus to anything to do with economic reality or theory. It has echoes of a dead German philosopher who wrote books in England of massive malignant influence that have since been totally discredited.

There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible.

-- Henry Ford

"I believe in the dignity of labor, whether with head or hand; that the world owes no man a living but that it owes every man an opportunity to make a living."

-- John D. Rockefeller

"The high wage begins down in the shop. If it is not created there it cannot get into pay envelopes. There will never be a system invented which will do away with the necessity for work."

-- Henry Ford


153 posted on 02/02/2003 8:49:31 AM PST by Willie Green (Go Pat Go!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Black Birch
"People still do support a family on McDonalds wages. They may have to work a second job and have the spouse work as well, but they do survive to work another day."

Touching Future....

154 posted on 02/02/2003 8:58:52 AM PST by Afronaut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: 1tin_soldier
"And yet remain blissfully ignorant as to it's cause"

Hey Big Mouth! What do you do for a living...BTW?

These are real people with real families and with hopes a dreams. I can wait to see how you put bread on the table.

155 posted on 02/02/2003 9:02:37 AM PST by Afronaut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: CasearianDaoist
"Real dollars" means inflation is factored in, and as I said, the CPI overstates inflation, particularly prior to the index being revised sometime in the late 1990's, so in real terms the rise in median incomes has been greater than that depicted in the chart. They have probably risen close to 50% in real terms since 1967.
156 posted on 02/02/2003 9:12:00 AM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: All
Your analysis regarding the 40k wage earner ignores this fact: That when a 3k foreign worker is paid that 3k, national wealth is diminished by 3k. The economic health of the united states is not determined by how cheaply a given individual can purchase goods and services. Rather, it's determined by GDP - and as a result, by the amount of wealth that remains within our borders to fuel GDP growth.

Regarding the slow crawl upward of median household income; all you have to do is compare the cost of automobiles, housing, utilities, and food to what it was in the 60s to realize that standard of living has actually taken a rather serious nosedive (and I'm deliberately excluding the effects of space-program derived technologies when I say this to paint a picture that is strictly fiscal).

The history of foreign trade in the modern era has been pretty repetitive: American companies try and sell goods to foreign nations. Foreign nations use subsidies, cheap labor, and governmental regulation compete to counterattack. US companies lose market share. US Companies move production overseas to compete more effectively. American citizens lose jobs. This is not the blueprint for a healthy economy, and it's time that the United States dropped it's delusions of world hegemony and did much, much more than it does now for its own citizens.

You won't see this happen though. Why? High taxes, foreign aid, and big bureaucracies are a keystone of neoconservative policy (think big-government Republicans, of which GW Bush is one). For this strategy to work, people must be able to sacrifice larger percentages of their incomes to government and for that to happen, the other things you buy must be available for relatively less money, or through credit over ever increasing periods of time.

Cheap Chinese imports, and the increasing use of consumer debt testify to these truths.
157 posted on 02/02/2003 9:12:48 AM PST by applemac_g4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: eno_
A successful protected market: America for the first 150 years or so of it's history. The EU today. China today. All of you who are pointing out how quickly China is modernizing and how wealthy they are becoming as a nation - keep in mind that their attitude towards free trade is strictly a one way street that involves importing US dollars in exchange for slave-labor exports.

The same thing held true for Japan during its two decades of success.
158 posted on 02/02/2003 9:26:34 AM PST by applemac_g4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Myrddin
If you live in a town with good infrastructure, relatively cheap housing, and available skilled and disciplined workers, new companies will move in because your town now has a competitive advantage. I notice that you live in Idaho, which is in general a sought after place to live. Your town near Pocatello will snap back soon.
159 posted on 02/02/2003 9:26:54 AM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: applemac_g4
You had better hope that China and India are getting more productive rapidly, or Gen Xer's and the younger Boomers are going to have to defer retirement. Someone is going to have to produce the goods when about a third of Americans and particularly Europeans, are retirement age. Jeremy Siegel just wrote an article on it. If you are interested, I will post a link.
160 posted on 02/02/2003 9:30:12 AM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: 1tin_soldier
"What do the protectionists have in mind?"

How about something very simple to start with. We are a nation that has a multi trillion dollar trade deficit on our hands. So, start out with a very simple step: impose a 10% import tarriff on all goods manufactured overseas (Canada gets a free pass) when they come into the United States. Reduce federal income tax rates 10% in each and every bracket.

Such a policy would cause an economic revival in the United States unlike anything we've ever seen by transferring the burden of funding our government away from our citizens while simultaneously giving them all significantly more disposable income.
161 posted on 02/02/2003 9:34:56 AM PST by applemac_g4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: DBtoo
So I guess the response is the wholesale prevention of the rest of the planet from industrialization? People everywhere wants to have a better living for themselves, that is the point of a capitalistic system. Its great when we are exploiting our advantages (E.G after WWII when the entire planet's industrial infrastructure was in shambles), but its not so great when others have a competitive advantage, in this case, lowered cost of production. So I guess America should have full access to European and Asian markets right after WWII, but the rest of the World should be restricted to the American Market now?
162 posted on 02/02/2003 9:56:34 AM PST by NP-INCOMPLETE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Black Birch
"People still do support a family on McDonalds wages. They may have to work a second job and have the spouse work as well, but they do survive to work another day. When I go to a fast food joint, I don't get the impression that the employees don't want to be there or have major attitude problems."

You are nuts. Have you made a household budget? Do you live with your parents still? Are you in high school? This post is exhibit A, in "Why FR is not really worth reading anymore."

FYI I have been in a few fast food places and there are MAJOR attitude problems there which is why people are avoiding them and they are losing money.

163 posted on 02/02/2003 9:59:29 AM PST by Dialup Llama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Afronaut
Touching Future....

Sorry to be so blunt.

164 posted on 02/02/2003 9:59:54 AM PST by EVO X
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: 1tin_soldier
>Provided I were given the choice, yes I would, which is exactly what I'm saying. I'm better off buying goods I actually want at lower prices as opposed to higher ones.

The goods you are buying are not the same. I have been having trouble buying good clothes and shoes. Most casual clothes are made very cheaply- Abercombie & Fitch style yet cost nearly the same as real clothes. I still have a pair of black dress shoes that I bought for $80 abt 20 years ago. Recently I bought some shoes that I felt were of equivalent quality. They were made in Holland and cost $200. Yes you can buy leather shoes for $80 still but they are unwearable. Some people can't tell differences in quality. But for those who know, what is being made in China is not the same as your typical US made shoe of 20 years ago.

165 posted on 02/02/2003 10:04:23 AM PST by Dialup Llama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: 1tin_soldier
The true cost of obtaining cheap labor overseas and leaving Americans jobless (which of course is now all Bush's fault in the media) will be shown when the people cannot pay the high mortgages they contracted for in the good times, the whole economy will crash then, and America will be in deep trouble. Our position as the superpower of the world is in deep jeopardy. We won't even be able to buy Chinese shoes.
166 posted on 02/02/2003 10:05:27 AM PST by tinamina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: FightingForFreedom
This article is evidence that we are in a deflationary process even as most commentators think we are turning the corner. (BTW during the Great Depression, no one said, "Hey we're in the Great Depression." They wrote articles on how things were going to pick up next year etc...)
167 posted on 02/02/2003 10:08:34 AM PST by Dialup Llama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1tin_soldier
Only a free market can do that, not tariffs, quotas, gov't job programs, tax-credits, or well intentioned and naive politicians.

Then why is it taking very costly government programs to support the "NAFTA displaced workers"? You know they keep extending that original 18 months they were provided free education, computers, living expenses, etc? Who is paying for them? What's the point of having cheaper prices if we have to have higher taxes to support all the welfare and unemployed?

168 posted on 02/02/2003 10:10:26 AM PST by FITZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Torie
And then we have this table of median family income (that is median, not mean, which means that half are above the number, and half below), in real dollars, and that is with the CPI overstating what is the real inflation rate. Do facts matter at all anymore?

Thanks for posting this; it is informative. I did notice that it was computed in constant (2001) dollars which helps for a meaningful comparison. I do have some questions though: (1) In 1967 did most households have one wage-earner, progressing to multiple wage earners in later years? (2) How many hours are worked in a typical year by each wage earner?

I don't know the answers beforehand, only pointing out that it is plausible that the rise in household income is simply due to more people working more hours, not due to productivity gains per se. On the other hand, most any product you might name (autos, computers, health care) has vastly increased in quality during that same period, making a meaningful comparison difficult.
169 posted on 02/02/2003 10:12:41 AM PST by NukeMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Torie
bOOKMARKED FOR AWE
170 posted on 02/02/2003 10:16:11 AM PST by Happy2BMe (It's All About You - It's All About Me - It's All About Being Free!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FITZ
Then why is it taking very costly government programs to support the "NAFTA displaced workers"?

Because we don't have the guts to tell former Lucent unionized factory workers that making telephone switches based on 25 year old designs at $30/hr. only works in cloud-cookoo land?

171 posted on 02/02/2003 10:18:11 AM PST by eno_
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: applemac_g4
>Your analysis regarding the 40k wage earner ignores this fact: That when a 3k foreign worker is paid that 3k, national wealth is diminished by 3k

I think alot of these relative wage analyses are faulty. They compare the Silicon Valley programmer with what the Indian programmer is paid. This is not the best basis of comparison.

Compare a programmer in the US Midwest (much cheaper) with what the Indian service bureau charges (not what the programmer is paid). I bet the advantage is near 2:1 or 4:1, not 10:1. Also take into account that remote programming IS more costly and frequently has quality control problems.

If the Philipine or India programmer increases their wages at all (which they will... They will get parity with European programmers soon I'm sure), the cost advantage will not persist.

172 posted on 02/02/2003 10:24:06 AM PST by Dialup Llama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: wku man
Where have you been? Ask anyone working in IT or networking where the jobs are going. First it was just berry-picking and hotel room cleaning, then it was construction and blue-collar labor. Now the foreigners don't even have to break into our country to take our jobs away.

I am a fellow victim. I got downsized in electronics the last go around. I am now in IT. There is plenty of work out there to do. I answered an add in the paper last fall after particpating in another doom and gloom HIB FR post. I got an interview on the first ad I saw and probably would have been offered the job if I had really wanted it, but it would have lateral job transfer. The search commitee did say competition for postition was extremely competitive.

173 posted on 02/02/2003 10:36:58 AM PST by EVO X
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: Dialup Llama
I have been having trouble buying good clothes and shoes. Most casual clothes are made very cheaply- Abercombie & Fitch style yet cost nearly the same as real clothes. I still have a pair of black dress shoes that I bought for $80 abt 20 years ago. Recently I bought some shoes that I felt were of equivalent quality. They were made in Holland and cost $200. Yes you can buy leather shoes for $80 still but they are unwearable. Some people can't tell differences in quality. But for those who know, what is being made in China is not the same as your typical US made shoe of 20 years ago.

That's what a free market and consumer choice is all about. Especially with the Internet, we have an entire world of options at our fingertips.

I used to buy $250 handmade shoes from Russell Mocassin Company in Wisconsin, shipped to California. They were excellent shoes, but I'd wear down the heels and soles after 6-12 months and have to pay $20 each time to get them repaired locally. Now I buy $20 shoes from Payless Shoe Store. They look fine and fit fine. Even though they completely wear out after 6-12 months, I just buy a new pair of shoes; it's cheaper and easier. I have no idea where in the world the Payless shoes are manufactured, and I could care less. I'm the consumer, and it's up to shoe manufacturers to meet my specific needs in order to earn my money, or I'll simply find a different producer.

174 posted on 02/02/2003 10:55:20 AM PST by dpwiener
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Dialup Llama
You are nuts. Have you made a household budget? Do you live with your parents still? Are you in high school? This post is exhibit A, in "Why FR is not really worth reading anymore."

No, No, No, and No.

FYI I have been in a few fast food places and there are MAJOR attitude problems there which is why people are avoiding them and they are losing money.

I avoid ones that provide lack of service and a clean environment, but the whole industry isn't plagued with bad service and bad attitudes. Burger King and McDonalds have some tired worn out stores.

175 posted on 02/02/2003 10:56:31 AM PST by EVO X
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Glenn
This is not your grandfather's China. This is a China hell-bent on becoming the premier economic force in the world. I wouldn't bet against them over a 5 decade timeline.

Two or three decades ago people were saying exactly the same thing about Japan. They were writing books about how Japan would soon overtake the U.S. and become the economic superpower of the 21st century. They were saying that the U.S. had no chance to keep up unless we changed our business and social culture to match "Japan Incorporated".

Well, Japan's government subsidies and directed investments and guaranteed life-time jobs and propped-up banking system and real estate bubble eventually took their toll. Our relatively-freer society, in which great failure as well as great success is possible, has left Japan in the dust. Japan is still a highly developed nation with good prospects ahead of it, but it's not about to overtake the U.S.

China is the same. It has made huge strides as its leaders have freed up its economy, but that's mostly because it started from disastrous communist-created level. It still has a long way to go, especially when it comes to individual freedom and initiative and a stable legal system that protects contracts and property rights and which financially rewards success.

If the U.S. continues to add regulations and governmental restrictions and taxes, and if we insulate ourselves from trade with the rest of the world, and if China ultimately turns into a free society, then perhaps it will become the premier economic force fity years from now.

But if we repeal taxes and rules and red tape, and tear down barriers to free trade, we'll just keep lengthening our lead. The entire world will be richer as a result, but we'll be richest of all.

I don't fear that kind of a future.

176 posted on 02/02/2003 11:17:42 AM PST by dpwiener
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: NukeMan
Your questions are all excellent and intelligent and pertinent, and thus you set me off on a hour research project to get the poop. Few posters generate such activity in me, so kudos.

It appears that between 1970 and 2000 the median per capita income of men was stagnant (again using that inflated CPI number), while for woman it close to doubled. So that suggests that woman have become more productive and are working longer. However, the percentage of over 20 adults working full time of the total work force only increased by from about 57% to 63%. So it appears that the main change on a median basis is that woman working full time are making a lot more for each hour that they work. That is hardly surprising. There are all those female lawyers and doctors out there now. It should also be noted that the average household size has decreased since 1970 from about 3 per household to 2.5. So there is more median household income to go around per person.

Overall, I suspect these factors are a wash, and families at the median correcting for woman working longer hours (I don't think men are), on a per household member basis are about 50% better off than they were 30 years ago, as I said before after reverting to a more accurate CPI figure as a deflator.

Of course, the big, big change is that the top third earners are massively better off. and the bottom third only marginally better off. That is why I insisted on using median numbers. Using mean numbers would give an excessively rosy picture as to the economic status over time of the average American.

I hope that helps.

177 posted on 02/02/2003 11:25:19 AM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Bella_Bru
I agree that today's consumer has significantly more possessions than 50-60 years ago. Some of that is due to the power of television advertising, convincing people to want well in excess of their needs. Some are purchases that have brought true utility to consumers.

However, there is a significant difference vs. 50-60 years ago. Almost no one bought on credit then, today the average consumer is deeply in debt and digging themselves deeper every day. In addition,many people are buying these goods with other people's money, coerced out by an income redistribution tax scheme. Today over 50% of people receive more in government benefits/subsidies/tax rebates of various sorts than they pay in taxes - believe it or not this is true. Part of this is clearly Marxism at work in our government. But pressure for this redistribution increases due to job exportation in so many categories of jobs. Those who still maintain good incomes because their jobs have not yet been exported are increasingly subsidizing those who do not.
Standards of living based on high debt and transfer payments from one income group to another, are not sustainable in the long term and looking at an income chart is overly simplistic because it does not reflect cost burdens such as taxes placed upon that income.
178 posted on 02/02/2003 12:09:58 PM PST by trueconservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: trueconservative
Since 1950 the total tax burden has increased from about 25% to 30%, and that increase is entirely driven by the states and localities. And that increase is mostly paid for by the top 20% of earners, who on and after tax basis are just exponentially richer than they were in 1950.
179 posted on 02/02/2003 12:19:14 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: dpwiener
I think you are unrealistically optimistic to think we will reduce taxes and rules and red tape. These are growing exponentially, not declining. If you look at Thomas' Register list of all federal laws, Reagan cut it in half, the only time in history it has ever declined, and we are already well ahead of where he started cutting in terms of rules and regulations. The government is on a spending spree in many places, including assulting private property rights through its land buying schemes. The respect for private property of all kinds in our country is on the decine, rules, regulations and market distorting subsidies are on the rise.

We are increasingly a socialist, not a capitalist nation. In every respect, a large, overly invasive government is killing individual self-determination and self-reliance. A government-reliant population cries out for more subsidies and the downward cycle continues. To a large degree I agree with you, it isn't the success of other countries to fear, but the recipe for disaster we are writing at home. The antidote to that recipe is not merely free markets abroad, but a return to constitutional freedoms and individual self-responsibility at home.
180 posted on 02/02/2003 12:43:45 PM PST by trueconservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Windsong
Hmmm...made two article posts and no comments. Yes, a spammer.
181 posted on 02/02/2003 1:04:30 PM PST by Bella_Bru
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: ETERNAL WARMING
There are good reasons why our founders rejected the concept of Free Trade. It was proposed by Thomas Jefferson, and rejected by the rest. They didn't want to create a servant class. They didn't want elites. They wanted everyone to make a living.

I started this thread with a simple posting last night -- my first on FR. My apologies to FR -- I actually thought I was just posting a reply to another article -- didn't understand how the forums were organized. Imagine my surprise when I woke up today to find all the replies here.

Contrary to the claims of some of the less "tolerant" postings, I am the furthest thing from a Marxist I can imagine. I am not anti-trade, nor for overall protectionism.

I am for a return to our consitutional principals, for free markets, low taxes, elimination of progressive taxes, if not all income taxes, and large-scale deregulation.

While I generally favor free markets, it seems they are causing the very problem the founders envisioned. I do not believe in blindly holding fast to a belief while ignoring the consequences of an action is positive. The rapid lowering of trade barriers with virtually every low wage country has consequences. I posted the message because I fear that we as a nation are entering an era of severe economic and social problems caused in large part by the wholesale movement of our top-paying jobs to super-low wage countries. Here's the problem as I see it.

We've already seen the loss of a large segment of our manufacturing jobs. Fine, say the free traders. The rest of us get identical products for much less money. True. And look at the bright side. We have thousands of former manufacturing workers to greet us at WalMart.

According to the Business Week article (about jobs moving overseas) posted here and other places, the next to go are our IP (intellectual property) jobs, such as software, biotech, engineering and artistic design, etc. IMO, it actually would be easier to keep manufacturing jobs in the U.S., within the context of a complete free trade world, than it is to keep IP development jobs here. The reason is that the labor portion of many manuf jobs are a very small component of the total product cost, overshadowed by such things as legal liability, and compliance with environmental and other regulations. So, if we eliminated these "problems" by relaxing our own regulations (but who wants dirty air and water), or forced similar regulations on our competitors with $2 a day wages (through the WTO, presumably) we might actually be able to keep some manufacturing in our country.

But, what about intellectual property development? Software, hardware design, biotech, and even legal research -- yeah, the lawyers are not home free either. Just wait until the large law firms start training large legal staffs in India to do their non-courtroom research work at $6K a year instead of $120K.

IP development takes hands, or rather, brains-on labor. It can be sped up by design or development tools, but in essence - it's one brain against another in the world of open competition. If I can buy a brain in China for $10 a day or in India for $40 a day, how can an American compete? I don't think many Americans would be happy making $40, or even $80 per day, assuming we can be 2X as productive, or work 16 hour days.

Consider this. What happens once all the IP devel jobs are shipped out of the U.S., the next generation of students will not study those fields because there's no job potential. How, then, is America to maintain it's lead in technology development? Will we even stay in the game? Consider me a neanderthal, but I don't believe that the concept of the nation-state is dead.

I don't have an answer to these trends and perceived problems. Wholesale protectionism is not the answer. That would simply tank our economy. But, look forward to a giant backlash as more IP workers are displaced from their $60K and up jobs, with nowhere to go but Walmart. My best guess at an answer to this is for the U.S. to create a two-tiered trading system. I have no problem with complete and open trade with other countries with similar standards of living, environmental regulations, and salary levels. That might even force a reduction in business-killing regulations, as we attempt to compete with those countries.

That's all.

182 posted on 02/02/2003 2:10:31 PM PST by FightingForFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: 1tin_soldier
On the other side of the equation, some less identifiable yet just as real person or segment of our population is 37k/yr better off.

The error you make is that you say it is some segment of our population that is better off. That is not necessarily true. I give 2 (extreme) examples.

(1) Assume that an ultra rich guy owns a company outright. He employs 1000 employees. He moves all their jobs offshore. They are all laid off. The government pays them unemployment. His company does not make products used by American consumers. Who benefits? (a) The foreigners who now have jobs, the rich guy, and the foreign purchasers of the goods. Who loses? (b) The former American employees and the taxpayers. In this example, the "segment" (in the American economy) better off is the one rich guy. Who sits might or might not inject that money into the American economy. If not, that money "disappears" from the perspective of the (American) economy overall.

So you say, but wait. My example cheated. 1st, it is unlikely that some "rich guy" is the owner. And 2nd, I stated that products made are not used by American consumers (in the example). True, today most corporations are "owned" by mutual funds. And if the goods were consumed by American consumers, then those consumers would potentially be better off.

(2) Assume that an ultra rich guy a mutual fund owns a company outright. The company employs 1000 employees. He The CEO moves all their jobs offshore. They are all laid off. The government pays them unemployment. His company does not make products used by American consumers. Who benefits? (a) The CEO, the stockholders, the foreign employees, and the consumers. Who loses? The laid off employees and the taxpayers.

However. This assumes two things. 1st, that those other consumers are not losing their jobs. If they are, they may stop buying even if the price of the products fall. If too many companies pursue this strategy, then that scenario occurs and the economy tailspins into a depression. 2nd, that the laid off employees can find work without displacing other Americans. Problem is if the 40K/year person takes a job for 30K at employer B, which enables employer B to lay off a 35K/yr employee. That employee gets a job at 25K/year at employer C, which then lays off a 30K/year employee. And so on. This kind of game can go round and round, where in aggregate the American consumers overall start to earn less and less (because they keep getting laid off and take jobs at lower salaries.) This means they have less to spend. At that point, see the 1st problem.

183 posted on 02/02/2003 2:50:06 PM PST by dark_lord
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: FightingForFreedom
How, then, is America to maintain it's lead in technology development?

That is exactly the goal of the globalists. Bring down America to bring us into the New World Order. The terms "balance of power", and "equal partners" are buzzphrases that have been used in the past to describe this.

Consider me a neanderthal, but I don't believe that the concept of the nation-state is dead.

No, but your leaders (of both political parties) do.

184 posted on 02/02/2003 2:54:59 PM PST by Mulder (Guns and chicks rule)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: 1tin_soldier
A person doesn't have to be an Alan Greenspan to see the general decline going on in this country. And believe me, I know EXACTLY why all this is happening.

You just need to excuse some of us who still care about what happens to this country. We do have the right to think the way we do, even if you do not agree.

185 posted on 02/02/2003 5:23:55 PM PST by DBtoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: 1tin_soldier
Not everyone worked with mules 14 hours a day.

After WW2, men with high school degrees were able to get jobs to support a wife and children. Not so anymore. And along with both parents having to work, the 2 parent family is becoming a thing of the past, and a society can't stay healthy that way.

186 posted on 02/02/2003 5:30:11 PM PST by DBtoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: trueconservative
Your post #180 is right on the mark!! Well said.
187 posted on 02/02/2003 6:09:56 PM PST by DBtoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: DBtoo
You aren't an expert on the old USSSR either. *sigh*

About forty years ago,rubber spatulas were discontinued. I despaired. Thankfully, they're back again. Shoddy merchandize has been sold, in the USA, since before we were even a nation. Two working parents, are more the norm, now, than they were before, for two reasons : 1) taxation 2) and this one is the more relivant reason, people want ( not need ) far more than they ever have before.

Time was, that one didn't have to graduate from grammar school, to get a job, here, that would support a family. Through time and a more and more, ever advancing society, one needed a high school diploma, then one from college, now, graduate degrees are required for some of those same jobs. Lincoln never went to law school. Factory and mine workers, who supported families on those wages, did NOT have / demand to have what people today think it is ther " right " to want to have. Guess what ? Live within your means and you don't have to earn as much. It's all relative.

The news media ( and I am now talking about newspapers and then, also radio ) were as filled with propaganda, from the start, as they are today; if not more so.

You base your positions on almost NO facts at all. Don't do this. :-)

188 posted on 02/02/2003 9:40:16 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: DBtoo
No, dear. Bakellite was an early form of hard plastic.

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh !

189 posted on 02/02/2003 9:41:35 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: DBtoo
It's been happening for centuries. You just became aware of it. Please, I beg you, read more ; much more !
190 posted on 02/02/2003 9:42:48 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: DBtoo
There are far fewer tellers, than there used to.Yes, ther are still tellers, but banks have automated so many positions / done away with so many people, and you don't even know this.

Using credit cards doesn't mean that you have to have debt. Only morons, who have no business having / using credit cards in the first place, get into trouble.

191 posted on 02/02/2003 9:45:50 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: DBtoo
Torie is a very knowledgeable man. You should pay attention to him and others who know far more than you do.
192 posted on 02/02/2003 9:46:38 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Bella_Bru
Yes, to everything you said.

It's calamitous, that today, people think that they have some sort of " right " to having as much as they think they should, without really working for it. More, more, more, M-O-R-E ... and they think that they're " poor ", when they don't have way more than what used to be considered " normal "; even " rich ".

193 posted on 02/02/2003 9:50:10 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: DBtoo
Your relative bought you shoddy goods. What can I say ? Whoever did that, doesn't know what they're doing.

You CAN buy bed linnens on line and from catalogues. Cheap is dear. Buy expensivish stuff and it'll last you decades. If you need help finding what to buy and from where, ask me in FREEPmail.

There are lemons out there. That goes for clothes dryers, phones, and everything else. The ancient Romans had a good saying about this : BUYER BEWARE . Also, you usually get what you pay for, dear. :-)

194 posted on 02/02/2003 9:55:48 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: DBtoo
Nope, you're wrong again. People are MUCH " healthier " today, than they have ever been.

" KEEPING UP WITH THE JONESES " is a VERY old phrase, which predates the '80s, by many decades. Image has been important since the begining of time.

You REALLY need to read a very great deal more historical works about other eras.

195 posted on 02/02/2003 9:58:57 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Torie
You discount the effect of old boy politics, a labor force tuned for "blue collar" work and a propensity to tax everything in sight. My city council turned away the Budweiser bottling plant because it offended their LDS sensibilities. Pocatello is trying to levy a "runoff tax" to finance storm drains. Businesses are being hit based on the impervious surface area of the roof and parking lot. The old "gun factory" houses a bunch of "arts and crafts" vendors typical of a weekend swap meet. The building is not used for anything else. The levy is $95,000 against that structure. Needless to say, all the vendors folded up shop.
196 posted on 02/02/2003 9:59:20 PM PST by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: DBtoo
I never say " good night " ; this isn't a chat room. From the posts that 1tin_soldier and I made. it was patently obvious, that we were signing off. LOL

In all places and in all times, those who get laid off, think that the economy stinks, and those who weren't, don't complain as loudly. No one, least of all me, said that this economy is wonderful ; it isn't. Wake up, a HUGE " BUBBLE " burst, were were attacked on our soil, and a wartime economy is ALWAYS " bad ". This nation has lived through far worse economic times though.

197 posted on 02/02/2003 10:03:25 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: DBtoo
They had LESS time for each other, by and large and they worked longer hours and at physically harder tasks.
198 posted on 02/02/2003 10:04:43 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: DBtoo
I am NOT for open borders. I am even less happy about abject stupidity.
199 posted on 02/02/2003 10:09:47 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: trueconservative
To a large degree I agree with you, it isn't the success of other countries to fear, but the recipe for disaster we are writing at home. The antidote to that recipe is not merely free markets abroad, but a return to constitutional freedoms and individual self-responsibility at home.

No argument from me regarding your entire post (#180). My point is that we have to straighten out our problems at home, not seal ourselves off from the world. If other nations become freer and more capitalistic while we become more socialistic, they will indeed overtake us economically. If we can remain the freest and most entrepreneurial nation on earth, others won't be able to touch us. If everyone in the world becomes freer, everyone in the world will benefit enormously.

That needs to be our goal. We shouldn't fear open trade or other (low-wage) countries. We should instead embrace competition and liberty.

200 posted on 02/02/2003 10:11:21 PM PST by dpwiener
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-240 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