Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Reading an article about the polarization of the Democrat party. Very alarming article of how the Democrats want Hillary to be elected. However, key Democrat leader in the article went on about a few thing's regarding the Democrats switch to being more centered. They feel they been pushing Clinton away to the right and again bring the party back to the Center. Goes on about a 70 page document of Democrats party plan's against Bernie Sanders.
The article pulled a few things out one was income equality. They compared how Bernie views income equality unbalanced unfair for the Middle Class. Democrat's blame it on the globalization of the economy that effects the Middle Class.
Two questions how does a globalized economy effect the Middle Class?
First off the Democrats aren't telling the whole truth here. Globalization is a plank in the Progressive party. It's what they want, complete globalization with open borders. There are Progressives in both parties but the majority of them or in the Democrat party so they are in essence blaming themselves and their policies, but aren't exactly coming forth and saying that. To answer your question, globalization hurts the middle class because of all the jobs leaving to 3rd world countries or countries with better tax policies. It also drives wages down by importing foreigners and illegals.
The elite are implementing an Islamic neo-feudal society, where they are the Lords and most everyone else is a serf. They like Islam because it has no concept of free will, and its adherents accept dictatorship.
Only the women will suffer, but hey, when you're Lord, that's a perk.
I can't think of a simpler example of basic macro economics. Capital (companies/producers) will generally move to areas were the cost of production is lower in order to maximize profits. When capital leaves one area it reduces the demand for labor in that area. The lower the demand for labor the lower price that labor can demand.
The globalization of the economy was inevitable and irrevocable, as developing nations converted national resource revenues into education and infrastructure giving the ability to compete with developing countries at all levels of production. As a result those jobs that paid high wages for skilled workers (see middle class) moved to where skilled workers could be had for less.
We saw this first in the US as southern states placed barriers to unionization, increased the skill levels of their work force and provide tax incentives to leave northern manufacturing states or in turn to see the same process take place in underdeveloped countries.
If there is any solace to be had, as wages increase in underdeveloped countries and wages reach some level of equilibrium jobs will eventual flow back to the U.S.
Wouldn't it improve if offered tax breaks to companies in the US, higher tariffs on imported goods, increase research/science job's in the US, and promote agriculture growth in the US. Wouldn't that balance the Middle Class out.
Wouldn't it improve if offered tax breaks to companies in the US, higher tariffs on imported goods, increase research/science job's in the US, and promote agriculture growth in the US. Wouldn't that balance the Middle Class out.
This is anti-free trade and will not be tolerated.
Seriously, it would help but that ship sailed long time ago. This needed to be done back in the 70s. Now we're looking at robotization becoming a bigger problem - a peasant in Vietnam may put in 14 hours of work a day 6 days a week for $300 a month, but a robot could do the same work 24x7x365 equally cheaply and with far better quality. And no demands, no strikes, no suicides, no grieving families. From the business perspective a robot is the ultimate cheap labor. It has been happening since the 80s - in some industries more jobs were lost to robots / automation than to outsourcing, automotive industry is a great example of this. But until recently the robots were fairly expensive and needed a lot of setup time by highly paid professionals. Now they are quietly getting cheaper and cheaper and the robot teaching process gets simpler and simpler.
Wouldn't it improve if offered tax breaks to companies in the US, higher tariffs on imported goods, increase research/science job's in the US, and promote agriculture growth in the US. Wouldn't that balance the Middle Class out.
You would think and I would also agree, but the ruling class doesn't want it that way or they would have done it already. They are only interested in maintaining their power, control and riches.
Any candiates anti free trade running? I mean if we could promote more domestic growth and might sound cliche similiar to Walmart policy if can find a better deal will match it, have competitive taxes to entice corporations to stay in the US. Offer tax breaks for companies with X amount of employee's with a degree, for promoting a better environmental impact, benefiting the state/community.
Any candiates anti free trade running? I mean if we could promote more domestic growth and might sound cliche similiar to Walmart policy if can find a better deal will match it, have competitive taxes to entice corporations to stay in the US. Offer tax breaks for companies with X amount of employee's with a degree, for promoting a better environmental impact, benefiting the state/community.
All makes sense to us but not the ruling class. When you finally realize why that is you will have your answer to your questions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.