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.
I guess being a right to work state didn't help Indiana much.
Indiana became a right to work state in 2012. Gary Indiana was a vibrant workers' paradise in 2011 before this switch.
I am just glad that historically the "rust belt" has been the strongest union states.
Now that Michigan had it's right to work status take effect back in 2013, I am worried about the flourishing industrial towns of Flint and Detroit falling by the wayside.
nothing new- I've been griping about this for years and even posted the thousand of jobs sent OS for years rigth here on CD-- but keep voting for those candidates-- yea I posted who agrees for what - do your own search now-
It's not always the "greedy companies". Sometimes it's the greedy US Government.
Between the high taxes and mandated employee benefits along with penalties if not implemented it's no wonder companies are relocating to where they can produce goods that other countries can afford.
Why would any company with product with global appeal limit the itself to 5% of the global population when the world is their oyster?
60% of sales are off shore. 3/4 of employees make $55-70,000 a year, plus benefits and payroll taxes. Most of the jobs eliminated by offshoring to Mexico were union jobs, with associated negotiated benefits.
All the US has to do to compete with emerging economies is to maintain bilateral free trade agreements with the rest of the world, eliminate unions, retirement benefits, all wage and labor laws, SS and Medicare and OSHA and accept a substantially reduced standard of living
It's easier to blame it all on POTUS and believe the next POTUS will wave his magic wand and make it all better, no?
Why would any company with product with global appeal limit the itself to 5% of the global population when the world is their oyster?
60% of sales are off shore. 3/4 of employees make $55-70,000 a year, plus benefits and payroll taxes. Most of the jobs eliminated by offshoring to Mexico were union jobs, with associated negotiated benefits.
All the US has to do to compete with emerging economies is to maintain bilateral free trade agreements with the rest of the world, eliminate unions, retirement benefits, all wage and labor laws, SS and Medicare and OSHA and accept a substantially reduced standard of living
It's easier to blame it all on POTUS and believe the next POTUS will wave his magic wand and make it all better, no?
Why can't our tariffs and taxes on imports mirror those of our trading partners? Why does an american car cost twice as much to buy in Asia as it does here? Tariffs and taxes.
Obviously the biggest downside of NAFTA was the sucking sounds of our jobs going to Mexico, but what was the upside of NAFTA?
What does this situation have to do with NAFTA
Carrier has more than 80 manufacturing facilities around the world and maintains distribution channels in 172 countries. More than half their workforce has been offshore for decades.
The biggest upside of NAFTA was it opened a market for millions of toms of corn grown by the corporate mega farms in the Mid West. NAFTA was a great deal for American corporate (read Monsanto) agriculture and the financial and manufacturing industries that support it. The resulting drop in Mexican corn prices drove many Mexican families to flee to the US to avoid destitution and starvation. This created our so called "Immigration Crisis'.
Illegal immigration became a tidal wave in the 80's.
The days of high school educated laborers being able to earn 50k a year is over. The quicker that people realize this and retrain themselves for different jobs the better. If your job can be done by an uneducated peasant in a third world country, I don't have much sympathy for you when you lose it. These people should have taken advantage of the educational opportunities available in the United States instead of just going to work at a factory.
I thought conservatives were supposed to be champions of the free market. This is the free market in action. It may cost some people their jobs, but it saves thousands of other Americans lots of money when they don't have to pay jacked up prices for consumer goods to keep workers employed at overinflated salaries. Moves like this are a net good for the country.
The majority of people everywhere do not have the apptitude/ cognition for much beyond unskilled/ low skill labor.
Used to be 80% of the US people were engaged in growing enough surplus food to feed 100% of the population. Technology substitution changed all that and people redeployed to factories and the military.
Technology substitution and offshoring has and will continue to eat away at middle class jobs the challenge is not unique to the US.
-Prices wouldn't be much more expensive than they currently are. They move to increase profit margins, the salaries of the board members, and shareholder dividends, not help out the customer. If the latter was true, as you claim, prices would have dropped once they went off-shore. I haven't seen that yet. I have seen things get smaller and or less durable while prices increase. To think that they care about your savings is laughable.
-One sided trade deals are not a free market....but I'm not a conservative so...
-Back in the day college didn't have the open door policy it has today, and college degrees weren't required like they are today. Go read some history books.
-"If your job can be done by an uneducated peasant in a third world country, I don't have much sympathy for you when you lose it." Wow...that is some incredible elitism. I don't know or care what you do, but you are replaceable. There is somebody in or fresh off the plane from India, Pakistan, Thailand, the Phillipines, Brazil, or South Africa that can do your job for pennies on the dollar to half of your salary depending on work location.
You're thinking on a very tiny scale. When there's 95% of the world out there to sell products to compared to the US that leaves a lot of wiggle room. You can't just sell whatever crap you want. People have to want it and be willing to pay for it. With 6.8 billion other people there is plenty of profits to be made. They also reinvest so they can provide people all over the globe with things you've been taking for granted for far too long.
The reason you're not seeing things change or if they do change they get more expensive and smaller is because you no longer hold a monopoly over the rest of the world. Pretty simple really. I think even a small child could understand that concept.
Unless of course you figured you would be able to continue to consume 5 times more than the rest of the planet for forever. In case you haven't noticed going green means using less stuff and wasting less as well. That's so someone else can finally get their hands on those things you've been taking for granted.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,419,437 times
Reputation: 40736
I wonder how many bemoaning the loss of jobs to Mexico go home to houses filled with Chinese-made consumer goods thinking nothing of all the jobs sent there?
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.
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.
yea I posted who agrees for what - do your own search now-
