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.
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.
Gary, Indiana began its death spiral in the 60's - global competition.
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-
So exactly what would you do to keep these jobs in the US?
We want a government that does not agree to "free trade" agreements that use slave wage labor workers, cheap materials, toxic additives, and pollute the hell out the environment in doing so.
Clinton paved the way for US corporations to slaughter the manufacturing sector and the middle class, all with the guarantee that US citizens would have "clean service jobs" while the third world did "the dirty jobs".
The Clintons, along with the turncoat republicans purchased by lobbyists, who created these deals should be shot. Now we have Obama doing the same thing through the Pacific Rim trade agreements.
Proponants of these rigged deals celebrate our selling and sending commodoties to these third world nations. Production of commodities does not generate as many jobs and is a resource which is difficult to expand in scope as much as manufacturing. There is not as much of an "echo effect" in commodites as there is in manufacturing.
Again, NAFTA negotiations began in the St Reagan Admin. Bush 1 did the ceremonial signing thing during his term, subject to Congress approval. Congress approved and Clinton signed it and did so in opposition to his own party.
What does this situation have to do with NAFTA?
This company maintains manufacturing plants at 80 facilities all over the world. 60% of their sales are off shore. Mexico maintains more bilateral free trade agreements with the rest of the world than most countries.
Low wages, no benefits, no unions, little to no wage/ labor/ safety laws and those bilateral free trade agreements create a winning combination.
Not that Republicans don't have hypocrisies, but one of the biggest wonders is how Democrats pretend that Clinton was great for the economy outside one side of their mouth while detesting all of his policy results out the other side of their mouths.
China's MFN status was restored in the 70's with renewal every three years.
This is survival in a global market, not corporate green.
Why would a company limit their sales to 5% of the world's population when the world is their oyster?
It's about Mexico's free trade agreements with the rest of the world and wage/ benefits.
Most of the jobs that have and will continue to move to Mexico are union jobs with benefits, as negotiated over the years. The link said 3/4 of the jobs being eliminated have annual wages of $55-70,000 a year. Surely the move will halve that. No bargaining agreements to honor. No pensions. No OT pay. No payroll taxes.
If Toyota can afford to build cars here profitably surely Carrier can build A/C units.
What happens is the manufacturing gets sent to cheap labor countries. Others have to follow to compete and then they price their products what they would cost here anyway.
I go with my wife shoe shopping and I see a pair of plastic womens shoes selling for $50. I look and they are made in China. There is no way we couldn't profitably make $50 plastic shoes.
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?
Whenever possible. Lakewood space heater. Made in the USA. It was no more expensive than the Chinese ones. Just one example.
If Toyota can afford to build cars here profitably surely Carrier can build A/C units.
What happens is the manufacturing gets sent to cheap labor countries. Others have to follow to compete and then the price their products what they would cost here anyway.
I go with my wife shoe shopping and I see a pair of plastic womens shoes selling for $50. I look and they are made in China. There is no way we couldn't profitably make $50 plastic shoes.
Toyota is pretty pricey compared to other brands.
And Toyota workers are not in a union and make less than the Carrier union guys.
Offshoring American jobs has been going on since long before the Clinton era. In the late '60s RCA used to manufacture vacuum tube components in NJ, ship them to Brazil to be assembled, then return the finished tubes to the states. Just as now, Americans lost jobs so the corporation could fatten its bottom line. This is all old news in a new wrapper.
Right you are. The initial thrust of offshoring began in earnest in the 60's. Steel was the first to go. The rest of the world had no need to pay a premium to sustain the US middle class when cheaper sources of labor can build to spec.
For profit corporations are either privately or publicly held. Both exist to increase shareholder value.
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-
