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.
Yeah, when people don't complain for decades and they start complaining again after a president they don't like takes office makes me suspect.
Quote:
On a side note, I don't trust government statistics. If you look at unemployment rates since 1990 for Cambria county, it doesn't look that bad - certainly not worse than average for the country. However, the reason it's not bad is most of the people left town! It's a ghost town relative to what it was when I grew up there in the 1960s!
If they let the county, they are not unemployed in the county.
It's 50 years after the 1960s.
Things change; people either evolve and grow with it or fail.
Everyone has a choice.
There was retraining for people who lost their jobs in the steel industry.
Some people took advantage of it, most didn't.
I once worked for Gulf Oil, it went under, I had to find a new job.
You change and grow as the economy does.
It seems that you're in good company,...no other liberal has attempted to answer question that has been posed numerous times. Instead of attacking 'conservative apologists',...why not outline your solution for the problem of losing corporations to other countries, and all the associated taxes/spending that disappears when they move. Nationalization? Government-run competition? Force the corporations to stay?
Quick answer: Lots of state-funded basic research. Accountants and short-sighted anti-tax types hate it because much of it turns mostly into money down the drain. But it's where that one good idea in a hundred that makes anywhere from some people to a nation a fortune comes from.
Otherwise, you begin from what has already been pointed out as a faulty premise -- that corporations once here should somehow be constrained to remaining here at any cost. This a recipe for diseconomies and inefficiencies galore. If it makes economic sense for a company to leave, it should. The US steel industry failed to invest in keeping its technology up to date. It left itself vulnerable to growing numbers of cutting edge foreign producers of specialty steels, then high-grade steels, then pretty much any sort of steel at all. The demise of the domestic steel industry could have been prolonged and hence made more socially palatable by wiser industry decision-making, but in the long run, the US was simply not the best place to produce steel on a giant scale anymore. As an economy, we need to be prepared to move on to other things when that happens. In the case of steel, we were not. In the case of textiles, we were not. In the case of autos, we were sort of maybe kind of trying to be when the whole affair got gobbled up by the global economic crisis anyway. How are we doing in aerospace these days? Should we be doing anything differently there? How about chemicals, food processing, or machinery and fabricated metals? Those are major parts of US manufacturing today. What if anything should we be thinking of doing today on their behalf?
Yeah, when people don't complain for decades and they start complaining again after a president they don't like takes office makes me suspect.
If they let the county, they are not unemployed in the county.
It's 50 years after the 1960s.
Things change; people either evolve and grow with it or fail.
Everyone has a choice.
There was retraining for people who lost their jobs in the steel industry.
Some people took advantage of it, most didn't.
I once worked for Gulf Oil, it went under, I had to find a new job.
You change and grow as the economy does.
I thought liberals and hippies were supposed to have more empathy than this. I guess I was wrong.
And I see a lot of "conservative" apologists for the companies who sent their jobs overseas to make greater profit.
Some people support the profit margin over what's good for the country in general.
What a lot of people really don't get is that the idea of implementing policies to force companies to stay in the US is actually probably not in the best interest of the country. Its not surprising that people don't realize this; its extremely counterintuitive. However, ceteris paribus free trade is better than restricted trade and allowing for free trade means allowing companies to leave the country in pursuit of higher profits. The reason it seems so bad, as I've mentioned several times in my more lengthy posts which few here seem to have the patience to read, is that the costs to employees of such outsourcing is highly visible. The benefits (lower prices) are actually higher than the costs, but they are diffuse and, as such, far less visible. Trade restrictions almost always benefit a highly visible few (producers and their employees) at the expense of the general population. As I said earlier Chielgirl (I'd be interested in your comments on my earlier posts!) we need to focus on adapting and innovating, not on trying to hold on to industries that we have lost our comparative advantage in!
emerson electronics are crappy but they do manufacture for the low-end market.
Emerson Electric is a different company.
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.
