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 agree. It will continue until balance is achieved - and that time WILL come, at which time the problem will go away.
Ken
At what cost to our society? This is where our opinions differ. I think that we as a society have an obligation to our own populace to maintain the standard we have established. Over time, we built a high-tech, high cost economy with infastructure to maintain and a populace to satsify. Simply saying that there is nothing we can do and just wait for it to equalize simply can't happen. By the time these economies equalize, our roads will be dirt and our bridges will have collapsed. The expectation that americans reduce their standard of living to that of say Brazil, so that people in India can get a crack at our wealth is not right in my opinion. We have an obligation to protect what we have built for ourselves, and at a minimum retain our standard of living and our ability to maintain it.
There's no greed about it, companies need to compete on a global market and if that means shipping the jobs overseas to stay in business and remain competitive that is what they are going to do.
Here's the story of manufacturer I personally know that amkes his product here in Pennsylvania, he was approached by a Chinese company that offered to make his product shipped here in a box ready for sale less than what it was costing him to make it. He could have clsoed up shop and ran his business from an armchair. To his credit he didn't take the offer however he's competing in a niche market where there is no competition from overseas at the moment. His trouble would be if one his competitors here takes that offer, then what does he do when he's being undercut? The answer is take the offer himself or go out of business. This is the situation most American manufacturers face.
The reasons we are losing these jobs are many, environmental laws and labor costs top the list. I'm not suggesting all environmental laws are bad nor am I suggesting the American worker is making too much but unless the countries outside of the US are forced to abide by the same environmental laws and labor remains dirt cheap there they will continue to take jobs from us. Business will plant themselves where it most profitable and with a global economy more often than not that means overseas.
It's a whole 'nother issue because offshoring could still be happening even if corporate heads weren't (in effect) looting their companies (with the virtual permission of their board of directors). This is a HUGE problem I think - a very complicated and convoluted one - but a separate issue from the offshoring issue.
Ken
A huge problem, yes. Separate issue, no. It's all part of the obscenely soulless, selfish, and irresponsible behavior that we've come to expect from big business.
The most appalling aspect, however, is that so many whose futures have been stolen continue to blindly cheer them on.
A huge problem, yes. Separate issue, no. It's all part of the obscenely soulless, selfish, and irresponsible behavior that we've come to expect from big business.
The most appalling aspect, however, is that so many whose futures have been stolen continue to blindly cheer them on.
So your position is, a company should continue to operate in the red to show their loyalty and that they aren't soulless, greedy, and selfish?
Sounds to me like an American worker that is selfish. The expectation that a company reduce profits, reduce hiring, reduce growth, reduce contributing to taxes and our economy, simply so they can stay on American soil which benefits YOU is selfish.
NAFTA and the WTO and GATT, and free trade agreements put in place by the Clinton administration, and passed by Congress, under the disguise of WTO.
The North American Free Trade Agreement or NAFTA is an agreement signed by the governments of the United States, Canada, and Mexico creating a trilateral trade bloc in North America. The agreement came into force on January 1, 1994(remember when the 94 take back of congress and the Senate from the dems?)
Early in World War II, Anglo-American planners addressed tariffs, especially the British imperial system of discrimination and America's high duty rates. They agreed to negotiate down such protection and include as many nations as possible in the exercise of tariff liberalization. The planners thus launched bargaining talks in the first round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1947 between twenty-three nations, and simultaneously formulated a blueprint for a trade organization, replete with rules and principles to guide future commercial policies on tariffs as well as related issues such as cartels, employment, and development. The organization itself never came into existence because of a lack of political will power in the United States (it would finally be born under the guise of the World Trade Organization, or WTO, in 1995), but tariff negotiating rounds of GATT continued into the 1990s, until the WTO absorbed GATT. [LEFT]
Early in World War II, Anglo-American planners addressed tariffs, especially the British imperial system of discrimination and America's high duty rates. They agreed to negotiate down such protection and include as many nations as possible in the exercise of tariff liberalization. The planners thus launched bargaining talks in the first round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1947 between twenty-three nations, and simultaneously formulated a blueprint for a trade organization, replete with rules and principles to guide future commercial policies on tariffs as well as related issues such as cartels, employment, and development. The organization itself never came into existence because of a lack of political will power in the United States (it would finally be born under the guise of the World Trade Organization, or WTO, in 1995), but tariff negotiating rounds of GATT continued into the 1990s, until the WTO absorbed GATT.
Read more: Gatt and the cold war - Tariff Policy
Bill Clinton is the cause of all manufacturing to leave the building.
Has nothing at all to do with American Unions, they would still be strong as ever, had NAFTA, WTO and GATT not taken place.
It is not the greedy American capitalist either. Had NAFTA, WTO, and GATT not taken place, our nation would still be the strongest, that all other nations envied.
You can thank Bill Clinton, for the depression and joblessness of Americans, we see now. It didn't happen over night, but you can see the lasting effects and consequences of his actions.
Poverty breeds control. Look and take a page, straight from the Hugo Chavez book of Progressive take over.
Again, the train was on the track long before the Clinton administration. It was Reagan who changed our course, but the train built a full head of steam during the Clinton years.
Here's another way to ask the question "What got our manufactureing base started in the first place?" Hard working people wanting to get make more money? Is that greed? If so I proud of being a greedy SOB....
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.
