Possible REALLY bad news for the Dems

[Guest MikeSC]

Clearly a few conservatives on this board need to really grab hold of reality and common sense.

 

It doesnt matter what numbers say, what the statistics are for one quarter of business or what certain pollsters are checking in with today. If people are losing jobs like this , then shit is BAD. It DOES NOT help our economy to lose millions of jobs to faraway countries.

 

Time to grab a little reality yourself --- YES, it DOES help to lose some jobs overseas. This country does not WANT manufacturing jobs as we have, technologically, moved far beyond that. We were overpaying people for work for years. Either the workers take less --- which they won't --- or corporations move the jobs to areas where the workers will accept the pay that their job truly warrants.

 

This is the current employment situation in my area - 4 major factories have moved overseas in the last 30 days, thats hundreds of jobs lost. Now these are decent jobs, money to support families. Now theyre all lost. The new jobs - a new wal-mart supercenter just opened this past wednesday. Thats alot of new jobs, big store/24 hours. But the avg pay there is 7$ or less per hour; the factory avg was 10-20$ per hour.

 

The factory work was not WORTH 10-20 dollars an hour. It wasn't worth CLOSE to that. so, goods had to cost more to overpay people.

 

Protecting those jobs would be a horrid idea. Japan is suffering because they protected inefficient companies. Formerly Communist countries are STILL suffering because they protected inefficient and overly costly jobs.

 

Companies have to change and certain jobs get phased out. It isn't fun, but it is exceptionally necessary.

 

Jobs are being created and jobs are being lost...but the financial differences and the growth problems are seriously hurting our working class.

 

And, in the end, it will be for the best.

 

And for the guy who marked out for Adam Smith...Have you studied the French Revolution at all? The entire thing happened because the working class majority got too fed up with a conservative power base eating up all the money in the land.

 

Umm, let's not even blame Adam Smith for the French Revolution. That was tyranny by the majority and the danger of mob rule.

 

And one more thing, Im not a liberal. I am a Libertarian, my heart supports laissez faire business policies, but my head knows that the American companies cant police themselves and millions of our working class CANT be stepped on.

 

Americans really need to stop blindly following the rhetoric and spin of their political parties and open their eyes to the obvious ills that are right in front of us.

 

The millions of the working class are being paid far more than their work is worth. It is unfortunate, but it is the case.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I do try to do that, but sometimes a little context is needed.

Well, your efforts are appreciated.

 

A business's job is to pay people less than their work generates.

 

And yet a business' job is to make as much as it possibly can? This is where I get confused and can never find out where you conservatives are coming from. You say thing like this and you're anti-labor etc etc etc, but tell me: How wrong is it for the worker to try and get as much money as he can? That's exactly what the business owner you're cheering on is doing.

 

If it is a business' goal to pay less for more work, then isn't it the worker's goal to try and fight that?

 

It has always been my opinion that either extreme (businesses making people work in sweatshops, or ridiculous crap like the Cali worker's comp system on the other end) are bad. As always in our society, competition makes things better.

[Guest MikeSC]

A business's job is to pay people less than their work generates.

 

And yet a business' job is to make as much as it possibly can? This is where I get confused and can never find out where you conservatives are coming from. You say thing like this and you're anti-labor etc etc etc, but tell me: How wrong is it for the worker to try and get as much money as he can? That's exactly what the business owner you're cheering on is doing.

 

Nobody has ever said it was wrong for the worker to try and get all they can. Their attempts to do so, however, lead to companies moving overseas when the native poplation won't accept the pay that their work is truly worth.

 

If a worker can get $20/hr for work that is menial, at best, more power to him. It's the business' fault for being dumb enough to give it. However, at a point, the labor costs are not worth it.

 

And when it happens, it will go overseas.

 

If it is a business' goal to pay less for more work, then isn't it the worker's goal to try and fight that?

 

It has always been my opinion that either extreme (businesses making people work in sweatshops, or ridiculous crap like the Cali worker's comp system on the other end) are bad. As always in our society, competition makes things better.

 

Nobody likes sweatshop labor --- but I realize that, while ugly, it is a part of a country's development as an industrial country. We had that early in the last century (the Triangle Shirtwaist fire occurred in a notorious sweatshop).

 

What will EVENTUALLY happen is that unions WILL get in those sweatshops.

 

And they will shoot up the wages. That will be good for the workers.

 

Then they will over-do it. That is what unions are supposed to do.

 

And those jobs will eventually be lost. Companies have to watch out for themselves.

-=Mike

...Who has never understood people having loyalty to a job since the job won't be loyal to you.

[Guest Brian]

The only problem with that is that back in that era, labor was highly mobile and capital was highly immobile. Now, the situation is in reverse. If wages are threatened, they'll move. Or they'll pick up in government subsidies, like Boeing out here, and they'll work the benefits. But they are in full control of the situation.

 

Besides, working in places like Mexico allows these companies to not just avoid situations where they are paying people less but also allows them to avoid environmental restrictions.

 

And another problem is that all the trade treaties allow companies the opportunity to do this. I mean, when Chapter 11 of NAFTA allows you to sue other countries over unfair market conditions and loss of potential profits, all the chips go in the business pile. A company like Methonex can invoke Chapter 11 to sue the California government for $970 million because an additive in gas, MTBE, ends up in the water supply (shutting down a third of the wells)? Similar thing happened with MMT and Ethel in Canada. Or MetalClad in Mexico, which had the federales step in when San Luis Potosi was dumping toxic waste (which ended up playing itself out in a NAFTA tribunal). Or UPS and the Canadian postal system. If governments can't support themselves against these companies, what chance do workers have? They'll lose their jobs when wages start to rise.

 

Capital can move and it wields a ton of power, and workers are going to end up at its whim.

[Vyce 0]

Mike may appreciate this:

 

Democrats Call for Boycott of American Products

(2003-11-02) -- Faced with the unexpected prospect of running against George Bush during an economic recovery, the Democrat National Committee (DNC) today called on Americans to boycott American products and services.

 

"If consumers continue to spend money and business owners continue to ramp up production," said DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe, "then there's nothing to stop a second Bush term. And we all know how bad that would be for the economy. The only way to save this economy is to boycott American products and services so we can elect a Democrat to the White House."

 

The DNC said it will devote about $100 million to the boycott campaign, using consultants and talent from other countries as much as possible.

 

"Most of our ad dollars will go to NBC, by virtue of its merger with Vivendi, the French company,"" said Mr. McAuliffe. "We regret that some Americans will benefit from our 'Boycott America' campaign, but with this global economy it's really hard to completely avoid financing the Bush economic recovery."