Adding 50 million impoverished workers in the labor force will be great for the middle class.

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: cubby1223But you're not exactly laying out how the U.S. can remain competitive in a global marketplace. These jobs are all going to places where their workers are in far shittier conditions than those of even the U.S.'s poor. Our unemployed are in better shape than their employed. How long can this last. The world is globalizing, you can't stop it.

Americans can compete as soon as they're willing to live like people in the third world.

I disagree with your notion that the effects of global labor arbitrage cannot be stopped or at least dramatically reduced. Why do you take that as a matter of faith? A huge amount of people seem to take it as an axiom today, without question.

What about...

Tariffs...
Zero dollar trade deficit policies...
A moratorium on all immigration...
The elimination of the H-1B and L-1 visa programs...
Internal capitalism...

What ever happened to individualism and self-reliance? One of the ironies in this debate is that the self-proclaimed advocates of capitalism and the free market who would seem to advocate individualism and self reliance support having a nation that's dependent on foreign countries.

I'd have to learn a lot more to discuss this, but everything I've read is that protectionism, while good in theory, in reality is not desirable. I mean, stick with free trade, and if we can keep highly skilled labor here for our workers, while leaving all the remedial manual labor elsewhere I think we're better off for that.



Personally, I think the national debt is the single greatest threat to our long-term economic position. Eliminate that and a huge burden is lifted. And with that said, I expect Dave to jump in with one of his ever-so-useful comments on Republicans. (as if he ever actually adds something useful to any thread, just go ahead and comment once again on how much you think Bush is evil, we may have forgotten it since the your last post a few hours ago, we need the reminder)

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The labor supply here is low, which drives labor prices up.

Wow, what drugs are you on?

Supply and demand. Why do you think Chinese people doing remedial manual labor get paid mere pennies?

Or are you going to argue that wages are based 100% on the evil Republican supported speculators?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: K3N

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: techs
Adding 50 million impoverished workers in the labor force will be great for the middle class?
Who could have possibly believed this?
Isn't it time to completely disgrace those people who pushed the idea that outsourcing was good for Americans? How could effectively adding 50 million impoverished workers to the work force be good for American workers? It wasn't.
No more clothes, no more tires, no more computers, no more home appliances, soon to be no more cars, then no more planes.
Apparently the only thing left for Americans to manufacture will be outrageous claims of how good life now is that Americans are losing weight because the can't afford food.

Cry, whine, bitch, moan, do everything you can to talk about how crappy the situation is.

But you're not exactly laying out how the U.S. can remain competitive in a global marketplace. These jobs are all going to places where their workers are in far shittier conditions than those of even the U.S.'s poor. Our unemployed are in better shape than their employed. How long can this last. The world is globalizing, you can't stop it.

It's easy to dream.

It's difficult to face the harshnesses of reality.

The standard of living in the United States has been going down since 1973. The average CEO made about 25 to 1 ratio their workers while today they make 315 to 1 to the average worker today. At this rate we'll return back to a state of Feudalism with the next 100 years. Outsourcing may be good in the short term but horrible in the long term. It devalues the wages of the middle class.

In what way? Were you alive back then to see such a higher standard of living?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: AlienCraft

Originally posted by: cubby1223


At some point you have to face reality that U.S. companies have to be competitive against international competition. You are being spoon-fed a slanted view from the Democrats and other liberal talking heads.

GM lost ~$40b this past year while Toyota profited ~$17b on the sale of roughly equal number of vehicles between them. If you cut the CEO pay down to nothing, GM still lost ~$39.99b. If you want to live in your fairy world believing that a bailout without sufficient concessions to cut costs will help GM survive, then there's nothing further to discuss.

The Republicans want to make sure GM is competitive against competition.

That is such horseshit.
Unless you are willing to consider all aspects of the Foreign Auto manufacturing model for comparison, such as CEO / Executive compensation packages, Demand Manuacturing, and National Health Care System comparisons, your arguement falls apart simply by failing to consider a like kind situation.

The "Repuvblicans" have no clear goal now other than to disrupt the Democrats. They had 12 years of numerical superiority to enact all the legislation they wanted. AND 4 of those years were with a supermajority and a Presidency to rubber stamp each other.
There is no one at the top that is in danger of losing their home, starving or losing a family member to reduced Health Care availability. So, there is no crisis. To "them".
It is part and parcel of the Elite Republican creed to resist any effort to elevate the masses by any means necessary. For proof of this , look no further thancomparing the rate of productivity increase by wage earners to the rate of wage increase by those workers. IF, "Free Market Capitalism / Free Market Forces " were actually allowed to work unencumbered, the middle class would have enjoyed a wage increase percentage that would have completely eliminated ANY threat of home foreclosure or Mortgage market collapse.
By cutting off the promised increase in wages for that increased productivity to those that spend the most ( we aren't called a "consumer Economy" for nothing, well except to confuse you, but I digress), "they" have effectively cut off their nose to spite their face.
They will then call any such efforts "socialist" or "inflation producing", yet when their empires are threatend by the results of their selfish policies, they have no problem with using a Social solutions to a private problem.
AND, I might add, STAGNANT inflation will be far worse than anything else we've experienced here in the US to date.

The top 1% have enough of a Nut to weather a depression of more than a few years, unlike the majority of people who are at most a couple of paychecks away from ruin..
It's the same mindset that litigates someone into capitulation, regardless of the merits of a case.

The middle class has lost whatever wage and workplace gains were made the previous 30 years while the top 1% has gained more than ever before.


The "Republican / Corporate Agenda" is nothing less than Hegel's Dialectic in action, and WORKING !!

Republicans never came close to a super majority. Who told you that? Obama and the democrats will hold more power than Bush and Republicans ever have over the past 8 years.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Wow, what drugs are you on?

Wow, for being the most educated person on the internet, you sure are illiterate. I'd fire you too.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Wow, what drugs are you on?

Wow, for being the most educated person on the internet, you sure are illiterate. I'd fire you too.

You wouldn't be the first.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Wow, what drugs are you on?

Dave, c'mon, you cannot be that stupid.

In some areas there is a shortage of "skilled" workers, namely textiles, people in the US just don't get the apprentaceship style training to be good tailors and seamstresses off the bat, especially when compared to other developing nations, which is one reason, along with the lower cost of labor, that companies have moved clothing production elsewhere. Especially those who want to ramp up production and diversify their lineup when compared to what they had been previously producing.

The US is becomming a nation of managers and shoppers.

and that is what is stupid and WRONG.

 

[imported_K3N]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: K3N

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: techs
Adding 50 million impoverished workers in the labor force will be great for the middle class?
Who could have possibly believed this?
Isn't it time to completely disgrace those people who pushed the idea that outsourcing was good for Americans? How could effectively adding 50 million impoverished workers to the work force be good for American workers? It wasn't.
No more clothes, no more tires, no more computers, no more home appliances, soon to be no more cars, then no more planes.
Apparently the only thing left for Americans to manufacture will be outrageous claims of how good life now is that Americans are losing weight because the can't afford food.

Cry, whine, bitch, moan, do everything you can to talk about how crappy the situation is.

But you're not exactly laying out how the U.S. can remain competitive in a global marketplace. These jobs are all going to places where their workers are in far shittier conditions than those of even the U.S.'s poor. Our unemployed are in better shape than their employed. How long can this last. The world is globalizing, you can't stop it.

It's easy to dream.

It's difficult to face the harshnesses of reality.

The standard of living in the United States has been going down since 1973. The average CEO made about 25 to 1 ratio their workers while today they make 315 to 1 to the average worker today. At this rate we'll return back to a state of Feudalism with the next 100 years. Outsourcing may be good in the short term but horrible in the long term. It devalues the wages of the middle class.

In what way? Were you alive back then to see such a higher standard of living?

Value of the dollar keeps plummeting in value as the federal debt keeps exploding.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/history.gif

Income inequality has been on rise since the rich stopped paying 70% federal income tax and now pay 38% federal income tax. Do you know there use to be a time when only the man had to work and he would be able to support the entire family through college. Now today most parents household can barely send their child to a 4 year college without taking a fund. Go ahead and say it's all a conspiracy theory to eradicate the middle class.

Today we are seeing this so called "prosperous consumer economy" come to it's knees since all we know how to do is BORROW money and leech off of 3rd world laborers.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: K3N
Value of the dollar keeps plummeting in value as the federal debt keeps exploding.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/history.gif

Income inequality has been on rise since the rich stopped paying 70% federal income tax and now pay 38% federal income tax. Do you know there use to be a time when only the man had to work and he would be able to support the entire family through college. Now today most parents household can barely send their child to a 4 year college without taking a fund. Go ahead and say it's all a conspiracy theory to eradicate the middle class.

Today we are seeing this so called "prosperous consumer economy" come to it's knees since all we know how to do is BORROW money and leech off of 3rd world laborers.

It's not a parent's responsibility to pay for their kids to go to college. Sure, it's nice if you can afford it, but if the education is worth it, then your kid shouldn't have much trouble paying for it themselves. The bogus "obligation" to pay for your kids' education is part of the driving force for skyrocketing costs in higher education.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: K3N
Value of the dollar keeps plummeting in value as the federal debt keeps exploding.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/history.gif

Income inequality has been on rise since the rich stopped paying 70% federal income tax and now pay 38% federal income tax. Do you know there use to be a time when only the man had to work and he would be able to support the entire family through college. Now today most parents household can barely send their child to a 4 year college without taking a fund. Go ahead and say it's all a conspiracy theory to eradicate the middle class.

Today we are seeing this so called "prosperous consumer economy" come to it's knees since all we know how to do is BORROW money and leech off of 3rd world laborers.

It's not a parent's responsibility to pay for their kids to go to college. Sure, it's nice if you can afford it, but if the education is worth it, then your kid shouldn't have much trouble paying for it themselves. The bogus "obligation" to pay for your kids' education is part of the driving force for skyrocketing costs in higher education.

No, parents shouldn't have to pay for their children's college, the state should pay for it.
What, you think it's better that a kid should go to college, work two jobs, have no social life, and graduate with tens of thousands in debt?
This is one of the reasons America is becoming a third-world nation. Reduced govt support of higher education. In a recent study, only California got a passing grade in providing a reasonable cost college education.
But if you join the military, they will pay for it all.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: K3N
Value of the dollar keeps plummeting in value as the federal debt keeps exploding.
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/history.gif

Income inequality has been on rise since the rich stopped paying 70% federal income tax and now pay 38% federal income tax. Do you know there use to be a time when only the man had to work and he would be able to support the entire family through college. Now today most parents household can barely send their child to a 4 year college without taking a fund. Go ahead and say it's all a conspiracy theory to eradicate the middle class.

Today we are seeing this so called "prosperous consumer economy" come to it's knees since all we know how to do is BORROW money and leech off of 3rd world laborers.

It's not a parent's responsibility to pay for their kids to go to college. Sure, it's nice if you can afford it, but if the education is worth it, then your kid shouldn't have much trouble paying for it themselves. The bogus "obligation" to pay for your kids' education is part of the driving force for skyrocketing costs in higher education.

No, parents shouldn't have to pay for their children's college, the state should pay for it.
What, you think it's better that a kid should go to college, work two jobs, have no social life, and graduate with tens of thousands in debt?
This is one of the reasons America is becoming a third-world nation. Reduced govt support of higher education. In a recent study, only California got a passing grade in providing a reasonable cost college education.
But if you join the military, they will pay for it all.

You forgot the /sarcasm tag.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: marincounty
No, parents shouldn't have to pay for their children's college, the state should pay for it.
What, you think it's better that a kid should go to college, work two jobs, have no social life, and graduate with tens of thousands in debt?

I went to college for nine years and graduated tens of thousands in debt ($65k from undergrad, now $85k after all the interest accumulated through grad school). But I took on that debt because I knew that my education would actually be worth it. I easily make enough to rapidly pay it off now. If the education isn't worth what you pay for it, then why would you get it? Why would you pay $500k to get an education degree? It's nonsense. Therefore, why should I pay for YOU to get a degree that you don't think is worth what you would have to pay for it?

This is one of the reasons America is becoming a third-world nation. Reduced govt support of higher education. In a recent study, only California got a passing grade in providing a reasonable cost college education.
But if you join the military, they will pay for it all.

I don't think you know what "a third-world nation" really is and I'm pretty sick of the wanton, ignorant use of this phrase referring to the US. Whatever the study chose as its criteria for determining a "grade" for education are completely arbitrary. But I digress. If you don't think a degree from a given college will be worth what they're asking for it, simply don't go.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: BoomerD

The Republicans want to make sure GM is competitive against competition.

That's a pretty argument for slavery.

And it's why we need global policies protecting workers' middle class salaries.

It's a simple situation that the more 'competition' the more exploitable those competing. It's one big reason we have a minimum wage.

If we got a fourth, a fitfth, a tenth, a fiftieth 'major car company', the compeition would increase and consumers would benefit - for the short time until they all crashed.

And so, we just have fewer 'major car companies', to fit the market. But we can't just have 'fewer people' needing to earn a living to fit the market.

It's the same principle by which unions are helpful for worker salaries - if each worker competes with others, they can slash salaries to the bone, any one worker who says no is expendable. It's only as a united group - less competition - that they can compete. It's the same principle as monopolies. But we don't allow corporate monopolies, while we allow (somewhat) union monopolies - because the two aren't the same. We view workers' getting a decent salary as a societal good more than corporations making huge profit.

Unions worked great in the US in a US market. Globalization, as the poster above shows, nullifies much of the benefit of unions and leaves workers vulnerable again, and so we need global policies for labor to maintain some leverage for decent wages, not having to compete too much to where wages are slashed and the middle class harmed even more.

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: Genx87
[Republicans never came close to a super majority. Who told you that? Obama and the democrats will hold more power than Bush and Republicans ever have over the past 8 years.

The Newt Gingrich years were pretty damn close.
I guess the whole arguement is nullified because of one missed point then. :roll:
My personal recollection is that the Republican's shoved it up the Dem's ass pretty good for a few years there AS IF THEY HAD a supermajority.
I remember stuff like The Republican's saying stuff like Republican Rule forever.... There's only one place such arrogance comes from, the super ego.

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: Genx87

The standard of living in the United States has been going down since 1973. The average CEO made about 25 to 1 ratio their workers while today they make 315 to 1 to the average worker today. At this rate we'll return back to a state of Feudalism with the next 100 years. Outsourcing may be good in the short term but horrible in the long term. It devalues the wages of the middle class.

In what way? Were you alive back then to see such a higher standard of living?
[/quote]
Yes, I was. And he's right.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: techs
Adding 50 million impoverished workers in the labor force will be great for the middle class?
Who could have possibly believed this?
Isn't it time to completely disgrace those people who pushed the idea that outsourcing was good for Americans? How could effectively adding 50 million impoverished workers to the work force be good for American workers? It wasn't.
No more clothes, no more tires, no more computers, no more home appliances, soon to be no more cars, then no more planes.
Apparently the only thing left for Americans to manufacture will be outrageous claims of how good life now is that Americans are losing weight because the can't afford food.

360 million people in the country.

at 4 people avg per household that equals 90 million families.

Figure that 3/4 of those have both parents working = 70 million workers

Tech's math fails.

He is claiming 2/3 of the country workers is tied to jobs being outsourced

Your math is off too, only counted one parent when you accounted for both. Close estimate though if you just doubled yours.

144.6 million workers according to www.bls.gov So yeah, it'd be 1/3 instead of 2/3. Still ridiculous.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: cubby1223
[Q]Originally posted by: BoomerD

The Republicans want to make sure GM is competitive against competition.

That's a pretty argument for slavery.

And it's why we need global policies protecting workers' middle class salaries.

It's a simple situation that the more 'competition' the more exploitable those competing. It's one big reason we have a minimum wage.

If we got a fourth, a fitfth, a tenth, a fiftieth 'major car company', the compeition would increase and consumers would benefit - for the short time until they all crashed.

And so, we just have fewer 'major car companies', to fit the market. But we can't just have 'fewer people' needing to earn a living to fit the market.

It's the same principle by which unions are helpful for worker salaries - if each worker competes with others, they can slash salaries to the bone, any one worker who says no is expendable. It's only as a united group - less competition - that they can compete. It's the same principle as monopolies. But we don't allow corporate monopolies, while we allow (somewhat) union monopolies - because the two aren't the same. We view workers' getting a decent salary as a societal good more than corporations making huge profit.

Unions worked great in the US in a US market. Globalization, as the poster above shows, nullifies much of the benefit of unions and leaves workers vulnerable again, and so we need global policies for labor to maintain some leverage for decent wages, not having to compete too much to where wages are slashed and the middle class harmed even more.

Geez Craig...fix that quote will ya? You're putting words in my mouth that make me sound like a Repuglicant...

 

[ElFenix]

here is a question: if american jobs got outsourced to an american company employing american workers, would there be a political problem? outsourcing payroll, anyone?

if american jobs got insourced to a guy in india or vietnam, would there be a political problem?

so why do people continue to rally against outsourcing when that isn't the problem?

Originally posted by: AlienCraft

Originally posted by: Genx87

The standard of living in the United States has been going down since 1973. The average CEO made about 25 to 1 ratio their workers while today they make 315 to 1 to the average worker today. At this rate we'll return back to a state of Feudalism with the next 100 years. Outsourcing may be good in the short term but horrible in the long term. It devalues the wages of the middle class.

In what way? Were you alive back then to see such a higher standard of living?

Yes, I was. And he's right.

i know i'm just itching to drive a mid 70s pinto rather than the new focus (when it gets here)

1973 was a horrible year for just about everything. i don't know why anyone would want to go back to it.

Originally posted by: K3N
Income inequality has been on rise since the rich stopped paying 70% federal income tax and now pay 38% federal income tax. Do you know there use to be a time when only the man had to work and he would be able to support the entire family through college. Now today most parents household can barely send their child to a 4 year college without taking a fund. Go ahead and say it's all a conspiracy theory to eradicate the middle class.

Today we are seeing this so called "prosperous consumer economy" come to it's knees since all we know how to do is BORROW money and leech off of 3rd world laborers.

a) the rich were never paying 70% rates, the marginal rates were so high because there were so many loopholes.
b) with married women and especially married women with children joining the workforce, the cost of being middle class, that is, having a decent house in a safe neighborhood with good schools, has gone up because there are more people (dollars) chasing it.
c) the cost of college goes up every time the government provides more money for it, mostly for the reason that the government is providing more money for it. there are a limited number of good professors out there, and they want to get paid just as much as everyone else does. so their services get bid up using all the grant money and subsidized loans the students are getting to make college more 'affordable.'

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard If the education isn't worth what you pay for it, then why would you get it?

Because it's difficult to predict with 100% certainty how valuable the education will prove to be. You might be X% certain that it will be worthwhile, but if you fall into that (100-X)% of graduates who can't find work in their fields and end up losing the value of their education as a result of going unemployed or underemployed-involuntarily-out-of-field for too long, then its value will have proven to have been less than what you paid for it (from an economic standpoint).

Basically, you get the education in anticipation of it's being worthwhile when in reality it is quite likely that it may not be worthwhile. For example, I suspect that the overwhelming majority of law students are attending law school in the hopes of earning solid middle class and upper middle class livings as attorneys. However, in reality the law schools are pumping out about twice as many new attorney graduates as what the market can employ so a great many of them will end up involuntarily-out-of-field and discover that their educational expenditures of time, money, effort, and opportunity cost were not worthwhile.

Furthermore, the gamble that people take might be worthwhile since not getting a college education today reduces the opportunities for upward mobility and few satisfying middle class career options are available today for people who only have a high school diploma. You don't know if the costs of college education will be worthwhile, but you do know that it's going to be hard to get anywhere in life without it (while acknowledging that even with college education you might not attain middle class status).