• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Was Ross Perot right on NAFTA?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Lower standard of living?

Name one item that we used to use 30+ years ago that capitalism has made worse. Everything I know of has gotten better.

You are likely to find that things are sometimes more expensive, but that is because we cram more and extract more. Homes are way bigger than they used to be. Cars have far more features. We have more crap in our homes.

30 years ago a single income household could stand.

Products are getting better, but that fact should not be conflated with the actual price to be paid for this outcome when discussing results of Free Trade Agreements on typical American households.

Products getting better can be isolated from the average americans financial condition, hours worked, pension/retirement, savings.
 
Lower standard of living?

Name one item that we used to use 30+ years ago that capitalism has made worse. Everything I know of has gotten better.

You are likely to find that things are sometimes more expensive, but that is because we cram more and extract more. Homes are way bigger than they used to be. Cars have far more features. We have more crap in our homes.

Im talking about standard of living not what technology has done in the last 30 years. Im talking about real wages (adjusted for inflation) and happiness.
 
Im talking about standard of living not what technology has done in the last 30 years. Im talking about real wages (adjusted for inflation) and happiness.

Holy crap you have no idea what you are talking about then.

If inflation is going up, but the goods we buy are improving faster, then standard of living is going up.

Happiness is a horrible standard to judge standard of living. I know some old people in Boca who are not keen on blacks having equal rights, and they are less happy. By your logic, has their standard of living gone down?
 


Sorry buddy. I think you get a lot right and I enjoy your posts but you are out of touch on this one. I grew up poor and almost slaved away my life for under 50k a year. I can tell you that without good low brain power jobs (the ones shipped away) many people struggle now. If you ask them are they better off without that steel job or without that plastics injection gig they will tell you no. Becuase they are now working at mcdonalds and walmart making 1/2 to 1/4 what they would have made if those jobs would of stayed in this country.

You live in NYC and have the brain needed to survive in that place. I get it. People around this country dont have that ability and they are pushed down. Their children grow up in a worst environment, public services are cut - everything pushes down.
 
Holy crap you have no idea what you are talking about then.

If inflation is going up, but the goods we buy are improving faster, then standard of living is going up.

Happiness is a horrible standard to judge standard of living. I know some old people in Boca who are not keen on blacks having equal rights, and they are less happy. By your logic, has their standard of living gone down?


Wages have been stagnate for 30 years. We are inflating away peoples standard of living. So what if everyone has a 50" lcd? So what if everyone has some entertainment devices. They still earn less in real dollars then they did 30 years ago. And its not going to stop here. It will continue until we have "equal" parity with the rest of the world.

I would love to be wrong on this btw. It makes me sick to see so much crap imported from places who dont have environmental laws, workers rights, and real wages. Our worker cannot compete with that.

edit:

And its especially true as the make less and less. They are gripped in a death spiral with cheap goods from over seas. The more they buy the less they make and the more they have to buy cheap goods. They lose the ability to even think about buying anything american made.
 
Sorry buddy. I think you get a lot right and I enjoy your posts but you are out of touch on this one. I grew up poor and almost slaved away my life for under 50k a year. I can tell you that without good low brain power jobs (the ones shipped away) many people struggle now. If you ask them are they better off without that steel job or without that plastics injection gig they will tell you no. Becuase they are now working at mcdonalds and walmart making 1/2 to 1/4 what they would have made if those jobs would of stayed in this country.

You live in NYC and have the brain needed to survive in that place. I get it. People around this country dont have that ability and they are pushed down. Their children grow up in a worst environment, public services are cut - everything pushes down.

If the US lived in a bubble you might have a point. The obvious fact is that if jobs are leaving then it does not.

Competition was going to pull jobs from the us no matter what. The only thing that NAFTA did was to mean that the goods produced overseas could benefit the US with lower prices.

The manufacturing jobs that you are looking at was not sustainable long term. The only reason they were here in the US, is because our industry was in such a boom that it was more efficient to have that production here. Post WWII, most industry was demolished and the US picked up the slack. We produced all the shit, because we had the best industry and most efficient workers. We sold our shit to anyone who wanted to buy it. Everyone who bought our shit, used that shit to do more shit. Their ability to do more shit meant they were now competing on the margins with us. As we sold them more shit, the grew and competed more. Eventually, they grew their industry to a point where they were able to do shit cheaper.

The moral of the story is that selling our shit is what made our shit jobs leave. In that time, standard of living has gone way up. That is, unless you measure standard of living in a dumbass way.

The US was charging higher prices that translated into higher wages because there was little competition globally. Once other countries started making things, we could no longer do that.
 
Sorry buddy. I think you get a lot right and I enjoy your posts but you are out of touch on this one. I grew up poor and almost slaved away my life for under 50k a year. I can tell you that without good low brain power jobs (the ones shipped away) many people struggle now. If you ask them are they better off without that steel job or without that plastics injection gig they will tell you no. Becuase they are now working at mcdonalds and walmart making 1/2 to 1/4 what they would have made if those jobs would of stayed in this country.

You live in NYC and have the brain needed to survive in that place. I get it. People around this country dont have that ability and they are pushed down. Their children grow up in a worst environment, public services are cut - everything pushes down.

I grew up outside of Philadelphia to two parents who were making around $20k a year combined in the mid-late 1980's. That's not exactly poor, but it's not very well off either. I never finished high school and ended up with a GED, which is why I left to join the military. I spent a decent amount of time during and just after that working in a manufacturing job right next to Mexico building, repairing, and testing HF amplifiers, so I've directly worked in an industry that was affected by NAFTA. I think I have a reasonable idea what it's like.

None of this changes the fact that most US industries do not engage in international trade and most US jobs are not manufacturing or in industries that are world-facing. Globalization DOES have some of the effects that you're describing in terms of low skill labor, but they are simply not the main drivers of inequality today.

I don't find the argument convincing that we should keep doing things in an inefficient way just to give jobs to people who are otherwise unskilled. That doesn't mean we leave them behind, but we help them with the benefits of trade. Everyone CAN win this, but we have lacked the internal political will to do so because apparently that's communism or something.
 
Wages have been stagnate for 30 years. We are inflating away peoples standard of living. So what if everyone has a 50" lcd? So what if everyone has some entertainment devices. They still earn less in real dollars then they did 30 years ago. And its not going to stop here. It will continue until we have "equal" parity with the rest of the world.

I would love to be wrong on this btw. It makes me sick to see so much crap imported from places who dont have environmental laws, workers rights, and real wages. Our worker cannot compete with that.

edit:

And its especially true as the make less and less. They are gripped in a death spiral with cheap goods from over seas. The more they buy the less they make and the more they have to buy cheap goods. They lose the ability to even think about buying anything american made.

Just so we are clear.

People have more things and nicer things, but their standard of living has gone down?

Look at the stats of homes from 30 years ago. Look at the cars they drove. Look at the trips they took.

Then compare all of that to today.
Homes are larger.
Cars are bigger, have more features.
People travel more.

I would much rather be poor today then poor 30 years ago.
 
If the US lived in a bubble you might have a point. The obvious fact is that if jobs are leaving then it does not.

Competition was going to pull jobs from the us no matter what. The only thing that NAFTA did was to mean that the goods produced overseas could benefit the US with lower prices.

The manufacturing jobs that you are looking at was not sustainable long term. The only reason they were here in the US, is because our industry was in such a boom that it was more efficient to have that production here. Post WWII, most industry was demolished and the US picked up the slack. We produced all the shit, because we had the best industry and most efficient workers. We sold our shit to anyone who wanted to buy it. Everyone who bought our shit, used that shit to do more shit. Their ability to do more shit meant they were now competing on the margins with us. As we sold them more shit, the grew and competed more. Eventually, they grew their industry to a point where they were able to do shit cheaper.

The moral of the story is that selling our shit is what made our shit jobs leave. In that time, standard of living has gone way up. That is, unless you measure standard of living in a dumbass way.

The US was charging higher prices that translated into higher wages because there was little competition globally. Once other countries started making things, we could no longer do that.

I see what you are saying and it makes some sense. I still think wage growth is a pretty important factor in standard of living and outsourced jobs have allowed companies to "keep people in their place"

I grew up outside of Philadelphia to two parents who were making around $20k a year combined in the mid-late 1980's. That's not exactly poor, but it's not very well off either. I never finished high school and ended up with a GED, which is why I left to join the military. I spent a decent amount of time during and just after that working in a manufacturing job right next to Mexico building, repairing, and testing HF amplifiers, so I've directly worked in an industry that was affected by NAFTA. I think I have a reasonable idea what it's like.

None of this changes the fact that most US industries do not engage in international trade and most US jobs are not manufacturing or in industries that are world-facing. Globalization DOES have some of the effects that you're describing in terms of low skill labor, but they are simply not the main drivers of inequality today.

I don't find the argument convincing that we should keep doing things in an inefficient way just to give jobs to people who are otherwise unskilled. That doesn't mean we leave them behind, but we help them with the benefits of trade. Everyone CAN win this, but we have lacked the internal political will to do so because apparently that's communism or something.

I guess I see outsourcing of jobs to be the keystone driving inequality. The rich have been able to run rampant because they don't have to answer to the worker anymore. If you don't like it the plant gets shuttered and the town dies.

This has altered the landscape and has made things worse for those left behind. And that number left behind isnt done shedding people. I'd say we are about 30% of the way in that regard. Up next STEM jobs. Luckily for me I think some of the last jobs will be ironically creative ones.
 
All is apparent now. Eskimospy is the 12th grandmaster of the Trilateral Commission.

I think it’s the opposite: the social system is taking on a form in which finding out what you want to do is less and less of an option because your life is too structured, organised, controlled and disciplined. The US had the first real mass education (much ahead of Europe in that respect) but if you look back at the system in the late 19th century it was largely designed to turn independent farmers into disciplined factory workers, and a good deal of education maintains that form. And sometimes it’s quite explicit – so if you’ve never read it you might want to have a look at a book called The Crisis of Democracy – a publication of the trilateral commission, who were essentially liberal internationalists from Europe, Japan and the United States, the liberal wing of the intellectual elite. That’s where Jimmy Carter’s whole government came from. The book was expressing the concern of liberal intellectuals over what happened in the 60s. Well what happened in the 60s is that it was too democratic, there was a lot of popular activism, young people trying things out, experimentation – it’s called ‘the time of troubles’. The ‘troubles’ are that it civilised the country: that’s where you get civil rights, the women’s movement, environmental concerns, opposition to aggression. And it’s a much more civilised country as a result but that caused a lot of concern because people were getting out of control. People are supposed to be passive and apathetic and doing what they’re told by the responsible people who are in control. That’s elite ideology across the political spectrum – from liberals to Leninists, it’s essentially the same ideology: people are too stupid and ignorant to do things by themselves so for their own benefit we have to control them. And that very dominant ideology was breaking down in the 60s. And this commission that put together this book was concerned with trying to induce what they called ‘more moderation in democracy’ – turn people back to passivity and obedience so they don’t put so many constraints on state power and so on. In particular they were worried about young people. They were concerned about the institutions responsible for the indoctrination of the young (that’s their phrase), meaning schools, universities, church and so on – they’re not doing their job, [the young are] not being sufficiently indoctrinated. They’re too free to pursue their own initiatives and concerns and you’ve got to control them better.

If you look back at what happens since that time there have been a lot of measures introduced to impose discipline. Take something as simple as raising tuition fees – it’s much more true in the US than elsewhere, but in the US tuition is now sky high – in part it selects things on a class basis but more than that, it imposes a debt burden. So if you come out of college with a big debt you’re not going to be free to do what you want to do. You may have wanted to be a public interest lawyer but you’re going to have to go to a corporate law firm. That’s quite a serious fact and there are many other things like it. In fact the drug war was started mainly for that reason, the drug war is a disciplinary system, it’s a way of ensuring that people are kept under control and it was almost consciously designed that way… The idea of freedom is very frightening for those who have some degree of privilege and power and I think that shows up in the education system too. And in the workplace… for example, there’s a very good study by a faculty member here, who was denied tenure unfortunately, who studied very carefully the development of computer controlled machine tools – first developed in the 1950s under the military where almost everything is done…
 
I see what you are saying and it makes some sense. I still think wage growth is a pretty important factor in standard of living and outsourced jobs have allowed companies to "keep people in their place"



I guess I see outsourcing of jobs to be the keystone driving inequality. The rich have been able to run rampant because they don't have to answer to the worker anymore. If you don't like it the plant gets shuttered and the town dies.

This has altered the landscape and has made things worse for those left behind. And that number left behind isnt done shedding people. I'd say we are about 30% of the way in that regard. Up next STEM jobs. Luckily for me I think some of the last jobs will be ironically creative ones.


Capitalism works on efficiency of resources used in a scarce economy. Those who make things we want most efficiently get business and those who do not fail. In today's world, you have tight margins, but because company A has a better process it can meet more of the global demand. This is why you are seeing mega rich people. It used to be impossible for 1 company to meet all the demand in a state. Innovation happened like better transportation and suddenly Company A could meet that demand state wide, but not nation. More transportation improvements and then they could. Now we live in a global world. Samsung can make and sell their products world wide. Profit margins are lower, but volume has gone up so revenue is up.

We on net win because now we have access to goods/resources at a cheaper price. Wages could go down by 20%, but if the price went down 25% we all win. The world is not that clean though, so there are winners and lowers. We also dont see 1 company running a market yet, because innovation keeps happening. Apple came out with the iPhone and then Samsung came out with theirs. They are trading blows and then HTC comes out.

The global market is huge and dynamic, but becoming flat. You cannot stop that, nor should you want to. We will eventually move to a non scarce economy where things are so easily made they are free.

But, standard of living is on net going up. Even if you take out those 1%ers its still going up. Where people get confused is the stats because they dont understand them. The avg car today takes a larger chunk of ones income than the car avg car of 30 years ago. That makes it seem like its getting worse. That is until you realize the car of 30 years ago does not compare to todays cars. We have ABS, AC, Power everything, safety everything ect.
 
Of course he was right. UNLESS you are one of the small minority of people who made a boatload of money through the process of carving out america. In that case Ross Perot was dead wrong. And since these clowns became so rich they have been able to buy enough influence and media to convince most of the dumbed down iZombies to believe anything but the truth.
 
But that is not the important part.

If standard of living was growing for the middle class and below at 5%, and post globalization it grew at 8%, then who cares about how the rich get rich?


The biggest impact was on the lower middle class who have been pushed to poor and on subsistence from the government. Why do we fight to remove the safety net from these people when it was policy that put them in the poor house to begin with?
 
The biggest impact was on the lower middle class who have been pushed to poor and on subsistence from the government. Why do we fight to remove the safety net from these people when it was policy that put them in the poor house to begin with?

Most people right or left are not trying to remove SS.

Try this. Find a point in US history where you feel we were doing good in terms of poverty. Then, find the poverty rate for that time. Then compare then to now and their poverty rates.

original.jpg
 
But people are trying to remove food stamps and whatever.

Also I guess poverty is the wrong word as it actually means something i.e. earning less then $11,334 in 2010 dollars. I think I am thinking of them plus the working poor. I assume getting less then 1k a month is welfare level.
 
But people are trying to remove food stamps and whatever.

Also I guess poverty is the wrong word as it actually means something i.e. earning less then $11,334 in 2010 dollars. I think I am thinking of them plus the working poor. I assume getting less then 1k a month is welfare level.

So, who do you believe was hurt by the trade agreement? Poverty levels are pretty stable and or getting better. GDP is up, prices are down.
 
So, who do you believe was hurt by the trade agreement? Poverty levels are pretty stable and or getting better. GDP is up, prices are down.

As I've said, there are definitely people hurt more by free trade than they are helped. If you're in an industry where your labor can easily be outsourced you can probably expect lower wages and fewer jobs. That undeniably sucks.

Overall, free trade also exacerbated inequality, although not nearly to the extent that some people think. Considering how bad inequality already is in America that's a problem in my mind too.

That doesn't mean free trade is bad, it just means it's not uniformally positive. But that's why Jesus invented social safety nets and such. I think it was Jesus.
 
So, who do you believe was hurt by the trade agreement? Poverty levels are pretty stable and or getting better. GDP is up, prices are down.

Over all globalization has hurt the textile industry, manufacturing, the environment, vfx industry and soon engineering and other stem jobs.
 
Competition and wages is not the primary reason, after all Germany and Japan remain manufacturing powerhouses and the cost of their labor is just as high if not higher than the U.S. Exporting your machinery, technology, and know-how is the primary driver for the decline in US manufacturing.
 
Competition and wages is not the primary reason, after all Germany and Japan remain manufacturing powerhouses and the cost of their labor is just as high if not higher than the U.S. Exporting your machinery, technology, and know-how is the primary driver for the decline in US manufacturing.


because the .01% has incentive to do so via the laws and tax loopholes they lobby to have made. Fucking traitors really.
 
Competition and wages is not the primary reason, after all Germany and Japan remain manufacturing powerhouses and the cost of their labor is just as high if not higher than the U.S. Exporting your machinery, technology, and know-how is the primary driver for the decline in US manufacturing.

And we all know over the last 30 Japan has been a model of open trade.
 
Back
Top