Guests may browse all the site, but only registered users can post in the main forums.
Unregistered users may post in the Free Range Talk Forum

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
An existential question about bringing jobs back to America
#1
When we're talking about the human condition in the world we live in, most of us have definite opinons about how things should be -- and unfortunately it seems most of us put ourselves in the center of things, and all else revolves around us, in terms of social problems that are politically determined.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/14/news/eco...index.html

What happens when Trump or Sanders actually succeeds in shutting down slave mills in Mexico and other countries and bringing those jobs back to this country?

The first thing that happens is that costs go up on products now being produced in those other countries. 

When costs of shoes, toys, and clothing goes up, who does it hurt most?

Yeah, the poor and the middle class. 

And who does it hurt if we don't bring those jobs back... sigh... the poor and the middle class.

A simple question for you:

Which do you prefer?

The poor and the middle class pay more for these goods?

Or the poor and the middle class have fewer low paying jobs here in this country?

What happens when a poor family has to pay more for the cost of living than their jobs pay them?

Yeah, they get welfare help. Food stamps. Medicaid. Etc. 

What happens when a poor family's breadwinner can't get even a low-paying job because they're all overseas, now?

Yeah, they get welfare help. Food stamps. Medicaid. Etc.

Since it is the poor who are damned if we do and damned if we don't, what is your choice? 

And if you want to vote for Bern (god bless his beautiful heart) or Trump (god save us from his ugly heart) BECAUSE they want to bring jobs back, does it bother you that they'd be doing exactly nothing to help this country if they did get the jobs back? (That is, unless the jobs come back but are required to pay living wages)

This doesn't touch on the way we feel about them exploiting foreign workers with their slave labor wages. 

Just looking at what it will or won't do for our country. 

Can you think of ways that the problem could be fixed so that people in America can make a decent wage for a decent day's work and have enough to pay for higher costs of living?

Are you willing to pay more for goods produced in this country? And are you willing to insist that the workers here DO get paid enough to live on? With the offset being that we'd use less tax money to pay welfare to them?
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If I don't answer when you talk to me or about me, that's likely because I have you on ignore.  Try to PM me. It won't let you PM me if I have you on ignore. There are other people, not members, who peruse this site. I want THEM to know why I don't reply to everyone who talks to or about me.
Reply
#2
Good questions.

Clearly, we need jobs in this country, but jobs that pay well enough to live on.

That would mean things like raising the minimum wage.  Studies aren't conclusive, but many of them show that doing that doesn't raise the costs of goods/services much - the idea is that folks at the low end spend most all of what they make, and so the increased demand means that businesses don't have to raise prices much.

This effect would probably show up a bit a the lower end of the middle class as well, but not as much, I would think.

In the 1950's, when people made decent wages and CEO's made 30-50x average salaries instead of 300x average salaries (today), everything was better economically than it is now.

And yes, I'd be willing to pay a bit more if I knew that went towards decent salaries for employees, rather than getting diverted to the top. But, I'd prefer to first reduce the outlandish salaries of CEO's and use that money to raise salaries at the bottom. In fact, many people already choose to shop at Target rather than Wal-Mart even though prices are a little higher there, because of how the employees are treated.

Finally, it's very good to see the connection between things and understand that we'd pay less in tax programs to help low-income workers if they were paid better, so there would be a savings there.
Reply
#3
My less than visionary answer would be, we need to find a balance of that whole jobs in other countries thing and figure out how to suceed in a globalist economy.  We are running out of options on playing the imperialist card without hurting our own people.  But I'm afraid that our new world order of Robber Barons won't allow any concessions soon.
 
verum tuae sui
Reply
#4
(04-15-2016, 07:36 AM)'jafs 2' Wrote: Good questions.

Clearly, we need jobs in this country, but jobs that pay well enough to live on.

That would mean things like raising the minimum wage.  Studies aren't conclusive, but many of them show that doing that doesn't raise the costs of goods/services much - the idea is that folks at the low end spend most all of what they make, and so the increased demand means that businesses don't have to raise prices much.

This effect would probably show up a bit a the lower end of the middle class as well, but not as much, I would think.

In the 1950's, when people made decent wages and CEO's made 30-50x average salaries instead of 300x average salaries (today), everything was better economically than it is now.

And yes, I'd be willing to pay a bit more if I knew that went towards decent salaries for employees, rather than getting diverted to the top. But, I'd prefer to first reduce the outlandish salaries of CEO's and use that money to raise salaries at the bottom. In fact, many people already choose to shop at Target rather than Wal-Mart even though prices are a little higher there, because of how the employees are treated.

Finally, it's very good to see the connection between things and understand that we'd pay less in tax programs to help low-income workers if they were paid better, so there would be a savings there.

 

Part of the deal that Clinton wanted for NAFTA was that we re-train all those lower paid workers to do jobs that pay better (possibly data-entry, mechanics work... who knows.. I'm not familiar with what kind of jobs he wanted them trained for).

But amidst all the wheeling and dealing in D.C. Clinton let that slip away. In fact, he let every early demand he wanted with NAFTA slip away. 

Bush Senior first started pushing NAFTA, or so I read somewhere. I didn't research to see why he didn't get it. Perhaps we had a Democratic congress, or perhaps it was akin to Bernie Sanders... just too scary at first thought for many people that it couldn't get traction with Bush Sr.

However, the topic didn't go away, pushing Clinton into the conversation. 

He didn't get anything he suggested but he signed it anyways.

I need to go back and figure out why.

 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If I don't answer when you talk to me or about me, that's likely because I have you on ignore.  Try to PM me. It won't let you PM me if I have you on ignore. There are other people, not members, who peruse this site. I want THEM to know why I don't reply to everyone who talks to or about me.
Reply
#5
(04-15-2016, 08:35 AM)'autie' Wrote: My less than visionary answer would be, we need to find a balance of that whole jobs in other countries thing and figure out how to suceed in a globalist economy.  We are running out of options on playing the imperialist card without hurting our own people.  But I'm afraid that our new world order of Robber Barons won't allow any concessions soon.
 

 


And we should have found that balance and pushed it before Clinton signed.

Because most of us know that nobody is going to push for it now, regardless of what Hill and Bern say to get elected. 

I'm not even sure they'd work THAT hard on it if suddenly we had a Democratic congress. The reason I say that is, nobody would work with Bern even in the Democratic pary because their deep pocket supporters would not support them either if they pushed for more and better options; and nobody would work with Hill for the same reason if she pushed it, but I don't think she would. I think it's an afterthought in her mind once in a while that never quite makes it to a plan.

I hope I'm wrong.

 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If I don't answer when you talk to me or about me, that's likely because I have you on ignore.  Try to PM me. It won't let you PM me if I have you on ignore. There are other people, not members, who peruse this site. I want THEM to know why I don't reply to everyone who talks to or about me.
Reply
#6
According to a Feb. 2014 report by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, a raise of minimum wage to $10.10 would raise 900,000 workers out of poverty while simultaniously eliminating 500,000 jobs, sending those workers deeper into poverty and presumably a greater need for government intervention.  The same report said a raise to $9.00 would raise fewer out of poverty and causing fewer job losses.  Presumably, a raise to $15.00/hr. would cause more to climb out of poverty and more job losses.  

The 1950's is an interesting example.  The U.S. was a manufacturing juggernaut, having survived WW II largely unscathed.  Early in that decade, Europe and much of Asia still lay in ruins, though that changed by the end of the '50's.  Additionally, much of today's competitors (China) voluntarily wothdrew from the world's economy.  It will be impossible to replicate those conditions.  

There have been a couple of major shifts in the U.S. economy since our founding.  First based on agriculture, then manufacturing, now we're largely a service based economy.  The reality is that service industry jobs traditionally pay less than manufacturing.  They did in the '50's and they still pay less today.  In the '50's, when a 16 year old kid might wash dishes until adulthood and then transition into a factory where his father probably worked.  Today, the factory is overseas.  While it's true that a huge wage gap exists and is getting wider, it's also true that a huge skill level gap exists and that too is getting wider.  (That 16 year old dishwasher would have transitioned into a factory job and received additional job skill training.  Now, that doesn't happen.)  

It's often argued that wages need to keep up with cost of living.  Sounds great.  But I wonder if wages also need to be tied to things like skill level as in those who adapt to the changes in the economy will be rewarded while those who fail to adapt will naturally continue to fail to thrive.  
 
Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country.  
Reply
#7
Report, I don't know why but your post spurred the thought of how when you're talking or posting with others about wars and/or the military, the old canard "Well, you never served" in an attempt to make one feel not worthy of comment or criticism. 

 ​Well, how could EVERYONE serve in the military? Someone's got to pump someone's septic tank or bag someone's groceries or sell you a mattress or........
 
Reply
#8
(04-15-2016, 07:36 AM)'jafs 2' Wrote: Good questions.

Clearly, we need jobs in this country, but jobs that pay well enough to live on.
In the 1950's, when people made decent wages and CEO's made 30-50x average salaries instead of 300x average salaries (today), everything was better economically than it is now.

 

Way off base. In the 1950's almost every household had one wage earner. Women were homemakers, housewives and mothers. People lived in much smalller dwellings either it be apartments, houses, etc. Homes had one refrigerator/freezer (Norge) and a simple range/oven. Laundry was done by hand or simple machine and dried on the line. Clothing was durable and repairable, shoes likewise and other linens while the family owned very little clothing. The family had one car, easy to fix and maintain. Food was prepared from scratch at home, trash was burned in the back yard and there was little waste. One phone, one radio, some families had a TV (B&W), and that was about it. That model would be easy to build again, take everything away! Forbid married women to work, limit a womens ability to survive outside of wedlock (welfare-security) and many bad marriages would stay together for the sake of security.

What has been the catalyst? Materialism and security. I support women working, have no issue with it, it is empowering and equality. But it has a cause and effect that blanket statements like "the 1950s were great" don't support. The family, and in particular in minority communities has suffered because of welfare. Women no longer rely upon men for support, now they can rely upon their Uncle Sam or employment, or both. Big shift sociologically, now marriage is no longer a defining economic security need. Secondly, materialism has created a sense of greed among every class and strata of society. A newly wed couple in 1950 lived in an apartment for 10 years saving money for a down payment on a house. The GI Bill after WWII also fed the housing boom but the boom was on. New cars, a second car, air conditioning, bigger homes, suburbs, etc. Then the 1960s and welfare under LBJ. The beginning of the end for the "nuclear family". 

Today a home is 3 to 4 times larger than a regular home in the 1950s. Instead of one bathroom there are 3 or 4. AC and heating via climate controlled HVAC systems, washer and dryer, refrigerator freezer in the kitchen, in the garage plus a freezer, microwave ovens, etc. We have a TV in every room, a computer in every room, two to four cars, every family member has a cell phone with data plans and such. That is the average household.

Even the poor households have more square footage, they have smart phones even if they have two or three obamaphones, they have TV's, gaming consoles, appliances, so much food that we have an obescity problem. Most have a car. 

Remember in the 1950s it was hard work, it took skill to manage a home, sewing, cooking, cleaning, teaching children, and without health insurance, without emergency rooms like today, without mass communication, be very careful when touting the successes of the 1950s, we, to include the poor today, have it ten times better, we just don't appreciate what we have and we are consumed with materialism.  

 
Reply
#9
(04-15-2016, 09:24 AM)'Agent99' Wrote: Report, I don't know why but your post spurred the thought of how when you're talking or posting with others about wars and/or the military, the old canard "Well, you never served" in an attempt to make one feel not worthy of comment or criticism. 

 ​Well, how could EVERYONE serve in the military? Someone's got to pump someone's septic tank or bag someone's groceries or sell you a mattress or........
 

 

Are you talking about serving in the military, for two or three years... like Switzerland has been doing for several decades?

Or are you talking about a military career?
 
Reply
#10
(04-15-2016, 09:43 AM)'Agnostick' Wrote: Are you talking about serving in the military, for two or three years... like Switzerland has been doing for several decades?

Or are you talking about a military career?
 

 
Either, but many people who "serve" are behind a desk or in a kitchen, slinging hash and never fired a round. Depending on what you look at, it appears maybe (this is current day) about 10% of military see combat (correction: or in a "combat" zone), and that could even be high. I've seen higher estimates and lower. Maybe Number Two has some solid figures.


 
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Our Amazon Picks


Donate With PayPal