Is the Call for Raising the Minimum Wage a Detriment?

1. 70

   rhamsonposted 9 years ago

   Two trains of thought are being bantered back and forth. Does a raising of the minimum wage create job loss and lower profits and more unemployment or does it increase disposable income thereby jump starting the economy and increasing hiring?

   replyreport
   1. 70

      rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      From another thread by Wilderness.
      
      ""But when played against the theory that more money earned equates to more money spent and the quantifying result of it creates a surge in spending there is evidence of it merits."
      
      So let's take a look at this, can we?  Joe made $8 per hour flipping burgers, now makes $10.  Let's look at what we can reasonable expect to see when that happens.
      
      Burgers go up in price, from $5 to $6, but that's all right as Joe has more money to spend on them.  But while this is happening, Bill, who made $10 making the machines that Joe used to cook with, is unhappy.  He demands, and gets, $12.50 per hour, commensurate with his skills and abilities.  And the price of a burger goes up to $6.25, but that's OK because they both make more and can buy more burgers.
      
      Except that Sally, earning $13 in the truck plant that makes trucks to transport tomatoes for McD's sees the price increase of burgers, and the wage increase to her own level for semi-skilled work.  She wants, and gets, $17 (and the price of a burger goes up again), whereupon John, making cars, demands that he go from $25 to $30.  And the price of a car goes from $15,000 to $20,000, neatly negating any wage increase Joe got.  It's called inflation and it's going to happen whether we hope companies will simply eat their increased labor costs or not (hoping does not generally have much effect on corporate profits).
      
      So when it's all said and done, including an equal 25% increase in company profits, inflation has more than destroyed Joe's wonderful pay raise (and that of Bill, Sally and John as well) - they all need another one to counter the inflation that resulted from his first raise.  And the cycle continues.
      
      OR, we can let Joe, who refuses to find better work, stay where he is and suffer the consequences.  With the result that Sally, Bill and John don't see inflation and keep on being able to live a decent life style without need for a raise that they haven't earned.
      
      Rhamson, I went through this cycle in my younger years (and suspect you did as well).  I also went through the corrective phase, when raises did not meet inflation.  And I've seen the result; a far more stable economy, where planning means something and where a stable wage means a stable life.  Yes, it hurt as the automatic raise concept died out, but I'd do it again to keep a truly competitive economy rather than one where we lose 10% of our buying ability each year unless we can squeeze a raise out.
      
      The idea that society owes a fine, luxurious living to anyone working 40 hours is nonsense - if they want more than bare subsistence let them find a job paying more than subsistence wages.  Not all work is worth more, and that the worker wants it anyway doesn't mean they should penalize the rest of the nation to get it.  Nor is such a penalty (in the form of inflation) worth the cost to the nation - it is destructive in the extreme and pretending that it is useful or that it won't happen is just as destructive.

      replyreport
      1. 70

         rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         But you are not understanding the concept. With the way it is today and the loss of jobs to the far east we have effectively undone the process by which the economy can grow. The race to the bottom for cheaper goods has resulted in less purchasing power in the marketplace. Stagnant or lesser wages has resulted in less buying power. Walmart is experiencing shrinking sales because the cheap products are too expensive with the stagnant wages and in many cases the total loss of wages. Overseas Walmart is not feeling the pinch as much. What does this say? That even with a world wide recession foreign countries are better equipped through their earning power and can afford to buy and support their system better than us who have continually lowered expenses through exporting the labor cost overseas?
         
         Your scenario of Joe getting a raise to $10.00 an hour thereby raising the cost of the burgers is not what the fast food chains are anticipating doing. As a matter of fact McDonald's is looking to give the raises and decrease the prices on their menus. Why you might ask? Because if they give their employees more money and lower their prices they anticipate and increase in volume far exceeding accepting the lower sales and higher profits. Lower sales equal less profit. Higher sales with nominal cost increases equal higher sales and profit. You don't make a profit unless you are selling something. You make a lot more profit through volume which is what they are set up to do in the first place.

         replyreport
         1. 89

            wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            "With the way it is today and the loss of jobs to the far east we have effectively undone the process by which the economy can grow."
            
            You are mistaking higher wages with a growing economy.  They are not the same; inflation will require higher wages but the people will have no more than they did before (except pieces of paper with larger numbers printed on it).  No, a growing economy means more actual production, and we did not have that in the past decade or so. 
            
            It's true that we have undone the process by buying imports instead of home grown.  That is a natural result of competition, of capitalism and the human greed for more.  Had we increased our production per man hour (as we did in the past) instead of farming out the labor to cheaper sources, we wouldn't be seeing the hole we dug ourselves.  And we could have increased our standard of living just as using cheaper labor did, but maintained our job base while doing so.
            
            "Your scenario of Joe getting a raise to $10.00 an hour thereby raising the cost of the burgers is not what the fast food chains are anticipating doing. As a matter of fact McDonald's is looking to give the raises and decrease the prices on their menus."
            
            Yes, it is exactly what McD's is looking to do.  Increase their prices to maintain a profit.
            
            While the liberal fiction is that increasing the labor cost of McD's by paying the tiny portion of it's customer base a few dollars more will vastly increase sales is a total fiction.  In addition, while lowering prices can induce more sales, it doesn't always work out that way.  Those sales must come from a competitor (the customer group consisting of McD's workers isn't nearly large enough to be a factor) and that means competition.  Competition which will immediately cut their prices, too, and thus keep their own customer base. 
            
            What you're trying to describe negates any form of low volume, high price products and we know that is a false premise.  The world is full of low volume products that make a good profit for the companies producing them.  Instead, the price/volume question is always a variable and never a simple matter of increasing volume to it's theoretical maximum.  Even with volume cost savings (often but not always possible) it is still not nearly as clear cut as you are trying to make it.

            replyreport
         2. 58

            feenixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            What a lot of US residents had better learn, and learn fast, is that the US job market is undergoing a radical change. All of the jobs that have been, and are being, outsourced overseas will never return, largely because the US is transforming away from being a manufacturing country to being one that specializes in such things as high technology and healthcare systems and expertise.
            
            The point is, a whole lot of people had better stop listening to politicians and activists who are out there preaching such things as "every one is entitled to a living wage" and "Walmart and McDonald's are under-paying their employees." What they had better do is, start doing research into what the jobs of the future are going to be and then they should go about the business of preparing themselves for those jobs.
            
            Personally, if I were a young person today, I would be looking into the field of healthcare (including both the practical and administrative areas) when it comes to a career. And good-old common sense would move me to make that decision.
            
            Just consider a few facts: (1) Healthcare will be a field that provides numerous jobs simply because people are living longer-and-longer today; thereby, setting up a situation in which there will be a large and continually-growing number of elderly people which, of course, are the ones who require a lot of medical care. (2) Due to the fact that medical science is advancing so rapidly, a great many who have terminal diseases will not be "terminal" anymore. They will be living long lives; thereby, requiring lengthy periods of treatment, and that translates to a requirement for more medical workers from the bottom-up and in the practical areas as well as in the administrative areas. (3) Because so many new kinds of medical scanning machines and so forth are being developed, and being developed at nearly warp speed, there will be a requirement for a large number of additional technicians to operate that machinery.
            
            Now, I am just barely scratching the surface here. But one of my points is, rather than being the leading manufacturer in the world, the US of the future will be the world's place for healthcare. Not only will the residents of this country be treated and cared for in local facilities, many from other countries will be treated and cared for in US facilities.
            
            Can you see where I am going with all of this? It is a changing world and US workers had better start changing with it.

            replyreport
            1. 70

               rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               What you fail to realize is that as globalization takes it full devastating turn of events the diluting and downgrading of our country and it's standard of living will go along with it. Politicians are bought for the purpose of making this happen in spite of the results and not for anything but the almighty dollar. The real destruction will come when the dollar is useless.
               
               Figuring out what business or occupation to go into in a globalized marketplace and workforce will be useless as whatever choice you make another will be willing to do it cheaper. No occupation or skill set will be safe and the result will be an even larger gap between the 1% and the rest of us. This is predicted by Karl Marx in The Communist Manifesto. It is funny how well the conservative approach is emulating what Marx outlines in the events leading up to a communistic fertile atmosphere for a really big change. Why can't we learn from history. The globalist theory is resoundingly rooted in greed as we the lemmings huddle around it to feed on.

               replyreport
               1. 58

                  feenixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Karl Marx's book was written and published way back in the 1800s, and so far as I know, there is not a Prophet named Karl Marx.
                  
                  That brings me to ask, have you read a book entitled, "Megatrends" by John Naisbitt that was published in 1982 (as I type this comment, I am eyeing my copy of the book -- because I always keep it handy)?
                  
                  If you have not read that book, I suggest that you do, because Naisbitt does a very effective job of forecasting what the future holds for the US, and his discussion does not present a doomsday scenario.
                  
                  One of the primary things he does is outlines how the US will undergo radical changes in such areas as the job market and he goes on to say that after going through a period of difficulty (which I believe is what we are experiencing now) US society will make vast adjustments that will make it the main player in the "Brave New World."
                  
                  If the forecasts of Marx and Engel were correct, what in the hell happened to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and Cuba?

                  replyreport
               2. 89

                  wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  You're right in that no occupation or skill set will be safe, save for a handful that require on-site labor.  Nursing, for instance, or house painters.  And even then we're giving millions of those jobs to aliens that have no right to take them, simply in the shortsighted effort to save ourselves a buck.
                  
                  Which means we need to be the best at whatever it we choose to do.  Or at least good enough that even cheap transportation + cheap labor can't undercut us.  Suggestions, outside of increasing our prices or outright protectionism that will always invite reprisal?

                  replyreport
      2. 80

         Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         That makes a lot of sense. Whats to argue?
         (The quoted statement was Rhamson's. The response is wilderness'.)
         Here is the bottom line from wilderness' response:
         "…we can let Joe, who refuses to find better work, stay where he is and suffer the consequences.  With the result that Sally, Bill and John don't see inflation and keep on being able to live a decent life style without need for a raise that they haven't earned...the result; a far more stable economy, where planning means something and where a stable wage means a stable life."
         I concur.

         replyreport
         1. 70

            rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            The basis by which I make my argument is not that Joe is working any less or any harder. His dollar is earning less as a result of competition in another economy. He is competing with someone who is making pennies on the dollar. If it were to follow your train of thought, lose the job in favor of a better paying job. Makes sense! But as more and more are forced into that situation they are in competition with many others looking to improve their wage. Guess what? The surplus of people in the same situation are forced to accept a wage based on that now overflowing downgraded wage level. Whether you push it to the bottom or to the top more people are being squeezed into a smaller job market because of the job losses to China and such.
            
            The basics of business boils down to supply and demand. With the recent loss of sales with Walmarts business plan we are getting more product at a lower cost. With the loss of jobs we are getting less customers who are buying less due to their purchasing power. Both lose as Walmart has more product to sell less customers.
            
            Henry Ford figured it out years ago when he tripled the assembly line workers wages so that he could retain his trained employees rather than them going elsewhere to make a living. He also wanted to take what was once a $3,000 car that's customer base was the 1% er's of that era and mass produce it to where it was affordable to the masses at $500 a car. His own employees became customers which completed the cycle. Instead of losing his business as most capitalists of the day predicted he doubled his business in three years. What has changed since then? Availability of easy credit whereby the affordability is delayed which is now apparent with less people qualifying for home loans and small business closed out from business loans. We are finally getting to the finish line of the race to the bottom. Perhaps as with addiction one must experience rock bottom before a change can happen.

            replyreport
            1. 89

               wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               "His dollar is earning less as a result of competition in another economy."
               
               And there is the problem.  Because there is but one economy now - the global one - with pockets of variations.  You don't like it, I don't like it, few people (even Chinese or Korean) truly like it but there it is anyway.
               
               And no, Ford wasn't successful because a tiny portion of his customers worked for higher wages at his production plant.  He was successful because he figured out how to make a cheap enough car that the average person could have one.

               replyreport
               1. 70

                  rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  And one economy rewards the very few at the top and condemns the rest to struggle at the bottom. The affects are becoming more and more apparent as the middle class are getting poorer as a result of this race to the bottom.
                  
                  Read this about Fords actions. You could not be more wrong.
                  
                  http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 … rofit.html

                  replyreport
                  1. 89

                     wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     Rhamson, Rhamson.  You really need to quit reading more into events than is there.  Pretending that paying employees more results in substantially more sales is ridiculous on the face of it.
                     
                     Henry Ford doubled the wage his competitors were paying (not triple as you said).  He did NOT require that everyone in the country pay that wage.  The result was a more loyal employee, with a much lower turnover rate.  The burgeoning labor movement (often violent) left him alone.  He got a higher quality employee and did better work.  Ford was also successful, with his newly invented construction line, in reducing the cost of his product by a factor of 6: a huge step that his competition could not touch.
                     
                     That Ford may ([i]may[/]) have attributed his success to sales generated by employees earning a third of the cars value more than normal does not mean it is true.  Selling a few hundred extra cars every 5 years or so (the car is a semi-durable product and not replaced every week or even every year) isn't going to affect the bottom line appreciably.  Not when Ford produced 43,053 cars in 1910 and half a million in 1915.  There is no "cycle" to complete here; the sales figures to highly paid employees are simply to low to matter.  You cannot build a business based on selling it's product to the people that make it (except in a socialist economy where all prices are arbitrarily set by government).
                     
                     As far as condemning the economic system that produced the richest country in the world, with basics and luxuries for all, well, you need to re-think that attitude.  It has it's problems, exacerbated by easy, cheap shipping costs now, but that can be overcome.  IF, that is, we take steps to do so; if we sit back on our laurels and pretend we don't need to compete in the world market we will inevitably join the third world in it's poverty.

                     replyreport
                  2. 82

                     GA Andersonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     All of us love it when we find info that validates our perceptions, but sometimes a little double-checking can be helpful.
                     
                     Regarding Ford's revolutionary doubling of wages so his workers could afford his cars... here's another perspective from thehenryford.com site;
                     
                     
                     Hmm... why didn't the DailyBeast article mention this?
                     
                     But the Beast wasn't completely wrong. Another source Businessmanagementdaily lists two main reasons for this action;
                     
                     
                     
                     So why did the Beast ignore the number one reason for his actions?
                     
                     I am not bashing Ford, but sometimes there is more to a story. And sometimes someone can be more wrong.
                     
                     GA

                     replyreport
                     1. 70

                        rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        Go back and read it again and you will find what you ask.

                        replyreport
                  3. 58

                     retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     Henry Ford took personal action with his private business to change the status of his employees. He did not FORCE every employer in the country to CONFORM to a CENTRALLY DICTATED wage without regard to LOCAL conditions or MARKET FORCES. 
                     
                     A Federally dictated national minimum wage is stupid, plain and simple. It has been a disaster since its introduction in the 1940's and hasn't stopped. The market place will set wages, more reliably and with better result. Employment will rise if businesses can set their own wages without the dictatorial interference of the Federal government.
                     
                     It is easily observed, when local employment conditions require a wage above the Federally Dictated minimum, wages increase. When local conditions require wages below the Federally Dictated minimum wage, unemployment increases.
                     
                     Urban districts with bad schools and small towns with a smaller business base suffer most from this stupid policy. Suburban areas where schools are better and business is brisk usually offer wages higher than the minimum because MARKET FORCES require it.
                     
                     It is absurd to believe that the TRILLIONS of economic decisions made yearly by the 300,000,000+ Americans can be DICTATED effectively from a distant capital whose occupants are insulted from the consequences of their actions.
                     
                     Wake up, governments are clunky, insular and slow - markets must be nimble, quick and inquisitive.
                     Any market that is not these things will fail. Governments make for poor markets - witness history.

                     replyreport
                     1. 70

                        rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        Thank you for making my point even stronger!
                        
                        Ford was not the government and he made his decision based on economic realities. More money in the pocket of the worker, more loyalty of retaining trained workers and more spending on the products they are producing. It is the basis of the "the virtuous cycle. What does it look like? When a company such as Wal-Mart loses a few employees, they can be written off as malcontents. Then a few more leave, going to companies with more generous pay or benefits. Not long after that, managers who have been reluctant to hire or invest in the business notice what some of their competitors are doing. Someone in accounting crunches a few numbers, and warns that the company is actually losing business because of understaffing or poor customer service.
                        Someone decides that retention of both staff and customers is important. Raises begin, hiring increases. Even investment spending ticks up.
                        What do employees do once they start getting paid more? They pay off some debt, save some and spend the rest. That leads to greater demand for goods and services, which leads to more hiring and spending.
                        It is the opposite of Keynes’ paradox of thrift: When many economic players spend more money during an economic expansion, aggregate demand increases, consumption rises and economic growth accelerates."[1]
                        
                        
                        The greed that has been running the country and buying their means by which to do it by shifting jobs overseas cannot release their greedy hold on us. The government serves at their pleasure through donations and the influence that buys. So do you expect the greed to now give in on anything that remotely costs more to their bottom line? Absolutely not! Where are we to see a change? In the very same bought off Congress that runs the country? No! Where you are seeing the change to bring the economy and the Virtuous cycle to light again is on local and state levels where people have recognized the Federal government has been bought off and left the country to falter all for the bribes that make them rich and care less about their constituents. You seem to think there is a theory of capitalism that is being practiced here. Does that include free market politicians who can be bought off to serve them and their every whim? Is that the free market system that supports enslaving foreign labor markets with horrible working and health conditions all the while paying pennies on the dollar to do so. Locked into burning buildings, eating lunch at their sewing machines and allowed a few minutes to rise and relieve themselves is our competition to determine the bottom dollar for US workers? This is not competition but it is domination driven by greed.
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        [1] http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2 … ous-circle

                        replyreport
                        1. 58

                           retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           Why bother with employee retention when the work force participation rate is as low as it is now? Employee loyalty only matters if those employees are skilled enough that training a replacement is cost prohibitive. It was not out of virtue that Ford raised his wages, he had precious little virtue available to him - read about the racist, anti-Semite someday. He raised his wages because of market demands. The rising cost of integrated a heretofore untrained workforce into a manufacturing style that required increasing skills and the unusual ability to show up, work all day indoors and serve a machine were prohibitive.
                           
                           A centrally directed economy has no advantage over a purely market driven one when it comes to virtue, in a free society.

                           replyreport
                           1. 70

                              rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              "A centrally directed economy has no advantage over a purely market driven one when it comes to virtue, in a free society."
                              
                              I agree with this statement but for the interference the corporations have enacted by globalizing the workforce and forcing wages down based on third world standards. The free society notion has been bought out by those that will gain by circumventing the natural progression. Wages should be reflected by and in the economy it competes with. If another countries economy becomes the basis by which that is newly established then society either makes the move towards its competitor by uplifting or bringing down the other. Comparing an American workers wages with a third world workers wages in essence tears down the American workers wages and slightly elevates the third worlds worker.
                              
                              Changing the American workers occupation and skill set will only temporarily fix the situation as a basis has been established that foreign labor pools will also evolve into that field as well. China is now moving towards a more technological workforce. Where will you have the American worker go from there to keep ahead of the inevitable, based on the globalization of the free market?

                              replyreport
                              1. 58

                                 retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 If not for the unrelenting interference of the Federal government in the economy, many of the jobs some dismiss as never returning would return precisely because the have fled a miserable regulatory and tax climate that offsets the efficiency and productivity of the American work force.
                                 
                                 There is a resurgence of manufacturing jobs in certain areas of the United States, while others still lag behind. Why? it is as it always has and always will be - government.

                                 replyreport
   2. 89

      wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Good idea, Rhamson - we did hijack that thread pretty badly.

      replyreport
2. 70

   rhamsonposted 9 years ago

   Ahorseback posted:
   
   I think there are two ends of the spectrum when it comes to understanding the theories behind economic success and  "sharing the wealth ." in America .   
   
   One - there are those of  old school realizations that , we earn whatever we acquire in life AND  that it's well understood  that we may only get so far out of that which we DO earn . Hence  , one man  becomes a rich man  because of his exceptional abilities   and another  man  'get's by' okay with merely the limitations of his education and  his standing within his culture , limited only by  his  own abilities in earning a living.
   
   Two - there are those  who would have us all  believe that we ALL deserve  our fair  and absolutely equalized share of the same pie.  In other words , their idea of minimum wages  is that whatever it takes to acquire everything they want in life .  They  want a college education ,  a mac- mansion ,  a three car garage  and  the houseboat on the lake .
   
   The sad part is , is that number two really believes that whatever it takes out of everyone else's pocket book  to get what he needs is simply okay  and should be okay with you too !

   replyreport
   1. 70

      rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      "The sad part is , is that number two really believes that whatever it takes out of everyone else's pocket book  to get what he needs is simply okay  and should be okay with you too !"
      
      The sad part is that through greed and the ability to manipulate the rules by the 1% number two has effectively had it stolen out from under him.

      replyreport
      1. 89

         wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         While it is popular to use the term "steal" whenever an unskilled laborer doesn't earn what he wants, in truth the only theft happening is when the majority force a minority to give up their earnings to support someone else.  Legal, but ethical theft in a manner that agreeing to sell a product (labor, for instance) at a particular wage, can never be.
         
         Such spin and connotative use of wording should be beneath you.

         replyreport
         1. 70

            rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Your claims of unearned wages is a sham as in our standard of living it is competitive. When you play another standard into the mix you in essence steal away their ability to compete on an even playing field within their own standard. To make some one play outside of their standard is ludicrous as you will always lose. It is a race to the bottom even in your globalized dream of equality. The ones with the most lose the most. That is us my friend.

            replyreport
            1. 58

               feenixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               Here are a few very important key words: motivation, innovation, competitiveness, ambition, perseverance, resilience, durability ...
               
               Those are the qualities that led to the USA being the great and wealthy nation it is today.
               
               In fact, it is because of those qualities that you have the luxury of sitting around in your comfortable home "hubbing" while listening to some real cool music, or while watching a big wide-screen TV.
               
               Thus, instead of preaching to "the people" that there are storm clouds on the horizon, those of us who are doing reasonably well should be spreading the word that success in life can, and will, be achieved through motivation, competitiveness, ambition, perseverance, etc.

               replyreport
               1. 70

                  rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Now who is sitting back and resting on his laurels. You think you are safe? As the wages are driven down and you age you too will become increasingly irrelevant in the work place. This is all a race to the bottom being run by those who will profit the most. It is just as seductive as the trickle down BS we have been fed since the eighties.

                  replyreport
                  1. 58

                     feenixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     Look, I have been an adult for over 50 years, and not once during those years, did I feel "safe."
                     
                     In fact, I always expect the worst, and quite often, the worst is exactly what I get.
                     
                     What I am driving up to is, the last time I looked at things in terms of the world evolving into some kind of a Utopia -- in which there would be such things as a level playing field, all jobs paying "living wages," and job security for life -- I was a very young and idealistic little chump who had never even been around the block.
                     
                     But once I grew up, I started accepting the world on the world's terms. And one of the most outstanding terms of this world is, LIFE IS NOT FAIR, AND IT WILL NEVER BE FAIR.
                     
                     Thus, the way I survive is by always being ready, willing and able to do whatever I have to do to "keep on keeping on." I will never sit around and listen to anyone who tells me that I am going to go under because the rich are ripping off the middle-class and poor, and sh!t like that.
                     
                     I have always been my own man, and I will continue to be my own man, no matter what, or even if that leads to my demise.
                     
                     And if more contemporary Americans had the same attitude as mine, arguments like the one that engendered this forum would be nothing but a tree falling down in the woods with a thud that nobody heard.

                     replyreport
                     1. 70

                        rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        If it were that easy. Accepting the inevitable is like standing in front of a speeding car and leaving the results up to the inevitable. This shift towards globalization was not done in a altruistic manor. Through the defeat of legislation that ensured domestic consideration it was overturned by congress. None of the apathetic electorate planned any of this. Rather than just exploiting a sleeping electorate the rules were changed to administer a take over orchestrated by a greedy lot whose only purpose was to get rich. Shortsighted does not even describe the results for a shrinking middle class. You inevitable attitude is even more disturbing than your disagreement.

                        replyreport
                        1. 58

                           feenixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           Look, I'm alive, I'm here, I'm constantly planning and strategizing, and I am determined to ignite a bold new movement based entirely on unlimited enterprise, capitalism, self-reliance and self-determination.
                           
                           In fact, I am already traveling the highways and byways spreading the world to as many people as I can. And at some point in the not so distant future, there will be thousands-upon-thousands out there preaching to the people to GET UP, GET GOING and GET IT DONE.
                           
                           You see, after living in this realm for quite a number of years, I have finally put things together enough to begin carrying out "my calling."
                           
                           And by the time my minions and I are through, very few will be reliant on the actions of such entities as government, political parties, big businesses and activist groups. The vast majority of US residents will be "their own people."
                           
                           Call me a dreamer; I don't give a damn.

                           replyreport
            2. 89

               wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               Sorry, but you don't get to make the standard anymore.  Like it or not, we are in a global economy and that economy, not the liberals of the US, will make the standard.  The choice is to either match the standard or go under; sounds like you have chosen to pretend that the global standard doesn't matter in the US and will go under as a result. 
               
               I hope the rest of the country doesn't follow - your protectionism can only speed the fall of our economy.

               replyreport
               1. 70

                  rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  "the future of declining living standards and increasing poverty as we refuse to compete."
                  
                  You certainly do have this turned around. The future of declining living standards and increasing poverty is in spite of our competing. In our zest to trade with other countries under free trade status:
                  
                  "The aggregate U.S. goods trade deficit with FTA partners has increased by about $144 billion, or 427 percent, since the FTAs were implemented. In contrast, the aggregate trade deficit with all non-FTA countries has decreased by about $95 billion, or 11 percent, since 2006 (the median entry date of existing FTAs)." [1]
                  
                  What are we trading with them to even this out? I'll tell you what! Debt as it is being made up by the Federal Reserve. You are trying to brush so much under the rug in defending a theory that clearly cannot be statistically proven.
                  
                  Sorry, but you don't get to make the standard anymore.  Like it or not, we are in a global economy and that economy, not the liberals of the US, will make the standard.  The choice is to either match the standard or go under; sounds like you have chosen to pretend that the global standard doesn't matter in the US and will go under as a result.
                  
                  Please show me where the US has gained an appreciable leg up with exports to other countries in the free trade agreements. If you want to count fracked energy it is the equalization ignoring environmental consequences just like China does. On that plain we are equalizing our lack of standards. We are in deficit territory with your globalization trade theories and have been for the last two decades.
                  
                  I hope the rest of the country doesn't follow - your protectionism can only speed the fall of our economy.
                  
                  We will soon find out if your buddy in arms Obama has his way with the TPP
                  
                  [1] http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/nafta/

                  replyreport
3. 67

   awareposted 9 years ago

   We need to level the paying feild with our free trade partners. How are we to compete with a  5 dollar a day workforce ? Are we to work for 5 a day? If so lets talk about lowering the cost of living. De inflation.  Raise the min wage. Or lower the cost of living

   replyreport
   1. 89

      wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I'm not sure that increasing our labor costs (raising the minimum wage) is going to effectively compete with a $5 a day workforce.
      
      And the others all boil down to lowering our standard of living.  Is there nothing else we can do?  Increase our productivity per man hour?  Increase our quality beyond what else is available (certainly we beat out the chinese there)?  Find/invent new products/services?  Specialize somehow, and use the savings of massive quantities of production in a few items?  Become super energy efficient, saving costs? 
      
      Is there nothing but accept a deterioration in our standard of living?

      replyreport
      1. 70

         rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         I love your positive spin on this even though to do so you have to drag and inspire a whole country to aspire to nigh on an impossible task. To get everyone to become better educated, better employed and harder working than all of those in other countries is a pipe dream.

         replyreport
         1. 71

            Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Hi there, Rhamson. Ah, here we are again discussing the plight of the American worker. Except for the calendar, little has changed in the last three weeks.
            
            You continue to shift the blame to others. I see a preference for your own negative spin over the more positive remedies. To inspire a whole country is “spin,” you say, simply because you think such aspirations are “an impossible task."
            
            In China, an urban bound workforce of 145 million has been inspired by Capitalism to leave their rural homes to find better employment. The Chinese Government is preparing for another 100 million to follow in the next five years. Workers are moving into the cities. They are educating themselves, learning new skills and, today, they are working hard to improve themselves, harder, according to you, than many American workers are willing to work. {1}{2}
            
            However, negativity leads to defeatism. You said "To get everyone to become better educated, better employed and harder working than all of those in other countries is a pipe dream." Well, Rhamson, perhaps the delusion is thinking America no longer has the determination, fortitude and perseverance to make it happen. Chinese workers are showing they can do it but, in your mind, expecting the same spirit and motivation from American workers is a pipe dream.  
             
            American workers must compete in the world on the basis of wages, quality, and productivity. You would interfere with the free-market principles of Capitalism in return for short-lived protectionism. Capitalism thrives on competition and those who can not compete are ultimately replaced. If America does not adapt to the inevitable, American labor will become a noble remnant of our past glory.
             
            
            {1} http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/ … dependence
            {2} http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/07/3 … GI20140730

            replyreport
            1. 70

               rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               Hello Quill. Normally I am in agreement with your research and responses but in this case I cannot.
               
               Your take on competing in the world based on wages, quality and productivity is a noble one. But if that were true. Continually our Chinese trading partners have proven that they are unwilling to participate on an even keel. China continually exploits human rights [1] and manipulates money exchanges [2] as well as blows apart environmental restrictions [3] to compete with our system and society. Combine that with child labor abuses [4] the playing field is stacked against the US in competing with them. With this as the template to compete on an equal footing how do you suggest we compete? Do we allow this to go on because we need our workforce to rise to the challenge and provide what the Chinese do and still participate with our rules and ethics? How do you undermine what they are already working to undermine by out producing them?
               
               China also has a convoluted patent review system whereby the examiners pay far less attention to utility as well as pharmaceutical similarities and details and granting Chinese patents thereby making patent infringement cases go their way.[5]. I have have two US patents and filed for an international PCT. I dropped the PCT because of it's expense (approximately $150,000) and my attorneys advice that in China you must apply in every province to get protection. To get a court hearing takes a few years here based on your representation. In China who knows how long it takes. My desire to market my product in China was not that desirable
               
               You say that the free market system should be the basis of our trade in the global market. I could not agree more. But is the cost worth it when you promote those that would undermine our ability to compete with such scurrilous tactics and policies? Are we willing to promote unrepentant criminal behavior by accepting these conditions as something we need to compete with.
               
               Lastly in an effort to promote free trading in a free market are we just going to import everything and export jobs and money in exchange.
               
               "North Carolina has lost more than 369,000 manufacturing jobs – nearly half – since NAFTA and NAFTA expansion pacts have taken effect.  More than 212,000 specific North Carolina jobs have been certified under just one narrow Department of Labor program as lost to offshoring or imports since NAFTA." [6]
               
               "In the last five years, California’s $403 million NAFTA agricultural trade surplus became a $187 million trade deficit – a more than $590 million drop. In contrast, California’s agricultural trade surplus with the rest of the world increased by $3 billion, or 79 percent, during the same time period.  The disparity owes to the fact that California’s exports of agricultural products to NAFTA partners Mexico and Canada grew just 27 percent, or $693 million, in the last five years, while its agricultural exports to the rest of the world grew 70 percent, or $4.3 billion. Meanwhile, California’s agricultural imports from NAFTA partners during this period surged $1.3 billion – more than the increase in agricultural imports from all other countries combined." [6]
               
               "U.S. farmers were promised that the Korea FTA would boost U.S. agricultural exports to Korea. But U.S. exports to Korea fell in eight of Texas’ top 10 agricultural export products, from cotton to wheat to meat in the first two years of the Korea FTA.  Meanwhile, U.S. exports to Korea of beef, pork and poultry – all top agricultural exports for Texas – declined 18, 15, and 42 percent, respectively (measuring by volume)." [6]
               
               "Exports Lag 20%, Trade Deficits Surge 427% under "Free Trade" Deals
               
               A recent parade of reports from corporate lobbies and think tanks has played a familiar but discordant refrain, alleging that more of the same "free trade" agreements (FTAs) would boost U.S. exports and reduce the U.S. trade deficits that displace U.S. jobs.  It sounds nice.  But this tired promise is simply not supported by the data."[6]
               
               You should read the rest of the findings in this document. It will show you where unbridled free market agreements have taken us. "50 Reasons We Cannot Afford the TPP" [6]
               
               I approve of free trade but it has to have some legitimately enforceable ground rules for it to profit all in the process.
               
               [1] http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/co … ters/china
               [2] http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/2388/ … ipulation/
               [3] http://www.cfr.org/china/chinas-environ … sis/p12608
               [4] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/world … l&_r=0
               [5] http://www.uspto.gov/ip/global/China_Re … 9FINAL.pdf
               [6] http://citizen.typepad.com/eyesontrade/nafta/

               replyreport
            2. 58

               retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

               God Bless You Quill. Now question your sanity. It seems we both have an unbridled faith in America, whoda thunk?!

               replyreport
         2. 89

            wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            You may be right - certainly the popular idea of burying our head in the sand and increasing protectionism isn't going to help.  If you are, we all have a wondrous future to look forward to, pretending it won't happen while watching it come - the future of declining living standards and increasing poverty as we refuse to compete.

            replyreport
4. 0

   ahorsebackposted 9 years ago

   We live in a  rather free range capitalism ,    and here's the kicker , the absolute success of that very thing IS that the rest of the world is picking up on That Very Realization !   Communism , socialism ,or whatever governing oversight of another countries  economy ,  has figured out how to  integrate the two .    A vibrant economy -and still maintain  their governing body .   
   
   Out of that comes one major response - Competition .
   
   So yea , go ahead and convince your city , your state and federal government to raise minimum wages and watch as  lower grade jobs- mostly manufacturing  jobs ,  go overseas ! Can you say -Good bye jobs .

   replyreport
   1. 70

      rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Read this and get back to me: http://www.dol.gov/minwage/mythbuster.htm

      replyreport
      1. 0

         ahorsebackposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Any one that's been around knows the federal laws and worker regulations ,  minimum wage has always been  lower wage . But still the oversight of government is there to guarantee that workers aren't exploited .  Anymore than ever ,  The only reason min. wages should be considered for raising is to keep up with inflation .
         
         The greater problem , as I see it,  is  individual worker motivation ,  we need harder workers as too many have become lazy and incompetent ,   The over -riding mentality of  many workers and especially younger  one's , is that their job not only owe's them a living but that it owe's them everything  that they feel they want and deserve ,  AS THEY begin a career .

         replyreport
         1. 70

            rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            "From 1973 to 2011, worker productivity grew 80 percent, while median hourly compensation, after inflation, grew by just one-eighth that amount."
            
            Okay now read this and get back to me.
            
            http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/sunda … .html?_r=0

            replyreport
            1. 58

               retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

               What happened to inflation in that same period? Inflation is a universal tax on income, productivity offsets inflation. Notice that productivity grew while labor unions shrank - cause and effect? When inflation is low, a consequence of increased productivity, wages go farther.

               replyreport
               1. 70

                  rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  "Notice that productivity grew while labor unions shrank - cause and effect? When inflation is low, a consequence of increased productivity, wages go farther."
                  
                  Jobs went bye-bye is what happened and as a result the terrible affects of inflation were averted. The wages that went further turned out to be the credit boom that brought the Temple down on us in 2008. It was a phony economy just as it is even phonier now. Wall Street and the Fed have torqued this up so tight that when the next crash comes it will take the whole world with it. The Keynesian view is that in the short run, especially during recessions, economic output is strongly influenced by aggregate demand (total spending in the economy). So we spent our way out of this one? The banks are way too big to fail now.

                  replyreport
         2. 58

            retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

            The removal of a Federally dictated minimum wage will not cause a plummet in wages, but will create greater flexibility within employment, so that the cashier doesn't also sweep the floors and take out the trash. It will free market forces to create more jobs rather than consolidate menial, beginning wage responsibilities with trained, experienced and trusted ones.

            replyreport
5. 70

   rhamsonposted 9 years ago

   Kathryn L Hill wrote:
   
   worth repeating:
     "I  have recently read some of Henry Ford's  writings from 1926 !, In this book he neatly describes the advantages of  , one , a good individual  work ethic , two  a company that recognizes and rewards this within the individual .   And three ,   how  good men [women ] workers ,   a successful company  , and a government with little regulation or taxation  over either one , all three combined  make this country the success story that it is .   I haven't finished this reading  but I cannot help and compare the irony   of  a 1926 book of ideas and todays reality !
   
   He also , in so many ways ,  describes why financiers and bankers would [ and have they ever ] ruin this economy,  much like they have many European companies and actual governments .  He sights the pure evil  and  selfishness of economists , the  travesty and irony  of organized labor parties , AND he also  goes on to sight just how a - forty hour work week-  ,rather than fifty or sixty or seventy  hours , elevates a man , his household and his family to a level of comfort , that serves to actually make him a better worker !
   
   I do however,  believe  that the almost systematic  DE- regulation of corporate America , has and continues to erode  the once decent relationship between employer and employee in America .   I have witnessed , since the  eighties, a new mentality spread across the corporate world  , a new  attitude of  'make the employee fight for every benefit he has '  ,  It's almost as if  where once there was an attitude of ' rewarding good employees '  now has become ....."there's another man in line looking for a job ' so to hell with providing  benefits ." ahorseback

   replyreport
   1. 70

      rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Before you fall too much for old Henry Ford know that he was a loon in some areas. He frequently quoted Hitler and was know to be quite an Anti Semitic.
      
      Why he made his move towards higher wages be it retention or more altruistic intents he did elevate the worker to a class that drove part of the economy. The banks have always been at the heart of the problem globalizing way before industry ever caught up. The Fed was firmly indebted to its policies from British and German banks that wanted to have global domination. It has worked so far as they have been able to base the US dollar on something that it cannot control or maintain, oil.
      
      The move to re-evaluate wages also took a turn when the global free market got a boost from NAFTA and the soon to become uncontrollable TPP. Our wages are now a thing of what are they paying in Vietnam or China. Many think that is a good thing as it keeps the products rolling in at affordable prices. It throws American workers out of a job and they are told to gain different more competitive skills to get their wages up again. With China becoming more techno skilled where will the American worker be left to compete?

      replyreport
      1. 89

         wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         "Why he made his move towards higher wages be it retention or more altruistic intents he did elevate the worker to a class that drove part of the economy. "
         
         Don't be ridiculous; the few hundred workers Ford hired didn't "drive" anything at all outside of Ford's factories.  There weren't enough of them to have any significant on the US economy as a whole.
         
         "With China becoming more techno skilled where will the American worker be left to compete?"
         
         That's the question, isn't it?  Unfortunately, the only answer you seem able to come up with is to build a wall around the US and not let any imports in.  Protectionism rather than competition.  It hasn't worked in the past, doesn't work now and won't work in the future, but it's still the answer being promoted.  Why?

         replyreport
         1. 70

            rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            "Don't be ridiculous; the few hundred workers Ford hired didn't "drive" anything at all outside of Ford's factories."
            
            Next time read the sentence in its entirety. "the worker" is what I wrote in reference to other companies following suit.
            
            " the only answer you seem able to come up with is to build a wall around the US"
            
            When did I ever say build a wall or raise import tariffs? I have just been advocating raising the minimum wage as referenced to what Henry Ford did inadvertently accelerating the economy. Keep up will you and refrain from writing in your understandings based on your bias. Why don't you get back to the inflation argument that if we raise wages the prices of things will go up. That is your best argument as of yet and a real danger. If wages go up so will the availability more spending money. Mass production will drive down the costs. That will spark the economy.
            
            The whole idea of the free market system was to invest in a product and mass produce it to drive the cost down. Where it went wrong was when corporations decided it was better and less of a risk to just manage the risk overseas by greatly reducing the labor and manufacturing costs. The end run around risk now has come full circle as the lack of good paying jobs is decimating their customer base. Maybe the rich can buy a hundred thousand pants at a time to keep the economy going as they will be the only ones with disposable income.

            replyreport
            1. 71

               Quilligrapherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               
               Good evening, Rhamson. I am so anxious to get into the summer. The winter months have been meaner here than usual.
               
               I would like to address the remarks about lost jobs and lost customer bases. When you said "the lack of good paying jobs is decimating their customer base," did you mean “decimating” as in “severely damaging or destroying a large part of something?” {1}
               
               Or did you just mean to create a false impression by distorting reality?
               
               You were telling us about the free-market system going wrong when corporations moved jobs to lower cost labor markets. I think you want us to believe this "now has come full circle" and is damaging corporate sales. I am not sure if you were referring to manufacturers, retailers, or both. No matter, you are wrong on all counts. Sometimes I wonder if we both live in the same country.
               
               Below you will find U.S. Census Bureau data showing U.S. Manufacturing and Trade Inventory and Sales since NAFTA was enacted during the terms of Clinton I. You will also find U.S. Retail Trade and Food Service numbers as well.
               
               I do not see any signs of “decimated” customer bases. Do you? I see a dip caused by the recession in an otherwise steady trend of healthy growth.
               
               
               Utilizing lower labor markets did have a major effect on workers at the low end of the wage spectrum. Those without a high school diploma and unskilled factory workers were hurt the most. Due to forces in the free-market system, any labor pool that can produce U.S. widgets and doodads more efficiently than Americans will get to make all the doodads and widgets.
               
               On the other hand, if Americans want to preserve the $35 hourly compensation they enjoy in the manufacturing sector {2}, they will have to expand their skills, pursue special training, prepare for leadership in the work force of tomorrow and, most importantly, stop whining about the menial jobs that are not likely to ever return.
               
               Have a great Memorial Day, Rhamson. Fly the colors and fire up the grill.
               
               {1} http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decimate
               {2} http://www.bls.gov/fls/ichccaesuppall.xls

               replyreport
               1. 70

                  rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Good morning Quill and I hope you are enjoying a holiday weekend with some relaxation.
                  
                  I appreciate your input as well as documented and thoughtful responses even with an attempt at some humor or sarcasm .
                  
                  By picking at the word decimating I will expand on my meaning. Your chart clearly shows steady growth in inventories and sales. Nothing wrong with that. But what it fails to show is the debt to consumption ratio that the economy is currently experiencing. The consumer in an effort to keep up with stagnant wages and cost of living is incurring more and more debt. The trend now is to pay some of it down and that is causing some deflation but spending remains high. Most debt is being incurred with the expectation that income will increase. This is a false conception of the consumer based on the data.
                  
                  "The Average American Worker Has Made No Progress In The Past Decade" [1]
                  
                  "Anyone that thinks that the U.S. economy can keep going along like this is absolutely crazy.  We are in the terminal phase of an unprecedented debt spiral which has allowed us to live far, far beyond our means for the last several decades.  Unfortunately, all debt spirals eventually end, and they usually do so in a very disorderly manner." [2]  Disorderly - decimating? You choose the term.
                  
                  "Incredibly, a large percentage of the population does not seem to understand these things.  An astounding 43 percent of all American families spend more than they earn each year." [2]
                  
                  "According to an alternative hypothesis, however, households have willingly assumed greater debt in recent years because they expect their incomes to rise. They spend more in anticipation of increased earnings and they finance their higher spending through debt. Even if their incomes begin to fall, households may continue to increase their debt to maintain their spending (albeit at a reduced level) on the assumption that the income decline will be short lived." [3]
                  
                  So is my decimation analogy misleading? I think not! it only emphasizes what many Americans are unwilling to understand when their jobs and income are being undermined by FTA (Free Trade Agreements) and globalization. Also along the same strain is "coming full circle" an inaccurate statement when referring to Walmarts failing sales as a corporate blunder. How else would you characterize the failing sales of what is the cheapest and biggest retailer in the country? Was this supposed to be an unlimited, unending growth bonanza by flooding the market with foreign manufactured product that inevitably put their customers out of jobs a good idea for longevity? The realization is that the consumers credit is at its limit and even the punch drunk lending banks will not hedge on the consumers ability to pay beyond what it is.
                  
                  On the other hand, if Americans want to preserve the $35 hourly compensation they enjoy in the manufacturing sector, they will have to expand their skills, pursue special training, prepare for leadership in the work force of tomorrow and, most importantly, stop whining about the menial jobs that are not likely to ever return.
                  
                  This has to be your best by far. Stop whining about incurring more debt to get a more newer employable skill so you don't have to compete with a menial manufacturing labor market. Once you have the debt what makes you think the foreign worker is not working towards that same goal? Is it your argument to bring the most to the fight first in a globalized job market place? We are already farming out engineering and other highly skilled jobs to India and the far east where the education level far surpasses ours. While we are engaged in a race to the bottom they are engaged in a race to the top. They always had the bottom covered. We just won't realize it.
                  
                  "Long-term unemployment among college-educated workers increased by 299.4% between 2000 and 2003, a much faster rate than the increase of 156.1% for workers with a high school degree or less." [4] This is by far your truest statement based on the obvious when comparing unemployment figures between college educated workers and lower skilled high school graduate workers.
                  
                  "Job seekers with college degrees and those age 45 and older have had an especially difficult time finding work, with long-term unemployment for those groups rising by 299.4% and 217.6%, respectively." [4] What advantage do you have with an education when figures like this fly in the face of reason? The global worker pool will compete with ALL aspects of our work pool and we will have exported all our money and be left with all the debt as a reward for our folly.
                  
                  
                  [1] http://www.businessinsider.com/average- … z3axohmXu6
                  [2] http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-07-2 … tial-chart
                  [3] http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/curr … /ci3-3.pdf
                  [4] http://www.epi.org/publication/issuebriefs_ib198/

                  replyreport
            2. 89

               wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               Yes, I know you wrote "worker", trying to insinuate that other manufacturers immediately followed suit, but it didn't happen.  It took years and years for the rest of them to get to that doubled figure, and there was thus NO quick increase in the money available to buy Ford's cars.  And when the money WAS there, it can't be said that Ford caused it with his own wage scale, but rather that it was the natural result of gradually increasing wages.
               
               The wall: you have consistently been against any form of foreign labor making things that end up in the US.  Specifically, local companies may not build anything overseas and then import it.  This is building an import wall, whether you wish to see it as such or not.  It means that imports are not welcome.
               
               "If wages go up so will the availability more spending money. Mass production will drive down the costs. That will spark the economy."
               
               Aren't you forgetting (again) that increasing wages also increases prices, resulting in fewer items sold (or manufactured)?  Instead of driving down costs from mass production, lower production figures will increase prices above what inflation (through artificial wage increases) already has.  And even in the short term, before production actually falls, the increase in cost eats up the increase in wages before any additional products can be purchased.
               
               "The whole idea of the free market system was to invest in a product and mass produce it to drive the cost down."
               
               Certainly not true; the whole idea of the free market system is to allow people to set prices rather than the bureaucrats in government.  This, of course, brings competition into the picture in a big way, and that means manufacturers must find the lowest cost to remain competitive.  Which is done by importing from low-labor-cost countries rather than utilizing high priced American labor.  And the people applaud their efforts even as they lose their jobs.

               replyreport
               1. 70

                  rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Nothing happens overnight and especially with a social change. Look how long civil rights has been in the process. More and more we find attitudes that mimic those pre Civil War.
                  
                  It took many years and the growth in what many term the second industrial revolution where America streamlined mass manufacturing. Ford was the one who ushered it in with larger scale operations than previously tried.
                  
                  I am not forgetting that higher wages increase cost but large production drives down costs. The difference is in the risk of ramping up volume to keep up with demand. Manufacturers have taken the easy way out by lowering their exposure by lowering the wages. I have worked in manufacturing and more recently managed it so this is a subject that is near and dear to my heart. The shortcut is what American business is all about. The rest of the world knows this like China who patiently waits while we collect all the debt and long term liability as a result.
                  
                  You are so focused on the immediate gratification of attaining profit without paying any attention to the liabilities it can create. Our trade deficit is astronomical and climbing but profits are up is a prime example. The debt bubble will burst and all those profits which are statistically going to the top will leave the rest of us wondering what happened. Your globalization theory which is not working will blow up in our faces.

                  replyreport
                  1. 89

                     wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     Let's see.  Large labor costs raises prices and reduces demand.  To increase production without demand results in unsold inventory, not profits...while it might be worth the risk to increase production anyway it is a very (very!) short term thing; either it pays off immediately or must be stopped immediately.  As in a couple of months, not years.
                     
                     I agree that American companies are extremely risk-adverse and it is hurting them badly.  Yes, our trade deficit is astronomical, but wasn't it you that asked what good exports are just a couple of days ago?
                     
                     Finally, it isn't a "globalization theory"; it is established fact.  And it isn't mine; it is what the country is seeing.  Now, you can pretend otherwise, you can promote protectionism and limited imports but in the long run this country, along with every other one on the globe, will enter and compete in the global economy or go under.  We don't have to like it - we just have to be successful at it and burying our head in the sand, pretending it isn't there, is NOT the way to be successful.

                     replyreport
                     1. 70

                        rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        You got it! Low risk = low profits. It is what the share holders demand. Instead of a stock market they want a guaranteed cash cow. If the product is worthwhile then it will survive through competition and not cheating everyone else it possibly can. Testing and more testing is what is needed to size up the market for a product. Instead modern business wants to stick it to someone to absorb the higher costs in case it fails. No guts no glory.
                        
                        Here are some statistics that the politicians, big business and the banks cannot answer with regards to the effect the globalization has had on the US:
                        
                        #1 From December 2000 to December 2010, the U.S. ran a total trade deficit of 6.1 trillion dollars.
                        #2 The U.S. trade deficit was about 33 percent larger in 2010 than it was in 2009.
                        #3 The U.S. trade deficit with China in 2010 was 27 times larger than it was back in 1990.
                        #4 The U.S. economy is rapidly trading high wage jobs for low wage jobs.  According to a new report from the National Employment Law Project, higher wage industries accounted for 40 percent of the job losses over the past 12 months but only 14 percent of the job growth.  Lower wage industries accounted for just 23 percent of the job losses over the past 12 months and a whopping 49 percent of the job growth.
                        #5 Between December 2000 and December 2010, 38 percent of the manufacturing jobs in Ohio were lost, 42 percent of the manufacturing jobs in North Carolina were lost and 48 percent of the manufacturing jobs in Michigan were lost.
                        #6 In Germany, exports account for approximately 40 percent of GDP.  In China, exports account for approximately 30 percent of GDP.  In the United States, exports account for approximately 13 percent of GDP.
                        #7 Do you remember when the United States was the dominant manufacturer of automobiles and trucks on the globe?  Well, in 2010 the U.S. ran a trade deficit in automobiles, trucks and parts of $110 billion.
                        #8 In 2010, South Korea exported 12 times as many automobiles, trucks and parts to us as we exported to them.
                        #9 The U.S. economy now has 10 percent fewer “middle class jobs” than it did just ten years ago.
                        #10 The United States currently has 7.7 million fewer payroll jobs than it did back in December 2007.
                        #11 Back in 1970, 25 percent of all jobs in the United States were manufacturing jobs. Today, only 9 percent of the jobs in the United States are manufacturing jobs.
                        #12 In 2002, the United States had a trade deficit in “advanced technology products” of $16 billion with the rest of the world.  In 2010, that number skyrocketed to $82 billion.
                        #13 The United States now spends more than 4 dollars on goods and services from China for every one dollar that China spends on goods and services from the United States.
                        #14 In China, working conditions are so bad that large numbers of “employees” regularly try to commit suicide.  One major employer, Foxconn, has even gone so far as to install “anti-suicide nets” in an attempt to keep their employees from jumping off of their buildings.
                        #15 Wages for workers in China are incredibly low.  For example, one facility in the city of Longhua that makes iPods employs approximately 200,000 workers.  These workers put in endless 15-hour days but they only make about $50 per month.
                        #16 In Bangladesh, manufacturing workers toil in absolutely horrific conditions and make an average of about $38 per month.
                        #17 In Vietnam, teenage workers often work seven days a week for as little as 6 cents an hour making promotional Disney toys for McDonald’s.
                        #18 Since 2001, over 42,000 manufacturing facilities in the United States have been closed.
                        #19 Half of all American workers now earn $505 or less per week.
                        #20 In the United States today, 6.2 million Americans have been out of work for 6 months of longer.
                        #21 8.4 million Americans are currently working part-time jobs for “economic reasons”.  These jobs are mostly very low paying service jobs.
                        #22 When you adjust wages for inflation, middle class workers in the United States make less money today than they did back in 1971.
                        #23 According to Willem Buiter, the chief economist at Citigroup, China will be the largest economy in the world by the year 2020, and India will surpass China by the year 2050. [1]
                        
                        The job loss is not one strictly focused on factory or manufacturing jobs. As the US worker trains for new careers so do the foreign labor pools. By homogenizing the many different trading partners the people who remain the best to profit from this are those in the top earning percentile of all the partnered globalized trading positions.
                        
                        "Crucially, this wage-loss is not restricted to just workers in sectors exposed to trade, but is experienced by all workers who resemble those displaced by imports in terms of education, skills, and experience. Many of these workers probably do not even know that they are being affected by globalization, but they are." [2]
                        
                        [1] http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/arch … rld-levels
                        [2] http://www.epi.org/publication/ib244/

                        replyreport
                        1. 89

                           wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           On the whole, I accept and agree with this.  And your answer is...what?  To hide in the sand and pretend it's not a global economy?

                           replyreport
                           1. 58

                              retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              The irony of talking about a global economy is that it has been global since 1492.

                              replyreport
                              1. 70

                                 rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 Totally agree.

                                 replyreport
                           2. 70

                              rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              To hide your head in the sand is not the answer and neither is not participating in it. What is hiding our heads in the sand is not taking into consideration human rights (labor abuses and health issues) and unfair currency exchanges that undermine our sovereignty. Other things might include child labor laws and environmental offences that our business's have to adhere to. As far as the wages there is not much we can do. You are right in that manufacturing is gone all but for the most technical skills that some industries need. Even if some of these manufacturing jobs should come back, and some have, they are changed into jobs that have been in many cases converted to robotic.

                              replyreport
6. 80

   Kathryn L Hillposted 9 years ago

   Maybe some employers can't afford to pay the increased minimum wage and must close up shop… and jobs.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Perhaps they can't. But it is a part of capitalism that is defined by competition. Maybe a closer look at cost and sales analysis might change that.

      replyreport
7. 67

   awareposted 9 years ago

   #23... we need  to demand from our trading  partners  .that  they follow  the same  rules   that are  required  to do  biz here.  Meaning  following safe workplace  standards. Implement  and inforce child labor. Laws. Provide workers comp ins. Pay a livable wage.  Overtime. .any nation  can make alot of money. With what amounts to a slave labor workforce.  If they dont comply. End all trade with them. Lets  see their economy grow without their biggest  customer. Us

   replyreport
8. 67

   awareposted 9 years ago

   We can topple  china. By stoping free trade with them. Their  economy  relys on ours.we need to use our leverage if you don't  want to raise our  min wage. Then let's  force them to raise theirs.

   replyreport
   1. 58

      retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I would advise you pursue a little education on the value of free trade, trade wars, economies and how they work.
      
      "Finally, with respect to these heavy taxes that you are using as a justification for the protectionist system, have you ever asked yourself whether it is not the system itself that produces them? I do wish someone would tell me what would be the use of large standing armies and powerful navies if trade were free..... But that is the concern of the politicians."
      
      “Our Products Are Burdened with Taxes” from Economic Sophisms
      Frederik Bastiat
      
      Despite what people may believe, the American work force, though hampered by many of the failings of government, is still the finest work force in the world. This is borne out by the jobs that do leave and then return and the jobs that come here after others countries find they have failed elsewhere. The free movement of jobs is like the free movement of goods, essential for both peace and prosperity.
      
      http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0da0c392-0042 … z3b4MAmWiV
      
      http://reshoringmfg.com/articles/

      replyreport
   2. 70

      rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      It is too late as our economy is inextricably tied to theirs.

      replyreport
9. 67

   awareposted 9 years ago

   A fair trade  is what  we  need not a free one. It costs  money  to do biz in a just manner. All should  pay that price. Its a taxing task.

   replyreport
   1. 89

      wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Meaning you will define what "just" is for all countries in the world?  Can they do the same for your country?

      replyreport
   2. 58

      retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Isn't free trade , just trade?

      replyreport
10. 67

    awareposted 9 years ago

    We need to  tell china we are changing  vendors. And their goods and  services are no longer  needed

    replyreport
11. 67

    awareposted 9 years ago

    Smoot Hawley.     Im not talking tariffs.  Im talking cuting ties.

    replyreport
12. 67

    awareposted 9 years ago

    No . Just for trading  partners. Just is defined  in the  dictionary.  We will adhere  to Websters.

    replyreport
    1. 89

       wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       From Websters:
       
       1. a :  having a basis in or conforming to fact or reason :  reasonable <a just but not a generous decision>
       b archaic :  faithful to an original
       c :  conforming to a standard of correctness :  proper <just proportions>
       2
       a (1) :  acting or being in conformity with what is morally upright or good :  righteous <a just war> (2) :  being what is merited :  deserved <a just punishment>
       b :  legally correct :  lawful <just title to an estate>
       
       All definitions come down to a moral or legal "right" or "wrong", so:
       
       1a) then means reasonable, as defined by you?
       1b) not really applicable
       1c) Conforming to a standard of "correctness" as defined by you?
       
       2a) Morally correct, as defined by you?
       2b) legal...as determined by laws you like, but not ones you dislike?
       
       The point being that you're trying hard to control how others act, according to your concepts of right and wrong, and you don't have the right to do so.  And, as American citizens are enamored of Chinese goods, you're not likely to find much sympathy or cooperation in not buying Chinese.

       replyreport
13. 67

    awareposted 9 years ago

    We dont have to do biz with   people  or countrys  whos behavior  in the workplace   seeks to undermine  ours.

    replyreport
    1. 89

       wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

       No we don't.  So don't buy Chinese, but don't expect others to go along with you, either.

       replyreport
14. 67

    awareposted 9 years ago

    More  than half of whats imported into this country  from china is junk. Comtamnated  drywall  . Its illegal dumping is what  it is. Move to china if you love their junk so much  .many out there  are sick of it

    replyreport
15. 67

    awareposted 9 years ago

    Wheres a compliance  officer?

    replyreport
16. 67

    awareposted 9 years ago

    Every  one  sees  things their  way. A Chinese  sulfer ,mine. Is not a just way to do diz.it makes me sick of a match

    replyreport