Posted on 04/16/2016 2:55:11 AM PDT by lowbridge
Los Angeles was once the epicenter of apparel manufacturing, attracting buyers from across the world to its clothing factories, sample rooms and design studios.
But over the years, cheap overseas labor lured many apparel makers to outsource to foreign competitors in far-flung places such as China and Vietnam.
Now, Los Angeles firms are facing another big hurdle — California's minimum wage hitting $15 an hour by 2022 — which could spur more garment makers to exit the state.
Last week American Apparel, the biggest clothing maker in Los Angeles, said it might outsource the making of some garments to another manufacturer in the U.S., and wiped out about 500 local jobs. The company still employs about 4,000 workers in Southern California.
"The exodus has begun," said Sung Won Sohn, an economist at Cal State Channel Islands and a former director at Forever 21. "The garment industry is gradually shrinking and that trend will likely continue."
In the last decade, local apparel manufacturing has already thinned significantly. Last year, Los Angeles County was home to 2,128 garment makers, down 33% from 2005, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. During that period, employment also plunged by a third, to 40,500 workers. Wages, meanwhile, jumped 17% adjusting for inflation, to $698 per week — although that can include pay for top executives, as well as bonuses, tips and paid vacation time.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
We are ending up separated into three layers: The 1%, an upper middle class working either for the government directly or through a contractor (which in both cases lets the government determine which races and genders get work), and everyone else who gets to make coffee, flip burgers, or wash the cars for the first two...
We are ending up separated into three layers: The 1%, an upper middle class working either for the government directly or through a contractor (which in both cases lets the government determine which races and genders get work), and everyone else who gets to make coffee, flip burgers, or wash the cars for the first two...
Thanks; that is what NJ is devolving into (and why more than 25% of NJ and NY is foreigners - the Americans are evacuating because of the lack of opportunity).
I actually should include another layer between the government caste and the Americans at the bottom of the wage scale: The foreign indentured servants in the lower middle class who are working the white-collar jobs taken from Americans.
Thanks; that is what NJ is devolving into (and why more than 25% of NJ and NY is foreigners - the Americans are evacuating because of the lack of opportunity).
I actually should include another layer between the government caste and the Americans at the bottom of the wage scale: The foreign indentured servants in the lower middle class who are working the white-collar jobs taken from Americans.
____________________
Yes, the fourth level is a good addition.
Where are they going when evacuating?
Scary part is if US fails, where can one go to evacuate??
Take the Tea Party....while it had its laudable genesis in the epic Santelli rant, it quickly became in many places an anti Obama care gaggle....but not because they were for a “free market”, rather they didn’t want anyone to screw with their Medicare. It’s an uncomfortable truth that “conservatives” want their free crap from the government same as most liberals.
It won’t change until the checks stop for everyone.
Many are following better weather and economies (sometimes their very jobs) to the southeast and southwest. I read an article within the past couple of years describing the fate of northern cities; in a couple of decades only a couple (maybe NYC and Chicago) are expected to remain as large cities. While the uncertainty of business (related to weather) and the additional heating costs were cited, I don’t remember it mentioning what I think is one of the main problems: Aging infrastructures with dwindling tax bases to fix them (and really, there is no need for those infrastructures to accommodate the massive populations they contained during their manufacturing heydays). In the NYC metro area, old cities are crumbling and both the taxable employers AND employees that could be squeezed to fix them are gone. Welfarian populations expect “someone else” to fix it (in addition to feeding, clothing, housing, and providing public education to them); taxpayers (corporate and individuals) are politely declining, packing up, and leaving.
I really don’t see how these areas can attract new businesses or productive populations; they would just be inheriting a huge IOU on the public employee pensions (which drains current revenues that can’t then be used for current services) as well as massive deferred maintenance bills for the infrastructure.
“How did you ever derive that from what I stated?”
Quite simply, I used your own words: “As far as merchandise is concerned, folks will have to buy less, which is better if what they’re buying is made in the USA. Maybe they’ll decide (gasp) that they’ll have to get sneakers without LeBron’s name on them or get a minimal cell phone plan. Free antenna TV is not the end of the world. Perhaps if technology, clothes, furniture (etc) cost more, folks will make what they have last longer.”
You’re saying that people should be willing to pay more for US produced products even if that means they won’t be able to afford to buy as many goods. Explain why someone should want to pay more for a product when an equivalent product is available for a significantly reduced price. Why should someone want their family to reduce their lifestyle so someone else can improve theirs?
people should make do with less lowering their standard of living. If they would only forgo certain purchases then they will be able to afford tariff protected products.
Quantity is not quality
Governor Moonbeam said it was not the right thing to do economically but the right thing to do politically. I think in the long run it will prove to be the wrong thing to do period.
“Quantity is not quality”
When products are protected by tariffs, prices increase and quality decreases. US production is no guarantee of quality.
What about cooling costs?
I wondered the same thing, but after being in Miami where businesses left front doors wide open (letting cool air onto the sidewalk) I surmised that cooling costs less - and fewer and fewer people want to deal with heating oil in particular (still widespread in the northeast).
Yeah...well when the EMP hits I figure it’s easier to warm up...than cool off
Ok how much does a t-shirt cost now? How much of that cost is labor? Do you work in textiles? Do you really think t-shirts made is the USA would cost $10 piece? I can get a three pack of t-shirt for 5 bucks. Do you honestly believe a 3 pack of t-shirts made in the USA would cost $30.00? Really? Why did you pick the figure $10. To make your point why not pick $50.00? Why not $100 per t-shirt? Free Republic loses credibility when economic geniuses post wild crazy stuff like you just did. Sad and stupid at the same time.
We didn’t need an EMP for that; shortly after Hurricane Sandy hit, temperatures dropped and many people still had no power (and therefore heat). That was in the fall, and I’m sure many of them would prefer heat to cold after that...
After an EMP there isn’t enough fuel to keep the dense population here warm.
“Ok how much does a t-shirt cost now? How much of that cost is labor? Do you work in textiles? Do you really think t-shirts made is the USA would cost $10 piece? I can get a three pack of t-shirt for 5 bucks. Do you honestly believe a 3 pack of t-shirts made in the USA would cost $30.00? Really? Why did you pick the figure $10. To make your point why not pick $50.00? Why not $100 per t-shirt? Free Republic loses credibility when economic geniuses post wild crazy stuff like you just did. Sad and stupid at the same time.”
You really should spend more time reading before posting. The $10 t shirt was a quote from user Pontiac (post #5). I was responding to his observation: “The fact that no one wants to pay an extra $10 for a tee-shirt so that someone that they have never met can afford a 70 inch TV”.
You can quibble over the actual price ($1, $5, or $10), the question remains valid: how much more would you be willing to pay for a t shirt in order for some one you’ve never met can afford a 70 inch TV?
There is a second question as well. Why is it morally correct to use the power of government to force other Americans to pay more for their goods in order for some other person to have a better life style?
Raising the minimum wage to improve some one’s life style or using tariffs to raise the wages that an industry can pay are essentially the same thing in that you are using the power of government to transfer wealth from one to the other.
If you don’t see the connection, you are blind. Our government knows most jobs are going to be low-wage service jobs for the foreseeable future, and adults earning $7.50 an hour don’t become parents, homeowners or consumers of much else besides food & clothing.
There is NOTHING immoral about protectionism. Nothing. George Washington signed the Tariff Act of 1789 So was he immoral? Why should I listen to a loser who knows nothing about neither morality or history.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.