Posted on 09/18/2005 9:19:51 AM PDT by Willie Green
Angel Mills worked at GST AutoLeather in Williamsport, Md., most of her adult life. She cut, inspected, packed and shipped leather upholstery until she was laid off in June 2003 as the company scaled back local operations and shifted production to Mexico.
"It's sad. It's scary. I've been a factory worker all my life, and I didn't know what I wanted to do," said Ms. Mills, a 38-year-old Williamsport resident with a teenage son.
But by March 2004 she was taking a half-year course to become a state-licensed massage therapist. A federal program that helps workers who lose jobs owing to foreign competition paid for her training and offered extended unemployment benefits.
In July, she started working at Venetian Salon and Spa in Hagerstown, Md.
~~~SNIP~~~
Mr. Thomas said that for all trade adjustment program workers passing through the consortium, the average wage was $14.36 an hour before the layoffs, while after retraining it was $11.87 an hour, a decline that is common for factory workers who have to restart their lives.
U.S. Labor Department figures indicate that among the retrained, those that find new jobs end up making only 70 percent to 80 percent of their old wages on average.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
"Nonsense?"
Nonsense.
I agree. Putting ten men on an island with 1 million dollars is nonsense. Put them in Vegas.
Yep I agree
A country full of massage therapist or a country making a viable product through manufaturing. Which country would you rather live in??
Quote: The Americans who bought products made with leather from GST AutoLeather will save some of their own money in the form of less expensive products thanks to a more efficient factory in Mexico
That is a fine and dandly line of thought until you multiply the loss of GST with thousands of other plants going the same route. How long will it be until your job is the one being offshored and your ox is now being gored?
Yes, I am livng proof that people can lift themselves up if they just apply themselves & set goals - and STOP depending on the goverment. The government program gave me a start, but it was up to me to finish & go all the way.
Quote: Okay let's review the definition of capitalism once again.
LOL My wife and I both have our own business's that meets payroll..what about you? Have you ever had to meet payroll?
My area has been devasted by manufacturing loss and I;ve seen upfront what the arrival of lower paying service jobs has done to my community over the last 10 years. Not every american lives in the insulated from reality outerbelt of DC or silicon valley.
And, as the market changes, the rest of us have to be willing, able and flexible to change with it and meet it's demands. A hundred years ago, the labor demands were quite differend than they are now. 50 years ago, same thing. 20 years ago, ditto.
If you are inflexible and stand somewhere with your feet planted in the ground and whine, you will be passed up. Simple as that.
A net gain multiplied a thousand times is a larger net gain. The point of my previous post was that through cheaper goods, Americans wind up with surplus money to spend satisfying other demands, and in the process they employ more Americans than originally, and they own more wealth than originally. You may argue that employment in a foreign factory subtracts from work in an American factory; however that is only half of the picture. The other half is that in order to pay for imports from foreign factories, Americans produce what is most cost-effective for us to produce. When we buy the (least expensive) imports from the (most cost-efficient) foreign factories, we pay with American dollars, and those dollars are ultimately used by foreigners to buy the least expensive, most cost-efficient goods produced by the best and most efficient Americans.
The net result is win-win by the same process which makes specialization and division of labor extremely effective. I.E., I make what I make best, and you make what you make best, and we trade. An example is shoe-making. If you make your own shoes (to the same quality as store brands), you will expend far more labor and capital to do so than if you had bought a pair from a shoe-maker. (If you are a shoe-maker, a different product is used as an example) Ergo, you save money by buying shoes from someone who makes them the most efficiently out of everyone else. That extra money is a net gain that resulted from trade.
In the same manner, producers and consumers in two countries yield a net gain through trade.
"If you are inflexible and stand somewhere with your feet planted in the ground and whine, you will be
passed up. Simple as that."
Some time the changes are so fast that even a wet noodle lacks the ability to flex fast enough. You are right, you
can't stand there and whine. Thats not my problem. My problem is free trade does not level the field. It nails some people's feet to the floor.
The problem with your theory is that there is no such thing in reality. Never has been, never will be. Human beings will always maneuver for some advantage and render the "laissez-faire free market" a greedy farce. All human endeavors must be regulated because human beings are not incorruptible. The regulation, however, should be at a minimum and serve commerce and not government.
. A Mexican will take a labor job at the factor in Mexico precisely because it is the best available option (to his knowledge) for employment. The wage may be miserly, and by American standards it is,
By American standards the wage is at subsistence. Hand to mouth. America cannot compete with countries that are willing to keep its own citizens pay at poverty level in order to sell cheap to America. In the case of Mexico, this policy only produces more illegal immigration than it reduces.
FYI, the US has had a tariff on Mexican Cement because it was so cheap that it was putting the four American producers of Portland Cement into the ditch without the tariffs. Now, because of Hurricane Katrina, the US Gov. is considering lifting the tariff (temporarily) to increase supply and keep prices stable.
Free trade will only work when the rest of the world catches up, economically and socially to the United States. Not before.
"Free trade is government subsidized labor, pure and simple. Corporations see the benefit and taxpayers foot the bill, tell me how that is sustainable."
Your statements are truly Orwellian. Free trade means *NO* Govt subsidies and taxes.
With high tariffs, Corporations get the benefit and consumers foot the bill.
BTW, the most severe depressions in this country - in the 1890s and 1930s- were started off when tariffs were raised unreasonably.
"We must maintain some kind of low income job market for those who will never "rise to the occasion" or you'll get the very socialism you rail against ala taxing everyone else."
Yep. you got it.
"I really don't believe American made products are that much more."
Fine, then you don't need Government intervention to buy them.
Bingo
"Free trade is government subsidized labor, pure and simple. Corporations see the benefit and taxpayers foot the bill, tell me how that is sustainable."
"Amazing how many people just do not understand this glaring fact."
Given that it is false, the amazing thing are the adherents to it not the skpetics.
Free trade by definition is a lack of taxation and excessive regulation on cross-border trade. REMOVING A BARRIER DOES NOT CREATE A "SUBSIDY".
This all sounds like something for nothing to me. A theory that free traders often fall victim to. The woman laid off from the leather car seat factory is less likely to buy a car with leather seats with her lower salary. Of course, this begs the question of her own self-improvement, but free trade has little mention of self-improvement, only cheaper prices. Cloth seats could be fashionable again as the cheap cars all come with leather upholstery.
"Put 10 men on a island with 1 million dollars each eventually one will end up with all the money. In this case that one man will be the government. And what is that called? Any one? class? Any one?"
Of course money is useless on an island, but let's go with the analogy ... they start off with equal shares ...
"Capitalism and I believe it was first pointed out by a capitalist."
No, what will happen is one or two men will be more successful than the others, it will be a state of anarchy.
They will set up some decent rules at first. But envy will kick in when the successful guys end up with all the coconuts and order others to build the beach-front huts ... so the 6 least successful members will institute 'democracy' and start allocating the wealth.
That allocation will make everyone lazy since they work for others instead of themselves.
One guy will get a machete and start instituting autocracy, rule by thugs.
The lesson is that inequality is really the least of your concerns, and when a man is such a poor governor of himself, how can he govern others.
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.