Posted on 12/12/2010 3:55:10 AM PST by Scanian
Edited on 12/12/2010 4:06:21 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Totally true, and it's totally disingenuous of some to constantly act like the only problem is excessive regulation and the corporate tax rate.
Cheap labor, often is little as 5% of the US rate, is and always has been the biggest lure for the export of US plants and jobs to cheap labor nations, and for the outsourcing of skilled work.
And the impetus for most of the move of US jobs to cheap labor nations has been the opening of the US market to goods produced in cheap labor nations, starting with Japan in the 1950s when it was a cheap labor nation. US firms gradually begin to seek cheaper labor to remain competitive in the US consumer market. And this trend started almost twenty years before Nixon succeeded in starting the EPA.
The first big move of US jobs to Mexico was not as a result of NAFTA, but of the maquiladora program started in the 1960s to locate US plants in northern Mexico. That was a program to give US companies access to more cheap labor, with some hope of stemming illegal immigration.
People have various motives for denying that cheap labor has been the biggest factor in the loss of US manufacturing (it's just sounds unseemly), but it is and has been since the 1950s. Other factors are significant, but cheap labor is #1 by far.
That's true, the spouse stayed at home, washing clothes and dishes by hand, dreaming about buying a 12" b/w TV, and worrying about the kids coming-down with polio . . . wait, we were talking about standard of living, right?
Hey, I have an idea: the next time you go buy a car, offer the dealer 21K instead of 20K. Problem solved.
Mining's been in the news recently, so I'll stick with it--that mine requires engineering, and a bunch of eggheads running around (providing the service of) processing, developing, etc. Have you ever asked one if they feel like they are "creating wealth?"
Cheap labor, often is little as 5% of the US rate, is and always has been the biggest lure for the export of US plants and jobs to cheap labor nations, and for the outsourcing of skilled work.
You were speaking of "broad and self-serving generalizations?" Instead of mailing me crap (I don't read my mail), why don't you just post in on the thread where the discussion occurs? Too complicated for you?
Funny, how the goalpost moved from, 1. “you don’t buy, you don’t pay,” to “you buy, but you don’t pay that much.”
Yup, liberals that know zero about Mfg seem to get stumped when faced with facts that they can’t spin their way around.
And Beagle, these guys aren't libs. They are paleos. They just think like libs. One, while complaining about the U.S./S. Korea Free Trade Agreement the other day, asked how much the S. Koreans pay for our defense. So I asked him, how much more he was willing to pay for a HDTV to make up for it. He never responded. It's that crystal-clear logic that I mentioned in my comment #53: my taxes need to be raised for my own good, by people who know better than I.
Just like I need to pay more for imported kimchi because my counterpart in Korea isn't paying more for my defense.
SEE ALSO:
The Emperor, new clothes.
In all my life I have never seen so many, so deliberately blind, to something so obvious.
It’s like mass hypnosis has taken over the brains of otherwise intelligent Americans, on BOTH sides of the aisle.
We are sleepwalking our nation to destruction.
Lol, not too complicated for me, but proven to be too complicated for you in your #51. (And what I mailed you was US Census stats on US imports/exports/deficits by year and by end-use product code. Of course it's crap to you since it's actual data and not just made up generalities to support whatever you care to say).
#51 - I’m not sure about that, but I know that oil makes-up a significant portion of our trade deficit. We also export more than your typical protectionist cares to admit.
In my #86, I provide the data you should have provided to support your sweeping generalizations in your #51. Crude is 10% to 15% of total imports, and had been lower in earlier years of < $50 per barrel crude. It's hardly the factor that's driving our decades of trade deficits. And it's increase is more a function of price than volume in recent years. Our increasing deficits are being driven by our ever increasing levels of imported manufactured products, deficits that were approaching a trillion annually in 2006 and 2007 before the economic slowdown..
Here's a hint for you concerning our growing trade deficit:
Deficit with China 1986: -1,664.7
2008 -268,039.8
From less the two billion to 268 billion since 1986. And there are similar increases with other trading partners in our one-sided trade relationships where crude plays little or no part.
Hey Will, save your strength . . . I wasn't the guy to bring up imported oil to begin with. Please, please convince me that you're not that stupid to comprehend that you are arguing with the wrong guy.
Please don't take the fact that I don't reply to you in what you feel is a timely manner as my acceptance of your point, that it is valid, or that it is even coherent.
The only thing it is evidence of is that I have a life outside of FR.
To the point at hand; Yes, on the whole the Korean trade deal is a good thing though it was long overdue.
My point is 50,000 young Americans died to give the South Koreans their political and economic freedoms and we're sitting there 50 years later discussing whether the cars the US exports will be made to Korean or US safety standards.
This just accentuates the trade patsies the US has become. Much of the trade deficit is because of our reluctance to force open the markets of those who sell to us.
Poor guy.
Should I tell him that crude oil and fuel oil were about 43% of our deficit last year?
And you still haven’t responded. How much more are you willing to pay for S. Korean products because the S. Koreans haven’t contributed enough for our defense? Do you see any cognitive dissonance there at all?
1. How many times (approximately) in the past year have I asked you to look up a number at the Census website because you can do it faster than I, and
2. How many times (approximately) have we discussed NAICS codes (although that might be more of a question for Mase).
1. At LEAST a dozen
2. In the last 10 years, at least a hundred times....
Which leads to the last question: how long has it been since some bozo complained that we post too many numbers, charts, and graphs? This “broad and self-serving generalization” gambit isn’t even amusing to me.
Over here, it was neither. Thatcher privatised and closed down profitable pits with high grade coal, to (a) break the unions and (b) turn us into a service economy.
I live in a village which was a thriving mining village for over 120 years; it still sits on top of TWO rich seams - Blackbed and Beeston - and it's far from played out.
But Thatcher didn't just close the pit; under her watch the shaft was filled in and the buildings flattened.
Some mines were privatised, but this one along with many others, was mothballed in such a way as to prevent it being economical to reopen. If the price of coal triples on the world market then it might be economical to dig it out again, but until then we're sitting on a resource that could rejuvenate the economy but can't use it simply because Thatcher decided the future lay in banking and information technology.
This doesn't affect me personally because I work in IT, but when you live in a village where two thirds of the population have a four or even five generation tie to the mining industry then it's still a very bitter topic for discussion.
Bearing in mind, these people are still for the most part conservative and they did vote in a conservative MP in the election this year... the only person they loathe more than Thatcher, is Arthur Scargill.
My point in asking how much will the Koreans pay for our defense is a sarcastic poke at the fact the US, in keeping with treaty obligations, stations some 30,000 troops to defend South Korea. Unquestionably, that is a a huge transfer of wealth.
Perhaps we finally wised up and said to the Koreans after the last artillery barrage, "If you want our protection - agree to this".
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.