Posted on 10/18/2002 3:58:43 PM PDT by ozone1
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:08:26 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WATERVILLE, Maine (AP) A last-ditch attempt to save the nation's last major shirt manufacturing plant ran out of steam as sewing machines came to a halt Friday at the plant whose shirts were made world-famous by the man-with-an-eyepatch logo.
C.F. Hathaway, which has been making shirts in Maine for 165 years, will go the way of Arrow and Van Heusen, once strong competitors whose shirts are now being made overseas.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Eliminate farm subsidies. Shelling out money year after year so that Archer Daniels Midland can stick it in their pockets is ridiculous.
Well there is an important reason for this, the regulations and environmental hoops a car must go through before it's approved by the EPA. All those airbags and Anti-pollution controls add about $10,000 to the cost of a car. I'm not saying this is good or bad, but simply that you're correct in saying labor costs aren't the cause of the high costs. I'm not sure what the answer is but with the loss of all these jobs the middle class is becoming an endangered species. Our kids and grandkids will be living in a country much like present day Brazil.
I opened my 401K statement yesterday and it all looked pretty bad. We were told that NAFTA and globalism would bring us huge financial rewards and we've had years of NAFTA and globalism already -- so where are the huge financial rewards? Even Texas is facing a $5 to $12 billion dollar state budget deficit and we aren't even democrat state. At least California has a good excuse for it's deficit.
In Mexico they're protesting for more farm subsidies. It seems that if the Mexican government subsidizes it's farmers more and we eliminate farm subsidies, it will be tough on our farms.
Don't you know that Governor Baldacci has a plan to raise taxes to attract business?
Companies and corporations have a duty to their stockholders (the real owners) to make a profit. If onerous Federal and state taxes make it impossible for any business to turn a profit they will seek greener pastures.
Money is fungible and knows no borders.
The fact of the matter is that no workers in the world can outproduce American workers, so the blame rests squarely on gooberment at all levels.
They are. But another component of that has to be wages and working conditions that are adequate for a worker to have a decent lifestyle. Unions, government restrictions, and shareholder concerns address that, to keep things in balance.
You want to "do something for the American people"? Open your own business and compete.
Have you checked the prices in discount stores? Shirts, blouses, sweatshirts, (decent quality and style) can be bought for $3 and under. That isn't a fair playing field for competition. It's competition from foreign sources that don't maintain any reasonable standard for their workers. It's bringing our standard of living down, when huge segments of the population can't make a living wage.
Globalization isn't working (pun intended) for a lot of US workers. Those that said it would bring up standards for workers worldwide might've been correct, but at the expense of the US.
Its corporate bottom line vs. lifestyle in the US. That's the bubble that has to burst. I'd prefer to see us go back to a world with borders, and tarriffs, and controlled immigration, and jobs people could depend on, and safety. (End of dinosaur rant)
Sometimes I forget, but Cramer's voice always reminds me that it's time to shut the radio off and shoot downstairs to watch Brit Hume.
That's because, like all good socialist programs, globalization is not intended to bring everyone up to our level, but rather to bring us down to theirs.
Then we'll all be equal, don't 'cha know.
Looks like you may have identified wages, but what about all the other worker costs. It appears to me you've also chosen to distort.
Our personal interest adn our collective interest are best served by free markets. Anything else increases inefficiency and corruption.
Not to worry, Jack, some of us understood you. I also think if the protectionism being advanced by some here were to become enacted, it wouldn't be long before wages did approach that $40 per.
Except when you look at better paid laborers = more potential customers. NAFTA sends all these jobs to Mexico where they pay $30 a week but that $30 doesn't allow for them to purchase much past a very small apartment and basic food.
If I read your argument correctly, FITZ, you seem to be saying moving jobs to Mexico is actually reducing companies' profit. Can you elaborate a bit more? I remember reading that Henry Ford raised auto worker wages to $5 a day so they could afford to buy his product in anticipation that would, long term, increase profits.
Your point about the Mexican pay being litle more than basic rent and food would impress me more if the Mexicans didn't seem to desire it so much. We all have to start somewhere and your point reminds me of those who squeal over Founding Father hypocricy because some owned slaves. Indeed, we all have to start somewhere, and it generally isn't the penthouse.
Life a bit of a downer for you, Joe? Glass perpetually half-empty?
Why complain about what other are not? If you want it, you should do it.
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.