Posted on 08/25/2003 2:05:47 PM PDT by snopercod
CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- This year's highly publicized job losses in North Carolina manufacturing, including the Pillowtex bankruptcy, could mean trouble next year for President Bush in a region that was a stronghold in 2000.
Bush won more than 56 percent of the vote in both North Carolina and South Carolina in 2000. But his strong support of free trade has turned some against him in the South, where U.S. trade policies are blamed for the loss of jobs in textiles and other manufacturing sectors.
Andy Warlick, chief executive officer of Parkdale Mills in Gaston County, said he doubts he will repeat his 2000 vote for Bush next year.
"He made a lot of promises and he hasn't delivered on any of them," Warlick said. "I've had some firsthand experience of him sending down trade and commerce officials, but they're just photo ops. It's empty rhetoric."
Fred Reese, the president of Western N.C. Industries, an employers' association, said executives are beginning to raise their voices against Bush and are planning education and voter drives.
"We're seeing a new dynamic where the executives and employees are both beginning to see a real threat to their interests. You're going to see people who traditionally voted Republican switch over," Reese predicted.
The hard feelings were on display days after Pillowtex's July 30 bankruptcy filing, when Republican U.S. Rep. Robin Hayes walked into a Kannapolis auditorium to meet with former workers.
"Thanks for sending the jobs overseas, Robin!" shouted Brenda Miller, a longtime worker at the textile giant's Salisbury plant.
In December 2001 Hayes -- who is an heir to the Cannon family textile fortune -- cast the tie-breaking vote to give Bush the authority to negotiate "fast-track" trade agreements, trade treaties that Congress must vote up or down with no amendments.
At the time, Hayes said he won promises from the Bush administration that it would more strictly enforce existing trade agreements and pressure foreign countries to open their markets to U.S. textiles.
"Are we pleased with the way they responded? Absolutely," Hayes said. "Are we satisfied with where we are? Absolutely not."
Jobs in many industries have fled overseas since 1993, when Congress passed the Clinton-backed North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA. About half the textile and apparel jobs that existed in 1994 are gone.
Since Bush took office in January 2001, it is estimated North Carolina and South Carolina have lost more than 180,000 manufacturing jobs.
And even more textile jobs could be out the door once quotas on Chinese imports expire at the end of next year.
Republican U.S. Rep. Cass Ballenger voted for NAFTA and fast-track, and has seen his 10th District lose nearly 40,000 jobs, primarily in the textile and furniture industries.
"Certainly, there's a political cost to any controversial vote no matter which side you take," he said. "People are casting stones, but we're trying to pick them up and build something."
Democratic U.S. Sen. John Edwards voted against fast-track in 2002 after voting for an earlier version. In 2000 he voted for permanent normal trade relations with China.
Recently, though, while campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination, Edwards has attacked Bush's trade policies and called for fairer trade measures.
Robert Neal, vice president of the local chapter of the Pillowtex workers' union, said Hayes has worked to try to ease the impact of job losses in his district.
"Though he (Hayes) voted for fast-track, he is really concerned about the workers and their conditions in the state of North Carolina," Neal said.
Not everyone feels that way.
Reese is organizing 1,500 manufacturing companies across North Carolina in an effort to leverage what he calls a new voting bloc.
In South Carolina, voter drives are planned for the first time at Milliken & Co., which has about 30 plants in the state. Mount Vernon Mills of Greenville, S.C., is forming a political action committee.
The company's president Roger Chastain, a one-time Bush voter, doesn't expect to support the president or Jim DeMint, a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Democrat Ernest Hollings.
"We're basically liquidating our whole middle class, polarizing people on the two extremes, have and have-nots," Chastain said of the manufacturing job losses. "We'll be a Third World country."
Why?
That son of a gun has stolen all my files!
I would completely concur that GDP is suspect because it is in reality mainly a measure of what government can and chooses to measure. My purpose in referencing it was provide perspective (relative to imports and taxes). All valuations are snapshots, relevant only to the time, place, person and circumstance in which they are made. What increases wealth is the addition of value, which cannot be simply measured in goods, and that doesn't have to be just machine tools, that can be as ephemeral as the satisfaction I get from an NFL performance or whatever else I'm willing to trade my effort for. I get something I want, the NFL player gets something he wants, we're both better off. Some people just can't accept that I'd rather give a lot to the NFL player for giving me something than give them a little for giving me nothing.
Sorry, but when the economy reaches a level of technical achievement that ours has, not everyone can be employed sewing shirts or growing crops. Labor is freed up to meet new demands. Satisfying demand, and creating supply are what matter, not so much what either is. If you had asked my grandfather what would happen if agriculture continued to shrink as a component of the work force, would you also assume that food production and wealth would decrease? Back then you couldn't have even fathomed what his grandson would be employed doing, the jobs, indeed the field, didn't even exist. People are trying to cling to the past, asking 'why can't I do what I've always done?', instead of asking, 'what would my neighbor be willing to trade for today?' It's the answer to that question, which is provided as Reagan understood by America's entrepenuers. If the government scares away the entrepeneur by promising to set his wage, or seize his profits, the entrepenuer doesn't bear the blame for unemployment. Nor will more threats won't bring him back. Reagan understood his job was to provide an environment for the entrepenuer to thrive, and America would thrive as consequence. That's why he slashed the top tax rate from 70% to 28%. GWB's reductions are a joke in comparison, but still appreciated as a step toward correcting his father's error.
Then how do you propose Bush's big spending programs like the AIDS to Africa give-away, free drugs to seniors, all the nation building and compassionate programs we're having to pay for?
Poobah who is the Communist here? The one that thinks it's a good idea to allow "Red" China to build up her manufacturing and technology industries by selling into our markets without restriction no matter how many American jobs and industries are lost or the one that wants to shut down this highly unprofitable venture for America? Now think hard Poohbah.
In answer to your question, when the world’s largest market ships boatloads of money at any economy you will most certainly see economic growth in that country. You are free to ignore the reality that China economy is growing as fast as it is. Yeah, that's right its just a joke.
Bottom line: Japan is so deep in a deflationary cycle that can't PAY people to borrow their money (their banks are literally telling you that if you borrow 100 yen today, then you only have to pay back 95 yen tomorrow--but nobody's buying).
That's a funny way of describing one of the world most powerful economies. Japan is a very wealthy nation with a financial problem. We have our financial problems too. To imply that Japan with their multi-trillion dollars of invested industrial capital in a bevy of technology and manufacturing industries is finished as an economic power is sheer naivete on your part. What are you going to say in a few years when they put their financial problems behind them?
China is Enron with a few nukes: their banking industry is fighting WTO transparency rules tooth and nail because then the world sees how much bad paper they're carrying.
Did you foresee the collapse of Enron? If so, your words might carry some weight with me. Until then, I'll write this off as more of same hyperbole I have come to expect from you.
When the Awful Truth finally comes out, China's going to go back to the warlord stage of their history for another 100 years or so.
Gee. It seems like the faster China builds up its industries the worst your prognosis is for their future. Makes a lot of sense to me............
Nor does your analogy with food production work. Despite the dwindling percentage of workers engaged in agriculture, our agricultural production rose. Real crops were grown and harvested. Real wealth was created.
But the closing down of America's industrial base is an entirely different phenomena. Real wealth is being created elsewhere. We can live for a while off past wealth and credit, but we are headed toward being a much poorer country. Can you point to examples of countries without a strong industrial base that are powers in the world?
Yeah, 3 recessions in the last decade and their government's efforts to 'help' the economy with protectionism, corporate cronism, and Keynesian-New Deal style public works has left them with a government debt THREE times GDP. That's a bigger debt than the U.S. took on winning WW2 while arming both our allies. They're going to have to devalue the currency to escape the mess they've created. Last April they ratcheted down the deposit insurance on bank accounts. It wasn't for the hell of it...
Anyone who doesn't grasp the significance of this issue...will be out of power January 2005.
Foreign entrepenuers couldn't carry that burden, as I pointed out, it's out of control.
Nor does your analogy with food production work. Despite the dwindling percentage of workers engaged in agriculture, our agricultural production rose. Real crops were grown and harvested. Real wealth was created.
Real wealth continues to be created, I just don't have to spend so much of mine on shirts now.
But the closing down of America's industrial base is an entirely different phenomena.
No, it's the same thing, just a different sector. The distinctions are arbitrary.
Can you point to examples of countries without a strong industrial base that are powers in the world?
Gee, what counts as strong? 2% of a 10 trillion dollar GDP, 50% of a 1 trillion dollar GDP? Your focus is misplaced.
Gee, what counts as strong? 2% of a 10 trillion dollar GDP, 50% of a 1 trillion dollar GDP? Your focus is misplaced.
Shall I take that as a "No, I can't point to any such examples." answer?
Oh Goody. We don't have to worry about Japan anymore. They are finished forever. Their people are going to be starving in the streets and all their industries are going bye bye. I guess we will soon be hearing bankruptcy notices from the likes of Toyota, Honda, Hitachi, Mitsubishi el al and that they are permanently closing down their operations. Thanks for the great news./////
I asked for clarification. The question as posed was pointless. Perhaps you know the magic number (or percentage, or ratio, total of GDP with respect to other nations, etc.) for whatever is deemed to be the manufacturing sector of an economy to determine whether or not it is 'strong'. I don't pretend such knowledge.
My brother started his own glass business. He installs auto glass, windows, showers, mirrors, just about anything. Is that service sector? Is it not as important as my cousin who breaks the casting tits off a Briggs & Stratton lawnmower carbeurator when it comes out of the cast? Uh-oh, my brother bought a window pressing unit a few weeks ago, now he buys his own flat glass and cuts and makes custom insulated units. Is his bsiness manufacturing? Service? Both? Does it matter? Nope, what matters is that he supplies a demand, and turns a profit. Wealth is created, not lost or squandered. That makes him, and the people he trades with, better off. They have the thing they wanted, he has money to buy the things he wants.
Who was worried in the first place? Did you heart flutter when they bought Rockefeller Center and got soaked on the deal?
They are finished forever.
I don't assert it, or expect it, neither should you.
Their people are going to be starving in the streets and all their industries are going bye bye.
I doubt that, but their social welfare net is about to get a lot heavier, which isn't going to help them barring some major reforms. Is your answer for them to have more tariffs on our goods and provide their consumers less options to improve their lives?
I guess we will soon be hearing bankruptcy notices from the likes of Toyota, Honda, Hitachi, Mitsubishi el al and that they are permanently closing down their operations.
It'll more likely be companies you haven't heard of. Their banks continue to carry bad debt, they don't write it off like Westerners do. The government has also been infusing cash into businesses to try and keep them afloat (it was mentioned earlier in the thread they're practically being paid to take on more debt, but are refusing). It's not working. What's your fix? More protectionism?
No. It was a question that you preferred not to answer. I reckon you know the reason for that preference.
I asked for clarification, can't you provide it? Or have I exposed the pointlessness of the question to such a degree you realize you can't? Let me ask again, "what counts as strong? 2% of a 10 trillion dollar GDP, 50% of a 1 trillion dollar GDP? Perhaps you know the magic number (or percentage, or ratio, total of GDP with respect to other nations, etc.) for whatever is deemed to be the manufacturing sector of an economy to determine whether or not it is 'strong'." You asked me to point it out, I'm asking you to tell me what it looks like so I can. Surely you had something in mind?
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.