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."
How can you do that when companies over here have to pay american workers social security, osha, epa costs, medical insurance, state income taxes, minimum wage and are not allowed to employ children nor prisoners?
May I summerize this?
What most of us want is for the Government to get the hell out of the way and let us work!
OK.
US based trucker: 10,000 regulations, safety, sleep schedules, fair hiring, minimum wages, etc...
Mexican trucker: exempt from US regulations, and allowed anywhere in the US, thanks to NAFTA.
They are also going to remove the tarriffs on our goods any second now. Just you wait and see. Turn on the financial news, they will be announcing it any second. They are also going to announce that China is going to stop pointing missiles at us, because we opened up Wal-Mart sweat shops there as a token of their good will.
Life is good. A high school graduate has more opportunity now than ever! In fact, our society is blossoming. Sure, they had stable in tact families in the past, blue collar guys in their 20's supporting a stay at home wife and kids, but we have internet porn! Can you say progress?
Sure the economy has bled 3 million jobs. But, aren't people always asking for vacation time? Women are expected to make up 48% of the work force in 2008 according to this very own administration's labor department. None of these women will have children though. If they do, their husbands will be at home packing up lunches! In fact, everything is just swell! Why I expect the people losing $60,000 a year jobs, to counterparts making $500 a month are saying to themselves, this is neat! I am a computer nerd. By losing my job that kept me productive in a cubicle, it is forcing me to go into retail. Sure, I make 50% less, but now I get to meet and greet more strangers. I have to move in with mom and dad, but even that is a blessing. I miss mom going through my jeans pockets!
Everything is super dee dooper. We can learn alot from the talking Barney doll, who is cheerful no matter what, and he is made in China! So, don't be a sourpuss! Everything is A-OK!
(Rasies Hand) Here Sir!
In most instances outsourcing overseas does not mean lower consumer prices. The result is typically higher profit margins for the outsourcing companies.
It is by realizing new efficiencies
Well, the last batch of new efficiencies we innovated are the vehicles that made the outsourcing of jobs feasible (computers, proficient connectivity, IP telephony). The dynamic has changed and (setting aside direct services that require a warm body) its hard to imagine what new jobs will arise that cannot also be outsourced.
I'm all for less regulation, I just don't think increased regulation of trade is the vehicle that will get us there.
Well, the jurys out on which side is right and only time will tell. At this point trying to pass deregulation and tort reform bills through congress would be too little too late to stave off the job loss(IMO).
Our politicians' position on textiles and manufacturing is clearly printed on the labels.
Nope. They'll vote AGAINST the ones they perceive as causing the problems. The ones in charge now.
Net result is the same...
If Congress were to state that your continued ownership of your property was "harmful to the United States of America" and passed a law mandating that you forfeit your property to the government without compensation...
Would you simply say, "Yup, OK, it's yours?"
Good grief. "Found to be harmful to the United States?" Are you really dumb enough to believe that a throwaway line in a preamble of a piece of legislative theft is a finding of fact?
I do not think repeal of teh anti-trust laws ois in the immediate future and as regards tariffs would you care to find a study that shows a net harm from a protective tariff via quantitative analysis?
Show me a study that shows a NET GAIN from a "protective tariff" via quantitative analysis. Let's see your terms, since you seem to think that throwaway lines in legislative preambles are proven facts.
Never say never
Government's meddling in business is what got us here and BTW it didn't happen overnight. Proposals to place tarriffs on imports and laws against corporations moving will at best raise costs to consumer without doing anything about the problem.
Business (and money) is akin to water. It flows to the least resistance. The US Government has made it more attractive to base manufacturing off shore. Making laws to stop this problem is just more of the same. If you want to fix the problem then remove the barriers that restrict business in the US. A good start would be all the stupid stuff like the EPA, OSHA, IRS, etc. etc. etc.
Main Entry: 1mer·chant
Pronunciation: 'm&r-ch&nt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English marchant, from Old French marcheant, from (assumed) Vulgar Latin mercatant-, mercatans, from present participle of mercatare to trade, frequentative of Latin mercari -- more at MARKET
Date: 13th century
1 : a buyer and seller of commodities for profit : TRADER
2 : the operator of a retail business : STOREKEEPER
3 : one that is noted for a particular quality or activity : SPECIALIST <a speed merchant on the base paths>
- merchant adjective
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.