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 ...
I keep trying to get back to values and facts too, but I think the harsh reality is that the weekend isn't over yet and food fights are a heck of a lot more fun then that old boring "incisive question" stuff..
"The value of the work is set by its usefulness to consumers now, not by what a given worker did for consumers 10 years previously."
One would think that that would be intuitively obvious, but it seems not to be on this thread.
"I'm sure the "clock puncher" comment is supposed to be a put-down, right?"
Yor write, sorry. No more clock puncher. But I'm still gona mispell words. I can run spell check and still screw up.
Why avoid the obvious question?
What I said us that the dislocation and suffering caused by policy favoring the wealthiest might result in a socialist reaction.
Oops, too late. You just answered.
If the rich in Russia were more willing to support the land reform ie redistribution of property directed at creating the independent and prosperous farmers, very likely the Bolsheviks would not win
Are you saying that we need to adopt more aggressive policies forcing the redistribution of wealth to successfully avoid the inevitable proletariat revolution?
Is it your belief that freer trade causes wealth to accumulate in fewer hands? Or, do you think that additional government regulation, advocated by elitists to protect their interests, is more responsible for wealth creation being limited to the few who happen to be well connected?
"Yor write, sorry. No more clock puncher. But I'm still gona mispell words. I can run spell check and still screw up."
Tweek.
You've got this pretty much backwards...The couch price didn't change...The manufacturer took the wages he paid to Americans and put it in his own pocket...He didn't drop the price of the couch...He didn't move to Mexico to be nice to Americans...
And now the lady with considerably reduced wages can't afford the couch...She can't afford a massage either...But she NEEDS the couch...So she buys cheaper groceries...Doesn't drive as much and gives up on going to the movies...
And now, she won't be buying a new car (which puts more Americans out of work)...
Or possibly stayed in business and saved jobs. Not everyone is relocated in such a move.
The redistribution of wealth was the key method of keeping Western democracies safe and stable.
This is the picture the tariff people paint --lower the tariff and people loose their jobs. The tariff people even have actual case histories to make it sound even more realistic. What they don't have is the actual headcounts of the job-losers compared to actual head counts of the job-gainers, along with the stacks of payrolls showing higher wages for all. It's a picture that simply doesn't match with reality.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but Ninian was referring to conservatives not having read Friedman - not those who think government holds all the answers and that only government can create equity within society.
I'm sure there are many other socialists, and communists as well, who think Friedman is moronic.
"This all sounds like something for nothing to me."
No, it is the history of the world. Trade has always increased the wealth of societies. Have you ever read anything by Milton Friedman? I suspect that you have not.
Read the following:
http://www.hooverdigest.org/974/friedman.html
and get back to me.
I met payroll for twenty years, before I retired.
A large portion of the world is entering the industrial age and we cannot stop them.
If we can't compete with them, we will get left behind. The best we can hope for is a marginally level playing field.
Over time these things tend to balance out, remember the Japanese in the 1980's ? For awhile they were buying up everything in sight, now they are being undercut by the competition.
I was surprised as well to see this tripe coming from the Times. Maybe they're just trying to give the appearance of being balanced by offering more from the other side, such as it is. The WSJ has Al Hunt and I've never understood why they let him spew his nonsense - other than to appear fair and avoid criticism.
You're right though, Kudlow should know better.
But the rhetoric around here is not so restrained. It's the rhetoric of the old left.
Kudlow does know better and he does not "run" the Times.
"You're lucky just to keep 'em off the wagon."
I think you meant on the wagon and off the booze.
In the short term, the manufacturer will either pocket the difference and spend it on a new Lexus or diamond necklace for his wife (employing more people); or he'll lower his price to undercut his competitors, increase his market share and make more profits anyway. In the end, the money doesn't disappear into a bourgeoise black hole. The manufacturer is human, therefore his wants are unlimited, therefore he will employ people in the process of meeting his wants.
By the way, if he doesn't drop the price of his couches, he's not very competitive; one of his competitors will wise up, make his own business more efficient in some way, and undercut his prices to increase his own market share and profits. If no one does this, or if they collude between themselves to keep prices higher than what they might be, than I, or someone just like me, will enter the market and take their market share by virtue of a better and more efficient business. That's what keeps the free market honest and efficient. In fact, the only thing that makes the system break down is when the interested parties collude with the government to protect them via things like tariffs on their products or new regulations to keep newcomers away (see the steel industry and the oil refineries).
He didn't move to Mexico to be nice to Americans...
No, but it's funny how the system works to make it seem like everybody loves us, isn't 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.