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 ...
Like I said, the picture the tariff people paint doesn't match with reality. The tariff people don't like looking at actual headcounts of job-losers compared to actual head counts of job-gainers --they cringe at the thought of payrolls showing higher wages for all. The facts are easy to get out, but the import tax lovers prefer dramatic anecdotes that (like Ricky Gephardt's imaginary friends) are mostly fiction.
My question is whether these import tax hikers already know that their story is bogus and they just want our tax money, or do they simply do not want to think about the facts.
You have contradicted yourself in an admirable fashion. You point out that governments at all levels interfere with free trade by using tax incentives, etc. to artificially attract business to a particular area, but then use the existence of this interference and its consequences as justification for further governmental intervention! Amazing.
Oh, and by the way, I have made no personal attacks on you. I don't know if you are a dummy or are brilliant. However, your posts expose an ignorance of the principles of economics. That's a simple fact. I am ignorant of a number of things. That's also a fact. The problem arises when someone is ignorant of something, but does not, for what ever reason, recognize his ignorance. It pays to know what you know and know what you don't know.
Same thing in my area...
But new jobs are popping up...They pay half what the old jobs did...The young people coming up think they're doing great making 8 bucks an hour with no benefits...
I hear of many, many young families where the husband works and the family still qualifies for welfare benefits...This is free trade in action...
'Free trade' will eliminate the middle class of the U.S. as we know it...The supporter's only argument seems to be that we MUST have everything we use come from China and Zimbabwe because we now don't make enough money to afford American made goods...I got new for 'em...Lots of folks NOW can't afford Chinese made goods...And that's the trend...
Strange that you'd believe wealth comes only from investment gain on manufacturing profit. That puts Donald Trump and Bill Gates on welfare. No problem, lets talk about this manufacturing investment. If I showed you how manufacturing profit and investment were up would you be willing to believe that the other 3/4's of the economy was ok too-- or is your mind already made up?
Just wait until reality hits the housing markets. The resulting crash will make the Dutch bust look nice.
What a shock--that the complaints of Management are directed at Labor, and vice-versa.
This happens to be a third-order functional result of the Materialism Society in which we live.
Of course, in the case of GM, which has now decided to abandon profits entirely, nobody is complaining. Curious, eh?
We're not losing manufacturing jobs to free trade. We're losing manufacturing jobs due to:
1. Litigation
2. Regulation
3. Taxation
Capital flows to where it's treated the best!
It's not govt's JOB to protect the labor market!! That's the point! Would you please quote the article or amendment to the Constitution that gives the government the obligation of "protect[ing] the labor market"?
Economic [sic] are quite simple you just choose to ignore one of the most important inputs, labor. Labor is the engine by which consumers consume and governments finance themselves.
Labor is not an "engine". Labor is a commodity in a free market, just like any other commodity. Businesses will buy labor (pay wages) at the lowest available cost, all else being equal. The only way for labor to rightfully cost more (wages to be higher) is for that labor to be worth more (more skilled, better educated, etc.).
If the exact same quality of labor is available at a lower cost, then a business will buy it at a lower cost. This is no different than your own spending habits, I'm confident. If you buy something, do you look for the most expensive one, regardless of quality, so you can protect the job of the worker who made it? I'd bet $100 that you don't.
Pardon me, but your hypocrisy is showing.
Supply side econ is supposed to trickle in a way that creates new jobs. What is your spin on "trickle down" now that trickling only occurs toward corporate equity rather than growing the labor market?
I have no "spin" on "trickle-down", as you put it. Supply-side economics have been so thoroughly vindicated that it's only through your willing ignorance on the subject or disingenuous spite that you hold such a negative view of it. What is it about the "trickling...toward corporate equity" that you so hate? Shouldn't the owners of a company make money on their investment? It is eeeeeeeeevil when somebody buys stock and expects the value of that stock to increase?
Do you have an IRA or 401K? If so, you are one of those eeeeeevil "corporate equity" holders who are stomping on the poor, downtrodden workers. If you do, shame on you for wanting to make money. Shame on you for not giving all your money to a poor, displaced factory worker. Are you employed? Shame on you for not giving your job to an unemployed union steelworker!
Are you healthy? Shame on you for not being ill like others are! Do you know how to read? Shame on you for thinking you're better than the illiterate! Can you walk? Shame on you for taking advantage of paraplegics! You have a computer... Shame on you for supporting the corrupt, corporate monstrosities that rule the Internet and computer industry!
Finally, shame on you for your utter FAILURE in making sure every American citizen is exactly equal to you in every regard. Shame... Shame.
You're a sick freak!!! ;)
It is also not the governments job to expose it's population to predatory economics from other countries, yet they do. It was originally was not the governments job to tax it's subjects into the stone age, yet they do now.
Labor is what most consumers do to earn an income so they can buy things and put money into various investments, they don't shake money trees. Labor is also what companies use to produce goods and services.
If the exact same quality of labor is available at a lower cost, then a business will buy it at a lower cost.
NS, now who makes the labor available at a lower cost and why? So our government can ignore the factors that make Americans uncompetitive while exposing the US to global competition? I'm all for "freeing" of markets but the gov can't free markets while leaving all the legacy US market conditions in place. They also have to recognize predatory practices by other governments that make competition impossible.
We need a more holistic view of "free trade" that incorporates changes in domestic policy in a way that is compatible with a global marketplace. Right now it's just a corporate giveaway designed to build equity for those who have money to invest. If mom and pop can't get in the global game with the big boys we should consider that a big problem.
I do have a sizable 401k and I shop at Walmart all day long. The market as it stands leaves me no choice but to take advantage of the efficiencies as they exist. The poor bastards coming out of college will unfortunately have to deal with a "global market" without the years of career building I'm lucky to have.
Don't count FDR or rather Stalin Lite into that reply, bad example.
At my university they had a fine degree for those who didn't belong in college: exercise science. Don't mistake this with a 'hard' degree like Sports Medicen. No this was for those with the bottom edge SATs. I dated a girl who had one of those "degrees". Her job? Selling gym memberships....yup, because she knew the proper way to do a pushup and it only cost daddy $20K.
Your argument ends in the first sentence.
Who is to say that a manufacturer's profit would rise if the cost of labor quadruples?
Just because the shoes, that fewer people are going to buy, cost more money, that does not mean that the profit margin is higher.
If shoe manufacturers could raise profit by hiring $30 per hour unionized labor, they would have done it years ago.
...*Crickets chirping*... I'm still waiting for that Article or Amendment of the Constitution that says protecting the employment of the US worker is the government's job. I'm ignoring your diversions until then.
Labor is what most consumers do to earn an income so they can buy things and put money into various investments...
Or, in other words, most consumers sell their labor on the open market to an employer in return for money. The employee is free to sell that labor to any employer which will hire him.
...they don't shake money trees.
Did I ever say they do?? Where did this come from?
Labor is also what companies use to produce goods and services.
Or, in other words, it is what companies buy from employees with money. The employee is free to terminate the arrangement at any time (i.e. quit) and the employer is free to hire whomever it chooses, yes?
NS
NS? I'm not sure what you're abbreviating here.
...now who makes the labor available at a lower cost and why?
Umm, let me hazard a guess or two here. Workers who want a job make their labor available at a cost that an employer is willing to pay. Why? Because he wants a paycheck.
This is a fun game. :-) Are there more questions like this?
So our government can ignore the factors that make Americans uncompetitive...
Again, explain why it's the government's job to make a worker more competitive? In an open market, isn't it the seller's job to make his product competitive? The seller (worker) is responsible for making his own product (labor) competitive.
...while exposing the US to global competition?
By "exposing the US to global competition" you mean "refusing to close our borders to all foreign trade", right? Competition is good. Isolationism doesn't work; it only drives up prices for everyone while reducing the choices available to consumers.
I'm all for "freeing" of markets...
No, you're not. You're "all for" government regulation of markets. It's usually called Fascism.
...but the gov can't free markets while leaving all the legacy US market conditions in place. They also have to recognize predatory practices by other governments that make competition impossible.
Where has competition been rendered "impossible" by international trade?
We need a more holistic view of "free trade" that incorporates changes in domestic policy in a way that is compatible with a global marketplace.
OK, that has to win some kind of award for its tiny to nonexistant signal-to-noise ratio. Did that sentence even say anything?
Right now it's just a corporate giveaway designed to build equity for those who have money to invest.
And your argument is that a business shouldn't have the right to share its profits with those who own it, right? After all, there are loads of poor people who "need" that money more than the ones who invested theirs to build the business in the first place, right?
Part of the problem with your reasoning is the blatant presumption that stock holders are all members of "the rich". The truth of the matter, if you would look at it, is that stock holders come from every economic level. Every worker at my place of employment, from the General Manager to the latest mechanic hired off the street, has a 401K account available. That employee can choose from a wide array of investment opportunities for his employer-matched contributions to be invested in. All those who own stock in a company are co-owners of it, entitled to a share of the success of that company equal to his or her ownership stake in it. If I owned half of a company (half of its stock) then I would rightly be entitled to half of that company's profits, wouldn't I? Am I a greedy monster because I expect the money I have loaned to various companies in the form of stocks to earn me some return? Do you loan your money to strangers with no expectation of interest? I sure don't.
If mom and pop can't get in the global game with the big boys we should consider that a big problem.
Why? Is it any different if you look only at the local scene? Can mom & pop compete with GM or Ford? Can they compete with Verizon? This is a silly standard.
I do have a sizable 401k and I shop at Walmart all day long. The market as it stands leaves me no choice but to take advantage of the efficiencies as they exist.
Sure! You have no choice, but those eeeeevil corporations would do just fine paying twice as much for labor as their competition does, right? The laws of economics are no different for a company than for a person: You can't afford not to buy the least expensive!
The poor bastards coming out of college will unfortunately have to deal with a "global market" without the years of career building I'm lucky to have.
Poor college graduate "bastards" will deal with a global market in just the same way they always have. The global market is not a new phenomenon. Foreign cars came, foreign electronics came, foreign-made clothing came... and we still have very low unemployment... and we have very low prices, which makes everyone's dollar buy more.
Competition is a GOOD thing, even in the labor market. Perhaps especially in the labor market!
Forgive me, it is Monday and my allergies are in full revolt. Could you walk me through that?
Just wait until reality hits the housing markets. The resulting crash will make the Dutch bust look nice
American household net worth is about $49 trillion, which is double what it was just a decade ago. Only about 20% of this wealth is attributed to home equity. The average American household has about 57% equity in their home. Just how bad do you think this crash is going to be and, given these stats, how badly can this impact our net worth?
There are a helluvalotta Dutchmen who USED to be wealthy, until the tulips crashed.
American's own assets of almost $60 trillion. This includes $17.7 trillion in real estate, $3.7 trillion in durable goods, $4.4 trillion in savings deposits, $884 billion in money market accounts, $2.1 trillion in credit market instruments, $6.3 trillion in corporate equities, $3.6 trillion in mutual fund shares, $1.1 trillion in life insurance reserves, $9.4 trillion in pension reserves and on and on. Nothing there remotely related to tulips. Maybe you can find the tulips line item, or anything else without any real value.
Federal Reserve - Flow of Funds (see page 112)
"Somehow, I don't see how America would be better off in the long run if we paid $200 for a $65 pair of shoes because they are made in America or if a new "American made" computer costs $1800 at Best Buy instead of a foreign made one at $499."
Your point is ridiculous because no one here is advocating Zero Trade with other countries. The alternative to Free Trade is not Zero Trade, it's reasonable Tarriffs (as envisioned by the Founding Fathers) so that domestic manufacturers still have to compete, it's just that they get a small edge over foreign competition.
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.