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 ...
Yes, dumping trades one nations wealth to another. What do you expect when you sell for less the the cost of production? The buyers gets the sellers wealth. But that's not what you meant, is it?
Here, here!!! That's the most intelligent piece of commentary I've read on Free Republic this past week. Good job A. Pole.
P.S. Check out my new tag line:
Exactly. Just like Communist China as compared to Communist North Korea. Of course, somebody forgot to tell China that they need to forfiet the gulags, the misery and poverty....
Oops....doen't look like a free market (or, in China's case, a "free-er" market) guarentees an end to these things, does it????
Think you best double-think those "communist" labels you enjoy throwing around there Toddster, and take a long, hard look at reality. A pure "free-market" economy can be just as bad--if not worse--than communism in terms of it's effects on a population. Either you're being oppressed by the political class, or being oppressed by the robber-barrons. When you're on the short-end of the stick, it doesn't matter how you label the system.
And incidentally, what authority gives you the right to claim control over me and the fruits of MY labor: my right to sell my goods to whomever wants to buy them, and my right to use that profit to buy from whomever I want to buy from? How you claim this somehow in the name of God is what I find most offensive. Theocratic communism, therefore? Sucking at the teat of Marx while clutching a crucifix--just like the "liberation" theologists of South America. You and your ilk are merely cultural statists and collective economists; using Orwellian speak to claim that allowing the government to control the economy is "liberty".
And should you wish to quote on liberty, you might try quoting someone who actually believed in it:
“Free trade is not based on utility but on justice.” –Edmund Burke
and “The moment that government appears at market, the principles of the market will be subverted.” –Edmund Burke
“If goods can't cross borders armies will.” –Frederic Bastiat
"No nation was ever ruined by trade, even seemingly the most disadvantageous." -- Benjamin Franklin, Principles of Trade, 1774
"Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread." -- Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, 1821
AND especially:
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816
The Chinese people today are struggling with having to use code words to discuss democracy on their Yahoo blogs. It's not really a free society yet, but personal liberty has increased with economic liberty there. The two go hand in hand, just as limiting economic freedom means limiting personal freedom. The state of liberty in China today doesn't even compare to that in North Korea or what it was 50 years ago. Your argument is asinine.
I continue to be utterly astonished at the statists crawling out of the woodwork. How can you actually say life in a "pure" free market is worse than under communism? That is ridiculous.
Rude I did what you are learning to master in snake school as slight sarcasm. Thought you would have figured that out. Guess not.
BTW: I was replying to your comment to Willie that you are not concerned about having american companies bought out by the red chinese and therefore they may no longer be available for us to convert to wartime production which you said you doubt would ever happen again.
Why are you always behind?
How quickly one forgets the soup lines of the 1930's and the misery that was Victorian England. Also all those who worked for, and were owned by, the "company" while digging coal out of the hills of West Virginia, Kentucky, and other places in Appalachia. And these weren't even under pure free market conditions.
The ONLY thing that got us out of the Great Depression was the massive deficit spending that FDR initiated on behalf of World War II. Just about every economist of every political stripe credits GOVERNMENT intervention on ending the Great Depression. It wasn't the free market that was paying for all those tanks, ships and planes.
My point is this: either extreme, communisim (central planning) or totally free markets are both undesirable. As you correctly noted, free-er than normal markets, like those in China, do allow for a tiny increase in liberty, when you're not locked in the factory during your eighty-hour work week. However, there is still CONSIDERABLE control exerted by the Chinese government, they just don't try to control everything anymore, just simple, unimportant things like politics and religion.
But the reverse is also true. You cannot have a truly "free" market without near anarchy. No controls means no controls. If you have well disciplined population that can maintain itself, fine. But as recent current events deomonstrate, that type of self-control simply does not exist, at least not anymore. Just look what happened to New Orleans within 24 hrs. of Katrina!!!
Lord help the man who lives at the mercy of the FREE MARKET. The reason we don't have one, is because we once did, and no one liked it--with the exception of a few rich folks who had the morals and ethics of the devil himself.
Just look at how the people cried for Uncle Sam to save them after Katrina struck New Orleans a glancing blow. Everyone cries to be free, until it's time to pick-up the check...then they can't have too much "help" from the government.
As some in this thread have been pointing out, free markets work very well in theory; in "controlled" environments; but once they collide with human nature, those benefits dry up very quickly. That's why human beings have always had governments of some type, and often very authoritiarian ones....because more often then not, they couldn't trust the guy standing next to them.
I lived under Communism and I assure you that life was much better than in free market Dickensian England.
Are you saying Marx's theories did not lead to Gulags, misery and poverty in China and North Korea?
Oops....doen't look like a free market (or, in China's case, a "free-er" market) guarentees an end to these things, does it????
You really need to reread my post: We see the logical consequences of the free market have been much higher standards of living in those countries which have freer markets as compared to those that have less free markets. I didn't say freer markets guaranteed an end to those things. Are you denying that the freer market activities in China have increased the standard of living?
Think you best double-think those "communist" labels you enjoy throwing around there Toddster, and take a long, hard look at reality.
You first. I was calling A. Pole, who grew up under Communism and who still seems to think it is somehow superior to capitalism, a communist. Wouldn't you call someone who believes in the superiority of communism a communist? If not, what would you call him?
. A pure "free-market" economy can be just as bad--if not worse--than communism in terms of it's effects on a population.
A laughable assertion, but let's examine it. How many millions were put into camps and killed by the robber barons?
Either you're being oppressed by the political class, or being oppressed by the robber-barrons.
Again, laughable. The Chinese communists killed what, 50 million? The Russians another 20 million. The Cambodians, a million or two. How many millions did the robber barons in the US kill again?
How many English perished in the Dickensian gulags?
Because I'm trying to drag you forward. I asked Willie what sort of national security implications the failed deal between Haier and Maytag would involve, and the best he could come up with is that the Chinese might have gained access to technology that allows us to distinguish between whites, colors, and delicates.
Btw, I didn't appreciate the comment about snake school. God help you when you actually need one. I'll bet you'll keep your mouth shut then.
You are twisting what I said. I said that life in Communist Poland was better for the majority of people than life in Dickensian England and especially Ireland.
I think that capitalism with human face is better than socialism, but socialism with human face is better than capitalism without human face. Do you understand?
Where is there capitalism without human face? China?
I did not live in Soviet Union under Stalin, Stalin's Russia was worse than Dickensian England indeed. But is it reason to brag for the free-marketeers that their beloved England of Dickens time was better than the Gulag? You set very low standard for yourself!
To repeat, the life in Communist Poland was better for the majority of people than in Dickensian England and especially Ireland.
I think that capitalism with human face is better than socialism, but socialism with human face is better than capitalism without human face. Do you understand?
I don't remember any free-marketeers saying that England during Dickens time was perfect. What about America during Dickens time. Was that better? Is England now better than Poland under Communism?
It was in Dickensian England, especially in Ireland. Fortunately you cannot find free market capitalism today, maybe with the exception of some African or Central American countries. You should move there.
Fortunately you cannot find free market capitalism today, maybe with the exception of some African or Central American countries.
Which ones?
We should be thankful for that.
What about America during Dickens time. Was that better?
Yes. That is why Irish fled to USA.
Is England now better than Poland under Communism?
Yes, it is.
Will you get a ticket?
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.