But the numbers just kinda speak for themselves don't they?
I also wonder why they fight so hard here to rationalize their positions????
Posted on 01/16/2008 4:01:09 AM PST by LowCountryJoe
Rochester
IN the days before Tuesday’s Republican presidential primary in Michigan, Mitt Romney and John McCain battled over what the government owes to workers who lose their jobs because of the foreign competition unleashed by free trade. Their rhetoric differed — Mr. Romney said he would “fight for every single job,” while Mr. McCain said some jobs “are not coming back” — but their proposed policies were remarkably similar: educate and retrain the workers for new jobs.
All economists know that when American jobs are outsourced, Americans as a group are net winners. What we lose through lower wages is more than offset by what we gain through lower prices. In other words, the winners can more than afford to compensate the losers. Does that mean they ought to? Does it create a moral mandate for the taxpayer-subsidized retraining programs proposed by Mr. McCain and Mr. Romney?
Um, no. Even if you’ve just lost your job, there’s something fundamentally churlish about blaming the very phenomenon that’s elevated you above the subsistence level since the day you were born. If the world owes you compensation for enduring the downside of trade, what do you owe the world for enjoying the upside?
[Snip]
One way to think about that is to ask what your moral instincts tell you in analogous situations. Suppose, after years of buying shampoo at your local pharmacy, you discover you can order the same shampoo for less money on the Web. Do you have an obligation to compensate your pharmacist? If you move to a cheaper apartment, should you compensate your landlord? When you eat at McDonald’s, should you compensate the owners of the diner next door? Public policy should not be designed to advance moral instincts that we all reject every day of our lives.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
“So how many of the 3 million manufacturing jobs were lost to productivity versus companies closing down plants and offshoring them?”
Great question, however, I don’t think that kind of statistic exists, if it does, please provide a link. (anyone?) I’d love to see the numbers.
I believe that Todd’s numbers (dollars of manufactured finished goods shipped) are distorted by aircraft sales in the last 3-4 years as Boeing has had a substantial increase in deliveries, but the local content of Boeing Aircraft (labor and materials) has been reduced substantially....I tried to find stats less aircraft and I couldn’t find them.
Aircraft with a list price of $80 to $120 million or more per frame, would have a great impact on dollars of finished goods shipped.
I doubt that Todd can prove that productivity gains amount to more than a few percentage points of total mfg job losses.
Sorry if it upsets you that I posted from two sides of the spectrum and they came to the same conclusions. All it does is solidify the concerns about globalistic goals.
Lou Dobbs is a fraud who's in this for his own personal gain.
lol....that settles it then....according to you. But your opinion I take with a grain of salt.
Mase works for a company that has 2 plants in China. No bias there. ROTFLMAO.
CNN broadcasts to China. Where’s your ire at Lou Dobbs?
If Mase works for a company with a history of outsourcing to China, wouldn't protectionism be in his personal best interest? His job could be next? I respect that he doesn't demand that I pay higher prices to protect HIS job.
Nope. None whatsoever. Thanks for that little tidbit of information, hehehe.
Now that I think about it, doesn’t Ted Turner still own CNN? That would place his signature on Lou Dobbs’ paycheck. If you guys feel the need to try the guilt-by-association angle, you really need to think it through.
LOL! So says he who sources from "Bought and Paid for by Union Bosses" EPI.
Yeah...amazing how their information reaches the same conclusion as conservative patriot Phyllis Schalfy’s from Eagle Forum and Lou Dobb’s, who’s against lawbreaking illegal aliens and the U.S. employers who illegal hire them.
FOFLOL
It’s not amazing at all (except to you, perhaps). Both favor expanding governmental power at the expense of individual liberty.
Schlafly, a conservative patriot, and Lou Dobbs, who is campaigning to have U.S. laws enforced against illegals and the employers who illegally hire them, favor expanding governmental power? at the expense of individual liberty?
Wow....what an accusation. Please link to your sources to back up your claims.
We’re talking trade and the economy, not illegal immigration. Please stay focused.
But the numbers just kinda speak for themselves don't they?
I also wonder why they fight so hard here to rationalize their positions????
The only thing sorry is your lame attempt at trying to explain it away.
All it does is solidify the concerns about globalistic goals
There's that word again. It's seems to be a very convenient term for you. You can use it pejoratively without ever having to define what is means. Convenient indeed.
But your opinion I take with a grain of salt.
Other than borders what is Lou right about? Be specific.
Depends on how high the food chain he is within that company. Also he may be the one doing the outsourcing. He won't outsource his own job.
I wonder how “anti” globalists don’t know that manufacturing jobs have been declining worldwide for more than 30 years. You’d think FReepers would read a book now and then.
I agree with the definition I earlier posted, just fine.
Sorry if it upsets you that I posted from two sides of the spectrum and they came to the same conclusions.
Say, help remind me . . . weren’t you the guy supporting the Chinese military machine because to do otherwise was inconvenient and more expensive?
Illegals and trade are interlinked and intertwined.
Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable or exposes your inability to focus.
Three plants in China actually, and 25 others around the globe. We have to go where our customers go. It's just another reality of running a large business. Something, no doubt, you know nothing about.
It's been pointed out by many of your opponents on these threads that when someone doesn't have the intellectual wherewithal to support their argument, or disprove the assertions of their opponents, they resort to questioning the motives of their opponents. Well done.
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.