Middle class faces extinction

The News-Press ^ | June 15, 2003 | JANE R. JOHNSON, N. Fort Myers

[Willie Green]

Related thread: House bill will be introduced to repeal NAFTA agreement

[Henrietta]

"The rich, who have never been in that situation, don´t care about the poor."

Why should they? Millions of their tax dollars are forcibly confiscated every year to care for the poor.

By the way, I guess you forgot the rich like Andrew Carnegie, who gave millions of dollars away to build libraries and colleges to educate the poor and the middle class.

Class envy?

[FITZ]

The middle class is the only thing that keeps the people from having revolutions and supporting coups. The elite may believe things will be easy when they're surrounded by a cheap servant class and many others who are poverty stricken and have nothing -- but the elite haven't been studying history, they never heard of the French Revolution which wasn't really all that long ago. When the people complain they have no bread ---don't tell them just to eat cake.

[FITZ]

forgot the rich like Andrew Carnegie

That was when there were rich who were interested in building a strong middle class -- who of the rich is like that now?

[Willie Green]

By the way, I guess you forgot the rich like Andrew Carnegie, who gave millions of dollars away to build libraries and colleges to educate the poor and the middle class.

I guess you forgot that Andy also made his business investments in America, providing employment for Americans.

[slohand]

Why would the CEO's what the people that buy the products they make not to have the money to buy them? Maybe they want people in third world countrys to be able to afford to buy? Is the answer to EU the united north america or maybe united americas.

[joesnuffy]

slave and convict labor are great little bottom line cutters
the greenies helped to sink america as well....

[Sonny M]

Why would the CEO's what the people that buy the products they make not to have the money to buy them? Maybe they want people in third world countrys to be able to afford to buy?

Not saying this is right or wrong, but the logic here is this. People won't have the job building the products, but they will have the jobs of selling them, and or also research and development, and or marketing, etc.

To use an anaolgy, I lose my job building chairs, but my new jobs is to be a salesperson who sell the chairs that are now manufactered overseas, or my new job is to design new chairs, that will be manufactered overseas, or my new job is to create a marketing plan to sell those chairs to people. I.E. you lose the manufactering end, but get the job of selling or the like.

One crucial flaw, is that many companies, may simply sell there products over the internet, so that would further reduce jobs, but as the old saying goes, "If I banned farm equipment today, we would have thousands of new jobs tomorrow".

[Henrietta]

"I guess you forgot that Andy also made his business investments in America, providing employment for Americans."

So did Bill Gates. And he's the richest American. I think he probably cares about the middle class, because that's who buys his products.

[evilC]

I can not believe that any serious news paper would print this tripe, .... even in the opinion section.

It reads like some high school kid trying to be "rad".

They only want more money. After they have their homes, yachts and cars, they don´t buy more, only accumulate money.

Actually the "rich" are the ones more likely to spend their money on services, the kind that create jobs for others.

Someone once described the difference between the middle class and working class thus; that the working class paint other peoples houses during the week to earn money, the middle class paint their own house at the weekend to save money.

Most middle class families would not dream of having a maid, a gardener or a pool-man. They almost certainly won't have a decorator, personal trainer and won't hire an architect when doing some work on their house. Middle class people don't hire accountants (other then the simplest of year end tax preparation), financial advisors and lawyers. Yet the "rich" create just these kind of opportunities for others. Granted they do not do this out of the goodness of their heart, but see if the accountant, trainer, maid and pool-man care.

The middle class had struggle to buy a home and try to get it paid for.

With taxes taking 40% of their income, no wonder they struggle! They now pay more in taxes the housing, food, clothing and transportation combined. 75% of their local property tax and 40% of their state taxes go to pay for the government schools that would prefer to avoid.

They are not in competition to see how much money they can accumulate; only try to climb the ladder to a better job so that their families might have a better life.

Of course a "better job" generally means one that pays better, <sarcasm>so I guess they are just money grubbers like the rich after all.</sarcasm>

[ricpic]

The greatest need of small businesses and especially start up ventures is capital. The source of that capital is "the rich." The thing that discourages the rich from providing start up or venture capital is the high capital gains tax which discourages them from taking what is after all a gamble on someone elses idea and industry. Let's not forget that hundreds if not thousands of ventures that started in someone's garage ended up as corporations employing tens of thousands of workers. It's all well and good to sound the class warfare trumpet. But it's only when you make it worthwhile for the rich to gamble their surplus capital that you have a growing economy. Cut the capital gains tax to zero and watch the economy explode!

[liberalnot]

willie green faces extinction.

[Riverman94610]

Yes,the talented few will make lemons out of lemonade,adapt and survive.
However,millions more who are less educated and less talented who would normally be gainfully employed and paying taxes are now out of work,filling the unemployment and welfare lines.In the past they would have filled the bulk of relatively well paying manufacturing jobs but now they are obselete.
If you are a believer in Social Darwinism then this is just the natural order of things.Personally,I think these trends,tho perhaps inevitable in a free market economy,is a real human tragedy.

[Pukin Dog]

The rich, who have never been in that situation, don´t care about the poor. They only want more money. After they have their homes, yachts and cars, they don´t buy more, only accumulate money.

This is the basic class-envy lie that is at the heart of the argument. It is complete and utter nonsense, based upon the thought of what middle class people would do if they were rich. Just who is it that supplies the bulk of charitable dollars? Taking from the rich only results in more pain for the poor.

The rich do more purchasing than any 20 members of the middle class. They replace cars and homes more often on average, and are responsible for many jobs involving imports that the middle class could never support. The rich also purchase higher margin items, which support lower prices on other items for middle class consumers. For example; airlines would be charging a much higher average price for seats, if not for the offset margin for Business and First class seats. Is that what we want?

It is a cliche to ask, but how many people got their last job from a poor person? Everyone knows that if you raise the minimum wage, you increase unemployment, because business costs are always passed down to the consumer. By restricting trade, you essentially do the same thing. Lower COGS(costs of goods and services) allow companies to ultimatly either employ more people, or avoid employing fewer people. If anyone thinks that repealing NAFTA will do anything to improve employment levels, I have a bridge to sell them.

A good example would be Boeing; who may be building their new 7E7 aircraft from an entirely new company/conglomerate with Airlines owning an equity share. Who is to say that if they are unable to get the cost/tax structure needed to turn a profit, that this company will be based in the US? Boeing could build their new plane completely on foreign soil, and there would be nothing anyone could do about it.

NAFTA conserves more jobs then are lost, and the class-envy argument is specious.

[Pukin Dog]

I wish I has seen your post, I could have saved myself some typing.

[Willie Green]

protectionism is anti-capitalism therefore anti- free market

Trade "agreements" are also anti-free market.
The transnational companies that promote such agreements are not capitalists. They are risk-adverse corporatists. Unlike capitalists, they shun market risk and negotiate agreements that subordinate the sovereign rights of representative governments. They are undeserving of the term "capitalist".

[disclaimer]

protectionism is anti-capitalism therefore anti- free market

Only like free enterprise / free markets should be trading partners. Trading with countries that subsidize markets or their export labor force isn't healthy for a country that isn't employing the same practices and could be considered a form of economic warfare.

[palmer]

First people need to accept some blame themselves. Do they really think that those cheaper imports are going to have the same quality as American-made, particularly in the materials used? Do they really need a new imported TV when they could buy a really good pair of American-made shoes instead? Do they understand that by sending $9 to China instead of $12 to Minnesota, their $3 savings is more than offset by the loss of $12 in ripple effect in the Minnesota economy?

We need to stop griping about politicians and accept some responsibility,

[Pukin Dog]

A hypothetical situation for you, Willie:

Suppose Boeing was prohibited from signing trade agreements with other nations, who insist on taking a portion of manufacturing as part of the deal?

You have Airbus out there, willing to deal with anyone with a dollar, who undercuts Boeing on most sales deals anyway, able to win a much larger share of deals, resulting in less revenue for Boeing, with layoffs and plant-closings needed to remain in business.

When that happens, then you have an impact on every sub-contractor, who has to do the same. Then you have a bulge in unemployment, increasing costs (deficits to the states) resulting in reduced economic activity. In a place like Washington state, you are talking about an ecomomic full-blown depression.

Please dont tell me that trade agreements are anti-free market. The opposite is true. Transnational companies are not risk-averse, they are COST-averse. The cost of doing business determines how many people a company can employ.