A great disparity in wealth,reported in a study by the Center on Budget and policy Priorities,has more than doubled since 1977. In 1977 the top 1 per cent had as much money as the bottom 49 million.This year, 1999, the richest 2.7million,1per cent, has as much money as the POOREST 100 Million. According to this report, the new international,free trade,multicultural America has made so much "progress that four in five households,217million people,take home LESS INCOME TODAY than in 1977 when adjusted for inflation. Welcome to the Global Plantation America. Our industrial base is nearly wiped out along with the small farmers and we have become a service economy of crummy jobs where families work 2 and 3 jobs per family. The government media parrots the party line of a great economy. I dont buy it . Do you?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Re: "New America gets poorer
- Thread starter Ivan8883
- Start date
Frank Haertlein
Moderator
Ivan;
No, I don't buy it. Just look at the cost of cars today as one example. The result of NAFTA, WTO and others has brought Americans spending power DOWN to the level of other countries. We seem to be on a trend to equalize Americans with second or third world countries. That means your spending power has decreased. Have you noticed that your raises have not equalled inflation? In the last 15 years the "pool" of money used for raises in my organization has been less than the rate of inflation. That means that I have stepped backward in spending power. Yet everyone says the economy is good. Bull****!! Multinational corporations, the media, democrats and the republicans are behind this. It's time to vote for Bucannon and send them packing! My life has actually gotten worse because raises have been virtually non-exsistent (less than 1.3% for the last 15 years) while inflation has averaged 3% per year. I am stepping backward in earning power and I suspect most Americans have been affected likewise. The average CEO salary has increased 650% during those same years while the average worker has seen only a 28% increase. We are degenerating in such a way that our earning power is someday going to be equal with the third world. Let's hear it for free trade!!
No, I don't buy it. Just look at the cost of cars today as one example. The result of NAFTA, WTO and others has brought Americans spending power DOWN to the level of other countries. We seem to be on a trend to equalize Americans with second or third world countries. That means your spending power has decreased. Have you noticed that your raises have not equalled inflation? In the last 15 years the "pool" of money used for raises in my organization has been less than the rate of inflation. That means that I have stepped backward in spending power. Yet everyone says the economy is good. Bull****!! Multinational corporations, the media, democrats and the republicans are behind this. It's time to vote for Bucannon and send them packing! My life has actually gotten worse because raises have been virtually non-exsistent (less than 1.3% for the last 15 years) while inflation has averaged 3% per year. I am stepping backward in earning power and I suspect most Americans have been affected likewise. The average CEO salary has increased 650% during those same years while the average worker has seen only a 28% increase. We are degenerating in such a way that our earning power is someday going to be equal with the third world. Let's hear it for free trade!!
I surely blame this on the politicians and no one else. I fought against NAFTA tooth and nail, only to be looked upon as a looney.
When the factories started going south or overseas and people started to whine about it, I made no friends when I told them if they didn't fight against NAFTA to shut up. Most of 'em didn't have a clue.
Compounding this is the apparent idea that if you can't export the jobs, import cheap labor. I'm retired now but when I was in the contract programming game, they were importing intelligent Third-Worlders who would work for half the price. I understand this went on in other disciplines also.
This is all the result of the "Global Economy" b/s which in reality means "Who will work the cheapest?". What cheeses me off if that now the pols come around with
a disturbed look on their face mouthing homilies about the "disappearing middle class". Well, Duh!
------------------
If you can't fight City Hall, at least defecate on the steps.
When the factories started going south or overseas and people started to whine about it, I made no friends when I told them if they didn't fight against NAFTA to shut up. Most of 'em didn't have a clue.
Compounding this is the apparent idea that if you can't export the jobs, import cheap labor. I'm retired now but when I was in the contract programming game, they were importing intelligent Third-Worlders who would work for half the price. I understand this went on in other disciplines also.
This is all the result of the "Global Economy" b/s which in reality means "Who will work the cheapest?". What cheeses me off if that now the pols come around with
a disturbed look on their face mouthing homilies about the "disappearing middle class". Well, Duh!
------------------
If you can't fight City Hall, at least defecate on the steps.
I propose that the economy is better. It's just that the government now takes a whole lot more of what we earn in taxes. Thus we have to work harder longer and more jobs to stay even.
------------------
Richard
The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
------------------
Richard
The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
Greed !!! and Power
NAFTA is just ONE of the GREAT lies that has been sold to the American Public. It is one of the many ways that "Globalist" are using to weaken the strongest most fare governed country in the world. If not for the American indistrial base we would all be under the yoke of the last empire builders.
Hitler and the Emperor.
The other major problem with our elected officials is we keep on voting for lawyers.
The last thing we need here is more self serving lawyers. If we would put enough people in office that did not know law maybe there would be less extranious laws passed.
We have started a company that is manufactureing in the United States. We have located in a NAFTA emergency zone. This is an area that has lost 70% of its employment to off shore factories. We pay top dollar to our employees and plan on expanding when we can. The only things that might stand in our way are the unions and the local elected officials that are all retired and full of thier own importance. We are working to get them out of office.
ALL of our competition has closed thier US manufactureing and moved it to South Korea
the Phillipenes,Costa Rica or VietNam. We believe in our country. They still try to put us down.
Enough ranting... Back to work.
Cheers,
ts
NAFTA is just ONE of the GREAT lies that has been sold to the American Public. It is one of the many ways that "Globalist" are using to weaken the strongest most fare governed country in the world. If not for the American indistrial base we would all be under the yoke of the last empire builders.
Hitler and the Emperor.
The other major problem with our elected officials is we keep on voting for lawyers.
The last thing we need here is more self serving lawyers. If we would put enough people in office that did not know law maybe there would be less extranious laws passed.
We have started a company that is manufactureing in the United States. We have located in a NAFTA emergency zone. This is an area that has lost 70% of its employment to off shore factories. We pay top dollar to our employees and plan on expanding when we can. The only things that might stand in our way are the unions and the local elected officials that are all retired and full of thier own importance. We are working to get them out of office.
ALL of our competition has closed thier US manufactureing and moved it to South Korea
the Phillipenes,Costa Rica or VietNam. We believe in our country. They still try to put us down.
Enough ranting... Back to work.
Cheers,
ts
GS80, you are to be commended for what you are doing. i just hope "our" government doesnt try to sabatoge you. a fellow on the Chuck Harder show awile back called in from Carbondale, ILL. which was once a top industrial center. He told Chuck that all the manufacturing firms had gone south with government blessing and the one firm that was willing to stay in the area was told by the government that a better deal was to leave and relocate outside the country. The man said crime was rampant and hopelessness was the order of the day. Guys, I turned ag ainst the Republican party the day my so called conservative representative voted for Nafta. Both parties have combined to nearly wipe us out. The Us dollar is very weak as our TRADE DEFICITS with the world reach unbelievable figures. And, yes to top it all off our income tax and other taxes combine to force working Americans to work nearly around the clock in this new PLantation. You guys responding to this thread understand the "New Deal" being created by our elite plutocrats for THEIR benefit.I am not raning either .This is fact.
there's a saying in economics; if you torture the data enough, they'll tell you what you want to hear. this is unfortunately all too common with folks who pretend to do economic analysis but are really generating propaganda for whatever cause they are promoting.
when you look at household income data over the last 40 years, there are several things you have to keep in mind. the "median single-family dwelling" is a lot larger and more complicated. a typical car has many more comforts and features. stuff like entertainment electronics didn't exist. we also get a lot more benefits than we used to.
the *real* economic problems in the US are;
- a population level that is larger than our natural and infrastructure resources can handle (the U.S. is now the 3rd most populous country on earth!)
- a regulatory and litigation environment that is hostile to progressive business practices
- increasingly unproductive workforce (the average high school grad is only semi-literate and cannot do basic shop math)
- an increasingly anti-education and anti-intellectual society (this is coming not only from the working class but also from the liberal elite, surprisingly); garbage collectors make more than many scientists and engineers, not to mention teachers...
NAFTA is really not the issue. we can easily kick ass on other economies if we fix the underlying problems.
when you look at household income data over the last 40 years, there are several things you have to keep in mind. the "median single-family dwelling" is a lot larger and more complicated. a typical car has many more comforts and features. stuff like entertainment electronics didn't exist. we also get a lot more benefits than we used to.
the *real* economic problems in the US are;
- a population level that is larger than our natural and infrastructure resources can handle (the U.S. is now the 3rd most populous country on earth!)
- a regulatory and litigation environment that is hostile to progressive business practices
- increasingly unproductive workforce (the average high school grad is only semi-literate and cannot do basic shop math)
- an increasingly anti-education and anti-intellectual society (this is coming not only from the working class but also from the liberal elite, surprisingly); garbage collectors make more than many scientists and engineers, not to mention teachers...
NAFTA is really not the issue. we can easily kick ass on other economies if we fix the underlying problems.
IVAN: FYI, Carbondale Il. pop. 27,000 is a small college town that has never had any industry to speak of. The largest employer is SIU. Has been since the 1940's. The city has never taken any steps to promote or retain industry either. Crime there is high for a small town, but C'dale has been a magnet for welfare recipients bailing out of Chicago projects for years. This has resulted in an increase of "misguided" gangbanger types in the town. I lived there for over twenty years. Sorry to interupt a good story with the truth.
Well, I don't know about Carbondale, but I can give some apocryphal stories, plus some that I saw with my own eyes. Sorry to be long-winded, but the apathy that surrounded this still galls me.
I worked in Macon, Ga. at the time and heard about a canning plant that was being shut down and going to the milquiladores (Mexican border industrial zones).
One weekend I took a drive to the site 25 miles south of town (don't remember the name, but it was ironically the bithplace of Georgia's senior Senator Sam Nunn). The place was a MASSIVE plant with acres of parking lots -- all empty. I felt as if everyone was beamed up -- Spooky. I eventually saw one guard with a German Shepherd patrolling the place.
In town I met a millwright who said he once made $18 an hour and was now mowing lawns trying to stay afloat. To compound the misery, the plant was THE tax base for the county and when it went, property taxes shot up.
I took pictures of the place and mailed them to every pro-NAFTA pol I could find, along with the millwright's story. The Governor, Zel Miller, basically told me not to tell him how to run his job. Never even got form letters from the others.
There was another small town, entirely black, that only existed because there was a plant that made straw brooms. When they went South, everyone had to go on welfare.
A side effect was that small businesses that couldn't go South threatened to move every time the workers asked for health insurance coverage, a week or two paid vacation, etc.
It's still that way today.
I've been in the midwest and seen bare land where there once were factories. The plants were bulldozed to lessen the property taxes. Check out a book titled "The Deindustrial- ization of America" by Barry Bluestone and Bennett Harrison. These guys are award-winning reporters for the Philadelphia Enquirer who expanded their expose articles into this book.
But, just as with gun control, the sheeple just bleated and shuffled their feet during the debate. I know, because I campaigned statewide on the weekends and got pegged as a looney by the very people whose jobs were at stake.
------------------
If you can't fight City Hall, at least defecate on the steps.
I worked in Macon, Ga. at the time and heard about a canning plant that was being shut down and going to the milquiladores (Mexican border industrial zones).
One weekend I took a drive to the site 25 miles south of town (don't remember the name, but it was ironically the bithplace of Georgia's senior Senator Sam Nunn). The place was a MASSIVE plant with acres of parking lots -- all empty. I felt as if everyone was beamed up -- Spooky. I eventually saw one guard with a German Shepherd patrolling the place.
In town I met a millwright who said he once made $18 an hour and was now mowing lawns trying to stay afloat. To compound the misery, the plant was THE tax base for the county and when it went, property taxes shot up.
I took pictures of the place and mailed them to every pro-NAFTA pol I could find, along with the millwright's story. The Governor, Zel Miller, basically told me not to tell him how to run his job. Never even got form letters from the others.
There was another small town, entirely black, that only existed because there was a plant that made straw brooms. When they went South, everyone had to go on welfare.
A side effect was that small businesses that couldn't go South threatened to move every time the workers asked for health insurance coverage, a week or two paid vacation, etc.
It's still that way today.
I've been in the midwest and seen bare land where there once were factories. The plants were bulldozed to lessen the property taxes. Check out a book titled "The Deindustrial- ization of America" by Barry Bluestone and Bennett Harrison. These guys are award-winning reporters for the Philadelphia Enquirer who expanded their expose articles into this book.
But, just as with gun control, the sheeple just bleated and shuffled their feet during the debate. I know, because I campaigned statewide on the weekends and got pegged as a looney by the very people whose jobs were at stake.
------------------
If you can't fight City Hall, at least defecate on the steps.
A few rambling thoughts -
Good to know I am not the only disgruntled worker out there. Some wags out there nestled in cushy jobs or secure lifestyles have commented that the economy is fine, it is just that we are having difficuly because we don't know how to manage our money!
Nothing like getting on the recieving end of a "downsizing" to make you very interested in the economy! I regard the current economy as a threat as real and grim as any we have faced, one which likely intersects and aggravates other societal ills (note the comments in this thread about decaying local economies, hopelessness, and rising crime rates).
I continue to read about America's economic situation, drawing from a variety of sources. I don't regard any one commentator as a purveyor of gospel; however, collectively, their conclusions and my own observations (and hopefully I was observing in the right places!) indicate that yes, the USA has been undergoing widespread changes that are not necessarily beneficial to the majority of its people. I am no professional regarding the economy, just a concerned taxpayer. A very concerned taxpayer.
Two amusing books -
America : Who Stole the Dream? was originally serialized by Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele in the Philadelphia Inquirer. The duo has made a career out of hyping America's economic woes to readers. In Who Stole the Dream?, Barlett and Steele conlude that while not all of today's financial problems were planned deliberately, both the Republican and Democratic parties were complicit in some of this nonsense (along with "Big Business", of course). The authors noted that nineteenth century America offered similar economic unrest that had to be corrected by a very angry population. Today's situation was decades in the making.
Declining Fortunes : The Withering of the American Dream was written by an anthropologist, Katherine S. Newman, who studied a New Jersey town and its worried residents. She included information about past history of the region and nation as a whole dating back at least to the era of WW II. Some of Newman's senior interviewees claimed that the current, anxious, generation are working longer hours simply to finance a lush lifestyle; several of the older generation Americans frowned on two parents who worked full or part time instead of spending quality time with their children. However, some of the senior residents voiced concern that both parents had to work simply to keep from getting bested by tax, health and other bills (such as automobiles, very nearly an expensive necessasity in some areas where public transport is scarce or improperly managed).
We have to be careful about demonizing the elected and the monied simply because of their status. Firearm owners have been stereotyped into "monsters" by their opposition; such infantile tactics have divided both "groups" (note - antigunners go armed when it suites their purpose) and now many of the participants are scrabbling around for the best stats to support their respective position. Debate is often governed by emotion and politics, rather than a need to uncover the truth and better society.
I should hope that if the population truly becomes focused on addressing economic questions, its discourse will be more civil and productive than the wringer pro-firearm rights folks have been put through.
Ivanhoe - that quote you repeated was excellant and probably can be applied to any serious debate where issues are reinforced by stats (I survived a university course in statistics and was dismayed that even a survey made with the best of intentions could prove fallible by not being set up properly).
Would China and India be the most populous nations today?
I graduated with honors from Temple Univ in 1989. I have seen an influx of higher educated employees into the workforce (college and university educations not necessarily meaning that a graduate is going to be a literate or productive employee!), in such numbers that they are in competition with one another, for what it is worth.
We may not have an easy out to be able to blame the anxiety of the middle class on greedy Republicans and non-terrestrial ghouls (as seen in that two class society classic, They Live) but I most definately see that we are heading toward more profound social problems. I don't want America to collapse under the weight of an ineffectual economy and bloated population as was portrayed in Harry Harrison's nightmare novel, Make Room Make Room.
Jeff
[This message has been edited by Jffal (edited September 22, 1999).]
Good to know I am not the only disgruntled worker out there. Some wags out there nestled in cushy jobs or secure lifestyles have commented that the economy is fine, it is just that we are having difficuly because we don't know how to manage our money!
Nothing like getting on the recieving end of a "downsizing" to make you very interested in the economy! I regard the current economy as a threat as real and grim as any we have faced, one which likely intersects and aggravates other societal ills (note the comments in this thread about decaying local economies, hopelessness, and rising crime rates).
I continue to read about America's economic situation, drawing from a variety of sources. I don't regard any one commentator as a purveyor of gospel; however, collectively, their conclusions and my own observations (and hopefully I was observing in the right places!) indicate that yes, the USA has been undergoing widespread changes that are not necessarily beneficial to the majority of its people. I am no professional regarding the economy, just a concerned taxpayer. A very concerned taxpayer.
Two amusing books -
America : Who Stole the Dream? was originally serialized by Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele in the Philadelphia Inquirer. The duo has made a career out of hyping America's economic woes to readers. In Who Stole the Dream?, Barlett and Steele conlude that while not all of today's financial problems were planned deliberately, both the Republican and Democratic parties were complicit in some of this nonsense (along with "Big Business", of course). The authors noted that nineteenth century America offered similar economic unrest that had to be corrected by a very angry population. Today's situation was decades in the making.
Declining Fortunes : The Withering of the American Dream was written by an anthropologist, Katherine S. Newman, who studied a New Jersey town and its worried residents. She included information about past history of the region and nation as a whole dating back at least to the era of WW II. Some of Newman's senior interviewees claimed that the current, anxious, generation are working longer hours simply to finance a lush lifestyle; several of the older generation Americans frowned on two parents who worked full or part time instead of spending quality time with their children. However, some of the senior residents voiced concern that both parents had to work simply to keep from getting bested by tax, health and other bills (such as automobiles, very nearly an expensive necessasity in some areas where public transport is scarce or improperly managed).
We have to be careful about demonizing the elected and the monied simply because of their status. Firearm owners have been stereotyped into "monsters" by their opposition; such infantile tactics have divided both "groups" (note - antigunners go armed when it suites their purpose) and now many of the participants are scrabbling around for the best stats to support their respective position. Debate is often governed by emotion and politics, rather than a need to uncover the truth and better society.
I should hope that if the population truly becomes focused on addressing economic questions, its discourse will be more civil and productive than the wringer pro-firearm rights folks have been put through.
Ivanhoe - that quote you repeated was excellant and probably can be applied to any serious debate where issues are reinforced by stats (I survived a university course in statistics and was dismayed that even a survey made with the best of intentions could prove fallible by not being set up properly).
Would China and India be the most populous nations today?
I graduated with honors from Temple Univ in 1989. I have seen an influx of higher educated employees into the workforce (college and university educations not necessarily meaning that a graduate is going to be a literate or productive employee!), in such numbers that they are in competition with one another, for what it is worth.
We may not have an easy out to be able to blame the anxiety of the middle class on greedy Republicans and non-terrestrial ghouls (as seen in that two class society classic, They Live) but I most definately see that we are heading toward more profound social problems. I don't want America to collapse under the weight of an ineffectual economy and bloated population as was portrayed in Harry Harrison's nightmare novel, Make Room Make Room.
Jeff
[This message has been edited by Jffal (edited September 22, 1999).]
Well, so long as everyone is going to ramble and offer anecdotes, so will I.
Observation 1 -
When I was a kid (mid 70s), we were "upper working class" which meant my dad had been promoted to semi-management in a Fortune 500 mining company. He made $30k a year and bought a house for $45k. Now that house would sell for $125k. How much income would I have to make to have the same ratio of income to mortgage payment?
Observation 2 -
We really only have ONE bank in this country. Believe it or don't, as the man says, but that's the fact. The biggest obstacle to creating the Fed Reserve was the prediction by many that a centralized banking system would destroy small farms and businesses by slowly choking off capital and reallocating to larger and larger companies which in turn would swallow up smaller competitors. Sound familiar?
Observation 3 -
I know that inflation is supposedly caused by wage earners making more money, which raises the cost of goods/services which means other companies have to pay more to keep up with their workers demands, which means more inflation and on and on in a vicious circle. That's the principal line from economists, govt and industry. Then why is it that when wages go down, we still have inflation? And why doesn't executive compensation count in this eqaution?
I think someone has us buffaloed.
Observation 1 -
When I was a kid (mid 70s), we were "upper working class" which meant my dad had been promoted to semi-management in a Fortune 500 mining company. He made $30k a year and bought a house for $45k. Now that house would sell for $125k. How much income would I have to make to have the same ratio of income to mortgage payment?
Observation 2 -
We really only have ONE bank in this country. Believe it or don't, as the man says, but that's the fact. The biggest obstacle to creating the Fed Reserve was the prediction by many that a centralized banking system would destroy small farms and businesses by slowly choking off capital and reallocating to larger and larger companies which in turn would swallow up smaller competitors. Sound familiar?
Observation 3 -
I know that inflation is supposedly caused by wage earners making more money, which raises the cost of goods/services which means other companies have to pay more to keep up with their workers demands, which means more inflation and on and on in a vicious circle. That's the principal line from economists, govt and industry. Then why is it that when wages go down, we still have inflation? And why doesn't executive compensation count in this eqaution?
I think someone has us buffaloed.
They are still at it. From the Washington Post.
"Answering Trade Doubters
Wednesday, September 22, 1999; Page A32
EVER SINCE NAFTA opened America to imports from Canada and Mexico, Caribbean and Central American countries have been seeking the same favor. The Senate soon will vote on a bill that would do this, at least for the region's textile and garment industries. If passed, the measure would boost growth in countries that might otherwise be the more vulnerable to drug lords and insurgencies; it would also promote export markets for American producers. Still, the bill is the object of determined opposition from labor unions and U.S.-based manufacturers.
The critics start with the protectionist claim that trade deals cost jobs. It is so that since the passage of NAFTA five years ago, America's clothing and textile industries have shed 400,000 jobs. And the extension of NAFTA terms to the Caribbean would endanger a large slice of the remaining 1.2 million jobs in this sector. Despite that prospect, however, trade liberalization remains valid because it brings compensating benefits. American consumers get cheaper clothing, and the money they save will be spent on other goods, thus generating jobs elsewhere in the economy.
Next, the critics suggest that the Senate bill will not promote development in the Caribbean. Instead, they say, the legislation will enrich American corporations that produce clothing in the Caribbean and that stand to pocket $200 million a year from the abolition of tariffs on U.S.-bound exports. It is true that such firms will gain and that their lobbyists are working to get this bill through Congress. But the Caribbean region will profit, too. The trade skeptics declare, rightly, that textile jobs in the United States will be destroyed. It follows that these jobs will move to the Caribbean.
Finally, the bill's critics argue that a Caribbean trade bill is fine so long as it protects decent labor standards. But it isn't always easy to define what those should be in other societies with weaker economies. Procedural standards, such as protection for the rights of free association and free collective bargaining, are one thing. Price-affecting substantive standards, involving such things as minimum wages and maximum hours, require a different approach -- and those tend to be what the critics have most in mind.
America's foreign policy reflects its values. It cannot be in the business of promoting sweatshops. But across the world, trade has promoted prosperity, and prosperity has promoted freedom. There are reasons, but not persuasive reasons, to oppose the Caribbean trade bill. Congress should pass it."
------------------
If you can't fight City Hall, at least defecate on the steps.
"Answering Trade Doubters
Wednesday, September 22, 1999; Page A32
EVER SINCE NAFTA opened America to imports from Canada and Mexico, Caribbean and Central American countries have been seeking the same favor. The Senate soon will vote on a bill that would do this, at least for the region's textile and garment industries. If passed, the measure would boost growth in countries that might otherwise be the more vulnerable to drug lords and insurgencies; it would also promote export markets for American producers. Still, the bill is the object of determined opposition from labor unions and U.S.-based manufacturers.
The critics start with the protectionist claim that trade deals cost jobs. It is so that since the passage of NAFTA five years ago, America's clothing and textile industries have shed 400,000 jobs. And the extension of NAFTA terms to the Caribbean would endanger a large slice of the remaining 1.2 million jobs in this sector. Despite that prospect, however, trade liberalization remains valid because it brings compensating benefits. American consumers get cheaper clothing, and the money they save will be spent on other goods, thus generating jobs elsewhere in the economy.
Next, the critics suggest that the Senate bill will not promote development in the Caribbean. Instead, they say, the legislation will enrich American corporations that produce clothing in the Caribbean and that stand to pocket $200 million a year from the abolition of tariffs on U.S.-bound exports. It is true that such firms will gain and that their lobbyists are working to get this bill through Congress. But the Caribbean region will profit, too. The trade skeptics declare, rightly, that textile jobs in the United States will be destroyed. It follows that these jobs will move to the Caribbean.
Finally, the bill's critics argue that a Caribbean trade bill is fine so long as it protects decent labor standards. But it isn't always easy to define what those should be in other societies with weaker economies. Procedural standards, such as protection for the rights of free association and free collective bargaining, are one thing. Price-affecting substantive standards, involving such things as minimum wages and maximum hours, require a different approach -- and those tend to be what the critics have most in mind.
America's foreign policy reflects its values. It cannot be in the business of promoting sweatshops. But across the world, trade has promoted prosperity, and prosperity has promoted freedom. There are reasons, but not persuasive reasons, to oppose the Caribbean trade bill. Congress should pass it."
------------------
If you can't fight City Hall, at least defecate on the steps.
In 1970, the average bluecollar worker had a high paying factory job, a couple of kids, a house and could even afford a high performance Roadrunner. and the wife didnt work. Do i have to contrast the siituation today where the husband has perhaps 2 jobs ,the wife one job and kids farmed out to the day care center. The federales(Actually the Federal Reserve) collect taxes on 2 or 3 jobs per family and the workers are so tired by the time they get home that they could care less what goes on with their "governmink" . The Federales love this situation. It is so obvious that the dollar today doesnt buy anywhere near what it bought years ago, that the taxes on earned income are rising yearly, and that the good factory wages are nearly a thing of the past. By the way, the government doesnt create the money. The Federal Reserve creates the money and loans it to the government who uses us as its collateral(chattel?) I guess economic slavery is comfortable to the majority of the people. It aint rock around the clock for the people. Its WORK around the clock and bring that phoney reserve money into the IRS hands for payment on the interest to the national debt. We are literally a debt ridden and bankrupt nation waiting for the markers to come due. In my opinion,it is a sin to tax the fruits of our labors(income tax) and the Founders would not have put up with this whole phony system for one minute.
Jeff White
New member
Ivan,
I live about 60 miles from Carbondale IL. Out side of time spent out of state in the Army, I've been in Southern Illinois my entire life. There has never been much industry in Southern Illinois. Steel mills in Granite City (across the river from St Louis) and some other fairly heavy industry in metro East (the area just East of St Louis).
The main product of Southern Illinois is coal. The coal industry is dead in the area because of Clean Air Regulations. The coal here has a high sulpher content and very few power plants will burn it. There are some oil fields that are mostly idle right now due to the price of crude oil. Of course the businesses that supported these industries are also closing. World Color Press (four color printing, natioanl magazines) used to have four plants in Southern Illinois, two of them have relocated South of the border...to Tennesee. The rest of the economy is based and always has been based on agriculture.
The biggest employer with good middle class jobs in the area is the state. 5 prisons and the university. The manufacturing jobs that disappeared, were gone long before NAFTA. Most of them went in the 60s and 70s.
The state and local governments are very active in trying to get plants to locate in the region. Just about every town 5000 or larger either has an economic development specialist on the payroll or pays to belong to a co-op type organization for one. Personally, I don't agree with that or the tax breaks they offer these companies. They should just have a low tax business friendly policy to start with. I just don't see that as a function of government or a good use for tax money.
The biggest thing hurting Southern Illinois economically is not NAFTA, but the state legislatures inabilty to pass a right to work law. Most of the big industries that do look into the area wind up in a sunbelt right to work state. The area has a bad reputation for labor problems due to the mine workers when coal was a booming industry. I got this information from a past commander of the guard unit I'm the AGR trainer for. He works as an economic develpoment coordinator for Soyland Power Cooperative, and tries to get businesses to locate into their service area so they can sell more electricity.
While I'm not pro NAFTA, I really never thought much about it. I do want to set the record on Southern Illinois straight.
Jeff
I live about 60 miles from Carbondale IL. Out side of time spent out of state in the Army, I've been in Southern Illinois my entire life. There has never been much industry in Southern Illinois. Steel mills in Granite City (across the river from St Louis) and some other fairly heavy industry in metro East (the area just East of St Louis).
The main product of Southern Illinois is coal. The coal industry is dead in the area because of Clean Air Regulations. The coal here has a high sulpher content and very few power plants will burn it. There are some oil fields that are mostly idle right now due to the price of crude oil. Of course the businesses that supported these industries are also closing. World Color Press (four color printing, natioanl magazines) used to have four plants in Southern Illinois, two of them have relocated South of the border...to Tennesee. The rest of the economy is based and always has been based on agriculture.
The biggest employer with good middle class jobs in the area is the state. 5 prisons and the university. The manufacturing jobs that disappeared, were gone long before NAFTA. Most of them went in the 60s and 70s.
The state and local governments are very active in trying to get plants to locate in the region. Just about every town 5000 or larger either has an economic development specialist on the payroll or pays to belong to a co-op type organization for one. Personally, I don't agree with that or the tax breaks they offer these companies. They should just have a low tax business friendly policy to start with. I just don't see that as a function of government or a good use for tax money.
The biggest thing hurting Southern Illinois economically is not NAFTA, but the state legislatures inabilty to pass a right to work law. Most of the big industries that do look into the area wind up in a sunbelt right to work state. The area has a bad reputation for labor problems due to the mine workers when coal was a booming industry. I got this information from a past commander of the guard unit I'm the AGR trainer for. He works as an economic develpoment coordinator for Soyland Power Cooperative, and tries to get businesses to locate into their service area so they can sell more electricity.
While I'm not pro NAFTA, I really never thought much about it. I do want to set the record on Southern Illinois straight.
Jeff
This one is a very tough nut to crack!
Ivan want's to promote Socialistic views while other views are almost Communist.
Free enterprise was a foundation of our
Republic. The people with vision, work ethic and a bit of luck started making money and hired more employees. Some employers were very greedy and others were perceived to be and labor unions were formed to help out the workers at a small "price". I know that I will get flamed for that remark Then the Government gets involved and grows to such a large and greedy size that if a business wants to stay afloat it must think of it's options!
Remember the owners of the company, it is theirs. That is bread and butter on the family table for them too even if it is at the country club! They had the smarts and put up the bucks! No one OWES us a living,
we must work for it.
If we drive the price of a work force too high what do you expect! The entire thing is money driven. If you are a blue collar worker making 45 an hour I know that the apartments in your area are 1000 or more per month!
Please let me get off this soap box!
Best to all and take care!
Hank
I am not an owner ,but a plant manager, that has grown through the ranks. I do see both sides of this.
Ivan want's to promote Socialistic views while other views are almost Communist.
Free enterprise was a foundation of our
Republic. The people with vision, work ethic and a bit of luck started making money and hired more employees. Some employers were very greedy and others were perceived to be and labor unions were formed to help out the workers at a small "price". I know that I will get flamed for that remark Then the Government gets involved and grows to such a large and greedy size that if a business wants to stay afloat it must think of it's options!
Remember the owners of the company, it is theirs. That is bread and butter on the family table for them too even if it is at the country club! They had the smarts and put up the bucks! No one OWES us a living,
we must work for it.
If we drive the price of a work force too high what do you expect! The entire thing is money driven. If you are a blue collar worker making 45 an hour I know that the apartments in your area are 1000 or more per month!
Please let me get off this soap box!
Best to all and take care!
Hank
I am not an owner ,but a plant manager, that has grown through the ranks. I do see both sides of this.
You have to understand that "Free Trade" doesn't mean what it sounds like.
In the 1970s, this country had tariffs of up to 20% on various goods and we had a great manufacturing base and well-paid workers.
Under the guise of "Free Trade", we unilaterally lowered our tariffs.
What is boils down to is that the large corporation "persuaded" (read dollars) the
pols to pass this fraud. They then moved their factories overseas to take advantage
of the cheap labor (read slave in some instances) and ship their goods back to the U.S. WITHOUT HAVING TO PAY TARIFFS. They didn't go overseas to sell to the locals (they don't have the money to buy the goods they make -- check out the parking lots in the Mexican auto plants -- there aren't any, the workers are bused in from the slums).
A pie chart in Business Week a few years ago showed that over 70% of the international corporation's profits came from sales in the U.S.
This "get the cheapest labor" bit is an expansion on the tactic of the Northern plants coming down to the "Right to Work" Southern states. At least then the money and the infrastructure stayed in America. Now both have gone overseas and in some cases have built up the manufacturing base of our potential enemies.
Despite the rhetoric of the pro-NAFTA crowd, tariffs weren't a wall to keep goods out, it was a dam to keep the wealth, expertise, and equipment in this country. During the NAFTA
debates the government was adding the value of the factories that were moved to Mexico as
"exports" to show how much the Mexicans were buying from us.
Now, with a lot of the jobs and factories
exported, the pols wonder aloud about the "disappearing middle class". Duh!
------------------
If you can't fight City Hall, at least defecate on the steps.
In the 1970s, this country had tariffs of up to 20% on various goods and we had a great manufacturing base and well-paid workers.
Under the guise of "Free Trade", we unilaterally lowered our tariffs.
What is boils down to is that the large corporation "persuaded" (read dollars) the
pols to pass this fraud. They then moved their factories overseas to take advantage
of the cheap labor (read slave in some instances) and ship their goods back to the U.S. WITHOUT HAVING TO PAY TARIFFS. They didn't go overseas to sell to the locals (they don't have the money to buy the goods they make -- check out the parking lots in the Mexican auto plants -- there aren't any, the workers are bused in from the slums).
A pie chart in Business Week a few years ago showed that over 70% of the international corporation's profits came from sales in the U.S.
This "get the cheapest labor" bit is an expansion on the tactic of the Northern plants coming down to the "Right to Work" Southern states. At least then the money and the infrastructure stayed in America. Now both have gone overseas and in some cases have built up the manufacturing base of our potential enemies.
Despite the rhetoric of the pro-NAFTA crowd, tariffs weren't a wall to keep goods out, it was a dam to keep the wealth, expertise, and equipment in this country. During the NAFTA
debates the government was adding the value of the factories that were moved to Mexico as
"exports" to show how much the Mexicans were buying from us.
Now, with a lot of the jobs and factories
exported, the pols wonder aloud about the "disappearing middle class". Duh!
------------------
If you can't fight City Hall, at least defecate on the steps.
Oakta, you summed it up perfectly and only the uninformed or lackeys of the 0ne party system(Yes we have only one party, the Plutocratic party) dont get it! THe big winners of the NEW America are the corporations and the big losers are the dwindling middle class Republicrats and Dema rats are equally gulity of sending our industries out of America. you lost your factory job? Go flip a hamburger and shut up!
I believe the current order in population is;
1) red China
2) India
3) U.S. of A.
it used to be red China, then India, then USSR, but with the soviet breakup they've slid down a couple of notches.
Ivan8883, in 1970 *some* factory workers were making serious money (mostly those in union-dominated industries like automaking and steel). however, there were *many* other blue collar people who could not afford the products from GM, Ford, or Chrysler.
what I find laughable is that engineers and scientists with advanced degrees now make less than many of the high school dropouts assembling cars, and people wonder why Japanese and German cars are in greater demand than domestics. at the behest of our liberal politicians and union lobbiests, we have created a rather effective disincentive system. there is little rational reason to make the investment in education to become a more productive worker, it just means you work harder for diminishing returns. until we fix the incentive system, we are headed for the toilet. period.
concerning inflation, there are three common causes. one is the natural increase in the population; since demand always leads supply, prices get driven up slightly as the population grows (not a lot, perhaps 1% on average). a second cause is a major change in the cost of raw materials (most importantly, oil). as we know from the 1970s, this can be major; 10-15%, and possibly even higher. lastly, and most importantly, is increases in the money supply withouot an equal increase in GNP. this is most common, and can result in the massive inflations experienced in Latin America. however, zero inflation is an abnormality and probably a sign of trouble. we should accept low inflation rates (i.e. 1-2%) as normal and probably healthy.
1) red China
2) India
3) U.S. of A.
it used to be red China, then India, then USSR, but with the soviet breakup they've slid down a couple of notches.
Ivan8883, in 1970 *some* factory workers were making serious money (mostly those in union-dominated industries like automaking and steel). however, there were *many* other blue collar people who could not afford the products from GM, Ford, or Chrysler.
what I find laughable is that engineers and scientists with advanced degrees now make less than many of the high school dropouts assembling cars, and people wonder why Japanese and German cars are in greater demand than domestics. at the behest of our liberal politicians and union lobbiests, we have created a rather effective disincentive system. there is little rational reason to make the investment in education to become a more productive worker, it just means you work harder for diminishing returns. until we fix the incentive system, we are headed for the toilet. period.
concerning inflation, there are three common causes. one is the natural increase in the population; since demand always leads supply, prices get driven up slightly as the population grows (not a lot, perhaps 1% on average). a second cause is a major change in the cost of raw materials (most importantly, oil). as we know from the 1970s, this can be major; 10-15%, and possibly even higher. lastly, and most importantly, is increases in the money supply withouot an equal increase in GNP. this is most common, and can result in the massive inflations experienced in Latin America. however, zero inflation is an abnormality and probably a sign of trouble. we should accept low inflation rates (i.e. 1-2%) as normal and probably healthy.
Salon.com put up an interesting article on the percieved disparity of income in American households. Check out Salon News | Crash of '99?
Address:http://www.salonmagazine.com/news/feature/1999/10/01/rich/index.html
The "current prosperity" of the United States is viewed in the historic context of The Great Depression; here, some interested parties suggest we are heading for bad times based on the economic signposts they have identified. Are these just folks petulant because they haven't gotten a slice of the pie or genuine Cassandras?
Jeff
Address:http://www.salonmagazine.com/news/feature/1999/10/01/rich/index.html
The "current prosperity" of the United States is viewed in the historic context of The Great Depression; here, some interested parties suggest we are heading for bad times based on the economic signposts they have identified. Are these just folks petulant because they haven't gotten a slice of the pie or genuine Cassandras?
Jeff