the loss of more than 3 million manufacturing jobs — one in six — since mid-2000

[silencio]

I think outsourcing is great. Let the job go to the person that's most efficient and effective. But that only works in a free market. China is not a free market. If they'd loosen up their currency we wouldn't be able to buy $20 VCRs.. and they might be able to afford a Harley.

[Orangeman]

Ross Perot was right. If Nafta passes ( which it did) you'll hear this "Giant Sucking Sound" coming from the US....

[Orangeman]

I think outsourcing is great. Let the job go to the person that's most efficient and effective. But that only works in a free market. China is not a free market. If they'd loosen up their currency we wouldn't be able to buy $20 VCRs.. and they might be able to afford a Harley.

....Where can you find a $20 VCR......????

[jaeger]

1: I categorically disagree. Since when did China become the 51st state? Your argument is based on a job in China being the same as a job in the US.
2: First off we have laws in this country against polluting the environment and they don't have any in China then we should see to it there are prohibitions or taxes on goods made there.
3: Secondly if workers in China cannot have free trade unions and we believe it it is a right then we have a right to either block their exports or tax them.
4: Thirdly, every country has a right to look out for its own interests. It is a matter of national security to maintain our manufacturing base.
5: And don't give me that old line that "protectionism" caused the Depression. I am talking about leveling the playing field.
6: Lastly, this whole idea that this is how "free markets" work may be true. But then it is time to "unfree" the markets a bit. Otherwise eventually every good and service will be performed by which ever country will do it the most cheaply. And there goes our wealth and way of life.
7: And by the way, do you see the similiarties between the fall of Communisn in the Soviet Union and the fall of the American economy?
The SU doggedly adhered to an economic principle without compromise even while their economy was falling apart. Allow a few people to grow food on their own? Nyet! Even though it would have solved their food problem.
Put up some barriers against outsourcing? Hell no that is how "free markets" work.
8: And lets not forget that despite their economy tanking they spent huge amonts on defense.
Just like us.

1: Uhm, yeah. If a job is going to move, it kinda has to stay the same to provide the same good or service that the market demands.

2: And we can do this without trade barriers. Penalize companies that outsource to take advantage of lax environmental protections. They either respect the same environmental protections they would stateside, or they pay fines.

3: I assume you mean workers union, and I don't believe access to one is a right, so your "we" is at least one man weaker. I imagine a quick poll would reveal it to be quite a bit smaller than that. And its kind of funny, because a monied middle class is kind of important to any positive (in my opinion) social development. Which is to say, as they make more money, they will have more power and demand more changes. Sort of a problem that can fix itself.

4: Our manufacturing base doesn't have to get smaller, it just has to become more sophisticated. We can't expect to maintain a stranglehold on certain industries indefinitely, unless you like the idea of stagnating world economic process and keeping the craptasmic status quo. Competition breed innovation, innovation is progress, progress is good. Who cares if China takes automobiles, we just need to start building hovercraft. Analogy, of course, but you get the idea.

5: You know, the Scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz didn't have a brain. He was a strawman too.

6: Only if we continue to focus on industries we can be outperformed in. You wish to preserve easy mediocrity, I want us to work for excellence.

7: Or Western military buildups forced them to spend a huge portion of their GDP on a counter military buildup that they could not sustain. Not to mention the Soviet economy was of the centralized control variety and just about the ultimate as far as trade protectionism goes. How again is emulating them in any respect effective?

8: We are not spending a huge amount. The defense budget is still under $350 billion, as far as I know. That seems like a lot, but when the GDP is over $10,500 billion... well, you do the math. Wait, I'll do it for you. That works out to roughly 4% of the GDP going towards defense. The Soviet Union in 1989? 10%. Well, damn. That arguement didn't work too well.

[paraflyer]

....Where can you find a $20 VCR......????

Wal-Mart.

Saw them there this past weekend.

[meatwad]

I wonder how much of that is because of Walmart? You notice how they no longer have the Buy american campaign? Most things sold there are no longer produced here because of there agressive "give it to us cheaper" business plan.

I don't mind paying more, but when I drive around town at 3:00 on a Sunday and the only store open that sells a damn pushbroom is Wal-Mart, that's where I'm going to buy it.

[techs]

1: Uhm, yeah. If a job is going to move, it kinda has to stay the same to provide the same good or service that the market demands.
You missed the point. the market is not the same. Jobs in the U.S. compete on very close terms. Environmental protection, worker safety, etc. To just say a job is a job no matter what country it is performed in is wrong. If that is your point then jobs will go to the country with not only the lowest wages but the worst environmental, safety, etc laws.

2: And we can do this without trade barriers. Penalize companies that outsource to take advantage of lax environmental protections. They either respect the same environmental protections they would stateside, or they pay fines.
Fine, call it what you want. Penalizing companies (i.e. forcing them to raise prices) on products that are producing without environmental safeguards etc is just a semantic difference from trade barriers(which I meant as anything other than than treating say China as the 51st and on a completely equal level)
3: I assume you mean workers union, and I don't believe access to one is a right, so your "we" is at least one man weaker. I imagine a quick poll would reveal it to be quite a bit smaller than that. And its kind of funny, because a monied middle class is kind of important to any positive (in my opinion) social development. Which is to say, as they make more money, they will have more power and demand more changes. Sort of a problem that can fix itself.
OK, you don't want the right to unionize treated as right. How about the right not to be slave labor? According to your point slave labor produced goods should compete equally. Or perhaps goods perfromed by desperate people in a lead factory where the survival expectancy is 5 years? As to a monied middle class demanding changes the last I looked China was a dictatorship.

4: Our manufacturing base doesn't have to get smaller, it just has to become more sophisticated. We can't expect to maintain a stranglehold on certain industries indefinitely, unless you like the idea of stagnating world economic process and keeping the craptasmic status quo. Competition breed innovation, innovation is progress, progress is good. Who cares if China takes automobiles, we just need to start building hovercraft. Analogy, of course, but you get the idea.
We produce goods at the most efficient rate in the world in terms of labor. However jobs are going to China were it is cheaper to have 100 people produce the same amount of goods we produce with 10 due to the wage difference.
Also, you suggest we build "new" products like Hovercraft? What about the other 99.9 percent of goods already in production. And by the way where do your really think the Hovercraft will be made? China!

5: You know, the Scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz didn't have a brain. He was a strawman too.
If you are saying that what your call "penalties" and I call trade barriers will not cause the dreaded "worldwide depression" then you are agreeing with me.

6: Only if we continue to focus on industries we can be outperformed in. You wish to preserve easy mediocrity, I want us to work for excellence.
Huh? We are not "outperformed" in almost any industry. We are losing jobs to people who will works for so much less than us. Plus dictatorial governments that don't care about their workers health. Plus where workers have no say in electing officials who will change this.
If you want us to work for "excellence" tell me the jobs that went to China because they are being produced there more "excellently" and not more cheaply.

7: Or Western military buildups forced them to spend a huge portion of their GDP on a counter military buildup that they could not sustain. Not to mention the Soviet economy was of the centralized control variety and just about the ultimate as far as trade protectionism goes. How again is emulating them in any respect effective?
I didn't say it would be effective to follow the Soviets. On the contrary I pointed out what fanatical devotion to an economic system that disregards reality can do to a country. Just like our fanatical devotion to the lowest possible cost of production no matter where and how it is done. And at what cost to America.
8: We are not spending a huge amount. The defense budget is still under $350 billion, as far as I know. That seems like a lot, but when the GDP is over $10,500 billion... well, you do the math. Wait, I'll do it for you. That works out to roughly 4% of the GDP going towards defense. The Soviet Union in 1989? 10%. Well, damn. That arguement didn't work too well.[/QUOTE]
I love this one. We are not spending too much? Only 350 billion. Basically 50 percent of our budget (not counting Social Security and other entitlements). And only roughly 4 percent of our GDP. Meanwhile europe spends less than half of that as a percentage of their gdp and China less than half the europeans. Since we spend so much more on defense it stands to reason we have less for infrastucture, education, research etc. Just he very things that can keep us "innovating". Just like what happened to the Soviets. They continued to spend money they needed for infrastructure etc on the military and eventually their economy collapsed.
But that is OK. Since we in America will build "hovercraft" while the rest of the world builds everything else.

[cisco2]

The jobs that are being lost are going to be lost. Fighting the loss of the low end jobs that are going to other countries is a doomed effort. All we're doing is ensuring that the companies profiting by utilizing cheaper job markets are not domestic companies. Where's the sense in that? The jobs are going to go where it's most cost effective, we should promote domestic investment in managing foreign workers.

We should not only let the low end jobs go away, we should encourage and manage those efforts. Keep the management and R&D jobs here, focus our efforts on creating domestic job markets that we can excel and be competetive in. Any effort to force consumers to pay higher prices for products that can be produced more efficiently elsewhere will be effort wasted. It's time for us the embrace and participate in the emerging global economy rather than fighting to keep things the way they are. Change is the only constant, evolve and adapt or get left behind.

[techs]

The jobs that are being lost are going to be lost. Fighting the loss of the low end jobs that are going to other countries is a doomed effort. All we're doing is ensuring that the companies profiting by utilizing cheaper job markets are not domestic companies. Where's the sense in that? The jobs are going to go where it's most cost effective, we should promote domestic investment in managing foreign workers.

We should not only let the low end jobs go away, we should encourage and manage those efforts. Keep the management and R&D jobs here, focus our efforts on creating domestic job markets that we can excel and be competetive in. Any effort to force consumers to pay higher prices for products that can be produced more efficiently elsewhere will be effort wasted. It's time for us the embrace and participate in the emerging global economy rather than fighting to keep things the way they are. Change is the only constant, evolve and adapt or get left behind.

They are not low end jobs. Look at the IBM employees with Masters degrees who have seen their jobs go to India. Saying we should focus on managing foriegn workers is fairly ridiculous. Have you noticed how much the world hates us? Don't you think the companies that are outsourcing are also outsourcing the managerial jobs? Except of course for those at the very, very top.
Why do management jobs have to stay here if the factories are there? The management jobs go with the factories.
If there are no jobs here will will the R&D jobs come from?
Is this an effort to get people to pay higher prices. NO. It is an effort to save our country. By 2009 we could have lost 50 percent of our manufacturing jobs since 2000. I am talking armies of people unemployed. I am talking the end of America as the leading economic power in the world.
It IS possible to keep jobs here. Case in point. Airbus. How did the Europeans get Airbus to go from an afterhought to the worlds largest (in numbers) sellers of large airplanes when their labor costs were higher than in the U.S. It can be done.

[ilovetheusers]

This is interesting, I know little of world economy, or at least less than I thought I did yesterday.


Question - I have never heard one single good word about Nafta or other free trade agreements on such grand scales. If they are so bad then why did they get signed? I understand how free trade would look good given that other countries had the same work ethics and environmental ethics that we do but it's not the case and don't see how allowing free trade to countries with rotten labor practices helps us out.

[jaeger]

1: Uhm, yeah. If a job is going to move, it kinda has to stay the same to provide the same good or service that the market demands.
You missed the point. the market is not the same. Jobs in the U.S. compete on very close terms. Environmental protection, worker safety, etc. To just say a job is a job no matter what country it is performed in is wrong. If that is your point then jobs will go to the country with not only the lowest wages but the worst environmental, safety, etc laws.

2: And we can do this without trade barriers. Penalize companies that outsource to take advantage of lax environmental protections. They either respect the same environmental protections they would stateside, or they pay fines.
Fine, call it what you want. Penalizing companies (i.e. forcing them to raise prices) on products that are producing without environmental safeguards etc is just a semantic difference from trade barriers(which I meant as anything other than than treating say China as the 51st and on a completely equal level)
3: I assume you mean workers union, and I don't believe access to one is a right, so your "we" is at least one man weaker. I imagine a quick poll would reveal it to be quite a bit smaller than that. And its kind of funny, because a monied middle class is kind of important to any positive (in my opinion) social development. Which is to say, as they make more money, they will have more power and demand more changes. Sort of a problem that can fix itself.
OK, you don't want the right to unionize treated as right. How about the right not to be slave labor? According to your point slave labor produced goods should compete equally. Or perhaps goods perfromed by desperate people in a lead factory where the survival expectancy is 5 years? As to a monied middle class demanding changes the last I looked China was a dictatorship.

4: Our manufacturing base doesn't have to get smaller, it just has to become more sophisticated. We can't expect to maintain a stranglehold on certain industries indefinitely, unless you like the idea of stagnating world economic process and keeping the craptasmic status quo. Competition breed innovation, innovation is progress, progress is good. Who cares if China takes automobiles, we just need to start building hovercraft. Analogy, of course, but you get the idea.
We produce goods at the most efficient rate in the world in terms of labor. However jobs are going to China were it is cheaper to have 100 people produce the same amount of goods we produce with 10 due to the wage difference.
Also, you suggest we build "new" products like Hovercraft? What about the other 99.9 percent of goods already in production. And by the way where do your really think the Hovercraft will be made? China!

5: You know, the Scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz didn't have a brain. He was a strawman too.
If you are saying that what your call "penalties" and I call trade barriers will not cause the dreaded "worldwide depression" then you are agreeing with me.

6: Only if we continue to focus on industries we can be outperformed in. You wish to preserve easy mediocrity, I want us to work for excellence.
Huh? We are not "outperformed" in almost any industry. We are losing jobs to people who will works for so much less than us. Plus dictatorial governments that don't care about their workers health. Plus where workers have no say in electing officials who will change this.
If you want us to work for "excellence" tell me the jobs that went to China because they are being produced there more "excellently" and not more cheaply.

7: Or Western military buildups forced them to spend a huge portion of their GDP on a counter military buildup that they could not sustain. Not to mention the Soviet economy was of the centralized control variety and just about the ultimate as far as trade protectionism goes. How again is emulating them in any respect effective?
I didn't say it would be effective to follow the Soviets. On the contrary I pointed out what fanatical devotion to an economic system that disregards reality can do to a country. Just like our fanatical devotion to the lowest possible cost of production no matter where and how it is done. And at what cost to America.
8: We are not spending a huge amount. The defense budget is still under $350 billion, as far as I know. That seems like a lot, but when the GDP is over $10,500 billion... well, you do the math. Wait, I'll do it for you. That works out to roughly 4% of the GDP going towards defense. The Soviet Union in 1989? 10%. Well, damn. That arguement didn't work too well.
I love this one. We are not spending too much? Only 350 billion. Basically 50 percent of our budget (not counting Social Security and other entitlements). And only roughly 4 percent of our GDP. Meanwhile europe spends less than half of that as a percentage of their gdp and China less than half the europeans. Since we spend so much more on defense it stands to reason we have less for infrastucture, education, research etc. Just he very things that can keep us "innovating". Just like what happened to the Soviets. They continued to spend money they needed for infrastructure etc on the military and eventually their economy collapsed.
But that is OK. Since we in America will build "hovercraft" while the rest of the world builds everything else.

Replying line by line is going to get ridiculous, so I will just write as I see fit.

All your complaints seem to be focusing on how we have rendered ourselves uncompetitive in the manufacture of current products. Of course you blame other people for that. Amusing quible, but one I doubt we can ever reach an agreement on. Your solution for that problem is to set up barriers for other countries products while mine is to abandon those markets and concentrate on something that only we can do. I gave the example of a hovercraft, but that was merely an off the wall example. We can't expect to dominate the same old markets while the rest of the world moves on, and if we try THAT is a recipe for disaster. We stagnate in our comfortable little niche until we realize one day that we can't compete in either technological advance or labor cost per unit.

You really suck at math. $350 billion isn't half of the federal budget of $2,360 billion. Try the occasional research before throwing out a fact like "Defense spending accounts for half the federal budget." You attempt to explain this away by excluding Social Security and other entitlements. Bull****. You wan't expensive and outdated programs, there you go.

When I mentioned the Scarecrow, it was in reference to you mentioning the Great Depression. That was a strawman arguement. You brought up some fact that I didn't mention, and used it to try to disprove me.

China really is going to fix itself in time. They aren't a dictatorship at the moment, more of some odd capitalist-communist hybrid. Not to mention, they seem to be warming up to change. My personal expectation is that as China continues to modernize and become wealthier, they will move more towards democracy. You bring up the plight of the masses of near slave labor. How would closing our markets to their products improve their lives? Or would it make things that much worse?

Now here is my question to you: Do you just bitch about jobs going overseas or do you actually vote with your wallet and make sure you are buying as many products "Made in the USA" as possible?

[techs]

Replying line by line is going to get ridiculous, so I will just write as I see fit.

All your complaints seem to be focusing on how we have rendered ourselves uncompetitive in the manufacture of current products. Of course you blame other people for that. Amusing quible, but one I doubt we can ever reach an agreement on. Your solution for that problem is to set up barriers for other countries products while mine is to abandon those markets and concentrate on something that only we can do. I gave the example of a hovercraft, but that was merely an off the wall example. We can't expect to dominate the same old markets while the rest of the world moves on, and if we try THAT is a recipe for disaster. We stagnate in our comfortable little niche until we realize one day that we can't compete in either technological advance or labor cost per unit.

You really suck at math. $350 billion isn't half of the federal budget of $2,360 billion. Try the occasional research before throwing out a fact like "Defense spending accounts for half the federal budget." You attempt to explain this away by excluding Social Security and other entitlements. Bull****. You wan't expensive and outdated programs, there you go.

When I mentioned the Scarecrow, it was in reference to you mentioning the Great Depression. That was a strawman arguement. You brought up some fact that I didn't mention, and used it to try to disprove me.

China really is going to fix itself in time. They aren't a dictatorship at the moment, more of some odd capitalist-communist hybrid. Not to mention, they seem to be warming up to change. My personal expectation is that as China continues to modernize and become wealthier, they will move more towards democracy. You bring up the plight of the masses of near slave labor. How would closing our markets to their products improve their lives? Or would it make things that much worse?

Now here is my question to you: Do you just bitch about jobs going overseas or do you actually vote with your wallet and make sure you are buying as many products "Made in the USA" as possible?

Once again you missed my points. We have become uncompetitive because we are unwilling to accept unsafe working conditions, killer environmental pollution, sub-survival wages,etc. I am arguing that absolute "free trade" means that manufacturing will absolutely end up in countries willing to accept these things. If we are unwilling to accept them here then we have a right not to have to accept them from foreign sources. Especially when the workers and citizenry in many countries live in dictatorships where they couldn't change it if they wanted. Your claims that we can't expect to compete in the same old markets basically is saying "everything made until now" Well, what else is there today? How much can possibly change in say ten years. If tv's, stereos, cars, computers,microwaves, toasters, refrigerators, furniture, pots and pans, telephones, cell phones, etc, etc are made elsewhere what can we POSSIBLY make that will restore or manufacturing base. I used your hovercraft idea in the sense that even if we develope, market and manufacture hovercrafts how much can that do to replace everything else? Also, why would a manufacturer make them here and not in China?
I don't suck at math. I said that the portion of the federal budget that is not entitlements (which are funded through a separate payroll deduction) is about 350 billion defense, 350billion everything else.
Are you saying end Medicare, Social Security. Throw millions out into the streets. Cut off medical care for millions?
China really is going to fix itself in time. They aren't a dictatorship at the moment, more of some odd capitalist-communist hybrid.
there is a difference between economic and political systems. yes china is a communist-captialist hybrid. politically it is a dictatorship. No free elections. You say they will eventually move toward democracy? How do you know that? Is there any evidence. When people wanted just some freedoms they were crushed by tanks. In fact if the Soviet Union had the economic growth China has they would problably still be a dictatorship.
Throw out EVERYTHING that has been said by you and me and focus on what is about to happen. China and India combined will shortly be the dominant economic power in the world. Soon after that it will be China alone. A dictatorship. Shortly we in America may face a 25-45 percent unemployment rate. We must act NOW if we are to preserve our wealth, our independence and our way of life.

[jitBob]

In the early 60's Japan was known for producing cheap junk. People refused to buy their stuff to the the point that they took to stamping their things with made in usa, Usa is town in Japan.
Since then Japan has become known for producing quality goods, cars, stereos, ect. They changed their business model. Many businesses have taken to having their parts manufactured offshore only to bring the production back to the states. The simple truth for them is that they are receiving inferior parts with little or no quality control, huge delays in proto-typing and delays in shipping due to distances.
I agree that we must change our business model to accentuate our strengths which are quality, engineering and the ability to dream of new things. The Chinese have the engineers, but do they have the vision? Can prision labor create the hospital equipment that you want working to save your childs life? If you are tired, sick, hungry and struggling to survive are you going to do a good job anywhere?

[ilovetheusers]

Just an FYI on the budget - it's up towards or above 3 trillion. 3x1000 billion.


Defense is up a lot compared to when Clinton was in office but to so much that it's busting the budget and it's over $400 billion right now. Take away Medicare and Social security and some other things and Techs is correct, though putting it like that does seem somewhat deceptive.

The thing that's killing us is debt. Our Debt is near 7 trillion and has been accrued since before Regan was in office though he helped to drive it up. A lot of what we pay in taxes winds up paying interest and doing nothing.
http://www.federalbudget.com/

[meatwad]

I'll tell you this much. When it comes to buying tools...it's Craftsman all the way baby.