Republicans turned on free trade, turning on tax rates.

Originally Posted by Matt

You say that many of the factory workers who were laid off were able to find better jobs later on. I'd love to see proof of this. For what I know, most laid-off factory workers have been forced to accept jobs in the service industry for far lower wages and benefits.

Your article doesn't talk about job quality, but sure what the Heck.

NPR report on job creation potential from 2004

Report from the CATO Institute on jobs lost and jobs gained:

Quote:

The ongoing growth in total employment is frequently dismissed on the ground that most of the new positions being created are low-paying, dead-end "McJobs." The facts, however, show otherwise.

Management and professional specialty jobs have grown rapidly during the recent era of globalization. Between 1983 and 2002, the total number of such positions climbed from 23.6 million to ddle class with the 42.5 million--an 80 percent increase. In other words, these changing high-paying positions have jumped from 23.4 percent of total employment to 31.1 percent.

These high-quality jobs will continue growing in the years to come. According to projections for 2002-2012 prepared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, management, business, financial, and professional and professional positions will grow from 43.2 million to 52.0 million--a 20 percent increase that will lift these jobs from 30.0 percent of total employment to 31.5 percent.

That article also notes that job loss in manufacturing jobs was 16% between 2000 and 2003, and exports dropped 9.6%, while imports only raised .6%. It's not foreign trade that lowers manufacturing employment, it's our inability to trade. If we were opening up foreign markets to US goods instead of attempting to restrict imports, it would be a boon for US manufacturing.

Quote:

Also, you link to some fancy statistic page concerning manufacturing capacity. Did you back up and think for a second that the numbers might be higher because more and more factories have closed down, affecting capacity in no way whatsoever?

No, I didn't, because I was attempting to dispel the de-industrialization myth. The idea that free trade presents a security risk because all of our junk is being manufactured overseas.

Quote:

No enforcement agency? What about the World Bank? What about the IMF? We don't control them, but they control us. There is so much money flowing through the WB and IMF from the United States that if we were to cut them out entirely, we would be out of a lot of money. And because no politician wants to be the blame for a dismal loss of investment nation-wide, it's doubtful our government will ever oppose them.

The World Bank and IMF would suffer tremendously without the availability of US credit. Our government cooperates with these organizations because we can use their policies to soften up foreign economies for American interests, more often than not to their detriment.


EvilJMcnasty:

Point 1: Wal-Mart actually does provide their employees with decent benefits, and if you were following the news lately, they're instituting a new insurance plan that guarantees their employees cheap drugs. Not all Wal-Mart jobs are cashier monkey positions, either. Just 20 miles south of here, there's a Wal-Mart distribution center which employs over a thousand managers, technicians, truckers, etc., and there are many more like it all across the country. They also provide millions of well paying managerial positions. Wal-Mart also employs... drum roll please... the elderly, people who would have never been employed by GM because they would've been forced into retirement. This also skews the numbers in favor of Wal-Mart being the largest employer.


Point 2: See above Cato report.

Point 3: The Middle Class was a priority, and so was using military power to strong-arm countries into supporting US corporate interests. Laissez Faire doesn't undercut the "middle class" any more than any other system of economic policy. What do you think created the Middle Class, even? It sure as Hell wasn't the government. Skilled, middle class jobs became the majority because of the service economy which started up in the 50's.

Point 4:Corporate farms aren't monopolized, pardner.

Also, subsidies tend to discourage farms from being environmentally sound. As the New Zealand example demonstrated.

Point 5:See also: US credit and beneficial WTO policies.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Report from the CATO Institute on jobs lost and jobs gained:


That article also notes that job loss in manufacturing jobs was 16% between 2000 and 2003, and exports dropped 9.6%, while imports only raised .6%. It's not foreign trade that lowers manufacturing employment, it's our inability to trade. If we were opening up foreign markets to US goods instead of attempting to restrict imports, it would be a boon for US manufacturing.

As for that report from the CATO Institute, that's interesting, but nothing worth getting excited over. Imports didn't increase much during that period because of 9-11 and the economic recession it caused in the US.
And I've read elsewhere that management jobs were expected to be one of the top 10 highest-growth jobs in the nation, along with nursing and cashiers. Which is pretty natural considering both the number of aging baby boomers and the growth of the retail sector. And I actually have a friend who, upon graduating high-school, got a job in a management position. He works at a Dairy Queen and he makes $42,000 a year or so because he works 60 hours a week. So I guess that that is better than having a good job that pays near $50,000 a year with minimal overtime at a manufacturing plant like GM, General Electric or Rubbermaid?

Quote:

The World Bank and IMF would suffer tremendously without the availability of US credit. Our government cooperates with these organizations because we can use their policies to soften up foreign economies for American interests, more often than not to their detriment.

Soften them up via indebtedness?
These foreign nations have to spend more money on repaying their loans (that in some cases were spent mainly on weapons by a dictator) than on public services such as health care and education.
What good does that do the United States? Is Uncle Sam going to swoop in there and give them the American Dream in exchange for their compliance to democracy and the USA's interests?
As for the WB and IMF suffering without US credit, it's obviously debatable. The WB and IMF participate in currency swaps and reinvestments in large amounts daily. The United States has money invested through them, but because the US doesn't control them directly, they're pretty much independent financial organizations. The United States could try to recall all of its investments if it so chose (which it never will), but the actual availability of the funds probably wouldn't be there at all. It's like when you buy a bond, it has conditions (interest and debt repayment schedules). Why piss off the debtor when there's a possibility that your bond could become worthless depending on your actions?

Originally Posted by Evil_J_McNasty

If the WTO is so powerless then tell me why when Mexico challenged America's dolphin-safe labeling on Tuna, and the WTO ruled in the favor of Mexico, why did the United States of Fucking America, the country that does whatever the hell it wants when it wants, backed down to what you would lead us to believe is an impotent organization?

Exactly.
There is another example of the WTO superseding a California law but I can't seem to find it on the internet. However, your example proves the point that the WTO is by no means powerless.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Matt

As for that report from the CATO Institute, that's interesting, but nothing worth getting excited over. Imports didn't increase much during that period because of 9-11 and the economic recession it caused in the US.

That doesn't exactly explain the slump in US exports, though.

Quote:

And I've read elsewhere that management jobs were expected to be one of the top 10 highest-growth jobs in the nation, along with nursing and cashiers. Which is pretty natural considering both the number of aging baby boomers and the growth of the retail sector. And I actually have a friend who, upon graduating high-school, got a job in a management position. He works at a Dairy Queen and he makes $42,000 a year or so because he works 60 hours a week. So I guess that that is better than having a good job that pays near $50,000 a year with minimal overtime at a manufacturing plant like GM, General Electric or Rubbermaid?

Yeah, that's a damn good job, and I wish I was making that kind of money, even with the hours. Does he have the opportunity to manage a franchise? Because there's a lot of money in that. Certainly more than the opportunities one had to become a foreman, considering that factory work was supposed to be a lifetime job (big reason why people bitched about losing them).

Quote:

Soften them up via indebtedness?
These foreign nations have to spend more money on repaying their loans (that in some cases were spent mainly on weapons by a dictator) than on public services such as health care and education.
What good does that do the United States? Is Uncle Sam going to swoop in there and give them the American Dream in exchange for their compliance to democracy and the USA's interests?

That's exactly what we've been doing. Did you not read the Malawi thread? We're indebting third world governments in order to force them to liberalize their economies, and make them accept the dumping of Western goods.

Why do you think the South Americans are setting up the Bank of the South? They need an alternative source of credit so they're not getting fucked in the ass by the IMF and Western corporate interests.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?