Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
eavesdropper
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=jpinpb]eavesdropper – well said. You’re my hero.[/quote]
X2
Bravo, eavesdropper![/quote]
Thank you, ladies. It was my pleasure.
Participant[quote=carlsbadworker][quote=CA renter]
They are “our” jobs because the multinationals want to sell to us — we are still the most profitable market to them. We’re not talking about jobs that require math skills, but traditional manufacturing jobs. We used to make our own goods right here in the USA, and they were better and longer-lasting than the cheap, plastic, toxic crap that we now get from China.The only reason OUR jobs have gone overseas is because labor is dirt cheap (and no pesky worker protections there, either) and environmental protections are almost non-existent. Let’s not fool ourselves here — the jobs have been going overseas in order to increase corporate margins. Americans are NOT getting any benefits from this “globalization,” so there is no need for us to continue with this failed experiment.
If they want to sell to us, then they need to employ us. No more games with debt masking our shrinking standard of living and reduced purchasing power. It’s really that simple.[/quote]
‘If they want to sell to us, then they need to employ us.” Who is us? American consumers have voted with their wallets on how they want the corporate America to conduct the business.
Yes, dirt cheap labor with no worker protection. But that’s exactly the reason they are entitled to these jobs, because workers there are tolerating such “abuses” in order to create a brighter future for themselves. If you think people who have that kind of spirit are less entitled to the jobs comparing to a bunch of whining American, and condemn these people to be jobless instead, I have nothing else to argue about with you.[/quote]
Carlsbadworker, you paint a pretty picture, but in many cases, workers there tolerate the abuses to simply survive. If you equate not starving to death with “a brighter future”, then you have a point. In addition, there are tremendous political pressures at work in many of these countries: the presence of these people in these jobs does not necessarily represent a “choice” to do so.
I did not infer from reading CAR’s posts that she believed that non-American workers are not entitled to their jobs, but that American companies who benefit from their sales to Americans should not be so cavalier about their level of offshoring (let me know if I’m not interpreting your post accurately, CAR). While I don’t necessarily believe that selling to US residents requires employment of those residents, there’s a bit more at work here.
Many of these corporations engaging in wholesale offshoring pride themselves on their identification as “American” corporations. They play the “American pride” card (ad nauseum, in some cases) in their marketing efforts, and they clearly benefit from that on a global level. They also benefit greatly from their ability to operate as a company from a nation that has a high level of relative political stability, and a well-developed legal system. Many benefit, directly or indirectly, from taxpayer-funded military protection. And while many of them have high sales in a multitude of other countries, the relatively high incomes of Americans ensure the companies’ ability to charge higher per-unit wholesale and retail prices on their sales here.
We do have a very special thing going on in America which is the overwhelming reason so many people from other nations risk everything to come here. Millions of people have struggled, fought, and died to create the flawed but free nation that we have in America. If the current economic trend is not reversed, there is no question that the survival of what has been built over the past few hundred years will be in serious jeopardy.
As far as I’m able to see, the successful American corporations of today were able to achieve their success both to the opportunities afforded them by our nation, and to the efforts of their workers in the early, more precarious periods of their existence. So, if you’ll permit me to paint my own pretty (and perhaps naive) little picture, I’ll venture to say that if corporations are going to claim the identity of “American”, they need to behave as such, and fight for their country. Otherwise, they need to denounce their citizenship – legally, and not simply in deed, as they have been doing in their offshoring activities for the past 40 years.
I understand that corporations are not supposed to be charitable organizations, and that profits are an integral part of a corporation’s operations — the purpose of its existence. But today’s American corporations are stealing vast amounts from the treasury and the taxpayer, while simultaneously exploiting the economic and political powerlessness of the world’s poor. As CAR mentioned, the reasons these jobs have gone overseas is the low labor costs and lack of governmental oversight. I don’t know if you’re one of those who endorses lower (or nonexistent) corporate tax rates. If you are, I have to ask if you really believe that lowering the tax rate of a company who, thanks to loopholes and deductions, pays very little or no income tax on profits will keep jobs here in the United States. After all, how can we compete with the labor wages in Sri Lanka, in China, in Chile, Pakistan, Brazil, Russia?
I may be doing so in error – and please tell me if that is the case – but I’m going to assume that the “bunch of whining Americans” you are referring to are those who are paid federally-mandated minimum wage ($7.25) and up. In contrast, of the top 20 countries to which jobs are sent, the highest hourly minimum wage is $2.19 (This is Chile, who, in their effort to prove “business-friendly”, offers corporations the option to hire children for only $1.63 per hour, should the $2.19 per hour rate create too detrimental an impact on profits). However, Chile is an exception, as 13 countries out of the 20 offer minimum wage rates of less than $1.00/hr.; 3 of those are under 50 cents an hour.
I realize that you might infer that I have ultra-liberal views on labor issues. I prefer to think that I have practical views. For instance, I’ve tried to create a workable budget based on the very generous minimum wage rate of $7.25 an hour, and have had little success in doing so. If you have managed, I would be very interested in seeing the results. But I have to ask: if you have children, how would you feel about your 26 year-old going to work 6 days a week, 10 hours per day, and making $131, before taxes? That’s in Chile, where they have it good; if he was in Sri Lanka, the pre-tax amount would be $21.60. By the way, if he’s been to college, that will help: in some ex-Communist bloc countries, college grads start at $2.85 an hour.
I agree that our current fiscal and labor crises are extraordinarily complex, and multidimensional in their root causes and development. I certainly concur that there are those of us with unrealistic expectations and lack of motivation. However, one of the two definitive reasons for offshoring jobs is the low labor costs offered by other nations. To this day, this fact has not been openly and loudly acknowledged by our government or by the corporations taking part in it. The American taxpayer is getting screwed by the corporations giving their jobs away, and by the government who continues to refuse to call the corporations out on it.
Participant[quote=carlsbadworker][quote=CA renter]
They are “our” jobs because the multinationals want to sell to us — we are still the most profitable market to them. We’re not talking about jobs that require math skills, but traditional manufacturing jobs. We used to make our own goods right here in the USA, and they were better and longer-lasting than the cheap, plastic, toxic crap that we now get from China.The only reason OUR jobs have gone overseas is because labor is dirt cheap (and no pesky worker protections there, either) and environmental protections are almost non-existent. Let’s not fool ourselves here — the jobs have been going overseas in order to increase corporate margins. Americans are NOT getting any benefits from this “globalization,” so there is no need for us to continue with this failed experiment.
If they want to sell to us, then they need to employ us. No more games with debt masking our shrinking standard of living and reduced purchasing power. It’s really that simple.[/quote]
‘If they want to sell to us, then they need to employ us.” Who is us? American consumers have voted with their wallets on how they want the corporate America to conduct the business.
Yes, dirt cheap labor with no worker protection. But that’s exactly the reason they are entitled to these jobs, because workers there are tolerating such “abuses” in order to create a brighter future for themselves. If you think people who have that kind of spirit are less entitled to the jobs comparing to a bunch of whining American, and condemn these people to be jobless instead, I have nothing else to argue about with you.[/quote]
Carlsbadworker, you paint a pretty picture, but in many cases, workers there tolerate the abuses to simply survive. If you equate not starving to death with “a brighter future”, then you have a point. In addition, there are tremendous political pressures at work in many of these countries: the presence of these people in these jobs does not necessarily represent a “choice” to do so.
I did not infer from reading CAR’s posts that she believed that non-American workers are not entitled to their jobs, but that American companies who benefit from their sales to Americans should not be so cavalier about their level of offshoring (let me know if I’m not interpreting your post accurately, CAR). While I don’t necessarily believe that selling to US residents requires employment of those residents, there’s a bit more at work here.
Many of these corporations engaging in wholesale offshoring pride themselves on their identification as “American” corporations. They play the “American pride” card (ad nauseum, in some cases) in their marketing efforts, and they clearly benefit from that on a global level. They also benefit greatly from their ability to operate as a company from a nation that has a high level of relative political stability, and a well-developed legal system. Many benefit, directly or indirectly, from taxpayer-funded military protection. And while many of them have high sales in a multitude of other countries, the relatively high incomes of Americans ensure the companies’ ability to charge higher per-unit wholesale and retail prices on their sales here.
We do have a very special thing going on in America which is the overwhelming reason so many people from other nations risk everything to come here. Millions of people have struggled, fought, and died to create the flawed but free nation that we have in America. If the current economic trend is not reversed, there is no question that the survival of what has been built over the past few hundred years will be in serious jeopardy.
As far as I’m able to see, the successful American corporations of today were able to achieve their success both to the opportunities afforded them by our nation, and to the efforts of their workers in the early, more precarious periods of their existence. So, if you’ll permit me to paint my own pretty (and perhaps naive) little picture, I’ll venture to say that if corporations are going to claim the identity of “American”, they need to behave as such, and fight for their country. Otherwise, they need to denounce their citizenship – legally, and not simply in deed, as they have been doing in their offshoring activities for the past 40 years.
I understand that corporations are not supposed to be charitable organizations, and that profits are an integral part of a corporation’s operations — the purpose of its existence. But today’s American corporations are stealing vast amounts from the treasury and the taxpayer, while simultaneously exploiting the economic and political powerlessness of the world’s poor. As CAR mentioned, the reasons these jobs have gone overseas is the low labor costs and lack of governmental oversight. I don’t know if you’re one of those who endorses lower (or nonexistent) corporate tax rates. If you are, I have to ask if you really believe that lowering the tax rate of a company who, thanks to loopholes and deductions, pays very little or no income tax on profits will keep jobs here in the United States. After all, how can we compete with the labor wages in Sri Lanka, in China, in Chile, Pakistan, Brazil, Russia?
I may be doing so in error – and please tell me if that is the case – but I’m going to assume that the “bunch of whining Americans” you are referring to are those who are paid federally-mandated minimum wage ($7.25) and up. In contrast, of the top 20 countries to which jobs are sent, the highest hourly minimum wage is $2.19 (This is Chile, who, in their effort to prove “business-friendly”, offers corporations the option to hire children for only $1.63 per hour, should the $2.19 per hour rate create too detrimental an impact on profits). However, Chile is an exception, as 13 countries out of the 20 offer minimum wage rates of less than $1.00/hr.; 3 of those are under 50 cents an hour.
I realize that you might infer that I have ultra-liberal views on labor issues. I prefer to think that I have practical views. For instance, I’ve tried to create a workable budget based on the very generous minimum wage rate of $7.25 an hour, and have had little success in doing so. If you have managed, I would be very interested in seeing the results. But I have to ask: if you have children, how would you feel about your 26 year-old going to work 6 days a week, 10 hours per day, and making $131, before taxes? That’s in Chile, where they have it good; if he was in Sri Lanka, the pre-tax amount would be $21.60. By the way, if he’s been to college, that will help: in some ex-Communist bloc countries, college grads start at $2.85 an hour.
I agree that our current fiscal and labor crises are extraordinarily complex, and multidimensional in their root causes and development. I certainly concur that there are those of us with unrealistic expectations and lack of motivation. However, one of the two definitive reasons for offshoring jobs is the low labor costs offered by other nations. To this day, this fact has not been openly and loudly acknowledged by our government or by the corporations taking part in it. The American taxpayer is getting screwed by the corporations giving their jobs away, and by the government who continues to refuse to call the corporations out on it.
Participant[quote=carlsbadworker][quote=CA renter]
They are “our” jobs because the multinationals want to sell to us — we are still the most profitable market to them. We’re not talking about jobs that require math skills, but traditional manufacturing jobs. We used to make our own goods right here in the USA, and they were better and longer-lasting than the cheap, plastic, toxic crap that we now get from China.The only reason OUR jobs have gone overseas is because labor is dirt cheap (and no pesky worker protections there, either) and environmental protections are almost non-existent. Let’s not fool ourselves here — the jobs have been going overseas in order to increase corporate margins. Americans are NOT getting any benefits from this “globalization,” so there is no need for us to continue with this failed experiment.
If they want to sell to us, then they need to employ us. No more games with debt masking our shrinking standard of living and reduced purchasing power. It’s really that simple.[/quote]
‘If they want to sell to us, then they need to employ us.” Who is us? American consumers have voted with their wallets on how they want the corporate America to conduct the business.
Yes, dirt cheap labor with no worker protection. But that’s exactly the reason they are entitled to these jobs, because workers there are tolerating such “abuses” in order to create a brighter future for themselves. If you think people who have that kind of spirit are less entitled to the jobs comparing to a bunch of whining American, and condemn these people to be jobless instead, I have nothing else to argue about with you.[/quote]
Carlsbadworker, you paint a pretty picture, but in many cases, workers there tolerate the abuses to simply survive. If you equate not starving to death with “a brighter future”, then you have a point. In addition, there are tremendous political pressures at work in many of these countries: the presence of these people in these jobs does not necessarily represent a “choice” to do so.
I did not infer from reading CAR’s posts that she believed that non-American workers are not entitled to their jobs, but that American companies who benefit from their sales to Americans should not be so cavalier about their level of offshoring (let me know if I’m not interpreting your post accurately, CAR). While I don’t necessarily believe that selling to US residents requires employment of those residents, there’s a bit more at work here.
Many of these corporations engaging in wholesale offshoring pride themselves on their identification as “American” corporations. They play the “American pride” card (ad nauseum, in some cases) in their marketing efforts, and they clearly benefit from that on a global level. They also benefit greatly from their ability to operate as a company from a nation that has a high level of relative political stability, and a well-developed legal system. Many benefit, directly or indirectly, from taxpayer-funded military protection. And while many of them have high sales in a multitude of other countries, the relatively high incomes of Americans ensure the companies’ ability to charge higher per-unit wholesale and retail prices on their sales here.
We do have a very special thing going on in America which is the overwhelming reason so many people from other nations risk everything to come here. Millions of people have struggled, fought, and died to create the flawed but free nation that we have in America. If the current economic trend is not reversed, there is no question that the survival of what has been built over the past few hundred years will be in serious jeopardy.
As far as I’m able to see, the successful American corporations of today were able to achieve their success both to the opportunities afforded them by our nation, and to the efforts of their workers in the early, more precarious periods of their existence. So, if you’ll permit me to paint my own pretty (and perhaps naive) little picture, I’ll venture to say that if corporations are going to claim the identity of “American”, they need to behave as such, and fight for their country. Otherwise, they need to denounce their citizenship – legally, and not simply in deed, as they have been doing in their offshoring activities for the past 40 years.
I understand that corporations are not supposed to be charitable organizations, and that profits are an integral part of a corporation’s operations — the purpose of its existence. But today’s American corporations are stealing vast amounts from the treasury and the taxpayer, while simultaneously exploiting the economic and political powerlessness of the world’s poor. As CAR mentioned, the reasons these jobs have gone overseas is the low labor costs and lack of governmental oversight. I don’t know if you’re one of those who endorses lower (or nonexistent) corporate tax rates. If you are, I have to ask if you really believe that lowering the tax rate of a company who, thanks to loopholes and deductions, pays very little or no income tax on profits will keep jobs here in the United States. After all, how can we compete with the labor wages in Sri Lanka, in China, in Chile, Pakistan, Brazil, Russia?
I may be doing so in error – and please tell me if that is the case – but I’m going to assume that the “bunch of whining Americans” you are referring to are those who are paid federally-mandated minimum wage ($7.25) and up. In contrast, of the top 20 countries to which jobs are sent, the highest hourly minimum wage is $2.19 (This is Chile, who, in their effort to prove “business-friendly”, offers corporations the option to hire children for only $1.63 per hour, should the $2.19 per hour rate create too detrimental an impact on profits). However, Chile is an exception, as 13 countries out of the 20 offer minimum wage rates of less than $1.00/hr.; 3 of those are under 50 cents an hour.
I realize that you might infer that I have ultra-liberal views on labor issues. I prefer to think that I have practical views. For instance, I’ve tried to create a workable budget based on the very generous minimum wage rate of $7.25 an hour, and have had little success in doing so. If you have managed, I would be very interested in seeing the results. But I have to ask: if you have children, how would you feel about your 26 year-old going to work 6 days a week, 10 hours per day, and making $131, before taxes? That’s in Chile, where they have it good; if he was in Sri Lanka, the pre-tax amount would be $21.60. By the way, if he’s been to college, that will help: in some ex-Communist bloc countries, college grads start at $2.85 an hour.
I agree that our current fiscal and labor crises are extraordinarily complex, and multidimensional in their root causes and development. I certainly concur that there are those of us with unrealistic expectations and lack of motivation. However, one of the two definitive reasons for offshoring jobs is the low labor costs offered by other nations. To this day, this fact has not been openly and loudly acknowledged by our government or by the corporations taking part in it. The American taxpayer is getting screwed by the corporations giving their jobs away, and by the government who continues to refuse to call the corporations out on it.
Participant[quote=carlsbadworker][quote=CA renter]
They are “our” jobs because the multinationals want to sell to us — we are still the most profitable market to them. We’re not talking about jobs that require math skills, but traditional manufacturing jobs. We used to make our own goods right here in the USA, and they were better and longer-lasting than the cheap, plastic, toxic crap that we now get from China.The only reason OUR jobs have gone overseas is because labor is dirt cheap (and no pesky worker protections there, either) and environmental protections are almost non-existent. Let’s not fool ourselves here — the jobs have been going overseas in order to increase corporate margins. Americans are NOT getting any benefits from this “globalization,” so there is no need for us to continue with this failed experiment.
If they want to sell to us, then they need to employ us. No more games with debt masking our shrinking standard of living and reduced purchasing power. It’s really that simple.[/quote]
‘If they want to sell to us, then they need to employ us.” Who is us? American consumers have voted with their wallets on how they want the corporate America to conduct the business.
Yes, dirt cheap labor with no worker protection. But that’s exactly the reason they are entitled to these jobs, because workers there are tolerating such “abuses” in order to create a brighter future for themselves. If you think people who have that kind of spirit are less entitled to the jobs comparing to a bunch of whining American, and condemn these people to be jobless instead, I have nothing else to argue about with you.[/quote]
Carlsbadworker, you paint a pretty picture, but in many cases, workers there tolerate the abuses to simply survive. If you equate not starving to death with “a brighter future”, then you have a point. In addition, there are tremendous political pressures at work in many of these countries: the presence of these people in these jobs does not necessarily represent a “choice” to do so.
I did not infer from reading CAR’s posts that she believed that non-American workers are not entitled to their jobs, but that American companies who benefit from their sales to Americans should not be so cavalier about their level of offshoring (let me know if I’m not interpreting your post accurately, CAR). While I don’t necessarily believe that selling to US residents requires employment of those residents, there’s a bit more at work here.
Many of these corporations engaging in wholesale offshoring pride themselves on their identification as “American” corporations. They play the “American pride” card (ad nauseum, in some cases) in their marketing efforts, and they clearly benefit from that on a global level. They also benefit greatly from their ability to operate as a company from a nation that has a high level of relative political stability, and a well-developed legal system. Many benefit, directly or indirectly, from taxpayer-funded military protection. And while many of them have high sales in a multitude of other countries, the relatively high incomes of Americans ensure the companies’ ability to charge higher per-unit wholesale and retail prices on their sales here.
We do have a very special thing going on in America which is the overwhelming reason so many people from other nations risk everything to come here. Millions of people have struggled, fought, and died to create the flawed but free nation that we have in America. If the current economic trend is not reversed, there is no question that the survival of what has been built over the past few hundred years will be in serious jeopardy.
As far as I’m able to see, the successful American corporations of today were able to achieve their success both to the opportunities afforded them by our nation, and to the efforts of their workers in the early, more precarious periods of their existence. So, if you’ll permit me to paint my own pretty (and perhaps naive) little picture, I’ll venture to say that if corporations are going to claim the identity of “American”, they need to behave as such, and fight for their country. Otherwise, they need to denounce their citizenship – legally, and not simply in deed, as they have been doing in their offshoring activities for the past 40 years.
I understand that corporations are not supposed to be charitable organizations, and that profits are an integral part of a corporation’s operations — the purpose of its existence. But today’s American corporations are stealing vast amounts from the treasury and the taxpayer, while simultaneously exploiting the economic and political powerlessness of the world’s poor. As CAR mentioned, the reasons these jobs have gone overseas is the low labor costs and lack of governmental oversight. I don’t know if you’re one of those who endorses lower (or nonexistent) corporate tax rates. If you are, I have to ask if you really believe that lowering the tax rate of a company who, thanks to loopholes and deductions, pays very little or no income tax on profits will keep jobs here in the United States. After all, how can we compete with the labor wages in Sri Lanka, in China, in Chile, Pakistan, Brazil, Russia?
I may be doing so in error – and please tell me if that is the case – but I’m going to assume that the “bunch of whining Americans” you are referring to are those who are paid federally-mandated minimum wage ($7.25) and up. In contrast, of the top 20 countries to which jobs are sent, the highest hourly minimum wage is $2.19 (This is Chile, who, in their effort to prove “business-friendly”, offers corporations the option to hire children for only $1.63 per hour, should the $2.19 per hour rate create too detrimental an impact on profits). However, Chile is an exception, as 13 countries out of the 20 offer minimum wage rates of less than $1.00/hr.; 3 of those are under 50 cents an hour.
I realize that you might infer that I have ultra-liberal views on labor issues. I prefer to think that I have practical views. For instance, I’ve tried to create a workable budget based on the very generous minimum wage rate of $7.25 an hour, and have had little success in doing so. If you have managed, I would be very interested in seeing the results. But I have to ask: if you have children, how would you feel about your 26 year-old going to work 6 days a week, 10 hours per day, and making $131, before taxes? That’s in Chile, where they have it good; if he was in Sri Lanka, the pre-tax amount would be $21.60. By the way, if he’s been to college, that will help: in some ex-Communist bloc countries, college grads start at $2.85 an hour.
I agree that our current fiscal and labor crises are extraordinarily complex, and multidimensional in their root causes and development. I certainly concur that there are those of us with unrealistic expectations and lack of motivation. However, one of the two definitive reasons for offshoring jobs is the low labor costs offered by other nations. To this day, this fact has not been openly and loudly acknowledged by our government or by the corporations taking part in it. The American taxpayer is getting screwed by the corporations giving their jobs away, and by the government who continues to refuse to call the corporations out on it.
Participant[quote=carlsbadworker][quote=CA renter]
They are “our” jobs because the multinationals want to sell to us — we are still the most profitable market to them. We’re not talking about jobs that require math skills, but traditional manufacturing jobs. We used to make our own goods right here in the USA, and they were better and longer-lasting than the cheap, plastic, toxic crap that we now get from China.The only reason OUR jobs have gone overseas is because labor is dirt cheap (and no pesky worker protections there, either) and environmental protections are almost non-existent. Let’s not fool ourselves here — the jobs have been going overseas in order to increase corporate margins. Americans are NOT getting any benefits from this “globalization,” so there is no need for us to continue with this failed experiment.
If they want to sell to us, then they need to employ us. No more games with debt masking our shrinking standard of living and reduced purchasing power. It’s really that simple.[/quote]
‘If they want to sell to us, then they need to employ us.” Who is us? American consumers have voted with their wallets on how they want the corporate America to conduct the business.
Yes, dirt cheap labor with no worker protection. But that’s exactly the reason they are entitled to these jobs, because workers there are tolerating such “abuses” in order to create a brighter future for themselves. If you think people who have that kind of spirit are less entitled to the jobs comparing to a bunch of whining American, and condemn these people to be jobless instead, I have nothing else to argue about with you.[/quote]
Carlsbadworker, you paint a pretty picture, but in many cases, workers there tolerate the abuses to simply survive. If you equate not starving to death with “a brighter future”, then you have a point. In addition, there are tremendous political pressures at work in many of these countries: the presence of these people in these jobs does not necessarily represent a “choice” to do so.
I did not infer from reading CAR’s posts that she believed that non-American workers are not entitled to their jobs, but that American companies who benefit from their sales to Americans should not be so cavalier about their level of offshoring (let me know if I’m not interpreting your post accurately, CAR). While I don’t necessarily believe that selling to US residents requires employment of those residents, there’s a bit more at work here.
Many of these corporations engaging in wholesale offshoring pride themselves on their identification as “American” corporations. They play the “American pride” card (ad nauseum, in some cases) in their marketing efforts, and they clearly benefit from that on a global level. They also benefit greatly from their ability to operate as a company from a nation that has a high level of relative political stability, and a well-developed legal system. Many benefit, directly or indirectly, from taxpayer-funded military protection. And while many of them have high sales in a multitude of other countries, the relatively high incomes of Americans ensure the companies’ ability to charge higher per-unit wholesale and retail prices on their sales here.
We do have a very special thing going on in America which is the overwhelming reason so many people from other nations risk everything to come here. Millions of people have struggled, fought, and died to create the flawed but free nation that we have in America. If the current economic trend is not reversed, there is no question that the survival of what has been built over the past few hundred years will be in serious jeopardy.
As far as I’m able to see, the successful American corporations of today were able to achieve their success both to the opportunities afforded them by our nation, and to the efforts of their workers in the early, more precarious periods of their existence. So, if you’ll permit me to paint my own pretty (and perhaps naive) little picture, I’ll venture to say that if corporations are going to claim the identity of “American”, they need to behave as such, and fight for their country. Otherwise, they need to denounce their citizenship – legally, and not simply in deed, as they have been doing in their offshoring activities for the past 40 years.
I understand that corporations are not supposed to be charitable organizations, and that profits are an integral part of a corporation’s operations — the purpose of its existence. But today’s American corporations are stealing vast amounts from the treasury and the taxpayer, while simultaneously exploiting the economic and political powerlessness of the world’s poor. As CAR mentioned, the reasons these jobs have gone overseas is the low labor costs and lack of governmental oversight. I don’t know if you’re one of those who endorses lower (or nonexistent) corporate tax rates. If you are, I have to ask if you really believe that lowering the tax rate of a company who, thanks to loopholes and deductions, pays very little or no income tax on profits will keep jobs here in the United States. After all, how can we compete with the labor wages in Sri Lanka, in China, in Chile, Pakistan, Brazil, Russia?
I may be doing so in error – and please tell me if that is the case – but I’m going to assume that the “bunch of whining Americans” you are referring to are those who are paid federally-mandated minimum wage ($7.25) and up. In contrast, of the top 20 countries to which jobs are sent, the highest hourly minimum wage is $2.19 (This is Chile, who, in their effort to prove “business-friendly”, offers corporations the option to hire children for only $1.63 per hour, should the $2.19 per hour rate create too detrimental an impact on profits). However, Chile is an exception, as 13 countries out of the 20 offer minimum wage rates of less than $1.00/hr.; 3 of those are under 50 cents an hour.
I realize that you might infer that I have ultra-liberal views on labor issues. I prefer to think that I have practical views. For instance, I’ve tried to create a workable budget based on the very generous minimum wage rate of $7.25 an hour, and have had little success in doing so. If you have managed, I would be very interested in seeing the results. But I have to ask: if you have children, how would you feel about your 26 year-old going to work 6 days a week, 10 hours per day, and making $131, before taxes? That’s in Chile, where they have it good; if he was in Sri Lanka, the pre-tax amount would be $21.60. By the way, if he’s been to college, that will help: in some ex-Communist bloc countries, college grads start at $2.85 an hour.
I agree that our current fiscal and labor crises are extraordinarily complex, and multidimensional in their root causes and development. I certainly concur that there are those of us with unrealistic expectations and lack of motivation. However, one of the two definitive reasons for offshoring jobs is the low labor costs offered by other nations. To this day, this fact has not been openly and loudly acknowledged by our government or by the corporations taking part in it. The American taxpayer is getting screwed by the corporations giving their jobs away, and by the government who continues to refuse to call the corporations out on it.
Participant[quote=jpinpb]I agree w/everything you said CAR. As I am in the process of remodling, etc, I am making a big effort to not buy anything MIC and it has been more work than the physical labor. They have taken all our manufacturing jobs and their products are sub par. Perhaps it’s been so long since we manufactured anything, we have come to accept their crap. But in my effort to not buy MIC, it has lead me to antique shops where I’m finding good ole made in the USA items that stand the test of time. There are too many empty factories here and that is the painful reality. People were glad to do those jobs and we had a thriving economy back then.[/quote]
hey, jp, when i built our place down in rural VA, I hit the architectural salvage warehouses here in the Baltimore/DC area regularly. Absolutely incredible stuff, and much better quality than recently manufactured stuff.
I was into the turn-of-the-century look, but was surprised to find the range of stuff that was available in some of these places. At the one place, I’d come across brand-new Jeld-Wen windows at a tenth of the price, or 25 linear feet of upper and lower kitchen cabinets that were less than 5 years old, along with top of the line appliances.
I bought a circa 1920 cast-iron farm sink, just like the one I used to do dishes in during visits to my grandmother’s house. Found a great architectural support post that I walked away with for thirty bucks. A terrific solid brass very early electric light fixture with the original glass for $180; despite the great price, I insist on bargaining, so walked out with it for $150 (I had looked at at least 2000 similar fixtures, online and in antique shops, and would have had to pay $800 to $1200 minimum for it.)
My favorite purchase was a 1927 Glenwood Insulated gas range, in the original Nile green and cream colors, completed refinished and retrofitted for propane. It’s fabulous!! And the bonus was that it turned out to be the best stove I’ve ever used. Just about every new appliance I’ve bought over the past decade has gone down the tubes after 5 or 6 years, and had to be replaced. And here’s this 85 year-old gem still going strong.
You’ve got the right idea. Good luck!
Participant[quote=jpinpb]I agree w/everything you said CAR. As I am in the process of remodling, etc, I am making a big effort to not buy anything MIC and it has been more work than the physical labor. They have taken all our manufacturing jobs and their products are sub par. Perhaps it’s been so long since we manufactured anything, we have come to accept their crap. But in my effort to not buy MIC, it has lead me to antique shops where I’m finding good ole made in the USA items that stand the test of time. There are too many empty factories here and that is the painful reality. People were glad to do those jobs and we had a thriving economy back then.[/quote]
hey, jp, when i built our place down in rural VA, I hit the architectural salvage warehouses here in the Baltimore/DC area regularly. Absolutely incredible stuff, and much better quality than recently manufactured stuff.
I was into the turn-of-the-century look, but was surprised to find the range of stuff that was available in some of these places. At the one place, I’d come across brand-new Jeld-Wen windows at a tenth of the price, or 25 linear feet of upper and lower kitchen cabinets that were less than 5 years old, along with top of the line appliances.
I bought a circa 1920 cast-iron farm sink, just like the one I used to do dishes in during visits to my grandmother’s house. Found a great architectural support post that I walked away with for thirty bucks. A terrific solid brass very early electric light fixture with the original glass for $180; despite the great price, I insist on bargaining, so walked out with it for $150 (I had looked at at least 2000 similar fixtures, online and in antique shops, and would have had to pay $800 to $1200 minimum for it.)
My favorite purchase was a 1927 Glenwood Insulated gas range, in the original Nile green and cream colors, completed refinished and retrofitted for propane. It’s fabulous!! And the bonus was that it turned out to be the best stove I’ve ever used. Just about every new appliance I’ve bought over the past decade has gone down the tubes after 5 or 6 years, and had to be replaced. And here’s this 85 year-old gem still going strong.
You’ve got the right idea. Good luck!
Participant[quote=jpinpb]I agree w/everything you said CAR. As I am in the process of remodling, etc, I am making a big effort to not buy anything MIC and it has been more work than the physical labor. They have taken all our manufacturing jobs and their products are sub par. Perhaps it’s been so long since we manufactured anything, we have come to accept their crap. But in my effort to not buy MIC, it has lead me to antique shops where I’m finding good ole made in the USA items that stand the test of time. There are too many empty factories here and that is the painful reality. People were glad to do those jobs and we had a thriving economy back then.[/quote]
hey, jp, when i built our place down in rural VA, I hit the architectural salvage warehouses here in the Baltimore/DC area regularly. Absolutely incredible stuff, and much better quality than recently manufactured stuff.
I was into the turn-of-the-century look, but was surprised to find the range of stuff that was available in some of these places. At the one place, I’d come across brand-new Jeld-Wen windows at a tenth of the price, or 25 linear feet of upper and lower kitchen cabinets that were less than 5 years old, along with top of the line appliances.
I bought a circa 1920 cast-iron farm sink, just like the one I used to do dishes in during visits to my grandmother’s house. Found a great architectural support post that I walked away with for thirty bucks. A terrific solid brass very early electric light fixture with the original glass for $180; despite the great price, I insist on bargaining, so walked out with it for $150 (I had looked at at least 2000 similar fixtures, online and in antique shops, and would have had to pay $800 to $1200 minimum for it.)
My favorite purchase was a 1927 Glenwood Insulated gas range, in the original Nile green and cream colors, completed refinished and retrofitted for propane. It’s fabulous!! And the bonus was that it turned out to be the best stove I’ve ever used. Just about every new appliance I’ve bought over the past decade has gone down the tubes after 5 or 6 years, and had to be replaced. And here’s this 85 year-old gem still going strong.
You’ve got the right idea. Good luck!
Participant[quote=jpinpb]I agree w/everything you said CAR. As I am in the process of remodling, etc, I am making a big effort to not buy anything MIC and it has been more work than the physical labor. They have taken all our manufacturing jobs and their products are sub par. Perhaps it’s been so long since we manufactured anything, we have come to accept their crap. But in my effort to not buy MIC, it has lead me to antique shops where I’m finding good ole made in the USA items that stand the test of time. There are too many empty factories here and that is the painful reality. People were glad to do those jobs and we had a thriving economy back then.[/quote]
hey, jp, when i built our place down in rural VA, I hit the architectural salvage warehouses here in the Baltimore/DC area regularly. Absolutely incredible stuff, and much better quality than recently manufactured stuff.
I was into the turn-of-the-century look, but was surprised to find the range of stuff that was available in some of these places. At the one place, I’d come across brand-new Jeld-Wen windows at a tenth of the price, or 25 linear feet of upper and lower kitchen cabinets that were less than 5 years old, along with top of the line appliances.
I bought a circa 1920 cast-iron farm sink, just like the one I used to do dishes in during visits to my grandmother’s house. Found a great architectural support post that I walked away with for thirty bucks. A terrific solid brass very early electric light fixture with the original glass for $180; despite the great price, I insist on bargaining, so walked out with it for $150 (I had looked at at least 2000 similar fixtures, online and in antique shops, and would have had to pay $800 to $1200 minimum for it.)
My favorite purchase was a 1927 Glenwood Insulated gas range, in the original Nile green and cream colors, completed refinished and retrofitted for propane. It’s fabulous!! And the bonus was that it turned out to be the best stove I’ve ever used. Just about every new appliance I’ve bought over the past decade has gone down the tubes after 5 or 6 years, and had to be replaced. And here’s this 85 year-old gem still going strong.
You’ve got the right idea. Good luck!
Participant[quote=jpinpb]I agree w/everything you said CAR. As I am in the process of remodling, etc, I am making a big effort to not buy anything MIC and it has been more work than the physical labor. They have taken all our manufacturing jobs and their products are sub par. Perhaps it’s been so long since we manufactured anything, we have come to accept their crap. But in my effort to not buy MIC, it has lead me to antique shops where I’m finding good ole made in the USA items that stand the test of time. There are too many empty factories here and that is the painful reality. People were glad to do those jobs and we had a thriving economy back then.[/quote]
hey, jp, when i built our place down in rural VA, I hit the architectural salvage warehouses here in the Baltimore/DC area regularly. Absolutely incredible stuff, and much better quality than recently manufactured stuff.
I was into the turn-of-the-century look, but was surprised to find the range of stuff that was available in some of these places. At the one place, I’d come across brand-new Jeld-Wen windows at a tenth of the price, or 25 linear feet of upper and lower kitchen cabinets that were less than 5 years old, along with top of the line appliances.
I bought a circa 1920 cast-iron farm sink, just like the one I used to do dishes in during visits to my grandmother’s house. Found a great architectural support post that I walked away with for thirty bucks. A terrific solid brass very early electric light fixture with the original glass for $180; despite the great price, I insist on bargaining, so walked out with it for $150 (I had looked at at least 2000 similar fixtures, online and in antique shops, and would have had to pay $800 to $1200 minimum for it.)
My favorite purchase was a 1927 Glenwood Insulated gas range, in the original Nile green and cream colors, completed refinished and retrofitted for propane. It’s fabulous!! And the bonus was that it turned out to be the best stove I’ve ever used. Just about every new appliance I’ve bought over the past decade has gone down the tubes after 5 or 6 years, and had to be replaced. And here’s this 85 year-old gem still going strong.
You’ve got the right idea. Good luck!
Participant[quote=patb]http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2011-06-03-fewer-children-census-suburbs_n.htm
if birthrates continue to decline, will that put long term pressure on housing?
Families without children or with a single child will prefer condos and townhouses.[/quote]patb, I don’t think the reduced “family” size will be an issue, so far as housing is concerned. I’m a mid-to-late baby boomer, and here are my observations of housing trends over the 20th century:
My grandparents’ generation (7 to 10 kids) lived in one- or two-room apartments, or a small (800 to 1000 sf) house, often shared with several members of an extended family.
My parents’ generation (3 to 7 kids) moved into little (1000 to 1200 sf) suburban ranchers and split levels in the thousands of postwar “Levittowns” that sprang up all over America.
Early Boomers (2 to 4 kids) decided that an extra room (i.e., the family room) was needed to actually “live in”, and moved on up into 1600 to 2100 sf domiciles.
Late Boomers determined that each child MUST have their own room, so mortgages were stretched to cover 2200 to 3000 sf.
Somewhere in there, the McMansion was born, and middle-class families with a couple offspring were trying to fill 4500 to 6000 sf and more with rooms for every possible activity (home theater, craft room, gift wrapping room). The foyers in most of these homes are larger than the entire house in which my parents raised five kids.
So I’m guessing that the next housing evolution will be 10,000 to 12,000 sf estates for singles or childless couples (perhaps one very small child would be acceptable).
In all seriousness, patb, energy prices are going to guide the location of neighborhoods and the size of houses. Commuting costs will increase to the point that people will have to move closer to the cities, and the lack of open space will curtail their ability to express themselves in brick, mortar, and aluminum siding. The upside to this is a reversal of the trend of developers to move into beautiful pristine rural areas, and turn them into even more hideous faceless overcrowded exurbs.
Participant[quote=patb]http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2011-06-03-fewer-children-census-suburbs_n.htm
if birthrates continue to decline, will that put long term pressure on housing?
Families without children or with a single child will prefer condos and townhouses.[/quote]patb, I don’t think the reduced “family” size will be an issue, so far as housing is concerned. I’m a mid-to-late baby boomer, and here are my observations of housing trends over the 20th century:
My grandparents’ generation (7 to 10 kids) lived in one- or two-room apartments, or a small (800 to 1000 sf) house, often shared with several members of an extended family.
My parents’ generation (3 to 7 kids) moved into little (1000 to 1200 sf) suburban ranchers and split levels in the thousands of postwar “Levittowns” that sprang up all over America.
Early Boomers (2 to 4 kids) decided that an extra room (i.e., the family room) was needed to actually “live in”, and moved on up into 1600 to 2100 sf domiciles.
Late Boomers determined that each child MUST have their own room, so mortgages were stretched to cover 2200 to 3000 sf.
Somewhere in there, the McMansion was born, and middle-class families with a couple offspring were trying to fill 4500 to 6000 sf and more with rooms for every possible activity (home theater, craft room, gift wrapping room). The foyers in most of these homes are larger than the entire house in which my parents raised five kids.
So I’m guessing that the next housing evolution will be 10,000 to 12,000 sf estates for singles or childless couples (perhaps one very small child would be acceptable).
In all seriousness, patb, energy prices are going to guide the location of neighborhoods and the size of houses. Commuting costs will increase to the point that people will have to move closer to the cities, and the lack of open space will curtail their ability to express themselves in brick, mortar, and aluminum siding. The upside to this is a reversal of the trend of developers to move into beautiful pristine rural areas, and turn them into even more hideous faceless overcrowded exurbs.
Participant[quote=patb]http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2011-06-03-fewer-children-census-suburbs_n.htm
if birthrates continue to decline, will that put long term pressure on housing?
Families without children or with a single child will prefer condos and townhouses.[/quote]patb, I don’t think the reduced “family” size will be an issue, so far as housing is concerned. I’m a mid-to-late baby boomer, and here are my observations of housing trends over the 20th century:
My grandparents’ generation (7 to 10 kids) lived in one- or two-room apartments, or a small (800 to 1000 sf) house, often shared with several members of an extended family.
My parents’ generation (3 to 7 kids) moved into little (1000 to 1200 sf) suburban ranchers and split levels in the thousands of postwar “Levittowns” that sprang up all over America.
Early Boomers (2 to 4 kids) decided that an extra room (i.e., the family room) was needed to actually “live in”, and moved on up into 1600 to 2100 sf domiciles.
Late Boomers determined that each child MUST have their own room, so mortgages were stretched to cover 2200 to 3000 sf.
Somewhere in there, the McMansion was born, and middle-class families with a couple offspring were trying to fill 4500 to 6000 sf and more with rooms for every possible activity (home theater, craft room, gift wrapping room). The foyers in most of these homes are larger than the entire house in which my parents raised five kids.
So I’m guessing that the next housing evolution will be 10,000 to 12,000 sf estates for singles or childless couples (perhaps one very small child would be acceptable).
In all seriousness, patb, energy prices are going to guide the location of neighborhoods and the size of houses. Commuting costs will increase to the point that people will have to move closer to the cities, and the lack of open space will curtail their ability to express themselves in brick, mortar, and aluminum siding. The upside to this is a reversal of the trend of developers to move into beautiful pristine rural areas, and turn them into even more hideous faceless overcrowded exurbs.
-
AuthorPosts