• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Too many jobs lost, Obama says in AP interview

Goobieman

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Too many jobs lost, Obama says in AP interview

WASHINGTON (AP) -- With joblessness rising, President Barack Obama said Thursday he was "deeply concerned" about unemployment and conceded that too many families are worried about "whether they will be next" to suffer economically.

In a White House interview with The Associated Press, Obama said that since he took office, "we have successfully stabilized the financial markets," and "started to see some stabilization on housing."

"But what we are still seeing is too many jobs lost," said Obama, commenting after new government figures showed the unemployment rate had risen to 9.5 percent last month
Court 'moved ball' on racial hiring, Obama says - Yahoo! Finance

An ASTOUNDING observation, one that could only be made by someone with The Obama's supreme mental prowess.

So... what are you going to DO about it?

Spend more money?
Run up more deficits?
Print more money?
Raise taxes?
Further nationalize the auto industry?
Further nationalize the banking/financial industries?
 
should go easy on the man it's his first year on the job...

hahaa :rofl
 
You know how he could make more jobs? He needs to give space exploration to the private sector so it will create a whole new industry for expansion. Also if he put more into finding alternate forms of energy that would create another industry and therefore many more jobs. Either of these ideas would lower unemployment drastically, but together unemployment would be very low. Not only would these jobs be plentiful, but they would be secure. We are never going to stop needing energy, and we are never going to stop exploring space.

Privatizing space exploration would also cut government spending, and lower the national debt.
 
I cannot stand the way politicians talk about job loss. They act like if they don't DO SOMETHING (AKA government expansion and spending) the jobs will never come back, as if the only reason those jobs existed in the first place was our magnanimous government.

The jobs WILL come back and the economy WILL recover; it just takes TIME for the free market to self-correct, that is, if we allow it to, which we're not.
 
Privatizing space exploration would also cut government spending, and lower the national debt.

Hmmm I guess you don't kow this but 75% of Space program is already privatized and as been since the mid 70s.
 
I cannot stand the way politicians talk about job loss. They act like if they don't DO SOMETHING (AKA government expansion and spending) the jobs will never come back, as if the only reason those jobs existed in the first place was our magnanimous government.

The jobs WILL come back and the economy WILL recover; it just takes TIME for the free market to self-correct, that is, if we allow it to, which we're not.

Not really, but you are right in one thing, government is not the answer.

The jobs won't come back because companies can outsource cheaper than they can produce here.

Free-market has said "do it overseas".
 
Not really, but you are right in one thing, government is not the answer.
The jobs won't come back because companies can outsource cheaper than they can produce here.
Free-market has said "do it overseas".
Welcome to the global economy.
Like everyone and everything else, the American worker has to be competitive in that market, or he wont have a job.
 
Welcome to the global economy.
Like everyone and everything else, the American worker has to be competitive in that market, or he wont have a job.

And how is the American worker supposed to be competitive for the $1.00 an hour overseas that some get?

Even if the American worker were willing to work for that, that would be $160 a month. Get real.

I don't agree with the stimulus package as it stands, but one thing I do think is companies that go overseas should get NO TAX benefits for doing it.
 
Last edited:
The jobs won't come back because companies can outsource cheaper than they can produce here.
True, but why is outsourcing more attractive? It's not because of superior workmanship, it is all about avoiding government mandates that make supplying a good product at market price impossible from domestic labor, it is also because of union perks and their overly friendly treatment from governments, and the hidden taxes passed along the supply chain by government tax policy.

Free-market has said "do it overseas".
The free market principles dictate outsourcing, but only to a friendlier market, not quite a free one.
 
And how is the American worker supposed to be competitive for the $1.00 an hour overseas that some get?

Even if the American worker were willing to work for that, that would be $160 a month. Get real.
"Getting real" includes dumping the idea that, just because you're an Amenrican, you're entitled to a $30/hr union job with full benefits.

Want to not have your job outsorced? Get one that cannot be.

Companies exist to make money. If they can pay someone 10% your wage for the same (or better) work, why wouldn't they?

And, how do you propose the government stops them?
 
Welcome to the global economy.
Like everyone and everything else, the American worker has to be competitive in that market, or he wont have a job.

"Competitive in the market" means Americans should accept work for $1 a day like someone in BanglaDesh. That's not likely to happen.
 
"Competitive in the market" means Americans should accept work for $1 a day like someone in BanglaDesh. That's not likely to happen.
See my response to TNE. It covers your post quite well.

TO expand slightly:
However likely you think it may be -- if that's what the labor market will bear, then you'll accept that job, or not have one.
 
Last edited:
And how is the American worker supposed to be competitive for the $1.00 an hour overseas that some get?

Even if the American worker were willing to work for that, that would be $160 a month. Get real.

I don't agree with the stimulus package as it stands, but one thing I do think is companies that go overseas should get NO TAX benefits for doing it.

A few things to understand, American workers are 10x to 20x more productive than their Chinese and Indian counter parts.

The things we are outsourcing are just not worth us wasting our time making.
High tech industry and other futurist type fields are worth us using our limited supply of labor on.

The caveat to this is that you have to have some higher order of training and education. If you don't get it, you will be left behind.
 
"Getting real" includes dumping the idea that, just because you're an Amenrican, you're entitled to a $30/hr union job with full benefits.

Want to not have your job outsorced? Get one that cannot be.

Companies exist to make money. If they can pay someone 10% your wage for the same (or better) work, why wouldn't they?

And, how do you propose the government stops them?

Your using ONE example, that doesn't cover outsourcing as a whole.

I know of plenty of people's jobs that were outsourced simply because it was cheaper to pay overseas $1-$5 an hour instead of what they were making which was about $9-$15 WITHOUT FULL benefits.

How is that $30 an hour with benefits?
 
TO expand slightly:
However likely you think it may be -- if that's what the labor market will bear, then you'll accept that job, or not have one.

Not if its $1 or $5 an hour, you CAN'T SURVIVE on that.
 
A few things to understand, American workers are 10x to 20x more productive than their Chinese and Indian counter parts.

Because the American workers are not payed SLAVE WAGES.
 
Not if its $1 or $5 an hour, you CAN'T SURVIVE on that.
Many of those reasons are because of an under valued dollar, this site may not have the bandwidth to fully explain it from the beginning.

Because the American workers are not payed SLAVE WAGES.
"Slave Wages" are better than no wages if we are talking about outsourcing.
 
Your using ONE example, that doesn't cover outsourcing as a whole.
The sentiment behind it does. You are not entitled to ANY jon, much less one that you think pays what you think you are worth.

The value of your labor is set by the labor market. If you want to remain competitive in the labor market, you need to adjust your exepectations accordingly.
 
Not if its $1 or $5 an hour, you CAN'T SURVIVE on that.
How short sighted.

Like everything else, price of good/services is related to what people are willing to pay. Wages go down, eventually so to does the cost of living.

That's why comparable houses in certain areas cost so much more/less than others.
 
"Slave Wages" are better than no wages if we are talking about outsourcing.
Easy for you to say that when you aren't one of the people making that.
 
How short sighted.

Like everything else, price of good/services is related to what people are willing to pay. Wages go down, eventually so to does the cost of living.

That's why comparable houses in certain areas cost so much more/less than others.

No, what happens is the homeless rate goes up.
 
Court 'moved ball' on racial hiring, Obama says - Yahoo! Finance

An ASTOUNDING observation, one that could only be made by someone with The Obama's supreme mental prowess.

So... what are you going to DO about it?

Spend more money?
Run up more deficits?
Print more money?
Raise taxes?
Further nationalize the auto industry?
Further nationalize the banking/financial industries?

So let me see if I understand the complaint here. Is it because Obama said something you agree with? Or is it because in this one interview he did not answer all your questions? Or is it just another excuse to bitch about the guy who kicked your guys ass in the election?
 
Because the American workers are not payed SLAVE WAGES.

The wages the Chinese and Indian people make are not slave wages, they are in line with their cost of living and lifestyle expectations.

Another important thing to remember is that eventually there won't be any low skill manufacturing jobs available in the future.

Automated manufacturing is quickly reducing the number of employees a company needs to make products.
It is going to leave nearly the whole economy with jobs for skilled and educated workers.

If you want to continue to work in manufacturing your going to have to have some sort of maintenance training or quality control education.
 
The wages the Chinese and Indian people make are not slave wages, they are in line with their cost of living and lifestyle expectations.

Compared to the cost of living in the U.S., yes they are slave wages.
 
No, what happens is the homeless rate goes up.
For a time, perhaps.
But, my post stands - there's no question that cost of living is related to income. Income drops, so do prices.
 
Back
Top Bottom