• 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!

Watch 1,400 US workers learn their jobs are moving to Mexico

If it were up to me, I'd prosecute and jail the executives of this country for life to send an example to other companies who want to follow suit. I think the death penalty would be fair as well.

what law did they violate?
none.

thanks for expressing your tyrannical opinion though.
on the flip side we can try making America more competitive in order to keep
businesses here.

but that violates the progressive code of ethics.
 
I am no longer supporting BERNIE. He should have avoided the race pimp.

And he should have done what? Run for Dog Catcher ... ?

It's the American-Way-of-Voting "system" that needs changing.

I am never keen to Hurrah! the death of anybody. But Scalia's replacement on the Supreme Court gives Obama a chance to change fundamentally that third-power in our tripartite system of governance (Executive, Legislative and Judiciary).

With any luck, the other Bush-conservatives on the highest court in the land will see that their "murky-game" is over, and just leave.

NB: And once again I plead for "term-limits" on all political offices so that individuals do not encrust themselves into power ...
 
How is the 20+ % Spanish unemployment going?

It's 4.9% here.
Forgive me but I have decided not to reply to your off-topic baiting posts anymore on the grounds that it is a waste of my time.
 
... (we) should be willing to pay more for American made products and a stop should be put to importing products fro Asia where workers are paid slave wages.

But they don't - WalMart proved that point long ago.

Besides, if you want to start a Trade War that is ultimately damaging to the American exports that do find markets globally, then - yes, indeed! - start one!!!

Real Estate/Renting/Leasing is a leeching enterprise.

Yes, often. But, as the GDP-numbers show, it is also a key enterprise.

The "leeching" is done by avid banksters who take advantage of the "system" (namely that of Securitized Debt). Which, after the demise of the Glass-Steagal Act and the fusion of both Commerical and Investment Banking in the same "house" (thank you Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, Robert Rubin and the US Congress at the time), provided ultimately for the Sub-prime Cataclysm of 2008 that sparked The Great Recession. (From which the US is still crawling out.)

Clearly, the US needs better governance. But, which country doesn't?

May I suggest that the problem of the US and the EU are the same. That is, populations that got so accustomed to a unique period of post-WW2 growth they thought it destined to be perpetual. The older-people amongst us still feel that way, and the younger people have not understood how fundamentally the economic-rules have changed.

Alas, historical analysis teaches us that we did not see clearly the import of the Bamboo Curtain crashing down in 1991. Everything changed on world-markets flooded by cheap Chinese produce. (Which included, unfortunately, a lot of very bad product-quality.)

Giving up on and selling out American workers is unforgivable.

As I have said before, in Manufacturing particularly, the US can no longer employ people to bash-out pots 'n pans; or any such rudimentary production. That business has upped and gone to points west on this globe (in the US) and points east (from Europe), to warmer cost-climates.

And watch China be caught in the same trap by countries like Thailand, the Philippines, India - the process is inexorable. Nobody (no consumer) wants to pay a higher price for basic manufactured items.

Besides, Construction (for instance) is one basic Production Industry that is not going anywhere ... thankfully, so let's be grateful!
 
Last edited:
Forgive me but I have decided not to reply to your off-topic baiting posts anymore on the grounds that it is a waste of my time.


Matthew 7:3-5King James Version (KJV)

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
 
Perhaps, but would you rather that Carrier continue to manufacture higher-cost products that it cannot sell since it is no longer competitive?

Rather than either Mexico or higher-cost manufacturing in the US as options, we should be automating production at home - which will diminish jobs but at least keep some manufacturing in the US.

At the same time, let's start educating our workforce with higher skill/competency levels so they don't have to look for lower-salary, wrote manufacturing jobs. Have we not learned anything from the debacle in the Automotive Industry, where Detroit is figuratively now a Ghost Town?

See the breakdown by industrial sector in this chart: GDP by industry. We are already a nation that obtains more GDP from Real Estate/Renting/Leasing, Federal & State Government, Finance/Insurance, Health/Social Care together (25% of the total) than from both Durable and Non-Durable Manufacturing (12%). Whilst construction adds another 4%, it is not about to take off to either Mexico or China.

And of those upper-class "industries" most of them are in services and not manufacturing. (The iPhones we love so much are developed in the US, but made in China. We cannot undo that trend in certain product sectors - though we'll like keep some Heavy Manufacturing (trucks, heavy equipment) in the US, solely because transportation costs from elsewhere makes them expensive. But it does not prevent the Japanese from competing in this sector.

We are beating a dead-horse. Let's save what we can of it by incorporating (tax-deductible) automated production-techniques, thus keeping whatever manufacturing we can. And I'll bet, wherever possible, manufacturing companies are doing just that.

So why not Carrier ... ?!?

So they will be lowering prices for Mexican made products? That's a laugh. They will pass any savings on to the CEO's and management. It's all about margins not competitiveness. Average profit margins have nearly doubled since 1980.

proftrnd.png
 
Last edited:
So they will be lowering prices for Mexican made products? That's a laugh. They will pass any savings on to the CEO's and management. It's all about margins not competitiveness. Average profit margins have nearly doubled since 1980. [/IMG]

Not for everybody - plenty of companies have put manufacturing in places where it is cheaper, but have not obtained the same standard of quality ... even in China (as some have learned).

I don't doubt for a moment that profit margins have been good for US industries, whilst wages have stagnated. See wage history of the US, here: United States, Trend Median Household Income (Click on the box "Max".)

They've diminished by 0.44% per year over the past 17 years from their previous "high mark".

Yes, this is the economic circumstance that the US must address. (And I have in my previous comment - Education is the key ingredient to higher wages for our workforce.)

But preventing companies from manufacturing abroad is a fool's game. There is no law of the land that can prevent it ...
 
Not for everybody - plenty of companies have put manufacturing in places where it is cheaper, but have not obtained the same standard of quality ... even in China (as some have learned).

I don't doubt for a moment that profit margins have been good for US industries, whilst wages have stagnated. See wage history of the US, here: United States, Trend Median Household Income (Click on the box "Max".)

They've diminished by 0.44% per year over the past 17 years from their previous "high mark".

Yes, this is the economic circumstance that the US must address. (And I have in my previous comment - Education is the key ingredient to higher wages for our workforce.)

But preventing companies from manufacturing abroad is a fool's game. There is no law of the land that can prevent it ...

That may be true but that does not mean that incentives (tax and otherwise) that encourage companies to keep jobs here are not indicated. There are far too any incentives to leave already. We have made it far too easy to just pack up and leave and all their expenses are tax deductible.. I believe companies that relocate abroad should be required to train and otherwise help their American workers to find other jobs too. It is the right thing to do.
 
THE REMAINING CRUMBS

I believe companies that relocate abroad should be required to train and otherwise help their American workers to find other jobs too. It is the right thing to do.

It is indeed the right thing to do, but not by companies. Why should they invest in skills-enhancement only to see the worker go off as a result of better pay?

Besides, it is the government's duty to teach and train, from cradle-to-grave. We've got it right for primary and secondary education, we need to get it right for tertiary-education. It is wholly aberrant that anyone should graduate with a postsecondary degree AND an average $30K in debt as happens presently.

Like primary- and secondary-schooling today, the cost should be free, gratis and for nothing - as any other Public Service. If students want to go to a private school, then they are free to do so, and they will obtain the same scholarship-level funding; but not more, as those attending state-schools.

Educational/training/apprenticeship can all be subsidized similarly at institutions that accept the same cost-schedules, approved by a Federal Dept. of Education that funds them. Those who want to charge more can do so, but only with approval of the Dept. of Education if funded by that agency.

The arch-competition at the postsecondary-school level for the "best educational schooling" is nonsense. It only causes said schools to charge higher and higher fees. And if it's not that, it is the absurd use of sports scholarships. As is "philanthropy" that feeds into top-notch universities (like Harvard or Stanford.)

Were taxation done correctly, most of it would go to the government that would spend it appropriately at state-schools for all-comers. This American Way of Elitism has got to go. It makes no sense whatsoever and divides the country into those who have it all, and those that scramble for the remaining crumbs.[I/]

More education for more people means a more dynamic economy, and good jobs at good pay, and a better lifestyle for all ...
 
Last edited:
Giving up on and selling out American workers is unforgivable.

I quite agree, more should be done for American workers who find themselves jobless. But that also means that they should be able to do more for themselves - meaning (pointedly) enhance their skill-sets without incurring additional costs.

An explanation:
-A market-economy, in which the US finds itself, and that which is also global, has its "rules". Foremost of which, in terms of the sale of goods/services, is price and quality.
-The US has rarely had a problem with the latter (quality), but on global-markets it does indeed have a challenge as regards price - for certain types of goods. Services-industries escape this rule because the "talent" (key word) necessary is available in sufficient quality and calibre (skills/competencies). Why? (And the answer is key to understanding national-priorities.)
-It behooves us therefore to assure that obtaining skills/competencies should be our MAJOR PRIORITY as a nation - and, at present, a tertiary-level education is costly. Extremely costly. Why? (Frankly you would have to survey the institutions that provide this service to understand why? There seems to be no credible reason except the folly of "exaggerated exuberance" - meaning, buildings and sports.)

In Europe, a Tertiary Education does not cost an arm-and-a-leg. In fact, studies have shown (see here: OECD* - Spending on Tertiary Education) that that the US is the most-costly developed economy on earth for said qualifications provided by a postsecondary education. On that infographic, note for the most part the EU countries at the bottom of the cost-line.

Quite simply, we must make a better effort at getting our youth through secondary-schooling and onward to a tertiary-education diploma. Why, oh why, does a postsecondary education in America leave the "average student" with a $30K debt to repay? See the answer to that question in this infographic: Distribution of Student Loan Debt Balance for 2012: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cb/U.S._Student_Loan_Debt_Distribution_Q4_2012.png/800px-U.S._Student_Loan_Debt_Distribution_Q4_2012.png

With a nation as rich as ours, which pisses away 20% of its national budget (~$600B) on DoD "toys for our boys", that is a travesty of Social Justice!

'Nuff said ... ?

*OECD = Organization of Economic Cooperation & Development
 
Last edited:
A SOCIALLY JUST WAY (FOR HIGHER EDUCATION)

And as regards this matter, the US is not standing idly by - see actual national budget expenditures on postsecondary schooling subventions: Student Loan Volume and Default Rates

Excerpt:
In 2012–13, the average student loan amount of $7,000 represented a 39 percent increase over the 2000–01 amount of $5,100 (in constant 2013–14 dollars). Of the 4.7 million students who entered the repayment phase on their student loans in fiscal year (FY) 2011, some 651,000, or 13.7 percent, defaulted before the end of FY 2013.

I suggest also viewing Figure 2: "Percentage of first-time, full-time students receiving loan aid at degree-granting postsecondary institutions, by level and control of institution: Selected years, 2000–01 through 2012–13". Note that more students in the US go to "for profit" institutions than "non-profit" (this latter meaning, I think, "state tertiary-level schooling"). It is with the former that educational costs are much more expensive.

So, this is the question to answer: Is it worth the extra money to go to a "for profit" institution of higher-learning?

Frankly, I think not ... but the key to the matter, regarding that which is fair and equitable, is the fact that these numbers reflect "loans" and not "subventions" (grants).

Were they the latter (at the state-school level), admission would be free, gratis and for nothing or nearly so - which, aside from an annual modest tuition fee, is the only Socially Just way to assure more students get enrolled.

My Point: Presume that any institution of higher learning (for-profit or non-profit) would be subsidized by Federal grants to students at the same rates of tuition. Then the higher-cost for-profit establishments would find it far more difficult to raise costs over and beyond the non-profit variety.

Not so? Tell me how ...
 
Last edited:
I quite agree, more should be done for American workers who find themselves jobless. But that also means that they should be able to do more for themselves - meaning (pointedly) enhance their skill-sets without incurring additional costs.
No one argues against education and improving labor skills.

An explanation:
-A market-economy, in which the US finds itself, and that which is also global, has its "rules". Foremost of which, in terms of the sale of goods/services, is price and quality.
American workers should not have to follow a rule that they must compete with slave labor conditions as found in Asia. No one can fault American workmanship and product quality.

-The US has rarely had a problem with the latter (quality), but on global-markets it does indeed have a challenge as regards price - for certain types of goods. Services-industries escape this rule because the "talent" (key word) necessary is available in sufficient quality and calibre (skills/competencies). Why? (And the answer is key to understanding national-priorities.)
Dirt cheap products dumped on the American market by U.S. entrepreneurs who outsource their manufacturing to Asian sweatshops and sold in Wal.Mart and such places should be faced with a colossal tariff.

-It behooves us therefore to assure that obtaining skills/competencies should be our MAJOR PRIORITY as a nation - and, at present, a tertiary-level education is costly. Extremely costly. Why? (Frankly you would have to survey the institutions that provide this service to understand why? There seems to be no credible reason except the folly of "exaggerated exuberance" - meaning, buildings and sports.)
The community college system in advanced states is a bargain and all third level education will be more affordable if the Republican Party in Congress does not prevent reforms planned by future President Bernard Sanders.

With a nation as rich as ours, which pisses away 20% of its national budget (~$600B) on DoD "toys for our boys", that is a travesty of Social Justice!
It is a fallacy to speak of the USA as a rich nation. There is 1% of the people which are rotten rich and many barely making it. America is divided between the wealthy corporations and financial class and the ordinary people who are struggling to make ends meet while their jobs are exported according to the rules of capitalism.
 
American workers should not have to follow a rule that they must compete with slave labor conditions as found in Asia.

When that "rule" is a fact of life in an increasingly Global Economy, then, yes, even American workers must observe it.

They don't "obey it", but that is precisely what competition is all about; a game of multiple entrants (players) where the best win typically based upon product pricing - in markets with little product differentiation.

There are rules, established by the World Trade Organization but the WTO has limited means to enforce them. The rules that exist allow multiple players who charge internal market-costs (plus a margin) on their export products. So far, China/India/Thailand/Etc. are doing just that, and are breaking no rules.

Of course, a country can refrain from entering the international market-game, and even block other players (with high import tariff barriers) from playing in their game. But that get's a nation what?

A higher-cost economy, where market consolidation produces "sticky-pricing" and lowered competition (as is indeed the case in the US today in many markets), where only the richer consumers can afford to purchase the products/services available ...

No one can fault American workmanship and product quality.

I agree, and made sure to say so in my comment.

That quality comes at a higher-price, for a select group of products/services. But the product/service is still worth the money it costs. No argument there ...
 
Last edited:
I said goodbye to about 26 people (6 personally, 20 through delegates), jobs went to india/vietnam. 1/3 cost is too much of a sirens call.
That, and in these industries, given our very diverse culture in the U.S., someone FROM india/vietnam has helped make the transition as part of their effort to "help their birth country". Everyone speaking English certain helps too, English speaking countries have an edge there too.

If liberals had a clue, they would consider pairing offshoring with justification for labor reform. Specifically, acknowledging that while offshoring is good for "the economy", (and the offshore country!), it's ****e for the U.S. worker, given our current system. And workers WANT to afford the U.S. economy lucrative offshoring, they just want something to help smooth out the ups and downs for workers. Better, they want something that enables those U.S. workers to better fill new jobs, faster, flexibility that will ALSO help the U.S. economy (as well as workers). I have not met non-execs who like offshoring in practice or principle. Decision makers usually don't like it either, but if the numbers are a no-brainer, good execs make the obvious call.

If you told them instead of being 100% win, and instead was 85% win, and 15% paid to job insurance/retraining...maybe there is a happy medium.
When you instead say "we're going to raise taxes on everyone for all these general issues, we think it may work!", it loses its meaning IMO and becomes bad-socialism.

It's my understanding that France hasn't been doing all that much outsourcing, I don't think they have experienced it like the U.S.
 
Back
Top Bottom