• 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!

Manufacturing jobs - Read post before voting!

Suggestion on gaining more manufacturing plants within the US a good idea?

  • Total voters
    27
haymarket said:
It would not hurt us one iota if we had the courage to enforce the provisions of the US Constitution regarding tariffs.
Click to expand...

Smoot-Hawley.
 
phattonez said:
Smoot-Hawley.
Click to expand...

So what? People get the squirts every day from eating a bad taco but they still enjoy the good ones for the rest of their lives. This idea that the right wing has that all they need is the name of ONE bad experience from eighty years ago to negate the tariff is a testimonial to the simple mindedness of their approach and beliefs.

We would not have to worry about companies taking their act on the road if we merely used the very powers that the Constitution provides the Congress with. Or don't you conservatives support your sainted founders in that provision of your beloved Constitution?
 
phattonez said:
You're basically arguing that the US would lose all of its jobs. A question: why would all of these companies leave the great productive capabilities of the individuals of this nation unused?
Click to expand...

Not all of its jobs no. But we are not talking about all jobs. We are talking about manufacturing jobs. And that we would lose. We cannot afford to lose manufacturing jobs. The only ones that would stay in the US are the small ones that can't afford to go overseas.
 
phattonez said:
You're basically arguing that the US would lose all of its jobs. A question: why would all of these companies leave the great productive capabilities of the individuals of this nation unused?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I didnt answer your question. The answer is really simple. Corporations don't give a crap about productive capabilities near as much as they care about the bottom line and money. If when all is accounted for it (accounting for everything..including grants and subsidies) costs X amount of dollars to produce something in the US and it costs Z amount of dollars to produce something in China and Z < X where do you think they are going to go?
 
Kal'Stang said:
What corporation wouldn't find it beneficial to go over seas once they lost subsidies and grants from the federal government? Especially if those other countries offered em?
Click to expand...

ones that benefited from having more productive workers, for example.

a good example in an excellent article (though long) that I would recomend to all who are truly interested in the topic under debate in this thread:

...service-oriented, in-person jobs of the sort that are really hard or impossible to outsource to China or India, where the cost of labor is low. Or to Germany, where the cost of labor is even lower. (That’s another one of those counterintuitive economics things: Germany and Japan have high wages, but the cost of labor is not wages, it is wages relative to output. A German factory worker may earn $80,000 a year while a Chinese factory worker earns $4,000, but if the German produces $1 million worth of BMW bumpers a year while the Chinese guy produces $10,000 worth of flip-flops, the German is cheaper: You’re paying him only 8 cents on the dollar, while you’re paying the Chinese 40 cents on the dollar. The German inexplicably does not feel exploited to make only one-fifth of what his coddled Developing World competitor earns. Strangely, the Chinese guy probably wishes he were exploited as ruthlessly as that poor German. Executive Summary: Economics is hard.)
Click to expand...

Sure, lower costing goods..but that is not all. Other countries also offer the same types of subsidies and grant monies that the US currently offers. With your plan they would have extra incentive to move outside the US than they currently have.
Click to expand...

okay. so the plan is that we allow other countries to give us goods that actually cost more than what they are selling them for? And this is bad because..... we don't like having our standard of living raised?
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
Not all of its jobs no. But we are not talking about all jobs. We are talking about manufacturing jobs. And that we would lose. We cannot afford to lose manufacturing jobs. The only ones that would stay in the US are the small ones that can't afford to go overseas.
Click to expand...

Why can't we?
 
cpwill said:
ones that benefited from having more productive workers, for example.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying here is that the workers in this country are more productive than those in other countries?

cpwill said:
a good example in an excellent article (though long) that I would recomend to all who are truly interested in the topic under debate in this thread:
Click to expand...

Ok read that whole article and quite frankly it sounded more like a rant against government and regulation than anything else. It even made it sound as if regulations to keep the environment clean is a bad thing....which I suppose if you look at it directly from the POV of the business it is. But its not very good when you're talking about society as a whole huh?.....unless you like breathing smog and acid rain. About the only salient part in the whole thing was what you quoted, and thats just business 101 stuff.



cpwill said:
okay. so the plan is that we allow other countries to give us goods that actually cost more than what they are selling them for? And this is bad because..... we don't like having our standard of living raised?
Click to expand...

No. The plan is to create wealth for this country. You do not create wealth for a country as a whole from the service industry. It takes both service and manufacturing to do that.
 
cpwill said:
well, that about sums this debate up :)
Click to expand...

Why do you intentionally engage in intellectual fraud and outright misrepresentation instead of meeting a post head on and speaking to its relevant points?

regarding the Smoot Hawley tariff - or rather the mere invocation of its name by some person here... her is what I said in its ENTIRETY

So what? People get the squirts every day from eating a bad taco but they still enjoy the good ones for the rest of their lives. This idea that the right wing has that all they need is the name of ONE bad experience from eighty years ago to negate the tariff is a testimonial to the simple mindedness of their approach and beliefs.

We would not have to worry about companies taking their act on the road if we merely used the very powers that the Constitution provides the Congress with. Or don't you conservatives support your sainted founders in that provision of your beloved Constitution?
Click to expand...

Care to speak to that.... if you can?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Because it is manufacturing jobs which creates wealth for a country. It is manufacturing jobs which also allow a country to be more independant...as opposed to reliant.
Click to expand...

Management does not produce wealth? Then why are they paid so much more than the blue collar workers on a free market?
 
phattonez said:
Management does not produce wealth? Then why are they paid so much more than the blue collar workers on a free market?
Click to expand...

They produce wealth on an individual/company basis. They do not create wealth on a national level.

Edit note: please note the difference between "produce wealth" and "create wealth".
 
Everybody with sound mind will want that the US jobs will continue to stay in the States, except some liberals.
 
Alfons said:
Everybody with sound mind will want that the US jobs will continue to stay in the States, except some liberals.
Click to expand...

that makes no sense on any level.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Need your opinion on this idea. Hopefully it would bring more manufacturing jobs back into the US.

It is well known that the federal government gives subsidies and grants to corporations for researching various forms of technology. Then once those corporations discover something useful it is often sent across the border or over seas to manufacturing plants to produce en masse. (not saying all of em do...just a good majority). So here is my proposal.

Make a law/rule/regulation...whatever you want to call it...that states that any corporation or organization that uses any form of government assistence would be required to manufacture any and all types of products that was discovered with said assistance inside US borders for X amount of years. (at least 20 imo)

So what do you think? Feel free to give suggestions that would expand on this idea. :)
Click to expand...

Corporate welfare is not a legitimate government function. Instead of subsidies and grants, we need to allow maximum opportunities for everybody to do things for themselves. That is the foundation of America.

How do we do this?

First, we must have a simple, fair tax structure and low tax rates.

Second, we must minimize regulations and mandates. Most of these, especially the ones of the last 30 years are unnecessary and counterproductive. Repeal them.

Third, the most important things government can do to promote industry and development are basically to leave things alone and get out of the way. This applies to all levels--federal, state and local.

Tariffs and embargoes are counterproductive. Don't.
 
Kal'Stang said:
They produce wealth on an individual/company basis. They do not create wealth on a national level.

Edit note: please note the difference between "produce wealth" and "create wealth".
Click to expand...

But individuals and companies make up a nation. I don't understand this distinction you're making.

Actually I do, but I'm of the opinion that it's an utterly unimportant differentiation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom