Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 77
  1.    #1  
    A new thread so I will stop running off topic in either threads lol

    Were Do you Think are Country is heading with lack off good paying jobs and border Control being the last thing on there list of must fixes in Washington.
  2. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #2  
    Well I am not sure why you feel there are a lack of good paying jobs, but I will say that border control is one of the few "must do, and must do it now" issues the country faces.

    One of the main reasons why Rome fell was because it could not control the borders of the empire.

    It is a solveable problem, as seen by efforts in El Paso and San Diego. The question I see is whether the country is ready to devote tens of thousands of personnel to secure the northern and southern border.

    In my mind, this is a no-brainer. It has to be done, if not only to protect the country, but also to protect those who attempt a dangerous crossing.

    Asking Mexico for help is useless. They can't even control their own southern border and do not have the resources, much less a desire, to address the issue.

    We need more border agents (alot more) and better pay. Bush has made some progress on the issue, in terms of increasing readiness of the BP under the auspices of the Dept. of Homeland Security - but he has not gone far enough.

    Until the technology catches up, we need the boots on the ground at the border.
  3.    #3  
    A great read below

    September 09, 2007

    American Economy: R.I.P.
    By Paul Craig Roberts

    [See also: National Data, Immigrant Displacement Of American Workers Booms Amid The Job Bust, By Edwin S. Rubenstein]

    The US economy continues its slow death before our eyes, but economists, policymakers, and most of the public are blind to the tottering fabled land of opportunity.

    In August jobs in goods-producing industries declined by 64,000. The US economy lost 4,000 jobs overall. The private sector created a mere 24,000 jobs, all of which could be attributed to the 24,100 new jobs for waitresses and bartenders, and the government sector lost 28,000 jobs.

    In the 21st century the US economy has ceased to create jobs in export industries and in industries that compete with imports. US job growth has been confined to domestic services, principally to food services and drinking places (waitresses and bartenders), private education and health services (ambulatory health care and hospital orderlies), and construction (which now has tanked). The lack of job growth in higher-productivity, higher-paid occupations associated with the American middle and upper middle classes will eventually kill the US consumer market.

    The unemployment rate held steady, but that is because 340,000 Americans unable to find jobs dropped out of the labor force in August. The US measures unemployment only among the active work force, which includes those seeking jobs. Those who are discouraged and have given up are not counted as unemployed.

    With goods producing industries in long-term decline as more and more production of US firms is moved offshore, the engineering professions are in decline. Managerial jobs are primarily confined to retail trade and financial services.

    Franchises and chains have curtailed opportunities for independent family businesses, and the US government’s open borders policy denies unskilled jobs to the displaced members of the middle class.

    When US companies offshore their production for US markets, the consequences for the US economy are highly detrimental. One consequence is that foreign labor is substituted for US labor, resulting in a shriveling of career opportunities and income growth in the US. Another is that US Gross Domestic Product is turned into imports. By turning US brand names into imports, offshoring has a double whammy on the US trade deficit. Simultaneously, imports rise by the amount of offshored production, and the supply of exportable manufactured goods declines by the same amount.

    The US now has a trade deficit with every part of the world. In 2006 (the latest annual data), the US had a trade deficit totaling $838,271,000,000.

    The US trade deficit with Europe was $142,538,000,000. With Canada the deficit was $75,085,000,000. With Latin America it was $112,579,000,000 (of which $67,303,000,000 was with Mexico). The deficit with Asia and Pacific was $409,765,000,000 (of which $233,087,000,000 was with China and $90,966,000,000 was with Japan). With the Middle East the deficit was $36,112,000,000, and with Africa the US trade deficit was $62,192,000,000.

    Public worry for three decades about the US oil deficit has created a false impression among Americans that a self-sufficient America is impaired only by dependence on Middle East oil. The fact of the matter is that the total US deficit with OPEC, an organization that includes as many countries outside the Middle East as within it, is $106,260,000,000, or about one-eighth of the annual US trade deficit.

    Moreover, the US gets most of its oil from outside the Middle East, and the US trade deficit reflects this fact. The US deficit with Nigeria, Mexico, and Venezuela is 3.3 times larger than the US trade deficit with the Middle East despite the fact that the US sells more to Venezuela and 18 times more to Mexico than it does to Saudi Arabia.

    What is striking about US dependency on imports is that it is practically across the board. Americans are dependent on imports of foreign foods, feeds, and beverages in the amount of $8,975,000,000.

    Americans are dependent on imports of foreign Industrial supplies and materials in the amount of $326,459,000,000—more than three times US dependency on OPEC.

    Americans can no longer provide their own transportation. They are dependent on imports of automotive vehicles, parts, and engines in the amount of $149,499,000,000, or 1.5 times greater than the US dependency on OPEC.

    In addition to the automobile dependency, Americans are 3.4 times more dependent on imports of manufactured consumer durable and nondurable goods than they are on OPEC. Americans no longer can produce their own clothes, shoes, or household appliances and have a trade deficit in consumer manufactured goods in the amount of $336,118,000,000.

    The US “superpower” even has a deficit in capital goods, including machinery, electric generating machinery, machine tools, computers, and telecommunications equipment.

    What does it mean that the US has a $800 billion trade deficit?

    It means that Americans are consuming $800 billion more than they are producing.

    How do Americans pay for it?

    They pay for it by giving up ownership of existing assets—stocks, bonds, companies, real estate, commodities. America used to be a creditor nation. Now America is a debtor nation. Foreigners own $2.5 trillion more of American assets than Americans own of foreign assets. When foreigners acquire ownership of US assets, they also acquire ownership of the future income streams that the assets produce. More income shifts away from Americans.

    How long can Americans consume more than they can produce?

    American over-consumption can continue for as long as Americans can find ways to go deeper in personal debt in order to finance their consumption and for as long as the US dollar can remain the world reserve currency.

    The 21st century has brought Americans (with the exception of CEOs, hedge fund managers and investment bankers) no growth in real median household income. Americans have increased their consumption by dropping their saving rate to the depression level of 1933 when there was massive unemployment and by spending their home equity and running up credit card bills. The ability of a population, severely impacted by the loss of good jobs to foreigners as a result of offshoring and H-1B work visas and by the bursting of the housing bubble, to continue to accumulate more personal debt is limited to say the least.

    Foreigners accept US dollars in exchange for their real goods and services, because dollars can be used to settle every country’s international accounts. By running a trade deficit, the US insures the financing of its government budget deficit as the surplus dollars in foreign hands are invested in US Treasuries and other dollar-denominated assets.

    The ability of the US dollar to retain its reserve currency status is eroding due to the continuous increases in US budget and trade deficits. Today the world is literally flooded with dollars. In attempts to reduce the rate at which they are accumulating dollars, foreign governments and investors are diversifying into other traded currencies. As a result, the dollar prices of the Euro, UK pound, Canadian dollar, Thai baht, and other currencies have been bid up. In the 21st century, the US dollar has declined about 33 percent against other currencies. The US dollar remains the reserve currency primarily due to habit and the lack of a clear alternative.

    The data used in this article is freely available. It can be found at two official US government sites: Bureau of Economic Analysis: U.S. International Transactions Accounts Data and Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail.

    The jobs data and the absence of growth in real income for most of the population are inconsistent with reports of US GDP and productivity growth. Economists take for granted that the work force is paid in keeping with its productivity. A rise in productivity thus translates into a rise in real incomes of workers. Yet, we have had years of reported strong productivity growth but stagnant or declining household incomes. And somehow the GDP is rising, but not the incomes of the work force.

    Something is wrong here. Either the data indicating productivity and GDP growth are wrong or Karl Marx was right that capitalism works to concentrate income in the hands of the few capitalists. A case can be made for both explanations.

    Recently an economist, Susan Houseman, discovered that the reliability of some US economics statistics has been impaired by offshoring. Houseman found that cost reductions achieved by US firms shifting production offshore are being miscounted as GDP growth in the US and that productivity gains achieved by US firms when they move design, research, and development offshore are showing up as increases in US productivity. Obviously, production and productivity that occur abroad are not part of the US domestic economy.

    Houseman’s discovery rated a Business Week cover story last June 18, [The Real Cost Of Offshoring, by Michael Mandel] but her important discovery seems already to have gone down the memory hole. The economics profession has over-committed itself to the “benefits” of offshoring, globalism, and the non-existent “New Economy.” Houseman’s discovery is too much of a threat to economists’ human capital, corporate research grants, and free market ideology.

    The media has likewise let the story go, because in the 1990s the Clinton administration and Congress overturned US policy in favor of a diverse and independent media and permitted a few mega-corporations to concentrate in their hands the ownership of the US media, which reports in keeping with corporate and government interests.

    The case for Marx is that offshoring has boosted corporate earnings by lowering labor costs, thereby concentrating income growth in the hands of the owners and managers of capital.

    According to Forbes magazine, the top 20 earners among private equity and hedge fund managers are earning average yearly compensation of $657,500,000, with four actually earning more than $1 billion annually. The otherwise excessive $36,400,000 average annual pay of the 20 top earners among CEOs of publicly-held companies looks paltry by comparison.

    The careers and financial prospects of many Americans were destroyed to achieve these lofty earnings for the few.

    Hubris prevents realization that Americans are losing their economic future along with their civil liberties and are on the verge of enserfment.
  4. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #4  
    I am not quite sure I understand what you are getting at though.

    You say there are a lack of "good paying jobs". The first thing that came to mind was the unemployment rate. The second thing that came to mind was the fact that hourly wages have been going up in this country for a long while now.

    I do like your article as it seems to raise several red flags that are in store for the economy, but it did little to address your concern of a lack of "good paying jobs".

    I offer the following article which, I think, addresses your concern. Perhaps we can use it as a starting point for more dialogue on the subject.

    The article is from the Universtiy of Virigina, but it uses data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics which, of course, deals with national job data.

    http://www3.ccps.virginia.edu/career...lary-high.html

    Take note that at the end of the article there is further reading about where job growth is expected to be.
  5.    #5  
    With all due respect to you gojeda Since you do make the most sense that Ive found in this forum the article you posted is bogus .It's a keep your eyes closed approach that many are under right now not realizing how much we owe verse how much we spend. America has just about sold it's worth and there will be consequences in the very near future for it's actions.The government has opened the border basically to illegals to do jobs that nobody want so they say.Thats a lie to smooth over the real problem of falling wages for many.
    I own a small Construction Company with 20 employees and find it hard keeping my business afloat due to those that cross the border and charge 50 to 60% less for the services and many of them end up sending those American Dollars back home south of the border.
    The money we spend gets sent were the goods we use are produced and very many of those goods are not made here.Look around your house and find 5 things made in america...you may be surprised.

    Americans are making less and Spending more...It's almost time for the USA to file Bankruptcy to offshore that owns us.
    Last edited by slingbox; 10/13/2007 at 03:09 PM.
  6. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #6  
    OK, so you are saying that illegal immigration are taking up more and more good paying jobs and shutting out Americans?

    I am trying to read you correctly here.

    You own a construction company of 20 employees and you are finding yourself competing against other construction companies that employ illegal immigrants and, thus, can charge 50 to 60% less for the same job?

    I gather that you employ Americans, correct?

    A valid concern, of course.

    But there are two sides of every story.

    The American who is a high-school graduate is either going to college, go to the military, or start working. I don't think any of them are going to go into the fields to pick oranges off the trees. The reasons for that are partly because there is plentiful cheap labor, the other reason for that is that Americans simply do not want those jobs.

    If Americans did want those jobs, then where are they?

    As with most things in life, there is good and bad. The good news is that consumerism not only keeps our economy going, it keeps the economy of many countries going as well. The bad news is that you need cheap labor to make it all happen.

    Americans do like their $35 DVD players. The Chinese love supplying them to us. Things like that only exist because of cheap labor.

    So, I suppose, it comes down to picking your poison.

    I should add that if we decide to rid ourselves of cheap labor, it might open up jobs for Americans, but it will drive up the cost of running your business as well.

    No easy answers here, that is for sure.
  7.    #7  
    Well it's good news that GM workers went on strike to keep there jobs in America and won.To bad they did that though.We might have been able to buy are GM cars a little cheaper or maybe not.It,s hard to buy a car if the jobs are sent overseas to fill the pockets of a few.Maybe your job will be sold offshore so it can be done cheaper and they can own your dollar as well.

    Picking oranges lol lol We might be picking them soon or we all could join the military or become doctors and nurses..Who needs free health care we can take care of are selves hmm I forgot that 99% of medical supply are made out of are country.
    Those darn Chinese need to stop making and supplying are food..I'm sick of hearing about food recalls darn it

    hmm heck were was I reading about american Defence Contractors were going to sell off the job to the chinese so they could build the programing..I will find the link..It's a great read as well for you will enjoy
    Last edited by slingbox; 10/13/2007 at 03:43 PM. Reason: hmm I will find the link
  8.    #8  
    A Flashback to 2005
    Exporting America: An Interview With Lou Dobbs

    News: The CNN anchor is mad as hell about offshore outsourcing and faith-based economics.

    Interviewed By Jeff Fleischer

    February 7, 2005



    When American manufacturing jobs headed overseas in the 1990s, supporters of tariff-free trade argued that newly unemployed workers could simply find jobs in the growing high-tech sector. Yet multinational corporations soon outsourced white-collar and service-industry jobs as well, with overseas labor fielding support questions from computer users, programming software, and even examining X-rays and MRI scans for American consumers.

    Outsourcing has found a fierce opponent in journalist Lou Dobbs. Since 2003, his CNN news show Lou Dobbs Tonight has featured a recurring segment in which Dobbs and his team report on corporations sending jobs overseas. He has compiled an online list of outsourcers, and recently wrote a book on the practice entitled Exporting America. Dobbs recently spoke with MotherJones.com about outsourcing and its effects, current and potential, on the American economy.


    MotherJones.com: When did the current outsourcing trend really begin in earnest?

    Lou Dobbs: It began really with the collapse of the telecom and communications bubble in 2000. The corporations took advantage of a digital universe to start moving jobs overseas to cheaper labor markets, and then expanded from there -- to what's now an estimated 400,000-500,000 jobs a year being exported to cheap overseas labor markets.

    Moving from the manufacturing offshoring to outsourcing was really a creation of the Internet; the bandwith made it all possible. And while the web-based companies and technology companies and telecommunications companies were obviously first with outsourcing, it's now expanded to nearly every industry in the country and the world.

    MJ.com: In your book, you also describe how state and local governments are now outsourcing. How did that start?

    LD: It's come about because state governments are being approached by the outsourcing facilitators, consultants and outsourcing companies themselves. We've reported extensively on a number of state governments whose outsourcing contracts are based in their unemployment divisions and departments of labor -- where, for example, people in Indiana at one point could call up their state unemployment office and be talking to someone in India about unemployment benefits -- denying citizens of Indiana a job to help citizens of Indiana. It becomes increasingly mind-boggling what's going on.

    MJ.com: Obviously, the most immediate cost of this outsourcing is the loss of people's jobs and livelihoods. What are some of the other long-term consequences?

    LD: Among the many consequences is the pain that is being felt by working men and women in this country, particularly our middle class. But the other impact is the transfer of technology and our knowledge base. We're exporting our privacy as well, because medical and financial records are being exported so that cheap overseas labor can work with those documents and records.

    Each time we transfer knowledge bases overseas, whether it be manufacturing or technology or research, that is a service that will obviously be performed by a competing economy -- whether emerging or not, a competing economy. And it is work that will not be done by the U.S. economy and our workers. The result is -- and this is at the margins at this point, but could grow to an increasingly larger share of the trade-deficit problem -- the result is further pressure on the U.S. economy.

    And a further impact in terms of labor is not just the loss of jobs. Study after study, survey after survey, shows that every job that replaces one that is outsourced pays approximately 20 percent less than the job that was exported overseas. So we have a continuing downward pressure on wages in this country. That has an impact on education because obviously that money's not available to the tax base that pays for education. It diminishes, in point of fact, the income-tax base for the federal government and state governments. So the impact is broad and it is deep.

    MJ.com: When asked about outsourcing during the presidential debates, George Bush talked about workers needing more education and more skills. But where will the jobs come from for them to use those skills?

    LD: That's a question I've been asking for two years. This faith-based economics that seems to be the hallmark of this administration is leading us into a no man's land of inexplicable possibilities. This administration -- and frankly, it's both parties, Democrats and Republicans as well as the administration -- seems indifferent to the impact of a trade deficit that now amounts to $4 trillion in external debt. We have to borrow nearly $3 billion a day to support it. The dollar has plummeted. And yet everyone keeps saying, "Free trade is good for you." I cannot find anyone for whom free trade is good.

    As we go deeper in debt, we continue to lose jobs and diminish our manufacturing base. Many people want to talk about our dependency on foreign oil, and it's a legitimate and real concern. But so is our dependency on the rest of the world for our clothing, our food, our computers and our consumer electronics. Our dependency isn't just on foreign oil; we can't even clothe ourselves. Free-trade economists will tell you we're a technology economy, but we don't even produce the technological components that are the foundation of a technology economy.

    MJ.com: What steps have overseas markets such as India and the Philippines taken to attract these jobs?

    LD: It's just a straightforward sales proposition: "Give us your business, whether it is Wall Street research, call centers or radiology, and we will provide the same service for one-tenth of what you're paying." It's impossible for an American worker to compete with that. It's not because the American worker is any less educated, because he or she is not. It's not because our workers are any less productive, because they're more productive. It's simply the labor-cost issues. In all the talk from the U.S multinationals, and the orthodoxy of business, government, academia and media, they're all using code words like "competitiveness," "productivity" and "efficiency." Those are simply code for "the cheapest possible labor."

    MJ.com: It seems there isn't as much debate about the merits of outsourcing as one might expect in politics and in the media. Why do you think that is?

    LD: Over the course of the past 20 years, there has been an absolute move to market-based economics. And there's a libertarian impulse to American politics right now, whether Democrat or Republican. That outlook, of course, means as little government as possible. What I'd like to see is a government that would actually be responsible for its citizens, who are workers as well as taxpayers, but that runs absolutely counter to the prevailing political notion, which is basically libertarian in foundation.

    MJ.com: How do you respond to the free-traders' argument that outsourcing is a short-term problem required for long-term economic growth?

    LD: Well, there's nothing short-term about 28 consecutive years of trade deficits. There's nothing short-term about a mounting external debt as a result of our reliance on imports -- an external debt that has reached $4 trillion. I see no basis whatsoever for the sophistry that's coming from some of the conservative think tanks and much of academia that says this is a short-term issue. This is real and present pain for literally millions of Americans, and a clear and present danger to an economy that has generated most of the wealth of the entire world over the past 50 years. We could be near the end of that role.

    MJ.com: Proponents of outsourcing also point to what they call "insourcing," with overseas companies opening factories here. Does that provide any hope?

    LD: It's an interesting semantic game that has been played in the free-trade debate. The Bush administration has created this expression of "insourcing" to counter arguments and concerns about outsourcing of American jobs to cheaper labor markets. When they talk about insourcing, they're really referring to foreign direct investment in this country. We can't even keep up with the Chinese government on foreign direct investment in this country; China has for the first time surpassed the United States in that regard.

    The Japanese car plants are here because Ronald Reagan -- who many of the so-called free traders hold up as a paragon of free trade -- demanded that those plants be created here if they were going to participate in our economy and enjoy the benefits of the world's largest consumer economy. That wasn't free trade; it was rational, balanced, reciprocal trade -- which is the course we should be pursuing right now, and which all of our trade partners are pursuing. We're the only nation in the world that just mindlessly opens our markets irrespective of the constraints on our own goods and services.

    MJ.com: You talk about the need for a balanced middle ground between protectionism and wide-open trade. What would be an ideal balance?

    LD: Overall, we're going to have trade deficits with a given country and a given economy. But we should not be borrowing money to support our consumption habits over the course of 28 years. The argument has been styled by the free-traders as opposition between economic isolationists and free trade. The fact is free trade isn't working, and nobody's talking about economic isolationism. We're talking about mutuality and balance in which we eliminate deficits and maintain vigorous, healthy trade with the world. But that requires that we have a manufacturing base and reduce our dependency on foreign oil, clothing and a host of other goods and services that we can no longer afford to import.

    MJ.com: Do you see a tipping point where the U.S. will have outsourced so many jobs that the economy becomes unsustainable?

    LD: The Federal Reserve did a study four years ago that demonstrated that any time a trade deficit rose above 5 percent of a national economy's GDP, an inflection point had been created. We are now approaching 6 percent of GDP. Obviously, I hope this does not result in crisis. That is, a debt crisis because of the amount of money we have to borrow from overseas to support our imports, nor a diminishment of our tax base through outsourcing to the point that jobs become so poor-paying that we can't maintain our tax base. But all of that is entirely possible unless people awaken to the dangers that are being posed. I know this is dull stuff for many people, to talk about external debt and currency devaluations. But the fact is, they're all in prospect if we do not reverse these mindless policies.

    MJ.com: What type of protections can the U.S. include in future trade agreements to place the American worker at less of a disadvantage?

    LD: To make the American worker more competitive, what we should really be talking about is preserving the American way of life. Environmental protection. Protection for our working men and women. That has built up over 100 years in this country, and we are simply at risk of losing all of those protections. As we should have with NAFTA, we should sign only agreements with protections on the environment and on labor. Either we have that with every trading partner, or we will be at a disadvantage.

    The ultimate extension of the free-trade policies that are being pursued is that not only will there be a race to the bottom for wages for working men and women, but we're also going to have to eradicate the "inconvenient" and uncompetitive environmental protections that allow us to drink clean water and breathe clean air. And, by the way, those nasty child-labor laws could be an encumbrance to competitiveness; maybe we should get rid of those as well. How far are we going to roll back the progress of the past century?

    MJ.com: If the federal government were suddenly to choose to fight outsourcing, what should it do?

    LD: The first issue is to stop the destruction of an American job. The principal issue I have with outsourcing is that American companies -- based in the United States, providing goods and services to the U.S. consumer economy -- are killing jobs in this country and sending them overseas to provide the same goods and services back to the U.S. economy. I have no problem if they want to invest and create a market in India or the Philippines or wherever. That's great, but don't kill an American job and put it in the hands of someone making one-tenth as much just to send that same good or service back to the United States. That's what's unique and different, and that's what has to be stopped. As far as ways to do it, we could do it with regulation. One would hope that before that, corporate America would find a conscience. But failing that, regulation is entirely necessary, I'm all for it, and my apologies to the libertarians.

    MJ.com: What about those jobs already shipped overseas? Could some of those come back?

    LD: Some of those jobs are already coming back, because companies are finding that despite whatever huge labor savings [the gain], there are also hidden costs, including the quality of the programming that's being done. For example, the quality of the code work that's being done by programmers in a number of the cheap labor markets, including India. Indian workers are remarkable people, highly entrepreneurial and well-educated, but they still cannot compete with American programmers where it's a matter of quality instead of cost. There's also a bit of a backlash now on the export of these jobs on the part of consumers. And my guess is that backlash is going to rise, and there will be economic costs as a result.

    MJ.com: It seems like you've been more active about outsourcing than probably any other issue during your years as a journalist. Why has this issue gotten you so involved?

    LD: Because at a time when this economy needed to be growing jobs, we were exporting jobs. At a time of economic downturn, we were raising the U.S. trade deficit even further. And the sophistry of the free-trade orthodoxy -- talking about how uneducated Americans are, how unproductive and incapable of competing -- just frankly rankles the hell out of me. We were smart enough in the 90s to generate 22 million new jobs. Did we, in the course of four years, become so stupid, so lazy and so unproductive, or did something else change? I maintain something else changed, and that was policies that permitted destructive business practices like outsourcing, and a continuation of free-trade policies that are leading to greater trade deficits and greater indebtedness on the part of the United States. We simply cannot sustain the path we're on.


    Jeff Fleischer is an editorial fellow at MotherJones.com.
  9. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by slingbox View Post
    Well it's good news that GM workers went on strike to keep there jobs in America and won.To bad they did that though.
    It can be said that if the workers did not reach the agreement that they did, there would not be a GM to go back to.

    We might have been able to buy are GM cars a little cheaper or maybe not.It,s hard to buy a car if the jobs are sent overseas to fill the pockets of a few.Maybe your job will be sold offshore so it can be done cheaper and they can own your dollar as well.
    Are cars that expensive really? I mean, I can buy a Chevy Cobalt or Ford Focus for around $12,500, with air, out the door, for example.

    Perfectly good and clean transportation, no?

    Ahhh....but the problem is Americans don't want Chevy Cobalts. They want that $38,000 SUV they can't really afford, or they want that $450,000 house they can't maintain.

    (Mind you, if you can afford it - all the more power to you).

    So on and so forth....

    A lot of irresponsibility when it comes to personal finances in this country IMO.

    Picking oranges lol lol We might be picking them soon or we all could join the miltary or become doctors and nurses.
    Damn, all this talk of orange pickin' makes me want to indulge in a nice tall glass of OJ.
  10.    #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    It can be said that if the workers did not reach the agreement that they did, there would not be a GM to go back to.



    Are cars that expensive really? I mean, I can buy a Chevy Cobalt or Ford Focus for around $12,500, with air, out the door, for example.

    Perfectly good and clean transportation, no?

    Ahhh....but the problem is Americans don't want Chevy Cobalts. They want that $38,000 SUV they can't really afford, or they want that $450,000 house they can't maintain.

    (Mind you, if you can afford it - all the more power to you).

    So on and so forth....

    A lot of irresponsibility when it comes to personal finances in this country IMO.



    Damn, all this talk of orange pickin' makes me want to indulge in a nice tall glass of OJ.
    hmm you do realise that car sales have fallen dramatically in the last 4 months don't you.They cant get the darn things off the lots lol
    And yes oranges lol We can out source that as well and buy it cheaper...We would just have to keep are ears open for recalls
    Last edited by slingbox; 10/13/2007 at 04:11 PM.
  11. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by slingbox View Post
    hmm you do realise that car sales have fallen dramatically in the last 4 months don't you.They cant get the darn things off the lots lol
    Even more of a reason for the UAW to work with GM and Chrysler. The UAW will have to do the same with Ford.

    There is really no reason for the domestics to pay significantly more than what the foreign brands pay Americans workers here at their US plants (in some cases, 50% more for the same job). I think the UAW realized that the gravy train was unsustainable.

    But now that the unions have done their part, it is up to these companies to do what they need to become lean-and-mean and snap up sales. I hope they can pull it off.

    The good news is that the big three have profitable operations overseas. That should give some hope that the domestics should be able to compete for the North American market.
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by slingbox View Post
    hmm you do realise that car sales have fallen dramatically in the last 4 months don't you.They cant get the darn things off the lots lol
    And yes oranges lol We can out source that as well and buy it cheaper...We would just have to keep are ears open for recalls
    I saw a report on the news the other day dealing with apples. The report said that most apple juice contains concentrate from China.

    Thanks for the articles slingbox. Glad to see all of us here in the U.S. arn't asleep.
    Iago

    "Good name in man and woman, dear my lord, Is the immediate jewel of their souls: Who steals my purse steals trash . . . But he that filches from me my good name Robs me of that which not enriches him
    And makes me poor indeed."


    Criminal: A person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation.
    - Howard Scott
  13.    #13  
    I would have never thought 20 years ago a Republican like myself would ever be happy about a union stepping up lol...We need more of them lol
    I'm Glad the union stepped up and kept jobs here.
    President Reagan was the best there ever was.Im sure hes looking down at us with sadness.
    Were just about sold out.
    Last edited by slingbox; 10/13/2007 at 04:45 PM.
  14. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by slingbox View Post
    I would have never thought 20 years ago a Republican like myself would ever be happy about a union stepping up lol...We need more of them lol.
    Well, I dont think they had much of a choice in the matter.

    Whatever the case, though, the burden is now with the automakers to "produce".
  15.    #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Well, I dont think they had much of a choice in the matter.

    Whatever the case, though, the burden is now with the automakers to "produce".
    Agreed A few problems though..
    They tried to take jobs out of America to produce product elsewhere at cheaper cost to compete.This ripple is being felt in every product available on the market from are friendly China toothpaste to are mexican Plasma Tv,s.Why in the heck would business want to stay in America when they have to pay the worker more topping that off with paying more taxes .The free Trade Agreement opened a Path that will only become more anti productive for America as a whole and the repercussions have been in play for some time.The Lobbyist own this country and have plenty of money to buy that vote....Were do they get that money from???? The answer is us.We buy there outsourced product..They make more money then buy that vote with campaign contributions.
    This is being done by Democrats and Republicans Representatives alike.
    In the year of 1995 there was about 7800 lobbyist and now that number has grown to 23800...There is lots of money to go around.....just not in the US economy.
    Last edited by slingbox; 10/13/2007 at 08:17 PM. Reason: have have
  16.    #16  
    Were in the heck is moderateinny
    Hes the one that recommend me to start this thread yesterday.I need his input on this subject.
    gojeda you scared him away
  17. #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Well I am not sure why you feel there are a lack of good paying jobs,
    Probably THE FACTS. America is losing good paying, life-long manufacturing jobs and the only jobs increasing in numbers are low paying service industry jobs.

    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    but I will say that border control is one of the few "must do, and must do it now" issues the country faces.

    One of the main reasons why Rome fell was because it could not control the borders of the empire.

    It is a solveable problem, as seen by efforts in El Paso and San Diego. The question I see is whether the country is ready to devote tens of thousands of personnel to secure the northern and southern border.

    In my mind, this is a no-brainer. It has to be done, if not only to protect the country, but also to protect those who attempt a dangerous crossing.

    Asking Mexico for help is useless. They can't even control their own southern border and do not have the resources, much less a desire, to address the issue.

    We need more border agents (alot more) and better pay. Bush has made some progress on the issue, in terms of increasing readiness of the BP under the auspices of the Dept. of Homeland Security - but he has not gone far enough.

    Until the technology catches up, we need the boots on the ground at the border.
    Service industry jobs whose wages are being driven down even lower by the hiring of illegal immigrant labor.

    Two things need to happen,
    1) we need a new "Buy American" incentive in our country. Middle America shopping at Wal-Mart are selling their futures for cheaper consumerism crap.

    2) Employers need to face enforced fines & jail time for hiring illegal immigrant labor.
  18. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Probably THE FACTS. America is losing good paying, life-long manufacturing jobs and the only jobs increasing in numbers are low paying service industry jobs.
    The erosion of the manufacturing base (which, by the way, is not endemic to the United States) has been occuring because cheaper foreign goods (read 'from Asia') are made available to us...and we buy them

    That is capitalism...for better or worse.

    However, the loss of those well paying manufacturing jobs have not offset the creation of other high-paying jobs in the knowledge sector. This is why the average hourly wage has been consistently going up.

    The fact of the matter is that, yes, there have been instances where an American has lost out on a job that went to an immigrant.

    However, let us not forget that 50 year old middle manager is going to have a much harder time finding a job than the business grad out of college who is here on a student visa.

    Over the last 20 years, the unemployment rate in this country has remained steady, DESPITE a massive influx of immigrants. Some economists have said that, if it were not for this massive influx of immigrants, there would be even MORE offshoring than there is.

    So there is no definitive yes or no answer here. I would probably say the problems of jobs and immigration is a regionalized issue as well.

    Two things need to happen,
    1) we need a new "Buy American" incentive in our country. Middle America shopping at Wal-Mart are selling their futures for cheaper consumerism crap.
    Whether it is right or wrong - the fact is Middle America will go to places where they are, or feel like they are, saving money.

    "Buy America" isn't going to cut it either. I do try to buy American when I can, but I, and I am guessing not many other consumers, are going to pay 20% more for a TV than one from Korea.

    Retail is a cuthroat world.

    By the way, let me rant here for a moment

    [rant]
    It was only recently I bought my first foreign car, which happens to be Korean made.

    Why? No - it wasn't because it was better, or cheaper. What I really wanted to buy was American because I like and prefer American cars.

    So why didn't I?

    Because I am *pissed* off that Detroit automakers only offer 3/36 bumper to bumper warranties, while my Hyundai comes with a 5/60.

    And guess what....if Detroit doesn't start introducing 5/60 warranties across their lineup, I will get another Hyundai.

    So it wasn't a question of price, or quality, but more to do with Detroit being lazy and not reacting properly to the competition. No wonder they are getting fleeced.

    Well, they had better wake up and wake up soon.
    [/rant]


    2) Employers need to face enforced fines & jail time for hiring illegal immigrant labor.
    This I agree with 100%.
  19. #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post

    That is capitalism...for better or worse.
    No, that is unrestricted global capitalism. My point is good paying middle-working class jobs are being replaced in this country with low paying service industry jobs. There has to be some protectionism for the American manufacturing industry. Part of that can begin with our daily purchases and yes, if widget A costs $3 and widget B is $4 but made in the U.S. you darn well should be buying widget B.
  20. #20  
    Sling, on the political front, I think you're casting guilt where it does not belong where it comes to China and the US.

    What began under Reagan in 1985, the trade deficit with China has more than tripled from 2000 thru 2006. The US debt held by China only continues to fuel the national debt horror we face which was 64% of GDP in 2006.

    Source: http://www.treas.gov/tic/external-debt.html
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions