We are losing jobs to folks who make (for example in some Central American countries) a per-capital income (nationwide) of $100 a MONTH; and my heart is supposed to go out to some high school dropout machine operator in Toledo who is paid that much (not counting benefits) BEFORE LUNCH each day, and who insists that his union get him even more to do a job that a monkey with some minimal training could do.
Give me a friggin' break........
--- In Dems2008@yahoogroups.com, "rightdemocrat" <rightdemocrat@...> wrote:
>
> This list serve seems to be the last stronghold of Democratic pro-free
> trade sentiment. I can understand supporting free trade in the 90's.
> After all, everyone was going to get a good-paying, hi-tech job but
> then we found that even the tech jobs can be outsourced overseas. We
> now a record trade deficit that dropped a litle recently because the
> dollar's value crashed and Americans cannot afford to buy as many of
> the cheap Chinese goods.
>
> Free trade policies probably benefited our nation in the post-WWII era
> when American was producing and exporting much of the big ticket items
> but the world has changed. Foreign competition and cheap labor are
> destroying the American middle class. And we have more of a disconnect
> between what is good for the top five percent and Wall Street and the
> rest of us. There will always be a lot of wealth in America but we are
> becoming far more of a class fixed society and offer increasingly less
> opportunity for those born into more modest circumstances.
>
> We continue to lose manufacturing jobs and drift toward a service
> economy of haves and have nots. Is anybody out there worried about the
> national security implications of having no industrial base left ? I
> know Wall Street and the economics departments (who generally have an
> ideological bias toward unregulated free markets) still like free trade
> but is the average person benefiting ? No way.
>
>
> --- In Dems2008@yahoogroups.com, "citation502" citation502@ wrote:
> >
> >
> > * no more-frequently recurring logical fallacy than the tendency
> to
> > infer that because something happened AFTER a particular event it was
> > the RESULT of that prior event
> > * NAFTA did not cost this country a single job; in fact, job
> creation
> > exploded (more than 18 million new jobs added during the remainder of
> > the Clinton administration)
> > * We have lost jobs for many reasons (200K in Ohio alone since the
> > year 2000), and we will continue to lose them unless we "get real"
> about
> > America and its workers' changed roles in a highly competitive world
> > economy; but NAFTA is not one of those causes, though it is a
> > convenient way to divert attention from the real causes
> >
>
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder