You are absolutely right but just how many business owners can afford to remain in business when their competition has an advantage of labor costs that are 1/10 of what you must pay. I couldn't. I decided instead to close my business down after 25 years and move on rather than try to deal with the headaches of an offshore labor force. I just didn't have the desire or capital needed to compete in that arena.
ide quoted text -
Nothing like overstating your case to make a point, eh?
That is true when you take the long term view but short term results can also cause substantial damage when the cost disparity between nations is so great that it causes huge movements of jobs in short periods of time.
It has everything to do with your point. Greedy business owners, mostly Republicans, are what you claim created the loss of jobs. Those business owners must have a sense of greed or they will surely fail. But as much as you seem to hate them you need them and would be the first to complain if they did not exist. Because without them you would not have a job. I can also guess that you don't have the desire to become one of them because you are lacking in one or more ways.
But its NOT slave labor, not even close to slave labor for those countries. You are talking about countries where the bulk of the population makes less per year than many of us make per hour. To them, a $3 dollar a day job is a huge increase in pay. Some of the highest paid employees in offshore industries such as systems development make something like $5,000 to $6,000 per year and are rich by comparison to the population of their countries. I made twice that as a systems developer over 40 years ago so to me, their salaries sound like slave labor too but so would my salary of 40 years ago if I had to live on it today.
The view isn't so much idealistic as it is a long term view. There are plenty of examples of that point with Japan being the most evident in my lifetime. Japan used to be the low cost manufacturing capital but over a period of 40-50 years they saw labor rates increase to where they are now on par with the US. India and China are two of today's low cost sources but they are also seeing a huge demand for wage increases that over the next 40-50 years will bring them to the same level. It is already occuring in some areas and will increase as their populations (like China) increase their consumption from their increased employment and personal wealth.
As much as I may find the rapid Globalization of our jobs to be painful and damaging, I also realize that the long term result will be good for all. What I would like to see is a more balanced and managed globalization. I am not sure how we would go about management of it without destroying it in the process based on the traditional tendancy of governments to over-react.
Hide quoted text -
Overstatement...you bet but it isn't too far from what some people seem to think.
.- Hide quoted text -
The other thing the Walmart bashers and those that complain about jobs lost to cheaper foreign products forget is that there is another side to the equation. And that is that consumers spend a huge amount less for those products because they are being imported from low cost suppliers. If Walmart paid $5 an hour more, but their workers had to pay $50 for a shirt or $25 for a hammer, would they really be better off?
I think that last point about being more balanced is the thing. It needs to be at a slower pace.
Well, you know what they say when you assume something you don't know. I was a business owner for over 25 years. I am "one of them". I'm just not one of the greedy ones that think that no amount of money is ever enough.
When I read Hayley Barbour (R) congratulating himself about how the Republicans were the "real" civil rights champions during the 60's and then proceeded to lie his fool head off about his education record, I realized that truth has nothing to do with the deep rifts appearing in our society. But the lack of truth has everything to do with it.
Everyone seems to believe all that "wealth" was lost in the last big meltdown but that's not true. Much of it went to the top 1% of the population. The demographics are clear - the money is all going to a very few people at the top of the food chain, so much so that no one has money left to buy goods and services.
The middle class is being beaten down mercilessly and instead of trying to correct that trend, certain political parties are promoting divisive social issues to keep our eyes off the ball (financial and political reform). They like things just they way they are, although the rest of us are suffering.
Wal-mart is blamed, certainly, but the exodus of US jobs was visible to everyone. Low prices at Wal-mart made people think they had more money (although earning have stagnated horribly in the last 10 years). I've seen the reports from CA about how Wal-mart employees use food stamps and gov't health benefits more than others, but the choice may be "work at Wal-mart or instead live *completely* on gov't handouts." In a comparison like that, people having at least entry-level jobs at Wal-mart doesn't seem like such a bad idea. Another reason the benefits are low is that they hire seniors and part-timers already drawing some sort of government assistance before they came to Wal-mart. Nothing is ever as simple as it seems, especially when politics is involved.
I read a fascinating story about how Chicago was born, mostly from investments from wealthy New Yorkers who wanted access to the growing midwest. Very little attention was paid to things like clean water, building codes, urban planning and livable housing. The results were very predictable: cholera outbreaks, locomotives running at street level all the way into the city (at one point, 2 people a day were being killed or mangled in RR accidents) and, of course, the Great Fire.
Business has its role in our society, but government does too. The Federal government acts as a counterbalance to the sometimes very bad acts by greedy businessmen. For all the hooting and hollering about socialist Roosevelt, there's not an economist in the world that will say this latest crash wasn't softened at least a little because we still had some protections, like the FDIC, in place. I would rather have seen the SEC put Madoff down fast and quick, before he put SIPC and a lot of other on the hook for his crimes. We pay for all the criminality, one way or another. Wall Streeters will insist that ANY regulation is bad - until THEY are the ones defrauded by a failure to regulate. Then it's "Daddy, daddy, bail me out!"
-- Bobby G.
In other words, you failed, as I predicted one would without a sense of greed.
Of course the GOP was, at least in the 60s. For the Civil Rights Act of '64, the GOP was the only reason it was passed. The original House version: ? Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%39%) ? Republican Party: 138-34 (80%20%) Cloture in the Senate: ? Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%34%) ? Republican Party: 27-6 (82%18%) The Senate version: ? Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%31%) ? Republican Party: 27-6 (82%18%)
Humphrey and Johnson publicly thanked Dirkson and said without his support it never would have happened. Of course that was 50 years ago.
:
...- Hide quoted text -
The original assumption regarding the Walmart products were that they were both low priced and of lower quality. The old saying of you get what you payed for was thought to apply and in many cases that was true. You want quality you don't go to Walmart and you pay more for it. That is no longer the case just as it is no longer the case that "Made in Japan" equates to cheap low quality products. This is also becoming true of many of the "cheap" products that are made in China. So no, just paying more for something at a high price store or because it was "Made in USA" doesn't mean thay anyone is going to be better off. This is really what is causing all the pain. We can't automatically say that just because its made in China, India, Japan or Mexico that it doesn't stand the quality test. We, the American worker is either going to have to match the costs based on productivity or we must produce a better product worth the extra price.
Neither was I but sometimes I think I should have been. Then again, I have always slept well at night knowing that I did what was right.
I'm a believer in the free market. Democrats are well known for regulating the life out of everything. The latest over regulation known as the health care bill is going to be major problems.
Wasn't it during the Clinton era when Congress forced the banks to make all kinds of loans to minorities who couldn't pay the loans back?
Anyone who survives for over 25 years in any business isn't a failure. I also disagree that the successful business is one built on greed.
On the radio today, Nancy Pelosi was saying how they won't continue the tax cuts for the rich. After all, repealing the tax cuts wouldn't create any jobs. And the tax cuts were contributing to the deficits.
I managed not to yell at the radio. What a socialist, doesn't think that taxing the rich reduces employment. And she blames the rich for the deficit, instead of blaming "her" congress for writing too much spending bills. If she and her type stay in office, this country is doomed.
Sadly, the Democrats applaud your decision. They hate American business.
That's gotta be the dumbest thing I've seen you post. I've always considered you a pretty smart feller but... wow, that's a whopper.
legroups.com...
Correct. I let my business fail because I paid more attention to taking care of my wife after her head injury eight years ago than taking care of business. But it still took eight years and a world financial crisis to put me out of business. I know it was bad business to do that but I sleep well at night knowing I have my priorities strait.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.