What's the end result of the US job drain?

[:) Smiley]

Jon you raise a good point, Bush is conquering the mideast to secure the US economic future in selling oil. The US does have an artificially high standard of living as it is, and that comes from getting out more than it puts in through exploiting the rest of the world.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ned
To the extent that United States wants these jobs back, the United States itself must be more competitive in all areas. Particular attention should be paid the corporate income taxes, the environmental laws, payroll taxes, the strength of unions and the minimum wage laws.

Ah yes, the Republican mantra for job creation:
1) cut corporate taxes and increase the debt, or cut funds for useless government programs like healthcare, social security, investment in infrastructure, etc.
2) Get rid of environmental laws so that companies that pollute third world nations will move back to the States and pollute your backyard.
3) Cut payroll taxes, starting with taxes on the rich.
4) Squash the unions so that workers are kept in their place and companies have more free reign to ignore pesky issues like workplace health and safety.
4) Cut the minimum wage so that the US can compete directly with China's $1 a day wages. People will be dirt poor, but they'll be working.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ned
Many countries offer tax holidays to incent businesses to locate their factories there. This practice ended three decades ago in the United States.

Hardly. Local and state governments give between US$30 - $50 billion in tax breaks every year to attract businesses that all too often take off once the corporate welfare ends.

From the NY Times
"There is no official data on how much is distributed in subsidies across the country. Alan Peters, a professor of urban planning at the University of Iowa, and one or two other academics have tried to estimate the total loss of city and state tax revenue through abatements, lower income taxes, outright payments, training grants, wage subsidies and the like. Their estimates start at $30 billion a year and range up to $50 billion, with Mr. Peters putting the number somewhere in the $40 billions, based on a recent survey of tax expenditures.

"It seems like almost every state is giving away grandmother, grandfather, the family jewels, you name it, everything," Mr. Peters said. The anecdotal evidence of the escalating bidding war is greater than the statistical, he said.

See:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/10/business/10STAT.html?hp

[CerberusIV]

There are two possible responses.

Either global pollution agreements so that the countries that have become refuges for polluting industries apply reasonably high standards and costs in those countries increase towards US/European levels,

Or levy tariffs. Give them a set period of time to introduce pollution control and allow unions, pensions, etc and then introduce tariffs on imports from non-complying countries.

The first option probably went out the window when the US walked away from Kyoto. There is unlikely to be much interest in global pollution control measures when a country that has the resources and technology to act declines to do so.

The second option will be difficult because the companies that profit from relocating jobs out of the US also fund politicians.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Smiley
Jon you raise a good point, Bush is conquering the mideast to secure the US economic future in selling oil. The US does have an artificially high standard of living as it is, and that comes from getting out more than it puts in through exploiting the rest of the world.

Not according to many of the posters here. They say that in their countries there is an equal or better standard of living than the US.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Ah yes, the Republican mantra for job creation:
1) cut corporate taxes and increase the debt, or cut funds for useless government programs like healthcare, social security, investment in infrastructure, etc.
2) Get rid of environmental laws so that companies that pollute third world nations will move back to the States and pollute your backyard.
3) Cut payroll taxes, starting with taxes on the rich.
4) Squash the unions so that workers are kept in their place and companies have more free reign to ignore pesky issues like workplace health and safety.
4) Cut the minimum wage so that the US can compete directly with China's $1 a day wages. People will be dirt poor, but they'll be working.

Now where am I heard this before? Standard Democrat demagoguery. With this kind of thinking, there is no possibility of rational discussion, is there? Yet that this is all we hear from the left, either this or screams for protectionism whenever United States competitive position in the world is discussed.

[Ned]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
There are two possible responses.

Either global pollution agreements so that the countries that have become refuges for polluting industries apply reasonably high standards and costs in those countries increase towards US/European levels,

Or levy tariffs. Give them a set period of time to introduce pollution control and allow unions, pensions, etc and then introduce tariffs on imports from non-complying countries.

The first option probably went out the window when the US walked away from Kyoto. There is unlikely to be much interest in global pollution control measures when a country that has the resources and technology to act declines to do so.

The second option will be difficult because the companies that profit from relocating jobs out of the US also fund politicians.

You been listening to candidate Dean. He essentially wants to bring the world up to US standards before we trade with them. Given that it has taken literally scores of decades for the US to get where it is today, if Dean were President we probably would have a global collapse of trade.

And don't hold your breath about countries like China and India raising their environmental standards to the United States level, allowing strong unions, creating a welfare state, or raising the minimum wage to US standards. If one imposes tariffs until they do, all we do is crippled trade which is certainly exactly what the anti-globalists want. It appears that Dean has signed up to anti-globalists agenda lock, stock and barrel.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ned
there is no possibility of rational discussion, is there?

When Republicans are in the discussion, you're right.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Tingkai

When Republicans are in the discussion, you're right.

Well your attitude certainly seems typical of most Democrats. Very few, if any, discuss issues with Republicans. They simply bash them with smears and false charges.

The surprising thing is that until recently, Repulicans simply stood there, like dear in the headlights, and provided no response. Well, that era is over. The smear politics of Democrats has become an issue by itself.

[CerberusIV]

Originally posted by Ned


You been listening to candidate Dean.

Never heard anything he is saying. My views are my own on this.

If you want a US/Euro standard of living that means protecting and developing the economy that supports it, by whatever means. If you think the way China/India do things is the way forward go and live there.

As for pollution it travels and doesn't stop at immigration. Either everyone eventually comes up to a reasonable standard, with carrot and stick encouragement, or we all take the consequences.

[Imran Siddiqui]

In 5 years, the US economy will be in a boom period, Lancer. Jobs growth will be nice (maybe not 90s nice, but nice none the less), and as always new technology (in whatever region of the economy) will drive it.

Remember, capital intensive employers look at productivity of workers over the cost of workers.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ned
The surprising thing is that until recently, Repulicans simply stood there, like dear in the headlights, and provided no response.

You mean like Nixon? Let's face it, the Republicans have always used smear tactics, and they love getting down and dirty campaigns. Their standard tactic is to scare the voters.

Besides, look at this thread. You made outlandish claims that were shown to be false and how have you responded? Like a typical Republican, ignore the issues and just throw mud around.

[Tingkai]

Getting back on topic, the overall US economy will tank in the next five years.

The major problems are:
1) Massive, unsustainable government spending.
2) Vulnerable oil supplies

The US government is committed to spending trillions of dollars in Iraq. Even if the democrats win the next presidential election, they won't be able to pull out of Iraq because that would be seen as a sign of weakness.

The government spending spree will result in higher inflation in the states, higher interest rates as the government tries to keep inflation down, and downward pressure on US stock markets caused by the higher interest rates.

The big shocker to the US economy will be oil prices. Terrorist will start attacking the Saudi oil fields in an attempt to bring down the Saudi government. Each attack will send oil prices soaring. That will increase the cost of living and doing business in the States leading to even more inflation.

But as always, there will be winners. Look for companies that have government contracts, like Haliburton and Bechtel. Better yet, find the small companies that are getting military outsourcing contracts. That's where the money and the jobs will be.

And buy some gold. WIth the US dollar in decline and uncertainty around the corner, gold is a good hedge.

[Lord Merciless]

I'm not worried about oil prices. Either we get our oil from somewhere else(Latin Americas, Russia, etc), or there is final incentive to go alternative.

Excessive deficits can indeed be a problem. They can have literally drive interest rates skyward.

[Ned]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
There are two possible responses.

Either global pollution agreements so that the countries that have become refuges for polluting industries apply reasonably high standards and costs in those countries increase towards US/European levels,

Assume for the sake of argument that these so-called countries in Third World countries had very little money to spend on environmental improvements, why do you think they would agree to spend money do not have and cannot afford to help enforce US and European environmental laws?

Or levy tariffs. Give them a set period of time to introduce pollution control and allow unions, pensions, etc and then introduce tariffs on imports from non-complying countries.

So we kill trade for so long as it takes for these poor countries to get their act together? That could take forever especially if trade is reduced by the tariffs to any significant degree, because trade provides revenue that could fund improvements in environmental protections

The first option probably went out the window when the US walked away from Kyoto. There is unlikely to be much interest in global pollution control measures when a country that has the resources and technology to act declines to do so.

I would like to point out that the Third World countries basically were not affected by Kyoto any significant degree. Countries like India and China, especially, did not have to abide by the same limitations imposed upon the Europeans and Americans. Given this, what expectation do you have that anything would change in any new round of negotiations?

The United States already has a very high level of an environmental protection, perhaps the highest the world. That is the problem. That is the reason many industries are leaving the United States for the Third World.

What seems obvious is that environmental laws in United States do cause industries to move to Third World and there's nothing we can do about it to the extent that we insist the Third World upgrade their standards to American standards. Either we choose to have manufacturing jobs or we can choose to have a pristine environment. We cannot have both.

We can say the same things about labor costs, safety standards, labor unions, and taxes. None of Third World these countries are going to improve conditions for labor or impose high taxes on industries trying to relocate to a manufacturing to their country for the sake of the United States or for Europe. So we have choices for both the United States and Europe. High labor costs, maximum safety standards, extremely aggressive labor unions, massively high taxes, or we can have manufacturing jobs.