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

[:) Smiley]

What % of US pollution actually comes from manufacturing and what % is from transport and utilities?

[CerberusIV]

Ned - which bit of my post did you not understand?

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.

I said give them a period to put the measures in place, THEN penalise those who don't.

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?

The US and European companies who are opening factories in these countries can and should be expected to meet similar environmental standards to those that apply in the US/Europe if they want to sell the products here. Most of the job relocation is driven either by companies that can afford proper standards (like China) or by multinationals, banks, etc who should not be allowed lower standards just because they are producing the product they sell in the US/Europe somewhere else.

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?

Kyoto was, amongst other things, the opportunity for the first world countries to show they were serious on a global scale. They didn't so any chance of further agreements covering other countries went out of the window.

Are you in favour of reinstating child labour in the US and scrapping all the other progress in rights and protection for workers that have been enacted in the last hundred years? It sounds like it.

Either everyone else moves, slowly and painfully but moves nonetheless, to US/European levels and standards or we go back down to theirs or we use taxes and tariffs to maintain the present differences.

My view is that they need to move and should be helped and encouraged to do so, then penalised if they don't.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ned
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.

What this analysis overlooks is economic reality. As economies develop, they shift into different and more prosperous sectors.

Hong Kong was once a manufacturing powerhouse, but not any more, even though Hong Kong has minimal safety standards, powerless unions, insignificant environmental laws and incredibly low taxes.

The only way to get cheap manufaturing jobs back is if Hong Kong people were willing to work for a dollar a day. But why would anyone want these jobs?

New York was once a global centre for clothing manufacturing, but not anymore. Does this mean New York is poor. Of course not. It simply shifted into higher value industries while clothing trade went to developing nations.

[Zkribbler]

While some of our manufacturing jobs are fleeing to China or to Brazil--surprise, those countries are also losing manufacturing jobs. The real loss is due to increased automation--i.e. increased efficiency in manufacturing. Although this is always a hardship on those losing their jobs, this has been going on ever since the industrial revolution. Society as a whole will be the better for it.

Don't buy gold. Commodities are the refuge to shelter in when we're heading into bad times. We're already in bad times. After the pounding the economy has taken for the past three-four years, things shouldn't get much worse.

The best places to invest for small investers are, as usual, (1) in home ownership, and (2) in a well run, no-load mutual fund of stocks, esp. small cap.

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Zkribbler

The best places to invest for small investers are, as usual, (1) in home ownership, and (2) in a well run, no-load mutual fund of stocks, esp. small cap.

Sound advice, but I have to add:

1. Home price is growing too high for my taste. I think there is some sort of bubble. I will wait another year before seriously considering investing in real estate.

2. The problem with small cap investing is that you don't have the time and energy to sift through myriads of companies. Usually only a small percentage of these will be truly outstanding. My approach is to buy mutual fund here. The same problem with the healthcare/biotech sector. Everyone knows it's the future, it's impossible to pick companies that are going to succeed. So my approach is again mutual fund here.

[Japher]

Didn't Zkibbler say to put in to mutual funds? Ones that invest in small cap? I have a small cap mutual fund that has earned me 40% so far this year. Small caps always bounce out of recessions. In about 3-4 years I'll move some it to index funds and some to large cap/ blue chip funds. Personally, I hate mutual funds, but I have limited choices with my 401k.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The government spending spree will result in higher inflation in the states

The spending spree is not that great. As a % of GDP it is very slight.. and if you get another administration in 2004, you will probably see less of a deficit spending.

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.

This would be a huge problem... but I'm not sure this will happen. Al Queda gets (still I believe) a lot of their money from oil profits. They aren't going to bite the mouth that feeds them. They may be terrorists, that doesn't mean they are crazy .

[MrFun]

I was just about to create a thread about Lou Dobb's special report series on "Exporting America" and "The American Giveaway."

I'm not sure how long these special reports of his have been going on now, but the past few weeks I have seen his reports I was always struck by the compelling questions and concerns that he brings up for viewers in regards to our economy.

Doesn't seem like American corporations are anti-American if their corporate policies are in fact weakening our country's economy?

What is patriotic about exporting American jobs to other countries at the expense of hard-working, honest American workers?


Who else has been watching Lou Dobb's special reports on CNN lately??

[Imran Siddiqui]

What is patriotic about exporting American jobs to other countries at the expense of hard-working, honest American workers?

It's patriotic to make more money . Who cares about patriotism in corporations, we had the "Buy American" campaign and resulted in people buying Ford Pintos instead of Toyota Camry's. bah..

[Dauphin]

To those who know the reason for the weak US dollar: IS it worth me buying a couple thousand with my strong Aussie dollar earnings? The rate seems ridiculously good ($.71 to $1), but I want to know when/if the US dollar is likley to strengthen significantly. (If it doesn't I'll just go over to the US and splurge all my excess cash anyway)

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
To those who know the reason for the weak US dollar: IS it worth me buying a couple thousand with my strong Aussie dollar earnings? The rate seems ridiculously good ($.71 to $1), but I want to know when/if the US dollar is likley to strengthen significantly. (If it doesn't I'll just go over to the US and splurge all my excess cash anyway)

Not when the Euro takes over.

Cheers on the good exchange rate. It's currently $.75 to $1 up here.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by MrFun
Doesn't seem like American corporations are anti-American if their corporate policies are in fact weakening our country's economy?

What is patriotic about exporting American jobs to other countries at the expense of hard-working, honest American workers?

Corporations exist to make money, not to benefit a country. If a corporation can make money by selling weapons to an enemy, and get away with it, they'll do it.

Look at all the corporations raking in the taxpayer's money in the Iraq occupation. These companies don't care what the Iraq occupation will do to the US. They don't care how many people will die.

They just want to grab a piece of the action so that they can stay rich. That's name of the game in capitalism and its the American way.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Tingkai


What this analysis overlooks is economic reality. As economies develop, they shift into different and more prosperous sectors.

Hong Kong was once a manufacturing powerhouse, but not any more, even though Hong Kong has minimal safety standards, powerless unions, insignificant environmental laws and incredibly low taxes.

The only way to get cheap manufaturing jobs back is if Hong Kong people were willing to work for a dollar a day. But why would anyone want these jobs?

New York was once a global centre for clothing manufacturing, but not anymore. Does this mean New York is poor. Of course not. It simply shifted into higher value industries while clothing trade went to developing nations.

Tingkai, I think you and I are in agreement. While the labor intensive and thus low paying jobs have left for places like China, SE Asia and India, Americans are still nearly fully employed in higher-paying jobs. This actually shows just how free trade has benefitted the US. To the extent we imposed tarriffs to prevent this, we would have severely harmed the US.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ned

Americans are still nearly fully employed in higher-paying jobs.

The people with McJobs will be surprised to hear this. Service jobs pay a lot less than manufacturing jobs.

[Ned]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
The US and European companies who are opening factories in these countries can and should be expected to meet similar environmental standards to those that apply in the US/Europe if they want to sell the products here. Most of the job relocation is driven either by companies that can afford proper standards (like China) or by multinationals, banks, etc who should not be allowed lower standards just because they are producing the product they sell in the US/Europe somewhere else.

Either everyone else moves, slowly and painfully but moves nonetheless, to US/European levels and standards or we go back down to theirs or we use taxes and tariffs to maintain the present differences.

Two problems: 1) If you somehow impose on US companies such restrictions, companies of other nations will simply fill the void or the US companies will move offshore to become foreign companies; and

2) The alternative is not high tarriffs but different kinds of jobs in the US where the productivity of the job justifies the high wage rates. Gone will be the labor-intensive manufacturing job. The only way such manufacturing jobs can hope to stay in the United States is if the productivity of the worker rises to a level to overcome the other costs imposed on American businesses by environmental laws and taxes. The major obstical to modernization in the US, and the proximate cause of many jobs leaving the US, is the lack of cooperation of most unions towards automation, etc. This stubborness has existed in most unions as far back as I can recall.

And yes, I have seen Lou Dobbs reports. He simply does not understand that the US companies are being forced out by the need to compete and to survive. If two companies can make widgets, the one that does so for less cost will take over the market from the one who continues at high cost.

Rather than blaming corporations for doing what is necessary to survive, he should examine ways of making the business climate in the United States better.