What should the US do about the job drain?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Our high unemployment rate doesn't come from a lack of foreign investment, but from the factthat we do not allow underpaid and overtime jobs.

I was making a mockery of the implication that the only good economic expansion is that in which the unemployment rate falls. I could have easily said Germany and Sweden .

[DanS]

FYI, taxes were raised every year that Clinton was in office, since as people's wages increased, their earnings moved into a higher tax bracket. However, even though this needed to be corrected, I doubt the taxes themselves had much to do with the recession of '01.

That said, cutting the taxes in '01, '02, and '03 had something to do with getting out of the recession of '01.

[Ned]

1) Provide a tax credit for wages paid to Americans
2) End employer contributions to SS - shift to workers
3) Provide universal health care insurance to reduce health care costs on US businesses
4) End workers compensation laws - subsitute government insurance
5) Provide tax credits for compliance with environmental laws
6) Tax wages paid to workers outside the United States

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DanS
That said, cutting the taxes in '01, '02, and '03 had something to do with getting out of the recession of '01.

Snice the tax cuts of '01 were future tax cuts, I don't think you can make that case. Since the tax cuts of '03 were targetted at the owning class and not the spending class, I don't think you can make that case either. I can't say anything either way about the '02 tax cuts since I don't remember what they targetted.

[Ned]

Che, your posts are so 19th Century.

[Whoha]

He means the debt "created" by the tax cuts. Greenspan has already said a better plan would be to cut spending, instead of raising taxes.

[DanS]

Che: I don't know how you could say that the Bush tax cuts weren't stimulative to one degree or another.

[Ramo]

6) Tax wages paid to workers outside the United States

This has got to be one of the most idiotic suggestions I've ever heard in this forum.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ned

6) Tax wages paid to workers outside the United States

Yep -- because overseas workers are getting too rich on 20 cents an hour, right?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DanS
Che: I don't know how you could say that the Bush tax cuts weren't stimulative to one degree or another.

Taxes slated to be cut in 2006, for example, don't put money in my pocket today. It remains to be seen how much the AMT is gonna wipe out the tax cut for us middle income types.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ramo


This has got to be one of the most idiotic suggestions I've ever heard in this forum.

Why? All you would have to do is limit their ability to deduct foreign wages.

[Spiffor]

It's truly a wonder that so few people mention a deep restructuration of the American economy, so that it doesn't even try to compete with low-wage countries, but rather finds a new production niche. Tax cuts for the rich and deficit spending may have a short-term effect, but they won't do any long term good to the American Job Market. It's only through adaptation to the new forms of competition that the American job market can be stable.

Now, the choice you have is either to have a low-wage economy that tries to compete with Bangladesh in the shoe industry, or a high-wage industry that competes with the Japanese on making computers and research. The second option is the obvious choice, but I'm surprised so many people keep advocating for low-wage industry.

[Ramo]

Why?

1. Foreign workers in places where American capital is moving to (the third world) make a pittance. It's totally obscene to have the US government tax their incomes.
2. How do you suppose such a tax is going to be enforced? It's not like Chinese or Indian tax collectors are going to follow the IRS' orders.

[DanS]

Now, the choice you have is either to have a low-wage economy that tries to compete with Bangladesh in the shoe industry, or a high-wage industry that competes with the Japanese on making computers and research. The second option is the obvious choice, but I'm surprised so many people keep advocating for low-wage industry.

I'm not surprised. Disappointed, for sure.

The thing is, most of the restructuring is already done. We're arguing about only a relatively small portion of the US economy.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor
It's truly a wonder that so few people mention a deep restructuration of the American economy, so that it doesn't even try to compete with low-wage countries, but rather finds a new production niche. Tax cuts for the rich and deficit spending may have a short-term effect, but they won't do any long term good to the American Job Market. It's only through adaptation to the new forms of competition that the American job market can be stable.

Now, the choice you have is either to have a low-wage economy that tries to compete with Bangladesh in the shoe industry, or a high-wage industry that competes with the Japanese on making computers and research. The second option is the obvious choice, but I'm surprised so many people keep advocating for low-wage industry.

Spiffor, you are, of course, entirely right. But the problem is that the people here in the US who are complaining most about losing low tech jobs are the people who are not really qualified to do anything else today.

In order to have a populace that can handle high tech jobs, one needs a very well educated populace. Unfortunately, public education in the United States is severely broken. Moreover, we are STILL dealing with the legacy of slavery so that a good portion of the US populace is not part of the economy but remains highly disfunctional.

Finally, we have a mentality here that seeks to impose more and more costs on businesses that should be funded by society. These costs can be avoided simply by moving outside of the US.