Corporations leave the west at an amazing pace. Atleast there hiring does...

[DuncanK]

Drop all the other taxes and just tax wealth. The economy will be stimulated so much on both sides that it we won't need income and corporate tax.

[DanS]

Real wages are going down most years and staying level on other years.

DuncanK: Don't you check any of the information you spout? Real wages have had robust growth since about '95, tracking good productivity gains. Even during the recent recession. Last year real earnings of non-supervisory full-time and part-time workers grew 3%.

" Obviously these companies are moving overseas to increase their profits but in the long run they are not increasing the efficiency of the system so that's why both wages and profits are not growing.

You're just wrong. Sorry. Profits aren't growing but wage growth is healthy.

Aren't service jobs usually relegated to those who live near the people being served?

Frogger: Yes, many services aren't tradeable, because of location, for instance.

Except that there's a constant downwards pressure on their paychecks because there are a hundred million other Americans looking for a job too. Net result is that median salary stagnates or falls back, top end goes through the roof...

Median incomes have had healthy gains. The Fed just released a report on it last week. It is true that the rich are getting more of the gains. But it would be inaccurate to downplay the gains of everybody else.

[chequita guevara]

Re: Corporations leave the west at an amazing pace. Atleast there hiring does...

Originally posted by faded glory
This **** is starting to piss me off....I start to doubt the much touted 'benefits' of free trade. It seems geared more to retarded consumers who pay 140 bucks for a pair of shoe's.

Of course there always be those that defend it...I would REALLY like someone to explain how this benefits americans

COMRADE!

[Odin]

Globalization is just Mercantilism, plain and simple. The corporation is the empire and the 3rd world country is the colony. In Mercantilism the wealth flows towards the center, so the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This is just like Africa 100 years ago, except its Multinational corperations instead of nations. It's all just exploitation. all those greedy investors should just GO TO HELL!!!





ALL HAIL THE NEW WORLG ORDER OF SOCIALISM!!!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DanS
Real wages are going down most years and staying level on other years.

DuncanK: Don't you check any of the information you spout? Real wages have had robust growth since about '95, tracking good productivity gains. Even during the recent recession. Last year real earnings of non-supervisory full-time and part-time workers grew 3%.

How much of this wage growth was due to the internet bubble? My yearly earnings quadrupled in just a few years, and then shrank by half. I'm still better off then seven years ago, but I'm not sitting pretty.

[DanS]

I would say only a very small percentage had to do with the internet bubble. Healthy 3% growth in the dot bust '02 demonstrates this.

I might add that the largest employment gains in the US were during the time when the amount of imports from China went from about $20 billion a year to $120 billion a year.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Monkspider, could you explain why you or anyone was against globalization?

Anti-globalization is a misnomer. The so-called anti-globalization movement is not against globalization but rather the form it is taking. Rather than an autocratic process which takes place behind closed doors by officials beholden to no one, we want a democratic process where our labor and environmental rights are respected, where we the people have input into who shall represent us, where the poor conditions of the Third World will be visited upon the First World and where the Third World can prevent its people from being used like slaves and its environment consumed.

The "anti-globalization" network is a global network of First and Third World acitivists, labor militants, environmentalists, child advocates, etc. Many of the most important leaders of the movement come from the Third World; Ken Saro-Wiwa who was executed in Nigeria, for example (there's one woman from India who is very important).

We don't own the media, so we have been defined by those who oppose us and our views. That always happens to opposition movements, however. That's why we've had to create our own media, www.indymedia.com, which has its problems, but it's new and still learning.

[uh Clem]

This is a good trend. We should shovel as many jobs overseas as possible, especially service jobs to India.

I certainly hope that the Republican Party and the Bush Administration make this the centerpiece of their economic policies, and that they stress this issue as much as possible.

[chequita guevara]

I don't begrudge good jobs going overseas. I think everyone should have access to good jobs. I just don't like it when Americans lose good jobs.

I wonder if a survey has been done to see what happens to people who lose their jobs. Frontline did a recurring piece following five families in Milwaukee starting during the '90-'91 recession up through last year and maybe beyond. Of the five, one family has recovered its former level of earnings, but is working far harder now than then.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

i'll tell you how outsourcing benefits america

1. American companies see cheap labor in India. They fire american workers, go to India, and hire new ones for 1/4 the price and get roughly the same quality and output.

2. These goods are then shipped back to america (the market for software in India is tiny) where they are resold.

3. The company who went to India realises that it can sell its good s for less and still make a healthy profit because its costs are less

4. It cuts its prices, resulting in cheaper stuff for us americans, and also increase competition between the other suppliers which may cut the price anymore

5. Who loses? The person who asks for too much money to work because of 1. greed, or b. union rules, or c. cost of living.

6. Who wins? Everyone else.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
4. It cuts its prices, resulting in cheaper stuff for us americans, and also increase competition between the other suppliers which may cut the price anymore

This is where you go wrong. They pocket the difference and leave prices the same.

5. Who loses? The person who asks for too much money to work because of 1. greed, or b. union rules, or c. cost of living.

Demand drops because lowered wages (or lack of wages) reduces purchasing power. Recession results.



And uh, CBEAST!

[Lawrence of Arabia]

No, sorry che. Corporations are going to increase their supply until they have reached the profit maximization point. If their costs have decreased, they will increase the supply and decrease the price, and sell more and in the end make more profits then if they had simply pocketed it.
Demand for those products by the people who were laid off has dropped, but since the rest of the country is saving money by buying a good made cheaper in a foreign country, their purchasing power has actually increased.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
No, sorry che. Corporations are going to increase their supply until they have reached the profit maximization point. If their costs have decreased, they will increase the supply and decrease the price, and sell more and in the end make more profits then if they had simply pocketed it.

Yes, I know that's the theory. Be nice if that's how things worked in reality. Cars aren't less expensive. Clothes aren't less expensive. Most production moved overseas hasn't decreased costs here in the First World. That's what really happened. Now, it's possible costs didn't rise as quickly as they otherwise would have, and technology costs are constantly dropping. But in the end, prices have continuously gone up, not down. We've only had deflation in the last year, and that's because demand dropped precipitously.

[raghar]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
and sell more and in the end make more profits then if they had simply pocketed it.
Demand for those products by the people who were laid off has dropped, but since the rest of the country is saving money by buying a good made cheaper in a foreign country, their purchasing power has actually increased.

Yeh right you sure about this... unemploed or partialy employed have realy lots of money even for paing for import from India. (cheap and low quality) There would be effect from higher unemployed rates that would force to some more persons be unemploed. Then purchuezing power per NORMAL person would decrease.
How many cheap things would buy manager of ?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Costs will always go up and a little inflation is not a bad thing. But we are talking about relative prices. Why do you think that Levi's is doing so poorly? It's because almost all (if not all) of their factories are in America, where the price ofwages is really high. Other companies like Gap (the sweatshops according to some, i'm not sure about that) et al are prospering because their costs are lower.