Not only does the US lead the industrialized world in manufacturing, the cause of the slight dip in stateside manufacturing has been grossly misrepresented. Not only is our manufacturing output increasing, employment in mentioned fields is shrinking at a faster pace in dreaded China than here stateside. It seems apparent that the real culprit for the widespread loss in manufacturing related employment would be technology and efficiency, not a seemingly sudden deficit in patriotism, yet a large amount of Americans are apparently in denial about the bleak prospects of manufacturing accounting for a significant percentage of the total work force in the foreseeable future.
W
That Giant Sucking Sound of Manufacturing Jobs Going to China - Forbes
Given the trends of late, that's a highly dubious claim.eve lost millions of jobs to china...and losing more...
weve lost untold numbers to india and the phillipines for two others...
this is all about greed...and no matter what color lipstick you put on that pig its the same thing,
its absolutely laughable how how right wingers deny it up and down....Its amazing to read some of your anti worker anti everything but the rich posts....
Free trade, historically the benefits have vastly outweighed the dubiously dubbed ill-effects. Economic protectionism stifles innovation, expansion, modernization, and standard of living conditions as a whole, while simultaneously driving up the price of consumer goods at the local level. Hard to believe that the protectionist mindset has managed to survive throughout the decades, given the historical and factual success of free trade that is so readily available to even the most casual of observers.
No, go ask your dad.Untold numbers? I suppose we'll have to take your word for it.
Given the trends of late, that's a highly dubious claim.
Untold numbers? I suppose we'll have to take your word for it.
Yes, the main motivation for decreasing labor costs would be higher profit margins and ease of expansion. As soon as their respective fields cease to be dominated by the entities who follow suit, there is little motivation to operate from a benevolent standpoint.
Hardly, but don't let me dissuade you from continuing to hurl out random unfounded accusations at a furious pace.
The growth of U.S. trade with China since China entered the World Trade Organization in 2001 has had a devastating effect on U.S. workers and the domestic economy. Between 2001 and 2007 2.3 million jobs were lost or displaced, including 366,000 in 2007 alone. New demographic research shows that, even when re-employed in non-traded industries, the 2.3 million workers displaced by the increase in China trade deficits in this period have lost an average $8,146 per worker/year. In 2007, these losses totalled $19.4 billion.1
The impacts of the China trade deficit are not limited to its direct effects on the jobs and wages of those displaced. It is also critical to recognize that the indirect impact of trade on other workers is significant as well. Trade with less-developed countries has reduced the bargaining power of all workers in the U.S. economy who resemble the import-displaced in terms of education, credentials, and skills. Annual earnings for all workers without a four-year college degree are roughly $1,400 lower today because of this competition, and this group constitutes a large majority of the entire U.S. workforce (roughly 100 million workers or about 70% of all workers, Bivens (2008a)). China, with nearly 40% of our non-oil imports from less-developed countries, is a chief contributor to this wage pressure.
The China trade toll: Widespread wage suppression, 2 million jobs lost in the U.S. | Economic Policy Institute
If that's the only option we're given to voice our opinion then we need disclosure. Like RDA percentages, we should require companies to stamp the amount of child/forced/indentured/other labor used and the pollution produced for making a given product compared to making it in the US or other First World country.It is not nations that are trading, but individuals and companies within nations. Government should not impose tariffs on companies that do not meet certain standards. People should be allowed to determine whether or not to patronize said companies themselves.
And how many of those are from First World companies with near the same labor and environmental laws as our own?There is always so much cry over outsourcing that people forget about the flip side of the coin: insourcing. Plenty of other companies in foreign countries are outsourcing jobs to the United States. These companies include Toyota (in fact, many car companies), Nesle, and many others.
Insourcing Facts
Nearly 5% of private sector employment is by a foreign company.
Even assuming - and it's a HUGE assumption - that this theoretical company employs 1% of their market (say 150,000 workers) and that part of the market, that 1%, is lost when the company moves production overseas, as long as the company increases profit per unit by a mere 1% they're at break-even. If they increase profit by 2% they've doubled their profit. Chances are their profit will go up by several percent by moving, not just the 1% they loose from unemployment of their own workers. The company doesn't care from where the profit comes or that it looses 1% of the market - as long as profits are higher this year than they were last year.Let's ignore everything else for a moment and assume you are 100% correct. Let us presume that U.S. businesses are moving overseas for the sole reasons to stick it to American workers and take advantage of stupid foreigners who have to beg for work.
So the greedy Acme Corp sells widgets for $10 and moves their production facility over to Poornation. Let's say the labor costs drop from $15 per hour to $0.15 per hour. Obviously Acme is greedy so they won't lower their prices so the widgets are still $10 apiece. The problem comes when we consider the fact that there are now a bunch of unemployed former Acme workers who have no money to purchase these widgets.
If we apply this scenario across the various industries ("...it has been my main concern is to stop the bleeding of U.S. jobs overseas.") then we are forced with the realization that the consumer base will be greatly reduced, thus reducing the numbers of widgets that all of these displaced companies can now successfully sell.
As a result, your philosophy (which is shared by many) winds up paradoxical. A company relocates overseas because they are greedy, but will end up being unable to sell as many products which is in direct conflict with their greed.
So you tell me, why would companies move overseas if this would simply result in a reduction in their consumer base?
Consciously? I'm not even sure you or I do things "consciously".So you believe that companies which outsource are consciously committing long-term suicide for short-term gains?
Absolute nonsense. Modernized and self sufficient foreign economies (such as the numerous examples built up primarily through the practice of free trade) are beneficial to everyone they subsequently trade with, and a necessity in a global economy. I don't think the majority of Americans would like to see the results of a drastic decrease in foreign purchasing power, especially seeing as export transactions make up such a significant portion of our annual gdp.International unrestricted free trade has never benefited anyone except the seller. That was us from the industrial revolution through post World War II. But, from the Sixties on, America has faced ever increasing trade deficits.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?