oldreliable67
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2005
- Messages
- 4,641
- Reaction score
- 1,102
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
foreign investment
Oh, and what about all those new auto plants in the US that now employ thousands: MB, Toyota, Honda, BMW, Hyundai, Nissan?
Not for people who don't have an education because thanks to something called foreign investment
What is the linkage here? First, what has not having an education to do with "something called foreign investment"? You're just not making any sense at all here. Can you explain your position a little more clearly?
And second, why does one not have an education? In this day and age in the US, the only reason that anyone does not have at least a basic education is because they choose to not have an education. It may not be easy for some to have an education, but it is just more difficult and less convenient, not impossible. In fact, in this country today, lower income groups have more opportunities to pursue a college education than some middle income groups: some middle income groups are excluded from attending some colleges because they earn too much (even though they are solidly in the middle income group and not wealthy by any stretch and do not earn enough to pay for college out of pocket) simply because they earn too much and therefore do not qualify for financial assistance, while the lower income groups have financial assistance available. But thats another thread.
Which takes away from American jobs
No. Displaces, perhaps. Changes the mix of jobs availabe, perhaps. But it doesn't take away. Nonetheless, here you have the makings of a valid point, just not in the way that you have (so far) expressed it. If you're truly a Marxist, as your choice of names suggest (even though its my impression that Che was in actuality a thug and a murderer), then you know that Marx described the current globalization trend almost perfectly. And you also know that even though some jobs maybe be displaced from an area of high wage cost to an area of lower wage cost, whether that displacement is from the US midwest to the US southeast or from somewhere in the US to China, India, Taiwan, S. Korea, etc. You also know that Marx said that those displaced jobs would result in other new jobs being created to replace them and that
the task for social policy is to ease the workers transition from the old jobs to the new jobs (job training, interim assistance, etc). And the final state is greater income/lower cost and higher productivity for all concerned.
War on Poverty
We tried that under LBJ. All it got us was a bigger deficit and more bureaucracy and opting out of the work force in favor of welfare. What do you propose that would be different?