NationStates Jolt Archive

I remember in the 1996 Presidential campaign here in America, there were some negative ads being run by the Democratic National Committee warning that if we elected a Republican president and a Republican congress, there would be nothing stopping the Republicans from forcing their ideological extremism on America; the economy would tank, civil liberties would cease, and puppies would die senselessly. Well, we've had a Republican president and Republican congress for most of the last 5 years, and things seem to not be doing so badly. National unemployment is currently at 5.0% (which is both historically and comparitively very healthy), homeownership is at a record high, emissions have decreased, and women and minorities are still allowed to vote. Bush's legislation (including controversial anti-terror legislation) would still have passed without a Republican majority in either house of Congress. So what happened to the end of civilization?

the economy would tank
Somebody could predict the future, I guess.

1. Economy dives into the crapper

2. makes slight recoverty, now it's just mediocre.

3. Republicans hail it as a major victory.


I'm sorry, the economy still sucks.

Ummm...ideological extremism has run amok and the economy does suck.

NO! Anything but dead kittens!...Oh, you said puppies... carry on then.

Dude, my puppy mysteriously died in 1996. Why did you have to bring that up, jerk?

Somebody could predict the future, I guess.
I'm sorry, the economy still sucks.

That's why the economy is growing at an above average pace this year, inflation is low, industrial production and capacity utilization are at new highs, unemployment is close to breaching below its 30-year average?

Or what about the booming pace of durable-goods manufacturing? Or the steady growth in personal income? Or the continuously strong consumer spending?

Capital spending is climbing, hiring is increasing, and the tech economy is rebuilding rapidly; already salaries have matched their levels of the tech bubble in 1999.

2.2 million jobs in 2004, and 1.088 million have already be created this year. Higher paying jobs are now outpacing lower paying sectors as well.

The economy does not suck. There wasn't even a recession in 2001. I mean come on... the economy is growing at a very good pace.

The economy does not suck. There wasn't even a recession in 2001. I mean come on... the economy is growing at a very good pace.

...

Lost manufacturing jobs haven't been replaced. "Faith Based Initiatives" have been violating the line of separation between church and state, and allowing discrimination based on religious beleif with government funds. Bush will be able to ram through any judge he chooses, and he may choose judges who will outlaw abortion and heavily favor corporate rights over the people's rights. Bush still has plenty of time in office to damage the nation.

Lost manufacturing jobs haven't been replaced. "Faith Based Initiatives" have been violating the line of separation between church and state, and allowing discrimination based on religious beleif with government funds. Bush will be able to ram through any judge he chooses, and he may choose judges who will outlaw abortion and heavily favor corporate rights over the people's rights. Bush still has plenty of time in office to damage the nation.

Actually many lost manufacturing jobs have been replaced. bush will be able to ram through any judge he chooses? Like Roberts who have bipartisan support? Dude, get over it.

Lost manufacturing jobs haven't been replaced. "Faith Based Initiatives" have been violating the line of separation between church and state, and allowing discrimination based on religious beleif with government funds. Bush will be able to ram through any judge he chooses, and he may choose judges who will outlaw abortion and heavily favor corporate rights over the people's rights. Bush still has plenty of time in office to damage the nation.

1. Manufacturing is dying (except in high tech manufacturing), being replaced with higher paying administrative and technical jobs. The technology jobs lost in 2000 are being regained fairly rapidly, and at higher pay.

2. FBI's suck. I don't like them, and feel they cross the line in a lot of places.

3. Roberts is qualified for the job, and he doesn't plan to overturn Roe v. Wade because it is established precedent and cannot be shown to be unconstitutional.

I remember in the 1996 Presidential campaign here in America, there were some negative ads being run by the Democratic National Committee warning that if we elected a Republican president and a Republican congress, there would be nothing stopping the Republicans from forcing their ideological extremism on America; the economy would tank, civil liberties would cease, and puppies would die senselessly. Well, we've had a Republican president and Republican congress for most of the last 5 years, and things seem to not be doing so badly. National unemployment is currently at 5.0% (which is both historically and comparitively very healthy), homeownership is at a record high, emissions have decreased, and women and minorities are still allowed to vote. Bush's legislation (including controversial anti-terror legislation) would still have passed without a Republican majority in either house of Congress. So what happened to the end of civilization?

In my opinion, it has nothing to do with politics and politicians. I'd say that there are benevolent hands holding by the winds of strife on both sides of the isle and have been for years.

1. Manufacturing is dying (except in high tech manufacturing), being replaced with higher paying administrative and technical jobs. The technology jobs lost in 2000 are being regained fairly rapidly, and at higher pay.

Hmm. Last I heard, manufacturing jobs were (and still are) being replaced by service jobs, like those of McDonald's and Wal-Mart. Those definitely pay less than manufacturing jobs...

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/071805O.shtml

Hmm. Last I heard, manufacturing jobs were (and still are) being replaced by service jobs, like those of McDonald's and Wal-Mart. Those definitely pay less than manufacturing jobs...

Not true at all. In fact many new high tech jobs and adminstrative jobs are replacing manufacturing. Truthout? I wonder what their agenda is. You can try really hard to skew things your way. But you still cannot counter the facts that the average income is in fact growing far above inflation.

Actually many lost manufacturing jobs have been replaced. bush will be able to ram through any judge he chooses? Like Roberts who have bipartisan support? Dude, get over it.
I guess CAFTA won't drastically reduce manufacturing in the USA then? Care to make a bet?

As for Roberts, he's not the extremist I'd have expected Bush to choose, but there's plenty of time for more judicial appointments.

Manufacturing jobs - blue collar - are going oversees whether any of us like it or not. In order to remain competitive in the world market place, all corportations of any significant size must make this move. The salaries for skilled and unskilled laborers in the U.S. is too high. Now, we can demand companies don't do this, and enforce laws to make them stop - but then our economy will tank, you'll lose your job, and we will really be in trouble. The away from manufacturing is a part of the natural evolution of this country's economy. It cannot, and should not be stopped.

Hmm. Last I heard, manufacturing jobs were (and still are) being replaced by service jobs, like those of McDonald's and Wal-Mart. Those definitely pay less than manufacturing jobs...

Actually, manufacturing unemployment is less than the national average, at 4.4%, and has fallen by 214,000 since June of 2004 to June of 2005. The overall unemployment rate is in fact skewed by McDonald's type jobs, whose unemploment rate is 7.6%, making the unemployment rate for other industries only averaging 4.2%.

Manufacturing has only contracted considerably in auto manufacturing, and the higher-paying technology manufacturing is growing very quickly (Computer manufacturing alone grew 7.6% from 6/04 to 6/05). We're losing the lower level manufacturing and gaining higher paying.

Services also include higher-paying professional/business services, which are higher paying as well.

The economy does not suck. There wasn't even a recession in 2001. I mean come on... the economy is growing at a very good pace.

I know. You seriously wonder if they've been out of the house for the last 5 years. Every macroeconomic indicator says we're doing well and we've been doing well.

That clears things up, then.

What I wanna know is why some of you are okay with us continuing to lose manufacturing jobs in favor of higher-paying corporate jobs.

Sure, they pay more, but manufacturing is what holds things together. If we outsource all of our manufacturing jobs, what have we got left?

Manufacturing jobs - blue collar - are going oversees whether any of us like it or not. In order to remain competitive in the world market place, all corportations of any significant size must make this move. The salaries for skilled and unskilled laborers in the U.S. is too high. Now, we can demand companies don't do this, and enforce laws to make them stop - but then our economy will tank, you'll lose your job, and we will really be in trouble. The away from manufacturing is a part of the natural evolution of this country's economy. It cannot, and should not be stopped.
1) It can be slowed by passing laws that require any product sold in the USA to be manufactured by workers who are paid a living wage. This narrows the gap between US wages and third world wages, makes sure that third world and US workers get fair treatment, and still allows many jobs to go to the third world and build their economies.

2) Natural evolution of a country's economy? Manufacturing is vital to any nation. If you don't build anything you will be drained of capital because you have to buy your products elsewhere. Notice the US has a monstrous trade deficit? Saying that it's part of the natural evolution of our economy is like telling a starving person that not eating is a natural part of the evolution of his body.

I guess CAFTA won't drastically reduce manufacturing in the USA then? Care to make a bet?.

Yes. The US already operates with minimal tariffs on goods from Central America, so any effects on manufacturing have been around for years. CAFTA primarily eliminates tariffs on our goods going in to their countries, so it will increase demand for US exports while having no effect on imports. We'll gain manufacturing rather than lose it.

What I wanna know is why some of you are okay with us continuing to lose manufacturing jobs in favor of higher-paying corporate jobs.

Sure, they pay more, but manufacturing is what holds things together. If we outsource all of our manufacturing jobs, what have we got left?

Well, I'd rather earn more and have cheaper products, which increases my purchasing power and standard of living. Thus, our economy grows faster and we are better off. Manufacturing is going the way of agriculture, it's been surpassed by a new field, technology. Even manufacturing is changing; tech manufacturing is growing fast while the old car manufacturing and textiles are dying out (tech pays more). The qualified will win while the unqualified will lose.

Manufacturing is not going to die out anyway, because demand won't. As long as people are willing to invest in the US, we will have a sizable manufacturing base.

Yes. The US already operates with minimal tariffs on goods from Central America, so any effects on manufacturing have been around for years. CAFTA primarily eliminates tariffs on our goods going in to their countries, so it will increase demand for US exports while having no effect on imports. We'll gain manufacturing rather than lose it.
Similar claims were made about NAFTA. It was claimed that the Mexican economy would boom and they'd start buying Fords and Chevys made in the USA. Now we see GM closing down their US plants and moving manufacturing to Mexico.

1) It can be slowed by passing laws that require any product sold in the USA to be manufactured by workers who are paid a living wage. This narrows the gap between US wages and third world wages, makes sure that third world and US workers get fair treatment, and still allows many jobs to go to the third world and build their economies.

2) Natural evolution of a country's economy? Manufacturing is vital to any nation. If you don't build anything you will be drained of capital because you have to buy your products elsewhere. Notice the US has a monstrous trade deficit? Saying that it's part of the natural evolution of our economy is like telling a starving person that not eating is a natural part of the evolution of his body.

Actually, the services sector of the economy is now larger than the manufacturing sector, and growing at an exponential rate. The idea that manufacturing is required for a nation's economic well-being is outdated. Granted, some forms of manufacturing, especially those forms that require highly skilled labor, will remain in the U.S. and provide good wages.

As for your income equality belief - it's nice, but again, not realistic. Passing some legislation to force equality WILL hurt our economy. But then, weren't you just complaining that the the conservatives are the ones hurting the economy. No, no, it idealogs like you in Washington, that should they gain power, will destroy our economy.

Well, I'd rather earn more and have cheaper products, which increases my purchasing power and standard of living. Thus, our economy grows faster and we are better off. Manufacturing is going the way of agriculture, it's been surpassed by a new field, technology. Even manufacturing is changing; tech manufacturing is growing fast while the old car manufacturing and textiles are dying out (tech pays more). The qualified will win while the unqualified will lose.

Manufacturing is not going to die out anyway, because demand won't. As long as people are willing to invest in the US, we will have a sizable manufacturing base.

The fuck? Just because YOU want a higher standard of living, good, hard-working people have to go die in the gutter, or work in worthless, low-paying places like convenience stores?

And this whole "manufacturing is going the way of agriculture" thing is stupid in more ways that I can count.

Ugh.

Similar claims were made about NAFTA. It was claimed that the Mexican economy would boom and they'd start buying Fords and Chevys made in the USA. Now we see GM closing down their US plants and moving manufacturing to Mexico.

Do you know Hyundai just opened a new plant here in the US? Also american car companies are outmoded. I wouldn't buy an american car because they just aren't good. Manufacturing is being phased out, for higher paying adminstrative and high tech jobs.

Similar claims were made about NAFTA. It was claimed that the Mexican economy would boom and they'd start buying Fords and Chevys made in the USA. Now we see GM closing down their US plants and moving manufacturing to Mexico.

The difference was, we had tariffs in place that were phased out by NAFTA. There are none or minimal ones on Central Amerca today, so CAFTA won't change anything on US trade policies but will eliminate foreign tariffs on our goods.

NAFTA didn't hurt us, it helped:

U.S. manufacturing output soared in the 1990s, up 44% in real terms.

U.S. manufacturing wages increased dramatically, with real hourly compensation up by 14.4% in the 10 years since NAFTA, more than double the 6.5% increase in the 10 years preceding NAFTA.

Income gains and tax cuts from NAFTA were worth up to $930 each year for the average U.S. household of four.

U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico grew from US$134.3 billion (US$46.5 billion to Mexico and US$87.8 billion to Canada) to US$250.6 billion (US$105.4 and US$145.3 billion respectively).

All member economies have grown significantly from 1993-2003:

· United States: 38% economic growth
· Canada: 30.9% growth
· Mexico: 30% growth

We grew the fastest, even with Mexico being so underdeveloped.

1) It can be slowed by passing laws that require any product sold in the USA to be manufactured by workers who are paid a living wage. This narrows the gap between US wages and third world wages, makes sure that third world and US workers get fair treatment, and still allows many jobs to go to the third world and build their economies.

2) Natural evolution of a country's economy? Manufacturing is vital to any nation. If you don't build anything you will be drained of capital because you have to buy your products elsewhere. Notice the US has a monstrous trade deficit? Saying that it's part of the natural evolution of our economy is like telling a starving person that not eating is a natural part of the evolution of his body.

Manufacturing isn't vital to Singapore's economy, and they do very well there.

Actually, the services sector of the economy is now larger than the manufacturing sector, and growing at an exponential rate. The idea that manufacturing is required for a nation's economic well-being is outdated. Granted, some forms of manufacturing, especially those forms that require highly skilled labor, will remain in the U.S. and provide good wages.

As for your income equality belief - it's nice, but again, not realistic. Passing some legislation to force equality WILL hurt our economy. But then, weren't you just complaining that the the conservatives are the ones hurting the economy. No, no, it idealogs like you in Washington, that should they gain power, will destroy our economy.
It kind of depends on how you judge the strength of the economy, doesn't it? I think the economy is strong when every person who works gets a living wage, and people aren't forced to scrape by on a job at Walmart and a part time job at McDonalds just to tread water at the poverty line. I think that having a trade surpluss makes for a strong economy.

Apparently the Republican view of a strong economy is a huge trade deficit, numerous workers living in poverty, and a decent stock market for those who have the disposable income to invest heavily in it.

Similar claims were made about NAFTA. It was claimed that the Mexican economy would boom and they'd start buying Fords and Chevys made in the USA. Now we see GM closing down their US plants and moving manufacturing to Mexico.

We saw precisely the same thing happen to the Canadian manufacturing sector after we entered into bilateral free trade with the US (precursor to NAFTA).

Thing is, big business in Canada made damn sure the Tories (the only party in the Commons who supported FT) got in office to ram passage through - by holding meetings on the factory floor and lying through their teeth, claiming that the companies would have to 'up and go' to US markets if "any political party" (very cute) that didn't support FT were elected.

Totally skirting the election laws, but also perfectly legal.

So, after FT was implemented, guess what? The promises of big business were perfunctorily dropped, and all those manufacturers suddenly 'up and went' anyway.

Remember that lil' economic boom you guys had in the 90s?

Those were our jobs.

You're welcome.



So now the shoe is on the other foot. It's no fun watching your leaders sell you out to 3rd-worlders, is it?

Do you know Hyundai just opened a new plant here in the US? Also american car companies are outmoded. I wouldn't buy an american car because they just aren't good. Manufacturing is being phased out, for higher paying adminstrative and high tech jobs.
How many out of work steelworkers will be able to find high paying administrative and high-tech jobs?

The fuck? Just because YOU want a higher standard of living, good, hard-working people have to go die in the gutter, or work in worthless, low-paying places like convenience stores?

And this whole "manufacturing is going the way of agriculture" thing is stupid in more ways that I can count..

Exactly. If they don't prepare for a changing job market, don't expect me to bail them out or whine when they lose their jobs. They didn't take the initative to move in to new fields, and lost their job. If they went in to technology manufacturing, they would be earning more money in a rapidly growing field.

Manufacturing is becoming automated more and more, just like agriculture. No longer is it economically reasonable to hire people to do what machines can. It won't die out, but the human component will decline; the jobs created will be those that keep the machines working, building them, and progrmming them.

It kind of depends on how you judge the strength of the economy, doesn't it? I think the economy is strong when every person who works gets a living wage, and people aren't forced to scrape by on a job at Walmart and a part time job at McDonalds just to tread water at the poverty line. I think that having a trade surpluss makes for a strong economy.

Apparently the Republican view of a strong economy is a huge trade deficit, numerous workers living in poverty, and a decent stock market for those who have the disposable income to invest heavily in it.

That's funny when income has been steadily climbing. Dude, get over it.. higher paying jobs are growing faster then anything now.. and manufacturing is being phased out, and being replaced by better paying adminstrative and high tech jobs.

The republican view is one where there is strong economic growth, growing income, and growing spending.

How many out of work steelworkers will be able to find high paying administrative and high-tech jobs?

Mestecala is not one for empathy, DCD. He's just another consumerite, don't expect to elicit a humanistic response.

Exactly. If they don't prepare for a changing job market, don't expect me to bail them out or whine when they lose their jobs. They didn't take the initative to move in to new fields, and lost their job. If they went in to technology manufacturing, they would be earning more money in a rapidly growing field.

Manufacturing is becoming automated more and more, just like agriculture. No longer is it economically reasonable to hire people to do what machines can. It won't die out, but the human component will decline; the jobs created will be those that keep the machines working, building them, and progrmming them.

1: It's not their fault if they get laid off. They're working in a mill one day, and they're out on the street the next. How are they supposed to do shit about it?

2: No comment. I fear my blood pressure will rise too much if I continue.

It kind of depends on how you judge the strength of the economy, doesn't it? I think the economy is strong when every person who works gets a living wage, and people aren't forced to scrape by on a job at Walmart and a part time job at McDonalds just to tread water at the poverty line. I think that having a trade surpluss makes for a strong economy.

Apparently the Republican view of a strong economy is a huge trade deficit, numerous workers living in poverty, and a decent stock market for those who have the disposable income to invest heavily in it.

I guess it does depend. But it depends more on governing with your mind, rather than your heart. My heart would like to see poverty eradicated. My mind know human nature will never allow that to happen. My heart would like to see income equality. My mind knows it doesn't work. The American dream, to achieve success beyond your imagination, only works at the expense of others. That's a fact proven by the abysmal failures of communist societies. Again, human nature makes us all want to be better than the guy or gal next door. That means poverty, income inequality, etc. are here to stay forever.

Mestecala is not one for empathy, DCD. He's just another consumerite, don't expect to elicit a humanistic response.

Oh give me a god damn break... you have no right to talk for me.

Exactly. If they don't prepare for a changing job market, don't expect me to bail them out or whine when they lose their jobs. They didn't take the initative to move in to new fields, and lost their job. If they went in to technology manufacturing, they would be earning more money in a rapidly growing field.

Manufacturing is becoming automated more and more, just like agriculture. No longer is it economically reasonable to hire people to do what machines can. It won't die out, but the human component will decline; the jobs created will be those that keep the machines working, building them, and progrmming them.

Isn't empathy great? Helps sort out the sociopaths from the rest of us.

Oh give me a god damn break... you have no right to talk for me.

Nor do you have any right to demean hard-working people who no longer have a livelihood.

Nor do you have any right to demean hard-working people who no longer have a livelihood.

I'm not demeaning anyone. If these few people you talk about, if they were truly hard-working, then they would get retraining for the changing job environment.

You are the one demeaning people. You are demeaning me and other people who hold a different view then the skewed perspective you have.

How many out of work steelworkers will be able to find high paying administrative and high-tech jobs?

Well, that's what happens when the market changes. They lack skills, and they can't get a job because of it. It's not companies' duty to hire you for the sake of hiring; they expect return on their investment in you, and steelworkers in the US can't provide it.

It kind of depends on how you judge the strength of the economy, doesn't it? I think the economy is strong when every person who works gets a living wage, and people aren't forced to scrape by on a job at Walmart and a part time job at McDonalds just to tread water at the poverty line. I think that having a trade surpluss makes for a strong economy.
Apparently the Republican view of a strong economy is a huge trade deficit, numerous workers living in poverty, and a decent stock market for those who have the disposable income to invest heavily in it.

We had a trade surplus during the Great Depression.

Our trade deficit is because our economy is growing fast and the demand for cheaper foreign goods is present. We also have a higher standard of living than the vast majority of the world, and so we buy more than we produce and that affects the trade deficit.

Again companies pay what they think you deserve; their emphasis is a return on their investment in you, not you.

Ironically enough, the stock market has performed much better than under the Democrat presidents than republicans.

That's funny when income has been steadily climbing. Dude, get over it.. higher paying jobs are growing faster then anything now.. and manufacturing is being phased out, and being replaced by better paying adminstrative and high tech jobs.

The republican view is one where there is strong economic growth, growing income, and growing spending.
Income has been steadily climbing, but so have things like fuel prices, housing prices, and other costs of living. While wages for many people have outpaced the rise in cost of living, that hasn't really been the case for the working poor. They're losing ground.

www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2004-06-08-low-wage-working-poor_x.htm

1: It's not their fault if they get laid off. They're working in a mill one day, and they're out on the street the next. How are they supposed to do shit about it?

2: No comment. I fear my blood pressure will rise too much if I continue.

It's not their fault if they get laid off, but it is their fault if they can't find a job. That's why you have to become as qualified as you can, and not place your whole wellbeing entirely on the local steel mill.

Anyone who has so much as opened an introductory economics book to page one knows that the economy moves through natural cycles of growth and recess. This is how Democrats have historically spun the state of the economy to complain about Republican administrations:

1. Economy weak, Unemployment high: The Republicans are to blame! We warned you this would happen! Elect us, and all your dreams will come true!

2. Economy strengthens, Unemployment remains high: Only the rich are recovering! The working class are still suffering! Elect us, and all your dreams will come true!

3. Economy is strong, Unemployment drops: Sure the economy is doing well and unemployment dropped... it's because people are being forced to work at McDonalds! Where are all the high paying jobs? The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer! The trade deficit is enormous (an ironic but sure sign the economy is doing well, by the way)! Elect us, and all your dreams will come true!

4. Economy weakens, Unemployment remains low: They're driving us right into another recession! The stock market is falling! You'll all be unemployed and out on the street! Elect us, and all your dreams will come true!

5. Economy is weak, Unemployment rises: Start over at step 1.

Income has been steadily climbing, but so have things like fuel prices, housing prices, and other costs of living. While wages for many people have outpaced the rise in cost of living, that hasn't really been the case for the working poor. They're losing ground.

www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2004-06-08-low-wage-working-poor_x.htm

Well, I must wonder... look at the date on that article.... care to provide something more up to date?

I'm sorry but this won't ever disappear. It is very easy to get money (my sister who is on her own, managed to get grant because she has a low income) and go into college, and get training..

I'm not demeaning anyone. If these few people you talk about, if they were truly hard-working, then they would get retraining for the changing job environment.

You are the one demeaning people. You are demeaning me and other people who hold a different view then the skewed perspective you have.

1: How the fuck can they "get retraining for the changing job environment" when they didn't go to college to get the opportunity in the first place? The best these ex-manufacturing employees can get is usually something at a supermarket.

2: Oh, really? I'm not the one calling them "slackers" and "idiots" (in so many words). "Skewed perspective"? No. I just happen to think that everybody deserves a good job. I don't like it when people such as yourself don't give a shit, so long as you have your precious money and "cheap goods".

I guess it does depend. But it depends more on governing with your mind, rather than your heart. My heart would like to see poverty eradicated. My mind know human nature will never allow that to happen. My heart would like to see income equality. My mind knows it doesn't work. The American dream, to achieve success beyond your imagination, only works at the expense of others. That's a fact proven by the abysmal failures of communist societies. Again, human nature makes us all want to be better than the guy or gal next door. That means poverty, income inequality, etc. are here to stay forever.
Income inequality will be here forever, but poverty at the level where people can't get housing and medical treatment need not exist. I'm not advocating communism, I'm advocating controlled capitalism. Capitalism regulated so that the workers are protected. Look at Canada. Everyone there has healthcare. They don't seem to have the problems with homelessness that we do. Why can they do it and we can't?

Income has been steadily climbing, but so have things like fuel prices, housing prices, and other costs of living. While wages for many people have outpaced the rise in cost of living, that hasn't really been the case for the working poor. They're losing ground.

www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2004-06-08-low-wage-working-poor_x.htm

This goes back much farther than the past 4 years. The 90's boom was great, but also saw rapid divergence in the rich-poor divide. The stock market drove up prices as did the tech bubble, which made many areas unlivable. (the same thing happened in Japan after the Nikkei burst). The housing boom (and its regional bubbles) are doing the same. The poor are being squeezed because of these factors that enrich those higher up; this wouldn't be a problem if there wasn't the rise in education costs that keep people stuck.

I support vouchers and huge increases in student loans and grants, as well as more accountability in schools. If we can eliminated educational inequity, then the only thing holding back progress is the individual.

The key is to recognize that no economy is so perfect that you can't find SOMETHING to complain about, then to latch on to that and say, "see? this is exactly what we were afraid would happen!"

Somebody could predict the future, I guess.

1. Economy dives into the crapper

2. makes slight recoverty, now it's just mediocre.

3. Republicans hail it as a major victory.


I'm sorry, the economy still sucks.

how are you measuring the health of the economy?

DOW?

unemployment rates?

GDP?

Trade?

Please explain.

I think our economy is just fine... and the more money we leave in people's pockets to spend (as opposed to wasting it by giving it to the government), the better off the economy will be.

Certainly considering what the tech bust and 9/11 did to the DOW, we're doing pretty well.

Anyone who has so much as opened an introductory economics book to page one knows that the economy moves through natural cycles of growth and recess. This is how Democrats have historically spun the state of the economy to complain about Republican administrations:

1. Economy weak, Unemployment high: The Republicans are to blame! We warned you this would happen! Elect us, and all your dreams will come true!

2. Economy strengthens, Unemployment remains high: Only the rich are recovering! The working class are still suffering! Elect us, and all your dreams will come true!

3. Economy is strong, Unemployment drops: Sure the economy is doing well and unemployment dropped... it's because people are being forced to work at McDonalds! Where are all the high paying jobs? The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer! The trade deficit is enormous (an ironic but sure sign the economy is doing well, by the way)! Elect us, and all your dreams will come true!

4. Economy weakens, Unemployment remains low: They're driving us right into another recession! The stock market is falling! You'll all be unemployed and out on the street! Elect us, and all your dreams will come true!

5. Economy is weak, Unemployment rises: Start over at step 1.
All your economic theories fall apart when corporations are no longer beholden to anyone save shareholders. Your last economic boom was had at the expense of workers in Canada. Mexico's boom is being had at the expense of US workers. So what does your economics textbook say about that? And how is this the fault of some nation's political party, other than the party that got the ball rolling on all this money-making at the expense of workers - who were REAGAN'S REPUBLICANS?

1: How the fuck can they "get retraining for the changing job environment" when they didn't go to college to get the opportunity in the first place? The best these ex-manufacturing employees can get is usually something at a supermarket.

My friend's mom just finished retraining in a career college. She is 42. I'm sorry but you can be any age to go into college. Someone that was in my summer class I took was in his 50s.

Get retraining. The economy is shifting. Your argument is the same one people put up about agriculture when jobs were being lost.

2: Oh, really? I'm not the one calling them "slackers" and "idiots" (in so many words). "Skewed perspective"? No. I just happen to think that everybody deserves a good job. I don't like it when people such as yourself don't give a shit, so long as you have your precious money and "cheap goods".

I'm not calling them slackers or idiots. What the fuck? I knew someone who used to work for Ford.. he got retraining and now works for Intel.

I do give a shit. You are the one who obviously does not. Get with the program.

I'm not rich either. I don't even have a damn car. I have to rely on public transportation. I have to maintain a budget every month so I have enough food. I have college expenses to pay ($1,514 this semester, up by $138 since last semester). SO DON'T YOU DARE!

1: How the fuck can they "get retraining for the changing job environment" when they didn't go to college to get the opportunity in the first place? The best these ex-manufacturing employees can get is usually something at a supermarket.

2: Oh, really? I'm not the one calling them "slackers" and "idiots" (in so many words). "Skewed perspective"? No. I just happen to think that everybody deserves a good job. I don't like it when people such as yourself don't give a shit, so long as you have your precious money and "cheap goods".

1. They should have gone to college. There are loans and grants for low-income families to help mitigate the cost. They could have worked in college to help pay their costs as well.

2. Why should I have to pay for everyone? If we were to keep all of the manufacturing, people higher up would lose their more skilled and higher paying jobs and prices would go up for everyone. The higher paying jobs would be lost and lower paying ones would remain. We would depress our standard of living.

Income inequality will be here forever, but poverty at the level where people can't get housing and medical treatment need not exist. I'm not advocating communism, I'm advocating controlled capitalism. Capitalism regulated so that the workers are protected. Look at Canada. Everyone there has healthcare. They don't seem to have the problems with homelessness that we do. Why can they do it and we can't?

Can the owner of a company still fire a worker if he underperforms?

Or do you mean to say that workers would be vested for life?

Because if such is the case, performance will falter, given that part of the reason people work hard is so that they can receive good marks and keep their jobs.

Take away the incentives to work hard, and watch production go down.

(unions are famous for this... i've heard many stories about lazy union workers and how much these people wished they could just fire the union workers... or "fire" the unions and rekindle the fire under the workers' asses)

It is very easy to get money (my sister who is on her own, managed to get grant because she has a low income) and go into college, and get training..

Tell that to my bank manager, kiddo. Keep those technicolour shades handy, now...

Tell that to my bank manager, kiddo. Keep those technicolour shades handy, now...

The grants she got was mainly from the federal government, not from any bank.

1. They should have gone to college. There are loans and grants for low-income families to help mitigate the cost. They could have worked in college to help pay their costs as well.

2. Why should I have to pay for everyone? If we were to keep all of the manufacturing, people higher up would lose their more skilled and higher paying jobs and prices would go up for everyone. The higher paying jobs would be lost and lower paying ones would remain. We would depress our standard of living.

The question you pose in number two should read: "Why should I have to pay for anyone?"

You should pay because presumably you want good things for people other than yourself. Unless you're pathological.

All your economic theories fall apart when corporations are no longer beholden to anyone save shareholders. Your last economic boom was had at the expense of workers in Canada. Mexico's boom is being had at the expense of US workers. So what does your economics textbook say about that? And how is this the fault of some nation's political party, other than the party that got the ball rolling on all this money-making at the expense of workers - who were REAGAN'S REPUBLICANS?

That's competition. If you can't compete, you lose. Canada couldn't compete with the US, and it's jobs were lost. Anyway, Mexico hasn't taken that many jobs because they lack the skilled workers, and their boom is far from perfect (corruption takes away benefits from most people).

It's no ones' fault, because the economy mostly operates independent of government. The gov. can affect it, but they can't do a thing about jobs without causing serious economic damage.

The question you pose in number two should read: "Why should I have to pay for anyone?"

You should pay because presumably you want good things for people other than yourself. Unless you're pathological.

...but some of us don't think that dependence on government (via the pocketbook of John Doe) is healthy... we'd like to see the poor guy down the street provide for himself.

provided that he's physically and mentally able, that is.

The question you pose in number two should read: "Why should I have to pay for anyone?"

You should pay because presumably you want good things for people other than yourself. Unless you're pathological.

No, it doesn't work that way. I want myself to be able to enjoy the best living standard I can for the effort I put in to attaining it. To say that I should have to sacrifice that for everyone else regardless of why they need it is ridiculous and unfair. That effectively steals my money and gives it to someone else just because, and totally destroys any incentive to compete or work for your goals.

I give to charities because I believe the best thing is to help those who help themselves, rather than give it to some government entitiy that makes people nothing more than welfare slaves.

...but some of us don't think that dependence on government (via the pocketbook of John Doe) is healthy... we'd like to see the poor guy down the street provide for himself.

provided that he's physically and mentally able, that is.

We'd all like to see that, but the fact remains: Most of them *can't*. It's not always physical and mental problems.

That's competition. If you can't compete, you lose. Canada couldn't compete with the US, and it's jobs were lost. Anyway, Mexico hasn't taken that many jobs because they lack the skilled workers, and their boom is far from perfect (corruption takes away benefits from most people).

It's no ones' fault, because the economy mostly operates independent of government. The gov. can affect it, but they can't do a thing about jobs without causing serious economic damage.


jobs will go to those who do the best work, at the highest production, at the lowest pay

Our unions have screwed the American worker into a position of being, yes, the best work force in the world in terms of quality (imo), but also among the highest paid and least productive (45-minute breaks, anyone?) per dollar paid


--
and you're right... Bill Clinton, George Bush et al are not/were not responsible for the health of the US economy. We the People control our economy's destiny (and Greenspan has a bit to pitch in as well)

the biggest thing government can do to negatively affect the economy is to limit the incentives of entrepreneurs to start businesses and of people to invest in businesses

Can the owner of a company still fire a worker if he underperforms?

Or do you mean to say that workers would be vested for life?

Because if such is the case, performance will falter, given that part of the reason people work hard is so that they can receive good marks and keep their jobs.
Yeah he can still fire a worker who underperforms, but he should have to pay all his workers a living wage, and be protected from unfair competition by laws that make sure that all products sold here are manufactured by workers who are paid a living wage and work in safe conditions.

If a person can't do his job then he should find one that he can do. If a person can do his job successfully he should be paid at least enough to stay fed, clothed and sheltered.

No, it doesn't work that way. I want myself to be able to enjoy the best living standard I can for the effort I put in to attaining it. To say that I should have to sacrifice that for everyone else regardless of why they need it is ridiculous and unfair. That effectively steals my money and gives it to someone else just because, and totally destroys any incentive to compete or work for your goals.

I give to charities because I believe the best thing is to help those who help themselves, rather than give it to some government entitiy that makes people nothing more than welfare slaves.

I've found the problem: You're selfish and full of yourself.

Think of it this way: It's not fair for others to have no money for food, shelter, or clothing, just because YOU want more for yourself.

Consumerist bullshit.

That's competition. If you can't compete, you lose. Canada couldn't compete with the US, and it's jobs were lost. Anyway, Mexico hasn't taken that many jobs because they lack the skilled workers, and their boom is far from perfect (corruption takes away benefits from most people).

It's no ones' fault, because the economy mostly operates independent of government. The gov. can affect it, but they can't do a thing about jobs without causing serious economic damage.
Canada got suckered, three times over. 1) we got suckered by America. 2) we got suckered by Mulroney's Tories (the Canadian franchise for Reagan's Republicans). 3) we got suckered by big business.

So now we're stuck with trade treaties America signed but refuses to honour; We utterly destroyed Mulroney's Tories (they no longer exist); and big business has fucked off, not just from Canada, but now they're fucking off of you guys, too.

Guess you'll figure out 'Free Trade' was code for " we'll find people willing to work for a bowl of rice a day instead of paying North Americans fair wages ".

But don't worry - you'll now be free to spend, spend, spend - the money you no longer make - on useless crap made in China.

Another victory for unfettered capitalism and the consumerite culture that espouses it! Yaaaaay!

I've found the problem: You're selfish and full of yourself.

Think of it this way: It's not fair for others to have no money for food, shelter, or clothing, just because YOU want more for yourself.

Consumerist bullshit.
More like unchecked sociopathic bullshit...

jobs will go to those who do the best work, at the highest production, at the lowest pay

Our unions have screwed the American worker into a position of being, yes, the best work force in the world in terms of quality (imo), but also among the highest paid and least productive (45-minute breaks, anyone?) per dollar paid

Exactly. It's entirely meritocratic.

Unions had a function, but they became more and more useless as federal law went in to effect. They now seek to get more money for less productivity, and that just doesn't work in a competitive environment. Productivity drives hiring and living standards.

All your economic theories fall apart when corporations are no longer beholden to anyone save shareholders. Your last economic boom was had at the expense of workers in Canada. Mexico's boom is being had at the expense of US workers. So what does your economics textbook say about that? And how is this the fault of some nation's political party, other than the party that got the ball rolling on all this money-making at the expense of workers - who were REAGAN'S REPUBLICANS?

I almost forgot to include then Democratic Pyramid of Blame. Thank you for reminding me!

1. When a problem arises, and Republicans hold the White House and the Congress: This is all the Republicans fault! They have absolute power! There's no checks and balances! We tried to warn you! Elect us, and all your dreams will come true!

2. When a problem arises, and Republicans hold the White House, but not the Congress: This is all the President's fault! It's his administration and his agenda! We tried to warn you! Elect us, and all your dreams will come true!

3. When a problem arises, and Republicans hold the Congress, but not the White House: This is all the Congress' fault! They bottleneck and roadblock all of our legislation! They filibuster us from getting anything done! We tried to warn you! Elect us, and all your dreams will come true!

4. When a problem arises, and Republicans hold neither the White House nor the Congress: This is the last (Republican) administration's fault! You can't expect us to clean up his mess overnight! You can't possibly consider putting them back into office! We tried to warn you! Elect us, and all your dreams will come true!

"You'll work harder with a guy on your back for a bowl of rice a day."

Jello Biafra speaks the truth.

I've found the problem: You're selfish and full of yourself.

Think of it this way: It's not fair for others to have no money for food, shelter, or clothing, just because YOU want more for yourself.

Consumerist bullshit.

You are the one spewing the BS. I mean come on. You are the one selfish and you are the one full of yourself.

More like unchecked sociopathic bullshit...

True, but the two go hand-in-hand.

I've found the problem: You're selfish and full of yourself.

Think of it this way: It's not fair for others to have no money for food, shelter, or clothing, just because YOU want more for yourself.

Consumerist bullshit.


When was the last time you made a charitable donation, and for how much?

You are the one spewing the BS. I mean come on. You are the one selfish and you are the one full of yourself.

Of course, because I'm all for giving more money to the needy. Yeah, that's being selfish, there!

Seems to me, you can't figure out a way to argue with me without making such ridiculous statements.

jobs will go to those who do the best work, at the highest production, at the lowest pay

Our unions have screwed the American worker into a position of being, yes, the best work force in the world in terms of quality (imo), but also among the highest paid and least productive (45-minute breaks, anyone?) per dollar paid


--
and you're right... Bill Clinton, George Bush et al are not/were not responsible for the health of the US economy. We the People control our economy's destiny (and Greenspan has a bit to pitch in as well)

the biggest thing government can do to negatively affect the economy is to limit the incentivesUnions were great for this country. When the labor unions were strong, '50s and '60s, we had a healthy economy driven by well paid workers with disposable incomes.

You are the one spewing the BS. I mean come on. You are the one selfish and you are the one full of yourself.


I know. His assertions were ridiculous.

Unions were great for this country. When the labor unions were strong, '50s and '60s, we had a healthy economy driven by well paid workers with disposable incomes.

You don't have to look any further than Pittsburgh and the Monongahela valley in the 40's, 50's, and 60's to see what things used to be like. The good days, when manufacturing wasn't fucked. The good days, when people had jobs. GOOD jobs.

I almost forgot to include then Democratic Pyramid of Blame. Thank you for reminding me!

1. When a problem arises, and Republicans hold the White House and the Congress: This is all the Republicans fault! They have absolute power! There's no checks and balances! We tried to warn you! Elect us, and all your dreams will come true!

2. When a problem arises, and Republicans hold the White House, but not the Congress: This is all the President's fault! It's his administration and his agenda! We tried to warn you! Elect us, and all your dreams will come true!

3. When a problem arises, and Republicans hold the Congress, but not the White House: This is all the Congress' fault! They bottleneck and roadblock all of our legislation! They filibuster us from getting anything done! We tried to warn you! Elect us, and all your dreams will come true!

4. When a problem arises, and Republicans hold neither the White House nor the Congress: This is the last (Republican) administration's fault! You can't expect us to clean up his mess overnight! You can't possibly consider putting them back into office! We tried to warn you! Elect us, and all your dreams will come true!
Scream all you want, it was Reagan's Republican admin (2nd term) that made backroom deals with the reviled and utterly corrupt Mulroney Tories to foist Free Trade and NAFTA on our country.
I wouldn't give a flying fuck if it'd been a Democrat who'd done it. Fact remains, IT WAS THE FUCKING REPUBLICANS WHO DID IT. WHINING ABOUT IT DOESN'T ALTER THE FACT.

Democratic 'Pyramid of Blame', my unemployed ASS. More like, '
Republican Dodecahedron of Denial', IMO.

Unions were great for this country. When the labor unions were strong, '50s and '60s, we had a healthy economy driven by well paid workers with disposable incomes.

I totally agree that unions were instrumental in making our country as prosperous as it is today.

Nonetheless, I also believe they have outlived their constructive usefulness.

Of course, because I'm all for giving more money to the needy. Yeah, that's being selfish, there!

Seems to me, you can't figure out a way to argue with me without making such ridiculous statements.

Oh come on.. get over yourself.. you are the one making ridiculous statements. Especially about me. You called me selfish. You have no right..

More like unchecked sociopathic bullshit...

no. sociopaths hurt people.

we simply think that others should providefor themselves and not give us their bill. an example of mild sociopathy is expecting others to pay for you when you are able yourself..

I almost forgot to include then Democratic Pyramid of Blame. Thank you for reminding me!

1. When a problem arises, and Republicans hold the White House and the Congress: This is all the Republicans fault! They have absolute power! There's no checks and balances! We tried to warn you! Elect us, and all your dreams will come true!

2. When a problem arises, and Republicans hold the White House, but not the Congress: This is all the President's fault! It's his administration and his agenda! We tried to warn you! Elect us, and all your dreams will come true!

3. When a problem arises, and Republicans hold the Congress, but not the White House: This is all the Congress' fault! They bottleneck and roadblock all of our legislation! They filibuster us from getting anything done! We tried to warn you! Elect us, and all your dreams will come true!

4. When a problem arises, and Republicans hold neither the White House nor the Congress: This is the last (Republican) administration's fault! You can't expect us to clean up his mess overnight! You can't possibly consider putting them back into office! We tried to warn you! Elect us, and all your dreams will come true!
Both parties blame each other. That's just the way partisan politics work.

Scream all you want, it was Reagan's Republican admin (2nd term) that made backroom deals with the reviled and utterly corrupt Mulroney Tories to foist Free Trade and NAFTA on our country.
I wouldn't give a flying fuck if it'd been a Democrat who'd done it. Fact remains, IT WAS THE FUCKING REPUBLICANS WHO DID IT. WHINING ABOUT IT DOESN'T ALTER THE FACT.

Democratic 'Pyramid of Blame', my unemployed ASS. More like, '
Republican Dodecahedron of Denial', IMO.


lol awesome :)

I totally agree that unions were instrumental in making our country as prosperous as it is today.

Nonetheless, I also believe they have outlived their constructive usefulness.

Only because they've been buttfucked by corporations that pretty much control this country now.

You don't have to look any further than Pittsburgh and the Monongahela valley in the 40's, 50's, and 60's to see what things used to be like. The good days, when manufacturing wasn't fucked. The good days, when people had jobs. GOOD jobs.

So you are for people working in bad conditions in manufacturing instead of good conditions and better pay in high tech jobs? Wake up. The high tech revolution has brought very good jobs, better jobs then before. Get with the times.

I totally agree that unions were instrumental in making our country as prosperous as it is today.

Nonetheless, I also believe they have outlived their constructive usefulness.
I disagree. There has to be a balance of power between workers and employers to ensure that workers will get a fair deal.

I totally agree that unions were instrumental in making our country as prosperous as it is today.

Nonetheless, I also believe they have outlived their constructive usefulness.

then you believe utter crap. I don't have to believe - because I know - that the good work of unions is being undone by capitalists and consumerites alike. Gee, how do I know that?

Call it a longer perspective than what Americans are privvy to, by misfortune of having taken America's word one time too many. Call it direct experience. Call it whatever you may wish, but slag the unions at your own peril. They're the only thing holding back a return to Dickensian workplaces in our society.

This is of course why so many corporations eye the third world hungrily. No unions, no environmental protection laws, no worker safety rules, no benefits, no retirement plans.

Hooray for your side. Hooray for inhumanity, hooray for infamy, hooray for sociopathy.

we simply think that others should providefor themselves and not give us their bill. ..
Does that attitude extend to Walmart too? Apparently the state of Georgia is tired of paying for Walmart employees' healthcare because Walmart is too greedy to pay for basic health insurance.

www.ajc.com/business/content/business/0204/27walmart.html

Only because they've been buttfucked by corporations that pretty much control this country now.

Your argument is going downhill. Look at the words you are using.

This whole thread is going downhill.

Dobbs: Show some respect to his views. Utter crap? No I'm sorry, that's not the case.

So you are for people working in bad conditions in manufacturing instead of good conditions and better pay in high tech jobs? Wake up. The high tech revolution has brought very good jobs, better jobs then before. Get with the times.

Wake up? You're the one who's asleep.

Ask any ex-mill worker. They *want* their jobs back at those places.

The working conditions were actually quite good after the 1950's. The pollution in Pittsburgh was still bad, but the mill conditions increased steadily over the years.

Saying "get with the times" is pretty much saying "Fuck the past. I don't care about what happened then, because I wasn't born yet! Everybody in those days was stupid, anyway".

Get it out of your head and read up: People don't want "high-tech" jobs in old industrial cities. They want their livelihoods back.

So you are for people working in bad conditions in manufacturing instead of good conditions and better pay in high tech jobs? Wake up. The high tech revolution has brought very good jobs, better jobs then before. Get with the times.
The number of tech jobs produced hasn't kept pace with the number of manufacturing jobs lost. Most former factory workers went into lower paying service jobs.

Only because they've been buttfucked by corporations that pretty much control this country now.

the unions have forced some corporations to look elsewhere for labor, in order to stay financially solvent.

you don't seem to respect proprietary rights. how socialistic of you!

(hehe)

Scream all you want, it was Reagan's Republican admin (2nd term) that made backroom deals with the reviled and utterly corrupt Mulroney Tories to foist Free Trade and NAFTA on our country.
I wouldn't give a flying fuck if it'd been a Democrat who'd done it. Fact remains, IT WAS THE FUCKING REPUBLICANS WHO DID IT. WHINING ABOUT IT DOESN'T ALTER THE FACT.

Democratic 'Pyramid of Blame', my unemployed ASS. More like, '
Republican Dodecahedron of Denial', IMO.

Are you going to be ok, man? You're kinda sounding like you're coming unglued or something over there. :)

Incidentally, NAFTA was signed into law by President Clinton with the support of a Democratic Congress.

Does that attitude extend to Walmart too? Apparently the state of Georgia is tired of paying for Walmart employees' healthcare because Walmart is too greedy to pay for basic health insurance.

www.ajc.com/business/content/business/0204/27walmart.html

Yes, if what they are doing is illegal. They should be forced to conform to a guideline established by the state of Georgia. Wal-Mart's digging itself a hole with these kinds of problems, in my opinion.

The number of tech jobs produced hasn't kept pace with the number of manufacturing jobs lost. Most former factory workers went into lower paying service jobs.

This is exactly my point.

The fact still remains: A few posters in this topic simply do not care about the people who have lost their manufacturing jobs. So long as they have more money and cheaper products, well then, fuck everybody else!

Call it whatever you may wish, but slag the unions at your own peril. They're the only thing holding back a return to Dickensian workplaces in our society.

This is of course why so many corporations eye the third world hungrily. No unions, no environmental protection laws, no worker safety rules, no benefits, no retirement plans.

.
Snipped original post.

You've nailed it with both those statements. Corporate profits shouldn't be maximized by sacrificing human dignity.

Wake up? You're the one who's asleep.

Ask any ex-mill worker. They *want* their jobs back at those places.

The working conditions were actually quite good after the 1950's. The pollution in Pittsburgh was still bad, but the mill conditions increased steadily over the years.

The working conditions were good? I don't think so. Things have become better and better. And look at Los Angeles and other megacities in the 1950s-1970s.. the pollution was awful.

Saying "get with the times" is pretty much saying "Fuck the past. I don't care about what happened then, because I wasn't born yet! Everybody in those days was stupid, anyway".

My dad who is 52 now is with the times. He was a computer analyst and now works for the US Department of State. You are casting older people off as stupid and moronic saying they cannot use new technology. How insulting. I think they can do so.

Get it out of your head and read up: People don't want "high-tech" jobs in old industrial cities. They want their livelihoods back.

You get your head up. Why would people not want better paying jobs with better conditons? It seems only you want old industrial jobs back.

the unions have forced some corporations to look elsewhere for labor, in order to stay financially solvent.

you don't seem to respect proprietary rights. how socialistic of you!

(hehe)

"Financially solvent"? The corporations did fine when they had to pay American workers decent wages for a change. They still made massive profits. They just decided they wanted MORE money, so they began to outsource.

The number of tech jobs produced hasn't kept pace with the number of manufacturing jobs lost. Most former factory workers went into lower paying service jobs.

No, there are other jobs like adminstration that are higher paying. Face it, higher paying jobs are opening up all over the place.

I have to laugh at those that are liberals and democrats who don't seem to understand the finer points of economics.

Ok granted, i'm not an econ major (nor do I want to be one) however, those that are saying that we're worse off now than under Clinton are in fantasy land.

Call it whatever you may wish, but slag the unions at your own peril. They're the only thing holding back a return to Dickensian workplaces in our society.

No, federal law keeps those abuses in check, which unions accomplished. Now that those are in place, unions are unnecessary other than as a voting bloc.

the unions have forced some corporations to look elsewhere for labor, in order to stay financially solvent.

you don't seem to respect proprietary rights. how socialistic of you!

(hehe)
They wouldn't be forced to look elsewhere for labor in order to stay solvent if the developed nations would enact laws prohibiting the import of products produced under unsafe conditions by exploited workers in polluting factories.

Some jobs would still move overseas, and they would bring more money per worker into third world countries, but many good paying jobs would remain here.

Unfortunately corporate profits couldn't skyrocket to the point that a CEO could earn hundreds of times what a factory worker makes, and it's the fatcats who pick who will run for office through their campaign donations.

No, there are other jobs like adminstration that are higher paying. Face it, higher paying jobs are opening up all over the place.
I see neighborhoods going downhill fast in many parts of my state because the people who live there can't find decent jobs. If so many good jobs are opening up all over the place, why are good, working class neighborhoods turning into ghettos?

"Financially solvent"? The corporations did fine when they had to pay American workers decent wages for a change. They still made massive profits. They just decided they wanted MORE money, so they began to outsource.

Outsourcing dates back to the 1970's, when the US began to lose its position as the world's sole manufacturing power. We were unrivaled for decades, which is why wages didn't really matter; when Japan began to take off as an industrial power with lower wages and better workers, American compaines began sending jobs there to save money and that policy continues wherever work can be done cheaper for equal or greater productivity.

Companies hire people to make more money off of their work. It's an investment in the future.

Wait.. I think I'm starting to understand the left wing logic in this thread...

1) It is bad that the economy is growing quickly

2) Higher technology is very bad for people

3) Better conditions then ever before are very bad

4) Low unemployment is bad, even with better paying jobs being created faster then ever.

I think I see it now.. good is bad because you guys can't fullfill your political agenda.

The working conditions were good? I don't think so. Things have become better and better. And look at Los Angeles and other megacities in the 1950s-1970s.. the pollution was awful.

Hahaha. The pollution in Los Angeles is still awful. And, the working conditions in steel mills in the 1960's were about as good as they could be, with their current level of technology. The fact is, as time goes on, working conditions do get better.

My dad who is 52 now is with the times. He was a computer analyst and now works for the US Department of State. You are casting older people off as stupid and moronic saying they cannot use new technology. How insulting. I think they can do so.

That's just the thing --- Your dad was a computer analyst. I'm talking about steelworkers and factory workers who didn't get to go to college for any number of reasons. And, I'm definitely not saying they can't use new technology. I'm saying that they can't use said new technology, because the best they can get with their level of education (usually high school graduate) is shitty service jobs. These people don't often get the high-paying jobs you speak of.

You get your head up. Why would people not want better paying jobs with better conditons? It seems only you want old industrial jobs back.

You're missing the point. Of course people want better-paying jobs with better conditions: That's exactly why people in old industrial towns and cities want their mills and factories back.

"Financially solvent"? The corporations did fine when they had to pay American workers decent wages for a change. They still made massive profits. They just decided they wanted MORE money, so they began to outsource.

...which is their right. Owners get to make the decisions.

a job is not a right... it's a privelege.

Nobody but me has a right to drive my car. Likewise, no worker should have a right to tell an owner what to do with his business.

Outsourcing dates back to the 1970's, when the US began to lose its position as the world's sole manufacturing power. We were unrivaled for decades, which is why wages didn't really matter; when Japan began to take off as an industrial power with lower wages and better workers, American compaines began sending jobs there to save money and that policy continues wherever work can be done cheaper for equal or greater productivity.

Companies hire people to make more money off of their work. It's an investment in the future.

Investment in the future? More like an investment in the present. Companies that outsource to drive profits through the roof aren't thinking about the future (much less their former employees and their families). They're thinking about the here and now.

...which is their right. Owners get to make the decisions.

a job is not a right... it's a privelege.

Nobody but me has a right to drive my car. Likewise, no worker should have a right to tell an owner what to do with his business.

It shouldn't be within anyone's rights to fuck somebody over, just because you want more money.

I see neighborhoods going downhill fast in many parts of my state because the people who live there can't find decent jobs. If so many good jobs are opening up all over the place, why are good, working class neighborhoods turning into ghettos?

Because the people there don't have the skills for the new jobs. Companies hire in places where the people are most talented, not wherever. Good jobs aren't opening up everywhere because there aren't talented people everywhere. High tech industry and administrative/higher level jobs require well-educated employees, and working class neighborhoods often lack the qualifications.

No, federal law keeps those abuses in check, which unions accomplished. Now that those are in place, unions are unnecessary other than as a voting bloc.Who's going to keep those federal laws from being weakened or abolished? Who's going to make sure that the government actually enforces those laws?

Businesses are going to use their money and connections to try to eliminate those laws in order to try to increase profits. Unions are necessary to make sure that those laws remain, and in some cases that new protections are enacted.

Wait.. I think I'm starting to understand the left wing logic in this thread...

1) It is bad that the economy is growing quickly

2) Higher technology is very bad for people

3) Better conditions then ever before are very bad

4) Low unemployment is bad, even with better paying jobs being created faster then ever.

I think I see it now.. good is bad because you guys can't fullfill your political agenda.
Keep building those strawmen.

Wait.. I think I'm starting to understand the left wing logic in this thread...

1) It is bad that the economy is growing quickly

2) Higher technology is very bad for people

3) Better conditions then ever before are very bad

4) Low unemployment is bad, even with better paying jobs being created faster then ever.

I think I see it now.. good is bad because you guys can't fullfill your political agenda.

Then no, you've failed utterly to grasp the situation, which I hardly find surprising. Good luck sustaining a society geared towards a population wholly dependent on selling worthless crap to each other.

It shouldn't be within anyone's rights to fuck somebody over, just because you want more money.

Again, it's not the company's requirement to hire you. They can do what they want because they have the right to free enterprise and business decisions (within the law); there isn't a "right" to a job or a certain wage.

Human labor is an investment like any other infrastructure, or equipment, or factory to a company. Their ROI is the most important factor driving employment, not hiring for hiring's sake.

Hahaha. The pollution in Los Angeles is still awful. And, the working conditions in steel mills in the 1960's were about as good as they could be, with their current level of technology. The fact is, as time goes on, working conditions do get better.

Hahahah... no. The pollution in Los Angeles has improved massively especially since the 1970s. Has to do with pollution controls on cars, and a shift to high tech. I live in the San Fernando Valley.. one of the fastest growing economic centers in California.. with a growing high tech base.

That's just the thing --- Your dad was a computer analyst. I'm talking about steelworkers and factory workers who didn't get to go to college for any number of reasons. And, I'm definitely not saying they can't use new technology. I'm saying that they can't use said new technology, because the best they can get with their level of education (usually high school graduate) is shitty service jobs. These people don't often get the high-paying jobs you speak of.

My dad went through university and got a BA degree and later his MBA. You are casting older people off as stupid and not able to get a high tech job. They most certainly can. Remember, anyone can get into a career college, which are very cheap these days. Career colleges are different then regular universitys and community colleges. They enable you to get a degree faster then before, and these career colleges help you get into a good paying job.

My bestfriend (eh we once dated but that didn't work out) who is Mexican lives in a working class neighborhood in Long Beach. He is going into career college.

You're missing the point. Of course people want better-paying jobs with better conditions: That's exactly why people in old industrial towns and cities want their mills and factories back.

No. This is why people want the technological revolution to continue on and bring them better jobs then before. Higher tech and adminstrative jobs are better then the old factory jobs. In fact factory jobs were quite... bad.

The Unions haven't entirely outlived their usefulness, but they have become a political pawn and they have lost their focus on the working conditions of their members, who have become political party members, partisan in every way.

With this weeks break-up of the AFL-CIO, we'll have to wait and see if the American Unions anyway, can actually address some of their major shortcomings.

As to saying that only the Unions stop the corporations from returning to a world Dickens would describe, that's ridiculous. I would say that the government's oversight has long since replaced the Union as the bastion that holds the reigns in such matters. Work week, minimum wage, child labor laws and OSHA (Occupational Safety & Health Administration ~ workplace protections for you non Americans). Admittedly it was the Unions that fought the fight, but FDR began the governments take-over in such matters.

Unless the European countries don’t have such protections in their laws, which I would think to be incredulous and you better have proofs or I’m not going to believe someone that says they don’t without links, then I say that the Unions today are in desperate need of restructuring their roles, their strategies and tactics and even their very focus on their members needs and wants.

I would argue that in the last thirty years, employees under government arbitration, for example, have faired better then the workers who were free to form Unions and Strike for their rights and pay etc. A cross country study and comparison would show if I’m right, but I admit, I’m predicting, not stating a fact of any kind, just my opinion about this last part here.

Again, it's not the company's requirement to hire you. They can do what they want because they have the right to free enterprise and business decisions (within the law); there isn't a "right" to a job or a certain wage.

Human labor is an investment like any other infrastructure, or equipment, or factory to a company. Their ROI is the most important factor driving employment, not hiring for hiring's sake.

It's not their right to hire you, but it shouldn't be their "right" to drop you in the gutter because they want more money.

You don't seem to understand that working people have, err, FEELINGS. They're just like you, only probably a lot less money-hungry. Wait, that would make them a lot different.

Then no, you've failed utterly to grasp the situation, which I hardly find surprising. Good luck sustaining a society geared towards a population wholly dependent on selling worthless crap to each other.

Get over yourself. People aren't forced to buy things. They have a right to buy whatever they want. You are the one failing to grasp the situation.

And no people, it isn't a strawman.

Who's going to keep those federal laws from being weakened or abolished? Who's going to make sure that the government actually enforces those laws?

Businesses are going to use their money and connections to try to eliminate those laws in order to try to increase profits. Unions are necessary to make sure that those laws remain, and in some cases that new protections are enacted.

To overturn the laws, those regulations would have to be found unconstitutional and struck down by the Supreme Court, which is very difficult even for a well-connected company. There's no grounds for it, and in the end the courts are still impeachable.

The Department of Labor usually monitors compliance, and the justice system ensures that wrongdoers are punished.

Then no, you've failed utterly to grasp the situation, which I hardly find surprising. Good luck sustaining a society geared towards a population wholly dependent on selling worthless crap to each other.


That's funny, you just described every society since the birth of civilization itself. Every society it just selling useless crap to each other, what is useful?

Again, it's not the company's requirement to hire you. They can do what they want because they have the right to free enterprise and business decisions (within the law); there isn't a "right" to a job or a certain wage.

Human labor is an investment like any other infrastructure, or equipment, or factory to a company. Their ROI is the most important factor driving employment, not hiring for hiring's sake.

Their ROI? Wtf is ROI? Does it mean, 'their bottom line'?

A thought: I once read a story about an alternate time-line wherein the height of considered wealth was one's (or one's corporations') ability to employ. Not the mean grubbing for lucre.

And no, this was not some communist tome. As I recall, it was written by Bob Heinlein, one of the stronger voices for Libertarianism in America.

The Unions haven't entirely outlived their usefulness, but they have become a political pawn and they have lost their focus on the working conditions of their members have become political party members, partisan in every way.

With this weeks break-up of the AFL-CIO, we'll have to wait and see if the American Unions anyway, can actually address some of their major shortcomings.

As to saying that only the Unions stop the corporations from returning to a world Dickens would describe, that's ridiculous. I would say that the government's oversight has long since replaced the Union as the bastion that holds the reigns in such matters. Work week, minimum wage, child labor laws and OSHA (Occupational Safety & Health Administration ~ workplace protections for you non Americans). Admittedly it was the Unions that fought the fight, but FDR began the governments take-over in such matters.

Unless the European countries don’t have such protections in their laws, which I would think to be incredulous and you better have proofs or I’m not going to believe someone that says they don’t without links, then I say that the Unions today are in desperate need of restructuring their roles, their strategies and tactics and even their very focus on their members needs and wants.

I would argue that in the last thirty years, employees under government arbitration, for example, have faired better under then the workers who were free to form Unions and Strike for their rights and pay etc. A cross country study and comparison would show if I’m right, but I admit, I’m predicting, not stating a fact of any kind, just my opinion about this last part here.

Good argument.

Because the people there don't have the skills for the new jobs. Companies hire in places where the people are most talented, not wherever. Good jobs aren't opening up everywhere because there aren't talented people everywhere. High tech industry and administrative/higher level jobs require well-educated employees, and working class neighborhoods often lack the qualifications.
So I guess those people are disposable. Use them up, then throw them away when you don't need them anymore.

Sure, [service jobs] pay more, but manufacturing is what holds things together. If we outsource all of our manufacturing jobs, what have we got left?

Specify. What do you mean, what do you have left? What you have left are all the jobs that are actually necessary and that you encounter in your daily life. All the people working in a job involving interacting with customers are in service. If you like, what you have left is the visible part of society.

Of course manufacturing jobs are important, but there is no reason to suppose that having manufacture in other countries has any other effect than providing cheaper labour. The only real concern is stability in times of war, but unless Mr Bush continues this pointless rampage of invasions that won't be a problem.

It's not their right to hire you, but it shouldn't be their "right" to drop you in the gutter because they want more money.

You don't seem to understand that working people have, err, FEELINGS. They're just like you, only probably a lot less money-hungry. Wait, that would make them a lot different.

1. The company decided to hire you, so they reserve the right to terminate your unemployment.

2.It's the company's duty to make money, not pay everyone. Profits drive free enterprise, and the hunger for more money is what keeps our economy growing and job creation steady. Personally, I'd love for everyone to have a job, but it isn't possible.

Sure, [service jobs] pay more, but manufacturing is what holds things together. If we outsource all of our manufacturing jobs, what have we got left?

Specify. What do you mean, what do you have left? What you have left are all the jobs that are actually necessary and that you encounter in your daily life. All the people working in a job involving interacting with customers are in service. If you like, what you have left is the visible part of society.

Of course manufacturing jobs are important, but there is no reason to suppose that having manufacture in other countries has any other effect than providing cheaper labour, and thus lower prices for consumers. The only real concern is stability in times of war, but unless Mr Bush continues this pointless rampage of invasions that won't be a problem.

It shouldn't be within anyone's rights to fuck somebody over, just because you want more money.

firing someone because he is a financial liability is not an example of such... it's ugly, yes, but sometimes it's necessary for the success of the company.

a company's #1 priority is to provide value for its stockholders, for without the stockholders there is no company. Workers can be replaced; stockholders cannot be replaced.

if your union pals hadn't driven vast portions of our nation's labor out of the pricing range of companies (IE, their ability to handle the cost of labor), we might not have this dilemma.

So I guess those people are disposable. Use them up, then throw them away when you don't need them anymore.


Unfortunately, when the economic system thrives entirely on qualification and merit, that's what will happen. If you're not qualified, you don't get jobs, and companies won't go to places that don't have what they need.

That's funny, you just described every society since the birth of civilization itself. Every society it just selling useless crap to each other, what is useful?

If you honestly believe that, your handlers have done a right old job brainwashing you. No, far from it - very few societies have as their over-arching raison d'etre the buying and selling of useless crap to each other.

Answer your own question, tell me what's useful that you buy and sell amongst yourselves.

Oh meg, you and your drugs... :)

Get over yourself. People aren't forced to buy things. They have a right to buy whatever they want. You are the one failing to grasp the situation.

And no people, it isn't a strawman.

No, it's a well-heeled young man who has never wanted for anything a day in his cloistered life, yet chooses to look down his nose at those unfortunate enough to have not been born into his family.

Nice. And goes a long way to confirming certain thoughts I'd had regarding your outlook of late.

That's why the economy is growing at an above average pace this year, inflation is low, industrial production and capacity utilization are at new highs, unemployment is close to breaching below its 30-year average?

Or what about the booming pace of durable-goods manufacturing? Or the steady growth in personal income? Or the continuously strong consumer spending?

Capital spending is climbing, hiring is increasing, and the tech economy is rebuilding rapidly; already salaries have matched their levels of the tech bubble in 1999.

2.2 million jobs in 2004, and 1.088 million have already be created this year. Higher paying jobs are now outpacing lower paying sectors as well.
why's everyone against inflation? if there's too little money, less people can have the money, such as less money than the population, or very close to it. i can see the point of way too much being bad, like in the german depression and in mexico not too long ago, but still.

To overturn the laws, those regulations would have to be found unconstitutional and struck down by the Supreme Court, which is very difficult even for a well-connected company. There's no grounds for it, and in the end the courts are still impeachable.

The Department of Labor usually monitors compliance, and the justice system ensures that wrongdoers are punished.
Not true. The congress can repeal those laws. Unions will work to keep them.

If you honestly believe that, your handlers have done a right old job brainwashing you. No, far from it - very few societies have as their over-arching raison d'etre the buying and selling of useless crap to each other.

Answer your own question, tell me what's useful that you buy and sell amongst yourselves.


Nothing is useful, it could all be considered useless crap ~ for the economy and the society, it's the transactions themselves that are useful to society.

The sales themselves are useful to the individuals involved, as in, both get what they wanted or else they aren't bargaining, but what they trade (service, product, food or precious item, whatever) is not important at all, the trading and exchanging is what is important to the economy.

why's everyone against inflation? if there's too little money, less people can have the money, such as less money than the population, or very close to it. i can see the point of way too much being bad, like in the german depression and in mexico not too long ago, but still.

more people might have money, but it will buy less (negating the advantage).

If you honestly believe that, your handlers have done a right old job brainwashing you. No, far from it - very few societies have as their over-arching raison d'etre the buying and selling of useless crap to each other.

That doesn't make sense. Trade drove the development of technology to help earn more money and buy things. Class distinction began at the beginning of the Bronze Age, at the same time as the first civilization.

Commerce drove the development of society.

No, it's a well-heeled young man who has never wanted for anything a day in his cloistered life, yet chooses to look down his nose at those unfortunate enough to have not been born into his family.

Nice. And goes a long way to confirming certain thoughts I'd had regarding your outlook of late.

Yeah a young man, a 20 year old, with $12,000 USD in debt.. one who has to maintain a budget every week. One who has to work as well manage five classes... my family is not rich, smart one. I'm certainly not rich. So please shut up.

why's everyone against inflation? if there's too little money, less people can have the money, such as less money than the population, or very close to it. i can see the point of way too much being bad, like in the german depression and in mexico not too long ago, but still.

A little bit of inflation is good for an economy. What's problematic is when you have to much inflation (I think you understand why, so I won't explain) or you have deflation (negative inflation. this is problematic because people stop spending and the economy slows down).

Of course, if you're like me and you have a lot of debt, it would be pretty nice to see a lot of inflation for the next year or so, because the real value of my debt would decline. Of course, for my parents who have been saving for the last 30 years so they could retire, it would be a total screwing. Inflation has it's winners and losers, but people overall end up losing if it's too high or too low.

unions were great 80 years ago for fighting for workers' on-the-job rights, which were non-existent.

But rather than recede into the background, job accomplished, they've continued to hassle businesses' owners and management teams... so now they're highly paid, highly rested

they are awesome. i don't mean to disparage the working man... but the unions who've put him in this plight.

try to be objective:

if you were CEO of a company and were facing an increasingly bleak bottom line, and you had to choose whom to employ (and holding all else equal), whom would you employ?:

Employee A - $3 an hour wage, works 7 hours on an 8-hour shift

Employee B - $15 an hour, works 5 hours on an 8-hour shift.

Not true. The congress can repeal those laws. Unions will work to keep them.

That would be political suicide even without unions. I chose the SC because it tends to be easier to work through than Congress.

why's everyone against inflation? if there's too little money, less people can have the money, such as less money than the population, or very close to it. i can see the point of way too much being bad, like in the german depression and in mexico not too long ago, but still.

Inflation lowers the real value of money, and can severely impact living standards (see the 1970's). The ideal economy is fast growth with very little inflation (like the late 90's), because that will translate in to real living standard gains rather than just inflationary ones.

Deflation is in fact worse in many cases than inflation, and often accompanies depressions.

A little bit of inflation is good for an economy. What's problematic is when you have to much inflation (I think you understand why, so I won't explain) or you have deflation (negative inflation. this is problematic because people stop spending and the economy slows down).

Of course, if you're like me and you have a lot of debt, it would be pretty nice to see a lot of inflation for the next year or so, because the real value of my debt would decline. Of course, for my parents who have been saving for the last 30 years so they could retire, it would be a total screwing. Inflation has it's winners and losers, but people overall end up losing if it's too high or too low.
i still think it's funny how in a barter system there's goat inflation and deflation. :p

seems like there's allot of people in the world in debt now, probably cause of credit cards, it might even be good for the global economy for it to inflate a little.

unions were great 80 years ago for fighting for workers' on-the-job rights, which were non-existent.

But rather than recede into the background, job accomplished, they've continued to hassle businesses' owners and management teams... so now they're highly paid, highly rested

they are awesome. i don't mean to disparage the working man... but the unions who've put him in this plight.

try to be objective:

if you were CEO of a company and were facing an increasingly bleak bottom line, and you had to choose whom to employ (and holding all else equal), whom would you employ?:

Employee A - $3 an hour wage, works 7 hours on an 8-hour shift

Employee B - $15 an hour, works 5 hours on an 8-hour shift.

All things being equal, I would choose Employee A, of course. :)

try to be objective:

if you were CEO of a company and were facing an increasingly bleak bottom line, and you had to choose whom to employ (and holding all else equal), whom would you employ?:

Employee A - $3 an hour wage, works 7 hours on an 8-hour shift

Employee B - $15 an hour, works 5 hours on an 8-hour shift.

So much for objectivity.

That's not the reason why the manufacturing sector died in Canada - it was the lure of increasingly rosy bottom lines that ushered in the departure of manufacturing jobs across int'l borders into the US. No bleak bottom lines required.

Dobbs, can you apologize to me for making that comment?

i still think it's funny how in a barter system there's goat inflation and deflation. :p

seems like there's allot of people in the world in debt now, probably cause of credit cards, it might even be good for the global economy for it to inflate a little.

There was. Coinage was developed to help control it (and tax merchants) and keep prices more stable and less relative.

Inflation would actually make the debt problem worse, because interest rates would rise and drive up the cost of variable-rate debt (like interest-only mortgages, credit cards, loans, etc.). Only fixed-rate debt would benefit.

That would be political suicide even without unions. I chose the SC because it tends to be easier to work through than Congress.



.
snipped original post

It's only political suicide if the moneyed interests don't engage in a huge public relations propaganda effort to convince people that repealing those laws is necessary for the continued prosperity of the USA.

Dobbs, can you apologize to me for making that comment?

Dobbs has an angry personality. Don't take it personnaly; it's even possible that her temper is the cause of her current unemployment-so just try to be understanding.

So much for objectivity.

That's not the reason why the manufacturing sector died in Canada - it was the lure of increasingly rosy bottom lines that ushered in the departure of manufacturing jobs across int'l borders into the US. No bleak bottom lines required.


whether it's a bleak bottom line facing a company, or stockholders' greed for a great return, the numbers sometimes make sense.

I said numbers... obviously that's not all management thinks about. (at least not all of them, anyway)

and i left out things like the amount of training necessary to hire those $3-an-hour employees, the logistical costs of building a factory half-way around the world, and other related costs of hiring foreign labor.

snipped original post

It's only political suicide if the moneyed interests don't engage in a huge public relations propaganda effort to convince people that repealing those laws is necessary for the continued prosperity of the USA.

But that would happen regardless of unions' presence, because people would always listen to money.

Dobbs has an angry personality. Don't take it personnaly; it's even possible that her temper is the cause of her current unemployment-so just try to be understanding.

Well I find it offensive because I have $12,000 in debt, and have to pay $1,500+ for tuition this week.. and that's not counting the money I have to pay for books when classes start in late August.

Economically speaking, Bush isn't doing that bad of a job.

But on social issues, he and his cronies are still self-righteous douchebags trying to rip away my civil liberties (and those of my fellow citizens) for Jesus, and safety.

Well I find it offensive because I have $12,000 in debt, and have to pay $1,500+ for tuition this week.. and that's not counting the money I have to pay for books when classes start in late August.

I know what you mean. I'm going to have student loans to payoff when I get out of college. I have books to buy as well. Books aren't cheap in any regards.

$3-an-hour employees

$3 a week is more like it in some instances. Many of the outsourced jobs were normally $20 an hour in US outsourced to about $20 a week. Huge changes. Stupid foreign people. :p

Well I find it offensive because I have $12,000 in debt, and have to pay $1,500+ for tuition this week.. and that's not counting the money I have to pay for books when classes start in late August.

What is your field of study?

But that would happen regardless of unions' presence, because people would always listen to money.
The unions can use their money to buy advertizements to counter them.

Economically speaking, Bush isn't doing that bad of a job.
But on social issues, he and his cronies are still self-righteous douchebags trying to rip away my civil liberties (and those of my fellow citizens) for Jesus, and safety.

I like his economic policies but hate his social ones. That was the primary reason I supported Clinton, because I was a supporter of both.

Economically speaking, Bush isn't doing that bad of a job.

But on social issues, he and his cronies are still self-righteous douchebags trying to rip away my civil liberties (and those of my fellow citizens) for Jesus, and safety.
That part never got addressed, did it?

$400 a semester in books is more than the typical 3rd world outsourced job's yearly income! You have to look at it that way...

I know what you mean. I'm going to have student loans to payoff when I get out of college. I have books to buy as well. Books aren't cheap in any regards.

Yep. I'm estimating $500-$600 on books. The check for tuition will be the largest I ever wrote. I used to do it online till they started charging some stupid $40 bogus transaction fee.

Brian: Political Science, with a minor in sociology (trying to get gay and lesbian studies oriented).

The unions can use their money to buy advertizements to counter them.

Yes, but that wouldn't have as much of an effect. Unions' are much less powerful in some states than others, and so their ability to convice people would be more limited.

Yep. I'm estimating $500-$600 on books. The check for tuition will be the largest I ever wrote. I used to do it online till they started charging some stupid $40 bogus transaction fee.

Brian: Political Science, with a minor in sociology (trying to get gay and lesbian studies oriented).

Another Poli Sci student :) I"m studying political science as well with a 2nd major in History. We're also budgeting $600 for books. College ain't cheap. :(

The ecommony is pretty much at a point of stagflation. And yes thats a word. It means prcies of things we buy are going up while our salaries are staying the same.And you can't compare things from this year with thigns form last, look a decade before. Remember when gasoline was a buck a gallon? Remember when you didnt have to worry about losing your job to a chinamen? The outsourcing of jobs is causing the stagflation in our ecomony so everything costs more. More of the American currency is being sent OUT of the US due to the competitivness of the market. They work for cheaper.. and its costing the country.

As for the ideals? Umm if they arent forcing their ideals on us then why is bush trying to force a ban on gay marriages through congress to make it a constitutional amendment? What we needed was to keep the Democrats in power for four more years so the econmy would stablize and not take a soaring nosedive into some jagged rocks.

Yes, but that wouldn't have as much of an effect. Unions' are much less powerful in some states than others, and so their ability to convice people would be more limited.
Just means we have to strengthen the unions.

Another Poli Sci student :) I"m studying political science as well with a 2nd major in History. We're also budgeting $600 for books. College ain't cheap. :(

Well at least the $1,500 isn't that much for tuition.. I know it is much more in other states. I hate it when people here in my university complain about fees rising. Look at other states. It is like $6,000-$10,000 a semester.

That part never got addressed, did it?

I presume you're referring to the second part? You're right--the economics debate just kind of took off.

Remember that this is a discussion of the consequences of Republicans controlling the White House and the Congress.

Well at least the $1,500 isn't that much for tuition.. I know it is much more in other states. I hate it when people here in my university complain about fees rising. Look at other states. It is like $6,000-$10,000 a semester.

I know. And even higher for those that attend college out of state. If I may ask, what college/university do you go to?

for those buying books, look at the bright side:

a)you'll have great reading available for your free time when you're out of school.

or

b)you can sell them at the end of the term and get back 20% of what you paid for them (it's a great racket book stores have going!)

Yep. I'm estimating $500-$600 on books. The check for tuition will be the largest I ever wrote. I used to do it online till they started charging some stupid $40 bogus transaction fee.

Brian: Political Science, with a minor in sociology (trying to get gay and lesbian studies oriented).

That fee is bogus. Sorry to hear that, bud.

Do whatever's best for you, but my wife got her degree in Poli Sci and wishes she hadn't because it didn't train her for any sort of job. Have you considered what sort of work you'll be pursuing when you finish? I'm just asking out of concern.

1) It can be slowed by passing laws that require any product sold in the USA to be manufactured by workers who are paid a living wage. This narrows the gap between US wages and third world wages, makes sure that third world and US workers get fair treatment, and still allows many jobs to go to the third world and build their economies.

Unfortunately US politicians are so far up corporate ass that they would never so offend them. Also, it would be political suicide for the party for "making everything expensive". Reminds me of
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

The ecommony is pretty much at a point of stagflation. And yes thats a word. It means prcies of things we buy are going up while our salaries are staying the same.And you can't compare things from this year with thigns form last, look a decade before. Remember when gasoline was a buck a gallon? Remember when you didnt have to worry about losing your job to a chinamen? The outsourcing of jobs is causing the stagflation in our ecomony so everything costs more. More of the American currency is being sent OUT of the US due to the competitivness of the market. They work for cheaper.. and its costing the country.

No not stagflation. Income is rising much faster then inflation, that is why inflation has been kept in check. I remember the 70s, when gasoline was very expensive. Actually the US currency is gaining strength as of recent. And the outsourcing of jobs actually creates more jobs at home. There is no stagflation. Inflation itself has been kept in check.

Your economic views are misfounded.

You will find I do agree somewhat with you on social issues, especially gay marriage.

Corneliu: California State University Northridge

Frangland:

a)you'll have great reading available for your free time when you're out of school.

or

b)you can sell them at the end of the term and get back 20% of what you paid for them (it's a great racket book stores have going!)

I did one better. I kept some of the books I wanted, but sold some books at 40-60% of their value on www.half.com and made over $500 for 19 books thus far.

The ecommony is pretty much at a point of stagflation. And yes thats a word. It means prcies of things we buy are going up while our salaries are staying the same.And you can't compare things from this year with thigns form last, look a decade before. Remember when gasoline was a buck a gallon? Remember when you didnt have to worry about losing your job to a chinamen? The outsourcing of jobs is causing the stagflation in our ecomony so everything costs more. More of the American currency is being sent OUT of the US due to the competitivness of the market. They work for cheaper.. and its costing the country.

As for the ideals? Umm if they arent forcing their ideals on us then why is bush trying to force a ban on gay marriages through congress to make it a constitutional amendment? What we needed was to keep the Democrats in power for four more years so the econmy would stablize and not take a soaring nosedive into some jagged rocks.

But Bush hasn't made gay marriages illegal. That's part of my original point... the stuff we've been warned about hasn't happened. Gay marriages are not federally illegal, and the economy hasn't taken a soaring nosedive (it's doing quite well by historical standards, actually).

"but my wife got her degree in Poli Sci and wishes she hadn't because it didn't train her for any sort of job."

Um, I plan on working for the Department of State, or Defense. I can get a job with this degree. In fact I can do a lot with it.

I guess it does depend. But it depends more on governing with your mind, rather than your heart. My heart would like to see poverty eradicated. My mind know human nature will never allow that to happen. My heart would like to see income equality. My mind knows it doesn't work. The American dream, to achieve success beyond your imagination, only works at the expense of others. That's a fact proven by the abysmal failures of communist societies. Again, human nature makes us all want to be better than the guy or gal next door. That means poverty, income inequality, etc. are here to stay forever.
I agree that capitalism plays to human nature, or at least the worst aspects of it, more than socialism. It is not currently practical to equalise income. However, it is possible to reduce the wealth gap and still not commit economic suicide. See Sweden, for example.

"but my wife got her degree in Poli Sci and wishes she hadn't because it didn't train her for any sort of job."

Um, I plan on working for the Department of State, or Defense. I can get a job with this degree. In fact I can do a lot with it.

just trying to help! i don't know a lot about the field. no offense, brother.

No not stagflation. Income is rising much faster then inflation, that is why inflation has been kept in check. I remember the 70s, when gasoline was very expensive. Actually the US currency is gaining strength as of recent. And the outsourcing of jobs actually creates more jobs at home. There is no stagflation. Inflation itself has been kept in check.

Your economic views are misfounded.

You will find I do agree somewhat with you on social issues, especially gay marriage.

Corneliu: California State University Northridge

Frangland:



I did one better. I kept some of the books I wanted, but sold some books at 40-60% of their value on www.half.com and made over $500 for 19 books thus far.

in my day, that would have bought about 20 half-barrels of Busch Light Draft from Riley's Wines of the World in Madison. Party!

just trying to help! i don't know a lot about the field. no offense, brother.

ya I got an internship possibility open..

ya I got an internship possibility open..

I'm going to try for an internship for next summer. Hopefully either at the white house or Congress.

So to wrap up the clear consensus of all the participants of this thread, Republicans hold the White House and the Congress, as they have for most of the last five years, and things are just fine here in America. Sure, we have our problems, but there are always problems, and we'll continue to work toward solving those problems.


So anyway, I'm happy to see that you have all come around to my way of thinking.

So to wrap up the clear consensus of all the participants of this thread, Republicans hold the White House and the Congress, as they have for most of the last five years, and things are just fine here in America. Sure, we have our problems, but there are always problems, and we'll continue to work toward solving those problems.


So anyway, I'm happy to see that you have all come around to my way of thinking.
I haven't come around to your way of thinking. I think Bush is actually doing alot of counterproductive things with regards to civil liberties, separation of church and state, and economics.

I agree that capitalism plays to human nature, or at least the worst aspects of it, more than socialism. It is not currently practical to equalise income. However, it is possible to reduce the wealth gap and still not commit economic suicide. See Sweden, for example.

Of no consequence. Personal freedom takes precedence over other society's desires.

And Sweden? Right, the country who's largest company Ikea isn't based in Sweden, because the UK offers far better incentives in terms of taxes? If it weren't for the UK's low(er, but still far too high.) taxes, there'd be no Ikea. How many jobs of those would be filled by small-time companies struggling to get by?