stevendedalus stevendedalus

Reducing Most of Us to The Lowest Common Denominator

▼

Reducing Most of Us to The Lowest Common Denominator

from JoeUser Forums

The old cry that communism equally degrades everyone to little above serfdom could conceivably be apropos to the current economic strategy of corporations in search of minimal labor costs abroad. Conservatives and Clinton Democrats as well argue that it is logical to continue relentlessly free trade since they claim it creates jobs here, too. What they don’t tell you is what kind of jobs are created here. Free trade generates flea markets, dollar store, auto foreign parts outlets, Wal-Marts and other discount stores and naturally they need retail, maintenance, construction, longshoreman, and trucker employment. At the same time in the nation, textile, shopping malls, supermarkets, domestic autos,  electronic, steel, other metals industries and retail outlets suffer.


Americans must eventually make an important decision as to whether to continue being consumers most responsible for impeding Asian, African, Middle East, and Latin American nations to join the advanced industrial nations in realizing an enriched living style above their current condition, regardless of the phenomenal job creation but kept at harsh, low level rates. Even here, the Bush position on the illegal 12 million or so immigrants is designed to insure depressed wages spreading across the country. The U.S. citizen is unwittingly unraveling the struggles of the past to forge a comfortable, widespread middle class with a sustainable future.


 


Aside from the many pockets of small town and major cities victimized by outsourcing, the majority is still doing well and capitalizing on environmental violations and labor of the near slave wages of these developing nations — but at what moral price? Or does the current majority of the unaffected accept it as an amoral issue?


Is it not time to rethink WTO and NAFTA? Underdeveloped nations should not be in the export business by producing products not indigenous: there are far too many needs of their own. Investments in other countries should be in the development of  education and infrastructure in order to uplift their lives so that they can begin to import advanced technology and products for their own needs. Until this direction is taken — Mexico as an example — the underground railroad to a better life will thrive and the nation overrun with immigrants willing to work below minimum wage and gnawing away our hard-earned lifestyle.


It is unconscionable that a nation that fought a horrendous Civil War to end slavery should once more revise this blight on our history.

 


Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: February 22, 2004.

politics
10,960 views 30 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
This isn't this hard. People work for profit. When costs go up, prices go up to keep the profits high. When you can no longer raise the prices high enough to profit, you cut back, laying off employees or closing the business entirely. That means less tax money coming in, so they have to raise taxes to pay for all these social services and unemployment benefits, thus increasing the costs to businesses. Viscous cycle.

If you accept that the wealthy are greedy, then you have to accept that they won't invest in American business unless there is reasonable profit. The more you cut into those profits, they less prosperity you are gonna have. They are *gonna* profit, and they'll just pass all the added costs on to consumers or their workers by offering them less.

Instead, why not give businesses incentive to employ people *here*, to assemble their products *here*, thus creating more prosperity, more tax revenues, and more money for social programs. The wealthy are the ones that start these large businesses. They don't do it out of charity. Make it hard on them and they can just liquidate and spend the summer somewhere sunny.
Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
No, because the problem isn't really Mexico as much as it is China and other nations willing to give businesses carte blanche in terms of taxes and regulation. Heck, I know companies that have moved operations to China. They greet you as if you were a king, and make sure through 'party' channels that things go smoothly for you, up to and including installing an official in your business to handle the unruly workers for you.

No, I think we could proactively encourage business here by rewarding companies that decide to do their business here, and exact more fees from companies who import from nations that use uncompetitive practices. I think NAFTA is much more about bringing North America up to a standard, instead of profiting from lower standards in Mexico. It is a policy that will take time, though, and the losses to China and their ilk just make that time more painful.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
But, de facto, doesn't nafta proactively encourage business to move for cheap labor? i don't disagree with you regarding helping central/ south america and the problems with china. so why admit china to wto and give them most favored nation status?
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
EightG: I agree, free trade is definitely encouraging business to move out of the states. It's the sme old story not unlike the industrial north moving to the southern states to avoid union employees.
Right, BakerSt. China dwarfs the NAFTA problem. Walmart is practically a province in China!