Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by ncbullgator, Aug 3, 2013.
Gag. Big business back as the boogie man.
Blame on the consumers who buy the cheap merchandise from China! If everyone listened to their "old man" and bought "American made/ built in the USA" stuff, we wouldn't have lost all he manufacturing jobs. We wouldn't have as much stuff either, but what the hell, we aren't that materialistic are we?
It's Great to be a Florida Gator!
Isn't it big business that chose to move their operations overseas to take advantage of low wages and lack of pollution regulations? Isn't it big business that lowered wages, hires temp and part time workers and eliminated most benefits here in the U.S.? Isn't it big business that has shown large profits from these policies?
Attacking Obama over this isn't going to go anywhere until people look at big business and it's employment policies.....if you're indeed reluctant to take a hard look at how business is operating these days, then maybe it is the boogie man.
This is a trend that has gotten worse and worse over the past three recessions:
What's your answer for this?
Your argument is very flawed.
How long do you think that American based manufactures would last if we became isolationist?
Are you aware that the national economies can no longer exist if they remain inside their borders?
Are you aware that the US Middle Class is no longer the supreme player in the world market. Our ability to create demand, create supply, and produce goods no longer is the sole economic driver in this world?
Countries like India and China have a growing middle class that wants jobs and goods. Their supply of materials and labor impacts the global market.
Their demand for materials and products impacts the global market.
Sure we could boycott or put a tariff on foreign goods but that would just drive up the cost of the domestic goods. Also, it would trigger a boycott or higher tariffs that are currently hitting American made goods.
Buying only American would basically have the same effect on jobs that we are seeing now. Out industrial output would still shrink because US goods would not be competitive enough to export. This shrinkage would impact domestically made goods because we would loose the advantage of the economy of scales factor.
Back in the 1970 through the last decade the unions in the manufacturing area fought tooth and nail to keep robotics out of the factories. What good did it do? Those factories did close and now the manufacturing is done overseas. Instead of losing a small percentage of jobs to robotics we lost entire factories.
"Yep. Both sides are to blame. The sooner everyone acknowledges that and starts to hold their own parties accountable instead of pointing fingers and displacing blame the better off the country would be. That will never happen though. Both parties and its members would rather play tit for tat and accomplish nothing but destruction"
Most intelligent and true quote I've seen on this board for a long time, FearNoSpear. They are ALL to blame, both sides. Pols are greedy slimy A$$hats. ALL of them. The people, us, you and me, Dem and Con better start realizing this before it's too late to recover this great nation of ours. Wake up people!!!! Stop whining and pointing fingers like kids on a playground. You did it, no you did it, no you, no you...God it's becoming pathetic.
I don't tend to agree with the idea of "Buy American" being a solution as people typically will cheat when there is no punishment, leading to those who "Buy American" playing the weakest position in a prisoner's dilemma. However, the issue is that the combination of an international capital market with a national labor market is going to naturally depress wages for labor, as the supply of labor increases massively. This is going to lead to widely increasing disparities in wealth, not because wage distribution is going to necessarily increase over the long term (skilled workers are starting to run into competition from India, China, etc as well). Rather, those with enough money to heavily invest in corporate ownership (stock market), where the gains from the lower wages and increased productivity will be distributed, will become more wealthy while those without the resources to do this will grow comparatively poorer.
This has a series of economic consequences. First, there will be decreased economic mobility. Wages were the primary method in which poorer people became more well-off than they were. As wages become a less crucial part of the economy, we will see a lot more stagnation of people in lower classes. In addition, based on the inability of the labor market to reach an equilibrium (as labor is not allowed to move due to immigration controls and beyond that movement has very high costs due to cultural and language issues), we end up with an oversupply of labor in a country with lower demand for labor, especially in lower skill areas. The existence of excess labor will further depress wages in the domestic market.
The way I see it, we have four options moving forward:
1. Become more protectionist, artificially increasing the cost of labor in the US and increasing wages.
2. Go totally free market. This means very limited controls for labor mobility both in the US and for trading partners. We still likely see depressed wages due to the cultural and language barriers to movement, but it might lessen somewhat. It would also be the first attempt to handle both capital and labor markets as free markets on such a large scale.
3. Maintain the status quo. Wages are highly depressed but corporate profits are through the roof. Those who can access corporate profits do very well. Those who can't, don't do very well. This has largely been the policy of the Obama administration and Congress in terms of passed legislation.
4. Increase redistributive payments. The goal of this would be to ensure more people have access to corporate profits, at least in theory, and can thus take advantage of the huge gains created by globalization. Any policy with this goal would need very heavy nudges towards ensuring that the money went into investment activities.
Unfortunately, hardcore partisans don't like to discuss any of these options as they all violate some part of their ideology.
Business is not the boogie man. Businesses will operate to provide for the continuity of the enterprise and they must.
Now as to the socialist diatribe above: What do you consider too high a profit margin? I remember when Microsoft's margins were 40%. Apple's margins are 30%. Google 23%. Wal Mart 4%. Exxon 8%. United Health Care 4%. Who should decide if margins are too high? If they are too low, the business fails.
Labor has always moved to lower cost areas and always will. Wages are like anything else...supply and demand. Manufacturing moved from Europe to America to China/Mexico/Viet Nam. Why? Textile manufacturing moved overseas. Why? Japanese, German, Korean auto companies moved some manufacturing to America. Why?
I have not noticed businesses cutting many "full time" workers and replacing with part time. What I have observed is businesses cutting part timers hours to under 30. Why? What I've also noticed is that business are hiring 2 part time workers rather than one full time employee. Why?
Does whoever invests the money in a business not have a right to expect a return on their investment? If a business does not pay competitive wages, it cannot attract workers especially in jobs where skill, experience is necessary.
My brother in law does not understand any of the above. He's a 30 year city employee. He has no understanding of how a business is started, goes through phases, needs to make a profit to be able to reinvest. He does not understand that profit sharing or 401-K match or both are only possible if a business is profitable. Or that benefit costs are an expense, just like wages. Because he works for the city. His paycheck is in his account, twice a month...just like clockwork. He can count on it.
I suspect your views are what they are as you have also been a state employee. And I suspect you have never started a business, put capital at risk in that business or lost sleep at night with worry over making payroll. Your check was always there. Your benefits were always taken care of. I understand.
We don't have the greeters here either. I tried to tell you guys that BO was clueless on the economy when you all elected him and yet here we are almost 5 years later and he's still clueless but he is an expert when it comes to vacations.
Obama said that we have to build the economy from the middle class out. Will someone please explain how you build the middle class without the wealthy prospering? I don't understand how you can build the middle class without the wealthy being successful, especially those who provide jobs.
The President claimed he would help people, big business claimed they would make a profit.
And,,,,,,,,,,Business of the hook.
S&P at record highs ... Dow at record highs ... 3 straight years of record corporate profits ... 40 months of job growth ... Housing market rebounding ... A record budget Surplus in June ... Government spending at its lowest growth rate since Eisenhower ... Household debt falling ...
Sure beats life during The Great Resession ...
Hate to burst your bubble War but you need to get out more. Stock market is sprinkled with pixie dust by the fed at the tune of $85 B monthly for last 5 years. That is unprecedented. Job gains are part time, retail, service oriented. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/jobs-disproportionately-low-pay-part-160135116.html
So for some of us, we are doing better. But approximately 20% of the country are hurting puppies and the middle class is squeezed. We can do better. Leadership. It is sorely lacking.
But, But, But, But ... sorry, but this economic turn around is nothing short of Amazing. When Obama took office, the economy was losing 850,000 jobs per month, the stock markets were in a freefall, house prices were plummeting, the budget deficit was out of control due to two wars and unsustainable tax cuts, etc, etc ... 5 years later, we are using phrases like "record high", "record profits", and "record budget surplus" to describe the economy.
I know all about QE, but if you are going to use stimulus to get us out of the Great Recession, you might as well use something that actually works ... how did all those $300/$500 checks work out? Obama is making the previous admin look like bumbling idiots.
Wow, you aren't kidding, you are dead serious aren't you?
How many months of this administration have we added enough jobs to even beat population growth? If it was more than a handful I would be astounded. Drops in the unemployment rate come more or less exclusively from jobs being deemed not to exist any longer to be filled and people not looking. Which, when you have doubled the SSDI rolls and more people have been added to a SNAP than have been hired for a job, is easy to understand.
So we have anemic growth, a job market that is contracting, swelling of entitlement enrollment... and a stock market that is rising because of monopoly money being used to gobble up stocks and bonds that normal people don't have the capital or confidence to buy, meaning they are catastrophically overvalued. When this sick experiment in central planning cascade-fails, we will probably envy the Depression Era
I think you are underestimating the people who have benefited from money in 401ks and IRAs ... the stock market is not just a rich person's game. Up 156% from the March 2009 lows isn't bad. Of course, the scare tactics use by wackiest of the righties (i.e., "Hoard Heirloom seeds and buy gold at a huge mark-up!") sure led people down the wrong path. If things were as bad as you want so desperately to believe, then Romney gets elected.
Why do U.S. companies relocate their plants overseas, thereby abolishing U.S. jobs?
(a) they can hire workers at very low wages (such as 30 cents an hour in China)
(b) the companies don't have to pay any employee benefits
(c) they don't have to comply with safety and environmental regulations
(d) they don't have to pay foreign taxes when they export their products back to us.
Answer: All of the above
Since we have looser trade agreements, it's easier today to offshore than 30 years ago. The thing to think about is conditions change. China wages are almost triple than they were 6 years ago and companies are starting to include benefits. The Climate Change movement will eventually force all countries to comply. As the global economy balances out, it will soon be pretty even. It never will be a perfect utopia, there will always be places to go that cater to businesses.
They will be just as screwed when the game of Monopoly wraps up; this administration already proved willing to screw those investors in the rear during the GM non-bankruptcy when they told secured debtholders they could wipe their butts with their bonds. And, that is only if we can manage to keep the Democrat party from fulfilling their wet dream of just confiscating those IRAs and 401ks and replacing them with IOUs from the SSA, which has been a liberal faculty lounge wet dream for going on 20 years and that they would certainly pursue if they were to gain both houses of Congress while Obama is in office.
Romney gets elected if he doesn't work so hard to play softball with Obama that a couple million voters McCain had don't throw up their hands in disgust. Obama's cloud of Low Information Basis (LIB) voters aren't interested in outcomes, there is always some corporation (for the envy pimps) or white dude (for the race pimps) to blame for the price of gas and groceries and their 25 hour work week and useless liberal arts degree.
True, but that is only if you got in at that time and reaped that windfall. Most who were hit are up maybe 20% since then.
I do disagree about the "doom and gloom" crowd. We are nowhere near the end of this. In fact, we are only at the tip of the iceberg. The 2008-2009 recession set in motion processes that will be felt for decades. Obamacare hasn't even been implemented and that will be felt for 10 years before all of the fallout settles. The debt will be felt for hundreds of years and Obama is about to raise the ceiling to almost 19 Trillion. You can say that amount doesn't matter, but the interest does. It's the first line item we pay. We pay the interest even over SS and Medicare. As interest rates start climbing over the next several years, that interest payment will be painful (at current debt and 6% interest it's equal to SS).