<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Y3ttxGMQOrY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> What's the point of trade agreements if nobody in our country has the jobs. Oh well, the exectuvies salaries and bonuses will increase due to cheaper labor. Don't think for a minute the savings will trickle down to customers here in the US. Nope, just more profits. btw..., This is why guys like Trump are doing well.
Bernie seems to be the candidate who talks this issue up the most. Which of them is actually capable of doing something about it?
Manufacturing capital, revenue and jobs shift to wholesale, shipping, brick and mortar retail, online retail, small parcel shipping, consumer credit and advertising. All those other subsectors can continually expand and branch out except for consumer credit, which was probably f'ed since the late '90s but irreversibly so since '08.
Democratic Socialism of the type espoused by Bernie Sanders means several things are likely to happen. 1. Higher taxes on companies. 2. Higher taxes on wealthy individuals. 3. Most likely higher taxes on the middle class. 4. Increased regulation. ALL of the above encourages companies and wealthy individuals to shelter or invest their money overseas instead of reinvesting it in American goods, manufacturing, and jobs. I mean it's common sense. If you were a wealthy individual, you are simply more likely to invest your money where it will earn more. Am I saying ALL the wealthy capitalists will do so? No. Will more do so than currently? Like the company show in this clip, BY DEFINITION the answer is Yes.
It is a shame that you are so defeated and willing to take it up the rear from the corporations. Under democratic socialism the corporations are not free to just loot the USA and move overseas to benefit from slave wages unless the American people democratically choose to do so. Fortunately and not everyone is so totally defeatist as you seem to be, albeit under the guise of being a realist responding only to "common sense.
Capitalism...for all its faults...created the strongest most vibrant economy in the world. Our country. The United States. I'll take the 240 years of our history as proof it is a better system than Socialism. If that's realism and defeat, then so be it.
You do realize that the choice isn't market capitalism OR socialism. We have a free market economy with plenty of social safety nets and rules espoused by socialists. The US economy is commonly referred to as a mixed economy as a result. This is a debate about protectionism vs free trade. Free trade largely won out from the 80s going forward with consumers gaining the benefit of cheaper manufacturing at the expense of employees who lost their jobs. On a side note, Indiana adopted a right to work law a few years with the explicit argument that a right to work law would encourage manufacturing in the state and give incentives for companies like Carrier to stay in Indiana. So much for that.. Unions lost bargaining strength but companies are leaving anyway. What I found most striking was the sheer calousness of the announcement. Years ago, if you offshored your manufacturing, it was a PR nightmare because consumers used to back the workers in this situation. Today, we just shrug our shoulders and just say "oh well." I find that to be the saddest part of all of this. Just a total lack of empathy from Americans today when this happens. To Trump's credit (as much as I hate to admit it), I think its refreshing to hear someone point out the downsides to free trade. Entire cities have been ruined by the process. Carrier in particular totally devastated Syracuse when they pulled out years ago. The city still hasn't recovered and you can find tons of cities across the rust belt that have been savaged in a similar way.
Indiana did gain a lot of jobs after passing the law, not sure if they were all due to the law itself though. Companies from other states relocated to Indiana and some foreign companies expanded in the state.
Yes of course you are correct. This thread is about exactly that. But a question was raised about which candidate would be best served to address issues like this...Sanders or Trump. I simply spoke about the effects that implementing Sanders vision of "Democratic Socialism" would have on this problem. Someone called me a defeatist for being realistic and I responded. Now, back to the topic.
Well any Democratic candidate will largely be the best choice in this in my opinion. Hillary and Bernie don't really differ all that much. Both are to the left of Obama on trade and both naturally support stronger protections of labor unions. I honestly dont think Sanders or Clinton would be very different. Sanders might be more reticent about free trade deals but frankly once TPP becomes a thing, there aren't really many free trade deals to oppose. The larger truth is that there's little anyone can do at this point outside of tearing up NAFTA and other free trade deals and starting over. And no one is ever going to do any of that. The floodgates have been opened and can't be closed. The story of the Carrier plant in Indiana will continue to be replicated.
We've had thirty years of this common sense and all it has done is hollow out the country of good paying jobs. There are more millionaires and billionaires today because they've rigged the economy to the detriment of everyone else. This economy is like a game of monopoly.
Felt like this guy should have started out his announcement with the fact that everyone won't get fired for another year. That's not so bad, you get a year to find another job.
The guy sounded like a jerk in general. I dont blame any of the workers for being mad. I thought the announcement was incredibly callous and thoughtless.
You don't feel an obligation to spreading your wealth around by hiring the neediest gardeners and carpenters, do you? No, you hire the ones with the best value proposition. So why should corporations be any different? Besides, "good paying jobs" is a myth--if someone is willing to do the job for not so good pay, then by definition the "good paying job" no longer exists.
Good comment. It's interesting how people who support socialists only do so when it involves other people's money. You don't see many of these people sending in more money than they owe in taxes. If you are a true believer in the Federal Government and Socialism, why not?
