Thread: The class warfare argument

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

If we do not protect jobs from places that are dirt poor and who's people will work for 25 cents an hour and be happy to get it, one day these poor places will be making ALL of our consumer goods and much of the service jobs. But we will no longer have that huge consumer class to buy, even at lower prices. And this is the irony of offshoring, as it destroys the consumer class that manufacturing built.

Automation has displaced workers, but it isn't as deep or vast as you seem to think. Communist Chinese have not been displaced by automation, as those manufacturing jobs that left for China needed workers still. And greed sent our manufacturers there, for obvious reasons. Fatter bottom l ines. No worry about safety as who would miss a few communists out of 1.5 billion?

No, this capitalistic model the Cons have given us, via big business has to be justified in any way possible, and that is what you guys on the right side do, regularly.

What we need is a model that seeks to build this nation up once again, her middle class, instead of a model that only intent is to maximize the profits and wealth of a few. This idea of enriching the few negates the middle class.

Cheap labor existed even during post ww2. BUT, it was not our economic policy to build up communists or anyone else but america at that time. So, once big business got their way, via the cons, the propaganda to justify this offshoring got real feverish. You guys have thrown everything but the kitchen sink in justifying destroying america's middle and working class and their higher standards of living, because such limited profits of the few. Suddenly maximizing profits is fucking sacred, when for over 50 years we did not indulge in that madness. We did not indulge because our leaders saw what would happen to america's average folks. It took Cons getting power back to change this. This is on you guys, and your policians who are the right hands of big business and banking. Hopefully, even you too will feel it, on down the road, the repercussions of your insane ideology. It is nothing short of treason IMO, but is lauded on the right side. These decades will go down in history as the crazy years, when maximizing the profits of a few destroyed what was created post ww2. This cannot be justified, no matter how intricate your economic arguments are.

BD, why would you even try to compete with someone who can provide a comparable service to what you want to provide at less than 5% of the fee you want to receive? That's just crazy and attempts to protect crazy from itself just get you more crazy. It's like trying to scotch tape a broken window back together...you might be able to make it work with insane amounts of time and effort but the result is never going to be as good as the original product and you will have pissed away resources which otherwise could have gone to doing something more productive...like just getting a new window.

Originally Posted by lutherf

MHP, buying power is manufactured. It's not a "natural resource".

ahoy Lutherf,

i know this, matey. imma not talkin' about "natural resources" in a literal way.

nevermind.

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by C-B-M

It's pretty funny how you keep changing your argument. You started out by saying the ships never existed. Then I gave you the article and you said that scrapping the ships actually saved money. Then I pointed out that they were almost completed, so that wasn't true, and now you're saying it happened under a Republican.

Good job! Now you can lose three times on one issue instead of just once!

Nope, I didn't change anything. You stated these were BattleShips. All I did was point out that you were wrong.
Then you said they were Navy Ships, and again I pointed out you were wrong. They were USNS Ships.

These Ships were commissioned to be built in 1985 by Ronald Reagan.

The contract was terminated 1993. by Bill Clinton.

In between that time the 300 Million was lost because H.W.Bush would not hold the companies responsible.

Why do you keep dodging the questions. You can just admit that you were just running off at the mouth or just following your handlers orders and that will be fine. However, I really would like to see your spin on these questions.

What overlapping programs and bureaucracies would you consolidate and streamline?

How would you do it?

How much money would it save?


George H.W. Bush was the 41st President of the United States, from 1989-1993.

Originally Posted by wooyarn

Nope, I didn't change anything. You stated these were BattleShips. All I did was point out that you were wrong.
Then you said they were Navy Ships, and again I pointed out you were wrong. They were USNS Ships.

These Ships were commissioned to be built in 1985 by Ronald Reagan.

The contract was terminated 1993. by Bill Clinton.

In between that time the 300 Million was lost because H.W.Bush would not hold the companies responsible.

Why do you keep dodging the questions. You can just admit that you were just running off at the mouth or just following your handlers orders and that will be fine. However, I really would like to see your spin on these questions.

What overlapping programs and bureaucracies would you consolidate and streamline?

How would you do it?

How much money would it save?


George H.W. Bush was the 41st President of the United States, from 1989-1993.

ahoy Wooyarn,

very nice matey, very neatly done.

'tis always interestin' to see actual knowledge on a matter vs. boilerplate dogma.

*bows*

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy Wooyarn,

very nice matey, very neatly done.

'tis always interestin' to see actual knowledge on a matter vs. boilerplate dogma.

*bows*

- MeadHallPirate

It's the nautical aspect that did it for you, right?

Originally Posted by lutherf

Here's the problem...as long as we keep protecting jobs that we simply can't compete at there is little incentive for the individual to branch out and try something new. This stifles creativity and ingenuity which in turn reduce competitive forces in the economy. When the economy starts to slump government comes in with more protections and the tailspin continues.

40 years ago pretty much anybody who could turn a wrench could find a decent job. Little by little those jobs started being replaced by machines. Protectionists stepped up their game and started demanding higher wages and beefier retirement plans in exchange for agreements to reduce the work force. When foreign competition increased they again pushed for more protections and congress accommodated them because these groups (not just organized labor but labor pools in general) made up significant voting blocks.

Today there just aren't as many low skill/moderate wage jobs available yet we are still protecting workers in this set instead of challenging them to adopt a new set of skills. If we had never started to proffer protections or simply scaled back the scope of various protections people would have been forced to start making decisions to bail themselves out. This would have resulted in tons of new ideas hitting the market. It would have spurred a demand for a broader spectrum of education. It would have made specialization a niche rather than a starting point.

The irony of all this is that eventually all of those protections will result in massive collapse and we will be forced into taking things on as we should have done willingly. Unfortunately, at that point we will also have to play catch up to those who are making these changes today.

I have been caught up enjoying and watching you and Pirate firing salvo's that I haven't responded.
One reason we no longer have lower skill jobs is we exported them. 40 to 50 thousand factories gone, had quite a huge set of skills and education within them.
Competition in globalism is fine ... until you ask to compete with under $2 hr manufacturing labor. This has nothing to do with education as every job exported was already being performed here. H1B's replace existing skills. Outsourcing replaces existing skills. What do they have in common ... cheap labor. Its no accident that China and India were both around $1.50 hr and they became the choice of job exports.
So we survived protectionism for 200 years and now we don't compete with cheap labor ... makes sense doesn't it?
Does it make sense when your economy is being destroyed to continue such practices?

Real simple ... anything you can do here ... can be done cheaper there.

We can hire a CEO for a tenth of the cost from India, bring them on.
We can hire Politicians for a tenth of the cost.
Engineers for a tenth.
Mechanics for a tenth.
Pipers for a tenth.

Name it ... and it can be H1B'ed or outsourced. Lets H1b 250,000 Accountants, 1 million lawyers, 250,000 truckers, 500,000 machinists, 200,000 hairdressers.

Its logical ... lets replace the whole country of workers. Its cheaper. Only the owners remain.

Originally Posted by lutherf

It's the nautical aspect that did it for you, right?

ahoy Lutherf,

'tis always gratifyin' to see a real sailor keelhaul a landlubber, i can't deny yer spot on thar.

aye!

- MeadHallPirate

this is class warfare plain and simple......

It is a won class war, when the rich don´t pay taxes.