Whoever believes "American jobs for Americans" is racist should give up their jobs now

[Zalatix]

and make sure someone from outside the country gets it.

Agree or disagree?

Edit: This thread is a response to another thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002683895

[Fumesucker]

1. How do you know these people have jobs in the first place?

[redgreenandblue]

2. Holy provincial oversimplification Batman.

[baldguy]

3. Unfortunately, there's a deep racist, nativist vein running through America that this taps into.

I used to work in a call center with a woman who had a typical South Asian accent. She was born a US citizen, but she grew up in Indonesia, India and Thailand. Often, she'd get some blockhead on the line who didn't want to talk to her, who wanted an "American" rep instead. Had nothing to do with where she was or how she did her job. It was only because they perceived her as foreign - as if an American can only come in one or two flavors.

[leveymg]

4. How dare the rest of the world have jobs. All your base are belong to us!

[Zalatix]

5. Exactly. So why don't you give up your job and hire one of them in your place?

Walk the walk, don't ya?

[leveymg]

7. If one of them could do it as well, and cheaper, they would already have it.

That's just the way it is in the real world.

[Zalatix]

9. So if an American worker is in a vulnerable job then they can just suck it, right?

Unemployed Americans simply deserve what they get?

[leveymg]

17. No, I'm not saying that. But, I can't safely assume that I "own" my job.

Now, it's my turn to ask some questions.

Why should someone in a "vulnerable" job get special protections? The unemployment rate in IT is back down to 4%, so you're not talking about that industry, are you? Why should one group get protection, while others don't? What do you propose as a fair and equitable solution that doesn't cause more problems and job displacement?

[Zalatix]

19. You kinda are saying that. You show absolutely no pity for America's working class.

Why should someone in a "vulnerable" job get special protections? That's easy. Because they're producing goods and services for the American market.

Very few American workers are employed producing goods or services for foreign markets. Foreign workers are very well protected from competition by American workers. As a result our exports are quite MINISCULE compared to our imports... hence our trade deficit.

American workers can't get jobs producing iPads for the American market. China is now a growing market for iPads and American workers are locked out of that, too.

American workers are locked out of the global job market and are being locked out of working for the American market, too, and you dare to lecture us about racism against foreigners? Really?! Do you, unlike any other free trader, have an answer for why you want us to accept that?

[leveymg]

22. I am very much part of America's working class. Knowledge industry "no-collar" 1099 Proletariat,

Last edited Tue May 15, 2012, 09:14 PM - Edit history (1)

to be precise. We are people whose self-employment in the globalized economy is so precarious that we don't even have "jobs" to protect. We're 21st Century cottage laborers. Don't talk to me about not having sympathy for America's working class.

You are also wrong about another thing. There are tens of millions of Americans whose jobs are dependent on export trade in services, whether they be software development, research, engineering, accounting, media, etc. For decades, the US has enjoyed a surplus in Trade in Services. U.S. monthly exports in services amount to $54 billion, and imports were $38 billion. That's a net surplus that includes a lot of jobs for Americans. The latest trade figures from the Commerce Dept. reflect a large ongoing surplus in US exports in services: http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/international/trade/tradnewsrelease.htm

In March, the goods deficit increased $6.5 billion from February to $67.6 billion, and the services surplus increased $0.1 billion from February to $15.8 billion.

Exports of goods increased $4.7 billion to $132.7 billion, and imports of goods increased $11.3 billion to $200.3 billion. Exports of services increased $0.5 billion to $54.1 billion, and imports of services increased $0.4 billion to $38.3 billion.

The overall trade deficit is the result of four decades of de-industrialization of America and that has been a catastrophe for the middle-class. De-industrialization has been a policy choice, one made by corporate elites. It has transferred trillions of dollars from the pockets of formerly working class Americans who no longer have plants and factories to work in, shifting that income upwards into the offshore accounts of the One Percenters who actually own significant equity in global companies and banking groups.

By attacking American service workers in globalized industries, you are attacking the most vulnerable group of working class Americans - those who still have something to lose by misguided policy choices. I don't blame my fellow No-collar working class in India, China, or Ireland for my vulnerability. They are vulnerable too. They are my class brothers.

I am not asking you to accept my view of the situation, but I do ask that you answer my question and tell us how you would fix things so all our lives are more secure.

[Romulox]

23. Your claim is that you have a *good reason* to undermine American workers. The rebuttal is

that your reason is immaterial. You are an enemy of American workers, spouting the same cheap labor, race to the bottom rhetoric wrapped up in a touchy-feely justification that wouldn't fool Cindy-Lou Who.

And then you have the gall to pat yourself on the back for it--support for your "class brothers" (sic)? It's laughable!

[leveymg]

26. I didn't make any such claim. You mischaracterized my statement. Read it again.

I am certainly neither "an enemy of American workers", nor do I spout "the same laissez-faire justifications for a cheap labor race to the bottom." I merely acknowledge reality, that I am competing for my livelihood within a global market in my field.

Your comment is unfounded and malicious.

[Romulox]

28. Nonsense. You don't get to dictate how your attack on workers is received. You're transparent. nt

[Zalatix]

36. Once again: You have no sympathy for America's working class. Your arguments work to their detriment

And I am DEFINITELY not wrong about that. Not even one bit.

Our exports are another thing you're wrong about. Our trade deficit is over $500 billion yearly. That means exports minus imports equals a trade balance of $500 billion in the negative. So whatever argument you are making about exporting services is practically insignificant to the argument I am making about jobs that we're losing to imports.

Let me repeat to you: our trade deficit means that we are importing more than we're exporting. That means that with $54 billion in services exports, we're still in the hole by over $40 billion every month.

As a matter of fact, just to give your argument another kick out of spite, your math is pretty weak. With services exports at $54 billion and services imports at $38 billion, that means we are running a very weak $16 billion positive balance of trade in services. This is a highly fragile balance of trade that only needs a slight currency devaluation by India to turn negative.

So once again, I am 100% correct and you are wrong. You have been defeated not by me, but by sheer mathematics.

I would fix this problem by enacting tariffs to match China's legacy of decades of tariffs and currency devaluations. I would heavily tax imports, and if China and India want to retaliate, let them. They depend on exports to America far more than America depends on exports to them. Absolute irrefutable fact. The math does not lie.

I wouldn't ask you to look up our trade deficit in manufacturing - it might give you a heart attack.

[leveymg]

44. You don't seem to grasp the difference between Trade in Services and Trade in Goods,

or what the economic and policy implications of that difference are.

Here it is in a nutshell: the former benefits the US economy (producing a net increase in American jobs in that sector); meanwhile, the US has a huge deficit in Trade in Goods (it imports more than it exports), which has resulted in (and is in part responsible for) a large loss in jobs in manufacturing. A large chunk of the imbalance in Trade in Goods, however, is imports of oil, and that has gone down somewhat.

That overall trade deficit is the result of policy decisions that have allowed multinational corporations and banks to export enormous, uncontrolled flows of capital to build plants and factories in lower-wage countries, which has led to the deindustrialization of America. If you want to reverse that, we will need to bring the banks and multinational corporations under closer regulation. It's not too late to try.

The approach you suggest of imposing additional tariffs and getting into a trade war with Asian exporting countries is likely to have some very undesirable, unintended consequences, including their sell-off of holdings of US debt and dumping of Dollars, as well as a closing of doors to the US service sector.

[Zalatix]

45. Yup, you still don't understand much of this at all. You didn't even address most of my points.

First of all, we're already in a trade war. Asia started it with us with their tariffs against us, and their currency devaluations. First you need to understand this, or else you've really got nothing to bring to this discussion.

Second of all, Asia, selling off our debt? Dumping the dollar? Excellent!!! That means our labor in services AND trade goods will be so low that we'll export to everyone else like crazy. Our goods will make it to Asia through circuitous routes (think: Canada, Europe). A devalued dollar would mean a monster explosion in jobs for Americans, particularly in exports!

Third of all, math is still not your friend. Our deficit in trade-in-goods is so high that it makes our services surplus look like an absolute joke in comparison. Let me explain what this means: it means that in NOT protecting our manufacturing industries, we have lost orders of magnitude more than we've gained from the low-paying service industry. We could lose all of our services exports but closing off manufacturing imports would be such a monstrous job creator that we wouldn't even miss it.

Fourth, exactly what regulations, besides tariffs, would bring manufacturing jobs back? You're contradicting yourself here.

Let's get this straight - you will never convince me to stop supporting protectionism. And if you look around you for a moment, fewer and fewer people, Democrats included, are buying what you are selling. You should ask yourself why.

[HiPointDem]

78. I don't think "we're" in a war at all, if by we you mean the US as a government + its corporations.

For example, nearly all of the Chinese electronics entering the US are wholly-owned not by Chinese companies, but by non-chinese ones, a lot of them American.

Now what kind of weird trade war is this, where the slave-labor-produced products of american corporations are imported into the US?

"We" are in a war with "us". There's no war but the class war.


In addition, the analysis on the ownership of the firms exporting high-tech products
shows that, foreign invested firms accounted for 83% of China’s high-tech exports; in
particular wholly foreign owned firms dominated the sector and made up 68%.
Therefore, it is foreign direct investment (FDI) and outsourcing activities of
multinational enterprises (MNE) that transformed China into a world high-tech
assembling factory.

http://r-center.grips.ac.jp/gallery/docs/11-05.pdf


Third, most exports of electronic and information technology products are assembled not by chinese-owned firms but by foreign firms that are using china as an export platform...Taiwan dominates.. ...In 2003, for example, foreign firms accounted for 92% of china's...exports of computers...74% of china's exports of electronics...

http://books.google.com/books?id=rowVguhQr4IC&pg=PA133&dq=percent+of+chinese+electronics+exports+wholly-owned+foreign&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zSS2T-fkDYSPiALB_NTPBg&ved=0CEoQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=percent%20of%20chinese%20electronics%20exports%20wholly-owned%20foreign&f=false

For the ipod, china provides the workers for a taiwanese corp that assembles the american-branded product to sell in the US.

[Zalatix]

79. Sigh...

In order to bring jobs to China's workers, China - as in the Chinese government - enacted tariffs against the United States (to block our exports to them), and they devalued their currency. It's called the yuan-dollar peg.

These were explicit and overt moves by China to take jobs from the United States. As in, a trade war.

Corporations then proceeded to exploit this cheap labor. Both the Chinese government and American corporations are in cahoots against American workers; but China did, in fact, start this trade war.

[HiPointDem]

80. sigh. it ain't that simple. there is collusion between the us & china because the arrangement

benefits certain interests in both places.

The peg is often referred to as "manipulation," but it doesn't really fit the bill for two reasons. First, it is an official policy. China targets the value of its currency quite openly; it is not doing it in the middle of the night when no one is looking.

The second reason is that China's mechanism for targeting the value of its currency is something that on alternate days our Treasury actually requests. They buy up U.S. government debt.

If this seems absurd, it should because it is. The way in which China keeps its currency down against the dollar (or keeps the dollar up against its currency) is by buying huge amounts of U.S. government bonds.

The media often tells us that we need China to buy our debt. This is not true. There are plenty of other potential investors, including the Federal Reserve Board. However we cannot both want China to buy U.S. government debt and then complain about China's currency manipulation. This is how they "manipulate" their currency.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/economic-conflicts-with-c_b_1144116.html


The NYT did a piece on Governor Mitt Romney's pledge to impose tariffs on China to pressure it to lower the value of the dollar relative to the yuan. At one point it noted that many business people are opposed to this position:

"business leaders, while pressing for China to open its markets and protect intellectual property, caution that labeling China a currency manipulator could backfire, harming those efforts."

There is a direct conflict in the interests of most workers and many businesses in U.S. policy toward China.

Financial firms like Goldman Sachs and Citigroup have a major interest in getting more access to China's market. Firms with claims to intellectual property like Microsoft and Pfizer have a major interest in getting China to offer increased protection for their copyrights and patents.

By contrast, workers in the United States have a major interest in lowering the value of the dollar against the yuan. Since other countries would likely follow China in allowing their currencies to rise relative to the dollar (this is exactly what happened in 2005, the last time China had a large re-valuation of its currency), the result could be millions of new jobs in manufacturing. This would offer a large number of relatively good-paying jobs for less educated workers, putting upward pressure on the wages of these workers.

The Obama or Romney administration must decide which goals it will prioritize in its negotiations with China. If it makes more progress in getting access to China's financial markets for Goldman Sachs and Citigroup or increased protection of Microsoft's copyrights then it will make less progress in persuading China to raise the value of its currency.

Whoever is in the White House will have to decide which group's interests are pursued and which group's interests are downplayed. It would have been worth making this conflict more clear to readers.

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/china-policy-the-99-percent-versus-the-1-percent

The government could even counter China’s currency peg by establishing a peg of its own of the dollar against the yuan. It could offer to buy yuan at a considerably higher value than the official Chinese rate, thereby putting upward pressure on the Chinese currency. If China tried to counter such a move, they would end up paying vast amounts of money to acquire over-valued dollars. They lose big in this story.

However, the Obama Administration, like the Bush and Clinton administrations before it, has opted not to try to push down the value of the dollar. In fact, as a matter of official policy, the Obama Administration claims to be committed to a strong dollar.

If the United States is not prepared to take steps to lower the dollar, then we are pursuing a policy that makes us like Greece. We have an over-valued currency that makes our goods and services uncompetitive in international markets. Therefore we run huge trade deficits and cannot get back to full employment without enormous stimulus from the government sector.

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/korean-op-eds/greece-and-the-united-states/


To take a third case, the value of the dollar is enormously important in determining the distribution of income. The over-valued dollar is the main factor behind the US trade deficit. It swamps everything else we may or may not want done in terms of trade policy, competitiveness policy or industrial policy. If the dollar is over-valued by 30 percent it is roughly the same as giving a 30 percent subsidy on all the goods that we import while imposing a 30 percent tariff on all of our exports. It is incredibly difficult for domestic producers to overcome this sort of disadvantage.

Furthermore, it is not an accident what sectors of the economy are exposed to international competition. In principle, almost any sector of the economy can be opened up to trade. For example, in the case of health care, we can have laws that make it very easy for foreign born doctors to train to US standards and then practice wherever they want in the United States. We can also set up a legal and institutional structure that makes it easy for people to travel overseas for major operations to take advantage of the much lower prices charged in many countries.

However, neither path has been pursued in our trade negotiations. The main area where our negotiators wanted ‘free trade’ was in manufactured goods. This put US manufacturing workers in direct competition with their much lower paid counterparts in the developing world. This policy has the predicted and actual effect of lowering the wages of manufacturing workers in the United States. And since manufacturing has historically been a source of relatively high paying jobs for the 70 percent of workers without college degrees, this trade policy put downward pressure on the wages of this group of workers as whole.

This downward wage pressure is aggravated by the over-valuation of the dollar. The over-valuation of the dollar is conscious policy that dates back from Robert Rubin taking over as Treasury Secretary in the Clinton years. Rubin publicly advocated a high dollar since his first days as Treasurer, but he got the chance to put real muscle behind this policy through his engineering of the bailout following the East Asian financial crisis. Rubin’s deal was that the countries of the region would repay their debts in full (no write-downs), but we give them the ability to do this by allowing them to run huge trade surpluses with the United States.

The harsh treatment of the East Asian countries was a warning to the rest of the developing world. They adopted a policy of accumulating massive amounts of reserves to avoid ever being in the same situation as the East Asian countries. This means lowering the value of their currencies against the dollar so that they could run large trade surpluses. This continues to be the policy pursued by most developing countries so that the flow of capital is running from poor countries to the United States, rather than the other way around as the story goes in economics textbooks.

In short the United States has deliberately put in place a trade and dollar policy that disadvantages the bulk of the workforce for the benefit of employers, importers and those looking to invest overseas. The fact that manufacturing workers have done badly over the last two decades has nothing to do with random market outcomes. It was the result of deliberate policy.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/11/the-end-of-loser-liberalism-an-interview-with-dean-baker-part-i.html

[Romulox]

47. TL;DR version: But *LEVEYMG* works in the service industry. So *these* jobs are important! nt

[Mimosa]

58. ^ Correct ^ Why were America's basic jobs offshored ?

I believe the reason basic types of jobs which used to sustain American families were offshored was 1. to break unions and 2. to make sure able-bodied young people would join the military in able to get decent pay, benefits and educations.

[treestar]

25. Then the poor things should quit buying stuff made elsewhere because it is cheaper

That is on all of us.

Same with the big chains taking over from mom and pops. Where were you then?

[Romulox]

27. As always, you are a font of both compassion and reason. nt

[treestar]

31. Well I am a font of not just blaming others for our own acts

I believe we can choose what we do. We don't HAVE to buy the cheaper stuff from China. But as citizens, we do it. That is the cause of this. I suppose you are victimized into buying the cheaper product?

Where were you when the chains put the mom and pops out of business? Hopefully not taking advantage of lower prices at the big chains? It's the same thing here.

I think it is quite hypocritical to use the poor things as victims who just HAVE to buy things at the cheapest possible price, and that it's the big bad sellers' fault we do that, as they should force us and just hire the Americans and keep the prices higher. The truth is this offshoring took place because we still had jobs (other jobs) and chose lower prices.

[Romulox]

34. What's this "us" stuff? I'm blaming *you* for promoting a rightwing economics. nt

[Zalatix]

35. Ah yes, blame American workers. The US Chamber of Commerce loves that argument.

Care to explain why your arguments mirror theirs so much?

[Honeycombe8]

74. That just means you're in a field where it doesn't happen. Head in sand.

There are certain fields where it's more likely to happen.

It doesn't happen in my field, for various reasons. I didn't plan it that way. That (foreign workers being hired in America for a fraction of the wages) wasn't a problem when I entered my field 30 years ago. But I'm lucky. That doesn't happen in my field.

But not to recognize that it happens to plenty of others is pretty unempathetic and ignorant of the damage being done to your co-citizens. Doesn't mean we want others from other countries not to make a living wage in their fields, but it's just wrong what companies are doing on a large scale these days. It's ruining entire fields for American workers and adding to the working poor class here.

[Odin2005]

6. It's a Corporatist meme used to divide the Cultural Left from the Economic Left

The Corporatists have done this for years, framing opposition to Globalist Corporatism as xenophobic and racist in order to scare the Cultural Left into supporting "Free Trade" BS.

[hifiguy]

8. Ding, ding, ding!!

We have a winner!!

[Odin2005]

12. Thanks!

[TheKentuckian]

10. You have hit it dead on center, Odin.

[Zalatix]

11. Headshot!!!

[HiPointDem]

13. +1

[HughBeaumont]

14. And sadly, some DUers have fallen for it over the years.

Even now, the "adapt or die" crowd here plays the xenophobia card from the bottom of the deck.

[Mimosa]

60. Shameful.

In the face of the truth that the service economy has lowered Americans standard of living this appears to be willful misunderstanding.

On most boards posters who espouse that demonstrably false paradigm come from the 'investor class'.

[RZM]

18. I think that's one way to look at it, but not the only way

The cultural left doesn't take its marching orders from the corporate world. They are more than capable of calling people racists on their own. They don't need to be told to do so.

I think it's more a congruity of interests. Both the cheap labor lobby and the 'anti-racists' support undocumented immigrants. But their reasons are very different and it's kind of a shotgun marriage. I think it's less that they are working in tandem and more that they are both doing their own thing and those things happen to coincide.

But you do sometimes see them borrow each others messages. Rick Perry saying 'you have no heart' was a watered down version of 'you're a racist.' And a pro-immigrant leftist saying 'but they help our economy' is a watered down version of 'cheap labor is f-ing awesome.'

[redgreenandblue]

20. Question: Have you ever left the country?

And by that I don't mean for a quick trip to the beach in Canada, but for a prolonged period of time in which you actually lived together with people from a different culture that were vastly different from yourself.

Those of us who grew up in diverse environments see migration as something vastly normal and very much unrelated to any other economic issues.

[Odin2005]

30. I wish I had the money to travel overseas.

[redgreenandblue]

51. ...

I grew up around people from all over the place. I had friends from India, Poland, Korea, Yugoslavia, Italy and several other places that I'd have to really think hard if I wanted to list them all. I wouldn't have it any other way. The idea that countries should remain isolated from each other seems very "foreign" to me.

I can see however how people fear "cheap" competition on the market. The thing is, there has to be an alternative to complete isolationism. For one, I think a company that hires an immigrant needs to be forced to pay the same wage as for a local. That should eliminate several issues from the start. There has to be a reasonable solution that both allows people to relocate if they wish to do that and protect local interests at the same time.

I think it is only fair if local communities give a slight preference to local workers for one simple reason: Some people don't wish to ever re-locate. Those people will always be at a disadvantage compared to people who have already chosen to abandon their birthplace/home. Because once a person decides to leave home, essentially the whole world can be an option. On the other hand, there is only one "home", so the person who wants to stay put doesn't have any other options.

"Free trade" doesn't really concern me. I'm more concerned about the right of the individual to choose where to live. Localized production and consumption does make sense though, already from a energy-efficiency standpoint.

[Zalatix]

69. Wait, China has tariffs and currency manipulation but you don't call them isolationist

And people don't wish to relocate because they cannot afford to.

Does this even compute? Do you realize how much it costs to move to India or China to work? Assuming, of course, that they'll even LET you do so?

Doesn't matter... hell you're probably just doing a drive-by.

[redgreenandblue]

76. Reread my post. I did not mention trade tariffs anywhere.

In fact I think they make a lot of sense in a lot of cases. I think they are in fact necessary in many cases to offset wage disparities that make production cheaper in one place than another.

I repeat: I am not talking about goods moving around. I'm talking about people moving around. Localized production makes sense, already from an energy efficiency point of view. Where production isn't local there need to be trade tariffs. People are a different story.

[Zalatix]

77. Sorry about getting on you about tariffs

Your argument looked like a lead-in to an anti-tariff point.

The problem with people moving around is that you often cannot do so when you're poor, or you are just starting out in the workforce.

Moving across town costs big money. Moving out of state, even moreso.

Moving to China to work? Are you kidding me? They won't even let you in, ESPECIALLY if Americans start doing it en masse.

[Zalatix]

46. Americans would need jobs in order to do that. Said jobs moved overseas. Any further questions?

[99Forever]

29. Spot on.

Those of us that have been unemployed for YEARS, with little chance that we'll ever find a decent job again, don't have the luxury of pretending we haven't been royally f**ked over by that BS. By the "free traders," last time I checked, there are members of every race on the planet, Americans every one, that need jobs just as much as your supposed "victims of our racism."

Lying bastards.

[pampango]

32. Is it the Economic Left if "opposition to Globalist Corporatism" is more a right-wing phenomenon?

Opposition to globalization and "free trade BS" is more pronounced among teabaggers and the republican base than it it among Democrats. That is in the US. The opposition to globalization is even more concentrated in conservative political movements in Europe.

The far-right French National Front pushes nationalism and opposition to globalization and the EU (along with being anti-immigration) as solutions to France's problems. Other far-right parties in Europe use the same theme.

"Marine Le Pen, putting the accent on patriotism, deplores what she says is France’s loss of sovereignty to the European Union and to globalization...

Le Pen said the “real line of fracture” between the National Front and the system is not left-right but with forces who support globalization and Europeanization.

“I don’t defend the workers of the world. I defend French workers,” she said to stomps and cheers. “No, we are not xenophobes. We are passionately francophile,” she said."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/ap-interview-marine-le-pen-says-her-anti-islamization-fight-wont-breed-a-breivik/2012/04/18/gIQAYLURQT_story.html

While xenophobia and racism are, thankfully, harder and harder to find in the Left, I think you'll agree that they are still way too prevalent in the Right. And since it is on the right that much of the opposition to "globalization" and "free trade BS" is focused in the US and Europe, those attitudes are still, unfortunately, relevant to the discussion.

[Romulox]

33. You're like a corporatist Nero, fiddling while the EU burns...

No problems in the EU. Nossirree!

[Zalatix]

38. You've been pushing that crap argument forever now. It is wrong and outdated.

Look around you. Democrats don't support it either. Ever wonder why you get SWARMED whenever you come up with that argument? I notice that when I've pointed this out to you before, you have always had nothing to say.

And here's another counter-point you'll never have an answer for. LOL

The Right Wing opposes offshoring, ergo opposing offshoring is bad.
Ayn Rand opposed the pro-life mentality, ergo.. (oh shit).

See how ridiculous your argument is?

[Romulox]

49. Marine Le Pen wears pants. Pampango wears pants. Draw your own conclusion!!!! nt

[Zalatix]

54. Ayn Rand supported abortion rights. Ergo we are all Ayn Rand!

We're here all day, folks!

[Romulox]

50. Besides, pampango's bizarre contention that laissez-faire economics are not of the HARD RIGHT

is blatant lie, meant to influence the ignorant and no one else. Couple this were her refusal to acknowledge the massive structural collapse currently underway in the E.U., and what she does here is propaganda, not debate.

Frankly, if this poster made it her mission to exclusively push rightwing social issues, she would've be banned long ago. But pushing rightwing economics here is seeming welcome.

[Zalatix]

55. I wonder what Pampango has to say now that his argument has been destroyed. AGAIN.

[Odin2005]

63. Nothing, apparently, because he hasn't replied after his hit-and-run.

[Odin2005]

62. Pampango is a good example of the "cultural left" that I'm talking about.

"Opposing Free Trade makes you just like Le Pen!!!"

[Zalatix]

66. He's not cultural left; he's a free trader.

And he's mad that Democrats aren't buying what he's selling.

[Romulox]

75. There's nothing "left" about pampango--she spouts Rightwing economics here, and nothing else.

Ask her about poverty in America. Ask her about inequality. Ask her about choice.

She can't speak to those.

[Poll_Blind]

41. +1

Nicely done.

PB

[lumberjack_jeff]

59. It isn't corporatists who accuse me of being a racist for believing that americans should have jobs.

It seems to me that the cultural left doesn't need much corporatist encouragement to disparage american workers.

[uponit7771]

61. +1!

[frylock]

15. love it or leave it

[Romulox]

16. I support two big issues: 1) Abortion rights; 2) race-to-the-bottom "free trade" (prison labor AOK!)

Position 1) gives me perfect cover for position 2), so that I can self-identify as a "liberal". In fact, I refer to myself as a "liberal" every chance I get (even if others rarely do. )

Also, I'd like to suggest that anyone that so much as questions position 2) is, in fact, a racist.

/new Democrat

[cynatnite]

21. I don't think it's quite that simple...

If they say it in response to immigrants from Mexico, then I'd be inclined to agree. If they say it in response to jobs being taken out of this country and given to someone who lives thousands of miles away, then I don't know.

[treestar]

24. How do you assign a nationality to a job?

What about jobs of mixed nationalities?

[Zalatix]

37. Simple. If it's sold here, it must be made here.

Not sure how hard that can be to comprehend.

[treestar]

52. It is comprehensible, but impractical

Even in the 18th century there were imports and exports.

[Zalatix]

53. Impractical to you, maybe.

We can get our trade deficit down to zero. I'm sure your next argument is that all countries have a trade deficit, which is why this discussion is pointless.

[coalition_unwilling]

39. Gawd, it's not 'racist,' it's 'chauvinist' or 'nationalist'. The way

language is abused and mis-used here is enough to drive one to distraction, honestly!

[Zalatix]

40. It's done intentionally, to shame American workers into letting globalism fleece them out of jobs.

It's a classic form of gutless guilt-tripping, probably hand-fed by the US Chamber of Commerce.

[Romulox]

48. It's not an honest mistake. It's a concerted effort by the Right to appropriate the language of the

Left.

[Puregonzo1188]

42. Yes, because those pesky foreigners working in sweat shops are the reason for unemployment.

This kind of logic was used to pit white workers against black workers for years as well.

Divide and conquer is an easy strategy to use.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

43. Workers of the World UNITE!

[chickypea]

56. It Isn't Racist...

it is just plain silly.

[Zalatix]

57. Americans having jobs is silly? How so?

[chickypea]

64. Who Are thes Big Bad People Stealing America's Jobs?

Be real... how many Americans do you know who are willing to work picking vegetables? mowing grass? packing frozen chicken? making bouquets for supermarkets?
Sadly, no Americans want those jobs, but someone needs to do them.

Did you know that undocumented workers not only pay taxes, but pay into Social Security and never collect a dime?

Before complaining about others taking American jobs, do some research. Farmers all over the country are having crops die in the fields because even with 9% unemployment, they cannot find Americans willing to do the jobs.

[Zalatix]

65. Again, I will ask you, how is Americans having jobs silly in your book?

In addition, your evasive response was totally wrong.

1) Americans have no problems picking vegetables, mowing grass, packing frozen chicken, or making bouquets, IF THEY ARE PAID A LIVING WAGE.

2) Undocumented workers are hired specifically because they will tolerate shit for pay and working conditions that are often lethal.

3) Before you come back with another ignorant argument, YOU do some research. In fact, I will help you. Read and be educated about the working conditions imposed upon immigrant workers:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/06/hormel-spam-pig-brains-disease
http://www.fwjustice.org/workplace-safety/heat-stress
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91240378

4) And you haven't even addressed the MANUFACTURING jobs that we have lost, which far outnumber the farming jobs.

Once again... how is Americans having jobs silly in your book?

[chickypea]

70. Change American Habits, Jobs will Follow

I have no problem bringing manufacturing back to the US, but from what I see coming out of colleges, every kid wants to be a hedgefund millionaire- none of them actually want to do an honest days work.

I also believe the world needs to eat. I do not buy NIKE or cheap Chinese crap. I am very conscious about what I buy, where I buy it and the power my dollar has. I am also a realist and know that these companies are NOT coming back to the US. Instead we should be developing new industries, and doing what many of the European countries have been doing for some decades and that is produce quality products. Even if they cost more, people will buy them.

You need to change the habits of the buying public, and the jobs will follow, not the other way around.

[Zalatix]

71. You're wrong again. American habits aren't the problem, and you are lying about American students.

Your accusations concerning college students and workers are full of shit and have no basis in fact.

The problem here is that we are competing against slave labor wages.

"Those" companies are NOT coming back to the US - fine. We can bar them from selling anything here. We can build new iPad factories, here in America, and use tariffs to prevent them from going overseas. Tariffs work - ask China, they use them a LOT.

And tell us what these "new" industries are. Europe is running a big trade deficit against China, that's what's putting them in so much trouble. For all their new industries, their unemployment is similar to ours - very high. So you're wrong again - history shows that when you try to flee to "new industries", you don't produce enough jobs.

Manufacturing is the jobs creator, the rainmaker. Protect that at all costs. China does, and look how well they've done.

[Zalatix]

73. YES, LYING. Mass defamation. Without any supporting facts, no less.

"Anecdotally" is an incredibly generous description of your remarks.

Your "every kid wants to be a hedgefund millionaire- none of them actually want to do an honest days work" is an often-spoken right wing Corporatist lie with zero basis in fact. If you work with students with your misguided attitude, I fear for them, too, the way you look down your nose at them with your horribly arrogant and tragically misinformed misconceptions.

As for good old American ingenuity, yeah, one person will innovate a new wind or solar technology invention, and guess who will be employed to build it? Not Americans, because they're not willing to live in little rabbit cages like the workers in China. (Cite: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2084971/Hong-Kongs-cage-homes-Tens-thousands-living-6ft-2ft-rabbit-hutches.html )

Work hard, for peanuts, and you might succeed.

As for Germany? They are protectionist, too. Apparently you don't know much about economics, either.

Oh, and did I also forget to add... you are LYING about American students?

[JVS]

67. Some people have a real problem with the idea that a government should act in the interests of...

citizens.

[Zalatix]

68. Bad global citizen! I revoke your Global ID Card!

Report to the nearest Globalist Indoctrination Center immediately!