Show of hands, fellow Democrats. How many of you would choose to let your job go overseas?

[Zalatix]

Which one of you would choose unemployment and hunting for 2 years for a lower-paying job over keeping your job in the United States?

[abelenkpe]

1. Yknow no one is going to say yes to that.

But many will experience it!

[Zalatix]

3. My point exactly. If no one wants to experience it then why would we not oppose it vigorously?

This is by far the number one reason why 'protectionism' is not a bad word.

[HopeHoops]

2. (hands up with a double-bird)

[Romulox]

4. Depends. Do I have that thing where Jeff Bridges makes my Hyundai payments if I lose my job???

[Populist_Prole]

5. I wouldn't, and I wouldn't want anybody else's to go either

The question should be forwarded to those with the necessary influence that can make it, or not make it, happen.

[Zalatix]

15. Bug the hell out of politicians on this 'free trade' crap.

ESPECIALLY get their opinions on Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and vote them out if they support FTA's.

[Initech]

6. Short answer: hell no!!!!!!!!!

[pampango]

7. How about a show of hands for letting your job go to a right-to-work state like Alabama?

Do you think the numbers would be any different?

It is best if I do not lose my job at all, but is it more in danger from a nonunion shop in a low-paying, right-to-work state like Alabama or from a union shop in a high-wage economy like that of Germany and Sweden.

General Electric has been good at outsourcing to states where unions are weak, like the South, for many decades.

"... after losing a 1946 strike badly, management adopted a hard-line stance against unions, preaching the gospel of individual responsibility. GE closed plants in the unionized North, shipping jobs South and West, and adopted a “take it or leave it” approach to negotiations, termed “Boulwarism” after its labor relations chief."

http://labornotes.org/2012/03/unions-seek-regain-foothold-ge

And GE is far from the only company to use 'outsourcing' to the South and other right-to-work areas to weaken/break unions. Good paying union jobs have been lost due to "Boulwarism" and the domestic outsourcing of companies like GE for decades - long before China ever freed itself from Mao much less joined the world economy.

[Romulox]

9. If you actually subscribed to the theories you present, you'd have two hands and both feet up.

You advocate for outsourcing at every turn, after all.

[pampango]

11. You volunteered me, but didn't exactly say where you stand.

Is your union job in more jeopardy from workers in Sweden or in Alabama?

In lieu of an answer, I do await your next accusation.

[Zalatix]

12. Many of us already live in right-to-work states. Your woefully off-topic question is off-topic.

Of course you have no intention of getting back on topic, either.

[pampango]

13. I thought the topic was losing your job to outsourcing. My reply is only 'off-topic'

if losing your job to overseas outsourcing is worse than losing it to domestic outsourcing.

I now realize (thank you) that the outsourcing of well-paying jobs to other US states is 'off-topic'. We should only be concerned with those jobs that are lost to "foreigners".

[Zalatix]

14. You're still off-topic. The topic is about jobs going overseas, not another state.

Yes, we already know you support discrimination against American workers. That's been long established. You don't even bother to deny it now.

[pampango]

22. "You don't even bother to deny" that "you support discrimination against American workers".

Was there some occasion when you accused me of supporting such discrimination and I didn't "even bother to deny it"? Or is it a case that if I don't agree with your take on domestic vs. overseas outsourcing (or was it some other issue?) then I am guilty of the "sin" of supporting such discrimination.

If you don't agree with my position, is it then fair for me to accuse you of some "sin" (to be determined at my discretion just as you have done) then wait and see if you deign to honor my accusation with a response.

Heck you could accuse me of being a racist, misogynist, unpatriotic, whatever and if I don't dignify your accusation with a response, I am "guilty"? Or if I do respond, you then get to be in the position of saying, "Sorry, pampango, that response is not adequate. You are still guilty of the 'sin'." That's a pretty good system you have set up.

I think there was a republican congressman many decades ago who made it a practice of accusing people (on his secret list) of various "sins" (well one in particular). If they didn't deny his accusation perhaps deciding that they are not going to "play his game", then they were presumed "guilty" by this guy and his followers. Of course, if his chosen victims did try to deny his accusations, they were deemed to still be "guilty". Either way he won.

[Zalatix]

23. Hmm, you don't like it when your own debate tactics are used against you, eh?

You have repeatedly accused me of having a problem with foreigners because I oppose American jobs leaving the country. You routinely post misguided polls that purportedly show Republicans oppose free trade more than Democrats, in an attempt to paint me as being more of a Republican than a Democrat.

Now it is apparent that you can't, however, handle it when you are reminded that your views support discrimination against Americans. You especially won't like it if you are told that John Boehner supports your view on offshoring, as do the Koch Brothers and the US Chamber of Commerce. You complain and get indignant when you are made a victim of your own behavior.

Let's get with the facts here. Your views are discriminatory against American workers. Protectionism is about keeping jobs that produce goods and services for the American market, in America. You have a problem with that. You don't have a problem with Americans being locked out of those jobs, but you do have a problem with us trying to keep them here. This is not deniable. Your posts stand to serve as proof of this. You don't want Americans to enact laws that keep American jobs from leaving the country.

Your views are harmful to America's working class. America's working class stands to lose greatly if your views win out. Your arguments have nothing to offer Americans. We have no reason, then, to accept what you are selling. At some point you must realize this.

[pampango]

34. The polls I post are Pew polls. "Misguided" is in the eye of the beholder. Protectionism has a lot

of bipartisan potential once you get past republican politicians and their institutions. Their base is your buddy whether you want to realize it or not.

Look, we trade less (much less) than any other developed country and yet you blame foreigners for all of our job loss problems. Does that mean you "have a problem with foreigners"? I don't know, but you sure spend a lot of time posting about them. I realize that the simple answer for you is to erect high walls (tariffs) around the country and everything will be fine.

As I'm sure you know from 1880 to 1980 republicans were the high-tariff party and Democrats were the low-tariff party. The whole GATT/WTO, IMF, World Bank structure was created under Roosevelt and Truman and the republicans fought them every step of the way. Then in 1981 reagan pushed the republican party to becoming a low-tariff party, too. (In a side note, tariffs actually increased during reagan's 8 years, regardless of his rhetoric.) At the same time he increased republican pressure to cut taxes for the rich, deregulate corporations and destroy unions and the safety net.

The truth is that when you look around the world the countries with the strongest middle classes, unions, safety nets - basically the most progressive countries in the world - all trade much more than we do. If low-tariff trade (or "free trade&quot really caused the economic devastation that you contend, Canada, Australia, Sweden, Germany and many other progressive countries would be much worse off than the US. Since we trade much less than they do, our middle class should be strong, our safety net in excellent condition and our unions strong and growing.

While progressive countries embrace trade what they do not do is slash taxes and make them more regressive; emasculated unions; shred safety nets and deregulate everything under the sun particularly the financial industry. Those who contend that a country can't have strong unions, an effective safety net, a thriving middle class and effective regulation and trade a great deal with the rest of the world, is ignoring what is actually happening in the rest of the world.

I have a big problem with protectionism. I think that European liberals, Canadian liberals, Australian liberals will echo my sentiment. For a 100 years the republican party believed in high tariffs. The right in Europe and elsewhere still does. The idea that liberals seek to build walls against "others" while conservatives seek to tear them down, goes against my grain and that of most liberals in the world.

I see that you are now merely judging me as unpatriotic towards American workers because I refuse to build walls around the country. If you are the 'patriotism judge', I can live with that. (I doubt that Canadian, Australian and European liberals consider themselves to be unpatriotic simply because they do not promote high tariffs.)

[Romulox]

35. And there it is. Anyone who disagrees with pamps is similar to both McCarthy and the Euro Right.

Who is the audience for this dreck? Have you ever received positive feedback for this line of reasoning, on this board or anywhere else?

Why would you think you'd find a receptive audience for your radical right wing economics here? What could possibly reinforce this notion?

[pampango]

37. Are you arguing that the Euro Right does not favor high tariffs? Or that teabaggers do not

support protectionism? Or is this all about me? In lieu of an answer, I will await another accusation.

Yes, I have received positive feedback here, but not nearly as much as negative. That's OK. I post what I believe; just as you do. That's what DU is all about.

As for your judgment that my economics is 'radical right wing', well consider that FDR was the one who lowered tariffs in the 1930's to undo the high republican tariffs of the '20's and he pushed for low tariffs and multilateral governance of trade in the postwar years. (Was FDR guilty of "radical right wing economics" for his pursuit of low tariffs?) Also progressive countries in the world employ these same economic policies that FDR promoted, while the real 'radical right' in Europe and the US - well you know the rest.

If that makes the trade policy that FDR promoted and Sweden uses today "radical right wing" economics, you are welcome to your definition, I suppose.

[brentspeak]

40. Still trying with your mythical FDR/free trade propaganda historical revisionism?

For the benefit of forum members here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002648192#post20

[Zalatix]

36. Pew, Schmew, your polls are still inaccurate no matter how many times you post them.

Democrats are still turning against you. You cite polls, I cite what happens every time you and I discuss this issue. You keep bringing up polls to show how popular offshoring is with Democrats, but when it comes time to bat you always come up on the short end of the stick. Why is that? Where are these Democrats who agree with you? I contend that they only exist in your Pew polls. Show 'em. Bring 'em on. Whatever Democrats you bring whom you think support offshoring, I can turn them against you simply by asking the question in the OP.

And your base is the Koch Brothers and the US Chamber of Commerce whether you like it or not.

Another problem here is that you keep evading the facts.

For instance, I'm sure that you know that since we came up with GATT and NAFTA, Americans have been losing their jobs in droves. Wages have stagnated and job growth has LAGGED behind population growth. The fact is, jobs have been leaving the country more than jobs have come here from elsewhere. You want to defend this and you want to ensure it keeps happening.

As for your arguments about who trades the most, no country in the world runs the kind of trade deficits that the United States does. The problem, and you know this, is not trade. It is our trade deficits. You, sir, will most certainly not address this when (or if) you respond. What is killing America is trade deficits. Another fact you will probably evade discussion of, is the fact that tariffs, currency manipulation, and other barriers to trade, are not necessarily detrimental to a country. Look at China, their middle class has EXPLODED because of their trade barriers. Germany has quite a few protectionist measures in place as well. You know this.

Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and other countries erect trade barriers by pegging their currencies to ours. They are also quite successful. I bet you weren't counting on me knowing that when you posted your half-truths about liberal economies.

Once again, you have nothing to offer American workers. We are running huge trade deficits and this is costing Americans jobs, plus it's devaluing our dollar and raising our debt. You have no counter to this, because it is the truth.

America is running a massive non-oil trade deficit.
Trade deficits kill jobs.
Trade deficits devalue the currency.
Trade deficits put a nation in serious debt.

What have you to say to those basic facts?

PS: Europe is in a HELL of a lot of financial trouble. Ever wonder why? It's largely because of offshoring.

[Romulox]

19. Oh, just post some crap about how Marine Le Pen once expressed some sympathy for workers,

thus "proving" that caring for workers is similar to nazism.

That's the extent of your rhetoric.

[Zalatix]

29. *crickets*

[Zalatix]

18. You'll get the 'you hate foreigners' smoke screen in response.

The way you end that discussion is to point out how said views encourage discrimination against Americans.

[Romulox]

21. She's about the worst spokesperson for her cause that can be found, which makes me smile.

There are some frightfully intelligent people out there hell-bent on promoting this stuff.

Thankfully, none of them post on DU.

[Chan790]

44. There is no reason for any Congressperson whose district is outside a right-to-work state...

to oppose overturning Taft-Hartley unless they're prioritizing someone else's needs ahead of their constituents. Party on this makes no difference...it's in the advantage of even Republicans in non-RtW states to support repeal to keep jobs and wages in their state.

I want a simple two-plank movement:

1.) End Free Trade.
2.) End Taft-Hartley.

Don't bother asking for my vote if you can't tell me you support that in clear simple direct unleveraged unconditional language.

[Wounded Bear]

8. Mine did. Trained the guy who got it, too.

No choice involved.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Maybe it's time for "Workers of the World UNITE!".

Instead of the divide & conquer strategy used by the capitalists.

[LadyInAZ]

24. I've been saying this over a year now...

I feel a global unite of all working levels would bring about a faster recession recover. Which I feel is only manufacture by the elite around the world. If we unite global, with demonstrations that effect goods and services world wide. Then demands of open job market will finally be heard and not ignored.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. Workers Solidarity is sooooo old fashioned and it threatens the establishment.

[randome]

16. Part of the reason you're missing a 'perfect storm' of outrage from outsourcing...

...is because a good part of the economy goes to IT now. In IT, if you lose your job due to outsourcing, but have a good resume, it's not that difficult to find something else.

It depends on the region, of course, and I'm not saying this is the way it should be. Not at all.

But this may be why you don't see a 'Workers Unite!' scenario.

[Zalatix]

17. India begs to differ about IT, especially on the low end.

Back in the 1990s they'd practically send out trucks to scoop up the unemployed and hire them in tech support call centers, beginner web design and QA work. Today, there is no such thing as entry level jobs in America. Guess where those are.

I am sure there are more IT people and manufacturing people who feel they're above the water line, but not a majority. Not anymore.

[Romulox]

20. LOL. Have you *seen* any recent newspapers?

[randome]

27. What's a 'newspaper'?

[AsahinaKimi]

26. Mine is over seas...

I work for a company in Tokyo, Japan. They pay me to stay at home and work on my computer.. and they pay well, and for my health insurance. I feel so blessed...

[Zalatix]

28. Aflac?

Probably not, but just a wild guess.

[AsahinaKimi]

31. The company

is one that distributes manga and anime to the US and Europe. Or.. were you referring to my insurance company?

[Zalatix]

32. Oh okay, yeah I was wondering if your employer was Aflac.

Aflac is US-based and they actually expanded into Japan.

[LanternWaste]

30. Real Americans never listen to imported music...

Real Americans never listen to imported music...

[Ship of Fools]

33. Already did--six years ago.

Good money in med transcription. Had my own home, car, even
took myself out once a week... It went to India.

Oh well--lived the "American dream" for a little while, anyway.

[kentauros]

38. I wouldn't.

However, I am sure there are more than a few DUers that would love to see my profession (Pipeline Designer) disappear altogether...

[mrmpa]

39. I am unemployed, and would be happy to see my status sent overseas. eom

[Zalatix]

41. I'd love to see foreigners have jobs. Lots of jobs.

Just don't bleed us dry for them.

[The2ndWheel]

42. It's not really your job

It's not really an American job. It's just a job. America used to be the be all, end all a few decades ago(and even then, it wasn't everyone in America that could say that), but that's no longer the case. A job may not have to be done somewhere else, by someone else, but if it can be done somewhere else, by someone else, then it may end up that way.

We sell our time for the job. That sort of job doesn't belong to anyone except the person/people selling it. If someone is paying you to be there, then it's not your job, it's just a job you happen to be doing for someone else, the status of which is out of your control, and can change at any time.

[Zalatix]

46. It is an American job. It is my job.

It's a job producing goods and services for the American market, it's an American job.

Plain and simple.

[jwirr]

43. I am retired and I hate doing dishes so I am saying yes. They can take my dishes anytime they want.

[Egalitarian Thug]

45. 6 times and counting. I haven't had a choice yet. n/t