'I'm not with her': why women are weary of Hillary Clinton
'I'm not with her': why women are weary of Hillary Clinton
As a whole, women support Clinton over Trump and Sanders, but 49% of women from across the political spectrum give her an unfavorable rating
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/23/women-female-voters-us-election-hillary-clinton
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)
apcalc
(4,463 posts)
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)I don't think I want my wife or daughters or any woman subjected to what he will bring down for women.
So, go one keep bashing Hillary Clinton and don't vote for her in November, but don't complain about your predicament when Trump pushes women's issues back 50 years or more.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)Last edited Tue May 24, 2016, 12:35 PM - Edit history (1)
http://ejil.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/1/151.fullliberal N proud
(60,334 posts)Not a gamble I want to take, I am with Hillary!
Baobab
(4,667 posts)By disregarding all the promises of jobs which have been made in exchange for the riches.
Its their turn. They just have to be the winning lowest bidders.
No more discrimination against foreign corporations. No more local set asides or women or minority carve outs, instead we will have carve outs for less developed countries.
African. South Asian firms. South American firms. Its Their Turn.
Equal pay for equal work. That's what we want, right?
Wages will fall until they are the same. No more discrimination.
Do you get what I am trying to explain?
Hillary is a globalist. She wants to lower costs for corporations.
Wages are a big cost.
Google "movement of natural persons" "mode four"
cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Baobab
(4,667 posts)Article VI.4 of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and the Decision on Domestic Regulation (S/L/70) call upon WTO members to develop any necessary disciplines to ensure that measures relating to qualification requirements and procedures, technical standards and licensing requirements and procedures do not constitute unnecessary barriers to trade in services.
175pxls.gif (835 bytes)
based on objective and transparent criteria, such as the competence and the ability to supply the service;
not more burdensome than necessary to ensure the quality of the service;
in the case of licensing procedures not in themselves a restriction on the supply of the service”.
Working Party on Domestic Regulation back to top
A Working Party on Domestic Regulation was established in 1999 for the purpose of the negotiations, and replaced the earlier Working Party on Professional Services.
Why are disciplines on domestic regulation required? back to top
The GATS already contains disciplines on barriers to trade in services in the form of restrictions on market access (Article XVI) and on national treatment (Article XVII). Market access restrictions encompass quantitative restrictions such as limitations on the number of services suppliers, total value of services transactions or assets, total number of services operations, the total quantity of services output, the total number of persons that may be employed, as well as measures restricting or requiring specific types of legal entity or joint venture, and foreign equity limitations. The obligation of national treatment prohibits the discriminatory treatment of foreign services and services suppliers when compared to domestic services and services suppliers.
However, negotiators of the GATS recognized that even if members respect their market access obligations in services sectors and even if they refrain from adopting discriminatory licensing requirements and procedures, qualification requirements and procedures, and technical standards, such measures could nevertheless act as a barrier to trade in services. For example, excessively lengthy, complex and intransparant licensing procedures may discourage foreign services providers to seek access to the market of another WTO member. Lack of objective and transparent criteria, on the basis of which authorities would grant a qualification, may give rise to hidden protectionism by such authorities.
The negotiations on the disciplines have the potential to address and prevent such undesirable regulatory practices. At the same time, developing country members that do not have regulatory frameworks in place for certain services sectors may benefit from the guidance and technical assistance provided on the basis of the future disciplines.
What is being negotiated? back to top
Prior to the Doha Round of trade negotiations, which commenced in 2001, WTO members had negotiated Disciplines on Domestic Regulation in the Accountancy Sector (S/L/63). The Accountancy Disciplines are intended to be integrated into the GATS at the end of this Round. Currently, members are engaged in negotiating a separate set of “horizontal” disciplines on domestic regulation. Unlike the Accountancy Disciplines, these “horizontal” disciplines will not be sector-specific and will apply to all measures affecting trade in services within the scope of the GATS.
The WTO Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration in 2005 instructed negotiators to develop these disciplines and to adopt text before the end of the Round. While the negotiations are still on-going, several versions of a Chairman's text, which reflect drafting suggestions, have been produced. The envisaged disciplines, like the Accountancy Disciplines, are expected to contain chapters with specific requirements on transparency, disciplines on the submission and treatment of licensing and qualification applications, and the development and application of technical standards.
The Chairman of the Working Party on Domestic Regulation produced a Progress Report (S/WPDR/W/45) on 14 April 2011, reflecting the progress so far achieved in the negotiations of disciplines on domestic regulation. This Progress Report has been attached to the Report by the Chairman of the Council on Trade in Services to the Trade Negotiations Committee (TN/S/36) dated 21 April 2011.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)nurses, teachers and IT people, especially. Their replacements will likely be subcontractors and likely not from the US. It will save money but at tremendous cost to society.
Sure, we may have all sorts of changes for women but they wont make up for the job loss. Instead of having carve outs for women or minority owned businesses, the carve outs will be for least developed countries corporations.
Look at it this way, they have been coming to these negotiations every two years since the late 90s trying to negotiate this huge deal, and the negotiations have always fallen apart over this and maybe one or two other issues. The developing countries have been promised that if they put together qualified service providers that they would get the work if they were competitive. The domestic regulations that might keep them out have been framed by the last three Administrations as possibly changeable if they fulfilled their sides of the bargain. During this time Western companies have been pressuring them to open their markets, to get rid of their public health care and education systems subsidies and preferential buying programs.. everything that kept forein firms out, we have challenged. That means it works both ways.
the US has all these laws saying that various groups should be paid more than whatever they negotiate, has laws saying that various groups need to be represented in their own workforces, but since winning firms will only be here temporarily, I dont think we will be ble to tell them that their workforce should include women or people of ajny specific race or religion or anything. We will not be able to tell them who to hire.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)To win this primary. All she's losing are white men much like Obama
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/02/26/is-hillary-losing-the-womens-vote-nope-heres-how-the-gender-gap-really-works/
http://www.newsweek.com/2016-gender-gap-436633
Keep hoping to turn women and minorities off though, so far it's working really well.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)playing field for corporations from all the countries in the world, equal pay for equal work, whether you are American or Angolan.
Its not about you. That's the reason she is being nice to you. Its overcompensation.
The US is a developed country, we're deemed past all those preferences. Thats just between us and our government, equality is an obligation we owe the world in exchange for all the raw materials.
"Its their turn".
We've gotten rich off of them, now its their turn.
Thats the Clinton Way. Bill Clinton "started the WTO".
its their turn
zalinda
(5,621 posts)It's nice if you are at the top of the heap, not so much at the bottom.
Z
Baobab
(4,667 posts)As I said, its been planned for a long time. Basically, this is the payback for globalization. The lowest bidding firms will win the newly privatized former public sector jobs. No discrimination by country. Of course we cannot tell them who to hire or what to pay. Because "Its Their Turn"
This is the basic model:
For a deeper understanding of how migration could equalize the price of labour in two trading
countries, consider figure one (from Senior Nello, 2005:145): There are two countries, Home
and Foreign. The total quantity of labour in the two countries is shown by the distance OhOf.
Before a fully free migration is allowed the distribution of labor is OhL in Home and OfL in
Foreign. The marginal product of labour is higher in Home than in foreign because the
capital/labor ratio is higher in Home. This is shown in the figure by the higher position of the
MPLh curve compared to the MPLf curve. Because of this the wage is higher in Home, at Wh
compared with the wage in Foreign at Wf. In short: Home symbolizes a developed country with
high automatization and high wages and Foreign a less developed country with abundant supply
of labour, low automatization and low wages. If migration is fully free between the two
countries and the workers are identical workers will migrate from Foreign to Home in pursuit of
higher wages. The migration will finally result in an equalized capital/labor ratio in the two
countries and thus equal marginal products of labor and equal wages, illustrated in the figure by
the wage level W' which could be seen as the world market price of labor as the world only
consists of the two countries Home and Foreign. The migration is illustrated in the figure by the
distance LL' which is the amount of workers that will move from Foreign to Home so that the
new distribution of labour becomes OhL' in Home and L'Of in Foreign.
Wages will thus decrease in Home and increase in Foreign resulting in a loss for the indigenous
workers in Home illustrated in the figure by the area a but a gain for the capital owners of the
areas a+b. In Foreign the workers get an increased income of areas c+d+e while the capital
owners lose areas d+e. The result in total is a net gain for the two countries by areas b+c which
is a gain resulting from higher efficiency in the use of the total resources of the two countries.
This simplified model of reality shows not only that there is a net gain but also that the
migration has clear redistributional effects.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)Countries are specialists in whatever they do best for less. Some countries corporations make computer chips and space satellites, other countries corporations run schools and hospitals and prisons. Highly skilled labor intensive jobs.
With the economics of scale one company can specialize in running thousands or even perhaps someday millions of workplaces at the lowest possible cost.
Countries like the US have been accused of coddling professional protectionists.
Would you rather they completely changed our healthcare system ? With globalization we can give people with the aluminum foil plans healthcare in India that is the equal or better of care in any rural community in the US. Travel is cheap, healthcare and profit margins for insurers expensive.
Prisons can be offshored.
We cannot hoard jobs or spend government money on our own country alone, in a globalized service economy.
So truly, since we've gotten rich off them - selling them expensive drugs, making them give up public health care, now "Its Their Turn"
Hillary is a globalist. This is globalism. Equal pay for equal work.
Sanders or Trump would probably start a trade war by breaking these agreements, the negotiations have been going on for 22 years.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)to the developing world? We don't know how many women may be employed by the winners of these bids. Or what their races will be.
Thanks to Hillary, we'll be beyond care. Trade deals make irreversible changes.
We cant tell the lowest qualified bid winning global employers who to hire because
Domestic regulations may be
"Not more burdensome than necessary to enure the quality of the service"
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)you need to create jobs in those countries.
Maybe women recognize people starving in india and bangladesh deserve our sympathy too
Maybe women recognize that manufacturing is not what the future holds, due to high levels of automation. Maybe women believe that service jobs can be unionized and well paid for.
Maybe women are tired of being discrimination against. Maybe women are not paranoid. Who really knows.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)>maybe women recognize that is a global world. if you want to sell american products abroad
>you need to create jobs in those countries.
I totally agree. People in other countries don't want to have to travel halfway around the world to work for low wages. They would rather stay at home and end corruption so they could start companies and get good work there.
>Maybe women recognize people starving in india and bangladesh deserve our sympathy too
YES, yes they really do and we should do everything we can to help that doesn't destroy our own society - that we can. But we DON'T "owe them" our own jobs here like the globalists want to do.
>Maybe women recognize that manufacturing is not what the future holds, due to high levels of automation.
YES, thats very much true, we all recognize that.
>Maybe women believe that service jobs can be unionized and well paid for.
I agree, and they should, globalists trying to hurry a race to the bottom is a mistake.
>Maybe women are tired of being discriminated against.
I would be and as a man I am tired of seeing women discriminated against. I generally think women do well in management positions I have always enjoyed working with women at any level. They make just as good leaders as men, maybe in some ways better, often. Because they cooperate more, as a rule, generally. However!
>Maybe women are not paranoid.
Women should be paranoid in this situation though because the financial incentive is so huge to globalize services and people need to know that their leaders they vote for don't have some hidden agenda that is against their best interests.
>Who really knows.
You are right there - nobody really knows anything, however some people seem to have an overconfident worldview that is somewhat delusional and prone to large mistakes in judgment.
In particular there is one big thing that you touched on which may seem unrelated but its all important- please let me refer you to this essay which basically explains how most of us greatly underestimate the rate of technological change due to a very human mistake, we guess that the rate of change in the future will be similar to the rate of change in the past. however, that always is wrong.
People in government may have made decisions twenty years ago basing their cost benefit analysis on an estimate of growth before automation really hits (and incomes vanish) that was much longer than what is in fact going to happen. They might have estimated thirty or fourty more years of growth in the developing countries than here, and there may only turn out to be fifteen or even ten. So deals that may have looked acceptable to them twenty years ago now hopefully seem a lot less so.
Its not worth trading away our jobs for markets overseas.
La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)And millions of democratic voters like myself don't either
Baobab
(4,667 posts)because its all fairly easy to prove if you want me to. At least i know where to find proof at this point.
They just dont tell us this. They dont want people getting involved because - hell, people would be outraged if they knoew. As you can see they think they know best. They likely are listening to what lobbyists tell them would be best for the country. Just like when GM tore up the trolley lines to force people to buy cars, creating the US underclass of people who could not afford cars. Whats best for GM was said to be best for the nations economy but that is simply not true. Low wages - which are earned by people from other countries wont translate into lower prices, just higher profits and no jobs.
Don't trust them!
Please let me know what you think is "paranoid" - and want some verification of.
Everything we are used to vanishes, the whole picture changes when services become world trade-
High "minimum" wages in the US have been frequently brought up by foreign countries as a trade barrier, as a barrier to market entry.
Would the WTO see them that way?
In the past, a similar raise in the minimum wage in El Salvador right before entering into a trade agreement was seen by WTO as a violation of the "fair and reasonable treatment" standard I think..
Just think about it for a minute. Things are not how they seem.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)T i S A is not but you can read the leaked documents at wiki leeks. org.
maybe there is some good info here too..
https://us.boell.org/2010/05/20/plain-language-guide-gats-negotiations-domestic-regulation
http://www.ictsd.org/downloads/2008/06/dom_reg.pdf
http://www.gatswatch.org/GATSandDemocracy/domestic.html
zalinda
(5,621 posts)that $3.00 a day is much more difficult to live on in the US than in Mexico, India, or the entire African continent to name a few. This is why immigrants come here and work for low wages, because after a few years they can go back home and live like 'kings'. Now, we are supposed to live with 20 people in a house forever, just so businesses can make more money. How much money do rich people really need? How much misery are the lesser people have to put up with so a rich person can buy another house or yacht?
Z
Baobab
(4,667 posts)Hillary wants our wages to fall. Because if global wages rise then her campaign donors would not have the huge profits they make from paying people very low wages elsewhere.
Bernie doesnt want a race to the bottom he wants a race to the top. unfortunately, automation combined with free market economics is going to require some changes in how we see everything - changes we dont even know what to do yet, BUT, it would be a hell of a lot smarter to admit these facts, that jobs are going away for good globally, and start building bridges between groups based on honesty than Hillary's in my opinion quite sleazy stealth trade deals forcing changes which will invariably result in much lower wages here and higher profits for the already quite wealthy.
Her solution for everything is globalization which will take jobs away from people who deserve to keep them and give those jobs to foreign firms - whomever is the lowest bideer- thats the process embedded in the WTO agreement we signed back in 1995.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)That is perhaps one of the CORE differences between Bernie and Hillary.
Hillary is a neoliberal and at its core neoliberalism is totally against things like the concept of a living wage, because that would stand in the way of supply and demand and maximizing (or optimizing) the value in the supply chains.
They want wages to fall and profits to increase as automation makes jobs harder to find, they feel that entitles them to more profit.
Under neoliberalism, if wages approach zero, thats great.
As a society, we need to know that is one of the most important differences between the two in terms of core philosophy.
rock
(13,218 posts)Embed you unproven conclusion in your question and then switch your discussion from 'weary' to 'unfavorable' (a term that has no political meaning - it certainly doesn't tell you how people would like to have her her as president!)
Baobab
(4,667 posts)what we do here, we can't change it. So we can yell and scream and tear our hear and demonstrate or whatever, once the switch switches and we make some commitment in a trade deal it cannot be reversed unless all the 50 or 100 nations who signed it agree to change it, and that is just impossible.
So in a very real sense the Presidential election is a diversion from the trade negotiations and that is where all the changes we need need to be negotiated. For example, all of Sanders platform is barred by trade deals existing and pending, so we should be in geneva and Brussels adding carve outs. Hillary will just pretend thats not happening and then everyting will be out of her hands and she can blame it on the WTO or RGFSS or TPP or whatever.
Its out of her hands, its out of Congress's hands. It wont be changeable.
Thats why we have our current health care mess, for example, its been this way for 20 years, they just didnt tell us.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)with single payer health care.
It starts around Page 13.
