Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


(4,667 posts)
Sat May 14, 2016, 05:25 PM May 2016

Is it "their turn" on service jobs - too?

One of the other posts right now describes the outrageousness of the argument that Hillary Clinton needs to be given the nomination because "its her turn" - that is being made by some Beltway insiders. Well, we should also be looking at another example of that kind of thinking but we cant because the media isn't telling us about it. We should know more but we dont.

Is it "their turn" on service jobs - too?

We all know about the digital divide, and many people know about the global ecnomic divide between developed and developing nations. Well, in 1994, the WTO was formed and its stated goal was economic development of the Global South Nations. In exchange for promises of economic integration with the developed nations economies, especially the United tates, they have been kept in a state of heightened anticipation, forever waiting for other countries deeds to solve their own economic problems, instead of pushing harder for ends to corruption and slash and burn corporate tactics enabling resource extraction without accountability, extraction of minerals and other raw materials at bargain basement rates. In exchange they received promises of "economic integration" with developed countries service economies if they could only be the successful low bidders. These deals would benefit developed countries government entities and corporate interests by lowering their labor costs by privatization and then globalized competition.

So, basically, now a huge change is being readied, and its being "justified" by the same logic as being applied to the nomination, except here its being applied to high paid service job, medicine, nursing, teaching, IT.

The logic goes that the world would benefit greatly if wages in developed countries fell a lot and those in developing countries were increased a little by letting their companies broker the services of their skilled workers, (creating a huge brain drain) Their doctors, nurses, teachers, IT workers, etc, will then be used to staff jobs in developed countries at much lower wages than those they replaced, and send home remittances from their wages, instead of getting good jobs at home, perhaps this arrangement might raise wages a tiny bit at home but what it really does is create an artificial state of dependency on an artificial, predatory hyper-hierarchical working arrangements, and weaken the position of highly skilled workers in both places, creating a hollowed out economy where middle class jobs become low paying jobs despite their having high skill requirements. Meanwhile the companies and former public sector workplaces that employed them perhaps pay the same or a bit less but get out of both any pension and health care insurance obligations, also they get a captive workforce that has no say whatsoever in policy. .

What I am trying to explain is that a very long time ago, the US signed on to this - In a bill called the URAA it was passed in 1994. Bill Clinton and the URAA signed us on to such a scheme in 1994, and the negotiations to figure out the specifics have been going on- off and on for 20 years. They are almost finished.

Is it Their Turn?

Basically both they (the working people in the Global South) and us have been lied to by the neoliberal pushers of these deals. (both our leaders and their own)

They are not about trade so much as they are about creating a global "race to the bottom" on wages while preserving corrupt regimes and huge growing profits despite demographic changes relating to automation which should be making us rethink areas such as services - Since jobs are vanishing to rapidly improving productivity, certainly, many prices should be falling, but not wages without prices- Nations urgently need public health care, now more than ever, however the secret deals frame public services as "state owned monopolies" - even public education, etc,

We need public higher education- and health care - non profit- as a public good, but instead they incrementally, irreversibly make establishing that a prohibited activity, and create new corporate rights to free money, compensation to corporations if a government does it.

All this time the facts have been hidden from the American people. Those deals were initiated during the Clinton years and Hillary Clinton and Obama have hidden them assiduously from the public. Making up an entire body of phony reasons for things when the real reasons were these deals.

We need a national dialogue based in truth, but it will NEVER come from the mouth of Hillary Clinton. She is more honest and straightforward when she is in other countries than she is here. And since at least on paper the country is still "We the people" she's working against the country's people's interests.

She should not become president. Its not her turn and these liars do not have the right to sign away the future livelihoods of our country forever (in part in exchange to open branches and factories in other countries) which is what they have repeatedly attempted to do. And continue to try to do with three pending deals.

That said I feel very strongly that the working people here in the US have a great many shared interests with working people in the developing world and I feel as if we could accomplish a lot together helping one another - prosperity is not a zero sum game, we have all earned the benefits given us by technology and they should be shared, not hoarded by a very few, which is what the 3 secretive T deals try to lock in. Locking in bad policy.

6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Is it "their turn" on service jobs - too? (Original Post) Baobab May 2016 OP
with sanders in the senate MIC jobs are secure nt msongs May 2016 #1
but doctors, nurses, teachers, IT, construction, not secure at all. Baobab May 2016 #5
K&R!! Excellent post! haikugal May 2016 #2
Globalism is done. It's failure is self-evident. Waiting For Everyman May 2016 #3
Recommended as a MUST READ. nt snagglepuss May 2016 #4
That likely will make no difference. At that point it would be too late. Carve out need to go in Baobab May 2016 #6


(4,667 posts)
5. but doctors, nurses, teachers, IT, construction, not secure at all.
Sun May 15, 2016, 08:21 AM
May 2016

Sanders would not allow it to go forward. Hillary already has (for 20 yrs)

numbers are still small but that could change overnight BC of Indias case.

It might be ruled that we cannot deny other countries companies 'the benefits of the agreement'.

How will they explain that then?


Waiting For Everyman

(9,385 posts)
3. Globalism is done. It's failure is self-evident.
Sat May 14, 2016, 05:36 PM
May 2016

It is over. People here and in the rest of the first world know this, and the rise of populist movements to reverse globalism is the wave of the future.

People have caught on.


(4,667 posts)
6. That likely will make no difference. At that point it would be too late. Carve out need to go in
Sun May 15, 2016, 08:26 AM
May 2016

now. International private law. Above national law. Whole point is to nullify democracy.

People dont exist except as service goods to be traded across borders - or markets

It is called Mode Four for the fourth mode of supply.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Is it "their turn" on ser...