#1 Topic : Jobs

[GannonFan]

Gee, that's super - trade wars are almost always the answer to expanding economically. I'm sure we don't need to worry about having access to all the markets that we still need too - I'm sure they'll all be open while we close our markets off.

We don't have to close our markets, just play by the same rules, quit pandering to the likes of Hewlett Packard, and quit unnecessarily spending tax payer money overseas. 50,000 US factories have closed in the last decade. In case you havent noticed, were having a tough time replacing those jobs.

Unlike you, I actually work in the manufacturing sector so I actually have first hand knowledge of how things are going in that area. Again, we need to be innovative and make things that other people can't make as easily (as well or as cost effective). That's what worked in other countries (and Germany is prime example number one, a country you've brought up before). Making toothpicks or cotton t-shirts or low-tech things like that won't work here. And one of the main reasons why it doesn't work is that people aren't willing to pay a premium to buy something more expensive just because it's made here. And that goes the same not only here in the US but abroad as well. Raising tarriffs on incoming goods as "retribution" simply raises the costs of goods here in the US and diminishes our ability to sell things abroad. We tried Hawley-Smoot and it was possibly the single worst economic decision we ever made. Odd that you're a Hawley-Smoot supporter.

[kalm]

We don't have to close our markets, just play by the same rules, quit pandering to the likes of Hewlett Packard, and quit unnecessarily spending tax payer money overseas. 50,000 US factories have closed in the last decade. In case you havent noticed, were having a tough time replacing those jobs.

Unlike you, I actually work in the manufacturing sector so I actually have first hand knowledge of how things are going in that area. Again, we need to be innovative and make things that other people can't make as easily (as well or as cost effective). That's what worked in other countries (and Germany is prime example number one, a country you've brought up before). Making toothpicks or cotton t-shirts or low-tech things like that won't work here. And one of the main reasons why it doesn't work is that people aren't willing to pay a premium to buy something more expensive just because it's made here. And that goes the same not only here in the US but abroad as well. Raising tarriffs on incoming goods as "retribution" simply raises the costs of goods here in the US and diminishes our ability to sell things abroad. We tried Hawley-Smoot and it was possibly the single worst economic decision we ever made. Odd that you're a Hawley-Smoot supporter.

It's not retribution if the other guy is already doing it. The only reason we don't is that free trade benefits large multinationals and they have spent a ton of money along with groups like the US Chamber to make sure it's that way. The arbitrage of labor has not however benefited the long term health of the greater economy. There is simply no arguing with that.

I agree with your point on innovation, but also consider that domestic manufacturing keeps wealth on shore and can increase wages. People with more money in their pocket combined with the same type of tariffs that other countries place on our products can make domestic manufactured goods more feasible again.

And we haven't even touched the morality issues surrounding free trade.

I'm looking at this more from a big picture, long term perspective.

[GannonFan]

Unlike you, I actually work in the manufacturing sector so I actually have first hand knowledge of how things are going in that area. Again, we need to be innovative and make things that other people can't make as easily (as well or as cost effective). That's what worked in other countries (and Germany is prime example number one, a country you've brought up before). Making toothpicks or cotton t-shirts or low-tech things like that won't work here. And one of the main reasons why it doesn't work is that people aren't willing to pay a premium to buy something more expensive just because it's made here. And that goes the same not only here in the US but abroad as well. Raising tarriffs on incoming goods as "retribution" simply raises the costs of goods here in the US and diminishes our ability to sell things abroad. We tried Hawley-Smoot and it was possibly the single worst economic decision we ever made. Odd that you're a Hawley-Smoot supporter.

It's not retribution if the other guy is already doing it. The only reason we don't is that free trade benefits large multinationals and they have spent a ton of money along with groups like the US Chamber to make sure it's that way. The arbitrage of labor has not however benefited the long term health of the greater economy. There is simply no arguing with that.

I agree with your point on innovation, but also consider that domestic manufacturing keeps wealth on shore and can increase wages. People with more money in their pocket combined with the same type of tariffs that other countries place on our products can make domestic manufactured goods more feasible again.

And we haven't even touched the morality issues surrounding free trade.

I'm looking at this more from a big picture, long term perspective.

But when it comes down to it people will purchase the cheaper good more often than the more expensive good. Tarriffs sound fun and all, but what tarriffs really are are an ineffectual and inefficient way to try to tilt the trade balance one way or the other. What good does it do to insulate our manufacturing to price competition domestically when they will then suffer when they export, and to be viable most sectors are going to have to export? You can't honestly believe that we will raise tarriffs and what tarriffs exist elsewhere won't be affected or will even go down, do you? That's the problems with trade wars - everyone loses. And at the end of the day we're right back to where we are today.

The only longterm reality is that there will always be tough competition out there and we need to make the most sensible things that we can make to be competitive domestically and internationally, and again, those need to be things that other people can't as easily produce elsewhere - we need constant innovation and constant productivity improvements. Pretending that we don't have to or that Hawley-Smoot trade barriers will fix everything so that we don't need to be innovative or improve is not a real long term view - on the contrary, it's a blind view towards the long term because long term the consequences of such an approach are disastrous. The longer we spend thinking we don't need to get better just makes it harder down the road to actually get better.

[kalm]

It's not retribution if the other guy is already doing it. The only reason we don't is that free trade benefits large multinationals and they have spent a ton of money along with groups like the US Chamber to make sure it's that way. The arbitrage of labor has not however benefited the long term health of the greater economy. There is simply no arguing with that.

I agree with your point on innovation, but also consider that domestic manufacturing keeps wealth on shore and can increase wages. People with more money in their pocket combined with the same type of tariffs that other countries place on our products can make domestic manufactured goods more feasible again.

And we haven't even touched the morality issues surrounding free trade.

I'm looking at this more from a big picture, long term perspective.

But when it comes down to it people will purchase the cheaper good more often than the more expensive good. Tarriffs sound fun and all, but what tarriffs really are are an ineffectual and inefficient way to try to tilt the trade balance one way or the other. What good does it do to insulate our manufacturing to price competition domestically when they will then suffer when they export, and to be viable most sectors are going to have to export? You can't honestly believe that we will raise tarriffs and what tarriffs exist elsewhere won't be affected or will even go down, do you? That's the problems with trade wars - everyone loses. And at the end of the day we're right back to where we are today.

The only longterm reality is that there will always be tough competition out there and we need to make the most sensible things that we can make to be competitive domestically and internationally, and again, those need to be things that other people can't as easily produce elsewhere - we need constant innovation and constant productivity improvements. Pretending that we don't have to or that Hawley-Smoot trade barriers will fix everything so that we don't need to be innovative or improve is not a real long term view - on the contrary, it's a blind view towards the long term because long term the consequences of such an approach are disastrous. The longer we spend thinking we don't need to get better just makes it harder down the road to actually get better.

Each country should be free to produce goods and compete on the open market according to their own abilities which includes available resources, infrastructure, etc. Labor markets and environmental damage should be a part of the equation.

[Wedgebuster]

If Obama doesn't give millions of people high paying jobs right now, he is toast, and they do no give a damn where he gets the money to pay for it.

It is his job, that is why he was elected, and he better get busy employing these folks right fucking now.

[AZGrizFan]

If Obama doesn't give millions of people high paying jobs right now, he is toast, and they do no give a damn where he gets the money to pay for it.

It is his job, that is why he was elected, and he better get busy employing these folks right fucking now.

Well, with a $477 billion jobs package, he could give 4.77 million people jobs at $100,000 for a year. Or, he could give 9.54 million people a job for a year at $50,000.

[Cap'n Cat]

Obama is God.

[GannonFan]

But when it comes down to it people will purchase the cheaper good more often than the more expensive good. Tarriffs sound fun and all, but what tarriffs really are are an ineffectual and inefficient way to try to tilt the trade balance one way or the other. What good does it do to insulate our manufacturing to price competition domestically when they will then suffer when they export, and to be viable most sectors are going to have to export? You can't honestly believe that we will raise tarriffs and what tarriffs exist elsewhere won't be affected or will even go down, do you? That's the problems with trade wars - everyone loses. And at the end of the day we're right back to where we are today.

The only longterm reality is that there will always be tough competition out there and we need to make the most sensible things that we can make to be competitive domestically and internationally, and again, those need to be things that other people can't as easily produce elsewhere - we need constant innovation and constant productivity improvements. Pretending that we don't have to or that Hawley-Smoot trade barriers will fix everything so that we don't need to be innovative or improve is not a real long term view - on the contrary, it's a blind view towards the long term because long term the consequences of such an approach are disastrous. The longer we spend thinking we don't need to get better just makes it harder down the road to actually get better.

Each country should be free to produce goods and compete on the open market according to their own abilities which includes available resources, infrastructure, etc. Labor markets and environmental damage should be a part of the equation.

Sure, if you want to compete that way that's fine, but your idea of competition and open markets flies in the face of what you are suggesting the US should do - the opposite actually. And when you start throwing concepts of labor markets as part of the equation, you're moving into that dangerous area of "we're rich and you're poor, and nothing that will happen should change that" approach. Unfortunately (and I'm not sure I'd even call it unfortunate) you can't press a pause button like you seem to be implying and stopping the world in the same position relative to each other that we are today, or as I'm sure you'd like it to be (and I'm sure you'd be happy with 1950-like status quo). For someone who dared to suggest morality of trade a few posts ago, you seem to have a funny, skewed version of what people normally consider morality to be - screw everyone else and protect what we have, no matter how futile, is an odd kind of morality.

[travelinman67]

But when it comes down to it people will purchase the cheaper good more often than the more expensive good. Tarriffs sound fun and all, but what tarriffs really are are an ineffectual and inefficient way to try to tilt the trade balance one way or the other. What good does it do to insulate our manufacturing to price competition domestically when they will then suffer when they export, and to be viable most sectors are going to have to export? You can't honestly believe that we will raise tarriffs and what tarriffs exist elsewhere won't be affected or will even go down, do you? That's the problems with trade wars - everyone loses. And at the end of the day we're right back to where we are today.

The only longterm reality is that there will always be tough competition out there and we need to make the most sensible things that we can make to be competitive domestically and internationally, and again, those need to be things that other people can't as easily produce elsewhere - we need constant innovation and constant productivity improvements. Pretending that we don't have to or that Hawley-Smoot trade barriers will fix everything so that we don't need to be innovative or improve is not a real long term view - on the contrary, it's a blind view towards the long term because long term the consequences of such an approach are disastrous. The longer we spend thinking we don't need to get better just makes it harder down the road to actually get better.

Each country should be free to produce goods and compete on the open market according to their own abilities which includes available resources, infrastructure, etc. Labor markets and environmental damage should be a part of the equation.

You do see the conflict in your statement? In one breath, you assert sovereign independence in productivity selection/market choice, and in the next breath you want to impose labor and environmental restrictions on all nations to "level" the playing field.



Considering every other developing nation has watched what happens when corrupt labor organizers get their claws into the labor markets...

...God forbid, the tree-hugger/granola-eaters hire lawyers/pols to subvert the legal system and undermine all economic development...

...do you think there's ANY of those nations who would follow America's "lead" in labor and environmental practices?

Really...

[Bronco]

Some people actually believe government can create jobs by taxing and borrowing from people with jobs and then giving that money to people without jobs. They call this demand stimulus. To make matters worse, other people think these demand-stimulus ideas warrant a serious response.

Government taxes cigarettes to stop people from smoking, not to get them to smoke. Government fines speeders so they won't speed, not to encourage them to drive faster. And yet contrary to common sense, it seems perfectly natural to some people that government would tax people who work or companies that are successful only to give that money to people who don't work and to bail out losing companies. The thought never crosses their minds that these policies are the very reason why our economy is in such bad shape.

I'm beginning to think that Irving Kristol was correct when he wrote,
"It takes a Ph.D. in economics not to be able to understand the obvious."
[Arthur Laffer— How to Fight Black Unemployment ]
”

Art Laffer is the undefeated champion of economic policy (supply side) that works, which is why he's wasting his time trying to reason with Obamunists.

[BlueHen86]

Each country should be free to produce goods and compete on the open market according to their own abilities which includes available resources, infrastructure, etc. Labor markets and environmental damage should be a part of the equation.

You do see the conflict in your statement? In one breath, you assert sovereign independence in productivity selection/market choice, and in the next breath you want to impose labor and environmental restrictions on all nations to "level" the playing field.



Considering every other developing nation has watched what happens when corrupt labor organizers get their claws into the labor markets...

...God forbid, the tree-hugger/granola-eaters hire lawyers/pols to subvert the legal system and undermine all economic development...

...do you think there's ANY of those nations who would follow America's "lead" in labor and environmental practices?

Really...

So, what is your solution? Follow China's model? Poor wages and few environmental controls?

Who cares if we have clean air and water, as long as the corporate fats cats that pay you to spread propaganda get richer.

[travelinman67]

You do see the conflict in your statement? In one breath, you assert sovereign independence in productivity selection/market choice, and in the next breath you want to impose labor and environmental restrictions on all nations to "level" the playing field.



Considering every other developing nation has watched what happens when corrupt labor organizers get their claws into the labor markets...

...God forbid, the tree-hugger/granola-eaters hire lawyers/pols to subvert the legal system and undermine all economic development...

...do you think there's ANY of those nations who would follow America's "lead" in labor and environmental practices?

Really...

So, what is your solution? Follow China's model? Poor wages and few environmental controls?

Who cares if we have clean air and water, as long as the corporate fats cats that pay you to spread propaganda get richer.

You lose any credibility when you start sounding like alexpandspanosgore.

[kalm]

Each country should be free to produce goods and compete on the open market according to their own abilities which includes available resources, infrastructure, etc. Labor markets and environmental damage should be a part of the equation.

Sure, if you want to compete that way that's fine, but your idea of competition and open markets flies in the face of what you are suggesting the US should do - the opposite actually. And when you start throwing concepts of labor markets as part of the equation, you're moving into that dangerous area of "we're rich and you're poor, and nothing that will happen should change that" approach. Unfortunately (and I'm not sure I'd even call it unfortunate) you can't press a pause button like you seem to be implying and stopping the world in the same position relative to each other that we are today, or as I'm sure you'd like it to be (and I'm sure you'd be happy with 1950-like status quo). For someone who dared to suggest morality of trade a few posts ago, you seem to have a funny, skewed version of what people normally consider morality to be - screw everyone else and protect what we have, no matter how futile, is an odd kind of morality.

I'm allowed to contradict myself. To pine on about labor and environmental abuses and simultaneously suggesting protectionism, while enjoying the fruits of our collective labors and competitive advantages...I'm American.

That being said, I no longer feel sorry for the asian factory worker on account of free trade has more than doubled their wages to at least $1.18/week.

Serious question for you. Does a clean environment and medium to high standard of living have economic value?

[BlueHen86]

So, what is your solution? Follow China's model? Poor wages and few environmental controls?

Who cares if we have clean air and water, as long as the corporate fats cats that pay you to spread propaganda get richer.

You lose any credibility when you start sounding like alexpandspanosgore.

I have along way to go before I fall to your level. At least nobody pays me to lie.

And you didn't asnwer my question. What is your solution? I guess your puppetmasters haven't given you any solutions yet.

[BlueHen86]

So, what is your solution? Follow China's model? Poor wages and few environmental controls?

Who cares if we have clean air and water, as long as the corporate fats cats that pay you to spread propaganda get richer.

You lose any credibility when you start sounding like alexpandspanosgore.

There are people in southeastern PA (and probably other places as too) that can't drink their well water because it's been polluted by companies that no longer exist. When this happens it falls on the state to help them out. It's expensive to mitigate well contamination, so the state usually buys the homeowner a carbon filtration system or if the contamination is really bad the state buys them bottled water. Of course, when the state pays, it's the taxpayer that is actually paying.

This doesn't satisfy the homeowner, because it kills their property value. Many homeowners refuse to let the Department of Environmental Protection test their water because once they know it's contaminated they have to disclose it to potential buyers. This means that people are drinking water that may be contaminated.

You can rail against enviro-whackos all you want, but I've seen what businesses will do to make a buck. The reason we have an EPA is because some businesses have shown that they can't be trusted.

Are we over regulated? Yes. I agree that there needs to be some common sense and more science brought into the equation. But when you start ranting about tree-huggers and enviro-wackos and blaming them for all of our problems, it's you that loses credibilty.

[kalm]

You lose any credibility when you start sounding like alexpandspanosgore.

I have along way to go before I fall to your level. At least nobody pays me to lie.

And you didn't asnwer my question. What is your solution? I guess your puppetmasters haven't given you any solutions yet.

I hope you are kidding here and tman is really not one of those. Then again, his posts would start making a lot more sense.

[BlueHen86]

I have along way to go before I fall to your level. At least nobody pays me to lie.

And you didn't asnwer my question. What is your solution? I guess your puppetmasters haven't given you any solutions yet.

I hope you are kidding here and tman is really not one of those. Then again, his posts would start making a lot more sense.

I've said it to him a few times. At first as a joke, but his response was pointed (I think he called me a name, which is so unlike him. ). I think I struck a nerve, and now I really suspect there may some truth to it.

[YoUDeeMan]

That being said, I no longer feel sorry for the asian factory worker on account of free trade has more than doubled their wages to at least $1.18/week.

Do you really give a crap about any asian factory worker? Seriously?

[CID1990]

Bottom line is we need to become a manufacturing nation again.

We cannot afford "tax incentives" to corporations to located their physical plants here in the US. The profitability margin between making things in SE Asia or Mexico vs. making them in the US is too great to overcome with incentives.

We need to go back to the root causes of why our mills and factories went overseas.

1. Trade agreements that do not benefit America
2. Lax tariff structures that encourage countries like China, et al.
3. big labor- to a degree

The union issue IS a problem, but big labor will never break into the Southeast and deep South the way they did in the north and midwest. SC has the BMW plant, I have a buddy who works there, and it is a damn good job. He left public service to go make a couple of welds on a car as it goes past on an assembly line. He makes more in wages and benefits than he ever would have made as even a ranking police officer. His bennies are good too.

He is not a UAW worker.

This isn't 1910 anymore. Companies have learned a couple lessons. One of them we actually learned from the Japanese: if your people are happy, then they work better, and they have company and product loyalty. There are many manufaturers (non-American, of course) who have flocked to places like SC because they can employ skilled American labor that cannot be found in the Indonesias and Honduras of the world. They can produce their products much more cheaply than they can in Europe. Our own companies can do the same, but it is going to take a lot of capital investment to be able to restart the furnaces here in the US.

I think that it would not take too many radical changes in our trade laws to coax US companies back. If BMW did it of their own volition, then the US steel and textile industries will do it as well. We can even leave big labor alone. Once Georgia is the new Michigan, big labor will either adapt to compromise or it will die like the industries it helped to build and then kill.

Companies are not going to go back to the days of abusing their workers for long shifts and minimal pay, because that has been proven time and again in the last 50 years to be inimical to making a profit.

[kalm]

Bottom line is we need to become a manufacturing nation again.

We cannot afford "tax incentives" to corporations to located their physical plants here in the US. The profitability margin between making things in SE Asia or Mexico vs. making them in the US is too great to overcome with incentives.

We need to go back to the root causes of why our mills and factories went overseas.

1. Trade agreements that do not benefit America
2. Lax tariff structures that encourage countries like China, et al.
3. big labor- to a degree

The union issue IS a problem, but big labor will never break into the Southeast and deep South the way they did in the north and midwest. SC has the BMW plant, I have a buddy who works there, and it is a damn good job. He left public service to go make a couple of welds on a car as it goes past on an assembly line. He makes more in wages and benefits than he ever would have made as even a ranking police officer. His bennies are good too.

He is not a UAW worker.

This isn't 1910 anymore. Companies have learned a couple lessons. One of them we actually learned from the Japanese: if your people are happy, then they work better, and they have company and product loyalty. There are many manufaturers (non-American, of course) who have flocked to places like SC because they can employ skilled American labor that cannot be found in the Indonesias and Honduras of the world. They can produce their products much more cheaply than they can in Europe. Our own companies can do the same, but it is going to take a lot of capital investment to be able to restart the furnaces here in the US.

I think that it would not take too many radical changes in our trade laws to coax US companies back. If BMW did it of their own volition, then the US steel and textile industries will do it as well. We can even leave big labor alone. Once Georgia is the new Michigan, big labor will either adapt to compromise or it will die like the industries it helped to build and then kill.

Companies are not going to go back to the days of abusing their workers for long shifts and minimal pay, because that has been proven time and again in the last 50 years to be inimical to making a profit.

Good post.

[AZGrizFan]

Bottom line is we need to become a manufacturing nation again.

We cannot afford "tax incentives" to corporations to located their physical plants here in the US. The profitability margin between making things in SE Asia or Mexico vs. making them in the US is too great to overcome with incentives.

We need to go back to the root causes of why our mills and factories went overseas.

1. Trade agreements that do not benefit America
2. Lax tariff structures that encourage countries like China, et al.
3. big labor- to a degree

The union issue IS a problem, but big labor will never break into the Southeast and deep South the way they did in the north and midwest. SC has the BMW plant, I have a buddy who works there, and it is a damn good job. He left public service to go make a couple of welds on a car as it goes past on an assembly line. He makes more in wages and benefits than he ever would have made as even a ranking police officer. His bennies are good too.

He is not a UAW worker.

This isn't 1910 anymore. Companies have learned a couple lessons. One of them we actually learned from the Japanese: if your people are happy, then they work better, and they have company and product loyalty. There are many manufaturers (non-American, of course) who have flocked to places like SC because they can employ skilled American labor that cannot be found in the Indonesias and Honduras of the world. They can produce their products much more cheaply than they can in Europe. Our own companies can do the same, but it is going to take a lot of capital investment to be able to restart the furnaces here in the US.

I think that it would not take too many radical changes in our trade laws to coax US companies back. If BMW did it of their own volition, then the US steel and textile industries will do it as well. We can even leave big labor alone. Once Georgia is the new Michigan, big labor will either adapt to compromise or it will die like the industries it helped to build and then kill.

Companies are not going to go back to the days of abusing their workers for long shifts and minimal pay, because that has been proven time and again in the last 50 years to be inimical to making a profit.

Good post.

But as long as the NLRB is in the unions' hip pockets, with the President's consent and blessing, being able to tell companies where they can and can NOT build factorys and employ workers, are we really any better off?

[Cap'n Cat]

Bottom line is we need to become a manufacturing nation again.

We cannot afford "tax incentives" to corporations to located their physical plants here in the US. The profitability margin between making things in SE Asia or Mexico vs. making them in the US is too great to overcome with incentives.

We need to go back to the root causes of why our mills and factories went overseas.

1. Trade agreements that do not benefit America
2. Lax tariff structures that encourage countries like China, et al.
3. big labor- to a degree

The union issue IS a problem, but big labor will never break into the Southeast and deep South the way they did in the north and midwest. SC has the BMW plant, I have a buddy who works there, and it is a damn good job. He left public service to go make a couple of welds on a car as it goes past on an assembly line. He makes more in wages and benefits than he ever would have made as even a ranking police officer. His bennies are good too.

He is not a UAW worker.

This isn't 1910 anymore. Companies have learned a couple lessons. One of them we actually learned from the Japanese: if your people are happy, then they work better, and they have company and product loyalty. There are many manufaturers (non-American, of course) who have flocked to places like SC because they can employ skilled American labor that cannot be found in the Indonesias and Honduras of the world. They can produce their products much more cheaply than they can in Europe. Our own companies can do the same, but it is going to take a lot of capital investment to be able to restart the furnaces here in the US.

I think that it would not take too many radical changes in our trade laws to coax US companies back. If BMW did it of their own volition, then the US steel and textile industries will do it as well. We can even leave big labor alone. Once Georgia is the new Michigan, big labor will either adapt to compromise or it will die like the industries it helped to build and then kill.

Companies are not going to go back to the days of abusing their workers for long shifts and minimal pay, because that has been proven time and again in the last 50 years to be inimical to making a profit.

[D1B]

Bottom line is we need to become a manufacturing nation again.

We cannot afford "tax incentives" to corporations to located their physical plants here in the US. The profitability margin between making things in SE Asia or Mexico vs. making them in the US is too great to overcome with incentives.

We need to go back to the root causes of why our mills and factories went overseas.

1. Trade agreements that do not benefit America
2. Lax tariff structures that encourage countries like China, et al.
3. big labor- to a degree

The union issue IS a problem, but big labor will never break into the Southeast and deep South the way they did in the north and midwest. SC has the BMW plant, I have a buddy who works there, and it is a damn good job. He left public service to go make a couple of welds on a car as it goes past on an assembly line. He makes more in wages and benefits than he ever would have made as even a ranking police officer. His bennies are good too.

He is not a UAW worker.

This isn't 1910 anymore. Companies have learned a couple lessons. One of them we actually learned from the Japanese: if your people are happy, then they work better, and they have company and product loyalty. There are many manufaturers (non-American, of course) who have flocked to places like SC because they can employ skilled American labor that cannot be found in the Indonesias and Honduras of the world. They can produce their products much more cheaply than they can in Europe. Our own companies can do the same, but it is going to take a lot of capital investment to be able to restart the furnaces here in the US.

I think that it would not take too many radical changes in our trade laws to coax US companies back. If BMW did it of their own volition, then the US steel and textile industries will do it as well. We can even leave big labor alone. Once Georgia is the new Michigan, big labor will either adapt to compromise or it will die like the industries it helped to build and then kill.

Companies are not going to go back to the days of abusing their workers for long shifts and minimal pay, because that has been proven time and again in the last 50 years to be inimical to making a profit.

Manufacturing = environmental devastation. Just look at China.

Everyone must accept a lower standard of living. Consumerism and overpopulation are the fucking problem, not manufacturing.

Good place to start would be legalizing marijuana. You don't need 12 couches when you have good weed.

[AZGrizFan]

Good place to start would be legalizing marijuana. You don't need 12 couches when you have good weed.

No, but you'd better have a big-ass refrigerator...or two.

[D1B]

Good place to start would be legalizing marijuana. You don't need 12 couches when you have good weed.

No, but you'd better have a big-ass refrigerator...or two.

Fuck that. I'd eat a warm bowl o' lard with a pubic hair in it, whilst stoned!