| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Your Special Friend" |
| Date: |
10 Jan 2004 09:53:52 AM |
| Object: |
Where do jobs go in global economy? |
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/7678401.htm
Posted on Sat, Jan. 10, 2004
Where do jobs go in global economy?
I read with great interest the Mercury News roundtable with Silicon
Valley industrialists (Opinion, Dec. 28) and was impressed by their
insight. Research and development, innovation, retraining, stock
options and new markets would create jobs for Americans. Of course,
they urged government and unions to stay out of the way.
The game plan sounds feasible, but the ``new markets'' part of it
worries me. What happens to the American worker when jobs go overseas
and those new innovative products are made and sold in India and
China? Corporations would still make big profits, and the economy
would look good. But the unemployment rate would go off the charts.
We seem to have forgotten the lesson of Henry Ford: Pay workers enough
so they can buy the product. For 75 years, labor unions and the
federal government have made sure that business would protect working
people with decent pay, retirement, and health benefits. Who is going
to do it now?
Jack Hasling
Cupertino
Columnist Bob Herbert wants to link the ills of economic globalization
to the Bush administration (Opinion, Jan. 1). But it was Bill Clinton
who first began touting ``the New Global Economy.'' And Al Gore was
the number-one booster of NAFTA. Only ``cranks'' on the political
margins, like Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader, looked into the future and
saw the troubles that globalization could bring to our shores.
Blame Bush for many other things, but globalization got a huge push
from the Democrats who preceded him.
Sally Schuman
Palo Alto
Discussions about globalization and the business climate have
addressed the issue of jobs losses. That may be good fodder for
political rhetoric, but the real issue arises from the jobs
evaporation due to increased productivity, which has given us the
so-called ``jobless recovery.''
Since this reality is with us to stay, will it not worsen the
rich-poor divide begun by President Reagan and propelled by current
President Bush? We need to acknowledge that we are now reaping the
benefits (?) of monopolization, merger and robotization. How do we
support our economy of consumerism when ever fewer people can afford
to live here?
It may be time to re-examine the so-called ``guaranteed annual wage,''
even if that really doesn't work. How about guaranteed profit-sharing
and options for everyone in this evolving, monopolistic,
fully-automated, greed-driven society?
Robert Daley
Campbell
Recent letters have expressed dismay at the accelerating flow of
skilled jobs overseas. Since it is the economists who have asserted
that everyone benefits when production occurs where it can be done
most cheaply, why not take them at their word and export the teaching
of economics to India, China, Russia or wherever else large numbers of
highly trained, underpaid knowledge workers reside?
The benefits to our financially beleaguered colleges and universities
are obvious. They need maintain only skeleton administrative staffs
for their economics departments while outsourcing teaching and
research. Salaries would be greatly reduced and burdensome obligations
such as health and retirement plans could be left to the practices of
the host countries.
The suddenly unemployed or under-employed faculty would be strongly
motivated to revisit their prescriptions for the world economy and
perhaps come up eventually with a system that optimizes global
well-being rather than monetary wealth.
Edward P. French
Santa Cruz
A Mercury News editorial (Opinion, Jan. 8) suggests that Americans are
technologically undertrained and that there needs to be ``renewed
investment'' in America. As an unemployed engineer, I can say
categorically that this is not the issue.
First, there are plenty of highly trained American engineers available
to be hired today. Second, the real need in these companies is not for
the best and the brightest. Instead, most of these high-tech companies
are looking for rather low-end and low-paid tech workers who are
willing to do the mundane tasks involved in engineering development.
The critical issue is that these companies want these people to be
willing to work for less than U.S. living wages.
Simply putting more wasted dollars into high-tech education will do
nothing to alleviate the situation and will only result in a more
bloated education bureaucracy.
Rich Waterman
Campbell
The global economy has made national sovereignty obsolete. It allows
corporations to relocate to the ``highest bidder.'' Governments create
laws that make it easier to attract corporations -- at the expense of
the competition.
As corporations hop all over the world, always maximizing profits by
decreasing human costs, eventually they will run out of countries with
a lower standard of living to exploit. But continued automation will
make it possible to reduce employment to a bare minimum -- wherever
they may locate.
What happens when there simply aren't enough jobs for everyone? The
``wisdom'' is that people must constantly retrain for different jobs.
What happens when the jobs aren't there? Or at an unlivable wage? That
is the experience many find in Silicon Valley today.
Jim Bridges
Sunnyvale
Simon Head (Opinion, Jan. 5) laments the dismal growth of U.S.
employee compensation.
Anti-capitalists like Head once espoused an egalitarian society where
all can share in a more equitable distribution of wealth. That is what
is starting to happen world-wide, thanks not to politics but to the
spread of capitalism. As workers in less-developed countries begin to
earn dollars rather than pennies, so, too, will American workers see a
depression in their wages. There is no other way.
The ``wealth'' is being spread around, and this threatens to expose
the utter hypocrisy of old-line American Socialists and Communists.
Welcome, not to Head's ``new ruthless economy,'' but to the new global
economy.
David Lewis
Piedmont
The recent warning (Page 1A, Jan. 8) from the CEOs of HP and Intel
about U.S. tech education does not compute. Even if there were
sufficient technically-qualified U.S. citizens seeking employment (and
contrary to the tech industry whining, I think there are), the
short-term bottom line is the only criterion driving the offshore
hiring decisions. All protestations to the contrary are just public
relations smoke screens.
Robert Graf
Capitola
.
|
|
| User: "NoPlutocracyUSA" |
|
| Title: Re: Where do jobs go in global economy? |
10 Jan 2004 12:24:15 PM |
|
|
How about guaranteed profit-sharing
and options for everyone in this evolving, monopolistic,
fully-automated, greed-driven society?
Robert Daley
Campbell
This is an interesting concept.
What happens when there simply aren't enough jobs for everyone? The
``wisdom'' is that people must constantly retrain for different jobs.
What happens when the jobs aren't there? Or at an unlivable wage? That
is the experience many find in Silicon Valley today.
Jim Bridges
Sunnyvale
What happens is they can't buy anything anymore. Then the massive US
consumption machine winds down, profits decrease, tax revenues decrease, the
stock market tanks and everything goes to hell. This happening in
conjuction with record national debt, record skyrocketing deficits extending
indefinitely, a weak dollar and near-zero interest rates. It's a train
wreck waiting to happen.
Simon Head (Opinion, Jan. 5) laments the dismal growth of U.S.
employee compensation.
Anti-capitalists like Head once espoused an egalitarian society where
all can share in a more equitable distribution of wealth. That is what
is starting to happen world-wide, thanks not to politics but to the
spread of capitalism. As workers in less-developed countries begin to
earn dollars rather than pennies, so, too, will American workers see a
depression in their wages. There is no other way.
Never say die. There are potential options that could be explored. Here's
one: GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS (yes, that taboo phrase that evokes such terror
in the heart of the neocon, or neolib in this case) that for any US company
utilizing employees or subcontractors overseas, the wages paid to the
overseas employees doing an equivalent job of a US employee be 75% of the
average US wage. If the US company cannot prove that, then that US company
cannot sell its product in the US.
Also, GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS that any non-US company attempting to sell its
product in the US must prove that the wages paid to its employees is 75% of
the average US wage for the equivalent job.
These are bold, radical moves that I'm sure will envoke a barrage of
neocon/lib flamers. But the intent is to force a Race To The Top of the
developing world instead of the inevitable Race To The Bottom for
first-world country workers (we are not alone in the US with this problem).
Take a chunk out of the record profits being generated in the stock markets
and have it go towards this. Have the government force the issue.
There is a potential side benefit to this, and that is the economies of
these developing countries would get a huge financial stimulus from the
bottom. That would spur a demand for consumer products in these countries
which would help balance the trade deficit and stimulate manufacturing.
We'd end up paying slightly more for consumer goods here. But that's better
than not having a job. The stock market would take a hit due to corporate
margins being cut slightly, but it would be an even playing field.
What's the alternative? Lay down and die? Do your children have a future
(if they don't become CEO's) or will they live in poverty?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Albertv" |
|
| Title: Re: Where do jobs go in global economy? |
11 Jan 2004 01:37:32 AM |
|
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------040604020500050505040004
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Correct! The US Tech workforce is highly educated. Students coming up
won't choose
portable service jobs as a career. Some clueless people advocate that
the American worker
will just have to catch the next wave, as of anyone could have predicted
the latest wave.
Without the US economy becoming world competitive almost overnight we
can not compete
with wages at 10% of our rates. Remember how, when U.S. corporations
built hundreds of plants
in Third World countries, we were told not to worry about losing blue-
collar manufacturing jobs
because we were keeping the service jobs? Well, now the low &
high-paying white-collar service
jobs are going also and anyone who is not affected has no sympathy,
fore, they still have a job
and "the hell with you, cry baby".
I wonder how solid we are as a society, a nation. It's obvious to me
that we do '_not_' see ourselves
as a family, a nation. Or, is it that we are into a collective denial of
the reality of Gobalization? So
few politician have any answers beyond the recognition of a national
challenge. I have yet to hear
one express the need for us Americans to lower our standard of living in
order that we might be
able to compete.in an international market.it's almost like the time of
the 'dot com' bubble where
we never heard any financial annalist say 'sell the stock'.
The remedy lies in my opinion '_not'_ in protectionism but in the whole
of the US 's private and public
sectors becoming competitive in a world market. It's only now we realize
how protected our markets
were 20 and 30 years ago. Yet since we have embarked on the creation of
a true world 'open market'
we have to make the structural adjustments. Going back to our previous
way of doing business will be
counter productive.
To do all this we need 'everyone' on the same page. It's unhelpful to
have sectors of our economy like
the 'public sector' to continue drawing the same standard of living as
they were before and have the
private sector pay the cost of their unreality. I can compete with the
world if my taxes went down
by 90% and my cost of living followed suit.
No one yet has opened a discussion about the future in which our
technology will create fully automated
plants and where services will be performed by fewer and fewer people.
What will people do to
contribute in a society ? One hundred years ago the majority of the
workforce was occupied on the
'land' (farm production) Today under 2% of the work force does that and
production of food is so
efficient that we regularly over produce. We had the industrial sector
to take up the slack What is
going to take up the slack when the technical revolution has automated
all services and production.?
People say something will come along. Ya, well, where is it? We need it now!
Albert
Your Special Friend wrote:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/7678401.htm
Posted on Sat, Jan. 10, 2004
Where do jobs go in global economy?
I read with great interest the Mercury News roundtable with Silicon
Valley industrialists (Opinion, Dec. 28) and was impressed by their
insight. Research and development, innovation, retraining, stock
options and new markets would create jobs for Americans. Of course,
they urged government and unions to stay out of the way.
The game plan sounds feasible, but the ``new markets'' part of it
worries me. What happens to the American worker when jobs go overseas
and those new innovative products are made and sold in India and
China? Corporations would still make big profits, and the economy
would look good. But the unemployment rate would go off the charts.
We seem to have forgotten the lesson of Henry Ford: Pay workers enough
so they can buy the product. For 75 years, labor unions and the
federal government have made sure that business would protect working
people with decent pay, retirement, and health benefits. Who is going
to do it now?
Jack Hasling
Cupertino
Columnist Bob Herbert wants to link the ills of economic globalization
to the Bush administration (Opinion, Jan. 1). But it was Bill Clinton
who first began touting ``the New Global Economy.'' And Al Gore was
the number-one booster of NAFTA. Only ``cranks'' on the political
margins, like Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader, looked into the future and
saw the troubles that globalization could bring to our shores.
Blame Bush for many other things, but globalization got a huge push
from the Democrats who preceded him.
Sally Schuman
Palo Alto
Discussions about globalization and the business climate have
addressed the issue of jobs losses. That may be good fodder for
political rhetoric, but the real issue arises from the jobs
evaporation due to increased productivity, which has given us the
so-called ``jobless recovery.''
Since this reality is with us to stay, will it not worsen the
rich-poor divide begun by President Reagan and propelled by current
President Bush? We need to acknowledge that we are now reaping the
benefits (?) of monopolization, merger and robotization. How do we
support our economy of consumerism when ever fewer people can afford
to live here?
It may be time to re-examine the so-called ``guaranteed annual wage,''
even if that really doesn't work. How about guaranteed profit-sharing
and options for everyone in this evolving, monopolistic,
fully-automated, greed-driven society?
Robert Daley
Campbell
Recent letters have expressed dismay at the accelerating flow of
skilled jobs overseas. Since it is the economists who have asserted
that everyone benefits when production occurs where it can be done
most cheaply, why not take them at their word and export the teaching
of economics to India, China, Russia or wherever else large numbers of
highly trained, underpaid knowledge workers reside?
The benefits to our financially beleaguered colleges and universities
are obvious. They need maintain only skeleton administrative staffs
for their economics departments while outsourcing teaching and
research. Salaries would be greatly reduced and burdensome obligations
such as health and retirement plans could be left to the practices of
the host countries.
The suddenly unemployed or under-employed faculty would be strongly
motivated to revisit their prescriptions for the world economy and
perhaps come up eventually with a system that optimizes global
well-being rather than monetary wealth.
Edward P. French
Santa Cruz
A Mercury News editorial (Opinion, Jan. 8) suggests that Americans are
technologically undertrained and that there needs to be ``renewed
investment'' in America. As an unemployed engineer, I can say
categorically that this is not the issue.
First, there are plenty of highly trained American engineers available
to be hired today. Second, the real need in these companies is not for
the best and the brightest. Instead, most of these high-tech companies
are looking for rather low-end and low-paid tech workers who are
willing to do the mundane tasks involved in engineering development.
The critical issue is that these companies want these people to be
willing to work for less than U.S. living wages.
Simply putting more wasted dollars into high-tech education will do
nothing to alleviate the situation and will only result in a more
bloated education bureaucracy.
Rich Waterman
Campbell
The global economy has made national sovereignty obsolete. It allows
corporations to relocate to the ``highest bidder.'' Governments create
laws that make it easier to attract corporations -- at the expense of
the competition.
As corporations hop all over the world, always maximizing profits by
decreasing human costs, eventually they will run out of countries with
a lower standard of living to exploit. But continued automation will
make it possible to reduce employment to a bare minimum -- wherever
they may locate.
What happens when there simply aren't enough jobs for everyone? The
``wisdom'' is that people must constantly retrain for different jobs.
What happens when the jobs aren't there? Or at an unlivable wage? That
is the experience many find in Silicon Valley today.
Jim Bridges
Sunnyvale
Simon Head (Opinion, Jan. 5) laments the dismal growth of U.S.
employee compensation.
Anti-capitalists like Head once espoused an egalitarian society where
all can share in a more equitable distribution of wealth. That is what
is starting to happen world-wide, thanks not to politics but to the
spread of capitalism. As workers in less-developed countries begin to
earn dollars rather than pennies, so, too, will American workers see a
depression in their wages. There is no other way.
The ``wealth'' is being spread around, and this threatens to expose
the utter hypocrisy of old-line American Socialists and Communists.
Welcome, not to Head's ``new ruthless economy,'' but to the new global
economy.
David Lewis
Piedmont
The recent warning (Page 1A, Jan. 8) from the CEOs of HP and Intel
about U.S. tech education does not compute. Even if there were
sufficient technically-qualified U.S. citizens seeking employment (and
contrary to the tech industry whining, I think there are), the
short-term bottom line is the only criterion driving the offshore
hiring decisions. All protestations to the contrary are just public
relations smoke screens.
Robert Graf
Capitola
--------------040604020500050505040004
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;char
et=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
Correct! The US Tech workforce is highly educated. Students coming up
won't choose<br>
portable service jobs as a career. Some clueless people advocate that
the American worker <br>
will just have to catch the next wave, as of anyone could have
predicted the latest wave.<br>
<br>
Without the US economy becoming world competitive almost overnight we
can not compete<br>
with wages at 10% of our rates. Remember how, when U.S. corporations
built hundreds of plants <br>
in Third World countries, we were told not to worry about losing blue-
collar manufacturing jobs <br>
because we were keeping the service jobs? Well, now the low &
high-paying white-collar service <br>
jobs are going also and anyone who is not affected has no sympathy,
fore, they still have a job <br>
and "the hell with you, cry baby".<br>
<br>
I wonder how solid we are as a society, a nation. It's obvious to me
that we do '<u>not</u>' see ourselves<br>
as a family, a nation. Or, is it that we are into a collective denial
of the reality of Gobalization? So <br>
few politician have any answers beyond the recognition of a national
challenge. I have yet to hear <br>
one express the need for us Americans to lower our standard of living
in order that we might be <br>
able to compete.in an international market.it's almost like the time of
the 'dot com' bubble where <br>
we never heard any financial annalist say 'sell the stock'.<br>
<br>
The remedy lies in my opinion '<u>not'</u> in protectionism but in the
whole of the US 's private and public <br>
sectors becoming competitive in a world market. It's only now we
realize how protected our markets <br>
were 20 and 30 years ago. Yet since we have embarked on the creation of
a true world 'open market' <br>
we have to make the structural adjustments. Going back to our previous
way of doing business will be <br>
counter productive.<br>
<br>
To do all this we need 'everyone' on the same page. It's unhelpful to
have sectors of our economy like <br>
the 'public sector' to continue drawing the same standard of living as
they were before and have the<br>
private sector pay the cost of their unreality. I can compete with the
world if my taxes went down <br>
by 90% and my cost of living followed suit. <br>
<br>
No one yet has opened a discussion about the future in which our
technology will create fully automated <br>
plants and where services will be performed by fewer and fewer people.
What will people do to <br>
contribute in a society ? One hundred years ago the majority of the
workforce was occupied on the <br>
'land' (farm production) Today under 2% of the work force does that and
production of food is so <br>
efficient that we regularly over produce. We had the industrial sector
to take up the slack What is <br>
going to take up the slack when the technical revolution has automated
all services and production.?<br>
People say something will come along. Ya, well, where is it? We need it
now!<br>
<br>
Albert<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Your Special Friend wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid1214fb08.0401100753.2b8334bc@posting.google.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap=""><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/7678401.htm">http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/7678401.htm</a>
Posted on Sat, Jan. 10, 2004
Where do jobs go in global economy?
I read with great interest the Mercury News roundtable with Silicon
Valley industrialists (Opinion, Dec. 28) and was impressed by their
insight. Research and development, innovation, retraining, stock
options and new markets would create jobs for Americans. Of course,
they urged government and unions to stay out of the way.
The game plan sounds feasible, but the ``new markets'' part of it
worries me. What happens to the American worker when jobs go overseas
and those new innovative products are made and sold in India and
China? Corporations would still make big profits, and the economy
would look good. But the unemployment rate would go off the charts.
We seem to have forgotten the lesson of Henry Ford: Pay workers enough
so they can buy the product. For 75 years, labor unions and the
federal government have made sure that business would protect working
people with decent pay, retirement, and health benefits. Who is going
to do it now?
Jack Hasling
Cupertino
Columnist Bob Herbert wants to link the ills of economic globalization
to the Bush administration (Opinion, Jan. 1). But it was Bill Clinton
who first began touting ``the New Global Economy.'' And Al Gore was
the number-one booster of NAFTA. Only ``cranks'' on the political
margins, like Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader, looked into the future and
saw the troubles that globalization could bring to our shores.
Blame Bush for many other things, but globalization got a huge push
from the Democrats who preceded him.
Sally Schuman
Palo Alto
Discussions about globalization and the business climate have
addressed the issue of jobs losses. That may be good fodder for
political rhetoric, but the real issue arises from the jobs
evaporation due to increased productivity, which has given us the
so-called ``jobless recovery.''
Since this reality is with us to stay, will it not worsen the
rich-poor divide begun by President Reagan and propelled by current
President Bush? We need to acknowledge that we are now reaping the
benefits (?) of monopolization, merger and robotization. How do we
support our economy of consumerism when ever fewer people can afford
to live here?
It may be time to re-examine the so-called ``guaranteed annual wage,''
even if that really doesn't work. How about guaranteed profit-sharing
and options for everyone in this evolving, monopolistic,
fully-automated, greed-driven society?
Robert Daley
Campbell
Recent letters have expressed dismay at the accelerating flow of
skilled jobs overseas. Since it is the economists who have asserted
that everyone benefits when production occurs where it can be done
most cheaply, why not take them at their word and export the teaching
of economics to India, China, Russia or wherever else large numbers of
highly trained, underpaid knowledge workers reside?
The benefits to our financially beleaguered colleges and universities
are obvious. They need maintain only skeleton administrative staffs
for their economics departments while outsourcing teaching and
research. Salaries would be greatly reduced and burdensome obligations
such as health and retirement plans could be left to the practices of
the host countries.
The suddenly unemployed or under-employed faculty would be strongly
motivated to revisit their prescriptions for the world economy and
perhaps come up eventually with a system that optimizes global
well-being rather than monetary wealth.
Edward P. French
Santa Cruz
A Mercury News editorial (Opinion, Jan. 8) suggests that Americans are
technologically undertrained and that there needs to be ``renewed
investment'' in America. As an unemployed engineer, I can say
categorically that this is not the issue.
First, there are plenty of highly trained American engineers available
to be hired today. Second, the real need in these companies is not for
the best and the brightest. Instead, most of these high-tech companies
are looking for rather low-end and low-paid tech workers who are
willing to do the mundane tasks involved in engineering development.
The critical issue is that these companies want these people to be
willing to work for less than U.S. living wages.
Simply putting more wasted dollars into high-tech education will do
nothing to alleviate the situation and will only result in a more
bloated education bureaucracy.
Rich Waterman
Campbell
The global economy has made national sovereignty obsolete. It allows
corporations to relocate to the ``highest bidder.'' Governments create
laws that make it easier to attract corporations -- at the expense of
the competition.
As corporations hop all over the world, always maximizing profits by
decreasing human costs, eventually they will run out of countries with
a lower standard of living to exploit. But continued automation will
make it possible to reduce employment to a bare minimum -- wherever
they may locate.
What happens when there simply aren't enough jobs for everyone? The
``wisdom'' is that people must constantly retrain for different jobs.
What happens when the jobs aren't there? Or at an unlivable wage? That
is the experience many find in Silicon Valley today.
Jim Bridges
Sunnyvale
Simon Head (Opinion, Jan. 5) laments the dismal growth of U.S.
employee compensation.
Anti-capitalists like Head once espoused an egalitarian society where
all can share in a more equitable distribution of wealth. That is what
is starting to happen world-wide, thanks not to politics but to the
spread of capitalism. As workers in less-developed countries begin to
earn dollars rather than pennies, so, too, will American workers see a
depression in their wages. There is no other way.
The ``wealth'' is being spread around, and this threatens to expose
the utter hypocrisy of old-line American Socialists and Communists.
Welcome, not to Head's ``new ruthless economy,'' but to the new global
economy.
David Lewis
Piedmont
The recent warning (Page 1A, Jan. 8) from the CEOs of HP and Intel
about U.S. tech education does not compute. Even if there were
sufficient technically-qualified U.S. citizens seeking employment (and
contrary to the tech industry whining, I think there are), the
short-term bottom line is the only criterion driving the offshore
hiring decisions. All protestations to the contrary are just public
relations smoke screens.
Robert Graf
Capitola
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
--------------040604020500050505040004--
.
|
|
|
| User: "NoPlutocracyUSA" |
|
| Title: Re: Where do jobs go in global economy? |
11 Jan 2004 12:25:50 PM |
|
|
"Albertv" <aj@avconslt.net> wrote in message
news:4000FD3C.70403@avconslt.net...
The remedy lies in my opinion 'not' in protectionism but in the whole of the
US 's private and public
sectors becoming competitive in a world market. It's only now we realize how
protected our markets
were 20 and 30 years ago. Yet since we have embarked on the creation of a
true world 'open market'
we have to make the structural adjustments. Going back to our previous way
of doing business will be
counter productive.
To do all this we need 'everyone' on the same page. It's unhelpful to have
sectors of our economy like
the 'public sector' to continue drawing the same standard of living as they
were before and have the
private sector pay the cost of their unreality. I can compete with the world
if my taxes went down
by 90% and my cost of living followed suit.
----------------------------------
Any idea how this could be done? I don't see any way what you suggest would
be possible. Please enlighten us if you have a concept.
The message that is being inculcated to us is that there is no alternative
to our wages, and subsequently our qualities of life going down to meet
those of the rest of the world. This is the same message that is being
driven into the minds of all workers in all first-world countries right now.
This is the agenda of the plutocracy.
I see an alternative. The citizens can force first-world governments into
passing regulations, yes protectionism, that aim to turn this trend upside
down. Instead of bringing our wages and qualities of life down, force
governments to bring the wages and qualities of life of exploited peoples
up. This would require taking profits out of the hands of corporate owners
and putting them into the hands or workers. It would increase the power of
Democracy (the force of Light). It would diminish the power of plutocracy
(the force of Darkness).
They tell us that this is impossible, so just lay down and die. Most of you
already believe that. Resign yourselves to the fact that your precious
little children will be impoverished living in squalor in the new world
order. This is what they are depending on you to believe. It's only the
future of your children at stake. Will you succumb as cowards, or will you
fight as warriors?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zalek Bloom" |
|
| Title: Re: Where do jobs go in global economy? |
11 Jan 2004 04:51:35 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 10:25:50 -0800, "NoPlutocracyUSA" <anon@anon.com>
wrote:
[...]
I see an alternative. The citizens can force first-world governments into
passing regulations, yes protectionism, that aim to turn this trend upside
down. Instead of bringing our wages and qualities of life down, force
governments to bring the wages and qualities of life of exploited peoples
up. This would require taking profits out of the hands of corporate owners
and putting them into the hands or workers. It would increase the power of
Democracy (the force of Light). It would diminish the power of plutocracy
(the force of Darkness).
They tell us that this is impossible, so just lay down and die. Most of you
already believe that. Resign yourselves to the fact that your precious
little children will be impoverished living in squalor in the new world
order. This is what they are depending on you to believe. It's only the
future of your children at stake. Will you succumb as cowards, or will you
fight as warriors?
Did you learn modern history? Bolshevics fought like as warriors to
diminish the power of plutocracy (the force of Darkness) and to
improve life of milions poor workers and peasants. Unfortunately
during this fight they murdered milions of people. I suspect most of
the fight "as warriors" will end in the similar way.
What we need is to register and to vote and to understand that there
are more alternatives than Democates and Republicans.
Nothing glorious, but it can be very effective. NRA proved it is
possible.
Zalek
.
|
|
|
| User: "M. Ranjit Mathews" |
|
| Title: Re: Where do jobs go in global economy? |
12 Jan 2004 09:27:42 PM |
|
|
Zalek Bloom <ZalekBloom@hotmail.com> wrote ...
They tell us that this is impossible, so just lay down and die. Most of you
already believe that. Resign yourselves to the fact that your precious
little children will be impoverished living in squalor in the new world
order. This is what they are depending on you to believe. It's only the
future of your children at stake. Will you succumb as cowards, or will you
fight as warriors?
Did you learn modern history? Bolshevics fought like as warriors to
diminish the power of plutocracy (the force of Darkness) and to
improve life of milions poor workers and peasants.
.... but ... what did Mensheviks do?
Unfortunately
during this fight they murdered milions of people. I suspect most of
the fight "as warriors" will end in the similar way.
What we need is to register and to vote and to understand that there
are more alternatives than Democates and Republicans.
Nothing glorious, but it can be very effective. NRA proved it is
possible.
Zalek
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "SAMCHASE" |
|
| Title: Re: Where do jobs go in global economy? |
13 Jan 2004 03:23:39 AM |
|
|
Zalek Bloom wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jan 2004 10:25:50 -0800, "NoPlutocracyUSA" <anon@anon.com>
wrote:
[...]
I see an alternative. The citizens can force first-world governments into
passing regulations, yes protectionism, that aim to turn this trend upside
down. Instead of bringing our wages and qualities of life down, force
governments to bring the wages and qualities of life of exploited peoples
up. This would require taking profits out of the hands of corporate owners
and putting them into the hands or workers. It would increase the power of
Democracy (the force of Light). It would diminish the power of plutocracy
(the force of Darkness).
They tell us that this is impossible, so just lay down and die. Most of you
already believe that. Resign yourselves to the fact that your precious
little children will be impoverished living in squalor in the new world
order. This is what they are depending on you to believe. It's only the
future of your children at stake. Will you succumb as cowards, or will you
fight as warriors?
Did you learn modern history? Bolshevics fought like as warriors to
diminish the power of plutocracy (the force of Darkness) and to
improve life of milions poor workers and peasants. Unfortunately
during this fight they murdered milions of people. I suspect most of
the fight "as warriors" will end in the similar way.
What we need is to register and to vote and to understand that there
are more alternatives than Democates and Republicans.
Nothing glorious, but it can be very effective. NRA proved it is
possible.
Zalek
Get away from the 2-party 1-interest control infecting the american way
of life.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Albertv" |
|
| Title: Re: Where do jobs go in global economy? |
11 Jan 2004 01:54:58 PM |
|
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------080207080700050905080800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Plutocracy
1. Government by the wealthy.
2. A wealthy class that controls a government.
3. A government or state in which the wealthy rule.
On point 1) "Government by the wealthy.". Allowing unfettered access to
politician in Washington has a ring of anti-democracy. The deepest
pockets influence the crafting of policies although those who are being
influences swear it ain't so. I have a most difficult time to believe that.
In the US of A, business is our unstated religion with the politicians
as the 'clergy'. Our 'Book' is a Hollywood fiction. By the people, of
the people, indeed! Who is kidding, who?
We know that our technology has shrank the world into a neighborhood and
Globalism is the logical step to the future. What we collectively lack
is a vision forward where all people of this planet have equal 'rights'.
Our corporations have operated for years on this planet and seen it as
one market, we have labeled them multi-nationals without questioning the
consequences.
These corporations have but one goal, which is to remain competitive and
grow. All is fair for them to expand what ever resources are necessary
to remove the obstacles in their way. That's business, right?
At some point possibly 'the people' will scream for a change and as
becomes loud enough our reps will heed and make some changes like the
senior drug bill, the one with the 'hole' in the middle, the one which
makes it illegal to import from Canada, the one where the drug companies
won a major victory. We still pay twice as much for health care than any
industrial nation but in those nations everyone is covered while in
ours huge numbers are not. As a further sign of our ignorance we swollow
whole the notion that we are getting a superior product.
The problem is the American public is ill informed and really does not
want to be bothered by remaining engaged. So yes we will put up some
road blocks to Globalization but it will in the end just be window
dressing , mean while we will have lost precious time in addressing the
real issues.
We can become competative by reducing our cost of governance, i.e. make
the public sector wages reflect the reality of the private sector and
lower the value of the $dollar.
Make everyone in the marked place contribute to the cost of our society.
Most European countries have a Value Added Tax in the range of 30 %.
Bring about a 2 tier VAT. Tier 2 being services and goods from outside
pay the most.
Tune the VAT so it's more profitable for companies to use local labor.
Hey, it's been done elsewhere, why not here.
Albert
NoPlutocracyUSA wrote:
"Albertv" <aj@avconslt.net> wrote in message
news:4000FD3C.70403@avconslt.net...
The remedy lies in my opinion 'not' in protectionism but in the whole of the
US 's private and public
sectors becoming competitive in a world market. It's only now we realize how
protected our markets
were 20 and 30 years ago. Yet since we have embarked on the creation of a
true world 'open market'
we have to make the structural adjustments. Going back to our previous way
of doing business will be
counter productive.
To do all this we need 'everyone' on the same page. It's unhelpful to have
sectors of our economy like
the 'public sector' to continue drawing the same standard of living as they
were before and have the
private sector pay the cost of their unreality. I can compete with the world
if my taxes went down
by 90% and my cost of living followed suit.
----------------------------------
Any idea how this could be done? I don't see any way what you suggest would
be possible. Please enlighten us if you have a concept.
The message that is being inculcated to us is that there is no alternative
to our wages, and subsequently our qualities of life going down to meet
those of the rest of the world. This is the same message that is being
driven into the minds of all workers in all first-world countries right now.
This is the agenda of the plutocracy.
I see an alternative. The citizens can force first-world governments into
passing regulations, yes protectionism, that aim to turn this trend upside
down. Instead of bringing our wages and qualities of life down, force
governments to bring the wages and qualities of life of exploited peoples
up. This would require taking profits out of the hands of corporate owners
and putting them into the hands or workers. It would increase the power of
Democracy (the force of Light). It would diminish the power of plutocracy
(the force of Darkness).
They tell us that this is impossible, so just lay down and die. Most of you
already believe that. Resign yourselves to the fact that your precious
little children will be impoverished living in squalor in the new world
order. This is what they are depending on you to believe. It's only the
future of your children at stake. Will you succumb as cowards, or will you
fight as warriors?
--------------080207080700050905080800
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
<span style="font-size: 10pt;">
</span>
<p class="MsoNormal">Plutocracy<o:p></o:p></p>
<ol start="1" type="1">
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">Government by the wealthy.<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">A wealthy class that controls a
government.<o:p></o:p></li>
<li class="MsoNormal" style="">A government or state in which the
wealthy rule.<o:p></o:p></li>
</ol>
<p class="MsoNormal">On point 1) "Government by the wealthy.".
Allowing unfettered access to politician in <st1:State><st1:place>Washington</st1:place></st1:State>
has a ring of anti-democracy. The deepest pockets influence the
crafting of
policies although those who are being influences swear it ain't so. I
have a most difficult time to believe that.<br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In the US of A, business is our unstated religion
with the politicians as the
'clergy'. Our 'Book' is a <st1:place>Hollywood</st1:place> fiction. By
the
people, of the people, indeed! Who is kidding, who?<br>
<br>
We know that our technology has shrank the world into a neighborhood
and
Globalism is the logical step to the future. What we collectively lack
is a
vision forward where all people of this planet have equal 'rights'. Our
corporations have operated for years on this planet and seen it as one
market,
we have labeled them multi-nationals without questioning the
consequences.<br>
<br>
These corporations have but one goal, which is to remain competitive
and grow. All is fair for them to expand what ever resources are
necessary to remove
the obstacles in their way. That's business, right?<br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">At some point possibly 'the people' will scream
for a change and as becomes loud enough our reps will heed and make
some changes like the senior drug bill, the one with the 'hole' in the
middle, the one which makes it illegal to import from Canada, the one
where the drug companies won a major victory. We still pay twice as
much for health care than any industrial nation but in those nations
everyone is covered while in ours huge numbers are not. As a further
sign of our ignorance we swollow whole the notion that we are getting a
superior product.<br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The problem is the American public is ill informed
and really does not want to be bothered by remaining engaged. So yes we
will put up some road blocks to Globalization but it will in the end
just be window dressing , mean while we will have lost precious time in
addressing the real issues. <br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We can become competative by reducing our cost of
governance, i.e. make the public sector wages reflect the reality of
the private sector and lower the value of the $dollar. <br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Make everyone in the marked place contribute to
the cost of our society. Most European countries have a Value Added Tax
in the range of 30 %. Bring about a 2 tier VAT. Tier 2 being services
and goods from outside pay the most. <br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Tune the VAT so it's more profitable for companies
to use local labor. Hey, it's been done elsewhere, why not here. <br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Albert<br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<big><big><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif"><big><big><span
style="font-size: 10pt;"></span></big></big></font></big></big><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
NoPlutocracyUSA wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid2oSdnRZeONOrCJzdRVn-tA@speakeasy.net" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">"Albertv" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:aj@avconslt.net"><aj@avconslt.net></a> wrote in message
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="news:4000FD3C.70403@avconslt.net">news:4000FD3C.70403@avconslt.net</a>...
The remedy lies in my opinion 'not' in protectionism but in the whole of the
US 's private and public
sectors becoming competitive in a world market. It's only now we realize how
protected our markets
were 20 and 30 years ago. Yet since we have embarked on the creation of a
true world 'open market'
we have to make the structural adjustments. Going back to our previous way
of doing business will be
counter productive.
To do all this we need 'everyone' on the same page. It's unhelpful to have
sectors of our economy like
the 'public sector' to continue drawing the same standard of living as they
were before and have the
private sector pay the cost of their unreality. I can compete with the world
if my taxes went down
by 90% and my cost of living followed suit.
----------------------------------
Any idea how this could be done? I don't see any way what you suggest would
be possible. Please enlighten us if you have a concept.
The message that is being inculcated to us is that there is no alternative
to our wages, and subsequently our qualities of life going down to meet
those of the rest of the world. This is the same message that is being
driven into the minds of all workers in all first-world countries right now.
This is the agenda of the plutocracy.
I see an alternative. The citizens can force first-world governments into
passing regulations, yes protectionism, that aim to turn this trend upside
down. Instead of bringing our wages and qualities of life down, force
governments to bring the wages and qualities of life of exploited peoples
up. This would require taking profits out of the hands of corporate owners
and putting them into the hands or workers. It would increase the power of
Democracy (the force of Light). It would diminish the power of plutocracy
(the force of Darkness).
They tell us that this is impossible, so just lay down and die. Most of you
already believe that. Resign yourselves to the fact that your precious
little children will be impoverished living in squalor in the new world
order. This is what they are depending on you to believe. It's only the
future of your children at stake. Will you succumb as cowards, or will you
fight as warriors?
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
--------------080207080700050905080800--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
