|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jul 10, 2010 11:42:54 GMT -8
Should the believers of free markets also support the right of labor to move to better jobs as part of free markets?
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 10, 2010 12:32:19 GMT -8
Just what are you getting at? Should labor be free to cross borders?
|
|
|
|
Post by Yoda on Jul 10, 2010 12:42:26 GMT -8
Sounds like a trick question, but I'll bite...
It seems to me that if you believe in free markets, then you believe in free markets -- including the labor market. So I'd say "yes".
That said, are you raising an immigration argument? Like "you conservatives say you believe in a free market, including a free labor market, but you want illegal aliens deported -- and therefore you're hypocrites". Or something like that? Because I'm a moderate and even I'd take issue with that.
Yoda out...
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 10, 2010 12:52:32 GMT -8
Sounds like a trick question, but I'll bite... It seems to me that if you believe in free markets, then you believe in free markets -- including the labor market. So I'd say "yes". That said, are you raising an immigration argument? Like "you conservatives say you believe in a free market, including a free labor market, but you want illegal aliens deported -- and therefore you're hypocrites". Or something like that? Because I'm a moderate and even I'd take issue with that. Yoda out... I would go for a "Bracero Program" or something like it. So would just about anyone I would guess. One very early lesson you learn is that anything that you do in restraint of trade will backfire. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 10, 2010 13:44:40 GMT -8
Don't know where this came from as it was on Raging Bull and there was no cite. It is pretty easy to see where a lot of the opposition to trade comes from. It is not easy to figure out a way to grow the economy through trade and protect American jobs especially Union Jobs.
"President Obama, who vowed in his State of the Union address to double American exports over the next five years, said on Wednesday that he would renew his efforts to renegotiate long-stalled free trade agreements with Panama and Colombia and persuade Congress to adopt them.
The two trade pacts, and a third one with South Korea, were negotiated by the administration of former President George W. Bush, but all three have languished in Congress because of deep opposition from Democrats. Mr. Obama said in Toronto last month that he intended to make a new push for the South Korean agreement, and on Wednesday he pledged to press ahead with the two Latin American pacts as well.
“For a long time, we were trapped in a false political debate in this country, where business was on one side and labor was on the other,” Mr. Obama said in the East Room of the White House, at an event intended to highlight his administration’s efforts to promote exports. “What we now have an opportunity to do is to refocus our attention where we’re all in it together.”
Trade is a particularly difficult issue for many Democrats, especially in an election year when jobs are already scarce, because of a widespread view that American workers suffer disproportionately when the United States lowers trade barriers."
|
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 10, 2010 15:29:22 GMT -8
WTO, NAFTA and the like have been good for multi-nationals, and negative for workers and economies - labor shifts to poorer countries stripping jobs from the nations that buy the products and continuing the practice of subpar to slave-like conditions for the developing/3rd world countries.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 10, 2010 16:08:57 GMT -8
WTO, NAFTA and the like have been good for multi-nationals, and negative for workers and economies - labor shifts to poorer countries stripping jobs from the nations that buy the products and continuing the practice of subpar to slave-like conditions for the developing/3rd world countries. Developed countries need to exploit new technological innovation and not depend of the kind of jobs that have left the rust belt. |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 10, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -8
WTO, NAFTA and the like have been good for multi-nationals, and negative for workers and economies - labor shifts to poorer countries stripping jobs from the nations that buy the products and continuing the practice of subpar to slave-like conditions for the developing/3rd world countries. Developed countries need to exploit new technological innovation and not depend of the kind of jobs that have left the rust belt. When you have 300 million people, not everybody is going to be white collar and many new industries or innovations have decreased the ammount of non-specialized, higher education type jobs. Caddyshack: The World needs ditch-diggers too, when those people can't even dig a ditch, what happens to the economy of the whole country? What does the future look for a country that has fewer and fewer options for the bottom tier, let alone just the average/below-average worker? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 11, 2010 8:59:52 GMT -8
Developed countries need to exploit new technological innovation and not depend of the kind of jobs that have left the rust belt. When you have 300 million people, not everybody is going to be white collar and many new industries or innovations have decreased the ammount of non-specialized, higher education type jobs. Caddyshack: The World needs ditch-diggers too, when those people can't even dig a ditch, what happens to the economy of the whole country? What does the future look for a country that has fewer and fewer options for the bottom tier, let alone just the average/below-average worker? What you say is true. What I am saying is that the base of the economy must be high tech jobs. Those people will still need all the supporting jobs. We will need the service type jobs and laborer type jobs. We just have to see that we will have communities built around high tech and not around a steel mill. |
|
|
|
Post by monty on Jul 11, 2010 10:03:13 GMT -8
When you have 300 million people, not everybody is going to be white collar and many new industries or innovations have decreased the ammount of non-specialized, higher education type jobs. Caddyshack: The World needs ditch-diggers too, when those people can't even dig a ditch, what happens to the economy of the whole country? What does the future look for a country that has fewer and fewer options for the bottom tier, let alone just the average/below-average worker? What you say is true. What I am saying is that the base of the economy must be high tech jobs. Those people will still need all the supporting jobs. We will need the service type jobs and laborer type jobs. We just have to see that we will have communities built around high tech and not around a steel mill. Yes. We have done a very poor job retooling our economy over the past half century and that has been exasperated by wto/nafta. Roads, bridges, electrical grids, water supplies, etc are all falling a part and have been basically left to rot. This is where Kenyseian put a 100 dollar bill in a coke bottle, bury it, and dig it back up makes sense - we need to put the people to work that will be laborers, that employs engineers and managers and suppliers and planners and go about rebuilding the infrastructure. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 11, 2010 10:11:48 GMT -8
What you say is true. What I am saying is that the base of the economy must be high tech jobs. Those people will still need all the supporting jobs. We will need the service type jobs and laborer type jobs. We just have to see that we will have communities built around high tech and not around a steel mill. Yes. We have done a very poor job retooling our economy over the past half century and that has been exasperated by wto/nafta. Roads, bridges, electrical grids, water supplies, etc are all falling a part and have been basically left to rot. This is where "Keynesian" put a 100 dollar bill in a coke bottle, bury it, and dig it back up makes sense - we need to put the people to work that will be laborers, that employs engineers and managers and suppliers and planners and go about rebuilding the infrastructure. I agree with your take on infrastructure. To do it by deficit spending will backfire this time just as it has always done. We need to rebuild infrastructure on a pay as you go basis. It can be done responsibly, but not with these huge deficits that go largely to waste. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jul 11, 2010 10:25:44 GMT -8
It's a world market now and it will, barring a civilization smashing nuclear war or a planetary catastrophe, always be thus. Change is very difficult to deal with. We cannot deny that the shift to a world market has been very hard on the less well educated and trained workers in this country. I have no answer except that Americans must realize from an early age that nothing is guaranteed. Well, there is on thing that is guaranteed. If you screw up . . . drop out of school, get a criminal record, produce offspring when you should be studying, engage in very risky behaviors . . . you're chances of ending up a bum with few good options the age of 35 or 40 will be very greatly increased. Throwing up tariffs or establishing import quotas, which is what the Left probably wants to do, will only make the problem worse. Much, much worse. (If you don't agree with that, look up the Smoot-Hawley tariff act of 1930. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_Act_of_1930)The best policy for this country is to encourage innovation and capital formation. This may be difficult to do with a Chief Executive who believes that ".. . at some point you have made enough money." I presume that he has in mind how much is enough. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jul 11, 2010 10:42:36 GMT -8
Waiting for Aztec70 to say what he meant. He has been enjoying where we took it so far I dare say.
|
|
