Like There Ain't Enough Partisan Bickering on the Board

[StoneGold]

General consensus is that Democrats did pretty damn good this off-year election cycle. Shwarzenegger had all his initiatives defeated in California, and Jon Corzine and Tim Kaine won the governors seats in New Jersey and Virginia, respectively. So, the obvious question, anomolies or part of a larger thing?

[Winslow]

I think its the backlash against the failed second term of W.

I voted a straight democratic ticket for the first time in my life.

[BlairH]

anomolies or part of a larger thing?
Neither. Just the way it is.
Us Brits learned our lesson when we put our faith in "trends" and "demographics" and all that jazz 5/6 General elections ago.

That said, congrats to the New Governors...I hope they serve their States well. (of course, naturally I would have preferred Republicans, but still)

[Slam_Bradley]

I haven't looked at all the results, but it's pretty standard for the party of a Lame Duck to do poorly in off-year elections. Neither New Jersey nor Virginia are close to solidly Republican states. I'd say it is business as usual.

[west3man]

Neither. Just the way it is.
That's what I hope.
It should be about the ideas, moreso than who presented them.

Of course, Jeb talked a good game before he was voted into office, but ultimately I didn't trust his party enough to vote for him. One of the first things he did was one of the things he said he wouldn't do, so I felt like I made the right choice. That's kinda different, but I can see how people would be tempted to lean one way or another, depending on who's doing the pushing.

[StoneGold]

I haven't looked at all the results, but it's pretty standard for the party of a Lame Duck to do poorly in off-year elections. Neither New Jersey nor Virginia are close to solidly Republican states. I'd say it is business as usual.
Jersey, not as much, but Virginia is generally GOP leaning. Although the most interesting thing in the Virginia race, the GOP candidate's numbers actually dropped after Bush did some last-minute campaining for him.

[west3man]

Jersey, not as much, but Virginia is generally GOP leaning. Although the most interesting thing in the Virginia race, the GOP candidate's numbers actually dropped after Bush did some last-minute campaining for him.
To quote a wise man, "So, the obvious question, anomolies or part of a larger thing?"

[StoneGold]

I'm thinking it's a larger thing, but will it last a year for when it would actually matter? Sure, Bush's numbers stink on ice now, but it's a long 12 months or so before the next round of elections that matter nationally.

[Ed Cunard]

I'm thinking it's a larger thing, but will it last a year for when it would actually matter? Sure, Bush's numbers stink on ice now, but it's a long 12 months or so before the next round of elections that matter nationally.

It could very well be a "save our effort for the next big one" thing. We'll know soon enough, I imagine--2006 sounds pretty bloody from here.

[Mike Smith]

The solid truth of the matter will be revealed in 2006 runoffs, but I think there is a general mood or displeasure with GOP. Considering most people are informed from televised media coverage and the mood of journalists, the GOP seems embattled right now, they are seen as the dominant party and not serving the nation particularly well, the economy is down and oil is up, outing spies, the war...all of these things get blamed on the party in power and their policies.

It is not a good measure or should be a way of operating, but it is the way it seems to happen in the US political cycle. In short I believe "Yes", past political actions are having an overarching effect, albeit not entirely encompassing, on American voting decision.

[Hoss]

There will be 3 big issues during next years election.

1) Corruption. At the beginning of the year we are going to be having trials for Delay and Libby and who knows who else.

2) Iraq. My guess is the Bushies are cooking up something. Would not be surprised if by next Spring the Iraqi army was all of the sudden ready to take care of itself with out so much American help.

3) Simplifying the tax code. That is next years big initiative. It is the Bushies attempt at a massive social security type policy. The current tax code is over a million pages long and Bush has added 10,000 pages to it.


Alot will depend on how much traction these issues get. What the past 4+ years have taught us is that Bush will create some big ole issues. In 2002 it was the Iraq war.

As we saw this year, Bush and the current Republican leadership are very, very vulnerable. I am hopeful that Dean and his internet/grassroots/fund-raisers combined with Harry Reid on the Hill can mount a successful counter campaign. But Bush will come out with all guns blazing. And the President is much, much better on election years that he is on off election years. Actually, 2001 was (POLITICALLY) a bad year for Bush until 9-11. 2002 was a great year for him. 2003 was a pretty bad year for Bush going into the fall and Dems did well in the off year elections. Even with the Abu G. scandal 2004 was a huge success for the Pres and Republicans. 2005 has been by far the worst year of his Presidency. So, the question remains whether 2006 will see a reverse in the trend or not.

[Ray R.]

Jersey, not as much, but Virginia is generally GOP leaning. Although the most interesting thing in the Virginia race, the GOP candidate's numbers actually dropped after Bush did some last-minute campaining for him.

Kilgore's negative campaigning (run by one of Rove's acolytes) didn't win him any fans here in Virginia either. There was one death penalty ad where the speaker (a dad of a murdered crack-head) said that Kaine would not have pulled the switch on Adolph Hitler. It ran on the first day of Yom Kippur.... Polling afterwards showed that it caused 20% of the people who saw it to immediately decide to vote AGAINST Kilgore because of the ad.

Kaine ran a pretty non-eventful campaign (with the exception of a mailing that barely identified the Democratic source, which is deceptive as well), but I admit to a head-scratcher on the last minute appearance of Bush. What the hell were they thinking? Northern Virginia is pretty solidly anti-Bush, and even the redneck suburbs where I am went firmly for Kaine, which is a HUGE suprise. You can infer and deflect as much as you want, but for an election where it was a dead heat the day before the election, and after the election Kaine wins by 5 points, and wins in areas he wasn't expected to, you should be able to draw some pretty simple conclusions.

As to Virginia's "redness" -- we tend to go Republican in national elections, but the Democrats have held the governorship for all but 8 of the last 25 years. The Dems also took the House of Delegates back, which was a surprise. We have two Republican U.S. Senators and the majority of the U.S. House members are Repubs (I think...).

It's volatile enough, though, and the transplants are coming in so fast from other areas due to the recession-proof economy and housing boom, that I wouldn't automatically mark it in the red column for national elections anymore.

The rest of the South? I don't see the GOP control diminishing by too much any time soon, even with the disaster that is the Bush administration.

[Hoss]

The rest of the South? I don't see the GOP control diminishing by too much any time soon, even with the disaster that is the Bush administration.

Florida is still very much in play. Though Bush won by 300,000 of the 5 million votes, Martinez only won by about 60,000. And let's not forget that you can make up seats in congress by districts. It isn't an all or nothing proposition.

[Brian Cronin]

Yeah, the two Governerships that the Republicans "lost" were seats previously held by....(wait for it)....Democrats.

So how is that that big of a deal?

Arnold Schwarzenegger, though, DID take a big hit. That's definitely true.

-Brian

[sixstringguild]

I'm glad my state of Ohio voted down Issues 2-5. I was pleasantly surprised that it was a strong "No" at that. Good job Buckeyes!

[Dreadstar]

I'm glad my state of Ohio voted down Issues 2-5. I was pleasantly surprised that it was a strong "No" at that. Good job Buckeyes!


I can't tell if that's honest or sarcasm.

[phoenixrising]

Actually, the GOP hit I think was most notable in St. Paul, Minn. Voters threw out their mayor for his alliance with GW. Sure, its a deep blue area, but it is quite telling. (linky (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002612534_mayors09.html))

[Adam Crocker]

2) Iraq. My guess is the Bushies are cooking up something. Would not be surprised if by next Spring the Iraqi army was all of the sudden ready to take care of itself with out so much American help.

And by this we mean ready because they said so, not actually right?

[StoneGold]

Funny thing is, following the California race, early on, when all the tiny precincts no one actually lives in were reporting, all the propositions looked like they were at least close. Then all the areas people actually live in got counted up, and they got squashed. My mom was all panicky at first from the early returns.

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

Yeah, the two Governerships that the Republicans "lost" were seats previously held by....(wait for it)....Democrats.

So how is that that big of a deal?

Arnold Schwarzenegger, though, DID take a big hit. That's definitely true.

-Brian

Look at it this way: In NJ, the Republicans thought they had a great chance at a pick up after the previous Democratic governorship was wracked by scandal. In Virginia, Bush won the state by comfortable margins twice. Since Warner could not run again, it was looked at as more of an open seat. Again, it was a state where the Republicans were hoping for a pick-up.

That said, I don't think these were necessarily the bell-weather elections that Dems hope or Republicans fear.

[Ed Cunard]

I can't tell if that's honest or sarcasm.

Not being from Ohio, I have no idea what that means.

Er, SSG's post. Not yours. I understand your befuddlement. I'm just doubly befuddled.

[K'Nort]

I'm always uncomfortable with the idea of mid-term elections sending a message one way or the other. Because that's a lousy reason to vote for a candidate. I mean, just according to their party is iffy enough for me, but then to make it specifically in reaction to the President's party.... It's really short-sighted and not particularly relevant. A senator or governor, for example, will be around having an impact long after the 2008 election, regardless of how that turns out, and a lot of what they do has little to do with the White House anyway. The focus is better off on the local impact, not some symbolic message. It's like picking/supporting a court nominee based 100% on their stance on abortion. There's a million other things they're going to influence that you need to be thinking about.

[Brian Cronin]

Look at it this way: In NJ, the Republicans thought they had a great chance at a pick up after the previous Democratic governorship was wracked by scandal. In Virginia, Bush won the state by comfortable margins twice. Since Warner could not run again, it was looked at as more of an open seat. Again, it was a state where the Republicans were hoping for a pick-up.

That said, I don't think these were necessarily the bell-weather elections that Dems hope or Republicans fear.

Oh, yeah, it must be disappointing for the Republicans, but when I see headlines like "Big Losses For the GOP," I was confused, as, well, they didn't actually LOSE a governership. But yeah, "Big Disappointment for the GOP" would work for me.

Arnold, though, did get a thumping. Definitely bad news for him.

-Brian

[Calybos]

Of course, Kansas has embarrassed itself yet again, but fortunately Kansas is largely irrelevant these days. Like the UN!

[Dan Apodaca]

Arnold, though, did get a thumping. Definitely bad news for him.

-Brian

Honestly, it kind of amazes me that he didn't see this coming. I mean, his political enemies are nurses, firemen, and teachers. These are the good guys.

[phoenixrising]

These are the good guys.

Girlymen, all.

[K'Nort]

Honestly, it kind of amazes me that he didn't see this coming. I mean, his political enemies are nurses, firemen, and teachers. These are the good guys.

Except they all have a strong union angle, which is about as opposite on the popularity scale as you can get.

[Tadhg Adams]

Except they all have a strong union angle, which is about as opposite on the popularity scale as you can get.

Former Secretary Page remains my favorite person ever for calling the NEA a terrorist group.

[Calybos]

Except they all have a strong union angle, which is about as opposite on the popularity scale as you can get.

True, we really need to work on reminding people why unions are important and beneficial. Gotta switch people over from thinking like "consumers" to realizing that they're workers like everyone else, and that we're all in this together against the plutocrats.

[Tadhg Adams]

True, we really need to work on reminding people why unions are important and beneficial. Gotta switch people over from thinking like "consumers" to realizing that they're workers like everyone else, and that we're all in this together against the plutocrats.

It'd help if you worked on making the unions important and beneficial again, as opposed to the bureaucratic parasites many have become.

[Calybos]

It'd help if you worked on making the unions important and beneficial again, as opposed to the bureaucratic parasites many have become.

Couldn't agree more. There's plenty of work to be done there.

[Gilda Dent]

Girlymen, all.

I was going to object to this, but, hey, you can't object to the truth.

Gilda

[Shellhead]

True, we really need to work on reminding people why unions are important and beneficial. Gotta switch people over from thinking like "consumers" to realizing that they're workers like everyone else, and that we're all in this together against the plutocrats.

But we are also competing in a worldwide economy these days. When our unionized workers get too expensive compared to similar workers in other countries, it puts pressure on the rest of our economy. Too far out of whack, and whoosh, we start losing manufacturing jobs to China and service jobs to India. It's already happening.

[StoneGold]

But we are also competing in a worldwide economy these days. When our unionized workers get too expensive compared to similar workers in other countries, it puts pressure on the rest of our economy. Too far out of whack, and whoosh, we start losing manufacturing jobs to China and service jobs to India. It's already happening.
Because we can outsource teachers and nurses and cops and firemen to India.

[Shellhead]

Because we can outsource teachers and nurses and cops and firemen to India.

You're missing the point.

If our teachers, nurses, cops and firemen cost too much more than comparable workers in every other country, then we all pay too much in terms of taxes, insurance and medical bills.

Since Americans today are not known for their willingness to make sacrifices, that means that everybody else wants more money, too. Hourly wages are thus inflated, and so are prices of goods and services. Then those jobs that can be out-sourced will be by the most competitive companies, and these days, that includes some pretty good jobs in computers and accounting. And some of the low-end jobs that must stay here will go to illegal aliens, causing higher unemployment for citizens who happen to lack education or skills to compete for better jobs.

And speaking of education, have you noticed the high cost of higher education these days? There was a big article in Business Week this week about people carrying college loans that will take them 20 years to pay off. The American Dream is slipping away for a lot of people, and selfish union workers will speed that process.

[StoneGold]

You're missing the point.

If our teachers, nurses, cops and firemen cost too much more than comparable workers in every other country, then we all pay too much in terms of taxes, insurance and medical bills.

Since Americans today are not known for their willingness to make sacrifices, that means that everybody else wants more money, too. Hourly wages are thus inflated, and so are prices of goods and services. Then those jobs that can be out-sourced will be by the most competitive companies, and these days, that includes some pretty good jobs in computers and accounting. And some of the low-end jobs that must stay here will go to illegal aliens, causing higher unemployment for citizens who happen to lack education or skills to compete for better jobs.

And speaking of education, have you noticed the high cost of higher education these days? There was a big article in Business Week this week about people carrying college loans that will take them 20 years to pay off. The American Dream is slipping away for a lot of people, and selfish union workers will speed that process.
So your answer to this, apparently, is that we all work for poverty wages. Then companies can afford to make stuff for cheap, that we still can't afford to buy.

[Shellhead]

So your answer to this, apparently, is that we all work for poverty wages. Then companies can afford to make stuff for cheap, that we still can't afford to buy.

If our factory workers need $25 per hour to do the same work that Chinese factory workers can do for $2 per hour, then it raises a serious question about what Americans consider poverty and what is a fair wage. At that price, we can't compete in a global economy anymore.

I realize that nobody can support themselves on $2 per hour in the U.S. right now, but there was a time when that was a reasonable wage. Some of the inflation since then may have been driven by union demands. While increasing prosperity in China and India will eventually push them to somewhat higher wages, we will probably see some corresponding decline in prosperity here until more of an equilibrium exists.

I'm not happy about it. I wish that there was some way that we could protect ourselves from the global labor market. But the reality is that we consume a lot of resources, much of which is imported from other countries. That leaves us as full participants in a global economy, and the competition keeps getting tougher.

[StoneGold]

Um, what union US factory workers?

[Samurai]

Funny thing is, following the California race, early on, when all the tiny precincts no one actually lives in were reporting, all the propositions looked like they were at least close. Then all the areas people actually live in got counted up, and they got squashed. My mom was all panicky at first from the early returns.
I live in Butte County, one of those "uninhabited" counties you mentioned. Yeah, early returns showed 3 of the 4 passing and the 4th being very close, but then suddenly it all went to hell. I wonder if we need to conduct voter fraud investigations like they did in Ohio to see why the sudden, massive swing took place...? It's hard to believe people, parents, actually want their underage girls getting abortions without even telling them...

[Shellhead]

Um, what union US factory workers?

Exactly. We used to do a lot of manufacturing in the U.S., and all of those guys were in unions. They fought hard for high wages and great benefits, but most of their corporate employers ended up outsourcing the work to cheaper labor overseas. The union guys priced themselves out of the market.

[StoneGold]

I live in Butte County, one of those "uninhabited" counties you mentioned. Yeah, early returns showed 3 of the 4 passing and the 4th being very close, but then suddenly it all went to hell. I wonder if we need to conduct voter fraud investigations like they did in Ohio to see why the sudden, massive swing took place...? It's hard to believe people, parents, actually want their underage girls getting abortions without even telling them...
I don't want a 15 year old kid not to be able to get the abortion because she couldn't get a nod from her mommy.

More to the point, I don't want to have to pay for the welfare of this kid because her mother wouldn't let her get an abortion, then refused to help with the kid.

As for the large swings? It comes from some of the densest populated areas of the countries. It takes longer to tally up, but when LA County does finally submit, it's going to overwhelm the board. Not that it matters too much, since this isn't a presidential election, and every vote is an actual vote.

[StoneGold]

Exactly. We used to do a lot of manufacturing in the U.S., and all of those guys were in unions. They fought hard for high wages and great benefits, but most of their corporate employers ended up outsourcing the work to cheaper labor overseas. The union guys priced themselves out of the market.
So if the US market was willing to use slave labor, we could be doing as well as China?

[Tadhg Adams]

So if the US market was willing to use slave labor, we could be doing as well as China?

We can only dream.

[Shellhead]

So if the US market was willing to use slave labor, we could be doing as well as China?

China is modernizing at a startling pace. Second only to the U.S. in miles of paved highways, they have been building up modern-looking cities in recent times. I've even seen photos in Business Week of very modern suburbs cropping up around the coastal cities. Are they doing all this with slave labor? I doubt it. Due to labor shortages in the coastal regions, resulting in wage inflation and high employee turnover, some Chinese companies are relocating inland.

[Ray R.]

You're missing the point.

If our teachers, nurses, cops and firemen cost too much more than comparable workers in every other country, then we all pay too much in terms of taxes, insurance and medical bills.

Since Americans today are not known for their willingness to make sacrifices, that means that everybody else wants more money, too. Hourly wages are thus inflated, and so are prices of goods and services. Then those jobs that can be out-sourced will be by the most competitive companies, and these days, that includes some pretty good jobs in computers and accounting. And some of the low-end jobs that must stay here will go to illegal aliens, causing higher unemployment for citizens who happen to lack education or skills to compete for better jobs.

And speaking of education, have you noticed the high cost of higher education these days? There was a big article in Business Week this week about people carrying college loans that will take them 20 years to pay off. The American Dream is slipping away for a lot of people, and selfish union workers will speed that process.

We've got an unemployment rate of 5% right now. Compare that to countries like France, Germany, and the UK, and it's clear to see that we're not experiencing a lack of demand for workers in this country.

At the same time, many corporations are experiencing record profits (see, e.g., ExxonMobil), including the top 10 U.S. drug makers increasing profits by 33 percent. Other Fortune 500 companies have taken hits, but in terms of overall layoffs, we've remained remarkably stable for the last twenty years in terms of overall employment figures.

So, if we look at basic economics of supply and demand, since there's been a steady and consistently high demand for workers for the last twenty years, why have real wages adjusted for inflation decreased over the same time period? High demand and medium to low supply would naturally promote higher wages to even out the market, you would think?

But since the unions have been castrated and disemboweled, by both legislation and their own inefficiencies and corruption, that leaves the white collar and other service workers, who typically, at least in the private sector, never unionize. And that's the way corporate America wants it. "At will" employment is just lovely. You get too old, too slow, or don't spend enough time at the office due to family, and we'll either threaten to outsource or replace you domestically with some hungry young worker who can get eaten up and spat out because they want the experience. Collectively, we all stand alone, and we don't have a choice because of the same education loans you mention, mortgages, car payments, and all the other cheese nips that keep us like rats in a maze.

"At will" or "right to work" employment means you're only good as your last day on the job. Your quote below is unbelievable, because so many people now don't take vacations, can't take vacations, take second jobs, avoid sick days, and pay through the nose for childcare, that if we, as a society have ever been sacrificing more of our lives to our workplaces, I'd like to know when. Maybe it's the 70-80 hours I regularly crank out to keep one step ahead of the wolves that makes me a little bit incredulous at this statement. I'd love to have the European holiday leave, but it's not going to happen here. At least not in my lifetime....

Since Americans today are not known for their willingness to make sacrifices, that means that everybody else wants more money, too.


As to firemen, teachers, nurses, et al., they deserve every penny they get and more. Unions die because there are more and more laws that kill them, and they get little to no help from the courts. Yes, some are run like the Mafia, and/or by the Mafia, but to Joe Six-Pack, a pension and a guaranteed paycheck means they don't care who makes sure the check gets cut.

Unions helped bring this country into prominence, by creating a viable middle class, by establishing safe workplace conditions, by creating fair pay raises and retirement options. They introduced company-sponsored health plans and insured the right to organize and picket without retaliation (for as much as that still lasts).

I won't ever say unions are without fault, but the people who blame them for outsourcing and other industry trends are looking the gift horse in the mouth.

[Ray R.]

I'm not happy about it. I wish that there was some way that we could protect ourselves from the global labor market. But the reality is that we consume a lot of resources, much of which is imported from other countries. That leaves us as full participants in a global economy, and the competition keeps getting tougher.

Buy American.

For some reason, that works. Might put a place like Wal-Mart out of business since they import more crap from China than any other company in the world, but what's a little slave labor and a loss of an entire manufacturing sector, if you can buy a bookcase or CD holder real cheap.

[Dan Apodaca]

It's hard to believe people, parents, actually want their underage girls getting abortions without even telling them...

It's hard to believe that anyone would honestly think this issue to be that simple.

Do I want my 15 year-old sister to be forced by the law to tell my parents that she got pregnant? Hell no. I want my sister to feel comfortable enough in our home that she can tell any of us on her own. Families need to build trust and support and that doesn't happen when it's state-mandated.

And what about the girls with abusive parents? Should they be forced to go home and tell their dads about how they got knocked up, so they can get the shit beat out of them? Will the governator come to save the day? Even worse, what about girls who are pregnant BECAUSE of their awful fathers? I bet daddy'll be just overjoyed when she tells him personally that she's pregnant from the last time he raped her, and she needs him to sign the abortion slip.

This is just a matter of uptight, nosey parents trying to enact policy to confirm their retarded idea that they have any right to know everything that happens in their children's lives.

[Shellhead]

Ray,

I agree with all of your facts, but I'm reaching different conclusions, because I fundamentally believe that Americans are overpaid and living lavish lifestyles in comparison with workers in most other countries. Europeans have higher unemployment, higher taxes, smaller homes, and less stuff, but they enjoy more stability and less pressure due to their generous governmental benefits and mandatory employee benefits.

It's true that a lot of Americans are working harder than ever, and that real spending power has declined over the last twenty years. But we live like royalty compared to much of the world, in terms of lifestyle. So many Americans have cars, dvd players, computers, cable tv, and an excess of food. Our new competition in China and India consists of a lot of hard-working people who are running lean and mean, and they will eat our lunch if they can.

Buy American? With our decreased spending power? It could help, but most Americans would rather not make that kind of sacrifice, when shopping at Walmart allows them to acquire more stuff for less money. Something has to give, either our spending or our earning, or we lose out in the global labor market.

[StoneGold]

Europeans have higher unemployment, higher taxes, smaller homes, and less stuff, but they enjoy more stability and less pressure due to their generous governmental benefits and mandatory employee benefits.

http://www.gulf-news.com/images/2005/11/09_world_france.jpghttp://english.pravda.ru/img/2005/11/Paris.JPGhttp://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200511/r63251_174530.jpg

It's France, in case you were wondering. Real stable.

[Calybos]

Ray, you are a brilliant and insightful individual.

Nice ears, too.

[Shellhead]

It's France, in case you were wondering. Real stable.

There's no question that several european countries are struggling to deal with disgruntled younger immigrants who are being discriminated against. For a fair comparison, take a look at some footage from the 60's when the civil rights movement went up against racists down south.

[Ray R.]

Ray,

I agree with all of your facts, but I'm reaching different conclusions, because I fundamentally believe that Americans are overpaid and living lavish lifestyles in comparison with workers in most other countries. Europeans have higher unemployment, higher taxes, smaller homes, and less stuff, but they enjoy more stability and less pressure due to their generous governmental benefits and mandatory employee benefits.

It's true that a lot of Americans are working harder than ever, and that real spending power has declined over the last twenty years. But we live like royalty compared to much of the world, in terms of lifestyle. So many Americans have cars, dvd players, computers, cable tv, and an excess of food. Our new competition in China and India consists of a lot of hard-working people who are running lean and mean, and they will eat our lunch if they can.

Buy American? With our decreased spending power? It could help, but most Americans would rather not make that kind of sacrifice, when shopping at Walmart allows them to acquire more stuff for less money. Something has to give, either our spending or our earning, or we lose out in the global labor market.

Shell -- you make very valid points, but I think we're looking at two sides of the same coin.

Now feel free to castigate me if I'm paraphrasing you incorrectly, but you think we need to lower wages to compete in a global economy.

I think we need to RAISE the standard of living in other countries by demanding that in exchange for tariff-free imports that certain economic and safety standards be met.

We can start with the simple stuff, like no child labor, no slave labor, fair if not oppressive wage laws, no monopolies, environmental and safety enforcement, and the like. I know it's anathema to GATT, the World Bank and IMF to actually impose any conditions other than vicious debt repayment terms and quasi-governmental "reforms" (which often affect Little Joe Nguyen in Saigon not a lick).

These countries can't play ball, then we use tariffs to even the playing field for our own domestic producers, and eliminate the safe harbor regulations for any U.S. companies that use outsourcing as a way to increase profits over cutting costs to stay out of the red.

I'm not a protectionist per se, but if we're going to roll back U.S. worker pay and benefits because third world and second world countries fuck over their own citizens, then we're definitely doing something wrong.

Level the playing field, then consider me pro-free trade to the hilt. Otherwise, the invisible hand needs to play lifeguard to the needs and interests of both Chinese, Korean, etc., monopolistic sweatshops and cost-shifting U.S. multinationals.

Oh, and it has worked before. Japan was China in the fifties and sixties and "Made in Japan" equated to junk. Call it protectionist, call it unfair trade, but both the labor movement in Japan, tariffs, tariffs and more tariffs, conditions on trade, and our preservation of domestic industries here brought the wages in Japan up to American and European standards. Korea is well on the way as well.

[Ray R.]

Ray, you are a brilliant and insightful individual.

Nice ears, too.

Muchas gracias. I'm a fan of yours as well. For a new guy, you've made your mark very well and I look forward to your posts.


Here closes the mutual admiration society meeting for today. ;)

[phoenixrising]

Man, I hope our big evil Newspaper Guild doesn't get journalists' jobs outsourced to Asia. Then all newpsapers will read like the directions that come with with my cheap foreign electronics.

[Tadhg Adams]

Then all newpsapers will read like the directions that come with with my cheap foreign electronics.

That's why you buy American!!!!!!!!!!

[phoenixrising]

That's why you buy American!!!!!!!!!!

Not that Americans necessarily have a better grasp of the English language....

[Tadhg Adams]

Not that Americans necessarily have a better grasp of the English language....

That's why you buy British!!!!!!!!!

[Ray R.]

Man, I hope our big evil Newspaper Guild doesn't get journalists' jobs outsourced to Asia. Then all newpsapers will read like the directions that come with with my cheap foreign electronics.


You didn't get the memo? Newspapers are going to get replaced by a massive semi-coordinated collection of blogs anyway.

Every Tom, Dick and Drudge is going to dissect, explain and spin the news in a quick easy way, like Minute Rice.

[Shellhead]

Shell -- you make very valid points, but I think we're looking at two sides of the same coin.

Now feel free to castigate me if I'm paraphrasing you incorrectly, but you think we need to lower wages to compete in a global economy.

I think we need to RAISE the standard of living in other countries by demanding that in exchange for tariff-free imports that certain economic and safety standards be met.

We can start with the simple stuff, like no child labor, no slave labor, fair if not oppressive wage laws, no monopolies, environmental and safety enforcement, and the like. I know it's anathema to GATT, the World Bank and IMF to actually impose any conditions other than vicious debt repayment terms and quasi-governmental "reforms" (which often affect Little Joe Nguyen in Saigon not a lick).

These countries can't play ball, then we use tariffs to even the playing field for our own domestic producers, and eliminate the safe harbor regulations for any U.S. companies that use outsourcing as a way to increase profits over cutting costs to stay out of the red.

I'm not a protectionist per se, but if we're going to roll back U.S. worker pay and benefits because third world and second world countries fuck over their own citizens, then we're definitely doing something wrong.

Level the playing field, then consider me pro-free trade to the hilt. Otherwise, the invisible hand needs to play lifeguard to the needs and interests of both Chinese, Korean, etc., monopolistic sweatshops and cost-shifting U.S. multinationals.

Oh, and it has worked before. Japan was China in the fifties and sixties and "Made in Japan" equated to junk. Call it protectionist, call it unfair trade, but both the labor movement in Japan, tariffs, tariffs and more tariffs, conditions on trade, and our preservation of domestic industries here brought the wages in Japan up to American and European standards. Korea is well on the way as well.

Whether we want it or not, I think that a combination of the two, lower american wages and higher standards of living overseas, will both come to pass in the coming years.

In the coastal cities of China, there is an average of one job applicant per job, because the demand for employees is so high. (By contrast, I often compete with 50-75 other applicants when I'm looking for an accounting job, and I've got a college degree and nearly 20 years of experience. So Chinese employers are now competing for workers, leading to rapid wage increases, better working conditions, and high employee turnover. Why deal with a difficult boss or unpleasant co-worker if there are lots of other job openings? Some chinese companies are moving inland where there are more job seekers, but they will eventually reach a point of equilibrium where the distance from the ports on the coast are evenly offset by the slightly lower labor costs in the interior. Similar adjustments may take place in other rapidly growing economies, like India.

Americans will also need to tighten the belt. Our "conservative" president went on a berserk, irresponsible spending spree these last few years, and his supply-side tax cuts didn't deliver the promised benefits to the average American, just the wealthy ones who were directly affected. We are facing rising interest rates, some inflation, and double digit increases in the cost of housing, healthcare, gasoline, and higher education. People have invested heavily in a bubble housing market, and the average American is now saving roughly 0% of his earnings.

Something is going to give, and I predict that the upper middle class will suffer badly in the near future. Their irresponsible investments in exurban McMansions, grotesquely wasteful SUVs, and stupid amounts of home electronics will haunt them and their descendants, especially if Congress fails to take action to eliminate or restructure the Alternative Minimum Tax. Originally designed to catch wealthy taxpayers with clever accountants, the AMT is increasingly hitting white-collar household where both spouses work. I envy those people too much to feel sorry for them, but they are currently headed for pain. And with the new bankruptcy law, they will find themselves stuck with debt management plans instead of the old school clean slate type bankruptcies.

To a lesser extent, middle- and working-class Americans will also suffer in the coming years, but since that has already been happening, it will just be an increasing pressure, not a harsh new development.

[Grazzt]

That's why you buy British!!!!!!!!!

But they speak with such snooty accents.

...

Buy Canadian. :p

[spoon_jenkins]

Jersey, not as much, but Virginia is generally GOP leaning. Although the most interesting thing in the Virginia race, the GOP candidate's numbers actually dropped after Bush did some last-minute campaining for him.
I disagree with the idea that the NJ governorship tends to be a solidly Democratic office. Did you know that a Democrat has only been Governor or Acting Governor for 8 years since 1982? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_New_Jersey) New Jerseyans are much more inclined to elect Republicans to state office than to federal office.

I wasn't terribly enthusiastic about Corzine. The biggest NJ newspaper, the Star-Ledger, even endorsed Forrester, and Corzine still scored a solid victory.

I believe that local factors played a big role in NJ, VA, and CA, but I think if federal races were contested this year, it would have actually been even worse for Republicans.

I think unionism is generally a good think. Everybody should have good wages and working conditions. It's funny how effective the divide and conquer policy of pitting non-union people against union people is.

Unions, like Populists, have actually been responsible for a lot of good in American history that they never get credit for. There was barely any 1st Amendment free speech jurisprudence all the way into the mid-1900s. Free speech jurisprudence came to the fore in cases of union picketing. If only there was as much outrage about the wages of executives.

[K'Nort]

1. Unions bring about a lot more than just higher wages. There are all sorts of working condition issues in the contracts as well.

2. Those massive salary undercuts due to outsourcing are temporary. The companies running as lean as possible have already pulled out of China and India and have shifted to even poorer nations. Because salaries started getting too high in China/India. And keep in mind that as they get jobs and become middle-class themselves, they buy products from American companies. Which does our economy a heck of a lot more good than sending them black-hole aid ever could.

[spoon_jenkins]

And the solution to outsourcing that undercuts wages could lay with more unionism rather than less. If workers could cultivate more solidarity across national lines, they could work to secure higher wages globally in different economic sectors. That's not to say that it would be easy to accomplish though.

[K'Nort]

Are higher wages really the issue these days though? I would think that people who are flat-out unemployed are a bigger problem than those that are underpaid. Especially compared to in the past, once you have a job, you can manage. It's getting the job. And the benefits. I think most workers would rather have better medical coverage than a larger paycheck. Certainly whenever you hear about someone getting wiped out, there's frequently a medical emergency involved.

[spoon_jenkins]

Not that I have any particular knowledge, but I'd agree that health coverage is definitely big. I think wages are a perennial concern. My guess would be that underemployment (not having the training to get a better job) is as big a concern in the U.S. as unemployment is.

[Shellhead]

And the solution to outsourcing that undercuts wages could lay with more unionism rather than less. If workers could cultivate more solidarity across national lines, they could work to secure higher wages globally in different economic sectors. That's not to say that it would be easy to accomplish though.

Let's say that actually happens. Where will all the money come from to pay all those higher wages? Will corporate executives give themselves paycuts? Dream on. They will pass on those higher labor costs to the consumers in the form of price hikes. If many businesses in many sectors raise their prices, that's serious inflation. Inflation erodes spending power. Back to square one, more or less. Productivity increases *can* improve quality of life for everybody, if they are distributed evenly throughout society, usually through a combination of progressive taxes and welfare. Otherwise, those productivity gains are just as likely to widen the gap between the rich and everybody else.

[o1pickleboy]

Um, what union US factory workers?

UAW(United Auto Workers) Which I am a member of.

As for the money issue. I know that 25 hours sounds inflated to you our their on the outside of the industry, but lets ponder.

If a union worker makes 25 dollar a hour. He/She can afford to buy a new car.(which then go back into the automaker in turn the company profits) He/she can afford reasonible extras. Those extra's help fund the economy.(resturants, etc)

If the pay was cut before inflation went down. A huge chunk of economy would suffer from the loss of sales. Due to the autoworker no longer being able to afford those extra's. Which in turn would cause loss of profits and cutback(laying people off) in turn less people to buy cars/extras. Which would continue the change reaction to the industry is at it lowest point.

If inflation went down first. I see no issue. As long as a faction of the middle class doesn't lose it's spending power.


Personal I feel that china is in the wrong. Abusing their worker's by not giving them a acceptible living wage. What can the average chinnesse worker get with his paycheck? We fought for years to get wages up to acceptible living standard. Why should we throw all that away, because China and other 3rd world country are behind? Why should we lower are standards?


Rant part 2.

I know an obivous rebutal to what I just said is. "That is why cars cost so much" or That is why the auto industry is not making any money"

Ok A preemptive on that. Cars cost alot of money because the auto industry is massive ineffient. I can named numberous experiance I have had with the big three, delphi, and the company I work Lear. Losing millions of dollars where they didn't have too.

Two, the gentlemen club the runs the corperations. Top executive making millions in bonus. Year after year taking money from the company reguardless of the current status of said bussiness. (Delphi execs still got bonuss and the company is bankrupt. They gave back their bonus later, but still how do you deserve a bonus if you ran the company into the ground?

They alway attack the little guy. The lowest paid in the corperation. Why not the top execs? If they take a pay cut, they will still be able to afford to spend on what they want. Some may argue that they will leave and go were the grass is greener. So what, If they deserved their money the company would not be losing money.



Ok, so Ray already covered what I said and alot better. Sorry jumped ahead of myself in the thread.

[o1pickleboy]

It'd help if you worked on making the unions important and beneficial again, as opposed to the bureaucratic parasites many have become.


You nail it. The reason the union have lost power. When the unions starting be an automatic for the dems. The dems starting taking them for granted. Union worker starting to have to choose between issues that matter to them.

How can you tell a pro life union worker to choose between labors issues and his moral issues. Or a pro 2nd amendant union worker to choose between their guns and their worker's rights.

many case lead to union member not voting or voting against the union's party of choice because of conflicts with the parties platform.

[P-Man]

On the topic of unions. . .

To hell with the existing unions. Factory work is a lost cause, I think, and the existing unions are so full of shit it amazes me. Groups with funny initial names that give money to the Democrats are dinosaurs.

We need to get back to the core idea of what a union is and what purpose it serves. We don't need political lobbying and press conferences, we need a bunch of workers getting together and saying "Enough is enough." We don't need national organizations making negotiations with CEOS, right now we just need people at the local Burger King franchise to quit being scared of losing their $6 an hour and actually risk something for a brighter future. Everyone says that service jobs are the future, and right now it seems that working the cash register at the local discount store or KFC are the only jobs out there. We need to make those jobs worth having.

[spoon_jenkins]

Let's say that actually happens. Where will all the money come from to pay all those higher wages? Will corporate executives give themselves paycuts? Dream on. They will pass on those higher labor costs to the consumers in the form of price hikes. If many businesses in many sectors raise their prices, that's serious inflation. Inflation erodes spending power. Back to square one, more or less. Productivity increases *can* improve quality of life for everybody, if they are distributed evenly throughout society, usually through a combination of progressive taxes and welfare. Otherwise, those productivity gains are just as likely to widen the gap between the rich and everybody else.
I think the fact that the ratio of CEO pay to average worker pay used to be much smaller and the gap between rich and poor in the country in general was much smaller prove that it's certainly plausible. And of course, unions were stronger then.

We have executive in this country pulling down huge salaries while driving their companies into the ground. There's very little accountability. Imagine how much actual beneficial change might occurred if people built up as much passion about this as they do about something Jermaine O'Neal might say. But I guess that's too much of a practical approach.

[sixstringguild]

I can't tell if that's honest or sarcasm.
It's very honest.

[K'Nort]

Let's say that actually happens. Where will all the money come from to pay all those higher wages? Will corporate executives give themselves paycuts? Dream on.

Actually, it's entirely possible. Many corporations are looking into that pretty seriously, and their shareholder boards are looking even deeper. Not least because Congress is investigating as well and any business would rather beat the govt to the punch and regulate themselves.

Corporate executives aren't one-dimensional evil morons. High salaries do them no good when the business goes under. Plus many of them get at least as much satisfaction from being recognized as successful as from getting more money.