So, fans of free trade, how does shipping jobs out of America create jobs for America?

[Zalatix]

And how are you supposed to pay for cheap Chinese goods on $0 an hour?

Wait, let me guess, they should just live on the dole until, somewhere over the rainbow, a flood of low paying jobs comes to their rescue?

Just a few more questions you should ask your friends who support free trade.

[fascisthunter]

1. better question is... how are the invested in outsourcing

are THEY benefiting from outsourcing? Because I know most of America isn't.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

2. That's what corporations have done to f**k up our country, and why our country is in this

predicament. Of course, we are allowing this to go on.

[bart95]

3. a better question is, why do members of the Democratic party accept this

from our leaders in the party?

[xchrom]

5. That's the only question for me.

I get that free trade fundies, or republicans would be for such a thing.

Not the democratic party. The party of labor.

[bart95]

7. 'the party of labor'

more like 'the party of lip service'

[badtoworse]

4. The best question: Why isn't government wearing the blame?

What happened with the free trade agreements was entirely predictable.

[Egalitarian Thug]

67. Because nearly everybody in both parties did this to us and they knew exactly

what they were doing when they were doing it.


Kind of like prosecuting the previous administration for their crimes. Can't very well point fingers when both sides (133 House & 23 Senators voted no) voted for it.

[badtoworse]

68. What difference does it make that both parties did it? It's still the government's fault

Let's be honest - it started with NAFTA under a Democratic Congress and a Democratic president.

The fact is our own government opened our markets to foreign competition and ignored the fact that those foreign countries were trashing the environment and the workers were being paid shit. It's pretty easy to undercut dometically produced when you don't have to cover those costs. The government held our own manufacturers to the high environmental standards and labor costs leaving them defenseless against the foreign competition. You can't blame blame businesses or the banks for what followed. People in this country shop on the basis of price and the only way for a domestic company to compete with the cheaper imported goods was to move its own manufacturing offshore which is exactly what happened. Why the government isn't being held accountable is beyond me.

[ProSense]

6. I really

"So, fans of free trade, how does shipping jobs out of America create jobs for America?"

...hate straw men: the notion that people who support trade support "shipping jobs out of America."

FDR’s Comprehensive Approach to Freer Trade

by David Woolner

<...>

The driving force behind this effort was FDR’s Secretary of State, Cordell Hull, who considered the passage of Smoot-Hawley an unmitigated disaster. Hull had been arguing in favor of freer trade for decades, both as a Democratic congressman and later senator from Tennessee. Given the long-standing protectionist tendencies of Congress — which reached their zenith with the passage of Smoot-Hawley, the highest tariff in U.S. history — Hull faced an uphill struggle to accomplish this task. He also had to overcome FDR’s initial reluctance to embrace his ideas, as the president preferred the policies of the “economic nationalists” within his administration during his first year in office. By 1934, however, FDR’s attitude began to change, and in March of that year the president threw his support behind Hull’s proposed Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act — a landmark piece of legislation that fundamentally altered the way in which the United States carried out foreign economic policy.

Convinced that the country was not ready for a truly multilateral approach to freer trade, Hull’s legislation sought to establish a system of bilateral agreements through which the United States would seek reciprocal reductions in the duties imposed on specific commodities with other interested governments. These reductions would then be generalized by the application of the most-favored-nation principle, with the result that the reduction accorded to a commodity from one country would then be accorded to the same commodity when imported from other countries. Well aware of the lingering resistance to tariff reduction that remained in Congress, Hull insisted that the power to make these agreements must rest with the president alone, without the necessity of submitting them to the Senate for approval. Under the act, the president would be granted the power to decrease or increase existing rates by as much as 50 percent in return for reciprocal trade concessions granted by the other country.

The 1934 Act granted the president this authority for three years, but it was renewed in 1937 and 1940, and over the course of this period the United States negotiated 22 reciprocal trade agreements. Of these, the two most consequential were the agreements with Canada, signed in 1935, and Great Britain, signed in 1938, in part because they signaled a move away from Imperial Preference and hence protectionism, and in part because they were regarded as indicative of growing solidarity among the Atlantic powers on the eve of the Second World War. It is also important to note that Hull, like many of his contemporaries, including FDR, regarded protectionism as antithetical to the average worker — first, because in Hull’s view high tariffs shifted the burden of financing the government from the rich to the poor, and secondly, because Hull believed that high tariffs concentrated wealth in the hands of the industrial elite, who, as a consequence, wielded an undue or even corrupting influence in Washington. As such, both FDR and Hull saw the opening up of the world’s economy as a positive measure that would help alleviate global poverty, improve the lives of workers, reduce tensions among nations, and help usher in a new age of peace and prosperity. Indeed, by the time the U.S. entered the war, this conviction had intensified to the point where the two men concluded that the root cause of the war was economic depravity.

<...>

Of course, it is important to remember that the Roosevelt administration’s efforts to expand world trade were accompanied by such critical pieces of legislation as the National Labor Relations Act and Fair Labor Standards Act, which vastly strengthened the place of unions in American life. The 1930s and ’40s were also years in which the government engaged in an unprecedented level of investment in America’s infrastructure and industry — largely through deficit spending — that helped vastly expand our manufacturing base and render the United States the most powerful industrialized country in the world. Our efforts to expand trade and do away with protection were only part of a broader effort to reform the U.S. economy in such a way as to provide what FDR liked to call “economic security” for every American.

- more -

http://www.newdeal20.org/2011/10/13/fdrs-comprehensive-approach-to-freer-trade-61632/

[marmar]

8. But this isn't the WWII era when the infrastructures of Japan and Europe lay in ruins.....

....... and there was no competition.

[Zalatix]

9. So? That doesn't entitle them to American jobs.

Edit: and I also noticed you didn't even answer the questions in the OP.

[marmar]

10. Who said it did? ...... I was responding to the post right above mine.

[bart95]

11. it wasnt a straw man

any more than a 700 word data dump of somone else's rambling opinion of a period 80 years prior is a rebuttal

and besides, our economy in the 1930s really never recovered until we built a war machine that destroyed europe's means of production

so the issue is moot, not 'Smoot'

[ProSense]

12. So

"it wasnt a straw man any more than a data dump is a rebuttal"

...countless "data dump" on a single issue, you're taking issue with the practice?

It's a straw man. To imply that anyone who supports trade automatically supports "shipping jobs out of America" is ridiculous.

[bart95]

14. a single issue that was never really tested

because europe's production was totally bombed just a few years later

and nowhere in the encylopedic dump you gave was any attempt to compare that era to the wage arbitrage of today, which makes the 2 eras totally uncomparable

but i cant say i blame you, if i were taking your side of the arguement, i'd be cloudy too

[bart95]

16. i noticed your subtle change of wording

"It's a straw man. To imply that anyone who supports trade automatically supports "shipping jobs out of America" is ridiculous."

NOBODY is saying that

he said 'free trade' which implies the labor arbitrage model of the last 20 years

nobody, including the OP has suggested that ALL trade be stopped, the key would be importing complementary goods (those we dont have) vs just CHEAPER LABOR

[Egalitarian Thug]

23. "Reciprocal" or as Jefferson said,

"peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."

We've moved completely away from each of those principals. And just as it had in Europe for centuries, this is what we got.

[Populist_Prole]

13. It doesn't, and even the pro free-traders know it

It's a pollyann-ish narrative to let more agreements slide by unhindered by the peripherally informed. One of many that through the years that is continually tailored to be self serving to the corporatists, though the latest really reaches.

Lets review how the excuses/talking points for trade agreements morphed ( as each one is shot down by empirical reality ) in more or less chronological order

"New export market for our products" - Except they're made there

"Helping the 3rd world develop and become more prosperous and thus level the playing field and eventually equalize" - I guess so they can afford to buy the stuff we sell

"Less expensive products for US consumers" - Good since we're under or unemployed?

"Jobs we no longer want/need" - Can't have icky blue collar types and ugly factories spoiling our idyllic spiffy office park America

"It'll create jobs here" - Shitty ones, except for maybe those involved in shipping from ports to market

What's the next one you ask?

Well now that our industrial base is effectively gutted, and the former economic "muscle" of those previously employed therein have been sufficiently marginalized, the next talking point is:

"Suckers!!!.......now just go away"

[KurtNYC]

15. False choice

How many cars, airplanes and tractors does the US import from China?
How many Americans in the following jobs have been replaced by Chinese workers:
- plumbers
- contractors
- doctors
- lawyers
- teachers
- cops
- entertainment industry jobs
- military personnel
- landscapers
- social workers
- therapists
- cheese makers?
How many pizza parlors have gone broke competing with cheap Chinese pizza? Zero.

The jobs that are in China now WERE NEVER IN THE USA. And many of the jobs that Americans THINK are in China have left China for even cheaper labor elsewhere (Vietnam, Bangladesh, India).

[bart95]

17. 'contractors'? you mean like IT contractors? replacement has been MASSIVE

and the chinese made stuff

almost anything you find was made in the USA 35 years ago

[KurtNYC]

21. Were Hondas made in the USA 35 years ago??

and now they are made in Ohio.

Most IT jobs did not exist 35 years ago (1977) and the flirtation with using programmers in India has been a failure so as I said the jobs in China were never here to begin with. IT contractors for American firms work HERE which is why they need H1Bs.

[Zalatix]

30. A failure? We still have tons of programmers in India servicing the US market

Go look up Infosys. Seriously, your response here was laughably uninformed.

[IDemo]

32. "IT contractors for American firms work HERE" - not all of them

The firmware development teams of the R&D labs I have worked for for over a decade have been roughly divided between the US and Singapore or China.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

34. No, but TVs, clothing, shoes, appliances, toys, and just about every other consumer product were

made here through the 1970s.

Now it's not just manufacturing that's getting sent overseas.

When I broke my elbow two years ago, the reading of the X-rays was outsourced to a radiologist in INDIA.

A lot of on-demand printing is being outsourced to CHINA.

Many of the airlines have outsourced their call centers to foreign countries. One of the frequent topics on the Internet board Flyer Talk is how to make sure that you get a U.S.-based call center, because the foreign call centers are a pain to deal with, as is tech support by a foreign-based agent.

[Zalatix]

18. Totally off-topic.

Practically EVERYTHING we buy and use is made outside the country.

It could have been made here, using American workers.

Now please address the OP. I asked how does this create jobs in America? How are you supposed to pay for cheap Chinese goods with no job? Or are we just expected to put these people on the dole forever?

[bart95]

19. 'It could have been made here, using American workers'

and most of it used to be, 30+ years ago

exact same products, in many cases

[Zalatix]

20. It should be made here again.

Bring back the jobs, now.

[KurtNYC]

22. I named 15 jobs that produce things that don't come from China

Your OP shows no research and presents a false choice -- Free Trade versus job creation in the US. You CAN have both.

Here are more things that don't come from China, just off the top of my head (since we aren't doing any research in this thread)
- paper towels
- diapers
- cheese
- ice cream
- video games
- movies
- insurance
- buses
- soft drinks
- peanuts
- snow boards
- interior design
- education
- x-rays, catscans and MRIs
- housing
- marijuana, cocaine, heroin, aspirin, viagra, prozac, etc.
- rum, whiskey, sugar, chocolate....

[Zalatix]

24. Your response shows you didn't read my question, so DO NOT lecture me about research.

I asked, how does shipping jobs out of America create jobs for America.

None of the jobs you listed are examples of that. Every last one of those jobs existed before, or in spite of, free trade. Not one existed BECAUSE of it.

In fact, most of the jobs you listed are exactly the low pay work that displaced manufacturing and tech workers get stuck in after they lost their jobs to free trade.

[KurtNYC]

25. I read your question -- It is bogus.

It is not a question and you yourself did not put a question mark after it. So to me it seems like an angry statement that you are daring others to disagree with.

Free Trade does not really exist. Most nations are now part of some managed trade group like NAFTA, CAFTA, SAFTA and the rest. There is no shortage of tariffs, subsidies, import taxes, pay-offs, lobbying and arbitrage going on in the world. It seems like your post is mad at free trade but my literal mind just isn't seeing free trade.

On my scorecard, I see the standard of living continuing a decline that began in the 1970s. In the big picture Americans have more jobs and work longer hours as we try to deal with the decline. "Free trade" gets talked about in election years because it sounds pro-business but is as far from reality as "reducing America's dependence on foreign oil" or "electric cars" or any of the other BS-based jingos that get paraded in front of voters every 4 years.

We are the last manufacturing nation on earth that does not use the metric system. I think that fact alone speaks volumes about why we are not manufacturing and exporting as much as we could be.

[Hugabear]

28. Your answer is bogus

Free Trade does not really exist. Most nations are now part of some managed trade group like NAFTA, CAFTA, SAFTA and the rest. There is no shortage of tariffs, subsidies, import taxes, pay-offs, lobbying and arbitrage going on in the world.

Um, "free trade" means the tariff rates are either zero, or are greatly reduced. Which makes it cheaper to import goods from those countries.

[Zalatix]

29. It is not bogus. You once again did not read. I did put a question mark after it.

Your argument: It is not a question and you yourself did not put a question mark after it.

FACT: I posted three questions, cut and pasted without editing. So that you cannot squirm your way out of this I will recount to you in detail:

1) So, fans of free trade, how does shipping jobs out of America create jobs for America? <-- question mark right there.
2) And how are you supposed to pay for cheap Chinese goods on $0 an hour? <-- question mark right there.
3) Wait, let me guess, they should just live on the dole until, somewhere over the rainbow, a flood of low paying jobs comes to their rescue? <-- question mark right there.

The questions are perfectly legitimate. You just do not have any answers.

"We are the last manufacturing nation on earth that does not use the metric system. I think that fact alone speaks volumes about why we are not manufacturing and exporting as much as we could be."

Speaks volumes, eh? Do tell. Hell, the metric system is itself a poor substitute for Planck-based measurements.

And, seriously, you're off topic AGAIN. We're talking about manufacturing jobs for producing goods used in America. The #1 reason why our exports are so low is because American goods cost too much!

By the way, jobs started leaving the country in the 1970s.

Got any more?

[KurtNYC]

51. in your post 24 there was no question mark

Can we agree that these are "how often do you beat your wife?" type questions then?

Your loaded question presumes facts which are not in evidence:

When Jimmy Carter took office there were 80.6 million jobs in the US.
When Reagan took office there were 91.4 million. So roughly 11 million jobs net gain in 4 years yet you assert without facts that "jobs started leaving the country in the 1970s."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

11 million jobs net gain in 4 years.

On metrification, here is a 1982 argument which unfortunately is still valid today:

Maureen Reagan, who heads a Woodland Hills-based export group, Sell Overseas America [and was a candidate in the California GOP Senate race], stated: “The biggest problem, now, is impressing upon American business, small and medium-sized companies, that there is a real profit potential in selling overseas.” She indicated support of U.S. metrication, noting, “American businesses are often penalized in the form of trade restrictions for not using the metric system. At any time a foreign country can and has required that we ship goods to them in metric measurements.”

She stated she supported federal legislation to provide incentives for metric conversion, noting that U.S. companies which do not use the metric system often have a problem exporting their goods when overseas countries invoke “capricious use of trade restrictions involving size and packaging.” She said that new restrictions may be imposed by foreign nations at any time, even when a shipment of goods is on its way.”

http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/laws/usmb.html

[Zalatix]

52. HAHAHAHAHA seriously, "how often do you beat your wife?"

It is nothing like that. And... post 24? We're talking about the OP, not post 24.

And as for your 80.6 million to 91.4 million jobs cite, that doesn't address MANUFACTURING JOBS and it also DOES NOT NULLIFY the fact that jobs were leaving the country.

Your argument only shows that job growth happened IN SPITE of jobs leaving the country. If we had not had offshoring we would probably have had 12 to 13 million additional jobs during that period, instead of 11.

As for your metrification argument, once again, that is for exports. This discussion is about what we produce and consume here in America. The goods we buy here should be made here. Your metrification rant has no relevance to that.


Once again you failed to even address the argument I was making, much less disprove it.

[KurtNYC]

59. I cited facts

It's YOUR turn.

When you are ready to stop making stuff up and pretending that angry assertions and childish mockery add up to some kind of argument then I'm ready.

I proved that 11 million jobs NET were gained during a period you claimed was an era of "shipping jobs out of the country." Your argument is not based in reality. Reality is there are 40 million more jobs in the USA now than there were in 1978. Yes we don't make wooden console color TVs or Pet Rocks or AMC Pacers here any more but those jobs were replaced.

We import and export. That is reality.

[Zalatix]

60. You cited irrelevant crap. You even admit we stopped making TVs

but your cite shows nothing about what replaced those TV-making jobs.

In fact all we've done is replace high-paying manufacturing jobs with low-paying crap jobs.

You said 11 million jobs were created, but you intentionally avoided the fact that these were mainly LOW PAYING jobs that replaced HIGH PAYING jobs.

This has been true in the recent recession:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/higher-paying-jobs-lost-but-lower-paying-jobs-gained/

And before the recession:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/employment/2004-06-29-jobs_x.htm

And in the 1980s:
http://voices.yahoo.com/the-economy-1980s-similar-7951134.html
http://economics.mit.edu/files/1474

http://www.emayzine.com/lectures/1980S.htm


And finally, the biggest error in your argument? 40 million jobs from 1978 to 2012? Think again. In that period we saw a growth of 80 million people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_census

Twice as many people entered the workforce during that time than jobs! So in reality NET job growth has been NEGATIVE.

I challenge you outright to show us how 40 million jobs gained is greater than an increase of 80 million people.

Show us that high paying jobs were NOT replaced by low-paying jobs.

You, sir, have a basic math problem.

NEXT?

[KurtNYC]

61. Perhaps a gain of 11 million net jobs is "irrelevant crap" to you

because it happened during a period which you still insist, in the face of these facts, was a period of job loss.

Your post #60 shows a lack of understanding -- population up 80 million (308 million now versus 226.5 in 1980; a gain of 81.5 million). Here in the real world, babies, children, retired people and others don't have jobs. You, apparently want them to work, perhaps 'flipping hoods' in Detroit but in reality the workforce is NOT equal to 100% of the population. Not even Hitler expected 100% of the population to be in the work force but you do(?)

Let's do some math:

1980 population: 226.5 mil number of jobs: 80 mil that's 35%
2010 population 308 mil number of jobs 133 mil that's 43%

In other words a higher percentage, more jobs per person. That math is not a problem for MY argument but for yours...

[Zalatix]

62. Your argument just keeps taking on more holes.

First of all, when the population grows by 80 million eventually at some point that many people need to find work. I did not say 100% of the population needs to be in the workforce - however, CLOSE to 100% will be seeking a job during their lifetime, and by your own stats only 1 out of 2 will find one.

And I noticed you totally ran away from my well-cited point about the TYPES OF JOBS that were created: namely, tons of good paying jobs went away and were replaced by lower-paying work. Since the 1970s we've been losing good paying jobs and replacing them with crap jobs.

Your post still shows a huge lack of understanding about... well... everything.

NEXT?

[KurtNYC]

63. Good luck with putting toddlers to work on your revived AMC Pacer assembly line

As nicely as I can say this, you don't seem to understand labor statistics, the economy or world trade.

The workforce is NEVER equal to 100% of the population; not even close.

I stated in this thread that the standard of living in the USA has been in decline since the 1970s and then for whatever reason when I pinned you on the late 1970 job growth you went and grabbed the facts to back up what I had already said: "the standard of living in the USA has been in decline since the 1970s." I'll leave that as our one point of agreement.

[Zalatix]

64. As nicely as I can say this,

you don't seem to have good reading skills.

Nobody's saying the workforce is or should be equal to 100%.

Late 1970 job growth didn't match population growth. You didn't pin anyone on anything. Worse yet the meager jobs that were created, didn't pay much.

Your understanding of world trade is mediocre at best. You don't realize that free trade discriminates against Americans - it ships more jobs OUT of the country than it insources. None of your off base arguments even addressed that.

Again... NEXT?

[Hugabear]

27. Housing? Really?

Where do you think a lot of the drywall used in housing construction comes from? I'll give you a hint - it starts with "C" and ends with "hina".

[IDemo]

33. And has "sulfur" in the middle

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2009-03-16-chinese-drywall-sulfur_N.htm

[KurtNYC]

39. As of April 2009 Lowe's and Home Depot stopped selling Chinese drywall

(but the bad news is that some american drywall tested worse than the Chinese stuff):

"The Consumer Product Safety Commission has received more than 2,000 complaints to date. The agency recently released details on 44 of them under the heading "imported drywall." But CBS News discovered that 10 of the cases - nearly a quarter - actually involve drywall made in the United States.
...
Perhaps more surprising, "There were some American products that we tested that had higher emission than some of the new Chinese products that we tested," Townsend said."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/23/cbsnews_investigates/main5752469.shtml

I'll stick with Canadian plywood and fiberboard.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

35. Wrong about X-rays

The last ones I had were sent to a radiologist in INDIA to be read.

Sugar is mostly grown outside the U.S. and chocolate entirely so.

Many video games are Japanese or Korean and are localized for the U.S. market. (Some of my fellow translators make great money doing this.)

[Hugabear]

37. Speaking of video games...

Wonder if the poster knows where all those Xbox, Playstations, and Nintendos are made.

[KurtNYC]

40. Xbox is made in Brazil

http://thenextweb.com/la/2011/09/27/microsoft-will-start-manufacturing-xbox-360-in-brazil-prices-go-down/

next question?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

42. But not in the U.S.--that's the point

[KurtNYC]

46. the games themselves are made her and sold here

a multi billion dollar industry that did not exist 30 years ago. Blizzard alone has 4,600 employees.

We could stack tariffs to the sky, tax everything that comes from China at 400% (which would make the Dollar Store the $5 Store) but it wouldn't bring back jobs that existed in the 1970s. As a nation we are competing against well planned and integrated economies in other countries -- Germany, China, Korea, Canada.

Germany is the #2 exporting nation on earth! They don't have slave labor conditions or low wages. They get far more vacation than Americans so we don't have to play it like China to create jobs. But we would do well to look forward instead of back.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

49. Blizzard is owned by Vivendi, which is a French company

[KurtNYC]

54. ahh...but the jobs are still in Irvine

so the USA is benefiting from French out-sourcing -- you're on my team now!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

58. Vivendi PURCHASED Blizzard

as part of their drive to dominate as much of world media as they can.

I doubt that they actually had French game designers to replace. And not being a gamer, I don't know how much of Blizzard's content is original and how much is relicensed and localized versions of Japanese and Korean games.

[Hugabear]

26. Fucking bullshit.

"The jobs that are in China now WERE NEVER IN THE USA."

That is absolute, 100% bullshit.

My wife lost her factory job because the company decided to shift all their manufacturing work to China. There are thousands of other workers who have lost their jobs because some corporate CEO wanted to use cheaper Chinese labor. So don't sit there and tell us that the jobs in China were never in the US.

[Zalatix]

38. I'm sorry that happened to you and your wife.

These are personal tragedies that happen by the millions in America. We need to force the Free Traitors to confront this and tell these affected people to their faces that this is right and just.

[KurtNYC]

41. Jobs making iPods, cell phones, solar panels, LEDs, video projectors,

were never in the USA. China is on their 2nd or 3rd wave of new factories -- that was my point. And many of the things that people think are coming from China actually come from Mexico or Canada, like flat panel TVs for example. Most clothing that is sold in the US is NOT made in China, but rather in an even poorer country like Pakistan or Bangladesh. Most stamped metal products are coming from India. Shoes and small electronics from Vietnam.

China is not the cheapest place to manufacture anymore and I can't think of a business that has moved manufacturing there recently.

[Hugabear]

43. Still talking out of your ass

The factory my wife worked in shut down and moved to China just a couple of years ago. Her factory manufactured high-precision lenses for various machines - not exactly a low-tech process - and it was still decided that it would be cheaper to manufacture in China.

You can still find plenty of products that are made in China. I notice there's a reason why you're talking about "iPods, cell phones, solar panels, LEDs, video projectors" - because these are all relatively new products. But the fact still remains that many products that people buy here in the US - children's toys, home decor, pet products, cosmetic products, building materials, etc - many of these are still made in China, and almost all of these were at one time made in the US.

[Heywood J]

44. Ironic that you should use the phrase "Jobs making iPods" with respect to Chinese labour. (NT)

[KurtNYC]

47. I used to work 14 and 16 hour days and

sleep under the desk I worked at, etc. I worked when I was underaged. Got cut, burned, sickened, insulted, bullied, threatened and worked side by side with people who were paid cash off-the-books but at least I went home to my family most nights. I don't understand why some would want to bring those kinds of jobs here. That's why I mentioned iPod manufacturing. In addition to inhuman working conditions, they are destroying the local environment for generations to come. Manufacturing disposable electronics and plastics is a very dirty process.

And going back to Free Trade, tariffs, subsidies, import duties, quotas, price fixing and the like are not going to rebuild the manufacturing base in the USA. It can have impact for some industries for short periods of time but protectionism is not a long term strategy. The air travel industry, for example, is going to its financial grave right now in spite all the protections and exemptions the government could offer it. Didn't work for Britain either.

[Zalatix]

65. Because tariffs aren't enough, we need to go further.

We need to bring those jobs back here AND rigorously enforce laws against people getting cut, burned, sickened, insulted, bullied, and threatened.

We need to bring back those jobs and make them humane AND eco-friendly. We can do it.

And protectionism works - just ask China.

[fascisthunter]

31. do you directly benefit from outsourcing American Labor?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

36. I bet he does--or else he's real young and truly does not realize

that up through the 1970s, it was possible to build and furnish a house entirely with U.S.-made products and to have only U.S.-made clothes and shoes in your clothes closet.

[Blue_Tires]

55. +1

[SammyWinstonJack]

45. Betting that is a YES!

[KurtNYC]

48. I have outsourced my DU posting to China, here is the answer (which cost me only 18-cents):

Please have a look at a current calendar. Witch hunts ended in 1750 (and caused a significant decline in the sales and prices of pitchforks and torches).

Your post is a (lame) personal attack and a call out.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

50. But you haven't answered the question

[Zalatix]

53. Probably.

[KurtNYC]

56. I'm right here. I can hear you guys.

You can't handle the argument so you attack me personally. That is weak weak stuff but why should you deal with facts when you can whine, fantasize and speculate endlessly?

[Zalatix]

57. Yup, we know that. The problem is nobody's buying what you're selling. We all see right through it.

The Democratic Party used to be a breeding ground for pro-free trade thinkers. Reality has proven to be the best cure for that.

Support for offshoring American jobs has had its time, and it has lost.

We are tired of free trade and its war of discrimination against American workers and we are fighting back. Hard. Buckle up and get used to it, it's going to be a long, hard ride DOWN for free trade.

[Rex]

66. Isn't 'free trade' an oxymoron?

How can something be free if you have to make a trade for it?

[KansDem]

69. "Trickle Down" was a scam.

We've had "Trickle Down" now for some 30 years. The deal was: cut taxes on the wealthy and they'll, in turn, invest in America, creating jobs. It didn't happen. The wealthy rubbed their hands and licked their chops while Reagan pulled a fast one on American workers. They took their new-found swag and went offshore, investing in other countries and hiding their profits in off-shore tax havens.

But if that wasn't bad enough, along came the Bush tax cuts. It was "Trickle Down", Part 2. And the wealthy did the same thing all over again.

It's no wonder the wealthy think American workers are a pack of rubes...

[closeupready]

70. Ask Robert Reich; he was all for NAFTA as Clinton's Sec'y of Labor,

and still thinks it was a good agreement, IIRC. Every time someone posts one of his op-eds here, I have to just roll my eyes.

[NNN0LHI]

71. Better question is who is going to fund Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.?

Sure isn't going to be the workers in other countries who manufacture our imported stuff.

That is for damn sure.

Don

[Populist_Prole]

72. Excellent point

People like Reich and other limousine liberals never want to address free-trade's faults ( let alone roll it back ) but instead think the way to help the struggling working class and poor is to expand the social safety net. Well fine, but it's going to be hard to do with a shrinking tax base.

Free trade is one of those things that works nice in theory but rotten in practice.