|
Post by matclone on Mar 26, 2007 15:14:40 GMT -5
Good point, Big. I suppose the lassez fairist would tell you you need to retrain in another job, if your job has been outsourced. After all, we're all supermen and we never grow old!
Alternately, you should move somewhere where you can afford it, India or China, for example.
|
|
|
Post by Flop the Nuts on Mar 26, 2007 15:19:00 GMT -5
Flop, The truth is companies often do not pay their workers what they are worth. As an example, engineers in China or India might get paid 1/10 of what their counterparts get paid in USA while all of them working for the same American company. Why are they only worth 1/10 in China if they do the same work? It sounds like engineers in the US have it pretty good then? Doesn't that subvert your case that the working class in the US is in the gutter because of the boss man?
|
|
|
Post by Flop the Nuts on Mar 26, 2007 15:21:43 GMT -5
Good point, Big. I suppose the lassez fairist would tell you you need to retrain in another job, if your job has been outsourced. After all, we're all supermen and we never grow old! If you are going to turn laissez faire into a cartoon, the least you can do is spell it correctly. I would think that a realist would tell you if you lose your job then you'd better retrain to get another job.
|
|
|
Post by Big on Mar 26, 2007 15:23:35 GMT -5
Well, the reality of course is that it is 10 times more expensive to live in USA. So, it seems to me the companies pay employees just enough to make it, AND not so much what they are worth.
|
|
|
Post by matclone on Mar 26, 2007 15:24:36 GMT -5
I've never had that certain jene se qua it takes to spell French words.
|
|
|
Post by Big on Mar 26, 2007 15:30:24 GMT -5
Most people that lose jobs don't retrain. They accept whatever else is available and continue.
Low unemployment maybe due to stricter unemployment laws rather than to availability of desired jobs.
|
|
|
Post by Flop the Nuts on Mar 26, 2007 16:35:29 GMT -5
Low unemployment maybe due to stricter unemployment laws rather than to availability of desired jobs. It can't just be that the economy is in good shape, and employers are struggling to find employees, right? If Clinton was still in office, he would be the "genius" behind the great economy. When a Repub is in office, there is always something that the data is not showing, and things are actually much worse than the data would have you believe.
|
|
|
Post by matclone on Mar 26, 2007 16:55:16 GMT -5
Can we discuss the economy without resorting to which party caused it all or said what? Otherwise, it gets down to finger pointing, and siding with one party or another, while the fundamental issues are ignored. For example, outsourcing didn't begin with the Republicans. Clinton signed NAFTA. There are splits within both parties on the issue of (so-called) free trade agreements and globalization.
|
|
contini
AA
The Great Contini
Posts: 650
|
Post by contini on Mar 26, 2007 20:29:47 GMT -5
Not sure about the "genius" claim of Clinton's economy (that is debatable of course), but at least Clinton did not have an increase in poverty during his tenure. With increasing GDP and declining unemployment, you would expect a decrease in poverty and better living conditions for all. The fact that that is not happening suggests that something is wrong. We've been through this argument before Flop, and you know my position. At least Bush has officially recognized the increasing wealth gap now (I know you debate whether it is really there), but so far he hasn't done anything about it. He wants it to take care of itself without market interference. Note that Reagan took the same approach, and had the same results. In fact, Reagan was the only president in the last 50+ years who had a decrease in home ownership during his tenure. My conjecture is that Bush will be the second -- unless he is lucky enough to get out of office before the full consequences of his actions kick in. Bush+Greenspan had interest rates extremely low after Sept 11 attacks to keep the economy going. It was a successful short-term fix, but now interest rates are going up, and all those people who were told to buy to keep the economy going, and who refinanced their mortgages in order to have more spending money, are now tightening their belts. The mortgage foreclosures are just starting to make the news, the housing market is starting to bust, etc.... The outlook is not looking well for the average American.
|
|
|
Post by Big on Mar 26, 2007 20:49:23 GMT -5
Oil pirces did not jump 2 times under Clinton. Housing prices did not jump 2-3 times under Clinton. Two basic necessity things that hit Americans below the belt under Bush.
|
|
|
Post by Big on Mar 30, 2007 15:38:10 GMT -5
So, wouldn't people want to elect the Candidate that raises THE LEAST amount of money during his/her campaign since that means the President will have FEWER obligations to the corporations and businesses?
|
|