quote:

That means that the politics are causing the problem, and that the citizenry need to exert control. That won't happen until the citizenry start moving up the income ladder. Like I said, it's a start.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

That means that the politics are causing the problem, and that the citizenry need to exert control. That won't happen until the citizenry start moving up the income ladder. Like I said, it's a start.

You are far more optimistic than me. The impediments to labor action remind me of Chicago 1870s. And Wisconsin 2010

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

That means that the politics are causing the problem, and that the citizenry need to exert control. That won't happen until the citizenry start moving up the income ladder. Like I said, it's a start.

You are far more optimistic than me. The impediments to labor action remind me of Chicago 1870s. And Wisconsin 2010

Wisconsin 2010? lol

Not Ohio's Issue 2 in 2010? Or MI?

But, when you're equating public and private Unions, there gets to be murkiness all 'round.

What was the reason Unions were started (and rightly so)?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280
Fair enough, but if Henry Ford figured out that a 8hr day and higher wage led to increased productivity withough union strongarming, so can the sweatshops. Yet even if they don't spit out another dime in pay, workplace safety is not something that can be discounted. Safe building, good lighting, proper ventilation, safety gear, etc, are not things that can be scoffed at.
Personally, I believe we need to pass import laws that prohibit the import of goods that put people in unnecessarily risky situations without reasonable steps taken for their safety and that don't follow some basic environmental protection regs. Forget wages, because as you said, it maybe a good wage there. But, safety and environmental protection are universal. This would really improve the lives of the people, and it would prevent too much undercutting and law dodging as well as keep some of the poison out of our seas and the fish we eat from them.

We agree that workplace safety is important. I don't see it as being our right to dictate that to others, though. I think this is a fight that the citizens of a country need to address. Who would pay the import tax, them or us? How is raising their costs going to result in their choosing to their costs?

This shouldn't be a government-led thing, but a consumer-led thing isn't a bad idea at all.

quote:

If an Indian battery company wants to pollute the Ganges and have their employees working in the dark at age 12, fine, but they can't sell them in the US without a huge tax. If they subscribe to various environmental stardards, keep their workforce above 16 and provide adequate safety then they can sell in the US without the tarriff.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280

That is if you believe the blood diamond embargos are working. I doubt the DeBeers family gives a rats ass and doesn't have a way of smuggling them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280
Fair enough, but if Henry Ford figured out that a 8hr day and higher wage led to increased productivity withough union strongarming, so can the sweatshops. Yet even if they don't spit out another dime in pay, workplace safety is not something that can be discounted. Safe building, good lighting, proper ventilation, safety gear, etc, are not things that can be scoffed at.
Personally, I believe we need to pass import laws that prohibit the import of goods that put people in unnecessarily risky situations without reasonable steps taken for their safety and that don't follow some basic environmental protection regs. Forget wages, because as you said, it maybe a good wage there. But, safety and environmental protection are universal. This would really improve the lives of the people, and it would prevent too much undercutting and law dodging as well as keep some of the poison out of our seas and the fish we eat from them.

We agree that workplace safety is important. I don't see it as being our right to dictate that to others, though. I think this is a fight that the citizens of a country need to address. Who would pay the import tax, them or us? How is raising their costs going to result in their choosing to their costs?
This shouldn't be a government-led thing, but a consumer-led thing isn't a bad idea at all.

It should be, and we should dictate. The reason is that is how US companies are avoiding manufacturing costs here by moving over seas and then importing the goods back here. Labor cost is always relative. If you own a factory in MA it will cost you more to employ your workers versus AL. But, you should have equal costs for workplace safety and other concerns. The reason I advocate it is if imported goods don't meet certain humanitarian and environmental standards, they should be tarriffed. That would equalize the cost and keep the cost of goods more relative to labor and shipping costs, not regulation. Even if the consumer pays the tarriff so be it. That tarriff changes the supply/demand curve for the foriegn product and changes the economics of manufacturing. If Wally-world can no longer import tube socks a .64$ a pair but rather 1$ a pair and an automated plant in MO can do it for $.98, guess where wally world is buying their socks.....While the plant is Automated there is still a handful of employees that would have jobs and be greatful otherwise.

quote:

I am not a statist, and I don't want to regulate the hell out of things. In some cases I think the EPA and OSHA over reach. However, many are necessary regs: like the clean air and water acts as well as requiring ear and eye protection. Having complete and open free trade allows large companies to exploit a foreign lack of regulation while hammering US small businesses that can't necessarily operate globaly. If an Indian battery company wants to pollute the Ganges and have their employees working in the dark at age 12, fine, but they can't sell them in the US without a huge tax. If they subscribe to various environmental stardards, keep their workforce above 16 and provide adequate safety then they can sell in the US without the tarriff.

quote:

I don't see this interfering with foriegn entities but rather protecting the US middle-class.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri


But, is there an automated plant in MO that can do that? How many net jobs are you even talking about increasing here? Tariffs will have to make importing less profitable. A plant in Bangladesh won't care if the consumer is paying the tax. Why would they? The amount of their exports might drop, but it won't be costing them any more money. If the exporters are paying the tariff, then it will have to be high enough to make it more profitable to improve work conditions. If not, it won't have an effect. This is why I believe it has to be an employee-led thing, or led by the citizens of that country.

quote:

quote:

I am not a statist, and I don't want to regulate the hell out of things. In some cases I think the EPA and OSHA over reach. However, many are necessary regs: like the clean air and water acts as well as requiring ear and eye protection. Having complete and open free trade allows large companies to exploit a foreign lack of regulation while hammering US small businesses that can't necessarily operate globaly. If an Indian battery company wants to pollute the Ganges and have their employees working in the dark at age 12, fine, but they can't sell them in the US without a huge tax. If they subscribe to various environmental stardards, keep their workforce above 16 and provide adequate safety then they can sell in the US without the tarriff.

You are, then, dictating that the US method is the "twue way" to do business. You might have some shit come back at you over that stance, regardless of whether it's better or not than what is going on in those other countries.

quote:

quote:

I don't see this interfering with foriegn entities but rather protecting the US middle-class.

Doesn't matter how you see, necessarily. It will]/i] be interfering with foreign entities. What right do you have to dictate to other countries how they make their companies do business? None. I have no qualms about the idea of signing a UN treaty that mandates all the signatories meet minimum labor safety rules. I might have qualms over the particulars in that, but the idea of it is good, IMO. It wouldn't require all countries sign on, but that there is a UN treaty may help organize labor in non-signatory countries to improve standards and compel the government to sign.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
But, is there an automated plant in MO that can do that? How many net jobs are you even talking about increasing here? Tariffs will have to make importing less profitable. A plant in Bangladesh won't care if the consumer is paying the tax. Why would they? The amount of their exports might drop, but it won't be costing them any more money. If the exporters are paying the tariff, then it will have to be high enough to make it more profitable to improve work conditions. If not, it won't have an effect. This is why I believe it has to be an employee-led thing, or led by the citizens of that country.

They would care when their market dries up and they can't sell them anymore.... Yet you miss one thing the employees and citizens are afraid, if they do this the company may move to the next 3rd world hole and the jobs vanish. By the consuming country imposing the laws it levels the playing field and standardizes the practices. Not all the jobs will move back, nor will we stop all the losses, but at least the competition is fair and that's the point. 1 net job is 1 net job. Deregulating us to the level of the 3rd world is not the answer, but holding them to stardards to play in our market is fair.

quote:

quote:

quote:

I am not a statist, and I don't want to regulate the hell out of things. In some cases I think the EPA and OSHA over reach. However, many are necessary regs: like the clean air and water acts as well as requiring ear and eye protection. Having complete and open free trade allows large companies to exploit a foreign lack of regulation while hammering US small businesses that can't necessarily operate globaly. If an Indian battery company wants to pollute the Ganges and have their employees working in the dark at age 12, fine, but they can't sell them in the US without a huge tax. If they subscribe to various environmental stardards, keep their workforce above 16 and provide adequate safety then they can sell in the US without the tarriff.

You are, then, dictating that the US method is the "twue way" to do business. You might have some shit come back at you over that stance, regardless of whether it's better or not than what is going on in those other countries.

Nope it is not the "true way" it is the cost of doing business with us. they can do what they want, but when it comes to our money and marketplace there are rules....that's the point.

quote:

quote:

I don't see this interfering with foriegn entities but rather protecting the US middle-class.

Doesn't matter how you see, necessarily. It will be interfering with foreign entities. What right do you have to dictate to other countries how they make their companies do business? None. I have no qualms about the idea of signing a UN treaty that mandates all the signatories meet minimum labor safety rules. I might have qualms over the particulars in that, but the idea of it is good, IMO. It wouldn't require all countries sign on, but that there is a UN treaty may help organize labor in non-signatory countries to improve standards and compel the government to sign.

quote:

I think you have been an advocate for controled immigration and a secure border...this is no different. Instead of people, its goods. I think you had too much of the free-trade globalization kool-aid.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
And since we are the #1 consumer, they will buckle under our economic might! Rawr! lol

Is that different than, say, forcing them to be our bitches via our military actions?

quote:



They are not necessarily cheating. They are just not playing by the rules we impose on our companies. And, if we say they can't come in unless they are following our rules, isn't that, essentially, telling them that our way is the twue way? Does the American consumer care about the plight of the 3rd world countries more than they care about buying stuff cheap? If not, where does the Federal Government get the authority to put its foot down?

quote:


Oooooh, no. Soooooo wrong on that one. Completely different. "Controlled immigration" is, technically, correct, but not necessarily accurate. I do want there to be controlled immigration, but only to the point where we have a system in place for it. I don't want open borders and no control over who is coming and going. I don't like how our immigration system works now. I want a faster process for immigrants. If you want to equate immigration and importation, we'd have low import reg's and would be aiming to stop illegal importation. Like I said, I have no problem with increasing immigration. I just want it to be legal immigration. I am against illegal immigration.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
And since we are the #1 consumer, they will buckle under our economic might! Rawr! lol
Is that different than, say, forcing them to be our bitches via our military actions?

It is very different

quote:

quote:

They are not necessarily cheating. They are just not playing by the rules we impose on our companies. And, if we say they can't come in unless they are following our rules, isn't that, essentially, telling them that our way is the twue way? Does the American consumer care about the plight of the 3rd world countries more than they care about buying stuff cheap? If not, where does the Federal Government get the authority to put its foot down?

Again it is cost equalization, so our workers have a comepetive shot. Our workers should not suffer at the hands of the regulations put in place to protect them.........If another country wants to treat thier people like shit, so be it, but not at the expense of our labor pool. Again to keep our companies playing by the rules too, not so they can avoid them while benefiting from our money.

quote:

The consumer is so cost driven (especially when they are poor) you need some overarching regs to prevent anarchy.

quote:

Oooooh, no. Soooooo wrong on that one. Completely different. "Controlled immigration" is, technically, correct, but not necessarily accurate. I do want there to be controlled immigration, but only to the point where we have a system in place for it. I don't want open borders and no control over who is coming and going. I don't like how our immigration system works now. I want a faster process for immigrants. If you want to equate immigration and importation, we'd have low import reg's and would be aiming to stop illegal importation. Like I said, I have no problem with increasing immigration. I just want it to be legal immigration. I am against illegal immigration.

I want open trade, but controlled. I don't want dog food killing my dog and major environmental polluters flooding the marketplace with underpriced goods.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

So, our way is the one twue way. "Do it like we say, or fuck you."

quote:

You say that people are price-conscious? Damn right we are. Don't tell me you're not. Now, if we up the costs, what is that going to do to our local poor, who are already scrimping and still not being able to afford a lot of stuff? They are going to end up even more poor, relatively.

At this point in time, are you going to say that regulations are the driving forces in why our workers can't compete (in value added for the cost) internationally?

quote:

You don't want other countries to pollute.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280

quote:

So, our way is the one twue way. "Do it like we say, or fuck you."

Again what of the companies that bail out. GM took billions in bailouts, our tax dollars, now they are majority manufactured in China.....Wonder what the Obama has to say for himself. Ford stayed out of the bailouts and kept their shit in the US and make a superior car and at superior price now, so it can be done if you are smart

quote:

quote:

You say that people are price-conscious? Damn right we are. Don't tell me you're not. Now, if we up the costs, what is that going to do to our local poor, who are already scrimping and still not being able to afford a lot of stuff? They are going to end up even more poor, relatively.
At this point in time, are you going to say that regulations are the driving forces in why our workers can't compete (in value added for the cost) internationally?

However, if the jobs are leaving, it doesn't matter how cheap it is you are fucked. It is better to pay more and have a job than pay less and be totally fucking broke. There is a balance that has to come into play. We have gutted even the most modest protections we have. I will pay more if I know that means better job security and a brighter economic future for me. I have a dedicated practice of dealing as locally as possible with any consumer decision I make. Surprisingly, I have actually saved a lot of money doing it with everyday purchases.

quote:

I am going to say that a driving force is the regs.....Regardless of what you pay an employee in wages you have have to worry about osha compliance, the EPA and now mandatory healthcare. As a conservative, DS, you can't see how that makes the American worker less competitive by no fault of their own? If you value any of those regs you need something in place to prevent them from getting in the way of global competition.......Now if you are for total deregulation here, say so, because that is one way to fix it, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you regulate our labor pool you have to regulate imports in some way to balance the economics.

quote:

quote:

You don't want other countries to pollute.

We do have a case to impose regs on them here....Why? because pollution doesn't always stay where it was released. All the shit from china floats over the pacific and fucks up Cali's air. Last study I saw shows that China now pollutes Cali more than californian drivers and industry does. Plus the amount of shit china and India are dumping into oceans are literally making fish unsafe to eat, even the stuff we catch off our shores and farm off our shores. We desperately need to adopt some global pollution standards and force the regs via trade. 7 Billion people are a major strain on the ecosystem that feeds us etc. We need to keep our cage clean and keep all of the shit from literally piling up. But hey, let US companies avoid billions in compliance costs when they can run over seas and pollute all they want.
The EU put pollution responsibilities on their businesses, even foreign manufactured parts that end up in the EU. Yet BMW, etc is still profitable, so it can be done.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

It should be, and we should dictate. The reason is that is how US companies are avoiding manufacturing costs here by moving over seas and then importing the goods back here. Labor cost is always relative. If you own a factory in MA it will cost you more to employ your workers versus AL. But, you should have equal costs for workplace safety and other concerns. The reason I advocate it is if imported goods don't meet certain humanitarian and environmental standards, they should be tarriffed.
BINGO! That this goes on, and so many people are not alarmed is one of the reasons I state in many ways, we are going backwards.
That would equalize the cost and keep the cost of goods more relative to labor and shipping costs, not regulation. Even if the consumer pays the tarriff so be it. That tarriff changes the supply/demand curve for the foriegn product and changes the economics of manufacturing. If Wally-world can no longer import tube socks a .64$ a pair but rather 1$ a pair and an automated plant in MO can do it for $.98, guess where wally world is buying their socks.....While the plant is Automated there is still a handful of employees that would have jobs and be greatful otherwise.

I am not a statist, and I don't want to regulate the hell out of things. In some cases I think the EPA and OSHA over reach. However, many are necessary regs: like the clean air and water acts as well as requiring ear and eye protection. Having complete and open free trade allows large companies to exploit a foreign lack of regulation while hammering US small businesses that can't necessarily operate globaly. If an Indian battery company wants to pollute the Ganges and have their employees working in the dark at age 12, fine, but they can't sell them in the US without a huge tax. If they subscribe to various environmental stardards, keep their workforce above 16 and provide adequate safety then they can sell in the US without the tarriff.

I don't see this interfering with foriegn entities but rather protecting the US middle-class.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FunCouple5280

It should be, and we should dictate. The reason is that is how US companies are avoiding manufacturing costs here by moving over seas and then importing the goods back here. Labor cost is always relative. If you own a factory in MA it will cost you more to employ your workers versus AL. But, you should have equal costs for workplace safety and other concerns. The reason I advocate it is if imported goods don't meet certain humanitarian and environmental standards, they should be tarriffed. That would equalize the cost and keep the cost of goods more relative to labor and shipping costs, not regulation. Even if the consumer pays the tarriff so be it. That tarriff changes the supply/demand curve for the foriegn product and changes the economics of manufacturing. If Wally-world can no longer import tube socks a .64$ a pair but rather 1$ a pair and an automated plant in MO can do it for $.98, guess where wally world is buying their socks.....While the plant is Automated there is still a handful of employees that would have jobs and be greatful otherwise.

I am not a statist, and I don't want to regulate the hell out of things. In some cases I think the EPA and OSHA over reach. However, many are necessary regs: like the clean air and water acts as well as requiring ear and eye protection. Having complete and open free trade allows large companies to exploit a foreign lack of regulation while hammering US small businesses that can't necessarily operate globaly. If an Indian battery company wants to pollute the Ganges and have their employees working in the dark at age 12, fine, but they can't sell them in the US without a huge tax. If they subscribe to various environmental stardards, keep their workforce above 16 and provide adequate safety then they can sell in the US without the tarriff.

I don't see this interfering with foriegn entities but rather protecting the US middle-class.