• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

CROOKED Hilary

And you're fine with this, the dishonesty?


All politicians are FOS and lie to promote their agenda. When Bernie Sanders talks about Corporation X that makes billions of dollars and gets hundreds of millions in tax "rebates", it either shows (a) he has no idea what he is talking about, or (b) he is lying.

But his acolytes soak it up, because it is what they want to hear.
 
All politicians are FOS and lie to promote their agenda. When Bernie Sanders talks about Corporation X that makes billions of dollars and gets hundreds of millions in tax "rebates", it either shows (a) he has no idea what he is talking about, or (b) he is lying.

But his acolytes soak it up, because it is what they want to hear.

fXnByz.gif
 
All politicians are FOS and lie to promote their agenda. When Bernie Sanders talks about Corporation X that makes billions of dollars and gets hundreds of millions in tax "rebates", it either shows (a) he has no idea what he is talking about, or (b) he is lying.

But his acolytes soak it up, because it is what they want to hear.

All politicians overeat. Therefore, Chris Christie isn't any fatter than Dennis Kucinich. It's science.
 
Last edited:
"Labor movement"? As in people who want or need jobs?
Jobs created vs jobs lost seems pretty black and white, can you tell me how that could be biased?

No, labor movement as in unions who have a vested interest in providing a slanted view that supports their constituents many of which were in specific industries that might have been losers due to NAFTA, such as textiles.

Jobs lost and jobs created is pretty black and white, and the prevailing consensus among economists is that NAFTA didn't have a significant impact on overall employment levels.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/34486.pdf
 
More than 845,000 U.S. workers in the manufacturing sector have been certified for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) since NAFTA because they lost their jobs due to imports from Canada and Mexico or the relocation of factories to those countries. The TAA program is quite narrow, covering only a subset of jobs lost at manufacturing facilities, and is difficult to qualify for. Thus, the NAFTA TAA numbers significantly undercount NAFTA job loss.
NAFTA contributed to downward pressure on U.S. wages and growing income inequality. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, two out of every three displaced manufacturing workers who were rehired in 2012 experienced wage reductions, most of more than 20 percent. As increasing numbers of workers displaced from manufacturing jobs joined the glut of workers competing for non-offshorable, low-skill jobs in sectors such as hospitality and food service, real wages have also fallen in these sectors since NAFTA. The resulting downward pressure on wages has fueled recent growth in income inequality.
The desperate migration of those displaced from Mexico's rural economy pushed down wages in Mexico's border maquiladora factory zone and contributed to a doubling of Mexican immigration to the United States following NAFTA's implementation.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lori-wallach/nafta-at-20-one-million-u_b_4550207.html
http://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTA-at-20.pdf
 
to be fair, your study is almost 12 years old and from before the recession
 
More advocacy propaganda.

Well apparently Hillary agrees with it, cause she is now siding with the opponents of NAFTA, so you might want to vote Republican. Oh wait, you know Hillary is lying and are cool with it.
 
No, labor movement as in unions who have a vested interest in providing a slanted view that supports their constituents many of which were in specific industries that might have been losers due to NAFTA, such as textiles.

Jobs lost and jobs created is pretty black and white, and the prevailing consensus among economists is that NAFTA didn't have a significant impact on overall employment levels.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/34486.pdf
I don't know where you live, but I live in the NC Triad, and there has definitely been a tremendous loss in manufacturing jobs here in the last 25 years. Do you believe there has been a equivalent job gain in this area in that same time frame, and are the jobs gained accessible to the people who lost their jobs?
 
Last edited:
I'm a firm believer in economic efficiency, so I realize that we could not have maintained our post WW2 manufacturing levels forever, but I don't think it was the healthiest solution for us to expedite that evolution by de-regulating global trade.
 
I don't know where you live, but I live in the NC Triad, and there has definitely been a tremendous loss in manufacturing jobs here in the last 25 years. Do you believe there has been a equivalent job gain in this area in that same time frame, and are the jobs gained accessible to the people who lost their jobs?

I live in Greensboro. It's been an area that was hit hard by losses in textile and furniture jobs. I also happened to do some accounting work at Guilford Mills. I know that their investment in Mexican Maquiladoras from NAFTA soon became obsolete because everybody in the world market was sourcing textiles to the far east where it was even cheaper to produce. Regardless, the concept of protecting non-niche textile manufacturing jobs in the US is a non-sustainable loser when the rest of the world was getting these products cheaper abroad.

I believe that the consensus data shows that NAFTA wasn't the job killer than organized labor concerns claim it was, but even if it did, being protectionist wasn't going to protect those jobs without having a significant negative impact on the US economy as a whole.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Jobs lost and jobs created is pretty black and white,

What? Not true at all. The fastest growing job sectors are those -such as retail - where average hours per week and hourly wages are well below average and most do not have employer-provided benefits. Yet they still register as 1 job, same as a manufacturing job.
 
What? Not true at all. The fastest growing job sectors are those -such as retail - where average hours per week and hourly wages are well below average and most do not have employer-provided benefits. Yet they still register as 1 job, same as a manufacturing job.

Looking at the impact of jobs lost and gained is black and white, not factoring in the quality of those jobs.

Trying to protect high wage jobs for making t-shirts was a loser regardless. Most of the job loss in this industry came from automation. But there was no way to protect US workers making goods to sell in the country when the rest of the world is getting these products cheaper and maintain the US position as the world's economic leader.
 
Back
Top