Kevinpreston3
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2005
- Messages
- 484
Let me start by saying that I am not an economist. I am also not anti-trade, and neither particularly pro or con union labor.
I will also state that I truly like items made in the USA, I seek them out, and am a bit saddened to find things like Lionel Trains, almost all toys, and even domestic car parts made in China, along with most of our appliances now. News of the upset at Maytag, etc, is not news to my friends here.
I think it's a big mistake to have so much reliance on foreign countries to make all our "stuff". I keep hearing how this is good for our economy. I took Sociology 101, so I know that healthy trading partners are good for all, but maybe I still don't get the trend of everything being made somewhere else, and the USA being some kind of "brain trust". What happens when other countries develop their own brain trust?
As such, I found an article that states some interesting points that I have heard before. I wanted to post some of it here, in context of our previous socio-economic-appliance discussions. For copyright reasons I post only a portion and the balance can be found in the link.
This is from an online appliance "newszine" for want of a better word.
--------------------------------
The list of companies that have moved their manufacturing outside of the U.S. is long. Most recently, compressor maker Tecumseh announced it was moving its production from the U.S. to India. Earlier this year, Maytag Corp. transferred four assembly operations to a maquiladora in Reynosa, Mexico and had additional plans to transfer 12 others. Then there is General Electric Co., a leading advocate of globalizing production. It uses Mexican factories to make everything from medical diagnostic gear to appliances.
The reality is that the manufacturing world is international. But some have trouble stomaching that belief when it comes to lost jobs for Americans. Such is the case regarding the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) of 1994, which frees up the flow of goods and services between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada. NAFTA in particular has been singled out as the reason that some Americans have lost their jobs. According to a report by the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, D.C., U.S. between 1993 and 2000, NAFTA is said to have claimed 766,030 American jobs. The state of California reportedly suffered the most, with 82,354 jobs lost and traditional industrial states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana each lost more than 20,000 jobs. The NAFTA at Seven report says that number does not take into account the jobs shifted to China, Singapore, Indonesia, the Philippines, and the rest of the world beyond the NAFTA zone. The report does not take into account new jobs created by NAFTA.
Proponents of NAFTA, however, point to how foreign trade is the area of greatest growth potential for the U.S. According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, NAFTA has actually helped to strengthen the U.S. economy. For example, during NAFTA's first 5 years, U.S. goods exports to U.S. NAFTA partners Mexico and Canada increased by approximately U.S. $93 billion or 66 percent. Export growth to Mexico and Canada alone accounted for more than 40 percent of U.S. export growth to the entire world.
Consequently, according to the USTR Office, formal trading arrangements can ultimately help the U.S. weather the shifts in the global economy. Therefore, although in the short term a small number of American employees may lose their jobs, a greater number can benefit from newly created jobs, an even greater number may benefit from low-cost products, and everyone in the U.S. benefits from a stronger economy due to healthy international trade and strong trading neighbors.
-------------------------------------------------
The last paragraph is one that I have seen in endless verstions and iterations. And I still don't get it. Or maybe I do.
It seems to me that one can glean from this article that our exports to Canada and Mexico have gone up. Since we are not making alot now, I would imagine that would be in raw materials such as wood, raw plastics and steel. I would imagine that would be so that they could cheaply make products for us. Am I correct so far? The article, like so many others, doesn't have much depth in this area.
It goes on to say that a "small number" of American employees lose their jobs, but a greater number can benefit from the "newly created jobs". Can anyone let me know exactly what these newly created jobs are? No article ever seems to state what that is. I do know that the biggest employer now is...er, yeah, that would be WalMart. So is the connection here that a machinist, fabricator, assembler, packager, etc can shrug off the closure of a plant and go happily and be a WalMart greeter? Are the pay and benefits close?
I am waiting to have someone answer what these jobs are. Hello? What about all the firms that feed the manufacturers when they are here? Suppliers, outfitters, maintenance, food service. What about the US jobs lost in these areas? Is there a domino effect, or am I just a stupid American who obviously does not get that the "manufacturing world is international"?
I benefit from low cost goods huh? Well, they better be low cost, so the folks working at WalMart can afford them. Why do my super conservative buddies (and I am conservative, just not a fool) claim that there is no such thing as a "race to the bottom". Are cheap prices all that really matters?
For now it is. People love WalMart. The love paying cheap prices, more than they care about their country, our future, service, trade, and US economic interests.
Me? I don't want a $9 toaster made in China. I want a $50 toaster made in America that lasts 20 times longer. That's value, and that is something we used to believe in.
I will also state that I truly like items made in the USA, I seek them out, and am a bit saddened to find things like Lionel Trains, almost all toys, and even domestic car parts made in China, along with most of our appliances now. News of the upset at Maytag, etc, is not news to my friends here.
I think it's a big mistake to have so much reliance on foreign countries to make all our "stuff". I keep hearing how this is good for our economy. I took Sociology 101, so I know that healthy trading partners are good for all, but maybe I still don't get the trend of everything being made somewhere else, and the USA being some kind of "brain trust". What happens when other countries develop their own brain trust?
As such, I found an article that states some interesting points that I have heard before. I wanted to post some of it here, in context of our previous socio-economic-appliance discussions. For copyright reasons I post only a portion and the balance can be found in the link.
This is from an online appliance "newszine" for want of a better word.
--------------------------------
The list of companies that have moved their manufacturing outside of the U.S. is long. Most recently, compressor maker Tecumseh announced it was moving its production from the U.S. to India. Earlier this year, Maytag Corp. transferred four assembly operations to a maquiladora in Reynosa, Mexico and had additional plans to transfer 12 others. Then there is General Electric Co., a leading advocate of globalizing production. It uses Mexican factories to make everything from medical diagnostic gear to appliances.
The reality is that the manufacturing world is international. But some have trouble stomaching that belief when it comes to lost jobs for Americans. Such is the case regarding the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) of 1994, which frees up the flow of goods and services between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada. NAFTA in particular has been singled out as the reason that some Americans have lost their jobs. According to a report by the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, D.C., U.S. between 1993 and 2000, NAFTA is said to have claimed 766,030 American jobs. The state of California reportedly suffered the most, with 82,354 jobs lost and traditional industrial states such as Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana each lost more than 20,000 jobs. The NAFTA at Seven report says that number does not take into account the jobs shifted to China, Singapore, Indonesia, the Philippines, and the rest of the world beyond the NAFTA zone. The report does not take into account new jobs created by NAFTA.
Proponents of NAFTA, however, point to how foreign trade is the area of greatest growth potential for the U.S. According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, NAFTA has actually helped to strengthen the U.S. economy. For example, during NAFTA's first 5 years, U.S. goods exports to U.S. NAFTA partners Mexico and Canada increased by approximately U.S. $93 billion or 66 percent. Export growth to Mexico and Canada alone accounted for more than 40 percent of U.S. export growth to the entire world.
Consequently, according to the USTR Office, formal trading arrangements can ultimately help the U.S. weather the shifts in the global economy. Therefore, although in the short term a small number of American employees may lose their jobs, a greater number can benefit from newly created jobs, an even greater number may benefit from low-cost products, and everyone in the U.S. benefits from a stronger economy due to healthy international trade and strong trading neighbors.
-------------------------------------------------
The last paragraph is one that I have seen in endless verstions and iterations. And I still don't get it. Or maybe I do.
It seems to me that one can glean from this article that our exports to Canada and Mexico have gone up. Since we are not making alot now, I would imagine that would be in raw materials such as wood, raw plastics and steel. I would imagine that would be so that they could cheaply make products for us. Am I correct so far? The article, like so many others, doesn't have much depth in this area.
It goes on to say that a "small number" of American employees lose their jobs, but a greater number can benefit from the "newly created jobs". Can anyone let me know exactly what these newly created jobs are? No article ever seems to state what that is. I do know that the biggest employer now is...er, yeah, that would be WalMart. So is the connection here that a machinist, fabricator, assembler, packager, etc can shrug off the closure of a plant and go happily and be a WalMart greeter? Are the pay and benefits close?
I am waiting to have someone answer what these jobs are. Hello? What about all the firms that feed the manufacturers when they are here? Suppliers, outfitters, maintenance, food service. What about the US jobs lost in these areas? Is there a domino effect, or am I just a stupid American who obviously does not get that the "manufacturing world is international"?
I benefit from low cost goods huh? Well, they better be low cost, so the folks working at WalMart can afford them. Why do my super conservative buddies (and I am conservative, just not a fool) claim that there is no such thing as a "race to the bottom". Are cheap prices all that really matters?
For now it is. People love WalMart. The love paying cheap prices, more than they care about their country, our future, service, trade, and US economic interests.
Me? I don't want a $9 toaster made in China. I want a $50 toaster made in America that lasts 20 times longer. That's value, and that is something we used to believe in.