Quoted: So when does the transition take place? As a free man, I am free to hire and fire people to work for me. If my business is a sole proprietorship, I am the only owner. So how much do you think society should "restrict" my activities? How about if as an individual who wants to hire some people to help him remodel his house.... how much restriction do you place on them then? So what if 3 people own a house, and want to hire people to remodel it...... because it is multiple people, do you now think society should restrict how they do business? But if those 3 people form a corporation to own and rent the house, somehow they are now so evil the government must have the ability to regulate how they spend thier money? I want to know where you draw the line. A person who has money, can they spend it as they see fit? Can that person buy, sell and trade to make money so long as there is not fraud involved? What if 3 people get together for the purpose of using their money to make more money? But if those people form a corporation, suddenly the government should be able to dictate how they do business? I don't know what in your past made you so bitter about business, but I hate to break it to you that the sole reason business exists is to make money. So long as they do not do so through fraud, the government should not have any involvement. Yes its a mean world, and people get laid off, but thats life and the reality of the world we live in. If your services are no longer required, then they are no longer required, and for you to keep that job only because "society" steps in and says so means that person is nothing more than a leech. If someone does not like thier working conditions, they are free to find a new job. If they can't get any other job because they have no marketable skills, well that reflects back to the decisions they made earlier in life..... some people do what they need to do in order to set themselves up for a successfull life, and other sit back and expect to be "owed" a living for whatever effort they do. If they don't like it, this whole country is covered with community colleges that will, for a very small tuition cost, set them up with any of a number of very marketable skills. they can get off thier ass and better themselves. Whenever I see a plant closing and some dumbass whining about not being able to make that much money anywhere else, I see someone who failed to plan, failed to educate themselves, and felt they were "owed" a living and will whine when thier employer stopped giving them money because thier services were no longer needed. Thier choices earlier in life set them up to be totally dependant on one employer, and they gambled betting that job would always be there and lost. In the end, it comes down to individual responsibility, not some evil done by the corporation.  If I hired the kid down the street to mow my lawn, but one day replaced all my grass with rock, I owe that kid nothing. I no longer need his services. If my yard had steep hills and potholes and was dangerous to mow, the kid is free to either refuse to mow it or ask for money that he feels is worth the risk. If I can find someone else to do it for less, it is only logical to pay the person who is willing to do the job for the least amount that still does it to my standard. Same goes for any employer/employee realtionship, except in your concept of the world where society would be free to step in and tell me "you payed this kid before, so now find something else for him to do, like pulling the weeds from your rocks". I am self employed, but I have backup plans and can market myself to be employed in a number of other areas should my main source of income for whatever reason no longer exist. I manage my own retirement, I manage my own career, and am not owed a living my anyone. I can make my own way, earn my own money, and succeed without the government stepping in.

Yes, it is very obvious that you are self employed, because you have absolutely no clue concerning the current situation in corporate America.  We, as a nation, have not "replaced our grass with rock".  We still have all the grass, and we still need someone to cut it, but we're sending those jobs to other countries because it means greater profits for American corporations.  This is not free trade.  This is not about global competition.  This is about competing against a vastly inferior standard of living.    

Your newly un-employed person will take your advise, and find another profession, but as a society, we lose the ability to "cut our own grass", and become increasingly dependent on the abilities of others.  You haven't paid any attention to the loss of manufacturing jobs in this country, have you?  I have absolutely no problem with a corporation running their business as they see fit, but I do take exception to the current raping of America being perpetrated under the guise of free trade, where corporations enjoy all the benefits of being an "AMERICAN" company, but do not share the costs of providing those benefits.

Who do you think will shoulder the burden of providing relief for these displaced workers in our current welfare society?  Who do you think absorbs the cost of bankruptcy?  Who do you think will pay for the grants to re-educate this worker.  Who do you think will provide for the food / shelter / healthcare of this worker and his family while he is completing his re-education?

Please back slowly away from the big pile of money, and look at the big picture.

Quoted: Can't argue that. Unqualified, untrained and uneducated labor IS cheaper in Mexico than here. Who knew?

The problem is that this trend is moving into the arena of educated / trained/ highly skilled positions.

And besides, we have our own population of unqualified / untrained / uneducated workers that either must be employeed, or financed by our society.

The U.S. tax base supports a veritable laundry list of entitlement programs, and "somebody" has to pay the tab.

Quoted: Yes, it is very obvious that you are self employed, because you have absolutely no clue concerning the current situation in corporate America.  We, as a nation, have not "replaced our grass with rock".  We still have all the grass, and we still need someone to cut it, but we're sending those jobs to other countries because it means greater profits for American corporations.  This is not free trade.  This is not about global competition.  This is about competing against a vastly inferior standard of living.

I know quite well the situation, but I realize something you fail to comprehend.

A business exists for one reason and one reason only, to make money for its owner/stockholders. Not to provide jobs. Want to just create jobs? Go start some sort of non-profit and let me know how it goes.

As a stockholder, I choose to own companies that do that. Some do all thier business entirely in the US, some do not.

American workers are still competative in some areas, and labor cost is not the only reason companies move. Our very burdonsome tax structure and extesive regulation here has a whole lot to do with it as well, and if it was corrected the higher labor costs might be easier to swallow for corporations.

Your newly un-employed person will take your advise, and find another profession, but as a society, we lose the ability to "cut our own grass", and become increasingly dependent on the abilities of others.  You haven't paid any attention to the loss of manufacturing jobs in this country, have you?  I have absolutely no problem with a corporation running their business as they see fit, but I do take exception to the current raping of America being perpetrated under the guise of free trade, where corporations enjoy all the benefits of being an "AMERICAN" company, but do not share the costs of providing those benefits.

You have not payed much attention regarding what you call "American" companies have you? More and more companies are moving thier corporate headquarters overseas because the cost of being an "American" company is way too high under our current tax structure. What are the advantages to being an "American" company you speak of? The big players don't see any.

I see quite well the loss of manufacturing here, so what is your solution? FORCE employers to stay here? That will result in you forcing consumers in this country to pay more for goods, and guess what that comes around to... INFLATION occurs when it takes more money to buy the same goods. If you want companies to stay, make this an attractive place to stay by fixing all the obstacles they face here.

Who do you think will shoulder the burden of providing relief for these displaced workers in our current welfare society?  Who do you think absorbs the cost of bankruptcy?  Who do you think will pay for the grants to re-educate this worker.  Who do you think will provide for the food / shelter / healthcare of this worker and his family while he is completing his re-education?

Quite frankly I am a fan of the get off your ass and pay your own bills method. But I have known plenty of folks who worked whatever job they could get while going to school at night. It wasn't the best paying, and they had to skimp by, but it is doable.

Of course, you propose another form of welfare, just indirect. When you force a company to stay here and keep employing people it does not want to, that too is welfare. Who pays that bill? Every single consumer down the road who pays more $$$ for that product because the government tells the manufacturer who to employ.

Welfare, just the same if the government forces everyone to pay more for stuff so more people can be employed. Less direct than just taking it from you and me, but still government sponsored welfare. And still payed out of my and your pocket, except this system is forever instead of temporary while someone learns a marketable trade.

Please back slowly away from the big pile of money, and look at the big picture.

I see it quite well, for what it really is. I see the problems companies face every day quite well, and know what it takes to run a business in this country.

Quoted: I always have a hard time understanding how free trade is bad

Free trade is good if it is between nations of equal standing- 1st world nations having free trade together while 3rd world countries have free trade with each other, etc.  The problem comes in when free trade is enacted as it currently is- between one 1st world nation and numerous 3rd world nations.  

Third world countries and multinational corporations reap the benefits of the greatest marketplace in the world (USA) while the USA loses in many ways.

Tariffs play into it with some trade agreements: Look at China and South Korea.  China will be exporting cars to the USA soon.  These cars will have a 2.5% tariff placed on them.  Cars imported into China pay a 25% tariff, so a US Car being exported there will pay 10x tariff more then a car being imported here.  South Korea is similiar in the tariffs, the USA imports over 700,000 Korean cars while Korea only imports around 4000 American cars yearly.  This transfers over into other manufacturing areas like textiles, steel, etc also.

The article posted discusses what NAFTA and free trade has done to the country so far: millions of jobs outsourced, Organizations (WTO) created that have power over the sovierenity of the US, etc.

Quoted: A business exists for one reason and one reason only, to make money for its owner/stockholders. Not to provide jobs. Want to just create jobs? Go start some sort of non-profit and let me know how it goes. As a stockholder, I choose to own companies that do that. Some do all thier business entirely in the US, some do not.

All of the benefits, and none of the costs.  All companies are in business to make money, but there are societal costs associated with doing business.

American workers are still competative in some areas, and labor cost is not the only reason companies move. Our very burdonsome tax structure and extesive regulation here has a whole lot to do with it as well, and if it was corrected the higher labor costs might be easier to swallow for corporations.

You have not payed much attention regarding what you call "American" companies have you? More and more companies are moving thier corporate headquarters overseas because the cost of being an "American" company is way too high under our current tax structure. What are the advantages to being an "American" company you speak of? The big players don't see any.

I see quite well the loss of manufacturing here, so what is your solution? FORCE employers to stay here? That will result in you forcing consumers in this country to pay more for goods, and guess what that comes around to... INFLATION occurs when it takes more money to buy the same goods. If you want companies to stay, make this an attractive place to stay by fixing all the obstacles they face here.

You don't get it do you.  I'm not advocating that we FORCE any company to hold U.S. residence, or to employee U.S. workers.  What I am saying, is that if you intend to benefit from our workforce, our infrastructure, and our global status, that it's going to cost you something.  There is no free lunch.  If you choose to locate your corporation outside the U.S., that is entirely up to you and your stockholders.  However, if you do locate your corporation (in part or whole) outside of the U.S., you should not be entitled to any of the benefits afforded an AMERICAN company, and should be subject to the same tariffs and trade restrictions we place on other foreign entities.  If DODGE / FORD / GM want to have their parts made by cheap labor in Mexico, that should be their perogitive, but they should be subject to the same tariffs we place on the other automotive manufacturers.  The problem with NAFTA and other "free trade" agreements boils down to a simple cost benefit analysis; and it's a loser all the way around.  

Quite frankly I am a fan of the get off your ass and pay your own bills method. But I have known plenty of folks who worked whatever job they could get while going to school at night. It wasn't the best paying, and they had to skimp by, but it is doable.

I'm a big fan of personal responsibility.  The part time job / school model works great for the uneducated / unskilled workforce, but as the salary range increases, it just doesn't work.  The worker with the 50K year manufacturing job is not going to be able to meet their responsibilities (mortgage / car payments / credit cards / family) during that process.  They will default, and the rest of our society will have to make up the difference.

Personally, I'm just like the corporations.  I work for compensation.  I don't take to kindly to having to subsidize corporate America.

Quoted: Don't stick up for me...especially if you're going to bad mouth Texas.

Bad mouth Texas... HA!
Do you even know what is going on here, with the Trans Texas Corridor, in addition to all the planned toll roads?

Did you know that the Zetas are literally creating a war-zone in Laredo and El Paso?
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182650,00.html

The border is a TEXAS problem, I definitely think that Toller Perry, the Bush nut-hugger, should get aggressive and shoot back… and quit worrying about an ‘incident’ with Mexico.  

What is the evil in America?

Rampant feelings of entitlement.

FAIR TRADE=GOOD

FREE TRADE=BAD

Free trade will kill what little is left of the middle class in America if it continues. I am all for FAIR trade not FREE trade. How can any American worker or employer compete with a worker in China or Mexico that makes $1 and hour? You can't thats how. China put's insane tarrifs on our goods, but we charge them almost nothing.

Unions have major problems , but they are a very small part of what is going on. Many Non-Union companies have also went under in the last year. Over paid Exec's are just as much to blame as the unions. Unless you own the company no employee, CEO or not is worth $200 million a year. These guys make me want to puke when they bitch and moan about labor cost and raises. Most of these guys get a yearly bounus more then some people make in a lifetime and they have the nerve to look down at a guy asking for a .50 cent raise a hour busting his ass for the company. Greed is a very evil and nasty thing.

Our economy is going to be  service based, not manufactured based in the very near future from what experts say. I am not sure how that is going to work out for most folks or our children. In the future when most Americans are lucky to be working at Wendys and Wal-Mart making $7 an hour who will be able to afford to buy new Cars, Houses and other Goods and Services. I fear what our children will have to face when or if they even can join the work force of the future if this trend continues.

This open border and the NAFTA/CAFTA globalist crowd is what will really kill our Country not terrorist.  Just wait till FTAA comes on line in a few years. Unless you work for the .Gov, State or are a Doctor then the the rest of us better learn Spanish and be able to flip burgers real quick. FTAA= The final nail in the cofin and the death of the middle & upper middle class as we know it from what I see. I pray for our great republic every day. God knows we need it.

Saw in the news this morning that GM's QUARTERLY loss was 4.8 BILLION.  Chapter 13 can not be far off.  I'm afraid that GM and Ford's only chance is to use BK to dump their liabilities for retired workers on to US taxpayers.

Meanwhile, in other news, the percentage of the US economy that comes from manufacturing is about 30%.  That has not changed in over 50 years.

Increasing efficiency in manufacturing means more can be done with less workers.  This service based economy is nonsense.  Our economy is just as dependent on manufacturing as it used to be, it is just that the incredible efficiency gains in that sector have reduced the workforce.  Fewer guys do more, making more labor available for the service sector.  But the percentage of the economy that comes from manufacturing has remained about the same.

How can you justify restricting the american people's ability to buy inferior, more expensive, products just because they're made domestically?

It sounds like some sort of corporate welfare program.

There is definitely an entitlement problem in the manufacturing labor market right now.

On the plus side, the younger generation is realizing that they're parents idea of company loyalty doesn't really exist.  I can only hope they're planning accordingly.

Quoted: Shit, someone left the door open.  The trolls keep getting in.  Time to call an exterminator.

Please... really... I'm on topic; this is a conversation about free trade, and economics.
I have a BS in Econ from an accredited business school at a selective admonitions’ university.

I live in Texas and am actively involved in helping people understand what is going on here with the FTAA and TTC.
Grow up.

Quoted: 2005 was a banner yearsfor the US auto industry.  Peak all-time employment and sales.  Curious that the only companies not sharing in this bounty have union workforces.

WTF are you talking about... they had all time record low profits and both GM and Ford stock was downgraded to junk status????

GM and Ford stock in recent Google news...

Well a job in a Detroit Big 3 Auto manufacturer can sure look good, especially when you're sitting at home, "not making a car" and getting paid the same as the guy doing it cause it's in the Union contract.  Now that's Utopia..

Auto Unions might be the worst example of killing the goose that laid the golden egg.  They've lived in denial for 30 years and will probably pass away in the next 10.

Quoted: What is the evil in America? Rampant feelings of entitlement.

Fixed it for you.

'You're gonna hear a giant sucking sound as American jobs get sent out of the country'

Quoted: Quoted: 2005 was a banner yearsfor the US auto industry.  Peak all-time employment and sales.  Curious that the only companies not sharing in this bounty have union workforces. Yes, the Japanese and Saturn treat their employees very well. Business is booming for these companies in large part because they don't have to labor under the strain of union imposed burdens. But, isn't it possible that these manufacturers treat their employees so well because they fear that if they do not treat their employees well then their employees will organize and demand better pay and better working conditions? Would these companies treat their employees as well as they do if they did not have to worry about the unions coming in? The unions are not completely without value and in the begining they saved the American worker.

I agree,Steve. Those companies know that if they don't treat their employees fairly,there's always the UAW waiting in the wings.
I'm sure businesses in this country would love to see unions banned. Companies bring on unions by their actions.
Clint
FWIW,I work for PPG Industries. We just had our best year in history yet us production workers have been informed there will be no bonus or raise. All the upper management will,however.
No,we aren't union.