| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Is CAFTA a good thing? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 28 2005, 07:34 AM (487 Views) | |
| gvok | Jul 28 2005, 07:34 AM Post #1 |
|
Unregistered
|
source
|
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Wichita | Jul 28 2005, 07:51 AM Post #2 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
I honestly don't know. I do know that 1 in 6 American jobs are currently dependent on trade. It's not something that we can ignore. Also, plans were (and are still probably) being made to have a free enterprise zone throughout South America. Central America would inevitably go one way or another. It will be interesting to see where this goes. Finally, so many of the companies that went overseas during the late 1990's have since made additional moves. Mexico (I know - it's not Central American. I'm using it as an example.) was quite happy to get the plants from the US and their citizens the work even at the lower wages. Now, however, some of those same plants have moved on to China or Vietnam at even lower wages. Some of those countries who initially benefitted from jobs going overseas are now dealing with jobs going overseas. Their viewpoint may be a tad different on the subject. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Jul 28 2005, 08:18 AM Post #3 |
|
Unregistered
|
I don't know either. Are wages raising in China and India? Are there other countries with even lower wages? At some point will wages level out on a global scale? How long will that take? |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Dr. Noah | Jul 28 2005, 09:13 AM Post #4 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
Without equivalent labor and environmental standards, several industries will leave the United States and take thousands of jobs with them in order to pay workers far less and not have to adhere to labor and environmental regulations we have put into place to protect ourselves in the U.S. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| psyfi | Jul 28 2005, 09:55 PM Post #5 |
|
psyfi
|
My goodness. I agree! I don't know what all of this global free trade is about other than to make the rich a whole lot richer. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| 24thcenstfan | Jul 29 2005, 03:36 AM Post #6 |
|
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
|
I voted 'No' for similar reasons that Dr. Noah so eloquently states. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Jul 29 2005, 08:31 AM Post #7 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Funny, though... I'm okay with that
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | Jul 29 2005, 08:38 AM Post #8 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
Some say there is a greater cost in jobs to the US economy of not allowing free trade and protecting industries against outsourcing. If there is a product (product X) that can be produced by unskilled labor. And this product is necessary and desired by a lot of other companies that make other things. Then we force the companies to pay 3 times more for product X than they would if it was made in China so that we can protect a few thousand low paying unskilled jobs in the US. These companies can't produce as much of its revenue generating product as they could for the same amount money. These companies, therefore, have to sell their product at higher prices meaning fewer sales and difficulty competing in foreign markets, meaning fewer jobs. Also, meaning consumers get less for thier dollars. All to save a few thousand low paying unskilled jobs. And then there is the cost of having expensive, yet very productive US workers doing something that could be done elsewhere for cheaper when the US workers could be doing something else more productive. Out-sourcing has not hurt the US economy or job market, it has helped. So, we buy cheap, incredibly low-margin stuff from China, who does that help? Us, that's who. Who has a better economy, better employment, better standards of living, much, much, much higher GDP per capita, etc. etc. etc.? Us that's who. Allowing companies to be competitive and cut costs and grow, is what will provide job growth for the US, not backwards protectionism. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Jul 29 2005, 08:45 AM Post #9 |
|
Unregistered
|
Do you think that it's good for a society to have a wide disparity between rich and poor? |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| psyfi | Jul 29 2005, 08:47 AM Post #10 |
|
psyfi
|
Regarding outsourcing, I don't know a lot about it except from the standpoint of the consumer. I wonder how much it costs companies in terms of my having to talk to folks who don't speak English, forcing me to call again, forcing me to make mistakes in terms of the product, and so forth. In fact, if I have to go through that, I doubt I will EVER buy the product again or anything else from that company. Also, I think that more than a few thousand unskilled jobs are lost. I think that many hard working but low-wage earner families are seriously hurt by companies relocating to other countries. I also believe that in many companies, they buy that part they need for two cents and CONTINUE to sell it to American consumers at the same high price. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Hoss | Jul 29 2005, 09:11 AM Post #11 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
To answer a question that was not directed at me, I think that it is ok and beneficial to have income and wealth disparity. To address Psyfi, on the foriegn language tech/sales support. There have been companies run up against this issue with their customers. Dell last year, relocated a lot of thier tech support back to the USA as their customers where complaining about not being able to understand the accented Indians. Dell's customer service score plummeted and they responded. The free market works. Alot of companies are outsourcing to India because of labor shortages in the US. We're at 5% unemployment, many economist call this 'natural unemployment', as it is the equivolent of the average worker being out-of-work for 6 months over a 10 year period. India has people who can speak English and who are reasonable well educated in technical skills and a huge labor surplus. Do companies migrate a product to China to cut costs and increase profits? Yes, all the time. And much of the increased profits are invested in the development of new products to grow the company. The Chinese worker makes beans, the Chinese contract manufacturer makes almost no margin, the US company makes more profit and grows and hire more people. The US labor market is dynamic and always has been. Workers must adapt. We can't afford to have US workers making plastic toys and textiles, or even doing repetive hand assembly of products. And if you don't think that prices come down, go shopping for VCRs, TVs, computers and tell me how much they were 15 years ago compared to today. Then convert that to relative dollars. It is astounding! |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Jul 29 2005, 09:23 AM Post #12 |
|
Unregistered
|
The question is about wide disparity, not just any disparity. Many countries have experienced social upheaval because the gap between rich and poor was too vast (France and Russia for example). |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| Hoss | Jul 29 2005, 09:34 AM Post #13 |
![]()
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
|
But that was disparity enforced by a strict political system that created and protected an elite. (I am assuming that you are referring to the French revolution and the fall of communism in the USSR). What we have in a capitalist society is the opportunity of upward (and downward) mobility based on ones hard work, ambition and creativity. Most millionaires in the USA are first generation (self-made). Nobody is forcing anybody to stay in some caste or some roll in society. There are peasants or serfs in the US. No collective factories and farms. Bill Gates, the richest man on earth, was poorer than me and working out of his garage 30 years ago. Now, he is as wealthy as he can be, but he also not only employs thousands, but produces products that have improved efficiency (whether us geeks want to admit it or not) for other businesses and been a key part of the computer revolution. He has benefitted society and been handsomely rewarded for it. If Vista flops and he doesn't keep up with his competitors (both domestic and abroad) he could lose a great deal of his wealth. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| gvok | Jul 29 2005, 09:44 AM Post #14 |
|
Unregistered
|
Regardless of what the system is, a society becomes unstable when there is a wide disparity between rich and poor and especially when the middle class is small or non existant. It is in the wealthiest people's interest to grow the middle class for this reason. |
| | Quote | ^ | |
| ImpulseEngine | Jul 29 2005, 09:57 AM Post #15 |
|
Admiral
|
I voted NO. How about that Bush. After coming into office and losing millions of US jobs, he's finally creating some jobs - in Central America. :rolleyes: |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |



2:08 PM Jul 11