Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What you probably never realized is that automation plays a larger role in American job losses than anything else. In fact some McDonald's restaurants are experimenting with nearly employee free outlets. You go up to the window or counter, punch your order in on the screen, and machines will start producing your order.
It's a growing trend, and I see it all the time since I deal with manufacturing.
Here is a dated article from Professor Walter E Williams, an economist. Again, dated, but it highlights some good points:
The United States is the world's largest recipient of foreign direct investment. According the Economic Report of the President, in 2004, foreigners owned $5.5 trillion in U.S. assets and had $2.3 trillion in sales. They produced $515 billion of goods and services, accounting for 5.7 percent of total U.S. private output, and employed 5.1 million workers, or 4.7 percent of the U.S. workforce in 2004. According to the Congressional Research Service, in 2006 alone, foreign investors spent $184 billion investing in U.S. businesses and real estate, the highest amount foreign investors have spent since 2000. My question to Clinton, Obama and the anti-trade lobby is, would Americans be better off if there were no foreign investment in our country?
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, between 1996 and 2006, about 15 million jobs were lost and 17 million created each year. That's an annual net creation of 2 million jobs. Roughly 3 percent of the jobs lost were a result of foreign competition. Most were lost because of technology, domestic competition and changes in consumer tastes.
Some of the gain in jobs is a result of "insourcing". Foreign companies, such as Nissan, Honda, Nokia, and Novartis, set up plants, hire American workers and pay them wages higher than the national average. According to Dartmouth College professor Matthew Slaughter, "insourced" jobs paid a salary 32 percent higher than the average U.S. salary. So here's my question to anti-traders: If "outsourcing" is harmful to the U.S., it must also be harmful to European countries and Japan; would you advise them to take their jobs back home?
Wal-Mart has become the whipping boy for political demagogues, unions and anti-traders. I suggest that they have the wrong target. The correct target is revealed by answering the question: "Why does Wal-Mart exist and prosper?"
Wal-Mart exists and prospers because tens of millions of Americans find Wal-Mart to be a suitable source of goods and services. Clinton, Obama, unions and anti-traders should direct their outrage and condemnation at the tens of millions of Americans who shop at Wal-Mart and keep it in business.
There's great angst over the loss of manufacturing jobs. The number of U.S. manufacturing jobs has fallen, and it's mainly a result of technological innovation, and it's a worldwide phenomenon. Daniel W. Drezner, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, in "The Outsourcing Bogeyman" (Foreign Affairs, May/June 2004), notes that U.S. manufacturing employment between 1995 and 2002 fell by 11 percent. Globally, manufacturing job loss averaged 11 percent. China lost 15 percent of its manufacturing jobs, 4.5 million manufacturing jobs compared with the loss of 3.1 million in the U.S. Job loss is the trend among the top 10 manufacturing countries who produce 75 percent of the world's manufacturing output (the U.S., Japan, Germany, China, Britain, France, Italy, Korea, Canada and Mexico).
But guess what — globally, manufacturing output rose by 30 percent during the same period. According to research by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, U.S. manufacturing output increased by 100 percent between 1987 and today. Technological progress and innovation is the primary cause for the decrease in manufacturing jobs. Should we save manufacturing jobs by outlawing labor-saving equipment and technology?
Economist Joseph Schumpeter referred to this process witnessed in market economies as "creative destruction," where technology, innovation and trade destroy some jobs while creating others. While the process works hardships on some people, any attempt to impede the process will make all of us worse off.
Walter Williams
That explains some, but still MANY just got shipped to China. Also I don't think that explains the IT jobs and other types also lost.
It's the same problem that I described in my line of work. What they are doing is bringing in foreigners who will work for much less money. It's not totally a blue collar thing. Foreigners are taking our jobs is on nearly every level.
Wouldn't more unions fix that problem?
No, because history has a way of repeating itself. Bring in unions, and those companies that are employing foreigners will move out of the country and still employ non-Americans.
There are a lot of jobs you can't do that with. Like building houses for instance. Can't rally do that with on site IT either.
Which is exactly my point. However, when minimum wage increases, more restaurants will want to be like McDonald's A.
So you think that Wal-Mart shoppers are fooled into believing that they are buying cheaper American made products because of the small writing?
You can kid yourself all you like, but there are no shoppers at Wal-Mart that doesn't understand what they are buying and from whom.
That explains some, but still MANY just got shipped to China. Also I don't think that explains the IT jobs and other types also lost.
It's the same problem that I described in my line of work. What they are doing is bringing in foreigners who will work for much less money. It's not totally a blue collar thing. Foreigners are taking our jobs is on nearly every level.
Wouldn't more unions fix that problem?
No, because history has a way of repeating itself. Bring in unions, and those companies that are employing foreigners will move out of the country and still employ non-Americans.
There are a lot of jobs you can't do that with. Like building houses for instance. Can't rally do that with on site IT either.
So how does a union construction company that builds houses compete with a non-union construction company that can build houses for 1/3 cheaper? The only thing you accomplish is putting the union construction company out of business.
I give a fuck because i believe EVERY AMERICAN should be treated equally. I don't hoist one person up over another.Why do you give a fuck about the problems of billionaires? As far as I am concerned they can take their precious money and take a hike if they feel that having full access to a compliant government in the best country in the world to be wealthy is just too expensive.Why are the expected to carry the weight of the other 300 million?
I think you should listen to "The Donald" on this one. Very few people want to see the wealthy and super wealthy raped financially. At the same time, they should pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes than the rest of us.
Why?
Opinions aren't "right" they are opinions. Nothing more.I give a fuck because i believe EVERY AMERICAN should be treated equally. I don't hoist one person up over another.Why do you give a fuck about the problems of billionaires? As far as I am concerned they can take their precious money and take a hike if they feel that having full access to a compliant government in the best country in the world to be wealthy is just too expensive.Why are the expected to carry the weight of the other 300 million?
I think you should listen to "The Donald" on this one. Very few people want to see the wealthy and super wealthy raped financially. At the same time, they should pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes than the rest of us.
Why?
Because he is right on this one.
I give a fuck because i believe EVERY AMERICAN should be treated equally. I don't hoist one person up over another.Why do you give a fuck about the problems of billionaires? As far as I am concerned they can take their precious money and take a hike if they feel that having full access to a compliant government in the best country in the world to be wealthy is just too expensive.Why are the expected to carry the weight of the other 300 million?
I think you should listen to "The Donald" on this one. Very few people want to see the wealthy and super wealthy raped financially. At the same time, they should pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes than the rest of us.
They already pay almost all of the income taxes collected by the federal government as it is. You want even more?
Our problem isn't tax collections, our problem is spending. Visit Open Secrets sometime and take a look for yourself what we are spending our money on.
I give a fuck because i believe EVERY AMERICAN should be treated equally. I don't hoist one person up over another.Why do you give a fuck about the problems of billionaires? As far as I am concerned they can take their precious money and take a hike if they feel that having full access to a compliant government in the best country in the world to be wealthy is just too expensive.Why are the expected to carry the weight of the other 300 million?
I think you should listen to "The Donald" on this one. Very few people want to see the wealthy and super wealthy raped financially. At the same time, they should pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes than the rest of us.
They already pay almost all of the income taxes collected by the federal government as it is. You want even more?
Our problem isn't tax collections, our problem is spending. Visit Open Secrets sometime and take a look for yourself what we are spending our money on.
First of all, we have a bigger revenue problem than we do a spending problem, although spending is also too high. Secondly, when are cons going to quit using federal income taxes as an example of how much the wealthy pay in taxes. Why don't you just concentrate on how little they pay when it comes to all other taxes, where the average American pays two to four times as much as they do as a percentage of income? When you cherry pick, plan on being called out on it by those who know better.
Liberal thief credentials bruhI give a fuck because i believe EVERY AMERICAN should be treated equally. I don't hoist one person up over another.Why do you give a fuck about the problems of billionaires? As far as I am concerned they can take their precious money and take a hike if they feel that having full access to a compliant government in the best country in the world to be wealthy is just too expensive.
I think you should listen to "The Donald" on this one. Very few people want to see the wealthy and super wealthy raped financially. At the same time, they should pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes than the rest of us.
They already pay almost all of the income taxes collected by the federal government as it is. You want even more?
Our problem isn't tax collections, our problem is spending. Visit Open Secrets sometime and take a look for yourself what we are spending our money on.
First of all, we have a bigger revenue problem than we do a spending problem, although spending is also too high. Secondly, when are cons going to quit using federal income taxes as an example of how much the wealthy pay in taxes. Why don't you just concentrate on how little they pay when it comes to all other taxes, where the average American pays two to four times as much as they do as a percentage of income? When you cherry pick, plan on being called out on it by those who know better.
Here's a better idea: why don't you quit focusing on what others are making? How is it your (or anybody else's) business? What qualifies you to be the receptor of money other people make?
It's the same problem that I described in my line of work. What they are doing is bringing in foreigners who will work for much less money. It's not totally a blue collar thing. Foreigners are taking our jobs is on nearly every level.
Wouldn't more unions fix that problem?
No, because history has a way of repeating itself. Bring in unions, and those companies that are employing foreigners will move out of the country and still employ non-Americans.
There are a lot of jobs you can't do that with. Like building houses for instance. Can't rally do that with on site IT either.
So how does a union construction company that builds houses compete with a non-union construction company that can build houses for 1/3 cheaper? The only thing you accomplish is putting the union construction company out of business.
That's why I said more unions. If all were Union you don't have that problem. Problem solved.
Which is exactly my point. However, when minimum wage increases, more restaurants will want to be like McDonald's A.
Not really. The fact is, those machines are threatened every few years, but no one really wants to buy them or use them.
So you think that Wal-Mart shoppers are fooled into believing that they are buying cheaper American made products because of the small writing?
You can kid yourself all you like, but there are no shoppers at Wal-Mart that doesn't understand what they are buying and from whom.
Have you met WalMart shoppers?
Wouldn't more unions fix that problem?
No, because history has a way of repeating itself. Bring in unions, and those companies that are employing foreigners will move out of the country and still employ non-Americans.
There are a lot of jobs you can't do that with. Like building houses for instance. Can't rally do that with on site IT either.
So how does a union construction company that builds houses compete with a non-union construction company that can build houses for 1/3 cheaper? The only thing you accomplish is putting the union construction company out of business.
That's why I said more unions. If all were Union you don't have that problem. Problem solved.
So how do you force a company to be union if the don't want to be?
And even if you could possibly do that, what's stopping anybody else from starting their own non-union construction company and putting everybody else out of business?
I give a fuck because i believe EVERY AMERICAN should be treated equally. I don't hoist one person up over another.Why do you give a fuck about the problems of billionaires? As far as I am concerned they can take their precious money and take a hike if they feel that having full access to a compliant government in the best country in the world to be wealthy is just too expensive.
I think you should listen to "The Donald" on this one. Very few people want to see the wealthy and super wealthy raped financially. At the same time, they should pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes than the rest of us.
They already pay almost all of the income taxes collected by the federal government as it is. You want even more?
Our problem isn't tax collections, our problem is spending. Visit Open Secrets sometime and take a look for yourself what we are spending our money on.
First of all, we have a bigger revenue problem than we do a spending problem, although spending is also too high. Secondly, when are cons going to quit using federal income taxes as an example of how much the wealthy pay in taxes. Why don't you just concentrate on how little they pay when it comes to all other taxes, where the average American pays two to four times as much as they do as a percentage of income? When you cherry pick, plan on being called out on it by those who know better.
Here's a better idea: why don't you quit focusing on what others are making? How is it your (or anybody else's) business? What qualifies you to be the receptor of money other people make?
Did you hear that on Sesame Street or Mr Rodgers? That is so simple minded it sure as fuck didn't come out of any business class lectureI give a fuck because i believe EVERY AMERICAN should be treated equally. I don't hoist one person up over another.
I think you should listen to "The Donald" on this one. Very few people want to see the wealthy and super wealthy raped financially. At the same time, they should pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes than the rest of us.
They already pay almost all of the income taxes collected by the federal government as it is. You want even more?
Our problem isn't tax collections, our problem is spending. Visit Open Secrets sometime and take a look for yourself what we are spending our money on.
First of all, we have a bigger revenue problem than we do a spending problem, although spending is also too high. Secondly, when are cons going to quit using federal income taxes as an example of how much the wealthy pay in taxes. Why don't you just concentrate on how little they pay when it comes to all other taxes, where the average American pays two to four times as much as they do as a percentage of income? When you cherry pick, plan on being called out on it by those who know better.
Here's a better idea: why don't you quit focusing on what others are making? How is it your (or anybody else's) business? What qualifies you to be the receptor of money other people make?
When inequality grows the economy slows, that is bad for everyone.
No, because history has a way of repeating itself. Bring in unions, and those companies that are employing foreigners will move out of the country and still employ non-Americans.
There are a lot of jobs you can't do that with. Like building houses for instance. Can't rally do that with on site IT either.
So how does a union construction company that builds houses compete with a non-union construction company that can build houses for 1/3 cheaper? The only thing you accomplish is putting the union construction company out of business.
That's why I said more unions. If all were Union you don't have that problem. Problem solved.
So how do you force a company to be union if the don't want to be?
And even if you could possibly do that, what's stopping anybody else from starting their own non-union construction company and putting everybody else out of business?
Make it a law everyone has to be in a union. That would solve your problem.
There are a lot of jobs you can't do that with. Like building houses for instance. Can't rally do that with on site IT either.
So how does a union construction company that builds houses compete with a non-union construction company that can build houses for 1/3 cheaper? The only thing you accomplish is putting the union construction company out of business.
That's why I said more unions. If all were Union you don't have that problem. Problem solved.
So how do you force a company to be union if the don't want to be?
And even if you could possibly do that, what's stopping anybody else from starting their own non-union construction company and putting everybody else out of business?
Make it a law everyone has to be in a union. That would solve your problem.
Where do you think we live, in the former USSR?
I give a fuck because i believe EVERY AMERICAN should be treated equally. I don't hoist one person up over another.
I think you should listen to "The Donald" on this one. Very few people want to see the wealthy and super wealthy raped financially. At the same time, they should pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes than the rest of us.
They already pay almost all of the income taxes collected by the federal government as it is. You want even more?
Our problem isn't tax collections, our problem is spending. Visit Open Secrets sometime and take a look for yourself what we are spending our money on.
First of all, we have a bigger revenue problem than we do a spending problem, although spending is also too high. Secondly, when are cons going to quit using federal income taxes as an example of how much the wealthy pay in taxes. Why don't you just concentrate on how little they pay when it comes to all other taxes, where the average American pays two to four times as much as they do as a percentage of income? When you cherry pick, plan on being called out on it by those who know better.
Here's a better idea: why don't you quit focusing on what others are making? How is it your (or anybody else's) business? What qualifies you to be the receptor of money other people make?
When inequality grows the economy slows, that is bad for everyone.
So how does a union construction company that builds houses compete with a non-union construction company that can build houses for 1/3 cheaper? The only thing you accomplish is putting the union construction company out of business.
That's why I said more unions. If all were Union you don't have that problem. Problem solved.
So how do you force a company to be union if the don't want to be?
And even if you could possibly do that, what's stopping anybody else from starting their own non-union construction company and putting everybody else out of business?
Make it a law everyone has to be in a union. That would solve your problem.
Where do you think we live, in the former USSR?
Did they have unions? Hey you said what you think the problem is and I told you how to solve it.
I think you should listen to "The Donald" on this one. Very few people want to see the wealthy and super wealthy raped financially. At the same time, they should pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes than the rest of us.
They already pay almost all of the income taxes collected by the federal government as it is. You want even more?
Our problem isn't tax collections, our problem is spending. Visit Open Secrets sometime and take a look for yourself what we are spending our money on.
First of all, we have a bigger revenue problem than we do a spending problem, although spending is also too high. Secondly, when are cons going to quit using federal income taxes as an example of how much the wealthy pay in taxes. Why don't you just concentrate on how little they pay when it comes to all other taxes, where the average American pays two to four times as much as they do as a percentage of income? When you cherry pick, plan on being called out on it by those who know better.
Here's a better idea: why don't you quit focusing on what others are making? How is it your (or anybody else's) business? What qualifies you to be the receptor of money other people make?
When inequality grows the economy slows, that is bad for everyone.
Nope. Inequity has been growing for many years now: through the Clinton years, the George Bush years, yet we have had some great economies during those times.
You fall under this false liberal belief that we are in a bubble. In our bubble, there is only so much money. When somebody in our bubble has too much money, it causes others to have to little. So if we forcibly take money from those who have it, somehow.....it will make it better for those that don't.
It's a false premise. Now if I go to my boss and ask for a raise, and he tells me he'd love to give me one, but the rich have all the money, then you'd be on to something. But thus far, that's never happened to me or anybody else I know.
That's why I said more unions. If all were Union you don't have that problem. Problem solved.
So how do you force a company to be union if the don't want to be?
And even if you could possibly do that, what's stopping anybody else from starting their own non-union construction company and putting everybody else out of business?
Make it a law everyone has to be in a union. That would solve your problem.
Where do you think we live, in the former USSR?
Did they have unions? Hey you said what you think the problem is and I told you how to solve it.
Well if we are going to go against our freedom and morals, then the solution to illegal immigrants is for police to shoot them on sight. That would chase the rest away. Problem solved.
