Reply With Quote
Well, at one point in our history, a very large number of people worked on farms. Things change.
IBM is now Lenovo. It's part of a trend. Chinese industry is not all happy meals and crappy toys, as you have suggested.
Well, at one point in our history, a very large number of people worked on farms. Things change.
But if their prices are now LOWER than foriegn companies prices, could they not make up for that somewhat by selling more in the American market?
Additionally, are there any American exports that are being sold to China that are bought purposefully because they are cheaper? Or are American exports bought in China due to brand, appeal, etc etc?
I was just being an ass. I know they make more than dog toys.
Hey, if that's your view, fine. I would argue that placing large amounts of unskilled workers out of work is a recipe for two things.
1) Large amounts of social unrest
2) Politicians voted in specifically to benefit those unskilled laborers
I don't think we'd like to see either of those things happen.
These people can't even afford a good pack of smokes, so I don't think they're in the market for a pair of Air Jordans.
You can start taking the conversation seriously anytime you like. De-industrialization has been a for regular Americans, and not just for pampered union workers. Measured by real wages, our fortunes have been going sideways for awhile. Now they're going down.
Where's the theoretical tide that floats all boats? The growth of the last 30 years was a mirage based on unsustainable debt, not real value and productivity.
Well, I guess the only solution is to keep these manufacturing companies afloat on the backs of the US tax payer.
Levelling the playing field isn't tantamount to nationalization. Weak.
Maybe our historical standard of living has been too high. I've seen people use the Loan Star card at HEB and go hop in their Escalade in the parking lot.
Oh no. China is going to close their borders to American goods none of their people can afford anyways. You sound like Clinton when he was pimping most favored nation status with China, talking about how we'd be able to sell our manufactured goods to a market of 1+ billion people. That worked out great!
So then, you admit that de-industrialization adversely affects the fortunes of Americans, and you support that? Efficiency drags us all down, as it should in your view.
But I thought it was supposed to make us richer. You seem to be admitting it doesn't.
You can't have it both ways, Darrin.
You'd be wrong about that. An economy that grows at 8%/year produces a lot of disposable wealth.
Why would we be so pissed off at the Chinese over the piracy of brands if what you were saying were really true?
What about the 99% of Americans incapable of science and engineering?
Well, for those people, there's always real estate and pharmaceutical sales rep.
Nah - just a small part.
Just like they did in the '90's when they spun of Lexmark (printers and typewriters) - IBM is, again, focussing on its CORE business; big, bad, powerful machines for corps. /digression
All I know is that I paid $2500 for a PC when I was in college that would now be a boat anchor.
For that price, I can now get 5 PC's that are about 100x faster.
So, in a sense, I became richer.
There's a doctor's office that shares our lobby in San Antonio; trust me, MOST people are not cut out for pharmaceutical sales rep gigs - don't have the assets. /another digression
It's all wisecracks and anecdotes with you, isn't it, Darrin?
You just pretend to have a real argument. In fact you have nothing but cliches and bs anecdotes that don't mean squat.
Surely you're right. I was responding to Darrin's crack about outsourcing being no big deal because the Chinese do nothing but make gimcracks for little kids. That's plainly false.
I think I know what you're saying.
I worked at an injection molding factory in the late 80's to early 90's. They decided to move the company to Mexico because there was lower overhead and fewer enviro regs. I moved on and learned new skills and got a new job. That's what American's do.
I think the technical term that DarrinS would use is, "Balls to you!" followed by some sort of stuck-out tongue.lol
I think DarrinS has an argument; he just knows it sounds somewhat callous put into actual words.
DarrinS's argument, and correct me if I'm wrong, is this:
If Americans don't have the motivation to exceed in 'smarter' jobs, like engineering and science, then they deserve to die off. Americans need to get smarter than the Chinese, because it's not feasible that our economy will drop to a level where $2 an hour would be acceptable to an American worker, so Chinese will always have the edge in 'menial' jobs. If you're one of the smart ones, you can take advantage of the lowered prices of these goods. If you're not, sucks to be you.
That's all well and good, D. Bully on you and those like you for their resilience and stick-to-it-iveness.
Do you have a problem with having a government that fights for our interests too, instead of throwing us all under the wheels of progress?
Last edited by Winehole23; 09-15-2009 at 02:55 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
