ccrow wrote:In 1950, the biggest employer in the US was General Motors and the average compensation was the 2014 equivalent of about $50/hour with including pension and health care.
In the early 1950s people were offered the "20 for 50 program" if they were laid off. Twenty bucks a week for fifty weeks.
According to the BLS calculator $50.00 is equivalent to $5.13 in 1950 Dollars. That's $205 a week.
Which means that the average GM employee got paid ten times the going unemployment payout. Which might explain why GM closed plants in North America.
Wal-Mart is retail. In 1950 that was minimum wage work. The Minimum wage in 1950 was 75 cents an hour. Going to our friends at the BLS that happens to equal $7.13 an hour in 2015 dollars. Which means that a Wal-Mart worker is better paid then their grandpappy working the same kind of work in 1950.
Except back then we didn't have half the fucking population on the dole and weren't trying to police the fucking planet. That kind of shit demands a lot of tax money. So grandpappy's money went a lot further back then.
bennyonesix wrote:Come on man. The history post-Nafta has been a reallocation of quality jobs and therefore $$$ away from working class whites to mexican nationals.
That shift is due to a lot of reasons. While NAFTA made cheaper Mexican labor more competitive, we were doing things that made our labor more expensive. Those things include:
1. Health insurance rules
2. Underfunded pensions coming to roost
3. Higher than average corporate tax rates
4. Environmental regulations
RIGHT. So when you enter into an agreement without insisting that both sides adhere to the same rules (health insurance, minimum wages, environmental regulations, occupational safety regulations, you're a RUBE. You just got beat.
It's only confusing if you think the people negotiating "our" side of it have the well being of the US in mind. That's the real rube here!
Are you suggesting that Congress and bureaucratic agencies shouldn't have the power to make laws issue regulations unless they are done in conjunction with Mexico?
You've doubled back on yourself here and lost the plot.
1 ) He's not suggesting that congress be kept from doing anything, he's hit on the central premise of the TPP- and equivalence in how business in conducted among partners...it's an agreed upon ROE. Which cuts against your subtle sovereignty dig there...the reason TPP sucks is because it contains provisions that may conflict with adopted laws policies and protections already part of Federal, State and Local law. But we cant be sure...because it's mostly secret until it got Wikileaked.
2) Even the administration pitching TPP admits that previous trade deals have "failed to deliver"...but because we fucked ourselves in a bunch of other ways concurrent with NAFTA...this is your basic defense of NAFTA. It sucked ass, but we were doing other stupid shit alongside it. How about the radical notion we stop doing harm to ourselves on behalf of large corporate interests whether that's changes in domestic policy and trade policy. Your argument is essentially...we were drinking and drugging it up...so NAFTA was just a case of chlamydia on top of it...can't blame the chlamydia for all your problems. True..but you should still avoid that shit whether or not you're gonna stop drinking.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill
Blaidd Drwg wrote:You've doubled back on yourself here and lost the plot.
1 ) He's not suggesting that congress be kept from doing anything, he's hit on the central premise of the TPP- and equivalence in how business in conducted among partners...it's an agreed upon ROE. Which cuts against your subtle sovereignty dig there...the reason TPP sucks is because it contains provisions that may conflict with adopted laws policies and protections already part of Federal, State and Local law. But we cant be sure...because it's mostly secret until it got Wikileaked.
So what? If it conflicts with existing federal law, it will have to be sorted out-- either by Congress or by the courts. If it conflicts with State laws, that will have to be sorted out by the courts too. For the TPP to be valid, all these ducks need to be in a row. And there are plenty of powerful lobbies that will be involved, not just the corporate ones.
Blaidd Drwg wrote:2) Even the administration pitching TPP admits that previous trade deals have "failed to deliver"...but because we fucked ourselves in a bunch of other ways concurrent with NAFTA...this is your basic defense of NAFTA. It sucked ass, but we were doing other stupid shit alongside it. How about the radical notion we stop doing harm to ourselves on behalf of large corporate interests whether that's changes in domestic policy and trade policy. Your argument is essentially...we were drinking and drugging it up...so NAFTA was just a case of chlamydia on top of it...can't blame the chlamydia for all your problems. True..but you should still avoid that shit whether or not you're gonna stop drinking.
Irrelevant-- he has to please his coalition. Speeches are not always policy. And the self harm we do-- none of my points I brought up are in corporate best interest.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
ccrow wrote:In 1950, the biggest employer in the US was General Motors and the average compensation was the 2014 equivalent of about $50/hour with including pension and health care.
Blaidd Drwg wrote:You've doubled back on yourself here and lost the plot.
1 ) He's not suggesting that congress be kept from doing anything, he's hit on the central premise of the TPP- and equivalence in how business in conducted among partners...it's an agreed upon ROE. Which cuts against your subtle sovereignty dig there...the reason TPP sucks is because it contains provisions that may conflict with adopted laws policies and protections already part of Federal, State and Local law. But we cant be sure...because it's mostly secret until it got Wikileaked.
So what? If it conflicts with existing federal law, it will have to be sorted out-- either by Congress or by the courts. If it conflicts with State laws, that will have to be sorted out by the courts too. For the TPP to be valid, all these ducks need to be in a row. And there are plenty of powerful lobbies that will be involved, not just the corporate ones.
Blaidd Drwg wrote:2) Even the administration pitching TPP admits that previous trade deals have "failed to deliver"...but because we fucked ourselves in a bunch of other ways concurrent with NAFTA...this is your basic defense of NAFTA. It sucked ass, but we were doing other stupid shit alongside it. How about the radical notion we stop doing harm to ourselves on behalf of large corporate interests whether that's changes in domestic policy and trade policy. Your argument is essentially...we were drinking and drugging it up...so NAFTA was just a case of chlamydia on top of it...can't blame the chlamydia for all your problems. True..but you should still avoid that shit whether or not you're gonna stop drinking.
Irrelevant-- he has to please his coalition. Speeches are not always policy. And the self harm we do-- none of my points I brought up are in corporate best interest.
Still dodging.
If there are inherent conflicts (there are clearly enough questions to warrant debate on the floor) why not allow discussion of such a sweeping set of trade regs? But more to the point, the details leaked so far indicate the whole fucking point of TPP is to allow bring suit through the partnership to seek damages when local law conflicts with the agreement. Now set aside for a minute how realistic you think it is....just ask yourself, why would we want to do this? We the people...not we the shareholders but we the people...Why do we want to agree to something that conflicts inherently with our national sovereignty? Why would we also want to agree to this without knowing we had agreed?
There is no argument in favor of this that doesn't conflict with the process of responsible governance....don't sign shit you don't understand and that your constituents are not permitted to read.
Thing two...
You can't dismiss the problems with NAFTA by saying the president is pandering to his base. Remove the introductory phrase, NAFTA was an abject failure. You can't pick much more corn out of that shit. All you've really raised is that we did a lot of other stupid crap in addition to NAFTA.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill
Blaidd Drwg wrote:If there are inherent conflicts (there are clearly enough questions to warrant debate on the floor) why not allow discussion of such a sweeping set of trade regs? But more to the point, the details leaked so far indicate the whole fucking point of TPP is to allow bring suit through the partnership to seek damages when local law conflicts with the agreement. Now set aside for a minute how realistic you think it is....just ask yourself, why would we want to do this? We the people...not we the shareholders but we the people...Why do we want to agree to something that conflicts inherently with our national sovereignty? Why would we also want to agree to this without knowing we had agreed?
That's how treaties are negotiated. And local law is irrelevant-- state law is a different matter. You know this.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
Blaidd Drwg wrote:If there are inherent conflicts (there are clearly enough questions to warrant debate on the floor) why not allow discussion of such a sweeping set of trade regs? But more to the point, the details leaked so far indicate the whole fucking point of TPP is to allow bring suit through the partnership to seek damages when local law conflicts with the agreement. Now set aside for a minute how realistic you think it is....just ask yourself, why would we want to do this? We the people...not we the shareholders but we the people...Why do we want to agree to something that conflicts inherently with our national sovereignty? Why would we also want to agree to this without knowing we had agreed?
That's how treaties are negotiated. And local law is irrelevant-- state law is a different matter. You know this.
Exactly. Which is why this shouldn't be allowed to proceed as a treaty. It's being negotiated in bad faith and secrecy.
Local is state to me. The jurisdictions I work in drive State legislation.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill
It's not that it's a treaty I don't like....it's a treaty which (based upon leaked documents) that goes well beyond that scope of what is prudent or reasonable to include in a secret document.
So, there's a lesson in this. The law which allows this is fucked. Lets change it....not allow the Executive powers to fast track this crap.
That's legislative 101...Think like a business....what is the cost to comply? what is the cost to change the law? The same is true here...fuck this treaty, revoke fast track authority debate the merits openly.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill
Blaidd Drwg wrote:You can't dismiss the problems with NAFTA by saying the president is pandering to his base. Remove the introductory phrase, NAFTA was an abject failure. You can't pick much more corn out of that shit. All you've really raised is that we did a lot of other stupid crap in addition to NAFTA.
It's more complicated than that because:
1. A lot of the job shifting from the US to Mexico happened outside of NAFTA
2. Estimated decline in consumer prices was greater than the estimated decline in average wages in the affected sectors-- the shifts in both were small
3. The greatest job losses were in the sugar and textile industries (both sectors tend to pay low wages and tend to be sensitive to labor cost). Manufacturing was not effected by NAFTA much at all; the effect was arguably positive. http://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/ec201406a.pdf
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
Blaidd Drwg wrote:You can't dismiss the problems with NAFTA by saying the president is pandering to his base. Remove the introductory phrase, NAFTA was an abject failure. You can't pick much more corn out of that shit. All you've really raised is that we did a lot of other stupid crap in addition to NAFTA.
It's more complicated than that because:
1. A lot of the job shifting from the US to Mexico happened outside of NAFTA
2. Estimated decline in consumer prices was greater than the estimated decline in average wages in the affected sectors-- the shifts in both were small
3. The greatest job losses were in the sugar and textile industries (both sectors tend to pay low wages and tend to be sensitive to labor cost). Manufacturing was not effected by NAFTA much at all; the effect was arguably positive. http://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/ec201406a.pdf
Lord of Mercy TURD!!!
Everything is complicated if you look at it long enough. You're just continuing this same lame argument...It's complicated.
No Shit Sherlock. Fact remains, most people worth listening to agree, NAFTA was a fucking failure based on a number of factors, not the least of which include the time of other concurrent events.
I love how the classic GOP line is "first do no harm" when it comes to major policy decisions like climate change where there's overwhelming expert support but when it comes to ultra complicated trade and money supply measures you people are eager to get access to the switchboard and just start cranking the dials randomly.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill
Blaidd Drwg wrote:Everything is complicated if you look at it long enough. You're just continuing this same lame argument...It's complicated.
No Shit Sherlock. Fact remains, most people worth listening to agree, NAFTA was a fucking failure based on a number of factors, not the least of which include the time of other concurrent events.
I'll just take your word for it and ignore those pesky experts then.
Blaidd Drwg wrote:I love how the classic GOP line is "first do no harm" when it comes to major policy decisions like climate change where there's overwhelming expert support but when it comes to ultra complicated trade and money supply measures you people are eager to get access to the switchboard and just start cranking the dials randomly.
Because politicians are the experts? Give me a break.
You want to criticize me for supporting measures that reduce global poverty? Fine. Hope your Guy Fawkes mask is union made though.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
I never criticized you for whinging about global poverty. I will now though. I'll allow that reasonable minds can differ on the success of NAFTA. There are experts arguing their position on both sides. I am unapologetic in my support of the people in this country and give significantly fewer fucks about global poverty. I'd have considerable more support for your position if you didn't mis-characterize mine repeatedly. I can always tell when you have no clue what you're arguing about when you head out into the weeds and refuse to address very simple points.
Should, for instance, the Senate vote up or down on a secret deal they and their constituents haven't been allowed to read?
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill
I never criticized you for whinging about global poverty. I will now though. I'll allow that reasonable minds can differ on the success of NAFTA. There are experts arguing their position on both sides. I am unapologetic in my support of the people in this country and give significantly fewer fucks about global poverty. I'd have considerable more support for your position if you didn't mis-characterize mine repeatedly. I can always tell when you have no clue what you're arguing about when you head out into the weeds and refuse to address very simple points.
You brought up climate change-- I put TPP and climate change in the same context. You'll note that I never called NAFTA a success. IMHO, it's a push for the US. The major things that have killed US manufacturing are largely self inflicted and have little to do with NAFTA.
Blaidd Drwg wrote:Should, for instance, the Senate vote up or down on a secret deal they and their constituents haven't been allowed to read?
Now you're mischaracterizing the deal itself. They will have a chance to read it when it is presented to them (in essence, lobbyists will read it for them, like they normally do), and then they will vote up or down-- just like they will in the other countries.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
You think climate change is much ado about nothing?
Let's accept that we disagree on the ultimate impacts,
lets' accept we disagree whether it's a fixable issue...
you're really saying you don't believe that there isn't extremely strong science supporting the notion of CO2 from human activity playing a significant role in global climate shift?
I represent Shell Oil and even I cant buy the irrational bullshit coming out of the right on climate change.
Once again, it shows how useless it is to engage with you on matters of well settled science. WTF is next? Intelligent design curriculum? Lemme guess.... evolution is "just a theory and atheism is a belief system".
Oi..what a waste of a brain.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill
You think climate change is much ado about nothing?
Let's accept that we disagree on the ultimate impacts,
lets' accept we disagree whether it's a fixable issue...
you're really saying you don't believe that there isn't extremely strong science supporting the notion of CO2 from human activity playing a significant role in global climate shift?
I represent Shell Oil and even I cant buy the irrational bullshit coming out of the right on climate change.
Once again, it shows how useless it is to engage with you on matters of well settled science. WTF is next? Intelligent design curriculum? Lemme guess.... evolution is "just a theory and atheism is a belief system".
Oi..what a waste of a brain.
No. Air pollution (the issue everyone agrees is a problem) and 3rd world development are connected and nobody has a good solution. The climate change crowd ignores this.
You think climate change is much ado about nothing?
Let's accept that we disagree on the ultimate impacts,
lets' accept we disagree whether it's a fixable issue...
you're really saying you don't believe that there isn't extremely strong science supporting the notion of CO2 from human activity playing a significant role in global climate shift?
I represent Shell Oil and even I cant buy the irrational bullshit coming out of the right on climate change.
Once again, it shows how useless it is to engage with you on matters of well settled science. WTF is next? Intelligent design curriculum? Lemme guess.... evolution is "just a theory and atheism is a belief system".
Oi..what a waste of a brain.
No. Air pollution (the issue everyone agrees is a problem) and 3rd world development are connected and nobody has a good solution. The climate change crowd ignores this.
Well.... Air pollution and the developed worlds corporatism/consumption economies are connected. And yes, no one has put forward an alternative to consumerism/corporatism.
Turdacious wrote:No. Air pollution (the issue everyone agrees is a problem) and 3rd world development are connected and nobody has a good solution. The climate change crowd ignores this.
Turd, the "climate change crowd" you're talking about is a bunch fucking asshats who wouldn't know the periodic table from the star trek stickers on the back of their Prius. the "Climate Change Crowd" I find compelling are the 10 or 12 legit scientists who I turn to for help me make sense of the sound versus the noise. The real physicists, chemists, and meteorologists who can parse this data give zero fucks about politics. The ones I know well can hardly tell you what party holds the which branch of government currently. Not unlike the issue at hand...step back and look at TPP and Fast track without spin...there's very good reason to say slow the fuck down.
This is a consistent issue you have. You fail to differentiate between the talking points of an issue and the very real rational conclusions that thinking people have drawn without the benefit of the media machine, the nattering bureaucrats and the general flatulent noise of the populace. Someday, you'll have to drum up an opinion of your own based on something you really think. This will be a big moment for a beltway dweller.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill
The Great and Powerful Oz wrote:This is a consistent issue you have. You fail to differentiate between the talking points of an issue and the very real rational conclusions that thinking people have drawn without the benefit of the media machine, the nattering bureaucrats and the general flatulent noise of the populace. Someday, you'll have to drum up an opinion of your own based on something you really think. This will be a big moment for a beltway dweller.
By which you mean I'll just blindly accept everything you say (and ignore unimportant things like consumer prices). Could happen-- not likely.
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
Blaidd Drwg wrote:You fail to differentiate between the talking points of an issue and the very real rational conclusions that thinking people have drawn without the benefit of the media machine, the nattering bureaucrats and the general flatulent noise of the populace. Someday, you'll have to drum up an opinion of your own based on something you really think. This will be a big moment for a beltway dweller.
You do realize who you are talking to, don't you? If you want a more nuanced discussion, could I recommend Gene or johno?
WildGorillaMan wrote:Enthusiasm combined with no skill whatsoever can sometimes carry the day.
it is instructive to me that an administrative supporter doesn't support this deal because of his view that the administration is acting with uncharacteristic bad faith
Turdacious wrote:No. Air pollution (the issue everyone agrees is a problem) and 3rd world development are connected and nobody has a good solution. The climate change crowd ignores this.
Turd, the "climate change crowd" you're talking about is a bunch fucking asshats who wouldn't know the periodic table from the star trek stickers on the back of their Prius. the "Climate Change Crowd" I find compelling are the 10 or 12 legit scientists who I turn to for help me make sense of the sound versus the noise. The real physicists, chemists, and meteorologists who can parse this data give zero fucks about politics.
And what is their knowledge base about the relationship between development and pollution? I'm guessing about where yours is. Maybe you're not the expert you think you are. http://breakingenergy.com/2014/09/23/en ... countries/
"Liberalism is arbitrarily selective in its choice of whose dignity to champion." Adrian Vermeule
