|
Popular Thug Drink posted:i'm a worker and i'm doing just great. so are all the other workers i know in my field You do know they outsource and offshore IT jobs, don't you? You do know that a lot of companies would love to make it easier. Can't wait until yours goes to, hey, maybe someone I work with at the consultancy I work for! Maybe me!
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 19:54 |
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:yeah but ideally leftists would be better about this poo poo. they act like people need jobs. that's not true, jobs suck. people don't need jobs, they need incomes, and trade increases the wealth in the country and makes it easier to provide everyone with an income. we just need to make it so that the wealth actually goes to the people who need it On the first point, I agree. However, I am saying that the kind of social safety net programs you describe will never, ever get implemented when it requires the elite to sacrifice even a bit of their wealth to make them a reality. "We just need to make it so that the wealth actually goes to the people who need it" is an obviously true statement, the actual implementation of that in the modern political environment is nigh impossible. Hence, since we're not going to improve our safety nets (instead, we're much more likely to weaken them, see also Clinton's welfare "reforms", student loan "reforms" and Obama's near-miss to drastically curtail Social Security), to me, it's smarter to focus on job retention and protectionism for domestic workers while shoring up the benefits that come with employment like a higher minimum wage, which I am glad to see is gaining traction. No argument with your second point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:for some reason the sanderish far left camp started being real big into protectionism (or at least blithely criticizing free trade) as a means to attack the establishment and big business that sort of protectionism makes sense if you assume that the government could not possibly ever carry out redistributionist policy to restore incomes to people who lose their jobs because of trade, the issue being that that sort of pessimism doesn't fit with the idea that TPP could be blocked at all or even the spirit of revolution in general
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
zoux posted:whoa hang on, i solidly do not give a gently caress about the TPP, I just don't like people getting mad at stuff for no reason. May have overstated, sorry. Either way, I generally agree with the arguments you make on the matter.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:You do know they outsource and offshore IT jobs, don't you? You do know that a lot of companies would love to make it easier. no i've never heard of this before, outsourcing good god you are a petulant and lovely poster
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Boon posted:May have overstated, sorry. Either way, I generally agree with the arguments you make on the matter. That's because I'm always right. I mean I went to bat for DWS because people hated her and didn't know why. I can't stand DWS, but getting mad at the wrong things for no reason is the Trump Nature.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
manufacturing jobs have given way to service economy jobs in most wealthy countries. It's not something to be mourned. The question is whether or not we can replace those jobs with comparable or higher earning jobs. The answer for most people is YES. Those that have been harmed by the cycle are rightfully mad, but it doesn't have anything to do with free trade, it has to do with the job creation, small business, and retraining climate within the country (which is solid right now, but behind other postindustrial countries imo)Taerkar posted:I would append to this that manufacturing jobs are going away. The US still manufactures a lot of stuff. you're totally right. germany has lost half its manufacturing jobs since 1971, but is still one of the world's powerhouses. straight up brolic fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Aug 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Yeah, saying NAFTA is responsible for 700k US jobs lost over 17 years in one article, and then in another article claiming that 900k US jobs were lost in one year due to Japan's currency manipulation I'm gona say that source is suspect as gently caress. It's a lot easier if you only count the decline in jobs and don't look as at any new business opportunities that create jobs. Did you know that the #1 source of job loss in this country is start-ups?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:Source? NAFTA likely did result in the direct loss of some manufacturing jobs -- but a number of those jobs were on the way out anyway; either as a result of changes in industrial need/demand and also as a result of greater automation as computers began taking a major place in industrial manufacturing. Your assumption that "it was lobbied for SO hard" so "obviously those jobs weren't leaving" is really flawed thinking. NAFTA is and was about a lot more than just manufacturing jobs, and it has created jobs and economic growth that has greatly benefited consumers. I am not sure why you people think protectionist, tariff-waring trade policies work, but...
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:that sort of protectionism makes sense if you assume that the government could not possibly ever carry out redistributionist policy to restore incomes to people who lose their jobs because of trade, the issue being that that sort of pessimism doesn't fit with the idea that TPP could be blocked at all or even the spirit of revolution in general I can't think of a single national policy example explicitly targeted towards workers who lost their jobs because of trade agreements. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, because I don't believe any exists. If there were domestic worker retraining programs tied to the TPP's implementation, or extended unemployment benefits for workers who lose their jobs due to outsourcing as a result, it would make the TPP more palatable to me, but only barely.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:If they were going away then why was NAFTA lobbied for so hard? Take a moment and think about that sentence you wrote. Can you spot the myriad leaps of logic?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:for some reason the sanderish far left camp started being real big into protectionism (or at least blithely criticizing free trade) as a means to attack the establishment and big business I admittedly know gently caress all about trade policy but I feel like the criticism of TPP/NAFTA from both Sanders and Trump is more of a "we don't trust the system not to gently caress over workers to advance corporate interests" thing than any kind of principled stance on protectionism vs free trade. If you believe that the government is co-opted by the wealthy who use the system to advance their interests at the expense of working people, it makes sense to be skeptical of multi-national trade deals negotiated with extensive input from said wealthy people. Which has no bearing on whether or not any particular deal is good or not. Like I said, I have no idea. I think it does speak to the degree to which trust in the fairness of the system has eroded and I think that's really where the protectionist rhetoric is coming from. Hulk Krogan fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Aug 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:I can't think of a single national policy example explicitly targeted towards workers who lost their jobs because of trade agreements. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, because I don't believe any exists. https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/de...-power-plan.pdf
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
straight up brolic posted:manufacturing has given way to the service economy in most wealthy countries. It's not something to be mourned. The question is whether or not we can replace those jobs with comparable or higher earning jobs. The answer for most people is YES. Those that have been harmed by the cycle are rightfully mad, but it doesn't have anything to do with free trade, it has to do with the job creation, small business, and retraining climate within the country (which is solid right now, but behind other postindustrial countries imo) I would append to this that manufacturing jobs are going away. The US still manufactures a lot of stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Hulk Krogan posted:I admittedly know gently caress all about trade policy but I feel like the reason criticism of TPP/NAFTA from both Sanders and Trump is more of a "we don't trust the system not to gently caress over workers to advance corporate interests" thing than any kind of principled stance on protectionism vs free trade. If you believe that the government is co-opted by the wealthy who use the system to advance their interests at the expense of working people, it makes sense to be skeptical of multi-national trade deals negotiated with extensive input from said wealthy people.  Noam Chomsky posted:Source? sometimes ppl like to make money faster
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
straight up brolic posted:manufacturing has given way to the service economy in most wealthy countries. It's not something to be mourned. The question is whether or not we can replace those jobs with comparable or higher earning jobs. The answer for most people is YES. Those that have been harmed by the cycle are rightfully mad, but it doesn't have anything to do with free trade, it has to do with the job creation, small business, and retraining climate within the country (which is solid right now, but behind other postindustrial countries imo) Right, the way better policy for the progressive left is to push for policies that allow people to earn livings that encourage growth and economic mobility for people in service jobs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
Does that guy think the goal of NAFTA was to outsource jobs? Like that was the aim of the legislation?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:I can't think of a single national policy example explicitly targeted towards workers who lost their jobs because of trade agreements. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, because I don't believe any exists. There are dozens of programs for domestic worker retraining programs. Here's one: https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/training/adulttraining
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
axeil posted:Actually free trade is good and gently caress protectionism. I like having nice goods everyone can afford, not just the super rich. The issue isn't free per se, it's the race to the bottom that it incentivizes. kaleedity posted:the issue that no one really wants to discuss is that the (read: somewhat over-glorified) success of the American middle class sharing gains of the economy in the 50s-70s isn't going to happen any time in the future anywhere. But yeah it turns out if you tax the poo poo out of labor (while loving up infra, education, and stimulus) and let capital flow freely, surprise surprise this is what you get.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:On the first point, I agree. However, I am saying that the kind of social safety net programs you describe will never, ever get implemented when it requires the elite to sacrifice even a bit of their wealth to make them a reality. "We just need to make it so that the wealth actually goes to the people who need it" is an obviously true statement, the actual implementation of that in the modern political environment is nigh impossible. I think this is probably the main reason why the idea of protectionism is becoming so popular all of the sudden - there's no hope of progress on other fronts. I suppose opposition to free trade is a sort of short-term pragmatic stance for low income workers in fields at risk of outsourcing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Things can be done to help those that lose, but that they have not been properly implemented is not a fault of trade. Yes it is. If you're not helping the domestic "losers" as a result of the trade agreements you execute as a nation, you have failed in executing your trade deal, unless you explicitly don't care about loving over the losers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:I can't think of a single national policy example explicitly targeted towards workers who lost their jobs because of trade agreements. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, because I don't believe any exists. of course they don't exist, because our politics is dominated by classist assholes. but I think that if you're going to choose a revolutionary goal to oppose those assholes, it makes more sense to say "impiment these programs and a better social safety net" than "maximum protectionism". because those are both equally long shots and the first makes much more economic sense. advocating hardcore protectionism only makes sense if it's more politically realistic than a social safty net (which i don't think is the case). Also, TPP in particular is bad for reasons that have nothing to do with free trade v. protectionism because of the insane ways it empowers corporations to stop reasonable regulation
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
Boon posted:Take a moment and think about that sentence you wrote. Can you spot the myriad leaps of logic? If anyone ITT had a real answer to my question they'd just post it. Instead they are claiming corporations would offshore jobs anyway because the government doesn't exist. If they didn't need NAFTA then why was it lobbied for? Why did the GOP push it so hard? Trump is for protectionism. Hillary used to support the TPP, and she will probably sign it once she's in office. Hence, this thread is anti-protectionism and for the TPP. If the candidates support were flipped - if Trump was pro-TPP and Hillary was for protectionism - then this thread would follow suit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:On the first point, I agree. However, I am saying that the kind of social safety net programs you describe will never, ever get implemented when it requires the elite to sacrifice even a bit of their wealth to make them a reality. "We just need to make it so that the wealth actually goes to the people who need it" is an obviously true statement, the actual implementation of that in the modern political environment is nigh impossible. If you assume that the right thing will never happen because people are lovely, and thus never stand up for the right thing, then yeah, it'll never happen. They probably told black people they would never be free, too. That didn't stop black people from standing up for themselves. Why should working class people be any different? The American Left spends more time whining about how nothing ever changes than it does changing things. No change ever came overnight and never without somebody moving that change. 25 years ago gay sex was illegal. Today gay marriage is legal in all 50 states. We can do for economic issues what we've done for social issues if we start at the bottom and rebuild class conscienceness, instead of starting at the top with the Presidency.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Technogeek posted:...either I'm drastically misreading something, or you are.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:If anyone ITT had a real answer to my question they'd just post it. If that's what you think this thread is, why do you even post here
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:I just love the cheap clothes enabled by child/indentured servitude labor!! The only way to stop that would be incredibly restrictive protectionism and that leads to a greater myriad of problems (including outright warfare in extreme cases) a shameful boehner posted:Yes it is. If you're not helping the domestic "losers" as a result of the trade agreements you execute as a nation, you have failed in executing your trade deal, unless you explicitly don't care about loving over the losers. Yeah, no. You're linking two separate things and using it as a crude hammer against trade. The problem isn't trade, it's the people blocking the programs to help those that lose. Taerkar fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Aug 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Hulk Krogan posted:I admittedly know gently caress all about trade policy but I feel like the criticism of TPP/NAFTA from both Sanders and Trump is more of a "we don't trust the system not to gently caress over workers to advance corporate interests" thing than any kind of principled stance on protectionism vs free trade. If you believe that the government is co-opted by the wealthy who use the system to advance their interests at the expense of working people, it makes sense to be skeptical of multi-national trade deals negotiated with extensive input from said wealthy people. sure but this has a lot more to do with lack of a decent safety net and min wage - something trump people are bitterly against - than trade policy. so when you say "if you believe the government is co-opted" to be against the little guy basically then there's no rational argument against that standpoint since it's a position based on flawed assumptions Noam Chomsky posted:If anyone ITT had a real answer to my question they'd just post it. the real answer is that you're full of poo poo and dont understand the role that trade policy has on blue collar labor. people have posted that itt many times but you keep ignoring it for totally mysterious reasons
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:of course they don't exist, because our politics is dominated by classist assholes. but I think that if you're going to choose a revolutionary goal to oppose those assholes, it makes more sense to say "impiment these programs and a better social safety net" than "maximum protectionism". because those are both equally long shots and the first makes much more economic sense. advocating hardcore protectionism only makes sense if it's more politically realistic than a social safty net (which i don't think is the case).
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:If anyone ITT had a real answer to my question they'd just post it. Trump isn't for actual protectionism, and most of us in this thread have had the same position on trade deals for a very long period of time. Please just stop vomiting nonsense. Your question is a bad question that has been responded to several times and you've shown that you don't really have a clue what you're talking about, so again please just stop vomiting nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
I've never been persuaded by the argument that it's better to keep American jobs than it is to give Mexicans jobs. Yes, the jobs they get are lower paid and have less worker rights than American equivalents, but the improvement of the Mexican worker's life against the harm to the American worker's life seems, to me, to overwhelmingly cause a net good. (there are of course exceptions if the company is being radically unethical)
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
a shameful boehner posted:On the first point, I agree. However, I am saying that the kind of social safety net programs you describe will never, ever get implemented when it requires the elite to sacrifice even a bit of their wealth to make them a reality. "We just need to make it so that the wealth actually goes to the people who need it" is an obviously true statement, the actual implementation of that in the modern political environment is nigh impossible. the thing that gets me here is that protectionism also requires the elite to sacrifice their wealth. In fact, because of the way that free trade boosts the wealth of all nations assuming that we maintain the same standard of living for poor people through redistribution, protectionism actually requires the elite to sacrifice more wealth than free trade combined with the social safety net. So it seems weird to treat the absence of a social safety net as more inveitable than the TPP, when I think it's acutally the other way around.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:If anyone ITT had a real answer to my question they'd just post it. i was sympathetic to your posting until this, holy poo poo. this thread would never be for Trump lmfao
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:The only way to stop that would be incredibly restrictive protectionism and that leads to a greater myriad of problems (including outright warfare in extreme cases) You can sign trade agreements that include labor protection clauses. There are some in TPP (between US and Bahrain of all places IIRC), they're just completely minimal.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
emdash posted:i was sympathetic to your posting until this, holy poo poo. this thread would never be for Trump lmfao No he's trying to argue that we're only sympathetic to free trade because Hillary is for it and Trump is against it (nominally.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
straight up brolic posted:Yeah this isn't true. Two examples have already been posted on this page. There is grey area between oligarchic conspiracy and plebiscite politics ok, my point was that retraining and social safety net programs are more politically feasible than protectionism, so the existence of those examples helps my case
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:I've never been persuaded by the argument that it's better to keep American jobs than it is to give Mexicans jobs. On strictly utilitarian grounds I agree. But at that point you're also putting working class folk against other working class folk for the profits of the rich, which is very bad in the long term. You don't have to destroy poor Americans to help poor Mexicans. You have to destroy rich Americans to help all poor people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
BI NOW GAY LATER posted:Trump isn't for actual protectionism, and most of us in this thread have had the same position on trade deals for a very long period of time. Please just stop vomiting nonsense. Of course he isn't actually against it. He says he is, and that's enough to get posters like you to be vehemently against it. If you have an answer to my question feel free to post one with sources. You don't, though, so you just attack.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
straight up brolic posted:Yeah this isn't true. Two examples have already been posted on this page. There is grey area between oligarchic conspiracy and plebiscite politics Those programs are well and good, but I don't believe they're focused enough on workers who're unemployed explicitly due to trade. Maybe I'm being too pedantic with that definition, but my point is those programs are general and unfocused on a particular group. What I would want to see in a trade deal is the explicit acknowledgment of the domestic labor displacement it would cause and specific programs set up for workers in industries most likely to be affected; specifically, manufacturing, coinciding with a plan to index the minimum wage to a regional area's living wage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 27, 2024 19:54 |
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:If anyone ITT had a real answer to my question they'd just post it. Phone posting so Im not going to address this now and hope someone else hits this point for point. What I will say is that I think you approach the idea from a number of angles that are in a vacuum from each other. Something can be good for big business and labor. NAFTA can be necessary and still need lobbying. Jobs can be lost with or without trade agreements. Basically I think your objections are myopic and set up ideas of mutually exclusionary ideas that dont necessarily exist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2016 19:50
|
|