Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ron who wrote (23464)	11/8/2003 11:15:10 AM
From: Selectric II	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93284

Employment rose in the SERVICE SECTOR which is doublespeak for low paying drudge jobs. Unlike high-paying manufacturing jobs, like sewing Nike tennis shoes or Levi jeans together? We've been evolving into a service economy for decades. Are you Rip Van Winkle?

To: Ron who wrote (23464)	11/9/2003 6:52:59 AM
From: jttmab	Respond to of 93284

Pretty good description. I'd add a note of irony; as we lose jobs in the manufacturing sector, we picked up some in another service sector .... "employment services, up 29,000"....employment services counselors might say "Have you thought about career retraining?...you like people? How about a job as a waitress or flipping burgers at the truck stop nearby? There's a couple of points in the description of cheap labor conservatives that I'd disagree with. Cheap-labor conservatives oppose a woman’s right to choose. Why? Unwanted children are an economic burden that put poor women “over a barrel”, forcing them to work cheap. While the specific effect is accurate, I think it's driven by the Christian Right and ideology than it is motivatation to keep labor rates down. Cheap-labor conservatives like “free trade”, NAFTA, GATT, etc. Why? Because there is a huge supply of desperately poor people in the third world, who are “over a barrel”, and will work cheap. That's an interesting one...part of the reason all those poor people in the third world are over a barrel is because the US keeps them there. ..... e.g., The US subsidized the US cotton industry last year to the tune of something like $4B. In effect, that allowed the cotton industry to produce cotton below the cost of those dirt poor cotton farmers in Africa. The world price of cotton plummeted and was very effective in keeping Africa in proverty. In spite of what conservative might say in being in favor of free trade their actions speak differently. Farm subsidies are anti-free trade; conservatives say their opposed to farm subsidies. What happens? US farm subsidies go up 65%. Tariffs are anti-free trade. What did we do in this Administration? We imposed steel tariffs; lumber tariffs, etc. Conservatives are for one-way free trade...the other country should abide by free trade, not have tariffs, not have farm subsidies. Not us. Personnally, I'm for real free trade. If we allowed the cotton market to truly operate freely. The African farmers could make a profit because they're competitive and their per capita income and GDP would rise, which would drive their labor costs up. And if they were wealthier, they could buy products from other countries...and so on. jttmab