Post by unlawflcombatnt on Dec 25, 2007 2:57:28 GMT -6
www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/opinion/23sun1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
There was a disgusting, self-serving article in support of free trade published by the New York Times on December 23rd. I won't waste space quoting this moronic, pro-Globalist work of fiction.
It's typical of the nonsense regurgitated by rich plutocrats, trying to protect their already exorbitant and undeserved wealth--and increase it if at all possible. And all at the expense of working Americans.
In contrast to NYT's unenlightened mythology, however, the anti-globalist response from readers was very impressive.
community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2007/12/23/opinion/23sun1.html?oref=login
Almost all responders to the article opposed the pro-globalist position taken by the NYT. Even more importantly, the rare pro-Globalist response to the article got 0 votes from other readers, while the majority of responses--which were overwhelmingly anti-globalist--often received over 20 votes.
The responders sent a clear message. Americans are waking up. Globalism is not inevitable. And it is definitely not beneficial to most Americans.
Most now believe globalization is bad for America. In fact, most now know it's bad for America.
And how hard is this to understand? Replacing a $140/day American worker with a $4/day Chinese worker costs American workers $136/day in lost wages. Unless that $136 of lost labor income is passed on to American workers and consumers, this is a net LOSS to Americans. And, of course, that $136 savings is never passed on to American workers. There'd be no increase in the profits of Corporate America if they passed on 100% of the cost savings to American consumers and workers. As such, they never entirely pass the cost savings on to American consumers.
The reality is that the $136/day labor cost savings is split between American consumers and Corporate America's outsourcers. So while labor cost savings are shared between American consumer-workers and Corporate America, the the labor income loss is not shared. It is born exclusively by American workers. As a result, the aggregate cost savings and price reductions NEVER compensate for aggregate worker income losses.
American workers recover only a fraction of the the $136/day income loss. The rest is "recovered" by Corporate America, and paid out as CEO salaries and bonuses. In effect, workers' lost income is recovered as Corporate profits.
Corporate America would like us to believe in magic. They'd like us to think there's some magical way that American workers come out ahead, despite the mathematical impossibility of doing so.
The reality is that eliminating American workers also eliminates their income. And since that lost income is never fully compensated for, globalization is NEVER a winning situation for American workers. It's only a winning situation for Corporate plutocrats.
You can't reduce labor costs by a certain amount, and then pass on price reductions that exceed that amount. And if you passed on 100% of the labor cost reductions as price reductions, there'd be no benefit to outsourcing. And no one would do it.
But clearly that's not what's happening. And now most Americans realize it.
A majority of Americans no longer believe the Globalization lies--that outsourcing, free trade, and globalization are good for America. They know that it is not. And now it's common knowledge.
We can only hope that the anti-globalization sentiment of the majority of Americans will "trickle up" to those who write our legislation, and who supposedly represent the people of this country.
There was a disgusting, self-serving article in support of free trade published by the New York Times on December 23rd. I won't waste space quoting this moronic, pro-Globalist work of fiction.
It's typical of the nonsense regurgitated by rich plutocrats, trying to protect their already exorbitant and undeserved wealth--and increase it if at all possible. And all at the expense of working Americans.
In contrast to NYT's unenlightened mythology, however, the anti-globalist response from readers was very impressive.
community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2007/12/23/opinion/23sun1.html?oref=login
Almost all responders to the article opposed the pro-globalist position taken by the NYT. Even more importantly, the rare pro-Globalist response to the article got 0 votes from other readers, while the majority of responses--which were overwhelmingly anti-globalist--often received over 20 votes.
The responders sent a clear message. Americans are waking up. Globalism is not inevitable. And it is definitely not beneficial to most Americans.
Most now believe globalization is bad for America. In fact, most now know it's bad for America.
And how hard is this to understand? Replacing a $140/day American worker with a $4/day Chinese worker costs American workers $136/day in lost wages. Unless that $136 of lost labor income is passed on to American workers and consumers, this is a net LOSS to Americans. And, of course, that $136 savings is never passed on to American workers. There'd be no increase in the profits of Corporate America if they passed on 100% of the cost savings to American consumers and workers. As such, they never entirely pass the cost savings on to American consumers.
The reality is that the $136/day labor cost savings is split between American consumers and Corporate America's outsourcers. So while labor cost savings are shared between American consumer-workers and Corporate America, the the labor income loss is not shared. It is born exclusively by American workers. As a result, the aggregate cost savings and price reductions NEVER compensate for aggregate worker income losses.
American workers recover only a fraction of the the $136/day income loss. The rest is "recovered" by Corporate America, and paid out as CEO salaries and bonuses. In effect, workers' lost income is recovered as Corporate profits.
Corporate America would like us to believe in magic. They'd like us to think there's some magical way that American workers come out ahead, despite the mathematical impossibility of doing so.
The reality is that eliminating American workers also eliminates their income. And since that lost income is never fully compensated for, globalization is NEVER a winning situation for American workers. It's only a winning situation for Corporate plutocrats.
You can't reduce labor costs by a certain amount, and then pass on price reductions that exceed that amount. And if you passed on 100% of the labor cost reductions as price reductions, there'd be no benefit to outsourcing. And no one would do it.
But clearly that's not what's happening. And now most Americans realize it.
A majority of Americans no longer believe the Globalization lies--that outsourcing, free trade, and globalization are good for America. They know that it is not. And now it's common knowledge.
We can only hope that the anti-globalization sentiment of the majority of Americans will "trickle up" to those who write our legislation, and who supposedly represent the people of this country.