Free Trade: Fight It, or Embrace It

everyone has posted excellent replies. this will be my final. put your self in these peoples shoes. most are in the 40-50 age group. alot have 20 years experience at their jobs. most are gearing up towards retirement. now the place of work closes, and ships their jobs over seas. how do you think they feel? think they really want to pack up, and head towards a new job? i highly doubt it. as for frplg, would you be that easy to dismiss manufacturing jobs if it hit closer to home. lets say it was your dad, or brother? the idea behind free trade is a good one, the execution of it is horrible. the united states will lose a whole generation of workers, because of age, and skill level. the kids coming up should be OK, its the middle age sect that is really going to struggle. its great that most on this board have professional skills. this is a moot point to them.

I haven't commented on this thread yet b/c I feel somewhat conflicted. My job security is high and, through it, I have an economic freedom that is enviable to many. As long as do nothing illegal or unethical, I am pretty much unfireable. With that kind of security, commenting on "big picture" and macro-economics seems, to me, somewhat high-handed.

With that said, I add my voice to the SGG and Schneed - Globalism is good b/c, ultimately it is about competition. While short term set backs are unfortunate and there are ALWAYS some who simply cannot, b/c of age, kids, education, or other circumstances, adequately compete when the paradigm shifts. For those, IMO, the US owes some protection through reeducation where possible, reemployment in an Alphabet program (i.e. some government work programs much like those of the depression).

NAFTA was ground breaking legislation that will ultimately reward the US because, IMO, the American worker is one of the hardest workers of the industrialized world (in terms of hours per week worked and annual vacation time), the US will ultimately come out ahead in any true free trade system. Despite our relentless consumerism, we will win any competition based on work = reward, b/c that is our national heritage. For generations, people have flocked to the US b/c, with a few obvious inefficiencies, the harder you work, the more innovative you are, the more likely you are to "succeed". As long as this paradigm is maintained, we have nothing to fear from globalization.

In addition, b/c we have been (and continue to be) a melting pot, the variety of influences in our society have created an adaptive economy. The countries now "exporting" cheap labor simply do not have the infrastructure to compete with us in any way except by providing mass unskilled labor. Similarly, the asian economies run by government supervised capitalism (i.e. Japan and its MITI) or that have firmly entrenched and historical caste based societies simply do not have the long term flexibility that the US does in world market.

The rule of law and a commitment to competition as the paradigm allow the US to maintain a competitive advantage over the semi-socialist economies of western europe, the labor intensive third world economies, and the autocratic caste based economies of east asia.

everyone has posted excellent replies. this will be my final. put your self in these peoples shoes. most are in the 40-50 age group. alot have 20 years experience at their jobs. most are gearing up towards retirement. now the place of work closes, and ships their jobs over seas. how do you think they feel? think they really want to pack up, and head towards a new job? i highly doubt it. as for frplg, would you be that easy to dismiss manufacturing jobs if it hit closer to home. lets say it was your dad, or brother? the idea behind free trade is a good one, the execution of it is horrible. the united states will lose a whole generation of workers, because of age, and skill level. the kids coming up should be OK, its the middle age sect that is really going to struggle. its great that most on this board have professional skills. this is a moot point to them.

I consider these individuals the casualties of the "US's adaptive economy" and the global free market competition. While I oppose creating incentives for non-work or rewarding the failure to adapt, I also believe that a significant percent of unemployed or working poor are in situtations that resulted from economic changes beyond their control. As a result, individuals and families with limited means attempting to operate within the system suddenly have the rug pulled out from under them. Yes, of course, we can all say "they should have prepared for change" with a sort of self satisfaction. In reality, however, humans are creatures of habit and few people can really spend their lives "ready to adapt".

As with any casualty of war (and the global economy is a war of sorts), the society must protect those who were injured while fighting the good fight. These same people helped create national wealth by providing a stable work force for a significant period of time. If we cannot find a way to maintain competition and our innovative economy while protecting those who accepted the precept that hard work = success, then all to soon the US workforce will feel betrayed and we will lose our competive advantage.

I haven't commented on this thread yet b/c I feel somewhat conflicted. My job security is high and, through it, I have an economic freedom that is enviable to many. As long as do nothing illegal or unethical, I am pretty much unfireable. With that kind of security, commenting on "big picture" and macro-economics seems, to me, somewhat high-handed.

With that said, I add my voice to the SGG and Schneed - Globalism is good b/c, ultimately it is about competition. While short term set backs are unfortunate and there are ALWAYS some who simply cannot, b/c of age, kids, education, or other circumstances, adequately compete when the paradigm shifts. For those, IMO, the US owes some protection through reeducation where possible, reemployment in an Alphabet program (i.e. some government work programs much like those of the depression).

NAFTA was ground breaking legislation that will ultimately reward the US. IMO, because the American worker is one of the hardest workers of the industrialized world (in terms of hours per week worked and annual vacation time), the US will ultimately come out ahead in any true free trade system. Despite our relentless consumerism, we will win any competition based on work = reward, b/c that is our national heritage. For generations, people have flocked to the US b/c, with a few obvious inefficiencies, the harder you work, the more innovative you are, the more likely you are to "succeed". As long as this paradigm is maintained, we have nothing to fear from globalization.

In addition, b/c we have been (and continue to be) a melting pot, the variety of influences in our society have created an adaptive economy. The countries now "exporting" cheap labor simply do not have either the infrastructure to compete with us in any way except by providing mass unskilled labor. Similarly, the asian economies run by government supervised capitalism (i.e. Japan and its MITI) or that have firmly entrenched and historical caste based societies simply do not have the long term flexibility that the US does in world market.

The rule of law and a commitment to competition as the paradigm allow the US to maintain a competitive advantage over the semi-socialist economies of western europe, the labor intensive third world economies, and the autocratic caste based economies of east asia.
You must be a public school teacher.

Excellent post JoeRedskin. This is certainly a tough issue and there are no fully-satisfactory answers IMO.

You must be a public school teacher.

Nope.

You must be a public school teacher.

I believe JR is an attorney, not sure what type though. JR?

Insurance defense for a large governmental unit. Just recently made the switch from insurance regulatory work.

I consider these individuals the casualties of the "US's adaptive economy" and the global free market competition. While I oppose creating incentives for non-work or rewarding the failure to adapt, I also believe that a significant percent of unemployed or working poor are in situtations that resulted from economic changes beyond their control. As a result, individuals and families with limited means attempting to operate within the system suddenly have the rug pulled out from under them. Yes, of course, we can all say "they should have prepared for change" with a sort of self satisfaction. In reality, however, humans are creatures of habit and few people can really spend their lives "ready to adapt".

As with any casualty of war (and the global economy is a war of sorts), the society must protect those who were injured while fighting the good fight. These same people helped create national wealth by providing a stable work force for a significant period of time. If we cannot find a way to maintain competition and our innovative economy while protecting those who accepted the precept that hard work = success, then all to soon the US workforce will feel betrayed and we will lose our competive advantage.

Tremendous post. The analogy to casualties of war is one I hadn't thought of, but very apt.

The "cause" has to go on, but we can certainly take care of our wounded. Education and training would be a great way to help those hurt by globalization, and one that would be a wise financial investment for the country in the long run.

Let's not judge people for wanting to work in textile mills. I realize some of you guys probably look down on the American factory worker, but there are/were those who truly enjoyed those jobs. Dad loved his job at Fieldcrest as a loom tech. And, he made just as much...if not more doing that than what some of us college educated people did/do on their jobs. In fact, he made enough to allow my mom to stay home and raise me and my brothers. We were not rich by any stretch, but we were not poor either.

Someone mentioned inflation being sky high if these people had kept their jobs. Well guess what? Inflation is going sky high as it is. The price of gasoline has double and tripled in the last couple of years, which also has affected the prices on everything else. Yet, we still just get 3% raise which is eaten up (and then some) by the rising cost of company insurance and having to contribute more to retirement because the company is matching less.

Yeah, things sure look rosey right now! :doh: