What if neither party can bring the jobs back?

[JoeB131]

As has been pointed out before, employers are complaining that there isn't a workforce to take the jobs available. Jobs have to follow a workforce. There are many reasons why jobs have left the country. Over taxation, over regulation, a hostile workforce trained to treat the employer as the enemy. Employees with increasing drug use. Unskilled and worthless college graduates who want to make a lot of money but have nothing to offer.

It might take a generation or more to really bring jobs back.

It took the corporations a generation to kill worker loyalty by various means.

I think Corporations engaged in a lot of bad behavior, but a lot of the behavior of labor - especially organized labor- has been just as destructive.

Honestly, I see these young kids in teh workplace today, and they spend about half the work day goofing off. And these were the ones who didn't get fired.

 

[georgephillip]

During my K-12 education, government played the role of crushing competition, innovation and creativity in the education market...ensuring everyone got a crappy learning experience, or at least far less of a positive experience it could have otherwise been. Perhaps Carolyn Lockhead said it best: "Public educators, like Soviet farmers, lack any incentive to produce results, innovate, to be efficient, to make the kinds of of difficult changes that private firms operating in a competitive market must make to survive."



Sure, because the economy was just so fantastic back in the late seventies? You couldn't be this stupid.



A 70% Capital gains rate? Fantastic. That ought to spur a ton of investment in this country, right? You ***** about jobs going overseas and then suggest this? My goodness, no one is that dumb. You also forget that the money used to invest in capital ventures WAS ALREADY TAXED and that money represents SIGNIFICANT RISK. Tell us, when you clock in at your job, are you sure you'll get a paycheck or could you loose everything if your "risk" goes wrong? So, let's get this straight. You want to earn your income with little to no risk involved and be taxed at the lowest rates (or perhaps not at all...I'm assuming you support progressive taxation where nearly half of citizens pay nothing) while those that risk everything for their income should be taxed twice and at the highest possible rate. Got it.



Reich is a Keynesian asshole with a central planner meddling mentality. You really need to read up on some real economists. Start with the Austrian school and go from there.

Lastly, you have an obvious hatred towards successful people, whether you are willing to admit that or not. Tell me, when a guy risks his life savings to start a business and creates a product or service that people want, he'll hire people in the process and if he makes good decisions, turn a profit. If his product or service is superior to that of his competitors, he just might make himself rich. Now tell me, who has this guy hurt? Stated differently, how was Steve Jobs, a 1%er, bad for other Americans?

You have an obvious hatred for political equality.

In the 2012 election cycle, 26,783 individual contributed an average of $28,913 to federal election campaigns in a country where the median individual income was $26,364.

Less than one in ten thousand of your fellow citizens determined who you got to cast your vote for in 2010. Possibly your "free-market" authoritarian economists would approve. Robert Reich doesn't nor would anyone who attaches more significance to political sovereignty than to their net worth.

What I remember most about the 70s, Slick, was how a single minimum wage job paid the rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment with enough left over to pay for and maintain a six year old Chevy. In those days the richest 1% of Americans took home about 8% of US income. Today they take over 20% and the assholes still want more.

Why don't you tell me how much more private debt we should nationalize in order to keep rich parasites happy?

By all means, we should base our economy on what YOU remember from the 1970s. Great plan.

You ducked my question there completely. How is the guy that make himself wealthy bad for anyone else? You ***** about income inequality. First tell us why the guy that was more successful than you was bad for other citizens. Explain that first without simply referring to the fact that there are more successful people today than at some point in the past. Again, how is being wealthy bad in an of itself...or is this all just jealousy?

I of course have the balls to answer your question...I in NO WAY support any nationalization of any private debt. End the Fed.

Now, answer my question.

In the 1970s the richest 1% of Americans earned 8% of total US income. That was why a single minimum wage job payed the rent on a new one-bedroom apartment with enough left over to maintain a car. Fast forward to the time of Lehman Brothers' collapse when the richest 1% of Americans took home over 20% of total US income.

Those guys and gals who tripled their share of national income over those three decades did so at my expense and most of the rest of the US middle class. They did so by bribing Republicans AND Democrats for tax favors that rewarded outsourcing jobs to China while shifting the domestic tax burden from FIRE sector wealth to wages and salaries.

I strongly suspect private wealth is inherently evil because, since the time of Rothschild, it gives private bankers too much control over national money supply. Since Lehman Brothers became the biggest bankruptcy in history, "too big to fail" has become the private bankers' rallying cry for obtaining even more influence over government.

Today, governments demand austerity on the vast majority of their citizens, because "the markets" demand it to keep credit flowing to those governments. "The market" obscures who these lenders to governments really are, namely the same global private banks that received government bailouts since 2007.

The lesson I draw from that is that global banking can not be safely entrusted to private banks.

What's yours?

Lehman Brothers: financially and morally bankrupt | Professor Richard D. Wolff

 

[Full-Auto]

You have an obvious hatred for political equality.

In the 2012 election cycle, 26,783 individual contributed an average of $28,913 to federal election campaigns in a country where the median individual income was $26,364.

Less than one in ten thousand of your fellow citizens determined who you got to cast your vote for in 2010. Possibly your "free-market" authoritarian economists would approve. Robert Reich doesn't nor would anyone who attaches more significance to political sovereignty than to their net worth.

What I remember most about the 70s, Slick, was how a single minimum wage job paid the rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment with enough left over to pay for and maintain a six year old Chevy. In those days the richest 1% of Americans took home about 8% of US income. Today they take over 20% and the assholes still want more.

Why don't you tell me how much more private debt we should nationalize in order to keep rich parasites happy?

By all means, we should base our economy on what YOU remember from the 1970s. Great plan.

You ducked my question there completely. How is the guy that make himself wealthy bad for anyone else? You ***** about income inequality. First tell us why the guy that was more successful than you was bad for other citizens. Explain that first without simply referring to the fact that there are more successful people today than at some point in the past. Again, how is being wealthy bad in an of itself...or is this all just jealousy?

I of course have the balls to answer your question...I in NO WAY support any nationalization of any private debt. End the Fed.

Now, answer my question.

In the 1970s the richest 1% of Americans earned 8% of total US income. That was why a single minimum way job payed the rent on a new one-bedroom apartment with enough left over to maintain a car. Fast forward to the time of Lehman Brothers' collapse when the richest 1% of Americans took home over 20% of total US income.

Those guys and gals who tripled their share of national income over those three decades did so at my expense and most of the rest of the US middle class. They did so by bribing Republicans AND Democrats for tax favors that rewarded outsourcing jobs to China while shifting the domestic tax burden from FIRE sector wealth to wages and salaries.

I strongly suspect private wealth is inherently evil because, since the time of Rothschild, it gives private bankers too much control over national money supply. Since Lehman Brothers became the biggest bankruptcy in history, "too big to fail" has become the private bankers' rallying cry for obtaining even more influence over government.

Today, governments demand austerity on the vast majority of their citizens, because "the markets" demand it to keep credit flowing to those governments. "The market" obscures who these lenders to governments really are, namely the same global private banks that received government bailouts since 2007.

The lesson I draw from that is that global banking can not be safely entrusted to private banks.

What's yours?

Lehman Brothers: financially and morally bankrupt | Professor Richard D. Wolff

George, your recollection of the 70s and minimum wage being able to let you function as middle class is very misguided.

 

[georgephillip]

By all means, we should base our economy on what YOU remember from the 1970s. Great plan.

You ducked my question there completely. How is the guy that make himself wealthy bad for anyone else? You ***** about income inequality. First tell us why the guy that was more successful than you was bad for other citizens. Explain that first without simply referring to the fact that there are more successful people today than at some point in the past. Again, how is being wealthy bad in an of itself...or is this all just jealousy?

I of course have the balls to answer your question...I in NO WAY support any nationalization of any private debt. End the Fed.

Now, answer my question.

In the 1970s the richest 1% of Americans earned 8% of total US income. That was why a single minimum way job payed the rent on a new one-bedroom apartment with enough left over to maintain a car. Fast forward to the time of Lehman Brothers' collapse when the richest 1% of Americans took home over 20% of total US income.

Those guys and gals who tripled their share of national income over those three decades did so at my expense and most of the rest of the US middle class. They did so by bribing Republicans AND Democrats for tax favors that rewarded outsourcing jobs to China while shifting the domestic tax burden from FIRE sector wealth to wages and salaries.

I strongly suspect private wealth is inherently evil because, since the time of Rothschild, it gives private bankers too much control over national money supply. Since Lehman Brothers became the biggest bankruptcy in history, "too big to fail" has become the private bankers' rallying cry for obtaining even more influence over government.

Today, governments demand austerity on the vast majority of their citizens, because "the markets" demand it to keep credit flowing to those governments. "The market" obscures who these lenders to governments really are, namely the same global private banks that received government bailouts since 2007.

The lesson I draw from that is that global banking can not be safely entrusted to private banks.

What's yours?

Lehman Brothers: financially and morally bankrupt | Professor Richard D. Wolff

George, your recollection of the 70s and minimum wage being able to let you function as middle class is very misguided.

What do you think I'm missing?

Private bankers control the global money flows; they buy and sell politicians like you and I buy newspapers.

Look at what's happening in Europe if you're in doubt.

 

[eflatminor]

You have an obvious hatred for political equality.

In the 2012 election cycle, 26,783 individual contributed an average of $28,913 to federal election campaigns in a country where the median individual income was $26,364.

Less than one in ten thousand of your fellow citizens determined who you got to cast your vote for in 2010. Possibly your "free-market" authoritarian economists would approve. Robert Reich doesn't nor would anyone who attaches more significance to political sovereignty than to their net worth.

What I remember most about the 70s, Slick, was how a single minimum wage job paid the rent on a brand new one bedroom apartment with enough left over to pay for and maintain a six year old Chevy. In those days the richest 1% of Americans took home about 8% of US income. Today they take over 20% and the assholes still want more.

Why don't you tell me how much more private debt we should nationalize in order to keep rich parasites happy?

By all means, we should base our economy on what YOU remember from the 1970s. Great plan.

You ducked my question there completely. How is the guy that make himself wealthy bad for anyone else? You ***** about income inequality. First tell us why the guy that was more successful than you was bad for other citizens. Explain that first without simply referring to the fact that there are more successful people today than at some point in the past. Again, how is being wealthy bad in an of itself...or is this all just jealousy?

I of course have the balls to answer your question...I in NO WAY support any nationalization of any private debt. End the Fed.

Now, answer my question.

In the 1970s the richest 1% of Americans earned 8% of total US income. That was why a single minimum wage job payed the rent on a new one-bedroom apartment with enough left over to maintain a car. Fast forward to the time of Lehman Brothers' collapse when the richest 1% of Americans took home over 20% of total US income.

Those guys and gals who tripled their share of national income over those three decades did so at my expense and most of the rest of the US middle class. They did so by bribing Republicans AND Democrats for tax favors that rewarded outsourcing jobs to China while shifting the domestic tax burden from FIRE sector wealth to wages and salaries.

I strongly suspect private wealth is inherently evil because, since the time of Rothschild, it gives private bankers too much control over national money supply. Since Lehman Brothers became the biggest bankruptcy in history, "too big to fail" has become the private bankers' rallying cry for obtaining even more influence over government.

Today, governments demand austerity on the vast majority of their citizens, because "the markets" demand it to keep credit flowing to those governments. "The market" obscures who these lenders to governments really are, namely the same global private banks that received government bailouts since 2007.

The lesson I draw from that is that global banking can not be safely entrusted to private banks.

What's yours?

Lehman Brothers: financially and morally bankrupt | Professor Richard D. Wolff

You state "I strongly suspect private wealth is inherently evil". Well there you go, that sums it up. You're a ******* Communist whether you admit it or not.

Even if you hadn't made such an incredibly juvenile and ridiculous statement as that, you demonstrated that you just don't get it here as well:

Those guys and gals who tripled their share of national income over those three decades did so at my expense and most of the rest of the US middle class. They did so by bribing Republicans AND Democrats for tax favors that rewarded outsourcing jobs to China while shifting the domestic tax burden from FIRE sector wealth to wages and salaries.

Here you talk like someone OWES you a job. Again, a Communist tenant. More importantly, what you fail to see is the extreme irony of you supporting big government, meddling politicians again and again...the VERY same politicians that wrote the meddling laws, tax codes, and who took campaign contributions in exchange for favorable legislation. Instead of voting for limited government politicians that stand against such meddling, you support the biggest meddlers of them all. The ONLY politicians that would refuse what you call 'bribes' and all establishment politicians call campaign contributions, are those that operate on the assumption that the Constitution limits what the federal government can be involved in. Those few souls don't take bribes because they have no power to fix the system to the advantage of the contributors.

Instead of blaming individuals and companies that simply followed the tax codes, regulations and laws as written while making fiscally sound judgments as to where operations produce the best return for stakeholders, why don't you blame the politicians that attempt to engineer the economy? That's my take on why things are so fucked up today. TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT MEDDLING.

But I'm sure you know of interventionist politicians that see things your way and will resist campaign contributions and insider trading tips while continuing to meddling in the economy. Perhaps a politician with magic beans in his pocket?

 

[Avatar4321]

If we want the economy to prosper we have to conduct our lives according to the principles of prosperity. If we do that, it doesn't matter who controls the government, we will prosper. If we don't, it doesnt matter who controls the government, we won't.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

That's a depressing view you got there Lon. And Rdean your still a jackass. We will recover and prosper. Obama was a stumbling block to a proper recovery. Once recovery truly sets in we will see job growth. Washington has to get out of the way first.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

If we want the economy to prosper we have to conduct our lives according to the principles of prosperity. If we do that, it doesn't matter who controls the government, we will prosper. If we don't, it doesnt matter who controls the government, we won't.

What the hell does that mean? Is that code for gods punishment?

 

[The Rabbi]

If we want the economy to prosper we have to conduct our lives according to the principles of prosperity. If we do that, it doesn't matter who controls the government, we will prosper. If we don't, it doesnt matter who controls the government, we won't.

What the hell does that mean? Is that code for gods punishment?

No. The principles of prosperity state that government cannot control outcomes. It cannot regulate exactly who can and cannot enter or exit a business. It cannot outlaw failure without outlawing success as well.

 

[georgephillip]

By all means, we should base our economy on what YOU remember from the 1970s. Great plan.

You ducked my question there completely. How is the guy that make himself wealthy bad for anyone else? You ***** about income inequality. First tell us why the guy that was more successful than you was bad for other citizens. Explain that first without simply referring to the fact that there are more successful people today than at some point in the past. Again, how is being wealthy bad in an of itself...or is this all just jealousy?

I of course have the balls to answer your question...I in NO WAY support any nationalization of any private debt. End the Fed.

Now, answer my question.

In the 1970s the richest 1% of Americans earned 8% of total US income. That was why a single minimum wage job payed the rent on a new one-bedroom apartment with enough left over to maintain a car. Fast forward to the time of Lehman Brothers' collapse when the richest 1% of Americans took home over 20% of total US income.

Those guys and gals who tripled their share of national income over those three decades did so at my expense and most of the rest of the US middle class. They did so by bribing Republicans AND Democrats for tax favors that rewarded outsourcing jobs to China while shifting the domestic tax burden from FIRE sector wealth to wages and salaries.

I strongly suspect private wealth is inherently evil because, since the time of Rothschild, it gives private bankers too much control over national money supply. Since Lehman Brothers became the biggest bankruptcy in history, "too big to fail" has become the private bankers' rallying cry for obtaining even more influence over government.

Today, governments demand austerity on the vast majority of their citizens, because "the markets" demand it to keep credit flowing to those governments. "The market" obscures who these lenders to governments really are, namely the same global private banks that received government bailouts since 2007.

The lesson I draw from that is that global banking can not be safely entrusted to private banks.

What's yours?

Lehman Brothers: financially and morally bankrupt | Professor Richard D. Wolff

You state "I strongly suspect private wealth is inherently evil". Well there you go, that sums it up. You're a ******* Communist whether you admit it or not.

Even if you hadn't made such an incredibly juvenile and ridiculous statement as that, you demonstrated that you just don't get it here as well:

Those guys and gals who tripled their share of national income over those three decades did so at my expense and most of the rest of the US middle class. They did so by bribing Republicans AND Democrats for tax favors that rewarded outsourcing jobs to China while shifting the domestic tax burden from FIRE sector wealth to wages and salaries.

Here you talk like someone OWES you a job. Again, a Communist tenant. More importantly, what you fail to see is the extreme irony of you supporting big government, meddling politicians again and again...the VERY same politicians that wrote the meddling laws, tax codes, and who took campaign contributions in exchange for favorable legislation. Instead of voting for limited government politicians that stand against such meddling, you support the biggest meddlers of them all. The ONLY politicians that would refuse what you call 'bribes' and all establishment politicians call campaign contributions, are those that operate on the assumption that the Constitution limits what the federal government can be involved in. Those few souls don't take bribes because they have no power to fix the system to the advantage of the contributors.

Instead of blaming individuals and companies that simply followed the tax codes, regulations and laws as written while making fiscally sound judgments as to where operations produce the best return for stakeholders, why don't you blame the politicians that attempt to engineer the economy? That's my take on why things are so fucked up today. TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT MEDDLING.

But I'm sure you know of interventionist politicians that see things your way and will resist campaign contributions and insider trading tips while continuing to meddling in the economy. Perhaps a politician with magic beans in his pocket?

Big government and big business combine to meddle in the economy on behalf of the richest 1% of citizens. The meddling laws and tax codes you rightly complain about are designed to destroy meaningful competition and siphon wealth from the middle class.

Bury the small business owner under mountains of regulations while putting those same business owners in the same tax bracket as Warren Buffett or Bill Gates. TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT MEDDLING in the affairs of small and medium sized productive businesses while ignoring the crimes of speculators who produce nothing of value.

IMHO, finance capitalism is in global decline and the US economy can not "inflate its way out of debt" because this would collapse the dollar. We lack sufficient manufacturing to become more competitive because of high housing costs, transportation, debt and tax overhead.

"The economy has hit a debt wall and is falling into negative equity, where it may remain for as far as the eye can see until there is a debt write down."

Do you know of any politicians, interventionists or otherwise, who are calling for a debt write down?

The Oligarchs’ Escape Plan » Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

 

[eflatminor]

Big government and big business combine to meddle in the economy on behalf of the richest 1% of citizens. The meddling laws and tax codes you rightly complain about are designed to destroy meaningful competition and siphon wealth from the middle class.

The only "siphoning" of wealth from the middle class upwards was in the form of bailouts to banks, insurance companies, car companies, etc. Again, only a meddling politician can make that happen.

Do you know of any politicians, interventionists or otherwise, who are calling for a debt write down?

Ron Paul.

 

[georgephillip]

Big government and big business combine to meddle in the economy on behalf of the richest 1% of citizens. The meddling laws and tax codes you rightly complain about are designed to destroy meaningful competition and siphon wealth from the middle class.

The only "siphoning" of wealth from the middle class upwards was in the form of bailouts to banks, insurance companies, car companies, etc. Again, only a meddling politician can make that happen.

Do you know of any politicians, interventionists or otherwise, who are calling for a debt write down?

Ron Paul.

I would suggest outsourcing of millions of US middle class jobs and the related destruction of US pension benefits along with illegal foreclosures also constitute wealth flows from productive workers to financial speculators. I agree politicians are the trigger men and women who make these things happen; however, they do so in service to the 1% of voters who fund their campaigns.

I think you should consider the possibility of a criminal element on this planet (with names like Rothschild and Rockefeller) who firmly believe it does not matter who is elected to public office as long as private bankers control the national money supply.

If Ron Paul is ready for that fight, he deserves the support of the Tea Party and OWS.

 

[Sactowndog]

Politicians, governments have not created jobs. They've hired people to keep track of what's owed to the rulers. In better times, they provide projects that may help to create an infrastructure that may lead to a better economy, but they do not create those industries that may or may not come about.

This is incredibly myopic.

Government creates the rules by which the game is played. The wages of the 50's would not have occurred except for the rise of unions earlier in the century. The capital markets would not have flourished without government laws to drive transparency.

Government creates infrastructure which allows businesses and other's to thrive. Imagine our economy without the Federal highway system or the internet.

Government provides the foundation on which jobs can be built. A shacky or crumbling foundation does not support nearly as many jobs.

 

[Sactowndog]

As has been pointed out before, employers are complaining that there isn't a workforce to take the jobs available. Jobs have to follow a workforce. There are many reasons why jobs have left the country. Over taxation, over regulation, a hostile workforce trained to treat the employer as the enemy. Employees with increasing drug use. Unskilled and worthless college graduates who want to make a lot of money but have nothing to offer.

It might take a generation or more to really bring jobs back.

Tell that to the thousands of engineers that have had their jobs outsourced to Singapore and China.

The blame the workforce gets old to me. We have thousands of college graduates who are unable to get jobs. When one of my co-workers left, his replacement was hired in Costa Rica. She is in no way more skilled than a local hire.

We complain about government run health care and applaud corporations as smart to move jobs overseas because the health care and salary costs are subsidized by other governments.

 

[The Rabbi]

As has been pointed out before, employers are complaining that there isn't a workforce to take the jobs available. Jobs have to follow a workforce. There are many reasons why jobs have left the country. Over taxation, over regulation, a hostile workforce trained to treat the employer as the enemy. Employees with increasing drug use. Unskilled and worthless college graduates who want to make a lot of money but have nothing to offer.

It might take a generation or more to really bring jobs back.

Tell that to the thousands of engineers that have had their jobs outsourced to Singapore and China.

The blame the workforce gets old to me. We have thousands of college graduates who are unable to get jobs. When one of my co-workers left, his replacement was hired in Costa Rica. She is in no way more skilled than a local hire.

We complain about government run health care and applaud corporations as smart to move jobs overseas because the health care and salary costs are subsidized by other governments.

And why were they outsourced? Because they couldn't compete.
But tell that to the hundreds of German engineers who saw their jobs outsourced to the US. The US is a net beneficiary of outsourcing.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Ron Paul is the only candidate addressing our economic problems.

 

[georgephillip]

As has been pointed out before, employers are complaining that there isn't a workforce to take the jobs available. Jobs have to follow a workforce. There are many reasons why jobs have left the country. Over taxation, over regulation, a hostile workforce trained to treat the employer as the enemy. Employees with increasing drug use. Unskilled and worthless college graduates who want to make a lot of money but have nothing to offer.

It might take a generation or more to really bring jobs back.

Tell that to the thousands of engineers that have had their jobs outsourced to Singapore and China.

The blame the workforce gets old to me. We have thousands of college graduates who are unable to get jobs. When one of my co-workers left, his replacement was hired in Costa Rica. She is in no way more skilled than a local hire.

We complain about government run health care and applaud corporations as smart to move jobs overseas because the health care and salary costs are subsidized by other governments.

And why were they outsourced? Because they couldn't compete.
But tell that to the hundreds of German engineers who saw their jobs outsourced to the US. The US is a net beneficiary of outsourcing.

Millions of Germans did not see their jobs outsourced to China because German workers have voting members sitting on the boards of directors of the corporations they work for. It's hard to imagine the US being a net beneficiary of global job flows when only the USSR lost more jobs in a single decade than the US lost between 2000 to 2010.

 

[georgephillip]

Ron Paul is the only candidate addressing our economic problems.

His non-interventionist foreign policy stance is also a plus in my mind.

I'm not so sure about some of his views of civil rights:

"In a December 2003 article entitled 'Christmas in Secular America', Paul wrote:

"'The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers. On the contrary, our Founders' political views were strongly informed by their religious beliefs.

"'Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government's hostility to religion.

"The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance."

Political positions of Ron Paul - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[sealybobo]

If the best days are behind us and neither party can bring us back, it's time to evaluate our country for what we bring to the table and how we have to change to be competitive again.

Just like an addict reaching and hitting bottom, they will rise out of the dust after a time of rectification. We may just have to do that. Our wages may have to be lower, the spending sprees done, and we will have to sacrifice and set forth our American determination.

I think we could do that.

No no no this is our opportunity don't **** it up with talk like that. Both trump and hillary have promised to bring jobs back home. What is your senator and house of rep saying about bringing jobs back home? If he's giving you excuses vote him or her out of office.

Every country regulates what vital industries they don't allow to go overseas. Manufacturing military weapons, medicines and cars should be kept inside the USA.

Do Toyota and Honda down south ship cars to china? No. They manufacture inside china because car manufacturing is vital to their economy. Our government allowed these companies to go to Mexico and ship cars here? **** that. Its wrong.

I think it's great both party leaders are talking about this problem. Don't let the corporate controlled government tell you they can't. Stop defending everything the right does. It's why the GOP won't have a presidential candidate this year. Stop obstructing

 

[sealybobo]

As has been pointed out before, employers are complaining that there isn't a workforce to take the jobs available. Jobs have to follow a workforce. There are many reasons why jobs have left the country. Over taxation, over regulation, a hostile workforce trained to treat the employer as the enemy. Employees with increasing drug use. Unskilled and worthless college graduates who want to make a lot of money but have nothing to offer.

It might take a generation or more to really bring jobs back.

Tell that to the thousands of engineers that have had their jobs outsourced to Singapore and China.

The blame the workforce gets old to me. We have thousands of college graduates who are unable to get jobs. When one of my co-workers left, his replacement was hired in Costa Rica. She is in no way more skilled than a local hire.

We complain about government run health care and applaud corporations as smart to move jobs overseas because the health care and salary costs are subsidized by other governments.

And why were they outsourced? Because they couldn't compete.
But tell that to the hundreds of German engineers who saw their jobs outsourced to the US. The US is a net beneficiary of outsourcing.

Millions of Germans did not see their jobs outsourced to China because German workers have voting members sitting on the boards of directors of the corporations they work for. It's hard to imagine the US being a net beneficiary of global job flows when only the USSR lost more jobs in a single decade than the US lost between 2000 to 2010.

We are or were the highest paid workers in the world. Of course we lost jobs to mexico China and india