I thank the many who have responded to my first blog! This is fun. I was taken to task by one of you for mentioning that Digital Equip. was the largest employer when Judd Gregg was first elected, compared to Wal-Mart, presently.
I agree that Mr. Gregg did not personally upend Digital and invite Wal-Mart in by night. Each company has responsibility for its own success or failure. Yet they operate within an economic environment, and our leadership makes important differences in what kinds of businesses succeed and fail. Right now, there is no leadership to create an environment where companies whith good-paying American jobs are growing, and where they are helping us close in on our trade deficit–quite the opposite is true. There is much that could be done by leaders, if they would show up to do it, and Mr. Gregg is among the missing.
Am I suggesting a return to protectionist trade policies? Well, I am old fashioned and I think China, for example, has enough potential customers to provide for its own great economy and its own great and free middle class, and I think we do not have to put their progress entirely on the backs of our own middle class jobs. Let us make and buy our own portable beer cooler televisions. For if we do not have a manufacturing base for the small stuff, it won’t be long before we have to go shopping for our jet fighters and rockets in Shanghai. I do not suggest that Mr. Gregg somehow put sugar in the gas tank of Digital Equipment, but he has voted for tax policies and trade policies that have tilted the playing field away from our children’s future.
Or am I all wrong about it? I love blogging–Have at me. –Granny D
Hello Granny D-
I want toask you about a different topic. What do you think we should do about the Electoral College system, if anything. It strays from the popular vote, and I am concerned that this is skewing elections. Any thoughts?
Annie
I think this is the second most important election in the country right now. Granny D is running on contributions from real people. No other politician in the country is doing this. If I understand this correctly, her opponent Judd Gregg, has accepted half a million dollars from the HMO and medical industry to run his campaign. That’s shameful to run against a 94 year old woman fighting for the rights of our citizens to be represented by someone who will listen and respond to their needs. I know that she can appeal to voters, both Republican and Democrat, to vote for her in NH. I hope that people across the country will send in those little donations that will keep this campaign afloat so we can win our government back.
where do i send the check? is it ok that I live in NC?
alright Ted-if you are sending a check from North Carolina I will send one from Boston.
Thanks Granny! You have a lot of people cheering you on in different pockets of the country.
The rules for contributing are pretty much the same as for the presidential election.
Granny D stepped up and got involved so one of W’s good ol’ boys was not running unopposed. If each one of us steps up and sends just a few bucks to Granny D, she can make the voters aware of what is going on. Right now she’s trying specifically to raise funds for TV ads which will run in NH:
Granny D on TV
Thanks Granny D for all you’ve done!
Sorry, I got a “questionable content” error, so I’ll try posting in pieces (so the good content can get through).
Piece 1 of 3:
Point taken. Some here probably remember the hope America felt when Nixon began establishing a tenuous relationship with China. More of us should remember Clinton establishing normal trade relations with China. In both cases, I believe, the reasoning was that Chinese communism was more likely to weaken (and eventually fall) under free market pressure. The SARS epidemic a couple of years ago is a good example of how market pressure can do this. In responding to SARS, China learned that (1) it no longer controls all the information, and (2) it must take action to please “market forces” (which includes governments, consumers, and businesses).
Piece 2 of 3:
This assumes that China is taking our jobs. It also implies that the market won’t figure out a way to fix the problem. But markets aren’t things to be studied. Markets are conversations made up of creative buyers and creative sellers. When workers (sellers of labor) get laid off, they still have bills to pay, so they figure out who else might want to buy their time. That’s how the market works.
I lived in California when it suffered because of the Defense budget cuts of the ’90s. The people who were lost their jobs building billion-dollar weapon systems still had bills to pay, and struggled to find suitable work. As they figured out different industries they could move to (mostly small businesses), California crawled its way out of the recession. That’s how the market works.
I now live in North Carolina, we have been hit especially hard because of the loss of manufacturing and textile jobs. I don’t know where those workers will go. I do know that they will find ways to make ends meet, and the market will correct itself. It always has.
Piece 3 of 3:
One of the reasons China makes so much small stuff is because the big stuff simply costs too much to ship overseas. That may not always be the case. But why would tomorrow’s job market be less able to correct itself than today’s? If mobile homes are ever profitably imported, the former mobile home builders will find other jobs.
Yes, I know people say “but there won’t be any other jobs!” But even the Great Depression ended with an increase in “other jobs” (more on that in my final link).
Leaving China, we have seen India take over technical support and even programming. For the sake of discussion, let’s ignore the costs of outsourcing these high-paying jobs to India (or Latin America, or somewhere else). The Americans in these jobs today aren’t helpless goons. Today’s ex-programmers have found design jobs that take care of the bills quite well. It seems to me that trying to prop up a losing team (PDF) isn’t the way to go.
Then again, this year’s Nobel Prize winner in economics explains recessions very differently from me.
BTW, this link was my “questionable content.” Well, the one I originally used, which pointed to Coyote Blog’s entry (Coyote Blog’s main page is here).
Phyllis wrote:
I have no evidence to show that Ralph Nader is taking contributions from PACs or corporations. Ralph Nader is a politician in the US.
My apology for not including this in my previous response.
I’d be wary of market-based reasoning. If we leave things to the market, the lowest priced labor will win, regardless of where that is. China is not “taking our jobs”, multinational corporations are seeking the lowest wage labor the world has to offer. Right now that may be in India or China. But if the US were to carve out another exception from the minimum wage (like restaurants don’t have to pay waitstaff minimum wage), then jobs in that exception could offer Americans jobs at whatever sub-living wage the market will bear.
Under this scenario, market-based reasoning would offer you no leverage to complain that these full-time jobs aren’t paying enough to feed and house a family or even an individual. The US Government might be asked to provide jobs that can’t be easily exported out (perhaps construction jobs, or some person-to-person service jobs) and also change immigration law to prevent importing slave wage labor in.
Granny — best of luck from those of us in NH (yes I will be voting) … I strongly encourage folks interested in this to take a look at Robert Reich’s “The Future of Success” … he points out the forces that are driving jobs over seas, and Walmart to displace Digital …. (we have met the enemy and they are us) ….
As an Ex DECie, I have some direct experience in this situation. The real pain, besides Digital (which was one of the old style “moral” companies) hitting the rails, was the 100,000 employees laid off over the years of it’s decline (including post-Compaq) — A portion of these would have started their own companies, but shyed away from that due to the lack of a medical care saftey net that would avoid putting their family at risk. Since start ups are the primary source of innovation and opportunity for growth, our failure to provide an environment that encourages this entreprenuership is painful.
Sorry, JB, the market is made up of both buyers and sellers. Both are intelligent, and try to handle their own problems. Yes, the “sellers”(of time, that is employees) in China are willing to take a lower price for their time than in the US, so the “buyers” (businesses) take them up on it.
So what do the employees in the US do? Their bills keep coming in the mail, they need to keep buying food and paying rent. They know that they need a job somewhere, and so they find (or create) one that covers their expenses. It’s how the market works, and it’s why even foreign companies hire Americans in the US.
Kerry refers to “tax loopholes” that encourage people to create jobs overseas. If we assume he’s actually serious about this, we need to look at those “loopholes.” I’ve only heard him identify a single loophole (during the final debate), when he referred to the tax law that doesn’t tax corporations for income they make abroad — until that income is sent to the US. This “loophole” is standard law in every country I’m familiar with, and has nothing to do with exporting jobs (and everything to do with exporting goods).
Kerry didn’t say how he would close this “loophole,”but it appears that he would want to tax all US-based companies on all income made world-wide. That will do nothing but drive up expenses for US-based companies (leaving less money for new jobs), and may even encourage companies to go looking for a new country for their headquarters (it’s not as hard as it sounds, California has very few big companies headquarters today as a result of having the highest taxes and most expensive regulation in the nation).
The Kerrys spend quite a lot of money on attorneys and accountants to legally avoid paying taxes (the average American spends roughly 20% on income tax). Why wouldn’t companies do the same?
Hi, you feisty olf broad! I hoped to help your campaign some more after my wife and I came back to PA from marching in your wake in New Hampshire. Unfortunately, I just couldn’t keep up with you and ended up in the hospital. But I’m crawling back into the real world now and Kris and I just want to cheer you on. Dont let the likes of Judd or this self-styled libertarian, Max Lybbert[y] misrepresent the complexities of our real world economic system by their simplistic. For economic competition is not ruled just by the buyers and sellers. Many factors intervene from tax policies to the provision of slave (prision) labor, and labor at bare survival wages in many places being raped by corporations.
It is not free trade that anyone needs, but fair trade–trade with those who pay a fair wage and trade with those fair to the environment. What we need to outsource is self-styled economists who have no real idea of what really runs our economies.
Thanks again for all you’ve done and will do. I just can’t believe Judd would agree to debate you! You know what that means? He is running scared or you. No incombent politician in a command position would legitimatize his opponent by granting a debate if he didn’t feel threatened. So you needed fear. Gregg’a teeth may not show that they are chattering, but you can be assured that inside he really regrets having to give you a go at him because he knows you tell it like it is and talk straight talk!
My main point is that the market tries to correct itself. The market even tries to correct itself when government regulation puts a brake on things — but in those cases it often acts unpredictably.
Pulling 2 billion people in India and China out of poverty is well worth a few manufacturing jobs, and in the long run, will lead to more prosperity for all, including for America. If China can make a better beer cooler tv for less than us, then we shouldn’t be making them.
Over the years, many of our industries have moved largely overseas, and our country’s economy has only grown stronger and unemployment has remained low.
I have to Agree with Granny D!