Kramer the racist... (now the illegal immigration thread)

[Teal]

good lord, you people are all over the place...kramer, illegals, and now Dobbs. Ah hell, I'll throw out a topic-why not? Anal seepage...major embarrassment or medical nightmare? Discuss...

[wco81]

Wow this thread morphed in several directions.

First of all, the tacit immigration policy in this country for decades has been to look the other way, because businesses want immigration, legal or illegal, to help keep wages down. But also, because population growth has been zero since the end of the Baby Boom from the native population. You need population growth for economic development.

That is probably why we had widescale immigration from Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Then we turned off the spigot at some point. It was all about economics, not that Statue of Libery/Ellis Island grandeur.

BTW, plenty of other countries trying to accelerate their economic development import Indians, Philipinos and others from lower-wage developing nations. Not to provide opportunity for those people but to bring in cheap labor for low-skill jobs where there aren't enough native workers.

It makes a good political issue, talking about fences and such and some politicians exploited it with limited success this year. But there is no practical way we're going to expel the illegals already in the country or prevent new illegals. People will forget about fences in a few years, when some other big issue is waived in front of them to distract them.

During the social security "reform" debate a couple of years ago, it was pointed out that a lot of the payroll taxes come from illegal immigrants who will never collect Social Security unless some laws were changed. So they're not all paid with cash under the table, off the books. As for income taxes, if they really earned only $5.95 an hour, they probably wouldn't pay any income taxes. With children, they probably would get tax credits, if they were legal.

As for free health care, well it's another issue why citizens don't have it. Not sure how widely free health care is administered to illegals. Do they know some source that the millions of uninsured citizens don't? There may be some cases of illegals getting care at some county facility. But wouldn't they collect things like social security numbers, names, addresses?

If they're really sick though, I'd rather they get treated even if they can't pay. Not just for humanitarian reasons but also, if they have something like West Nile fever or some other infectious disease (and there seems to be more of those these days), best to have providers know about such cases and report to the CDC.

Dobbs was talking about outsourcing before the 2004 election. Even before the campaign and the debate gained high profile. I think some of the resentment against Dobbs comes from the fact that he's a critic of free trade and globalization who's neither far right (Buchanan) or far left (see Seattle WTO protesters).

Nobody has convincingly rebutted the criticism (not necessarily from Dobbs) that all jobs, including high-skilled jobs, are vulnerable to outsourcing. That "windbag" Thomas Friedman said American programmers could all become software architects, like Bill Gates!

[Inuyasha]

What's the deal going on with Dobbs? I actually like what he writes these days. He doesn't seem like a Dem or Rep and mostly a progressive.

I was sort of surprised he had a political column since all I knew he did was that CNN Money show. So what's the rap on him? He's a phony? Or he's the real deal?

I like him. I don't think he's a phony, as he has made reference to his middle class upbringing once or twice. I highly doubt he's making that up, because it would be real easy to bust him on it. Yeah, he makes money now, but who on TV doesn't. At least he seems genuine in his caring about the topics he presents.

Being from a middle class family, and now being the next generation of middle class, a lot of what he says rings true. I've been through manufacturing companies and the layoffs. I see the health care costs and the lack of salary increases to keep up. A lot of my friends are in the same boat. Others can call him ignorant and a windbag, but for me he brings up issues that concern me personally.

If you are going to question his motives, go right ahead. You should question ANYONE who is front of a camera then. I happen to believe he is honest about what he is talking about. He speaks what a lot of people in this country are thinking about, and that is a refreshing contrast to most of the other faces I see on the news.

I think you're right about the Middle Class angle. I don't read him much, but when I do, he seems to have the vibe of the MIddle Class, which I am part of. Sort of conveys what everyone is thinking but sometimes don't want to say or can't find a good way to say it. I think it's just nice to have someone who doesn't play the demo repub game and is more of a populist. Just a breath of fresh air in the media.

[pk500]

Dobbs is trying to counterweight Bill O'Reilly on the near-left side of the political center. Same type of omniscient spew, but slightly left of center.

It's a song and dance we've seen before.

Take care,
PK

[RobVarak]

Nobody has convincingly rebutted the criticism (not necessarily from Dobbs) that all jobs, including high-skilled jobs, are vulnerable to outsourcing. That "windbag" Thomas Friedman said American programmers could all become software architects, like Bill Gates!

There couldn't be two more diametrically opposed styles when approaching the issue of globalization thatn Dobbs and Friedman though. Friedman's book and his columns are direct and impassioned without ever resorting to the sky-is-falling scare tactics employed by Dobbs. Friedman sober and analytical where Dobbs is hysterical and often downright misleading.

[XXXIV]

Nobody has convincingly rebutted the criticism (not necessarily from Dobbs) that all jobs, including high-skilled jobs, are vulnerable to outsourcing. That "windbag" Thomas Friedman said American programmers could all become software architects, like Bill Gates!

There couldn't be two more diametrically opposed styles when approaching the issue of globalization thatn Dobbs and Friedman though. Friedman's book and his columns are direct and impassioned without ever resorting to the sky-is-falling scare tactics employed by Dobbs. Friedman sober and analytical where Dobbs is hysterical and often downright misleading.

So very true...what is it with the scare crap?....make a point without saying we are all going to f***in die....

Dobbs is a joke....but not as big of a joke as his followers.

[wco81]

I heard Friedman say he does what he does for "our children" on NPR.

Not terribly sober but the substance of what they're saying is more important than the style, no?

Friedman repeats some economic studies saying people whose jobs are outsourced will simply transition to higher-value jobs, or "knowledge workers" as some put it.

Thirty years ago, the biggest employer in the country was GM and a GM worker could buy a house and send his kids to college without his wife working.

Now, the biggest employer in the country is Wal Mart and a Wal Mart worker can ... buy a Happy Meal.

Some of those manufacturing workers did transition up the labor food chain but most went into retail or something else which paid a lot less.

Now, to buy homes and send children to college, both parents have to work, probably in professional jobs.

No economist or advocate of free trade has been able to explain why things didn't happen exactly the way it was suppose to, especially now that even "knowledge workers" are seeing their jobs exported. First, NAFTA was suppose to make our neighbors to the south more competitive (which might have alleviated the immigration) but globalization passed them right by, on the way to China and India.

Hey, we need to all become CEOs, those jobs are never outsourced.

[Feanor]

The main problem with Dobbs is that he is hopelessly confused on basic economic issues but no amount of evidence will ever get him to change his mind.

I sent this e-mail to him thru the CNN website two years ago and he hasn't improved at all!

I am appalled at Lou's coverage regarding the US trade deficit. Saying it is at record levels is very misleading when the figures used are non-inflation adjusted dollars. Trade deficits are only fairly measured as a percentage of GNP. Perhaps in the interest of informing his viewers, Lou could provide this measure as well as the dollar figure, and compare both to historical levels.

Lou also seems to be completely ignorant as to the actual causes of trade deficits. He acts like foreign trade barriers are an important cause, but this is simply false. The rest of the world is more open to U.S. exports today than it was 30 years ago, thanks to two more rounds of GATT negotiations as well as unilateral trade liberalization abroad. Yet the US trade deficit is also larger.

Bilateral trade deficits also fail to show a cause-and-effect link to foreign trade barriers. The United States runs bilateral trade deficits with Mexico and Canada, two countries that are almost completely open to exports from the United States. Yet the US runs a trade surplus with Brazil, a country that still maintains significant barriers to U.S. exports.

Since Lou uses the word "competitiveness" regarding the US economy so often, it would be nice if he could take a minute to explain what he thinks this word means. Unfortunately for Lou and his viewers, competitiveness, on a nation-to-nation level, is an imprecise term, one almost devoid of meaning. What does it mean for a nation’s economy to be competitive? If it means "more productive," then this is just another term for "wealthier." And it makes no sense in theory or in practice why a nation’s trade deficit should shrink as the overall productivity of its workers rises. Indeed, the opposite effect may be more plausible.

The actual, fundamental cause of the trade deficit in the United States today is the gap between what the US saves as a nation and the level of domestic investment. To cover this shortfall of savings, the US offers investment opportunities to foreigners, using the surplus of incoming capital to pay for the import of goods and services over and above what the US exports. The result is a trade deficit (or more precisely, a current account deficit).

I can only think that Lou's economic training is so out-dated that he simply doesn't know or understand the economics of trade deficits. Ignorance is no excuse, however.

So the variables in the trade-deficit equation are not industrial competitiveness or trade policies, but how much a nation saves and invests. Simply put, the U.S. trade deficit is not the cause of bad things in our economy; it is the result of good things, chief among them rising investment.

The trade deficit results from America borrowing from the rest of the world. This is only bad if the borrowing is unsustainable. If Lou has evidence that this is the case then please let him present that evidence to his viewers. His current practice of simply stating that the trade deficit is bad because it's bad does him, and CNN, absolutely no credit.

[wco81]

Well to be fair, Dobbs isn't the only one to raise flags about the trade deficit.

And playing with numbers like expressing it as a percentage of GDP versus the absolute dollar amounts doesn't make it more palatable.

Is it suppose to be better for us that the Chinese have poured their savings into US govt. instruments while Americans have a negative savings rate? As opposed to American industry not being able to export as much as the country is importing?

Certainly people feel uneasy at least about being in hock to foreigners, while debt service takes up greater portion of our budget (or GDP if you prefer).

There's no qustion we import too much oil. The monthly trade deficit number eased in October as the reductions in the price of oil was reflected.

There are plenty of economists who have a problem with the trade numbers, however you express them.

BTW, when an American company like MS has the X360 built in China, does the sale from that product go in as an import or just a domestic sale? Similarly, Sony and Nintendo both have US subsidiaries. So are they importing from China or the parent corp. in Japan or is it a domestic sale as long as they don't try to repatriate proceeds of US sales back to Japan?

[Feanor]

And playing with numbers like expressing it as a percentage of GDP versus the absolute dollar amounts doesn't make it more palatable.

The only ones playing with numbers are people like Dobbs when he screams about the trade deficit (measured in nominal dollars) being the highest in American history like this is useful information. It's not. Expressing a current account deficit in terms of GNP is the only fair way to measure its significance to the economy and to compare it to past current account deficits.

The United States' current account deficit may well be a problem, but the way to fix it is to get the government and the private sector to increase their savings rate. Unfortunately, the government of this country continually runs huge budget deficits and can not control its spending and/or earn enough tax revenue to pay for all the things it just has to spend money on.

Unfortunately, Dobbs is one of those ignorant people who believe international trade is a zero-sum game in which one country only wins if another country loses and the current account is how to keep score. The Japanese economy has been f*cked for about 15 years now, and they have a trade surplus. Dobbs also says that the way to reduce the current account deficit is to restrict imports, but this would have at most a neglible impact because it wouldn't change the aggerage level of saving and investment.

One final thing Dobbs has wrong is his nonsense about the trade deficit lowering economic growth and raising unemployment. In truth, larger trade deficits correlate positively with falling unemployment because both are a consequence of a growing economy. I suggest you have a look at this article.

http://www.freetrade.org/node/317

[pk500]

Thirty years ago, the biggest employer in the country was GM and a GM worker could buy a house and send his kids to college without his wife working.

Now, the biggest employer in the country is Wal Mart and a Wal Mart worker can ... buy a Happy Meal.

That's all changed because the UAW has f*cking sucked GM dry, adding at least $1,000 to the sticker price of every GM car because of the outlandish pensions and full health plan that UAW retirees get. That's not a pension -- it's extortion.

Sure, our economy isn't perfect, but the unions have f*cked up a lot of industries by WAY overstepping their original intention, which was to protect workers, not reward them for crap quality work with great pay, pension and health plans.

Don't even get me started on unions. I have too many very personal experiences with them for me to ever think they're anything but corrupt organizations designed to give as much pay and benefits for their members for as little work as possible.

What do I hate more, unions or dogs? It's a toss-up, a betting line pick 'em.

Take care,
PK

[wco81]

Have you ever seen people working on auto assembly lines? It's brutal work and they deserve every penny they get. What are you going to say, they should have gone into another line of work? You could say the same about Wal Mart and other retail workers now.

UAW didn't bring down GM, it was the crappy management and design choices and cutting corners on quality/reliability. Nobody forced the GM execs. to sign those union contracts.

BTW, the $1000 to the sticker price is meaningless since we've seen GM discount way way below sticker. It's true though that their pension and health benefit obligations add costs. In fact it's over $1000 due to health care costs. But guess what, GM does assembly in Canada too and their costs there are about $1000 lower because they don't have to deal with health care costs.

The GM workers had more buying power back in GM's heyday, and it afforded them a middle class life, nothing approaching "outlandish" lifestyle.

They weren't the only ones. People used to get pensions in our parents' day, rather than 401K funds. These weren't all union workers either.

Now, the few pensions that are left, the companies are trying to weasel out of it and dump the obligations on the govt.

If it wasn't for unions, you'd be sending in your children at 8 years old to work, because companies wouldn't have given you market wages or health benefits on their own.

Oh and on that free trade article, that's Cato Institute propaganda. If you want to cite studies on trade or other economic issues, cite works by serious economists, not an advocacy organization whose sole purpose is to spread the maximal laissez faire ideology of its benefactors, who happen to have economic interests in promoting that ideology.

[XXXIV]

WCO would rather have one man working to further his pathetic cause....and see hundreds starving...He only cares about his political party...the human being be damned...Long Live My agenda !!! eh d*****?


He is the perfect example of what s wrong with the world


One selfish bastard.

[pk500]

If it wasn't for unions, you'd be sending in your children at 8 years old to work, because companies wouldn't have given you market wages or health benefits on their own.

I guess you missed the part where I said unions overstepped their original intention, among which was to prevent the above scenario.

Oh, and have you ever worked as a non-union worker along with union workers? I have. What's your experience working with those in a trade union? I'm curious.

Take care,
PK

[wco81]

What party and cause are you referring to, dipshit?

How many are you saving from "starving"?

What are your selfless causes?

Or are you just throwing out words without much thoughts behind them?

As usual?

[XXXIV]

What party and cause are you referring to, dipshit?

How many are you saving from "starving"?

What are your selfless causes?

Or are you just throwing out words without much thoughts behind them?

As usual?

slave

[wco81]

If it wasn't for unions, you'd be sending in your children at 8 years old to work, because companies wouldn't have given you market wages or health benefits on their own.

I guess you missed the part where I said unions overstepped their original intention, among which was to prevent the above scenario.

Oh, and have you ever worked as a non-union worker along with union workers? I have. What's your experience working with those in a trade union? I'm curious.

Take care,
PK

I've never held a union job, even before getting out of school. I've known some people who worked in unions, heard stories about 16-hour days in a car assembly line, too tired to do anything on weekends.

My problem was that you attribute the decline of GM to the unions or imply that the workers were overpaid.

Overpaid compared to what? The GM executives who approved those big, ugly, boxy cars which broke down while waiting in gas lines, as imports came in and took over marketshare? Or the ones who were faced with a portfolio of SUVs when gas hit $2 and then $3? Those guys got multimillion-dollar bonuses.

I don't doubt that job protection rules kept many non-union workers out of jobs. I can see why you might be embittered if you were on the wrong end of such a situation.

But if it wasn't for such rules and unions, employers would simply pit workers against each other, when in truth, workers today still need to deal with employers who seek every opportunity to squeeze costs at the expense of their employees.

Then we'd probably be bidding, even professional non-union workers, to take less in health benefits (rather than the annual decreases in health benefits) than the next guy or lower overall compensation.

[XXXIV]

If it wasn't for unions, you'd be sending in your children at 8 years old to work, because companies wouldn't have given you market wages or health benefits on their own.

I guess you missed the part where I said unions overstepped their original intention, among which was to prevent the above scenario.

Oh, and have you ever worked as a non-union worker along with union workers? I have. What's your experience working with those in a trade union? I'm curious.

Take care,
PK

you are talking to the brain dead political slut....He has no ideas of his own...they own him body and soul.

[wco81]

you are talking to the brain dead political slut....He has no ideas of his own...they own him body and soul.

You're just a jackass who can only utter insults without any substance.

Who is this "they"?

What are you doing which is so great for the cause of mankind? If I want to "see hundreds starving" what are you doing or believe in which is so great?

Even your attacks have no consistent logic, other than repetitive claims about my agenda, which you can't even describe.

Whatsmatter, your folks didn't let you sit with the adults again?

[kevinpars]

I don't know who is to blame, but I certainly am pissed off that i have to depend on some shitty 401K for my retirement while my father was able to depend on a pension.

As for unions, I have been knee jerk pro union, but I remember my dad having to cross the line when he was management, and he was far from being a bad guy. Unions (in a large part) have evolved into self serving organizations that no longer serve their constituants.

But at the same I love it when I see the company charter where I work that states that they don't believe in unions and that they strongly believe that the individual can represent themself and their grievances against the company. In other words, we got the power and you don't and we like it that way.

And as for illegal immigration, I am sorry but the idea of building a huge fence to keep people out seems to be the height of stupidity. Expensive and ultimately a failure. It strikes me that it will be the United State's Maginot Line (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maginot_Line

[pk500]

Unions (in a large part) have evolved into self serving organizations that no longer serve their constituants.

That, or organizations that strong-arm too many concessions from management. Take WCO's statement that GM didn't have to reach accord with the UAW.

What is GM supposed to do? Tell the UAW to f*ck off and keep its assembly lines quiet for months before replacement workers can be found and trained? Yeah, right.

I detest unions from the two years I worked pouring concrete as a non-union laborer. The union guys were the laziest motherf*ckers I have ever seen, working when they felt like it, doing sh*tty work, all because they knew they would have a job tomorrow if fired from our current job. And that's a fact: A lazy, mouthy union guy I worked alongside was deservedly fired and was working the next day on a bridge project.

The back shop at the newspaper where I worked also was union. The rules by which they operated were so lame that if a non-union guy like me even touched a piece of film coming out of the typesetting machine or lifted a piece of type to straighten it on the markup, every one of those guys would drop their Xacto knives and walk out of the shop. That's the truth -- I saw it.

Plus unions nearly destroyed my father. He negotiated a fair pay increase and benefits package for the warehouse workers at the steel middleman where he worked in management in return for a promise not to unionize.

Sure enough, those assholes unionized less than three months after getting the concessions from my father and went on strike. My old man had to work from 7 a.m.-6 p.m. selling steel and then from 6-11 p.m. cutting and packing the steel in the warehouse, five to six days per week, while the new union men stood on the curb and sipped coffee, rocking the cars of the few replacement workers for kicks as they entered the parking lot.

He absolutely refused to settle with those backstabbers since he gave them a fair deal and his word, and he starved every one of them out, the last piece of sh*t falling after about 13 months.

Good riddance. But it took a hell of a toll on my old man and our family life for more than a year, and our family can thank unions for that.

Take care,
PK

[Inuyasha]

God Damn that Kramer for starting this thread.

[wco81]

What's happening now is Detroit is closing plants in the Midwest and shipping those jobs to Mexico.

Meanwhile, the Japanese continue to gain market share and they're building plants with non-unionized labor. So UAW will disappear around the same time GM does.

But Toyota isn't gaining market share because of lower-cost labor. If anything, their cars can command more on the market and they never resort to the heavy discounting and incentives which the domestic makers have had to resort to in recent years.

Why? Because their cars are better designed and more reliable. Toyota is leading the charge on hybrids and better fuel-efficiency while Detroit only knows how to make profits from overcharging for those big SUVs, which carry high enough margins to cover the losses from their passenger cars.

Yeah unions are corrupt and some of their job security rules were no doubt exploited.

But on balance, have all unions become this inefficient and calcified? For one thing, they're losing whatever clout they used to have. Every year, they lose membership and they can't stop the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs out of this country.

Bottom line is, collective bargaining provided the leverage to get good wages for working-class people, who don't have higher education as an option. Now, the pendulum has swung the other way and there are a lot of workers like Wal Mart employees who are at the mercy of employers who will cut them loose and squeeze costs from payroll to make their quarterly numbers.

[bdunn13]

I will stick with my 305HP 5.7L V8 over any imported hybrid POS.

w00t!

[XXXIV]

God Damn that Kramer for starting this thread.

....

I know Im sorry ...