We need a "Space Program." That is to say, we need a president to decide to bring back manufacturing and make it a priority. Let me tell you, it is easy to say it should be a crime to make products out of the country, but that is a simple answer and it indicates a lack of critical thinking.
I know we can make things cheaper and better in this country. We made better Palm Pilots here in SLC than those that came from China.
We have silly lawsuits, huge insurance premiums in some cases, union issues, taxes, the public's need for cheap products and many more things that cost us lots of money. We can manufacture products in this country, but necessarily for less money, so the prices will likely increase.
The president wants a minimum wage increase and that will drive more manufacturers off shore.
Manufacturers are responsible to their stock holders. Therefore, if they can make it for ten bucks less in China, that is where they go.
This is a very complex issue but one we can overcome with the right powers in Washington, DC.
Fair enough. I also agree with the need to reduce the frivolous lawsuits. Labor unions and work force practices in general need to be put into place. Yes, there are a lot of contributing factors that need to be looked at. But they simply are not being looked into.
It wouldn't fix the underlying issue though. If you manufacture here in the States it cost more. Wages are higher. Material costs are often higher. There's a higher cost to complying with local rules/regulations. It's harder to recruit/retain people. A lot of people here don't want those jobs. Meanwhile, over seas, people will do anything to get that job, work ridiculous hours and take very low pay and are very, very, very happy to do so.
I disagree about our workforce. While I'm sure there are a good number of people who are on government assistance and would rather stay there, I am sure there is a large number of people who are out of work and would be happy to be working again. If the lack of workers willing to do work is such a problem, it is because we let our government let them become lazy. Social assistance programs should be looked into to make it so these jobs get populated with people who want to do the work.
I also disagree on the retention aspect. There are very often layoffs in companies. Not hiring shortages. Job fairs are packed. Recruiters have no shortage of people to recruit from. The numbers do not add up into meaning America is lazy. A percentage may be, but that is an issue that needs to be analyzed and corrected. If they are too lazy to work, then they should be cut off and the money be diverted to families who actually need it. Don't get me wrong, I think social assistance is a good idea and should be something that we keep. Just that we need to make it so it's far harder to abuse.
Did you miss out on the last three hundred years of economics?
Free trade is essential. Countries like Mexico have an advantage over the US because they have free trade agreements with the US, Canada, EU, Korea etc while the US doesn't.
EU-US trade deal is 'unique opportunity' | World | DW.DE | 26.02.2013
The US-EU free trade agreement has been the only one started under Obama. However as it is between the world's two largest economies, it could be the most important.
I will continue to disagree with you. Mexico has an advantage because they have an expanding manufacturing base and have the free trade agreements. You need to be supplying as much or more to the free trade to be competitive or you fall behind.
More and more is being manufactured in Mexico. We build very little in the US. Yes, we benefit from free trade because the costs of things we get made are cheaper due to cheap Mexican labor and no taxes on import. We lose overall because our workforce is getting outsourced to these foreign counties with very little coming back. Our middle class is dwindling. How do we plan on supporting our country in the next 20 years? Raise taxes? On whom? The rich? Look at France, they are fleeing that country like rats from a sinking ship. Besides, they just would put their money in off-shore accounts that are not subject to our laws. Like Mitt Romney. The non-existant middle class? If they still have jobs that haven't gone to a free trade partner, I'm sure they'll be taxed until they are below the poverty line, which is a catch 22 because then they get taxes refunded. And those below the poverty line already get all their taxes back.
So what do we do? Do you really think that free trade with the EU is suddenly going to fix all our economic problems? The EU is also in trouble, so I'm not sure how a failing economy is going to fix itself by attaching to another failing economy. Please explain.
Err .. the debt is $16.6 trillion. The deficit was $1.1 trillion in 2012 so a cut of $85 billion is 7%. Which actually is impressive, yes.
Oh - and that's not a cut in the growth of the deficit, that's the deficit actually being cut.
Fair enough. I can concede to that point.
Uh huh.
So. The two things that caused the great depression of the 1930s were cutting expenditure and closing off markets. You think that cutting expenditure in the 2010s ain't good enough, we also need to close off those markets?
Wow!
Repeating the exact same actions but expecting a different outcome .. I know that's a definition of something, I just can't recall what ..
Something needs to be done. So my solution may be reckless and would need to be refined. I can agree to that. But what we're doing now, which is damn near nothing, doesn't appear to be fixing anything.
You mean, we just had our a**** handed to us in two shooting wars, let's start a TRADE war!
Uh huh
So the solution is to do nothing? While I agree we need to end the wars, some are going to be more important than others. Speaking of the shooting wars, I forgot to mention a full retract of troops. Not immediately, but far faster than the 2020 timeline that Obama imposed. Those wars costed us dearly and we should never have gone in without a firm withdraw plan from the start. The expenditure is no small part of why we are here in the first place.
Actually, we do need to stop too big to fail.
Of course, to be able to stop it without destroying the economy, you need to get some things in place first: regulations. And lots of 'em.
So .. the very stuff Obama was prevented from doing by the GOP.
I'm of the mindset that they really should compromise. Lots of regulations can be equally as negative as no regulations. Extreme amounts of anything (or nothing) is extreme. There has to be a median where everyone gets at least some benefit. That should be the target. Unfortunately, divisive politics will never permit it. It's far too much of the 'all or nothing' approach from both parties. The Obama administration is no different than many of the ones that came before.
Stablise the price of gas? Easy. Reduce your dependence on oil. Use less = demand falls = prices fall.
Easiest and cheapest way is to make the things that use energy more efficient: improve insulation in houses, mandate more efficient white goods, get rid of inefficient light bulbs, outlaw idiotically wasteful things like Standby on electrical devices and of course, get rid of insanely inefficient gas guzzlers.
The only problem with the first statement is that it leads to a cyclical situation. Yes, less use = demand falls = prices fall = people seeing gas prices as cheap = more use = demand rises = prices rise = repeat from the start
I completely agree in alternative energy. I want the government to restrict the oil companies from buying up all the patents for alternative energy and keeping them in their vaults so that they can continue to drive up oil prices. Especially ones that can make renewable energy that can be used in current day machinery. We are disgustingly dependent on oil. Hopefully the law (or was it an executive order?) Obama signed 2 years ago (more or less) that requires auto makers to make vehicles that get 35 MPG on the highway gets alternative energy moving again. IIRC, that requirement goes into effect next year. I think it will hurt the markets for pickup trucks and such, which are utility-type vehicles. But it'll be interesting to see how auto makers react.
There's a vast list of cheap, easy ways to increase efficient energy use, but of course they're not enough: you also need expand alternative energy sources like solar, geothermal, wind, wave, nuclear etc
Any of this sound familiar? Oh yes! Again, it's the exact stuff the GOP is fighting to prevent!
Again, I agree that we need more efficient ways. And I doubt there are not very viable alternatives out there. I mentioned oil because oil needs a short term (meaning next few years) solution until more effective things can be implemented and the infrastructure be built. Things like charging stations or alternative fuel depots, whenever these alternative fuels are made available. But, unfortunately, even if the oil problem is patched...nothing will change if these new technologies are not permitted to flourish.
I'm actually a big fan of wave generated energy. Many of our major metropolitan areas are close to the oceans, and a lot of ocean space isn't used for shipping, or could be easily routed around wave generator fields. It simply makes sense to supplement their energy needs with coastal generated energy. I'm not so much of a fan of wind and solar, due to the large amount of land it requires. But if the land isn't being used for anything else, I completely agree with adding it. But nuclear power is definitely superior to coal. Waste treatment is tough, though, and is the major drawback.
I'm also not a fan of the GOP. I find most of them are as deplorable as the Democrats. Neither side is willing to concede important items that need to be compromised on and we all will lose in the end. Our political system is too infected with special interests, on both sides, and that is another huge problem that needs to be solved. Campaign contributions, as well, need to be reigned in.
()
