NYT 2009 American workers are overpaid. Gap must close. Happening now. Thanks, Obama.

[madfloridian]

Last edited Sun Jun 21, 2015, 04:25 PM - Edit history (1)

and to any other Democrats who have supported trade agreements that apparently are set up to bring our workers' salaries in line with the rest of the world.

EDITing to add:

The article mentions a possible 20% cut for American workers to meet "global balance." Thought I was including it at first, but guess not.

Global wage convergence is great for the poor but tough on the overpaid. It’s possible to run the numbers to show that American manufacturing workers should take average real wage cuts of as much as 20 percent to get into global balance.

The required cut may be smaller. But if American wages get stuck above global market-clearing levels, as in the 1930s, the result could well be something approaching Depression-era levels of unemployment.

American Wages Out of Balance

American workers are overpaid, relative to equally productive employees elsewhere doing the same work. If the global economy is to get into balance, that gap must close.

Of course, workers in the United States should earn more than their peers in China, Moldova or Vietnam. Americans take advantage of the higher productivity that makes their country rich: better education and infrastructure, abundant capital and a strong work ethic. But how much higher should American wages be?

The answer depends in large part on two measures: the difference in productivity in making goods that can be traded across borders, and the quantity of such goods. Both measures point to a narrowing wage gap.

See, that's what it's all about. Closing the gap even if it hurts our workers here.

I really much prefer the way Marmar posted it back at the old DU in 2009.

Read this huge pile of MIERDA from the New York Times:

There are some good comments there, so be sure to read it.

And this is my repost from May just because I feel so passionate about "adjusting" our wages to fit the global economy.

Lowering our living standards to fit with other countries is wrong.

Whenever a new trade agreement is offered up we hear talk of how it will help developing countries and raise their standards of living...which in turn they say will make the world safer for all.

What they never say is that in order to lift other countries up to a supposedly higher level, ours takes another hit. They are equalizing the economic playing field at our expense.

There must some great incentives for a country's leaders to be willing to do that to their own country.

I simply do not understand how a president and/or our major political leaders can push such policies that have the potential to do so much harm to our own people. So what if Nike offers to maybe possibly perhaps create 10,000 jobs here in the next ten years? So what? What about the millions of job from US companies that went elsewhere?

I am sure I will be told I am thinking simplistically on this issue....so be it.

The fact remains that we are losing our lifestyles in just a few decades. When our president gets done praising Nike, let him answer to us.

You know what else makes me angry? The rise of the terrible extremism on the right might not have happened if we had an opposition party in this country instead of one that catered to corporations so they would not have to pay attention to the liberals, unions, and other traditional constituents of the party.

The takeover:

At the national convention of a major political party, an ideologically rigid sectarian clique secures the ultimate triumph. It inserts two of its own as nominees for the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. Heavily financed by the most powerful corporations in the world, the group's leaders gather in a private club fifty-four floors above the convention hall, apart from the delegates of the party they had infiltrated. There, they carefully monitor the convention's acceptance of a platform the organization had drafted almost in its entirety. Then, with the ticket secured and with the policy course of the party set, they introduce a team of 100 shock troops to deploy across the country to lock up the party's grassroots.

For years our political leaders have stood by while billionaire groups financed the rise of the Tea Party while calling it a grassroots movement.

If enough had spoken against their methods of shouting everyone else down, we might have gone in another direction. Now we have some members of congress who are so ignorant they are laughed at around the world.

The way Obama is pushing for the new Trans Pacific trade agreement sounds desperate. It worries me.

It is one of the many reasons I am supporting Bernie Sanders. I am proud of that decision. I hate that since that decision there have been so many snide remarks about the intelligence of Sanders' supporters. Our gullibility. How naive we are.

I have a plan to support him while refusing to say bad things against Hillary Clinton. I think that can be done.

But there is a third thing that must be dealt with. Whenever someone speaks of Clinton's former support for the TPP and her role in its development...we must provide proof which of course is never acceptable.

Here is a video of Secretary Clinton speaking in Singapore in November 2012. If she is not speaking of the TPP, please tell me what she is talking about.

It's a long video, but if you wade through it like I did...it's worth it.

And a little more about the same topic while she was in Australia.

Trade deal poses dilemma for Clinton in Democratic primary

WASHINGTON (AP) — On a trip to Australia in 2012, Hillary Rodham Clinton lavished praise on the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership, calling it the "gold standard" in efforts to create open and fair trade.

Now, early in her Democratic presidential campaign, she's striking a different tone — determinedly non-committal, with a hint of skepticism about the sweeping trade agreement she promoted as President Barack Obama's secretary of state. "Any trade deal has to produce jobs and raise wages and increase prosperity and protect our security," Clinton said at a New Hampshire community college last week.

The 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership under negotiation by Obama has divided the Democratic Party, leaving Clinton caught between angry liberal activists and the president she once served. It's a fight Clinton has seen before.

For years our jobs have gone overseas. For years any jobs opening here are at much lower salaries than than before.

I am so angry about this. Don't insult our intelligence by saying just look at what great things we will be doing for other countries.....and not mentioning the harm being done to ours.

[djean111]

1. Oh, a new meme is that, somehow, the entire agreement has been completely rewritten or something

like that, so of course she has NO IDEA what is in it now. Ten years in the making, but they had to rewrite it when she left office? Oh please. As I have said elsewhere, just fucking gloat, skip the bullshit.

[madfloridian]

2. Never mind. misunderstood.

[DJ13]

4. I think you misunderstood

[madfloridian]

5. Updated. Thanks.

[Kalidurga]

3. They want us to make lemonade...

the only problem is that fewer people are going to be able to afford the lemons. Sugar will be out of the question, we can't have people thinking they are entitled to living high off the hog.

I think we should be demanding that people in every country are paid a living wage. I can't say what that is for every country, but I am pretty sure 10 cents an hour is not it.

[DJ13]

6. They're giving us lemons

& telling us to suck on it.

[Kalidurga]

11. Yeah, but then we have to give the lemon back.

[madfloridian]

7. Glad Bernie has been against this all along.

[Enthusiast]

23. Me too.

[Quasimodem]

22. Don't be silly ...

American workers don't get to live anywhere off the hog, but rather accept that the hogs get to live off them.

[Kalidurga]

71. Ouch so true

hogs and fat cats.

[Jesus Malverde]

80. It's a self defeating attitude to assume that the rest of the world can live like Americans.

There is nothing wrong with putting your national self interest first. Doing otherwise is a race to the bottom. America is special and we should not forget it.

[Kalidurga]

83. Yes, we are but I remember when we were number 1 in a whole lot of areas

We have clearly lost ground in nearly every area that can be measured by the CIA fact book. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/rankorderguide.html Our infant mortality rate horrifying, it's almost as bad as some places in Africa. I know neither of us think that it's acceptable for so many infants to die in Africa, but that it happens here, it's an ethical failing of people who put money above everything else. The other thing about this is that so many people don't realize how much ground we have lost or that so many people are dying as a direct result of poverty.

[pampango]

86. Is it a liberal attitude to assume that the rest of the world has no right to "live like Americans"?

Should liberals view enduring poverty in much of the world as the price that must be paid for some in the West to "live like Americans"?

There is nothing wrong with putting your national self interest first.

Certainly there is something wrong with putting your self interest first if it impacts the quality of life of others. Conservatives would claim that putting your self interest first (the "invisible hand&quot will produce the greatest good for the greatest number. Not too many liberals prioritize self interest at the expense of others.

Doing otherwise is a race to the bottom.

Not pursuing my self interest is a 'race to the bottom'? International (interracial, interethnic) cooperation without a primary focus on self interest is wrong? This sounds like the conservative argument that the poor in the US are dragging us down and that helping them just drags us down further and faster.

America is special and we should not forget it.

The "exceptionalism" argument.

[Jesus Malverde]

90. .

JM

[Ed Suspicious]

8. Very well off people are writing this tripe. Torches, pitchforks, and the National Raz . . .

[antigop]

9. thanks, mad. nt

[Hekate]

10. Los Angeles Times this week: Gap's management and product line suck badly. Front page.

In other words, Gap's problems are all on them, not their workers and certainly not the President.

Carry on.

[historylovr]

43. Um

This is not about Gap, the company, but rather that American slightly higher wages must close the gap between low wages worldwide in order to be "competitive."

[Hekate]

44. Ha! Well you can certainly see how I might make that mistake in context of current events

around here.

[historylovr]

46. I figured.

It gave me a good chuckle at least.

[cui bono]

72. Reading past the headline would have helped you immensely.

[Jesus Malverde]

82. In some ways that's true

It's not like gap makes their clothes in the states. They are an old and busted brand, catering to an audience that's not buying their clothes. Old navy, ambercrombie, they've all had their fifteen minutes. In some ways these are demographic trends, Gap catered to the boomer lifestyle, they don't buy much anymore, especially casual business wear and every day there are less of their customers. Ambercrombie caterered to younger gens but tastes change and half naked boys in the window is boring after a while. It's a mix of demographic trends, and tastes and not a reflection on American manufacturing. These are after all "service economy" jobs.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

12. Correction: They're not raising the standard of the other country, they're pocketing the difference.

[madfloridian]

13. Very good point.

[Enthusiast]

24. And entirely accurate.

[JDPriestly]

31. Yes.

[Jesus Malverde]

84. The subtext is that manufacturing in China is becoming expensive...

Squeezing the margins they enjoyed. That's why Vietnam, Cambodia and Bangladesh are the new hot spots.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

92. There are corporations that offer slave labor to corporations.

[Recursion]

94. They are absolutely raising the living standard of the other countries

The increased standard of living in China and India over the past 30 years is almost impossible to adequately describe.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

100. A very few are getting rich. The rest are treated like prisoners....

Some are forced to live at the factory. Mitt described one as having guard towers.

They told him it was such a wonderful place to work that the guards were there to keep people out and he actually believed them.

[Recursion]

101. And people line up from the villages for that

500 people a day migrate to Mumbai. Every. Day. Because they can make more money there in a month than they can in a decade back in the village.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

103. It's the same business model we're using with Mexico.

[Recursion]

107. Mexico is maybe slightly comparable

But Mexico already had a pretty big industrial base and middle class. China has pulled about 700 million people over the $2 / day mark in the past 20 years. It's basically created a middle class twice the size of the entire US in the blink of an eye.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

109. Ever watch "Shark Tank"?

There's a guy they call "Mister Wonderful" who is the poster boy of American greed. He doesn't believe ANYTHING should be built here. Every time someone comes on with a product he talks about having it built in China cheap and pocketing what would have gone into an American worker's paycheck.

It's all about exploitation of the poor to make the rich richer and it's the principle of the thing with them. Screw what the community thinks of them. Keep in mind that it wasn't that long ago when the public image mattered to the 1%. Now, they seem to see any PR effort as cutting into their profits.

[mountain grammy]

134. That's exactly right and that's the most heinous part of it all.

American workers are screwed, but we live in a rich country. The utter devastation and exploitation of the third world is the underside of these trade deals. Both people and the environment suffer horrendous damage.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

135. They claim the product will cost a fortune if they have to pay US wages....

The reality is the product would cost the same and they're STEALING what should go into payroll for a American worker.

[AZ Progressive]

14. Get conservatives to join us by telling them that Globalists have effectively committed treason by..

enriching other nations, including China, at the expense of America, and leading countries like China into becoming economic and military threats to America. The multinational / globalist corporations created the beast of China that America now has to deal with as a big threat in the future.

[Enthusiast]

20. Well it's true.

I think it is dawning on many more people than in the past.

[JDPriestly]

32. Very true. That is precisely what has happened. And the Republicans and Obama are to blame.

So is Bill Clinton.

Why do Democrats support these trade agreements? I would really like to know what is in it for them?

[closeupready]

137. The theory purportedly was supposed to play out like this:

Helping the Chinese enrich themselves by increasing trade would lead directly to expansion of democracy, and would also raise the standard of living of people in "developing" countries.

[bvar22]

136. The Military and our National Leadrship considered China a "threat" long before Free Trade.

See Korea, 1950
and VietNam, 1964

Both of those were Proxy Wars against China.
We lost both.

[AZ Progressive]

15. BTW, this is how the Globalists see the world economy in 2050

China + India will have three times the GDP of the United States. Brazil and Russia together will have as much GDP as the UK, France, and Germany.

[madfloridian]

16. Interesting graphic...kind of scary.

Do you have a link to seeing more of the article. Quite a difference in goals. Why do they think we deserve so little of the pie?

[Recursion]

93. "So little of the pie?" we're 1/3rd the size on India

and will still have a bigger economy than them in 2050. The US getting too little of the pie is not the problem.

[Hoyt]

19. So, what is your solution. Are we supposed to impede China, Russia, Brazil, India, etc.,

from progressing so we can improve our lifestyle.

The world is changing, and maybe we got a bit ahead of it with too many 2+ bathroom homes, 2+ cars per household, vacation homes, etc.

And, no, I do not think the poor got a bit ahead, but a whole lot of middle class and rich did. Is it really a law of nature that every generation should do better than the one before?

We have a lot of adjustments to make, beyond the obvious of taxing the rich. Ain't gonna be pretty.

[madfloridian]

21. What a skewed way of looking at it.

Good grief.

You said:

" So, what is your solution. Are we supposed to impede China, Russia, Brazil, India, etc.,

View profile
from progressing so we can improve our lifestyle.

The world is changing, and maybe we got a bit ahead of it with too many 2+ bathroom homes, 2+ cars per household, vacation homes, etc."



You are saying we are impeding other countries by having a good lifestyle...so we need to lower our standards?

[Hoyt]

26. I think our lifestyle will be on the decline for awhile without having to do anything.

Last edited Sun Jun 21, 2015, 01:39 AM - Edit history (1)

But, I'm not for begrudging other countries from getting ahead. We don't have to be number 1 in everything.

[madfloridian]

28. A reason it's on the decline....that's why I posted this.

[JDPriestly]

30. No to a reductioni n the American living standard.

I like clean water coming out of a faucet. I like my municipal sewer system. I like electric lights and air conditioning in stores and a heated house. I like public parks and schools and nice churches. i like all the things that American wages pay for.

Most important, I like to eat a variety of foods.

I utterly oppose trade agreements with countries that pay workers slave wages and expect Americans to live on less.

Those who own the factories and employ what is virtually slave labor at slave wages to work in them and then import the products made for slave wages into the US and charge us highly marked up prices then take the difference between what they paid for the product and what we pay for it are the only people who profit from free trade.

The people in other countries who work at boring jobs for barely enough to eat and we who lose our jobs and cannot afford the lifestyles of even our grandparents, we all lose.

Free trade benefits only the owners, only the top percent of the 1%. The rest of us lose out.

The New York Times subscription costs $468 per year.

http://www.nytimes.com/subscriptions/Multiproduct/lp8UHY7.html?campaignId=4QJXR&__KEYWORDS__=${keywordText}&__CAMP__=4QJXR

What American earning $10 per hour is going to work 46.8 hours per year to subscribe to the New York Times? It isn't going to happen.

Housing costs in our large cities are astronomical. Do we really want our children and grandchildren to live in slums like Rio de Janeiro, Brazil or Lima, Peru?

We do not want a reduced standard of living and that is one of the many reasons we do not want free trade.

The TPP is a corporate coup.

[Hoyt]

34. Don't think we are headed for slums like Brazil and Peru. But for poor folks here

to progress,EVERYONE else is going to have to give a little, not just the rich (although we need to hit them up soon).

[davekriss]

40. You haven't been to Detroit lately, have you?

[GeorgeGist]

76. Fuck the rich and the whores who enable them.

[cascadiance]

131. We need to hit the rich FIRST, not "hit them up later"...

They will never be hit if they continue to own our government and have the rules make themselves richer and everyone else poorer.

If you really want to equalize economic opportunities worldwide, we should also start giving our kids free bachelor's degree educations too, just like they do in places like India who you feel we need to give more opportunities to.

Maybe we should also charge VAT taxes to protect our domestically manufactured products the way so many European countries do to protect their markets in the same fashion tariffs have done for us in the past before corporatist jerks took over our government and want to facilitate the race to the bottom to fatten their wallets.

[Hoyt]

133. I agree, tax the rich first. As to VAT, it's just not a simple as self-styled "progressives" want

it to be. I don't pretend to understand all the ramifications, but there are people who do (within the limits of predicting economic results).

Here's an example of just how complicated it is:
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/key-elements/international/competition.cfm


In fact, our economic system and tax system is extremely complicated. We'll probably be better off long-term to just blow it all up and start over -- staking out our own little patch of land, growing our own food, decontaminating our own water, etc. But the decades until things stabilize will be hell, not unlike the Great Depression, although it will seem worse.

Maybe we'd be better off if the government ran everything. Of course, then you have to have people who will follow, and hope the rulers at any given time are sensible and compassionate. Not much chance of any of that.

[Egnever]

139. On the contrary

We absolutely want a reduced standard of living we ensure it every time we make that decision to buy the cheap crap on the shelves of the local walmart.

Until we wake up and start buying from ourselves instead of from china and more and more india. We will continue to ensure the destruction of our standard of living.

Unless our buying habbits change it is unavoidable.

[JDPriestly]

140. Good points.

[me b zola]

63. Easy to accept a decline in lifestyle when you are not living hand to mouth

I always sense an air of superiority from posts about economics like yours: You could never be on the bottom of the economic shithole, and hey, look at all those stooges down there without a pot to piss in!

Yeah, we get it. Your life rocks and there must be something wrong with the rest of us. But hey, we don't have to be number one in everything!

[Hoyt]

64. You don't read very well do you. My life doesn't "rock," but it's better than poor in many places.

[me b zola]

66. Rather than attacking my reading capabilities, try listening to those living hand to mouth

It takes a whole lot of privilege to accept a lowering of our wages and bennies. You may not be wealthy, but your statement sure is dismissive of millions of us

[Hoyt]

116. I said those in the "lower" 20% or so need progress. The other 80% needs to get prepared.

[JDPriestly]

36. Are you an American?

Because we believe in the American dream which means a 3-bedroom house with 2 baths, and the 2 cars are to get Mom and Dad to work. Vacation houses, a bit out of our league, but a house that has enough room and running water and heat, a refrigerator, stove, a TV or a computer, near good schools, a good hospital and parks, etc. That is what America is about.

People who think that is extravagant should go live in the third world where the family has to share a two-bedroom apartment with another family.

Americans fought and organized and voted for the standard of living we enjoy today.

And now the traitors we elected in recent years are giving our standard of living away.

The traitors will not get their way. It is just a matter of time until Republican voters wise up and start supporting lilberals who oppose "free" trade. It will happen.

[Hoyt]

37. American dream, is just that. I'm sorry, There's a reason we are referred to as "greedy Americans."

[JDPriestly]

39. Are you really an American?

[Hoyt]

41. I live in a big world, that we don't own, rule, or have a right to hoard wealth.

We need to improve the lot of the bottom 20% or so here, and an even greater percentage in the poorest countries abroad before we start whining.

[JDPriestly]

42. We will not improve the lot of the bottom 20% here with these trade deals.

The bottom 20% in our country, the ones who don't live in two or three-bedroom apartments or houses, those who live in trailers, rent a room or live on the streets will be the worst hurt by these agreements.

I worked for a homeless project here in the US for some years and lived overseas for quite a number of years. I know how important it is to protect American jobs and the American standard of living.

If we don't protect our standard of living here, the world will simply keep pushing the poor down, down, down -- everywhere.

We cannot give to others when we have nothing ourselves.

And that is where these trade agreements are heading us -- toward even more widespread poverty in the US.

No thanks to the trade agreements.

Of all people to wave the "help the poor" sign at, I am the last one you can reach with that.

I'm retired. I am not opposing the trade agreement because of my own interests but because of the interests of poor, middle-class and working Americans.

The TPP is a corporate coup. I want no part of it.

I shall assume that you are not an American since you do not answer my question.

I will tell you that I am an American.

[Hoyt]

48. Yeah, my yahoo neighbor tells me America First junk too. We should not whine about other countries

doing better. That's just another kind of war mongering, IMO.

[JDPriestly]

53. No one is whining about other countries doing better.

We are lamenting the fact that our country is doing worse.

American wages are stagnant.

Our GDP is expected to rise only between 1.2 and 1.7 percent this year.

The trade agreements are a big part of our economic problems.

No one minds if India, China, etc. do better than they have. What we mind if they are doing better at the expense of our doing so much worse. That is not fair either. And the TPP will make this worse.

[Hoyt]

54. Our country is not doing worse than most of the world.

Some folks here are not doing near as well as they should. But we are in far better shape than most of the world.

[JDPriestly]

60. For how long? The trade deals have slowed economic improvement and progress for the bottom

20%. And for all of us outside the top 1%.

the TPP is a corporate coup.

[AZ Progressive]

58. Fuck yeah, the phrase: "The TPP is a corporate coup" should be heavily repeated

[madfloridian]

45. That's just a ridiculous view of things.

[Hoyt]

49. Again, there's a reason the world thinks we are greedy.

[madfloridian]

50. More and more I am becoming a protectionist in many ways.

Posts like yours are making me more so.

[Hoyt]

51. Hey, I've said all along that some of the opposition to TPP is American greed.

I get corporations can be greedy too, but private citizens are showing some real disdain for the world's poor if they think it might hurt them a little.

Protectionism, will protect you only in the very short-run.

[madfloridian]

52. Oh, geez, I'm done.

You dragged into something silly again. NO more.

[JDPriestly]

61. Your assumption that the trade deals are good for the world's poor is false.

the trade deals push down the value of labor and the quality of life -- for everyone.

For people in all countries.

The trade deals do not guarantee living wages in any country. They lower wages here and do not translate into decent working conditions in the impoverished countries in which products that are mostly sold here are produced. They encourage the movement of the world's poor into cities. China is a filthy mess. The air is not to be breathed in many cities. The water is polluted.

These trade deals are not improving living standards. They are making the extremely rich richer and the rest of us poorer. That's world over. They are hurting our environment.

[pampango]

77. Something has been good for the world's poor since the bottom 2/3 have the best income gains

in the past 25 years. Rather than claiming that the worlds' poor haven't benefitted (others claim the poor have benefitted at our expense), why don't we agree to go after the 1% whom we all agree have profited immensely, both domestically and internationally. Only the most conservative believe that messing with the 1%'s wealth will harm the future prospects of the 2/3 who have benefitted in past decades.

[brentspeak]

67. Here's how you, "Hoyt", can "help the world's poor":

Tell us all your real name and where you work, your position, etc.

Yes, your real name and your place of employment. And your boss' name, too.

We can then contact your employer and offer to have your job replaced with someone from, say, Malaysia. We'll find the Malaysian; you do the resigning.

You'll be generously giving a job to a member of the world's poor from across the pond. This is a great opportunity for you to demonstrate to everything here on DU -- hell, everyone else in the United States -- that Hoyt truly cares about the world's poor -- and he's willing to put his money where his mouth is.

Show those "greedy" Americans who are struggling to pay the bills what's what, Hoyt! We here at DU will even petition the site to form a separate forum discussion group dedicated to linking up your new replacement with your soon-to-be ex-job. Oh, and with your house, too. We know you're not greedy, and that you would want that poor person from Malaysia who's taking over your job to live as well as he can.

[pampango]

79. Attacking the character of the poster rather than responding to content of the post.

[brentspeak]

87. So who's attacking, Mr. US Chamber of Offshoring Talking Points?

He claimed he wants to help the world's poor; we're trying to help him with that endeavor.

On a related note, I will say that your "let me claim to speak on behalf of FDR and Eleanor while parroting Business Roundtable talking points to send US jobs overseas" shtick is getting more and more laughable.

The two of you have the same US Chamber of Commerce/Heritage Foundation talking points supervisor? "Hoyt" gets to wear a Woody Guthrie avatar; you, an FDR avatar. Strange that no one on this site looks to have been fooled, though.

[pampango]

89. I post what FDR actually did. If you believe FDR was "parroting Business Roundtable talking points",

you have a mistaken image of FDR's actions and policies. I doubt that FDR did what he did with regards to trade or anything else to keep the Business Roundtable happy.

He claimed he wants to help the world's poor; we're trying to help him with that endeavor.

I suspect that almost all liberals would like to help the world's poor. The discussion should be focused on how to do that.

I will say that your "let me claim to speak on behalf of FDR and Eleanor while parroting Business Roundtable talking points to send US jobs overseas" shtick is getting more and more laughable.

The two of you have the same talking points supervisor? To promulgate Heritage Foundation bull$hit, "Hoyt" was assigned a Woody Guthrie avatar; you, an FDR avatar. So far, no one on this site looks to have been fooled, though.

Again, attacking the character of the poster.

Would it be too much to ask that you post instances in which I have cited actions and policies of FDR that were "Business Roundtable talking points"? If I have misrepresented some action or policy of FDR, please point them out. Or is it easier to just keep attacking the character of posters without offering any content?

[Hoyt]

119. Listen to Deportee some time. Guthrie cared about the world's poor, in a time when most folks knew

little about them.

[LanternWaste]

138. Creative way to rationalize your irrelevant premise.

"He claimed he wants to help the world's poor; we're trying to help him with that endeavor..."

Creative way to rationalize an irrelevant premise. I expect more will be available as the thread grows...

[Recursion]

97. Happened to me twice, but software and robots have taken my job 4 times

Maybe it's a generational thing? I never particularly expected a job to last more than a few years. Frankly that sounds boring to me.

[Hoyt]

118. In other words, you don't care. That's clear. What do you do that is so easily shipped overseas?

Most jobs here are not transferable --teachers, government employees, road workers, administration, construction, Retail, etc. Now, they may not pay what you or I think they should, but most jobs are staying right here. For any that don't or get phased out by technology, we need to have a plan.

Just for you info, I've had jobs phased out. Did something else, because I was told decades ago that the old leave high school, work for the same employer for a lifetime was over. Good advice.

[AZ Progressive]

55. Damn straight, the progressive movement fought for and won for us the standards of living that we have enjoyed

It wasn't just Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin D. Roosevelt but Frances Perkins, Mother Jones, Eugene Debs, and many others that have been involved in organized labor (including the countless strikes) and other progressive groups since more than a century ago.

[JDPriestly]

62. People in other countries could do the same.

In fact, I view the trade agreements as an attempt by our wealthiest oligarchs to turn back the progress we made throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries ending with LBJ.

[pampango]

78. Exactly. The progressive movement fought to lower tariffs and raise income taxes. FDR knew that

strong unions, high/progressive taxes, an improving safety net and effective corporate regulation produced the standard of living that progressive fought for. Progressives in Scandinavia know the same thing today.

Of course, present day trade agreements might not exist if Herbert Hoover had won reelection in 1932 - and other republicans had succeeded him. He (and all republicans of his era) was a believer in high tariffs and trade agreements did not exist. FDR was responsible for introducing the idea of multinational trade agreements with his ITO in 1944. If Congress had ratified it we would all be better off today.

[brentspeak]

105. You're getting more ridiculous by the post

AZ_Progressive said nothing about progressives "fighting for lower tariffs", and yet you unctuously put words in his mouth as if he had agreed with your free trade propaganda.

[Recursion]

95. Yup. Many white Americans could afford that for about 40 years

It was an historical anomaly, and only available to a subset of the country even then.

[JDPriestly]

108. You are saying that the middle class was an anomaly.

No. The middle class is the product and the engine of democracy. It is not an anomaly. And Americans will struggle to keep a middle class that is prosperous and healthy as should every country in the world.

And here is where the pro-TPPers and we know who they are -- a tiny minority on DU -- show their true colors as anti-American, anti-middle-class and pro-oligarchy. The pro-TPPers -- and it is very clear from the responses to my post about protecting and improving the standard of living in the US --- are essentially sell-outs to the oligarchs. Only the oligarchs will, in the end, profit from these trade agreements. The oligarchs have sufficient assets and money to be able to shift investments from one part of the world to another, creating, building, destroying and devastating countries and peoples as they wish.

The middle class rose as democracy rose. The death of the middle class in America -- which is what you appear to be predicting and for which you appear to advocate -- is the final blow to our democracy.

The middle class, the leisure and prosperity and education that a healthy middle class requires are what make democracy work. Only a healthy middle class that is not grubbing for a living can read news, make informed decisions and participate in the political life necessary to keep democracy (and peace) going. American workers since the end of the 19th century have gradually improved their standard of living and formed the core of our middle class. Our middle class is not the monied bourgeoisie that Marx castigated but rather a working class that is prosperous and lives well.

The Occupy movement revealed an interesting fact. Already, today, many Americans cannot afford to meet to discuss public issues in any location other than on public property. That is a very sad fact about our middle class. Many of us can no longer afford to meet even in public halls because the rents are too high. That in itself demonstrates what happens to democracy when the middle class is impoverished and the poor homeless.

If you went to some of the Occupy sites, you would realize that they attracted homeless people and not just middle class people camping out.

When I was a child, people who are today homeless could find housing on farms and work in the fields in a pinch. Today that is not possible. So poverty is even more difficult to bear than it was say 60 years ago.

I am shocked as I think most Americans would be at your blatant and bizarre attitude toward American middle class life. I do not believe that you live in the US.

African-Americans are bitter and rightfully so in part because that inclusion in the American middle class has been denied them.

Your post is an admission that the TPP is anti-American because the American dream, the middle class life is what Americans believe in and what is central to our democracy.

I have difficulty believing that you and Hoyt are Americans. Your post does not reflect the American value of hard work being rewarded with a good, solid middle class life. I am frankly shocked by your honest contempt for American values.

It indicates clearly what the purpose of the TPP is and what the purposes are of those pushing it.

[Recursion]

110. The middle class wasn't just "denied" to African Americans, it was built on them

Built on stealing their labor and their property.

Yes, the idea of a 2 BR single family home going to everybody was completely an anomaly and only open to white heterosexual nuclear families to begin with.

The fact that you have trouble believing I'm American speaks to how insular the white middle class experience was.

[JDPriestly]

123. Sorry, but the white experience was the majority experience.

And in Detroit and other places in the North, African-American families also enjoyed the middle-class life.

My ancestors did not build their lives on stealing the labor and property of African-Americans.

My ancestors came to the US became abolitionists very early on, moved into the Midwest, lived alongside the Indians (one of them sold guns to the Indians even) developed land and farms, preached for abolitionism, fought in the Civil War to free the slaves and did not steal labor or property from African-Americans.

Our Declaration of Independence states that All Men are Created Equal.

It is actually women like me who were left out of the equality measure (and still are) for so long.

It may be unfair that so few African-Americans live the middle class life although many African-Americans do (certainly in my neighborhood they do in Los Angeles), but that does not change the fact that the trade agreements will make life in America even more unfair for African-Americans as well as white people. The trade agreements reduce wages and make labor less valuable.

It is illogical and inconsistent to favor trade agreements and then complain about the theft of labor and property because the very purpose of the trade agreements is facilitating the theft of labor and property by the corporations.

[Recursion]

98. The US and UK are still way over represented there

Why in the hell should the US have a larger economy than India?

[L0oniX]

104. Dog and cat eating China is going to surpass the US ...no doubt.

China’s annual dog-eating festival prompts social media firestorm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/06/19/chinas-annual-dog-eating-festival-prompts-social-media-firestorm/

Warning: This story contains graphic imagery some may find disturbing.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3103008/Rows-pet-dogs-beaten-death-hanging-hooks-cats-skinned-ready-dinner-table-Inside-Chinese-meat-festival-banned-year.html

Rows of pet dogs hanging on hooks and cats skinned ready for the dinner table: Inside China's gruesome annual 'meat festival' that was supposed to have been banned

WARNING GRAPHIC CONTENT

Mean while the US has included family pets under the domestic violence protection laws. While China may climb to the corporate top of the heap they will be number one scum bags in my book and Japan with their Dolphin cove yearly slaughter ranks second.

[restorefreedom]

17. this is why the gop supports it

they will "even things out" by lowering u.s. wages in order to be competitive with other countries. they will frame it as "saving american jobs." what they will leave out is that those jobs will hardly be worth working for and will be barely above starvation wage.


good thing we have our congress looking out for us.....on second thought....

[Enthusiast]

25. Exactly.

The big plan is to lower the standard of living in the United States of America. There are better solutions.

[Enthusiast]

18. K&R! THE TRUTH! I'm with you 100%!

This might be our last best chance to put a halt to this insanity. But they are so formidable and completely unscrupulous.

[JDPriestly]

27. K&R.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

29. Kick, Rec and saving for tomorrow.

Looks like some very *interesting* reading.

[passiveporcupine]

33. It needs to be said

"the recession shows that many workers are paid more than they’re worth."

there is only one problem with this statement. Are we paid more than we are worth? Does that mean we do not deserve a decent living? Does that mean we are supposed to give up wages, while health care, education, homes and cars keep escalating in cost way beyond our ability to pay on lower wages? So we are not worth homes, cars, education, and health care? Got it!

You cannot drop our wages without also dropping our cost of living...and that is not going to happen, is it? Foreign countries can be paid fair wages to make our products, but they are not. They are treated like slaves and not paid enough to live well. But they are so poor they are willing to fight for those jobs. I want to see them all succeed and live well, but why do we have to lose our ability to live well to make that happen. There has to be another way.

"I hate that since that decision there have been so many snide remarks about the intelligence of Sanders' supporters. Our gullibility. How naive we are."

They wouldn't put us down if they didn't fear us.

[JDPriestly]

38. This I agree with:

"I want to see them all succeed and live well, but why do we have to lose our ability to live well to make that happen. There has to be another way. "

Lowering American wages by importing a lot of cheap products made in China, Bangla Desh, does not really raise the standards of living by much in the poor countries in which the products are made. Not unless those doing the exporting and importing are playing around with the currency and cheating us.

We need to stop buying stuff that is made in other countries. But that is hard to do since almost nothing we buy regularly besides food is made here.

Some cars are made here, but how often do we buy them?

Shoes are rarely made here. Clothes almost never made here. Kitchen utensils, etc. hardly ever made here. Sheets, towels, etc. Not made here.

We need to bring industry for consumer items back in America.

[passiveporcupine]

70. I know a woman whose family income is around 100K

And she loves shopping at Wal-mart. I try to tell her why she shouldn't, and she complains she can't afford to shop anywhere else (one child at home, one married).

I'm sorry that she thinks she can't afford to pay what it takes to support American jobs. But that is the way people are. I can understand poor people and people in rural areas with no other options shopping at Wal-Mart, but until we get everyone to understand that to make things in America, we need consumers who will pay the price, we are never going to get rid of cheap imported crap. And that's really what it is. Crap. I am forced to shop at Wal-Mart or on-line, for too many things, and I am sick of buying crap at Wal-Mart and having to replace it almost immediately, or take it back because it's crap.

I hate buying on-line because I don't get to see and feel the merchandise first, and it costs to return it if you aren't happy with it...but I'm in a small town that has lost competition to Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart and stores like them need to be shut down/broken up. I think we need to be able to set limits on the size of corporations. If they are big enough to be as powerful as Wal-Mart is, and continue to take money out of our communities, and reduce wages and bennies for our local workers, then they are just too damned big. And they are only that big because of outsourcing.

Sorry for the rant. I'm pissed off tonight.

[historylovr]

47. +1

[Recursion]

99. Nobody's going to run what's effectively a charity to employ Americans at the wages we are used to

We need to find new ways of getting people goods and services, because our current model comes from a time when everybody needed a job to make the food and stuff we needed.

[passiveporcupine]

121. I agree with you, but

nobody in power is really talking about this at all. They are just assuming we will find work that pays adequately, if we try hard enough. That it is our failing if we don't.

The problem is that many jobs still need to be done by humans, but they do not pay adequately, and that is what needs to be addressed now, as we transition to a new world. This new world is not going to happen overnight, but it is speeding up exponentially.

[closeupready]

35. She was on Walmart's Board of Directors for six years.

Naturally, she's going to talk like that because that's who her social circle was, and that's who her friends are.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

56. Your sentences below really spoke to me, and I agree wholeheartedly with them:

I am so angry about this. Don't insult our intelligence by saying just look at what great things we will be doing for other countries.....and not mentioning the harm being done to ours.

[madfloridian]

57. Coming from you that means a lot.

I mean that.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

59. Aw, thank you so much, my dear madfloridian...

I had something unpleasant happen to me tonight, and I was feeling less than worthless........until now. You gave me the boost I really needed, right when I needed it.

[madfloridian]

65. You should never feel that way.

You are one of the most respected DUers of all. Worthless...never ever. You are kind to everyone.

[Scuba]

74. What madfloridian said.

[madfloridian]

130. I want you to know I hope you are feeling better about things tonight.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

132. I am feeling better, and thank you so much, my dear madfloridian...You're a sweetheart.

[ucrdem]

68. NYT, November 2008: Let Detroit Go Banrkrupt

Let Detroit Go Bankrupt
By MITT ROMNEY
Published: November 18, 2008

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html

Meaning, so what if the NYT ran some RW business insider's opinions? This is what PBO ran against, not what he ever planned to do or is doing. Please try to do better. If you want to know what TPP is really all about or why Barack Obama supports it, please click the link in my sig. It's not about driving down wages or letting Detroit go bankrupt. That much I can guarantee.

[madfloridian]

69. How condescending. "Please try to do better."

Oh, gee, I'll try.

[rhett o rick]

126. Why was it so important to get compensation for American

workers that will be losing their jobs do to the TPP? Of course the taxpayers will provide the compensation and not the corporations reaping the benefits.

And why do the Repubicons and corporation love the TPP if it's such a great deal for American workers.

Why do environmentalist and unions hate the TPP?

[pampango]

73. Yeah, it's all the fault of too much trade - which we do much less of than countries with high wages

We trade 1/2 to 1/3 as much as Germany, Sweden and other progressive countries. As Bernie said, "Why can't we be more like Scandinavia?" High/progressive taxes, an excellent safety net, strong unions, effective regulation and plenty of trade. They don't have Taft/Hartley - 'right to work', regressive/low taxes on the rich, a poor safety net, weak/declining unions, ineffective regulation and relatively little trade.

Our economic problems are not the fault of too much trade or too many trade agreements. If that were the case, Germany and and all of Scandinavia would be low-wage hellholes plagued with income inequality. They are not. The opposite is true. There is a reason for that.

[Scuba]

75. /\_/\_This right here_/\_/\

[DiverDave]

81. I will bet they are'nt calling to lower prices

of everything we spend on.

God damned royalists.

[Sunlei]

85. only republicans have stated they want to do away with the Federal minimum wage AND

republicans in Congress (that's congresses job) TODAY ignore the calls for/refuse to raise the Federal minimum wage.

No job in the USA pays less then the federal minimum, except the 'exception' in the 13th amendment for prisoners to be used as slaves. There are thousands and thousands of Americans in prisons paid 50 cents an hour.

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

[cloudbase]

88. It's all part of the plan.

This from 1997:

"Until we get real wage levels down much closer to the Brazils and Koreas, we cannot pass along productivity gains to workers’ wages and still be competitive”

Stanley Mihelick
EVP, Goodyear

[FloriTexan]

91. Kick

[treestar]

96. No I think the aim is to bring the other countries up to us

But it does both me - the idea we are entitled to more. How do we justify that? That other countries must stay poor so we can have it all? Doesn't seem supportable by liberals.

[madfloridian]

120. "other countries must stay poor so we can have it all" ??

No, I don't think the aim is to bring others up to us....it appears to have been lower ours to meet theirs.

[treestar]

141. Either way

If they come up, and we go down a bit, as a liberal I cannot complain about that. I am not comfortable saying they can't make more money. The "corporatists" will go to them anyway and we won't be able to compete until they come up.

It used to be said back in the day that we were 5% of the world's population and used up 25% of the world's resources, and that was a bad thing to liberals then. In China and India we have over half the world's population. I don't want those people to stay poor forever so we can hog it all up as usual.

Also I don't want them getting it together and taking over. It's enough as if we are being left behind when you consider the new building going on over there. It's like there is where it's at and that's not good for us. We need to be in on it.

[madfloridian]

122. Article recommends up to 20% cut for American workers for "global balance."

Global wage convergence is great for the poor but tough on the overpaid. It’s possible to run the numbers to show that American manufacturing workers should take average real wage cuts of as much as 20 percent to get into global balance.

The required cut may be smaller. But if American wages get stuck above global market-clearing levels, as in the 1930s, the result could well be something approaching Depression-era levels of unemployment.

[treestar]

142. If people in the third world come up 20%

then that is better for them than that they not have that happen. There are billions out there and I don't want to see them poor. I doubt any US legislator is going to agree to a thing like that - it's probably statement of an ideal.

We have a minimum wage and we need to get to the point where India and China do too. They aren't even protected by a thing like that as far as I know. Trade agreement where they have to do things like that would be good. They want access to our market - we are still the richest country or close to it.

[madfloridian]

143. Oh, come on.

We do not need to lower our incomes by 20% or more or less to help other countries.

[treestar]

144. The market will work

to do it if we don't take some control over it. Why do we lose jobs to China? They are poorer and will work for less. Then we have no jobs. So it would be better to have them make more so we lose fewer jobs. Even to make 20% less than lose the job altogether. We can't just decree that the Chinese, etc., stay where they are now. Reality is that will never happen. We react in our best interests, and we are the way richer country. So this poor us, the Chinese are actually getting to make some money and we think it's being taken from us doesn't fly. It's the right wing way to be.

And they aren't taking it from us - the economy is expanding to them. And it's going to - we can't stop the rest of the world. We have to figure a way to stay in it and stay dominant (as I'm sure we would like to as we are used to it).

[djean111]

102. It looks to me like the 1% are so unwilling to let go of a single penny that they

now will just redistribute what is left to the 99%, amongst the 99%, and resort to trying to shame, all over the world. Then they can scoop that money up, too.

No corporation is going to raise wages in any countries. Only a damned fool would believe they will, and only a damned liar would say they will.

[Alkene]

112. Leaving the great unwashed to scrabble ...

for the orts which fall from the opulent dining tables of the worthy.

Or something like that.

[gregcrawford]

106. Time to dust off the guillotine?

[ohheckyeah]

111. I've posted

the Nyt article here four or five times in the last couple of years. Crickets.

[madfloridian]

113. Don't feel bad at all. Happens a lot.

Most posts drop fairly quickly. I have posted what I thought was important stuff, it drops with just a few views and comments. But someone else posts it and it gets top viewing.

Trust me it happens a lot.

[ohheckyeah]

115. Yeah -

it can be aggravating.

[jtuck004]

114. Dang it. A whole nation, built by murdering the indigenous people and stealing their homes and

villages, and then propped up by over 200 years of slavery and treating people of color as if they weren't people, and now, it isn't doing so well?

Now the richest people in the nation are inflicting that pain on their fellow citizens - and the citizens are helping them do it. (by not having a party of progressives that understands the need to invest in yourself)

Hey, Karma! Is that you?

[rhett o rick]

128. Why should "karma" come back on the lower classes? It was the wealthy that reaped the

rewards of land grabs and slavery. And nothing is coming back on the wealthy.

[jtuck004]

129. Nearly everyone in this country has more because it was denied to others.

Have some profited more than others? Yes. Does that automatically absolve everyone else? I don't think so.

It's a broad subject but with what I see are a lot of connections. One example - White folks generally don't leave their home with the expectation that the police might gun their ass down in the street for no good reason, whether they are wealthy or not. That has nothing to do with wealth, it's a privilege they inherit with their skin. All whites profit in numerous ways by living in a society structured to benefit themselves. They could change this, all these working people, but they are too afraid. But instead of making the wealthy pay the price, they go after immigrants, little children, hungry people.

You don't have to be wealthy to be a bastard.

Nothing is coming back on the wealthy yet because we are too comfortable with the scraps we have been given. I do not think it can sustain itself and will come apart painfully, but that's a choice, completely up to us. At 1%, there are only about 4 million of them, which leaves hundreds of millions who should be waking up to stand together. Just like Boetie wrote about 1550, or the Basque did in creating Mondragon, took it into their own hands in the face of murderous tyrants and dictators, we will rise up, cast aside our remotes and jump free of our lazyboys...

any day now.

Until that happens, I think, it's on all of us.

But that's just my thinking.

[madfloridian]

117. Not just a trade agreement. About much more than just trade.

http://www.citizen.org/documents/TPP-and-services.pdf

[PatrickforO]

124. Well, this is the purpose of primaries...

They force candidates to face up to, and answer for, prior policy positions. And, with all due respect to Hillary Clinton, she needs to answer for 1) her part in making the TPP what it is, and 2) her past economic dependence on big Wall Street and corporate donors.

That's just a fact, and again is why we have primaries.

It is also why I'm so strongly for Bernie, because honestly I do not think Secretary Clinton CAN adequately answer for those two things.

[madfloridian]

127. I agree. That and Iraq War 2 very big issues for me.

[rhett o rick]

125. The big lie is that they don't intend to bring the rest of the world workers up

to our standards, they instead intend to bring our standards down to the rest of the world.

Support the candidate for the people and not the candidate for the corporations.

[BuelahWitch]

145. Exactly!

Who wants to live in a barracks surrounded by electric fences and barbed wire, and only allowed out when it's time to work your 16 hour shift? NOT ME!
PS. I'm referring to the situation that Mitt mentioned during his 47% speech, only he tried to convince his rich buddies the fences were to keep people OUT, not IN.

[Oneironaut]

146. Sorry, but this is looting the middle class.

I have no doubt that this is who the "wage cuts" comment is aimed at. The rich can live care free, but the middle class must be responsible?

We're quickly becoming a two-tiered society, with a powerless under class ruled by a wealthy upper class. That's the sign of a failing economy.