Bernie Sanders hits another homerun. Jobs, jobs, jobs. Lost.

[JanMichael]

He even mentions my favorite store for cheap junk, low wages, decimated downtowns, poor benefits and plutocratic benefactors, Walmart.

Yeah.

http://bernie.house.gov/documents/opeds/20031014111646.asp

"Unsurprisingly, proponents of an unfettered free-trade seem unwilling to admit the error of their ways. This group, which includes virtually all of corporate America, every major editorial board, as well as Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, has told us for decades how many new jobs free trade would create here at home. Now the evidence is in and guess what — they were dead wrong. The exact opposite is true."

"Estimates are that 560,000 high-tech jobs have been lost in this country in the last two years and that many have ended up in India. More ominous, according to Forrester Research, “over the next 15 years, 3.3 million U.S. service industry jobs and $136 billion in wages will move offshore. The Information Technology industry will lead the initial overseas exodus.”"

"So free trade has not only cost us our textile industry, our shoe industry, our steel industry, our tool and die industry, our electronic industry, our furniture industry and many others but will now cost us millions of high tech jobs as well."

This situation will not solve itself. We need to seriously reconsider those organisations/agreements that enable a few people to benefit massively from the blood & sweat of the many.

The WTO, NAFTA, the FTAA? They must be made accountable to the People. I mean the American People as well as the other 5.75 Billion in the World.

[grannylib]

1. And those of us who could see it coming and who have been hollering

about it for years are 'unAmerican' for not believing in our glorious leaders' plans to bankrupt us all.
This was one area where I thought Clinton f**ked up big time...
forget Monica, NAFTA was the real crime.

[JanMichael]

6. Sometimes being right sucks.

I initially opposed NAFTA then it was passed so I got intellectually lazy and forgot about it.

I regret that.

[trogdor]

7. NAFTA was limited to North America.

Canada, the USA, and Mexico. I have not heard one single thing about India having signed on.

Of those three, Canada is on par, more or less, with us. Mexico is not, but there are only so many of them - about 1/10 India's population, and not nearly enough of them to fark up our economy. Besides, a prosperous Mexico is in our national interest, is it not?

The REAL problem is that southeast Asia undercuts Mexico on labor costs. Big time. The jobs that went to Mexico (fewer than you all think) have joined the departed US jobs across the Pacific, so the net effect of NAFTA to any of its signatories is nil.

Consider this. Last week, there was an article at Yahoo! where the Ohio Arts toy company laid off about 1000 people and outsourced production of Etch-a-Sketch and such to China. What used to take 1000 people making an average of $8.50/hr. to do with machines is now being done mostly by hand by about 8000 Chinese working 80 hours a week at 22 cents/hr., no overtime pay, benefits, or anything but lousy food in the company cafeteria. If one of them breathes a word of discontent about this, he's blackballed, and somebody else is in his spot on the assembly line within the hour.

All of this to keep per-unit costs below ten bucks so that Wal*Mart will sell them.

This, my friends, amounts to legalized slavery. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with NAFTA. You can't blame Clinton for it; he probably would have at least tried to do something about the exodus of tech jobs by now if he were still President.

Edit: If you want to blame Clinton for something, blame him for not vetoing the various H1B bills that came across his desk over the years. That disappointed me back in 1997/8 when I was pursuing my computer science degree.

[IrateCitizen]

9. You're right with regards to high tech jobs and NAFTA

But all of this ties in with the whole push for "free trade" at the behest of the financial industry. And for that, I DO lay a lot of blame at the feet of Bill Clinton and his nefarious Treasury Secretary, Bob Rubin.

The two biggest problems with NAFTA are agriculture and manufacturing. Mexico had to agree to two important provisions that hamstrung its development. First, they had to repeal the article of their constitution that legalized communal ownership of land. This was done at the behest of US and Canadian agribusiness and timber companies, because they wanted to undermine the rural farming communities in order to dump their agricultural products, which would in turn open up those regions to timber companies AND provide an influx of people seeking work in the cities and border regions (meaning cheap labor).

Second, they had to agree to the elimination of technology transfers, one of the mechanisms that the "Asian tigers" used to enhance their rapid growth and develop their own industries.

But you're right about job loss from Mexico to China -- it's been staggering, to say the least. William Greider wrote an excellent piece on this for The Nation several months back, "A New Giant Sucking Sound". The results for Mexico are disastrous, with its rural agricultural base AND manufacturing base becoming decimated.

The problem is, ALL of this stuff ties together, and it's so hard to keep your eye on the ball and allow it to be compartmentalized.

[JanMichael]

10. I wasn't slamming just NAFTA. The WTO and FTAA are far worse.

Because you're right about the jobs that left America for Mexico, have now left Mexico for China.

It's a viscious cycle that's gone far beyond initial media projections.

[Armstead]

11. They are all of a piece

You are right that mexico is now hemmoraging the jobs they gained. But Clinton and otehr "free traders" used the same thinking to NAFTA that is applied to the whole picture.

Clinton and his crew also pushed for "free trade" with China so that American business can screw workers and take advantage of the conditions you described.

Face it, they are sell-outs.

[cirej2000]

2. Things are still slow out here in the Bay Area

But back in 1999 I know there were alot of people with no business in the software industry making $100,000 just to make web pages. And there were projects that would never make money. I got laid-off the first time in 2000 and then again in early 2001. And I have a degree in CompSci. Now that I've gotten almost 6 years of experience and have project lead experience...it's still tough out there, but I've gotten calls from companies.

But, alot of work is going overseas. And we're going to get burned someday...but it started happening also back in 1999, that and the H1-B visa explosion.

But I'm glad that this report is out. Because at least H1-B workers paid taxes here and didn't depress wages too much.

One thing that's happened is that my salary has increased by 1% over the last 5 years. And I'm lucky! :(

[IrateCitizen]

3. Bernie hits more homeruns than Saduhara Oh!

Thanks for posting this. He's on the money again, as usual.

Question is, is anybody outside of these boards listening?

[JanMichael]

4. They will eventually.

This race to the bottom and Class separation happening in American will, someday, crack the system.

Now though? I doubt it.

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. Bernie for Sec'y of Labor!

:)

[buddhamama]

8. we need more Bernies

:kick:

[JanMichael]

12. Yes we do.

And we will someday.

[Bandit]

13. If I am not mistaken millions of new jobs were created during Clinton's

eight years. I notice all his references to jobs lost are during the Bush* Administration. I have mixed feelings about this one. I believe there is a lot we can do to establish new jobs here in America and still help lessor nations with free trade. We can do wonders in alternate energy sources and environmental issues. All it will take is someone using initiative and creativity which this administration sadly lacks. I think there are benefits to NATO and GATT that have yet to be proven. WTO though is another matter entirely.

[JanMichael]

14. Clinton presided over a Tech and Service boom.

The first by the explosion of new technologies, the web, business based technologies, hardware and software that were mostly completely new; the second by the transition of, mostly, downsized industrial workers to lower paying service economy jobs like Walmart.

Yes many "new" jobs were created, some 9,000,000(?), but while many were of the well paying Tech catagory far too many were of the low wage service catagory.

Mixed bag indeed.

The new paradigm appears to be much less mixed results wise.

[denverbill]

15. WTG Bernie!!! I hope all the candidates, especially mine, listen up.

I know Dean has said he wants to renegotiate NAFTA, but I wish he would push this toward the front of his agenda.

NAFTA, National Health Care, and the budget deficit are three killer issues against the boy blunder.

[ThomC]

16. decimated downtowns

Let's say a business built a huge mall with union labor and quality materials outside of town and stocked it with the same goods sold downtown and used local union labor with good benefits and wages to run the shops. Then let's say they offerd the goods for much less than the downtown shops due to less taxes, better rent etc and the downtown shops folded due to competition.

Would "decimated downtowns" still be an unforgivable offense in this case?

[Bandit]

17. Sounds like you are talking about Walmart

except without the Union labor

[ThomC]

21. No, I'm not talking about Walmart in the slightest

American company, Union Labor, good pay and benefits, SAME goods as the downtown shops (not China unless the downtown was china).

The only difference is location and price.

[JanMichael]

23. It really depends on the location and the conditions...

...of the development.

The reason Walmart is used as a "bad" example is because of it's ubiquitous nature and raw power.

Is every downtown worth rehabilitating, developing or preserving? As a generalisation, yes. In reality, no.

I suppose if Walmart behaved as your example behaves then the response to it would be heavily muted.

But they don't.

[IrateCitizen]

18. "Decimated downtowns" is a big quality of life issue

You're looking at it from only one perspective. As someone who lives in a town with a vibrant downtown area, I can tell you that it is a HUGE quality of life issue.

For example, if my wife and I want to go shopping, or to the movies, or out to eat -- we don't have to drive. We can simply walk (or ride our bikes, if we want to go a bit further.

This leads to a situation in which you spend more time in which you might actually run across other people you know. It's also healthier for you and the environment, because you're not spending as much time behind the wheel of your car.

Traditionally, local businesses pay their workers a good wage anyway -- because to them, their workers are an asset to be valued, rather than a cost to be minimized.

There are also other issues that come into play here. Town planning is a big one -- and it's up to the towns to set up zoning regulations in a way that encourages downtown growth and mixed-use zoning, as opposed to creating suburbia replete with gated communities and strip malls.

[ThomC]

22. I understand the benefits of downtown

As I said...this place has the EXACT same goods; products, food, movies etc. The ONLY difference is they are outside of town and much lower priced.

My question still stands.

[IrateCitizen]

26. In that case, your question is an extremely poor one...

Please see my response in post #25.

[ThomC]

29. What exactly is a "poor" question?

Is that where I'm dense for not knowing the answer or you don't have the answer.

[IrateCitizen]

33. It's a poor question, because it's not at all realistic

You're posing something that is completely, utterly hypothetical. It doesn't exist in the real world. Therefore, it's an exercise in futility to even answer it as it is, because it doesn't accomplish anything. It's like counting how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Not to mention that it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the subject of this thread. That's why it's a poor question.

[ThomC]

35. Sheesh all I wanted was "decimated downtowns" explained

Nevermind.

[IrateCitizen]

38. No, you wanted to know if "decimated downtowns" would be

forgivable, given a completely rhetorical and unrealistic example. If you wanted the concept of a "decimated downtown" explained, you should have asked that.

DU doesn't do well with inference, since we all communicate by typing. ;-)

BTW, I'm not trying to be overly hard on you, and I apologize if that's the way I came off. Welcome to DU. :beer:

[JanMichael]

39. You're right it isn't forgivable, even with more progressive values.

People generally enjoy well designed cities and towns. The convenience is a factor, usable greenspace is another. Closer proximity to work, school, easy to use public transportation like trams, recreation AND shopping can make for less wasteful (environmentally) and more productive (Savings on space and fuel) living. Affordable housing is essential though, because without it all we've done is Disneyfied our urban centers and left the average worker to commute in for jobs, defeating our purpose.

Sprawlmartmentality is a great example of not giving a shit about fuel economy, aesthetics, overall plan, sense of space, or any of the other things that make life more that just working and consuming.

[JanMichael]

19. As a city planner? Yes.

I never said Unions did everything right now did I?

I love it the way you didn't comment on the reality! Do you think it's a GOOD thing the way it happens now with the Walmart Heirs licking their chops on the downfall of good jobs and small towns?

[ThomC]

24. No I don't think Walmart is good

My experiment was to eliminate all the bad aspects except location.

I wanted to know if it was still bad if the only difference was location.

[IrateCitizen]

25. But that's NOT AT ALL what you're doing

You can't pose this rhetorical question in a vacuum, and then complain when nobody answers it to your liking.

Traffic is a major issue in this instance. With traffic issues, vehicle emissions (environment and air quality) become concerns. As does obesity (spending time driving rather than walking). Water quality also becomes an issue, because of the quicker storm surge (I'm putting my civil engineer's hat on here) associated with pavement vs. grass, and the increased discharge of leaking oil from cars parked in the mall's parking lot.

Then, there's also the issue of using up MORE natural resources to create the additional junk that people will be able to buy at a lower price. Not to mention the resources used up for packaging and shipping -- and the environmental degradation that goes along with it.

See, there are a LOT of factors that go into this. You can't try and separate out just one or two issues in it, because it's then not at all reflective of reality.

[ThomC]

28. Yes that IS what I am doing

If there are more people living on the edge of downtown and this mall is closer to them (saving gas and all the other stuff you mentioned) then why would they drive into downtown and leak their oil on your downtown and kill the trees and grass with their fumes when they can shop at the responsible mall for less?

If the mall has the SAME junk (not more of it) as the downtown and sell the same amount of it then the packaging, shipping concerns don't exist.

[IrateCitizen]

34. Your argument is the classic one used to justify sprawl...

... which exposes to me how fundamentally flawed your question is. It's like building more roads to eliminate congestion -- which just leads to more people moving in and creating more congestion.

When you have vibrant downtown areas along with comprehensive zoning and building restrictions, you create an environment in which people WANT to live in the town. This, in turn, leads to less people DRIVING and more people WALKING. Building sprawl ALWAYS leads to the reverse. In fact, I would appreciate it if you could point out to me just ONE instance of sprawl actually RELIEVING congestion and driving time over the long term.

You also said that the mall has the SAME stuff, at a LOWER price. Which means that MORE people will buy MORE stuff. See, that's the way that people think and operate in our consumerist culture. It's a REALITY -- something that does not exist in the question you posed.

[ThomC]

36. People have to live somewhere

If the city is too expensive or full then you are going to have sprawl. Unless the city can grow vertically faster than the people are coming in then you are going to have sprawl. There will always be people that refuse to live in the city as long as there is a house with a lawn or hopes of one.

[IrateCitizen]

37. Ever been to Europe? They don't have sprawl.

Why? Because they enact strict building restrictions that ensure that development proceeds with long-term goals in mind. They create and maintain a great deal of public space within cities, towns and villages. They invest money in extensive public transit networks rather than strictly automobile-driven transportation networks. All of this adds up to make their towns and cities nice places to live and work.

Here in the US, we have development by developers. Building restrictions are eschewed in favor of private profit. Developers always go to where they will get the greatest returns -- developing open space, luxury homes, strip malls, etc. The end result is a poor quality of life -- increased costs for services such as sewage, water, police and fire; increased obesity from having to drive everywhere; less free time due to longer commutes and traffic, etc.

My hometown of Pittsburgh has actually seen an increase in land used for the greater metropolitan area while the population has actually DECLINED over the past ten years. That's not sprawl out of necessity. That's sprawl out of piss-poor planning!

I work as a civil engineer, and many of these issues are very important to me. JanMichael has a few steps up on me as a city planner. Despite what you may believe, a "house with a lawn" is not the primary motivation for people. More people, when surveyed as to what their "ideal town" would look like, describe one with an open park downtown, ringed with shops and restaurants, with houses on narrow, safe streets. They do NOT cite the model of suburbia with wide streets (with cars zooming by) and without the ability to walk to the nearest store.

Check out the following website: http://www.smartgrowth.org. You might be pleasantly surprised at some of the efforts that are being undertaken to revitalize existing communities, improve quality of life, and eliminate unnecessary sprawl.

[JanMichael]

30. Location is a factor however it's not any one issue.

There are economic, Worker, environmental (I've read that the car oil runoff from Walmart parking lots, alone, on the Gulf Coast is equal to a Valdez a day), public health, aesthetic, traffic and more that I simply don't have time to comment on.

I used a very specific example to a multi-facited issue.

Sorry if I responded in an agitated way, there are a lot of cheap labor conservatives that pop up whenever Walmart gets mentioned.

[JanMichael]

20. You also declined to comment on the bigger issues.

GATT?

NAFTA?

WTO?

FTAA?

Healthcare?

Benefits lost?

Well?

[ThomC]

27. Of course those are bad. That was not my point

All those things you listed are bad.

I just wanted to know if a good company (not Walmart) with good reputation and good wages and benefits (not Walmart) and not selling slave labor goods (not Walmart) were to out compete the downtown if they would still be considered bad.

[Bandit]

31. Seems like you answered your own question

you said..."I just wanted to know if a good company" If they are a "good company" how could they be bad.

[JanMichael]

32. Generally speaking sprawl is undesirable.

Most often services (Water, Sewr, Wastewater, Police, Fire etc.) have to be extended, roads improved, and so on.

So would your example be "bad"? Hmm. Let me put it this way...It could be better.