Politics

Politics

  • Obama

    Votes: 4 1.1%
  • Romney

    Votes: 172 48.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 46 13.1%
  • a:3:{i:1637;a:5:{s:12:"polloptionid";i:1637;s:6:"nodeid";s:7:"2882145";s:5:"title";s:5:"Obama";s:5:"

    Votes: 130 36.9%

  • Total voters
    352

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
People will go where the jobs are. Texas is giving huge tax breaks to attract businesses and since that is where the jobs are, that is where people will go. Gaithersburg, MD has a lot of government jobs, which attracts a lot of government contractors. It also has a lot of jobs in telecommunications, which are soon to follow when there are government and contracting posiitions. The American Red Cross has big presence there as well.

Yes, they will and they are.

Texas and NY are both giving huge tax breaks to attract companies. I'd say one state is doing a helluva lot better than the other.

The contractors and telecomm in MD make sense.
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
The race to the bottom is a socio-economic phenomenon in which governments deregulate the business environment or taxes in order to attract or retain economic activity in their jurisdictions, resulting in lower wages, worse working conditions and fewer environmental protections. An outcome of globalization and free trade, the phenomenon may occur when competition increases between geographic areas over a particular sector of trade and production.

Unfortunately corporations have became so huge that there is no local competition anymore. So everyone has to be a corporate kiss ass. So states are giving giant corporations all these special loopholes and tax breaks (Chicago recently gave a huge tax break to Boeing to move from Seattle), which in turn crushes local competition even further. So what do states do? The obvious answer is cut spending but eventually you get to point where you still have to fund basic services like public schools, keep up with basic road repairs (not even talking about any new projects just basic re pavements), etc. Eventually you end up having either budget cuts that really hurt the state especially in the long run or you raise taxes on working families. Neither is a great option.

My question is in the race to the bottom, where the hell is the bottom? As you look at Texas and they have created jobs but also have the highest (not sure it goes back in fourth between them and Idaho) percentage of minimum wage job. There is a multiple ways to look at that. I will say a minimum wage job is better than no job.

Some would argue point to certain states and say being a corporate kiss ass is good thing as evidence by the unemployment numbers but I don't see how any of this is a good thing for society over the long haul.
 

RallySonsOfND

All-Snub Team Snubbed
Messages
2,106
Reaction score
91
Race to the bottom is a fallacy.


People will move to where they get the best value. There is huge growth in the city I live in, but only in certain parts due to it having the 2 best school districts. Those parts also have the highest property taxes.
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
Race to the bottom is a fallacy.


People will move to where they get the best value. There is huge growth in the city I live in, but only in certain parts due to it having the 2 best school districts. Those parts also have the highest property taxes.

People will move where they can get the best value. Ok what if the corporation doesn't want to pay the wages people are looking for? Or doesn't want to locate in that state anymore.
 

Bluto

Well-known member
Messages
8,146
Reaction score
3,979
Race to the bottom is a fallacy.


People will move to where they get the best value. There is huge growth in the city I live in, but only in certain parts due to it having the 2 best school districts. Those parts also have the highest property taxes.

No it's not. NAFTA has pretty much demonstrated that.
 

Bluto

Well-known member
Messages
8,146
Reaction score
3,979
People will move where they can get the best value. Ok what if the corporation doesn't want to pay the wages people are looking for? Or doesn't want to locate in that state anymore.

They relocate to Mexico and then get to do whatever they want because of the complete lack of a functioning state.
 

Bluto

Well-known member
Messages
8,146
Reaction score
3,979
So the big problem is governments failing to "act in the interest of their citizens"? No shit. I can't believe someone is actually getting paid to come to such conclusions. Anyhow, why do think that is? I'm sure it has nothing to do with "profits".
 

RallySonsOfND

All-Snub Team Snubbed
Messages
2,106
Reaction score
91
So the big problem is governments failing to "act in the interest of their citizens"? No shit. I can't believe someone is actually getting paid to come to such conclusions. Anyhow, why do think that is? I'm sure it has nothing to do with "profits".

Don't blame the companies, blame the governments.
 

Bluto

Well-known member
Messages
8,146
Reaction score
3,979
Don't blame the companies, blame the governments.

Trying to compartmentalize and disassociate government from the economy and vis versa is impossible at present. So that being the case, I am more than happy to blame the governments that at this point are controlled by a small number of elites who derive said power to control largely based on the profits of various companies. Looks a lot like a positive feedback loop to me.
 
Last edited:

BobD

Can't get no satisfaction
Messages
7,918
Reaction score
1,034
Texas, the new China. Pollution friendly and cheap labor.
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest

The key word their is "environmental," so I'm not sure what the point is there. Most environmental regulations are federal (EPA), so corporations hopping around states for more relaxed regulations isn't my worry.

My worry is that Americans are grading their politicians on how many new jobs they create, so politicians are falling over themselves to offer larger and larger tax breaks to corporations for them to move or stay. It's common sense, if a corporation moves from Ohio to Indiana because Ohio offered a package of X and Indiana offered 2X....how in the hell does the overall American economy benefit? This happens all of the time. Owens-Illinois moved from Toledo, OH to Perrysburg, OH (mere miles down the interstate) for a better tax break package.

It doesn't just happen with tax breaks either, it's directly responsible for an increase in energy rates for people. Industrial usage dwarfs residential usage (at least here in Ohio), ensuring cheap energy for people because the factory will use such a huge sum of energy. But when GM factories threatened to move out of states for packages of cheaper energy rates, Ohio turned around and offered these factories a lower rate to stay put. It worked, but the side effect was drastically higher rates for residential usage to make up the difference... So who benefited there?

Don't blame the companies, blame the governments.

Go ahead and do that until you're labeled as an anti-business potted up commie. It'll take about two seconds. It's all about being as business-friendly as possible in this country, regardless of how much the middle class loses--because they have a job and should shut up and be thankful for it!

The sheer lack of recognizing the problems, not even assigning the blame on corporation vs government, keeps us at square zero. We can't even get to square one and go from there unless we are cognizant of what is going on. That's just the way they want it.
 
Last edited:

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
Texas, the new China. Pollution friendly and cheap labor.

Aside from the fact that Texas is pro growth and China is communist, you hit that nail on the head.

Also, no one is forcing these employees in Texas to take these "low paying jobs." Work is completely voluntary. The citizens in Texas are just as free to move to CA for employment as Toyota is to move to Texas for lower costs of operating.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
The key word their is "environmental," so I'm not sure what the point is there. Most environmental regulations are federal (EPA), so corporations hopping around states for more relaxed regulations isn't my worry.

My worry is that Americans are grading their politicians on how many new jobs they create, so politicians are falling over themselves to offer larger and larger tax breaks to corporations for them to move or stay. It's common sense, if a corporation moves from Ohio to Indiana because Ohio offered a package of X and Indiana offered 2X....how in the hell does the overall American economy benefit? This happens all of the time. Owens-Illinois moved from Toledo, OH to Perrysburg, OH (mere miles down the interstate) for a better tax break package.

It doesn't just happen with tax breaks either, it's directly responsible for an increase in energy rates for people. Industrial usage dwarfs residential usage (at least here in Ohio), ensuring cheap energy for people because the factory will use such a huge sum of energy. But when GM factories threatened to move out of states for packages of cheaper energy rates, Ohio turned around and offered these factories a lower rate to stay put. It worked, but the side effect was drastically higher rates for residential usage to make up the difference... So who benefited there?



Go ahead and do that until you're labeled as an anti-business potted up commie. It'll take about two seconds. It's all about being as business-friendly as possible in this country, regardless of how much the middle class loses--because they have a job and should shut up and be thankful for it!

The sheer lack of recognizing the problems, not even assigning the blame on corporation vs government, keeps us at square zero. We can't even get to square one and go from there unless we are cognizant of what is going on. That's just the way they want it.
I 100% agree with all of this. I could write a dissertation on this scenario as it is exactly what is happening in the south. It actually happened once before after the Civil war with all the freed men and cheap labor available. Megarich notherners, packed up, headed down south during reconstruction and opened up factories like Sloss Steel and Virginia Chemical Company. The labor was cheap, the processes were unregulated and now we are stuck with over 100 years of pollution accumulation from their activities. The problem is the companies who do the polluting are typically protected by being able to go bankrupt and we get stuck with cleaning up a site for some sort of reuse or it sits contaminated and unable to be used.

South Carolina is offering free land, infrastructure improvements, tax breaks and all other kinds of stuff to attract companies like BMW, Boeing, Honda, Amazon, etc. to come here.

I could tell you some messed up stories about a certain manufacturer that has the government eating out of its hand while the workers are led to believe they will receive certain benefits. They tell you that you will make $20-25 per hour for all people who want the jobs. What they don't tell you is that these are union rates from another plant outside of the state. You then have to go through a mandatory "training" period at cheap hourly pay, only to get through it and go to the plant and get paid just above their training rate. By that time you already have 6 months in and its hard to quit to go anywhere else.....


To get back to your main point, we spent so much taxpayer money/property on the promises to these companies. And all they are doing is creating "technical jobs" that pays just above what a minimum wage earner earns. People here work at a nice new clean shiny manufacturer and they still can't afford to raise a family. The manufacturer meanwhile is making bank. Its the guilded age all over again,...which is the way they want it...

coolhandl2.jpg
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
Aside from the fact that Texas is pro growth and China is communist, you hit that nail on the head.

Also, no one is forcing these employees in Texas to take these "low paying jobs." Work is completely voluntary. The citizens in Texas are just as free to move to CA for employment as Toyota is to move to Texas for lower costs of operating.

China is not pro-growth?
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
Ralph Nader recently published an excerpt of his new book on AmCon called "Who Owns America?" It focuses, in part, on why early American Distributists (often called "decentralists" by Nader) opposed corporations. It's a bit lengthy, but well worth your time if you're interested in such things.

For one who regularly touts the "miracles" of capitalism, Buster, you seem to have a keen understanding of at least some of its drawbacks.

On a tangentially related noted, I recently learned that Pope Benedict co-authored a book called "Without Roots" with a prominent European athiest. It explores how the philosophies of modernity are basically destroying the Old World.
 

chicago51

Well-known member
Messages
3,658
Reaction score
387
I"m not sure if we are talking about the same book but I intend to order Nader's book the "Left Right Alliance in Dismantling the Corporate State" or something along those lines. Nader was promoting on the radio, I like the themes the book.supposedly tries to address. I am looking forward to reading it.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
I"m not sure if we are talking about the same book but I intend to order Nader's book the "Left Right Alliance in Dismantling the Corporate State" or something along those lines. Nader was promoting on the radio, I like the themes the book.supposedly tries to address. I am looking forward to reading it.

Same book. Only the excerpt he posted to AmCon was titled "Who Owns America?" Might be a chapter title... not sure.
 
Messages
2,475
Reaction score
237
Same book. Only the excerpt he posted to AmCon was titled "Who Owns America?" Might be a chapter title... not sure.

Yeah, this is what it says at bottom of article. It says a guy named Herbert Agar wrote "Who Owns America? A New Declaration of Independence"

Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate. This essay is adapted from Unstoppable: The Emerging Left-Right Alliance to Dismantle the Corporate State by Ralph Nader. Available from Nation Books, a member of The Perseus Books Group. Copyright © 2014.
 

Wild Bill

Well-known member
Messages
5,518
Reaction score
3,261
And all they are doing is creating "technical jobs" that pays just above what a minimum wage earner earns. People here work at a nice new clean shiny manufacturer and they still can't afford to raise a family. The manufacturer meanwhile is making bank. Its the guilded age all over again,...which is the way they want it...

coolhandl2.jpg

Some 28 year old dude on the south side of Chicago is sitting at local bar telling anyone that will listen the same story. It's a nice day so he decided to take his new Harley and left his GMC Sierra (fully loaded, of course) at home for the night. You're a fair poster, Cack, and I don't mean to call you out. I'm just tired of hearing this same sob story from factory workers in this area. I know what they make and it's more than enough to live, raise a family, save, invest, prosper and retire early. The choices they make is what holds them back, not the wage they earn.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
Some 28 year old dude on the south side of Chicago is sitting at local bar telling anyone that will listen the same story. It's a nice day so he decided to take his new Harley and left his GMC Sierra (fully loaded, of course) at home for the night. You're a fair poster, Cack, and I don't mean to call you out. I'm just tired of hearing this same sob story from factory workers in this area. I know what they make and it's more than enough to live, raise a family, save, invest, prosper and retire early. The choices they make is what holds them back, not the wage they earn.

I also know what these guys make down here (non-union jobs) and even adjusted for the cost of living (which is much less than Chicago) is around $12/hour which is about $25k/year before taxes.That is just above a 3-person family poverty level. I appreciate being assessed as a fair poster and I do my best to look at as many perspectives as I can.

The point of my post was that this company came in and hamfisted our state government to get the best deal they could while touting they were going to bring "high paying" jobs. Well our government gave them everything and more and this company has only created about 1,200 permanent jobs with an average pay rate of $12/hour. They moved existing workers from out of state to here to fill the majority of jobs. People applying for the jobs are told they will make a pay rate of about $25/hour. During the training they agree to get paid $9/hour through the training while being told to expect $25/hour (which are rates they pay other people, just not here). So when you get done with training after 6 months you are sent to the assembly lines and in fact do not get the "high paying" job you were told but a much less paying job.

I also am tired of people thinking that they should be paid more than they are worth, but what is it worth to subsidize a companies profits? This is what we are doing when we allow a company to pay workers shit wages who then need assistance to make ends meet. And I know many more people who struggle to do this than a random 28 year old single person with a new hog.

A single Wal-mart store costs taxpayers $900k to subsidize their lowly-paid workers. Its a viscous cycle that needs to be addressed on both sides. So in reality not only do we subsidize workers who do not earn enough but we also subsidize the companies that pay these low wages so they can make a profit. Its welfare all around except for you and me.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
Via the communist state.

Does this mean that a communo-capitalist economy is the way to go? Its apparent that a purely crony capitalism economy is failing and socialist-capitalist economies are stable but are also not as effective as China.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
Via the communist state. Would you and BobD rather live in China or Texas?

Tough call. Governments that seem more interested in raising corporate profits than the standard of living for its citizens. Little concern for the environment. Capital punishment. Little patience for other ideas. Low wage jobs aplenty. Do I have to decide now?
 
Top