Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A three point proposal to bring jobs back to America.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-05 01:45 PM
Original message
A three point proposal to bring jobs back to America.
Edited on Fri Nov-25-05 01:48 PM by Cleita
Our economy is going to the dogs if we don’t do something about it. So I have a three point proposal to bring jobs back to America and to make corporations pay their share of the taxes.

1. All big box, warehouse stores, like Wal-Mart, Target and K-Mart, must carry 60% of goods that are certifiably made here in the USA, not a phony USA label from the Marianna Islands and other US possessions.

2. All corporations who wish to do business with the USA and enjoy a home office tax break, must be registered in the continental USA and pay US corporate taxes. Sixty percent of their employees and offices are to be located somewhere in the fifty states. Any other companies will be regarded as a foreign interests and subject to taxes for imports and for maintaining offices in the USA for the purposes of doing business here in America. The point is to slow the flow of dollars and jobs out of this country.

3. All employees of corporations with branch offices and more than a hundred employees must be unionized, or belong to a guild or professional society that looks out for their interests. Only executive officers of a company and the board of directors would be exempt.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
chalky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-05 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
1. Well THAT ain't gonna fly--it makes too much sense.
Edited on Fri Nov-25-05 01:52 PM by chalky
Seriously, you make excellent points. We need to get a Democrat to pick up the banner on this. The job drain is something that EVERYONE is worried about. It's such an obvious issue. Lord knows we have a lot of battles to fight, but I find it puzzling that no one in congress seems to be mentioning this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pstans Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-05 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. This does make too much sense
It might happen in 25-30 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-05 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Our Congressional "Leaders" are complicit it the war on the Middle Class
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
losdiablosgato Donating Member (649 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-05 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #4
20. We live in an "Ownership Society" the problem is who owns us.
The middle class is being sold to corps lock, stock and barrel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vincardog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-05 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
3. While you are at it . 3: The executives salaries can not be more the 10
time the corporate average salary, All executive benefits shall enjoy the same (AKA not more than) the guarantee of the least employee and/or retiree. If the corporation goes bankrupt the executive compensation package is liquidated FIRST.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chalky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-05 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. AMEN, Vincardog.
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-05 04:27 PM
Response to Reply #3
23. Excellent additions to that point.
Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politicaholic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-05 02:02 PM
Response to Original message
5. Whoa! Some good old bold ideas...
The problem is, what's in it for the corporation? There are fat Lobbyists that would ask the same question.

Reagan ruined the labor movement unfortunately, and Bushco is bludgeoning the remanents like a baby seal. I'm afraid that it would take a major economic catastrphy to change the spiral the labor movement is on now.

One thing that would help is bring back Clinton's idea of encouraging smaller businesses and making it more profitable for a corporation to fragment into many different small companies with their own stock rather than massive mega-corps like the media conglomerates, energy corporations, etc. Research has shown that smaller companies hire domestically by a far greater proportion and generally pay slightly more or have better healthcare benefits even when they aren't unionized.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-05 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #5
24. What's in it for the corporations? The privilege of doing business
Edited on Fri Nov-25-05 04:30 PM by Cleita
with us. If we bring business back to America, we will still be a very strong economy, but we can't let the drain on it go much further.
Let's face it business has to go where the strong markets are and that used to be the USA, and could still be if we turn things around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkofos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-05 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #5
34. What's in it for the coporations?
MONEY Same as today.
The only differance is, WE THE PEOPLE will make the rules.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rockymountaindem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-05 02:02 PM
Response to Original message
6. How are we going to *force* stores to carry American products?
I don't see how this is going to work, nor how it could be enacted in a free enterprise system. Tariffs or domestic industry subsidies are one thing, but this plan doesn't sound constitutional.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-05 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. One thing's for sure.
The bureaucracy necessary to support such a scheme, were it to become law, would certainly be a job-growth sector. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zalinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-05 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. One way is to make it a law
that you MUST be an American company ON American soil to get ANY government contract.

zalinda
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rockymountaindem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-05 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. Ok, that's a start.
Nothing illegal about that. It doesn't even have to be law, it could just be an approved practice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-05 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #6
27. A couple of points. We are a representative republic, not
a "free enterprise system", nor do we have free enterprise here. There is nothing unconstitutional (at least the mangled shell we currently work with) about imposing taxes, tariffs, and limits on what comes into and goes out of amerika.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-05 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. Exactly and we used to do it in the past. It's what made
our country a thriving economy. What we have now is laissez faire economics, which has already proved to never work for a nation as a whole. It only creates a privileged class on top.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rockymountaindem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-05 05:03 PM
Response to Reply #27
31. No, there is not.
But that's not what the OP was talking about. We can't simply *force* companies to buy American without any incentive other than the law. We can, however, create that incentive by raising tariffs, extending subsidies to domestic producers ect.

Whether we want to do that or not is another issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-05 05:16 PM
Response to Reply #6
36. They can choose to do business elsewhere if they like..
They operate at our pleasure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cessna Invesco Palin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-05 02:05 PM
Response to Original message
7. I don't know about this.
1. All big box, warehouse stores, like Wal-Mart, Target and K-Mart, must carry 60% of goods that are certifiably made here in the USA, not a phony USA label from the Marianna Islands and other US possessions.

How exactly do you define a "Big Box" store? Would you not simply expect these guys to simply reinvent themselves using smaller stores in order to skirt the regulations? Not to mention what this would do to standard-of-living and consumer spending.


2. All corporations who wish to do business with the USA and enjoy a home office tax break, must be registered in the continental USA and pay US corporate taxes. Sixty percent of their employees and offices are to be located somewhere in the fifty states. Any other companies will be regarded as a foreign interests and subject to taxes for imports and for maintaining offices in the USA for the purposes of doing business here in America. The point is to slow the flow of dollars and jobs out of this country.

How does that slow the flow of jobs? I don't see how this does anything other than encouraging businesses to locate in Mexico or Canada and charge more for their US imports.


3. All employees of corporations with branch offices and more than a hundred employees must be unionized, or belong to a guild or professional society that looks out for their interests. Only executive officers of a company and the board of directors would be exempt.


And be prepared for massive layoffs and re-hirings (probably at lower wages) as companies re-orient themselves around distributed operations with many, many offices with 99 people. As for requiring unionization, that's again just going to promote companies to locate overseas.

The initiatives you propose seem to do little more than increase the already large advantages of taking operations overseas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pitohui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-05 02:15 PM
Response to Original message
11. i like 2 & 3
i'll have to sleep on point 1, people in usa possessions deserve to be able to make a living too, esp. if they are living on islands that will eventually be destroyed by rising ocean levels, which means as usa citizens they may be coming to a neighborhood near you v. soon & i'd rather they came here w. some cash in pocket and able to rebuild their lives than w. nothing

i also think world trade agreements would interfere w. proper use of tariffs and taxes to protect home-grown usa industries so just passing a law in usa would not be anything we could enforce if world court said we had to allow certain imports

good starting points tho

i would also add two more points -- universal health care, without which it is stupid to start a small business or self-employment enterprise because of cost of un-insured care, and also in areas w.out affordable housing we need some way to provide universal affordable DECENT housing NOT slum housing, better to be homeless and on my two feet that warehoused in something like the old desire projects, but right now we urgently need to rebuild middle class housing in several regions of the country

most urgently in the gulf coast region but there are also areas such as san fransisco and boston where decent middle class housing is apparently non-existent

we need a new deal to provide QUALITY health care & housing, not just emergency care/slum housing -- anything that is only for the poorest of the poor is not supported by society at large, it has to be something for all (like social security) to gain widespread support

but think of the new business that could emerge if people could take more risk, because they knew even if their business venture or new invention failed, they and their employees would still have homes and medicines



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-05 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
13. 2 & 3 are both reasonable-there should be no union-busting or bans
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-05 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. and apply this to trade agreements and businesses here with foreign
factories.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-05 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
14. How about no subsidies if you have more than 10% profits?
And definitely no subsidies if you pay no or less than 10% taxes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-05 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
16. We have greatest leverage over RETAIL. Factories can threaten to go...
overseas.

Neither Walmart nor anyone else can replace American customers though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hollowdweller Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-05 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
17. Sounds good. Also legalize pot!
I have long felt this was the answer to the Palestinian economy.
Turn the Gaza Strip into the Ganja Strip Holland of the Mid East.

In the US we could legalize it and make it to where no company could sell it, just individual to individual. That would keep the most profit with the producer!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coastie for Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-05 02:39 PM
Response to Original message
18. Try Nancy Pelosi's "Innovation Agenda"
Let's try


The talent, intellect, and entrepreneurial spirit of the American people have made this nation the leader in economic and technological advancements. House Democrats believe American leadership is fueled by national investments in an educated and skilled workforce, groundbreaking federal research and development by public and private sectors, and a steadfast commitment to being the most competitive and innovative nation in the world. We are proud to announce the House Democrats’ Innovation Agenda: A Commitment to Competitiveness to Keep America #1.

THE INNOVATION AGENDA
A COMMITMENT TO COMPETITIVENESS TO KEEP AMERICA #1



The talent, intellect, and entrepreneurial spirit of the American people have made this nation the leader in economic and technological advancements. House Democrats believe American leadership is fueled by national investments in an educated and skilled workforce, groundbreaking federal research and development by public and private sectors, and a steadfast commitment to being the most competitive and innovative nation in the world.



America's global leadership in technological advancement and innovation is being seriously challenged by other countries. The warning signs could not be clearer. The rest of the world is increasing its capacity, its investments, and its will to catch up with us. We cannot ignore this challenge. Americans again must innovate in order to create new thriving industries that will produce millions of good jobs here at home and a better future for our children.

We must make the decision now to ensure that America remains the world leader. Working with leaders from the high-technology, venture capital, academic, biotech and telecommunications sectors, we have identified and are committed to priorities that will guarantee our national security and prosperity, expand markets for American products, and assert economic leadership throughout the world. Together, America can do better.

House Democrats are proud to present a bold INNOVATION AGENDA: A COMMITMENT TO COMPETITIVENESS TO KEEP AMERICA #1 to:

    *Create an educated, skilled workforce in the vital areas of science, math, engineering, and information technology;

    *Invest in a sustained federal research and development initiative that promotes public-private partnerships;

    *Guarantee affordable access to broadband technology for all Americans;

    *Achieve energy independence in 10 years by developing emerging technologies for clean and sustainable alternatives that will strengthen national security and protect the environment; and,

    *Provide small businesses with the tools to encourage entrepreneurial innovation and job creation.


The future prosperity and competitiveness of America demand that we initiate this sustained financial and intellectual investment in innovation. We must also ensure that our children and grandchildren are not burdened by failed policies that have exploded the national debt. That is why House Democrats will submit these priorities to the rigors of “pay-as-you-go” budgeting to ensure that new spending or tax cuts do not add to the deficit.



House Democrats believe the American people have always excelled at leading the world. With this bold agenda, our nation will continue to be the world leader in education, innovation, and economic growth.

A NEW GENERATION OF INNOVATORS

America’s greatest resource for innovation resides within classrooms across the country. We must give our students more opportunities to be highly-trained in math, science, and technology so they can turn ideas into innovations. Future innovators must reflect the diversity of our country, and we must provide opportunities for every qualified student, including minorities and women. Democrats will create a new generation of scientists, engineers, and mathematicians and will ensure that today’s students get the job skills they need at all levels of learning.



To achieve this goal, Democrats will:


    Educate 100,000 new scientists, engineers, and mathematicians in the next four years by proposing a new initiative, working with states, businesses, and universities, to provide scholarships to qualified students who commit to working in the fields of innovation.



    Place a highly qualified teacher in every math and science K-12 classroom by offering upfront tuition assistance to talented undergraduates and by paying competitive salaries to established teachers working in the fields of math and science; institute a “call to action” to professional engineers and scientists, including those who have retired, to join the ranks of our nation’s teachers.



    Create a special visa for the best and brightest international doctoral and postdoctoral scholars in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.



    Make college tuition tax-deductible for students studying math, science, technology, and engineering.


A SUSTAINED COMMITMENT TO RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Independent scientific research provides the foundation for innovation and future technologies. But U.S. federal funding for research and development has declined steadily over the last decade, and sound science has been compromised by political interference. We can do better. Over the next five years, Democrats will double the federal commitment to research aimed at developing the next generation of sound scientific breakthroughs, and we will promote the public-private partnerships necessary to translate these new ideas into marketable technologies.



To achieve this goal, Democrats will:




    Double overall funding for the National Science Foundation, basic research in the physical sciences across all agencies, and collaborative research partnerships; restore the basic, long-term research agenda at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to conduct long-range, high-risk, and high-reward research.



    Create regional Centers of Excellence for basic research that will attract the best minds and top researchers to develop far-reaching technological innovations and new industries, and modernize existing federal and academic research facilities.



    Modernize and permanently extend a globally competitive R&D tax credit to increase domestic investment, create more U.S. jobs, and allow companies to pursue long-term projects with the certainty that the credit will not expire.




AFFORDABLE BROADBAND ACCESS FOR EVERY AMERICAN WITHIN FIVE YEARS

Nationwide deployment of high speed, always-on broadband Internet and mobile communications will fuel the development of millions of new jobs in the United States. Just as railroads and highways did in the past, broadband and mobile communications will dramatically increase the productivity and efficiency of our economy in the future. In education, broadband will provide greater access to information, expanded curriculum, and real-time collaboration across borders and boundaries. In health care, broadband will enable advanced electronic health technology to improve patient care and vastly reduce costs. In communications, broadband will make the convergence of information, media, and telecommunications a reality, and services such as Voice over IP and video on demand will be pervasive. Democrats will ensure that the United States has the world’s most advanced telecommunications infrastructure to bridge the digital divide so that every American has access to affordable broadband Internet service and communications technology.



To achieve this goal, Democrats will:




    Implement a national broadband policy that doubles federal funding to promote broadband for all Americans, especially in rural and underserved communities; create new avenues of Internet access including wireless broadband technologies, broadband over power lines, and affordable community-based options.



    Ensure the continued growth of Internet-based services and provide a stable regulatory framework to attract investment by existing providers and new entrants.



    Enact a broadband tax credit for telecommunications companies that deploy broadband in rural and underserved parts of America to ensure that every region of the country benefits from our innovation investments.




ENERGY INDEPENDENCE IN 10 YEARS

America will achieve energy independence from Middle East oil in the next 10 years by developing emerging technologies that work in synergy with the existing energy infrastructure. A sustained investment in research and development is crucial to creating cutting-edge technologies that allow us to develop clean, sustainable energy alternatives and capitalize on America’s vast renewable natural resources.



To achieve this goal, Democrats will:




    Substantially reduce the use of petroleum based fuels by rapidly expanding production and distribution of synthetic and bio-based fuels, such as ethanol derived from cellulosic sources, and by deploying new engine technologies for fuel-flexible, hybrid, plug-in hybrid and biodiesel vehicles.



    Create a new DARPA-like initiative within the Department of Energy to provide seed money for fundamental research needed to develop high-risk, high-reward technologies and build markets for the next generation of revolutionary energy technologies, such as those emerging from biotechnology, nanotechnology, solar, and fuel-cell research.


A COMPETITIVE SMALL BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT FOR INNOVATION

Small businesses are the catalysts for technological innovation. The evolution from idea to marketable product, guided by a successful small business plan, has led to entrepreneurial successes that have fueled our technological revolution and will be the key to continued job growth in the future. Yet small businesses face significant hurdles, both regulatory and market-based, that thwart the effort to transform ideas into jobs. Removing these hurdles is a key component of this Innovation Agenda.

To achieve this goal, Democrats will:


    * Bridge the “valley of death” that destroys innovative ideas before they become marketable products due to lack of financing and technical support by doubling funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) and the Advanced Technology Program (ATP), modernizing the Small Business Innovation Research Program (SBIR), and fully funding SBA 7(a) loans to ensure that American small businesses have the resources and technical assistance they need to successfully innovate.

    * Reward risk-taking and entrepreneurship by promoting broad-based stock options for rank-and-file employees.

    *Protect the intellectual property of American innovators worldwide, strengthen the patent system, and end the diversion of patent fees.

    * Require specifically-tailored guidelines for small public companies to ensure Sarbanes-Oxley requirements are not overly burdensome.

    *Provide universal, affordable access to health insurance, beginning with a 50 percent tax credit and multi-insurer pools to help small businesses provide affordable and comprehensive health care coverage for their employees.







---snip---

Last week, House Democrats unveiled a competitiveness policy agenda that drew heavily from these reports. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, said she would push for legislation to ensure universal access to broadband, to establish 100,000 new scholarships for scientists, mathematicians and engineers, to increase federal funding for basic science and technology research and to achieve energy independence within 10 years.

The proposal was drafted with substantial input from Bay Area lawmakers, including Reps. George Miller of Concord, Zoe Lofgren of San Jose and Anna Eshoo of Palo Alto. It is the first comprehensive congressional proposal that begins to address the challenges of a world in which Chinese universities graduate 10 times as many engineers as their American counterparts, in which salaries for engineers in India are a tenth of what they are here and in which American 12th-graders perform near the bottom in math and science among advanced nations.

Turning this sweeping proposal into legislation will not be easy. Democrats don't control the agenda, and few in a polarized Congress are inclined to reach across the aisle. In fact, Republican leaders pooh-poohed Pelosi's proposal moments after it was unveiled. Perhaps they fear that by admitting America faces a problem that surfaced on their watch, they'll be blamed for it.

Whatever the reason, their rejection of the proposal does a disservice to America. It puts partisanship and short-term thinking ahead of the nation's future.



---snip---

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-26-05 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #18
45. Sorry I didn't get a chance to read your post until now.
These are worthwhile goals as well. I hope in the future we will push forward to accomplishing these things. We may have to start at the municipal level to repairing the damage done by corporations to our nation, but this can spread to counties, states and eventually the federal government will have to follow suit. We have the power in our hands to effect change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tocqueville Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-05 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
19. old protectionism won't work
Edited on Fri Nov-25-05 02:48 PM by tocqueville
1) measure #1 is probably illegal by the WTO agreements. Anyway it doesn't matter because the USA manufacture only 20% of their goods today and is now a FOOD IMPORTER, NOT EXPORTER. 80% is imported. Besides even if a part of the population would "buy American" by patrotism, they couldn't buy everything. And if you have an American bike that cost 3 times the price of the Chinese one and are comparable in quality, the patriotic effect would be quite limited.

2) All European companies want to do business with the US and the taxes payed in the US are a trifle compared with the ones payed in Europe. Besides it's much cheaper to employ somebody in the US than in Europe (the major trade partner and investor) due to work legislation. Your measure would have only peripherical effects.

3) That one must make Lenin very happy. I think you cannot pass a law in any democratic country that FORCES somebody to belong an organisation, because it would interfere with the constitutional organisation right. What you could do is pass a federal law that explicitely forbids to interfere with the right to belong to an union and severly punishes any threats of firings due to union work within the frame of what is acceptable for a unionist (representative) activity during working hours.

The major problem is not there. The only way to get out of the crisis (and this crisis is even worse in Europe) is to REGULATE the finance market. Because nowadays there are no rules. There are rules for the globalized trade (WTO), but the movement of money to the shareholders is not regulated. Since the shareholders ask in general a 12% benefit compared to 3-4% previously, the only way to make profit is to cut on the most expensive : human labor. That's why perfectly healthy industries are slayed down for short term interests, just to make richer a very few already filthy rich.

The situation reminds of 1929. We all know the results. It is bound to happen again. The EU powers want now a regulation of the finance market. The US as usual is teh big brake. But this is the MAJOR problem.

Protectionism is dead and Amrerican sdon't want to live with the standard of the 40s. But it is what going to happen, if the finance market isn't rgulated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-05 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #19
25. We should get out of the WTO agreements for starters
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tx_dem41 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-05 03:09 PM
Response to Original message
21. #1 and 2 are sure going to send prices soaring.
And, that of course will hurt the poor disproportionately.

#3....what if an employee doesn't want to work for a union? Will they be shut out of these jobs?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-05 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #21
26. I hope so.
Edited on Fri Nov-25-05 04:40 PM by Cleita
Historically, closed unions were the strongest. In this new age though I would suggest that no one be prevented from joining unions, but that they must join the union, guild or professional organization of the job they wish to hold. It's the only way to have solidarity with workers and also to create ombudsmen with some authority to settle disputes.

In the old unions people were often kept from joining because of their race, ethnicity or gender. This is wrong. I also believe undocumented workers be required to join. This might solve the border problem everyone is worried about because there would be no more cheap and exploitive labor. Most likely, the illegal wouldn't get hired unless there was a shortage of labor in the field. Then I think a guest worker law should kick in here, to make the person legally able to work here as long as there were no legal residents to fill those jobs.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
entanglement Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-05 03:16 PM
Response to Original message
22. I see a few problems with that
the result of items 1 & 2 would be to make American goods even costlier than they are now and would have to be complimented by high tariffs on imported goods. Blanket tariffs would trigger trade wars and everyone would suffer as a result.
item 3 on your list goes against the idea of free association, it would force people to join unions.
The problem is that the modern economy has reached such a state of inter-connectedness that global measures are needed to produce real change.

IANAE (I am not an economist)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-05 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #22
29. I can tell you aren't an economist. Neither am I, but I have
owned my own businesses in the past and learned a few things on the way about free trade and labor.

First, the cost to make goods, has very little relationship to the price of what it is sold for. People will always look for the lowest price. So the cost of your purchases really are based on the market. Cheap goods from slave labor factories overseas can be sold cheaper. This is why we need tariffs to bring them in line with domestic goods.

Other than that producers adjust. They actually figure out ways to do things more cheaply. Slave labor is one of the methods and it should never be acceptable in a modern industrial nation. There are other ways of cutting corners and they have led to some inventions that we take for granted today.

Also, people who are making a living wage and even plus some will have extra money to buys stuff. It's actually the common citizen who you want to sell to because there are so many more of them. Henry Ford realized this when he produced the first assembly line cars for the common guy.

There were only a few rich people around to buy cars then and even if they bought stable full of them, it was a drop in the profit bucket compared to the cars that Ford rolled out for the populace. But, also to go along with this were the good union wages so that the guys who produced the cars could also afford to buy them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tx_dem41 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-05 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #29
33. Let me see if I understand your first point....
If the raw materials to make a product cost a lot (which they most certainly will in your world due to the resulting high tarrifs), this has NO effect on the price that the final product is sold at???

So, in your estimation, a business will continually keep selling a product at a loss?

What kind of business did you own exactly?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-05 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #33
41. If we are importing raw materials for manufacture here, I am sure
Edited on Fri Nov-25-05 09:28 PM by Cleita
lawmakers will take that into consideration. As it is we are exporting raw products overseas like cotton and logs with nothing coming into the economy on the sale of raw cotton or logs. The finished bedsheets and lumber come back here without sufficient tariffs imposed to stimulate factories to compete here manufacturing bedsheets and creating jobs.

I ran successful restaurants that I sold for a profit. I also paid my help 1/4 more than the minimum wage earned at other restaurants. I would have given them health insurance if I could have found and insurance company at the time that would insure us. However, at that time during another Republican president, health insurance companies could deny coverage to industries that they considered high risk and the restaurant business was one of them.

My prices were only influenced by general inflation, although for a while I was losing profit on salads because the lettuce crop had been drowned in an El Nino, but none of my competition nor I raised the price. Because no one would have paid for it. So we sold our salads for a loss. Don't worry, we more than made up for it with wine and other items people will pay for.

Businesses employ price leaders taking a loss on profits to turn over inventory or stimulate people to spend on other items that are overpriced, but no one bats an eyelash about. Even Wal-Mart does this or especially Wal-Mart does this to undercut the other stores, but they make up for it by overcharging for those things that they can get away with doing so.

If you can't find a way to make a profit then you close shop, but there is no reason to do so when people have extra money to spend becuse then your profit with good management will come from volume.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-05 04:46 PM
Response to Original message
28. I think its heavy handed
Here is my alternative:

The corporate charter is amended that on all boardroom decisions of all
corporations shall exist a public right to veto a budget line item.
And a public representative (certified) appointed to every public
corporation boardroom, annointed with this public power to amend the
behaviour of corporate behaviour on the ground. As even the threat of
using such a veto is a non-starter, the company would have to work in
the interests of the public, or the corporation might face immediate
changes to its behaviour through a proactive regulator.

My point, is that your proposal is inflexible, given where we're at
today, and the need to have such a marxist revolt is the expected
"strike from below". i suggest "strike from above". It allows us to
harness corporate power for progressive interests without destroying
the libertarian liason in this coalition of interests to depose the
corporatists... or rather to cuff them to fair play subject to the
sovereign citizens they serve.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tx_dem41 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-05 05:06 PM
Response to Reply #28
32. I believe that is the purpose of the shareholders.
And any member of the public can be a shareholder.

Your proposal is just as intrusive, IMO.

One question: Who would appoint this "public representative"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-05 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #32
37. By the courts for 2 year terms
Any shareholder cannot "veto" a corporate action. So say the public
shareholder sees the decision in place not to install filtration on a
new factory's air emissions, this to save money. The public rep, could
say, "I'm gonna withold wage payments to senior management until
filtration equiptment is included in the plan." This ability to issue
a proactive public "guide", would avoid all the reactive problems we
have today with the corporatocracy. The incompetence is allowed to
go on too long without challenge. Finally, the public winds up trying
to pass clean air legislation after proven deaths from unfiltrated
factory emissions, and decades pass, people die, for the cost of
reactive regulation of corporatism. If the people are in charge in the
country, what should any board of directors fear about in the actions
of their public companies, that having a public represenatitive of
the courts review the books to fear? Nip it in the bud; in the budget.

It is a "public" company for peets sake, when does the public have a
say? The abuse of language is so endemic, its tragically humourous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tx_dem41 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-05 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. The board reports and answers to the shareholders....
of which anyone in the public can be a member of. That is what is meant by a "public" company.

Your suggestion that courts appoint this public representative is not only outside the purview of the judiciary as defined in the Constitution, but its rife with even more partisan control of public companies. No thanks. Republicans have enough power.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sweetheart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-05 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. Ok, then elect that person
My point, is that think of a company like a big ship, and on the
captains bridge is the best way to avoid crashing in to an iceburg.
Then make the person a 1 year single term, elected representative with no
powers except VETO on corporate budget line items, answering to his/her
elected constituency.

The reactive laws are not capable of fencing in corporatists who want
to "out jurisdiction" the problem. The post presumes that these
companies won't just drop ties to US markets... monopolists have a lot
of swing, yes.

Ok, so perhaps my implementation is flawed, but how would you
implement a proactive control to make a corporation behave in the
public interests, without interefering with any other decision powers
of the corporate entity. A public rep, would allow the company to
stay in tune with public concerns, with lighter overheads than the
backward way we have today of dealing with spent public goods.

We have to get serious about companies destroying the public goods,
and to address this erosion of the legal and virtual public common
rights of the sovereign citizen set out in le bill of rights. Those
managment and board menbers answer to the public FIRST, dammit,
shareholders second. sorry for the emphasis... hummfph /rant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-05 05:14 PM
Response to Original message
35. ...sounds good to me.
I'm sure it must be vilified immediately..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Johonny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-05 05:57 PM
Response to Original message
40. Identify good foreign companies
and get them here. If company B makes a good product and people want it get company B here in the USA. Why endlessly bail out "American" companies and their bad management.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-05 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #40
43. I agree with that if it can be done.
Also, sometimes paying more for foreign goods enhances their value in the eye of the beholder. Remember back when American made Levis were hot items in the rest of the world, sometimes selling on the black market for 20 times their value? This is what exotic foreign goods should be to us. Our homemade goods should be cheaper. There is no reason to have cheap labor though if management knows what they are doing.

Here in the one of the California wine areas is where Cesar Chavez fought his graper pickers wars. The workers now make twice what minimum wage pays and wine is cheaper than ever.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WLKjr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-05 09:13 PM
Response to Original message
42. hows about education, education, and even more education n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wadestock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-25-05 09:39 PM
Response to Original message
44. Wonderful proposal.....
The details aren't the problem...
It's the thought that counts.

How about his Christmas don't buy any Chinese goods as a starter.
We'll work out the details later....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Nov-26-05 01:59 PM
Response to Original message
46. Thats treason! And it goes against the sacred "free market"!
How dare you!!!!



BTW, nice ideas.

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 08th 2024, 07:26 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC