Latest

Lobby

Search

Options

Help

Login

How do we gain more jobs jobs jobs? Listen to the manufacturing sector.

Printer-friendly format

Email this thread to a friend

Bookmark this thread

This topic is archived.

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)

dkf

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-27-10 12:26 PM
Original message

How do we gain more jobs jobs jobs? Listen to the manufacturing sector.

Executives of U.S. manufacturing companies understand that they are up against not just foreign companies but mercantilist nations. As Wayne Johnson, director of worldwide strategic university customer relations at Hewlett-Packard told a 2008 conference sponsored by Bush's Office of Science and Technology Policy, "We in the U.S. find ourselves in competition not only with individuals, companies, and private institutions, but also with governments and mixed government-private collaborations."

What domestic manufacturers want is for the United States government to shift its economic policies away from consumption to incentives that favor investment in new factories, equipment, and jobs in the United States. They want the United States to abandon policies that favor geopolitical global interests that have no regard for the economic health of the United States and its millions of taxpayers and retirees.

To the disappointment of the domestic manufacturing community, the Obama administration has yet to devise a strategy aimed at creating the industrial jobs needed in America to generate trillions of dollars of tax revenue. Without a surge in U.S. production and exports, how will the United States pay off its mounting debts and cover the retirement and medical costs of the largest generation of Americans in history? Creating more jobs for dental hygienists, health-care workers, retail clerks, and bartenders will not do it.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_plight_of_american_manufacturing

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

leftstreet

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-27-10 12:30 PM
Response to Original message

1. Pay service workers $20 an hour

That should stimulate something

With 60 gazillion retail clerks running around with $$ in their pockets maybe an idle manufacturing plant might think of a reason to open

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

dkf

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-27-10 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #1

2. So we buy all our goods from other countries and have only service workers that also sell just to us

What then do we offer to the world?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

leftstreet

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-27-10 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #2

3. Where did I say 'sell just to us?'

Where did I say 'buy all our goods from other countries?'

That's not how trade works

:shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

dkf

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-27-10 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #3

4. I just don't see how concentrating our efforts on paying service workers more solves

Our problems with employment. It focuses again on our consumer economy, not on reviving our manufacturing economy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

leftstreet

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-27-10 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #4

6. Then we'll need to pay US manufacturing workers global poverty wages

Your article goes to great lengths to point out the futility of manufacturing competition with slave wage economies.

Look, it was just a jumpstart idea. Capitalism is dying - THANK GOD - and there'll be bumps on the road!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Tippy

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-27-10 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #4

7. Wages in this country are going down,,,

Most sectors have seen no increase in wages for a long time, the corporations are trying to break the unions. Explain to me how paying servace workers more is a bad thing?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

dkf

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-27-10 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #7

10. It's not bad but it doesn't solve our manufacturing problem.

Our problem is we are a consumer economy. I suppose what the poster is really saying is to raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour. Will that really create jobs? What would the immediate impact be?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

leftstreet

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-27-10 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #10

12. Well, WalMart's CEO makes $16,826.92 an hour

20 bucks an hour for us peons seems reasonable

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

highprincipleswork

(163 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-27-10 12:58 PM
Response to Original message

5. Totally Agree

I do totally believe this. We have got to be making things of value, instead of all the other excuses for an economy we've been coming up with for years. As with the recent derivatives market, we have become expert at dividing value and getting suckers to pay for it, when actually they do not have much value there at all. Kind of an economic pyramid scheme, to be honest. But to make something of value and sell it, that's the only way to get the mass employment that we probably all want.

Consumer economy. Right! Financed by borrowing from those who would be our economic and even military adversaries, like the Chinese.

This logic of "the new jobs" has always been a bit of a crock, ever since Bill Clinton first came up with it. Because I would just like you to name for me what those new jobs are going to be. And which jobs will create the kind of employment we are talking about?

Recommendation - see the movie "The Company Men". That spells it out, and formula out of it, pretty well. Good potential investment opportunities here as well.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

dkf

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-27-10 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #5

8. "The Company Men" opening in Dec?

Sounds interesting but maybe scary too.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

highprincipleswork

(163 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-27-10 01:16 PM
Response to Reply #8

11. Scary and sad at times, yes, but not in the end

Edited on Sat Nov-27-10 01:17 PM by highprincipleswork

Scary and sad at times yes. But actually had me nodding me head halfway through in an agreement for what is necessary and for what I thought was coming. And by the end, well, I'll let you see it and decide. I think it's kind of a Rocky or Karate Kid for our time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Umbral

(969 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-27-10 01:14 PM
Response to Original message

9. Listen to the manufacturing sector?

That should get some Chinese translators off the unemployment roles...

Yeah, like were ever unemployed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TheKentuckian

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-27-10 01:26 PM
Response to Original message

13. Remove minimum wage, taxes, all forms of regulation, unions, capital investment expenses, and

insurance is usually what "stakeholders" from the sector want.

Bust up the flammy trade agreements and and scammy tax schemeswhile depending on growth to drive a ponzi economy and we'd have plenty of demand and people to fill it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

dkf

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-27-10 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #13

16. Trade agreements are definitely part of the problem.

But investments should be given favorable tax treatment especially R&D.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Cosmocat

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-27-10 02:31 PM
Response to Reply #13

24. BINGO ...

We have long passed the point where these clowns want any meaningful direction or programming from the fed government - they just scream about how horrible the government is to get simple minded lugnuts to allow them even more free reign in tearing down the manufacturing sector ...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

amborin

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-27-10 01:30 PM
Response to Original message

14. so they want industrial policy? or regional development programs?

many other nations have had such, to wit, europe's EADS

we subsidize domestic producers to some extent, also, in various ways, and the gov't does have regional 'incubator' programs....

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ProSense

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-27-10 01:32 PM
Response to Original message

15. Obama signs Manufacturing Enhancement Act

WH

Before signing the Manufacturing Enhancement Act, the President took a step back to talk about his vision and commitment to American manufacturing. That commitment has helped manufacturing become one of the surprisingly bright spots of the economic recovery. A sector that lost 3,864,000 between 2000 and 2008 has turned around and gained 183,000 jobs so far this year:

<...>

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

dkf

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-27-10 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #15

18. I vaguely remember hearing about that.

Which goes to the fact that I listen to CNBC and MSNBC all freaking day long and I've barely heard a blurb on this. Where are the surrogates to tout what Obama's vision is for our economy?

It amazes me how truly thoughtful he is being on policy yet we do not get the big picture at all.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Greyhound

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-27-10 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #15

19. Which does nothing but grant more tax breaks to the companies off-shoring and out sourcing,

The summary (right here to see);

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-4380&tab=summary">United States Manufacturing Enhancement Act of 2010
Title I - New Duty Suspensions and Reductions
Section 1004 - Amends the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States to provide for duty suspensions and reductions through December 31, 2012, for specified chemicals and other products.

Title II - Existing Duty Suspensions and Reductions
Section 2001 - Extends existing suspensions and reductions of duties through December 31, 2012, for other specified chemicals and products. Imposes, suspends, and increases and/or decreases the duty on certain chemicals through December 31, 2012. Extends, through December 31, 2012, the suspension of duty on certain products. Imposes, through December 31, 2012, a duty on: (1) brakes designed for bicycles; and (2) certain 12V lead-acid storage batteries. Suspends, through December 31, 2012, the duty on: (1) certain catalytic converter mats of ceramic fibers; and (2) certain herbicides. Extends the duty on aspirin through December 31, 2012.

Title III - Additional Existing Duty Suspensions and Reductions
Section 3001 - Extends existing suspensions and reductions of duties through December 31, 2012, for certain additional chemicals and products. Imposes, suspends, and increases and/or decreases the duty on certain chemicals and products through December 31, 2012.
Section 3002 - Directs the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to liquidate or reliquidate entries of articles (as amended by titles II and III) which were made on or after January 1, 2010, and before the 15th day after enactment of this Act, and with respect to which there would have been no duty or a reduced duty if the amendments applied to such entries, as though the entries had been made on the 15th day after enactment of this Act.

Title IV - Customs User Fees; Time for Payment of Corporate Estimated Taxes; PAYGO Compliance
Section 4001 - Amends the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) to extend certain customs fees for the processing of merchandise entered into the United States through December 10, 2018, and November 30, 2018, respectively.
Section 4002 - Amends the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act to increase required estimated tax payments of corporations with at least $1 billion in assets in the third quarter of 2015 by 0.5% to 122.0% of such amount

Another disingenuous illusion of action with a title to allow the spinners to say, "See what we've done!", when in fact it makes the problem worse.

A very few companies will be required to make a slightly larger token payment in their EQTP, (that they will get back when they file their actual returns) so it will generate a bit more liquidity for part of a year. But the major portion is more reductions of fees and taxes for importers.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ProSense

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-27-10 02:19 PM
Response to Reply #19

21. That is not what the act does.

Not even remotely.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Greyhound

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-27-10 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #21

23. The summary is right there.

Not hidden behind a link to a link to an opinion piece or an article that says the opposite.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ProSense

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-27-10 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #23

26. The summary

Amends the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act to increase required estimated tax payments of corporations with at least $1 billion in assets in the third quarter of 2015 by 0.5% to 122.0% of such amount.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Greyhound

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-27-10 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #26

27. The fig leaf.

Translation; a 1/2% increase of estimated quarterly payments on taxes, almost all of which will have to be refunded when the actual returns are filed. (the U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world, yet collects the least. It is a classic shell game.)

Do you really not understand what this means, or is it simply Obama did it therefore it is good?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ProSense

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-27-10 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #27

28. Oh right,

the "fig leaf" that's "not hidden behind a link to a link to an opinion piece or an article that says the opposite."

"Translation; a 1/2% increase of estimated quarterly payments on taxes, almost all of which will have to be refunded when the actual returns are filed. (the U.S. has the highest corporate tax rate in the industrialized world, yet collects the least. It is a classic shell game.)"

So you get to write it off as a "fig leaf" and spin what the outcome so you can claim that it changes nothing?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Greyhound

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-27-10 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #28

29. You didn't answer the question (as expected). You also have still failed to address any

of the points made in any of these replies.

Do you deny that nearly all corporate taxes collected in the quarterly estimate deposited end up being refunded?

You have nothing substantial to show how the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act has resulted, or is likely to result, in anybody hiring other than the White House's assurance that it someday, maybe will.

Keep on dancing, we like to watch...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ProSense

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-27-10 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #29

30. Your point

"Do you deny that nearly all corporate taxes collected in the quarterly estimate deposited end up being refunded?

You have nothing substantial to show how the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act has resulted, or is likely to result, in anybody hiring other than the White House's assurance that it someday, maybe will."

Corporate taxes being refunded have nothing to do with the fact that they were raised. You seem to thing that increasing the taxes is irrelevant because companies get refunds.

As for your other point, a mostly cynical opinion, that's purely speculation, which the CBO and the NMA do not agree with.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Greyhound

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-27-10 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #30

31. My point, as you well know and are hoping other will not notice, was and remains

Edited on Sat Nov-27-10 03:39 PM by Greyhound

that the Manufacturing Enhancement Act is nothing but another bit of corporate welfare trying to pass itself off as somehow being helpful to the real economy and those of us that live here.

This was not a tax increase, it was a slight rise in the amount a few corporations are required to let the government play with for part of a year.

Do you know the tarantella?

Edit spelling

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Greyhound

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-27-10 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #31

33. Wrong place. n/t

Edited on Sat Nov-27-10 04:52 PM by Greyhound

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Greyhound

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-27-10 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #30

34. Aw, allergic to facts?

Disappointed that somebody bothered to point out the lack of substance in your reply?

Well what about all those jobs? That was the purpose of the OP.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Hannah Bell

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-27-10 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #15

25. lol. It eliminates tariffs for foreign materials. wow, that'll help!

The Manufacturing Enhancement Act of 2010 will create jobs, help American companies compete, and strengthen manufacturing as a key driver of our economic recovery. And here�s how it works. To make their products, manufacturers -- some of whom are represented here today -- often have to import certain materials from other countries and pay tariffs on those materials. This legislation will reduce or eliminate some of those tariffs, which will significantly lower costs for American companies across the manufacturing landscape -� from cars to chemicals; medical devices to sporting goods. And that will boost output, support good jobs here at home, and lower prices for American consumers.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Greyhound

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-27-10 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #25

32. Yep a double benefit, just not to us.

More corporate welfare and a little more fuel for our race to the bottom.

But cheap Chinese crap might get a little cheaper.
:eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Odin2005

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-27-10 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #15

36. LOL, pro-corporate nonsense.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

leveymg

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Nov-28-10 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #15

39. Right direction, but too little, too late, unfortunately. eom

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

OlympicBrian

(456 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Nov-28-10 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #15

40. (deleted)

Edited on Sun Nov-28-10 06:45 PM by OlympicBrian

(deleted)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

OlympicBrian

(456 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Nov-28-10 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #40

41. (deleted)

Edited on Sun Nov-28-10 06:46 PM by OlympicBrian

(deleted)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

moondust

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-27-10 01:36 PM
Response to Original message

17. This article was published a year ago.

Edited on Sat Nov-27-10 01:36 PM by moondust

I'm sure I would agree with much if not all of it but I haven't heard of much being done to address these issues over the past year. Maybe the U.S. government is limited in what it can or is willing to do about a more or less global problem. :shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

dkf

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-27-10 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #17

37. I was actually trying to find out where our manufacturing as a percent of the world output stands

And I couldn't find any data more recent than 2007.

Our politics aren't aimed at policy at all or we might be debating these types of issues instead of focusing on Sarah Palin or Obama's stitches.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

AdHocSolver

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-27-10 02:10 PM
Response to Original message

20. Get rid of NAFTA, WTO, IMF, etc., and impose tariffs and quotas on cheap imports. Problem solved.

The U.S. can never produce enough goods for export to compensate for the huge number of imports that we buy from low wage countries.

Why would anyone pay more for U.S. made goods that they could buy elsewhere more cheaply.

The corporations are merely looking to get more subsidies and tax breaks from the U.S. government. Any politician who gives it to them is not on your side.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Ichingcarpenter

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-27-10 02:22 PM
Response to Original message

22. LOL!!!

The Opinion from the Lords of Outsourcing and Bullshit.

Name one major corporation......

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Odin2005

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Nov-27-10 04:58 PM
Response to Original message

35. Kill NAFTA! INVEST IN GREEN JOBS!!! High-Speed Rail! Windmills! Solar Panels!

Edited on Sat Nov-27-10 04:58 PM by Odin2005

Renovating homes and businesses to make them Greener! Subsidize local organic farming! We should make ourselves the leader in green manufacturing and technology.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

leveymg

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Nov-28-10 10:51 AM
Response to Original message

38. An effective industrial policy implies greater control over Multinationals, banks, and investments

Unless and until that happens, we're just going to continue to fall further into a huge, bottomless pit with smoke and ashes rising from it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

OlympicBrian

(456 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Nov-28-10 06:47 PM
Response to Original message

42. Folks, this is the biggest reason: there's a reinforcing feedback loop to offshore...

Edited on Sun Nov-28-10 07:42 PM by OlympicBrian

"In fact, to this day, there are in fact a number of incentives in place to encourage shipping jobs overseas, including:

(1) US Tax write-downs which allow companies to move operations overseas, while gaining tax benefit from shuttered US operations. That's right, everyone gets to pay for that factory shipped to China.

(2) US Tax loopholes which allow corporations to shuffle profits gained overseas to tax havens, which leads to reduced tax bills.

(3) US Tax loopholes which allow corporations to permanently postpone repatriation of profits gained overseas, that leads them to both avoid paying US corporate income taxes, and to re-invest in overseas operations instead of in the US (which means no US jobs).

(4) Foreign worker visa programs which allow offshore companies to reap competitive advantage over US companies.

and finally:

(5) The powerful US Chamber of Commerce has staunchly and steadfastly furthered a pro-offshoring agenda. This group recently got a big financial boost as a result of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision--which eighty percent of the public is opposed to."

(from one of my articles which I think I will edit and re-post.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

OlympicBrian

(456 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Nov-28-10 07:09 PM
Response to Original message

43. In addition, the Federal Reserve's policy of low interest rates

The US policy of low interest rates--supposedly meant to boost the US economy-- may be drawing investment out of the US into tempting global "bubble" stock and commodity markets--instead of into, for example, US manufacturing. In fact, as commodity prices go up, this puts inflation (margin) pressure on US manufacturers.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Sat May 04th 2024, 08:22 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010)

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