After the 2006 elections, many of us cheered because several Democrats were elected to Congress who—gasp—supported trade policies that are fair to workers and the environment. We in the union movement oppose the type of trade deals pushed by the Bush administration, but not because we’re anti-trade. We want trade pacts that work for working people, not just line the pockets of CEOs.
This year’s presidential and congressional candidates who think they understand what’s at stake with U.S. trade should take a close look at the strike by 3,600 workers at American Axle & Manufacturing—an action that puts a human face on U.S. trade policies, and their connection to CEO greed and the future of America’s middle class. (Well, maybe most candidates—Sen. John McCain just yesterday said he is "an unashamed and unabashed defender of NAFTA.")
The members of UAW have been on strike since Feb. 26 because American Axle is seeking steep wage cuts for its U.S. employees while expanding its Mexican operations. The company earned $37 million in profits last year with sales of $3.25 billion—but management is demanding wage reductions of up to $14 an hour, as well as elimination of future retiree health care and defined-benefit pensions for active workers.
Meanwhile, American Axle CEO Richard Dauch raked in nearly $10.2 million last year—getting a 9.5 percent pay raise and stock options valued at $4 million—and three other top executives all received pay increases in 2007. (Lots of local UAW union coverage of the strike here, here and here.)
Over at uniongal, blog posts from the striking workers explain what’s at stake. In an open letter to Dauch posted at uniongal and at Joe’s Union Review, one worker writes:
We have built a life around [American Axle] and our pay. You can’t just take 60% of our pay and benefits and not expect a fight. What is left after I pay benefits with $11.40 an hr? How can I support my family with that? How would you support your family with that? With gas going to $4.00 a gallon, how can I even drive to work on that?…I will help pay my medical. I will even agree to taking my COLA away. (Which will save you an estimated 30 million with COLA alone)….Are you so callous as to leave all these families bankrupt and homeless? I know it sounds extreme but it is very true.
American Axle was created in 1994 when General Motors spun off five U.S. plants making axles and drive-line components, employing some 6,500 UAW members. That’s the same year NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, became law. So even though American Axle is making plenty of profit, its greedy CEO wants more—and trade pacts like NAFTA and U.S. laws that provide no incentives for employers to create and expand good jobs in this country encourage corporations to move jobs out of the country. The result: Unbridled corporate greed at the expense of workers who make the products that in turn make the CEOs big bucks. Continuing the letter to Dauch, the American Axle worker writes:
I have to say I know you have a negative opinion of the hourly worker. You feel that we are all replaceable and dispensable. I can assure you I am not. I am that worker who gives 110%. I go over and beyond. My Supervisors never have to tell me what to do because it is already done. I am never someone who says “that isn’t my job.” I can run and problem solve an Upsetter [machine] better than most people on the floor and any Manager that has come through this plant in my 14 yrs. I gave you 14 years of dedicated service and I deserve the respect as such.
Even as American Axle has cut its U.S. workforce in half since 2004, the company continues to expand overseas with facilities in 12 countries, including Mexico, Poland and China. Since 2000, the company has invested millions of dollars in its 1.5 million-square-foot plant in Silao, Mexico, which has been expanded six times. That plant is slated to be the hub for American Axle’s growing business supplying parts for passenger cars and crossover utility vehicles
So, U.S. workers lose, but those in other countries gain, right? Not so. According to a study by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), NAFTA has failed workers in all three countries it covers: the United States, Mexico and Canada.
- In each nation, while workers’ productivity grew, their wages remained stagnant or dropped, and the wealth of those at the top increased significantly.
- More than 1 million jobs that would have been created were lost in the United States.
- In Mexico, many of the new jobs that were created were low-wage with no benefits and no future.
- In Canada, the United States’s largest trading partner, wages stagnated and inequality increased.
NAFTA is just one part of the globalzation of the U.S. economy that current legislation is failing to address for the middle and working classes. EPI looked at the effects on U.S. wages of globalization and offshoring of jobs. Using traditional economic analyses, they concluded the harm done to U.S. jobs—as manufacturing moved to low-wage countries—was not compensated for by gains in high-tech trade. Economic theories also have underestimated the adjustment costs for workers. EPI says the United States needs a "hugely more ambitious response to offshoring."
Instead, what’s happening here, as Cynthia Tucker, a columnist at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, writes, is that U.S. jobs are going overseas in vast numbers—and not just manufacturing jobs.
Princeton economist Alan Blinder, a longtime proponent of free trade, now says that it will create more severe social and economic upheavals than he once thought. He predicts that 30 million to 40 million Americans jobs are likely to be shipped overseas in the next 10 to 20 years. Not only will the lunch-bucket crowd feel the pain, but college-educated, white-collar types will, too, as occupations such as graphic designer, video editor, financial analyst, microbiologist, and, ironically, economist are outsourced.
Blinder is among many policy wonks rethinking how the nation approaches "free trade." And such about-faces are a good sign that those seeking office this year should do some rethinking as well.
For if it is possible, as economist Dean Baker writes, that "trade policy has been an important factor in the rise in inequality," then
trade can also be an important factor in reducing inequality.
For all of us.
When the candidates look into the faces of American Axle workers, slogging through the snow in a cold picket line, they need to understand those are the faces of all America’s workers.
Related posts:





Spotlight







Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

go tula!
Great post Tula!
I got the distinct impression from McCain’s speech that he favors something along the lines of the North American Union…no borders..
Righteous Post! Having deep roots within the manufacturing community, this post brought tears to my eyes. This scene is getting far too old.
The sad truth is that they simply don’t
give acare. As for Mr. Baker, I suggest it is a classic case of too little, too late for the majority of us. Of course, I suppose any action is better than none…“With globalization, our hemisphere has grown closer, more integrated, and more interdependent. Latin America today is increasingly vital to the fortunes of the United States. Americans north and south share a common geography and a common destiny. The countries of Latin America are the natural partners of the United States, and our northern neighbor Canada.
Relations with our southern neighbors must be governed by mutual respect, not by an imperial impulse or by anti-American demagoguery. The promise of North, Central, and South American life is too great for that. I believe the Americas can and must be the model for a new 21st century relationship between North and South. Ours can be the first completely democratic hemisphere, where trade is free across all borders, where the rule of law and the power of free markets advance the security and prosperity of all. “
richard dauch’s political donations
http://www.newsmeat.com/fec/by…..st=richard
”and three other top executives all received pay increases in 2007”
tula, do you have their names?
Tula, much thanks, an excellent post, once again.
Unfortunately, no. The source for Dauch’s salary I used, the Buffalo Biz Journal, is the only one to use the $10.2 million figure and note the “three other” executives. Other sources have Dauch in the $9 million range, which I suspect is outdated.
Thanks, DWBartoo! Good to see you on Friday afternoon.
These wealthy people are really in a club – the millionaires network ripping off worker, and buy favor and deals with their wealthy friends. They sit on boards and it’s all a fun game to them.
They even given their stolen loot to colleges, libraries, hospitals and other charities and foundations to assuage their guilt about their empty lives.
Google this man and you see what they look like. ICK
I have always said we must frame these discussion in the terms common man understands;
“when a manufacturer exports their workforce to a country that doesn’t insist they pay their own bills, we must tariff that product to create a fair and free market”
bing
when a company uses a country that doesn’t force them to pay a fair wage, a wage that allows for health care, healthy food for the family, education for the young and retirement for the elderly, then they aren’t paying their own bills, these are necessary and mandatory for families to survive, a company doesn’t get to forgo these expenses just because the country the do business doesn’t enforce rules these expenses
that is the way the discussion must be presented, not as if the laborer wants anything at all, but that the manufacturer doesn’t want to pay it’s own bills
Tula;
It sore amazes me.
How may an ‘economy’ which no longer processes basic land-based resources into actual ‘wealth’, no longer has a manufacturing base, and no longer sees ‘value’ in community, still, yet, expects its people to have the ‘readies’ to ‘buy’ (as a ‘patriotic’ act or as the prime ‘engine’ of the economy) that the ‘consumer-driven’ economy may flourish (Ha!), end up as anything other than bankrupt, despoiled and destroyed?
We’ve been played totally and completely and most of the people still don’t ‘get it’.
I suspect they soon-enough shall. However, we may only hope that whomever is at the ‘helm’ gets ‘it’.
Big hopes, __________ chance.
Nah, they do it for the tax advantage. They have no souls, no consciences-hence no guilt.
why should the CEOs care about the workers, American or Mexican or Canadian? They’ll make their millions off of any of them. Doesn’t matter if the US economy tanks, cause…. wait, who will then buy their products????
ok, thanks
great post, once again.
whenever i hear this stuff, i think of when xerox closed plants, job losses to workers, then used the write-off money to build and open their plant in mexico. just in time for their new ’big’ product, made in mexico.
how many people are buying and using xerox products here? un-huh.
this time, with american axle, the plant is already there, so, they’re gonna make loads of money off of this one.
i remember when the made in america promotions first started, noone did it. very few did it.
i remember in the 80’s at union school when friends there were losing their jobs–textile workers, one of the first ones hit by all of this.
people keep screaming at nafta, but this shite was going on WAAAAAY before nafta, nafta just made it accelerate.
like perot said, we would hear a huge sucking sound. doesn’t mean the feeding frenzy hadn’t already started.
everyone laughed at him. i tried to get people to quit paying attention to him about running for president and pay attention to what he was saying.
i knew it was true, i had already seen the films of workers in mexico and other places, knew people who had been to the camps and the plants.
i wasn’t laughing, cuz i already had been hearing/seeing what was happening in industry.
and it’s gonna keep on happening until there’s nothing left to ’suck’…..or until people stand up in their everyday lives and do what they can to help change it. buy local. buy american. buy union. elect people that will vote to save what is left of the jobs we still have here in america.
elect people that make it better for the companies to stay here and worse for them to leave. if they’re going to move to another country, then that product being imported should be treated as a foreign corporation.
i’ll stop now, that’s why i hardly ever comment on this thread, too much history and too many opinions.
thanks, tula.
I’ve got mine is the mantra that played since the ATC strike busting by Reagan in the 80’s. Cut capital gains, the rich got richer while everyone else struggled to maintain the middle class lifestyle. Reagan sucked and we could have made different choices after OPEC of 1973. Instead we stuck our heads in the sand and now cannot fathom why it is all coming apart.
Part of the ‘problem’ perris, as I’m certain you would agree, is the conflation of ‘Democracy’ with ‘Free Enterprise’. Which conflation effectively short-circuits the thought process, such as it is, for most people, which is one reason that an Obama Presidency might allow a sufficient ‘education’ of the public to occur as to counterbalance decades of deliberate confusion.
Dmac: Got this info in on where to find the names of the other execs who got increases:
http://investor.aam.com/secfil…..24-08-1395
If all union members voted in their own self interest, Republics would never be elected. They don’t so the Republic Party thrives.
correct, but we have to change the perspective, “free market” MUST mean “they must pay pay their own expense”
“free market” must be turned into ‘fair market’ and we must not allow manfucturers to “steal” from the laborers by not paying wages that allow a person to pay bills that must be payed
free market -> fair market is nice. Good formulation.
Hi Tula. Thanx for letting me post my grievance/Holy Joe response to the Boeing petition on your site in the comments. (Sometimes you just need to let it all out, before you feel sane after reading a Lieberman letter.)
This is the problem with letting corporations/Bush/John McCain run the country. They only pledge allegience to their stock holders I guess.
I remember Ian Welsh once said something like globalization would cave in on itself. (at least I think that’s what he said). Doesn’t seem like this is hapenning though.
I seems on the consumer end there is a problem as well with outsourcing. But who cares about American safety and American communities if the person is a big CEO?
BTW. Do we have updates on the Boeing situation? Holy Joe says he’ll look into it. That doesn’t give much confidence. Seems like workers at Pratt and whitney in CT may get upset as well.
1,794 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…
Citizen Badwater:
“If all union members voted their self interest, Republics would never be elected.”
If all Americans voted their economic self interest there wouldn’t be Republics.
KEEP THE FAITH ALL THEY GOT IS THE MONEY AND THEY’VE JEST ABOUT LOST THAT!!
My agreement knows no bounds. ;~D
you can drop “economic” from that … people actually voting what’s best for themsleves would way change the political landscape. and in the direction we all want!
Amen.
Gotta agree with that as well.
I’m on an agreeable run, and enjoying it!
If a bullfrog had wings he wouldn’t bump his ass when he hopped.
Couldn’t find the Hartford Courant article. But here’s a short blurb on Pratt and Whitney losing to Northrup Grumman. I don’t see Sen. Joe’s name among the CT legislators who think this is a bad idea.
We ARE all on the picket lines, indeed. My husband was earning six figures in an exectuive position that we moved to accept. This past August they called him into the CEO’s office without any warning and announced they were eliminating his job title and cutting his salary by 45%… take it or leave it. He is still working there but looking, unsuccessfully, for another job. In January, my publisher declared bankruptcy, sticking me for thousands in royalties and books. America’s economic house is on fire. I feel for all of these workers and their families.
Oops link. Pratt & Whitney misses out on $35 billion Air Force tanker contract
And wee Georgie wouldn’t be able to catch him and stuff a fire cracker up that same ….!
;~B
are you all referring to the deal for refueling combat planes where the “US” coalition lost to a “foreign” coalition? If so, that’s hard to get too upset about … Staking good manufacturing jobs on supporting the MIC doesn’t strike me as a good strategy …
rut ro
That’s why we should spend most of ‘it’ on health care ( that’s REAL national ’security’) and rebuilding the infrastructure.
looks like it is that deal … and again, I have a hard time thinking that Boeing and P&W are any more “american” than NG and AirBus. Or that either B/P&W or NG/AB actually contributes more to US jobs. I know I’ve done more work over the years indirectly for AirBus than Boeing. And have been uncomfortable w/ all of them every time it’s happened …
So we shouldn’t complain if Bush wants to outsource not only the war, but the manufacturing as well?
bingo. I’ll join the agreeable parade ;)
Just trying to get the ‘jump’ on you like those frogs in Mark Twain’s story …
And they are unionized, NG?
Well it has the potential to impact our small state, CT, as well as Arkansas.
Hopefully, the day will come when workers realize that building weapons (beyond what any sane nation ‘needs’) is not in their best interests.
It will be their children whom the ‘economics’ will force into whatever war is ‘on’.
honestly, I have no idea about union status at NG. Would be surprised if they don’t have any union workers. But, also don’t think that’s going to make any of these companies good or bad.
What I’m trying to say is that none of Boeing, P&W, NG, or AirBus are the good guys. And that this air force tanker deal is nasty stuff: contributing to the war machine.
And speaking completely w/o any evidence, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to discover that having the “foreign” group win this deal actually brings just as much work to the US as having the “american” group win it would have. Just like the question of whether buying a Toyota or a GM car is buying american.
No easy answers. I’m gonna go to the investment priorities point raised above …
Glad to post it, and glad you stopped by the AFL-CIO Now blog, Mui1.
Haven’t heard anything except what’s in the news. Apparently, the Government Accountability Office says Boeing Co. is going to have a tough time getting the deal overturned on appeal.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/…..ker22.html
I also just saw Fox reporting a panoply of what Fox calls “leading conservatives” is holding a press conference to oppose the Airbus deal.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/art…..231_1.html
And for your amusement, Campaign for America’s Future published this fun video on the deal: http://www.ourfuture.org/merci-mccain
Wait here are some responses to the Hartford Courant article:
O/T I had a favorite aunt pass away. We never talked politics and I only recently found out that she was a Dem, too. RIP, auntie.
Back on topic–
I have an idea on this situation–
What if the workers took the lead? that is, what if they formed their own company, began manufacturing the product in direct competition with the creeps?
What’s wrong with us that we can’t figure out how to beat them at their game??
The problem is that Boeing has no US competition without deals like NG/Airbus. Just handing work to Boeing by default will result in substandard results and huge costs. There’s also no guarantee that Boeing would not outsource some work overseas.
citizensue … that sucks …
Cool. Thanks for the links.
Gawd…Lou Dobbs goin’ on and on about not being able to talk about race issues without being called a racist…and then he says that the politicians are “cotton-pickin’” politicians….
ok — let’s just call ldobbs a racist regardless … make it easy for the a**hole
lol…it was pretty funny…
Free market is the correct term. it is a free market for CAPITAL.
The problem here is that people do not understand macro economics.
Capital (the owners of business) are in business to make MORE profit. That is how success is defined.
To make more profit they employ and all legal and illegal (when they can get away with it) strategies to make profit from their capital.
Labor is one of the expenses they incur in production along with material and energy and transportation and so on. Lower expenses you increase profit. It’s that simple. They want the market to be FREE for CAPITAL.
They of course lie about lowering costs which means that they can lower the selling price. But you know that the price of off shoring NEVER results in lower prices it only results in HIGHER profits.
But this is the raison d’etre of capital. Exploitation of labor, or the creation of “value added”.
Capital can do nothing else once there are shareholders in the game and share price eclipses even dividends as the raison d’etre for owning stock.
Stock value needs to appreciate substantially because to allows the company to show more “book value” and to borrow against it and borrow more favorably. It also allows for speculators to make more trading shares… pump and dump than they would from dividends. Many stocks don’t even pay dividends! How is that for a concept! The idea is I buy you share for X and you are gonna make its value grow at 10- 20% or whatever per year so when I do sell it I can take the profit (and of course only pay capital gains of 15%)
That’s how it works. If you have $$ you get to play it and get into the bubble business. The works take bath in these bubbles.
tula–i see your 17, will pull them up and post what i find.
had to leave computer to go do something.
will now catch up on comments.
crazy day.
This is actually true.
If I call you a racist and you are not. What do you do? If you say NO NO NO, I am not a racist, it sounds like a denial. Denials sound like someone is trying to hide something. And if you protest loudly it makes it worse because you must be over compensating.
But if you ignore the libel and insult people think … hmm this person is a racist, they didn’t even deny it.
So some subject immediately are logic traps for discussion. Capitalism and communism and socialism and so forth have these traps when you try to discuss them.
You are acurately describing what is, and what has been, but what, at some point will run into the reality of environmental colapse, somewhat before that point, people, themselves may well decide, ‘enough!!!’
Sander, it has got to change, I don’t know the mechanism, but I suspect ‘grim necessity’ might do, in a pinch.
It is what it is, that is for sure.
“The real issue, though, is whether economic growth is a desirable goal to begin with! Economic growth is simply an increase in the production and consumption of goods and services. It is driven by increasing population and increasing per capita consumption, and is typically indicated by increasing gross domestic product (GDP). Theory and evidence suggest that continued growth is actually “uneconomic” or costly to society . Ecological footprint analysis shows that the global economy is consuming 30 percent more resources than the Earth can regenerate each year , a deficit that cannot be maintained for long.
If the growth paradigm is unsustainable and harmful to the environment and future generations, why is society still pursuing it? First, growth was a blessing for much of history, and it is difficult to change from something that worked in the past. Second, powerful interests from corporations to government agencies to universities have a stake in the growth economy and promote it doggedly, sometimes resorting to fallacious concepts and propaganda that confuse and mislead the public. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, society lacks knowledge of the sustainable alternative to economic growth. “
My main beef with the discussions on blogs and so forth, is that we don’t go deep enough in examining the assumptions.
For example, is anyone even question capitalism? Is anyone even looking at how capitalism works? I see logical flaws in it and one of the is the need for growth.
Without growth there is no profit and corporations whither and die.
But can we have growth forever? Logic tell you this is impossible? But how impossible? How much growth can we have? We’ve been able to grow like a termite colony in a house, plenty of tasty wood there. But at some point the colony eats the whole house and they are SOL and die off because there is nothing left to eat. It doesn’t efven matter that it may collapse, they can still eat it in the collapsed state, but eventually the game is over. Growth and capitalism’s addiction to growth are the same game.
For the capitalist “investor” it’s all about bubbles and moving from one bubble to the next. This house is done, and it’s now down the street to the next! But even this can only go so many rounds and it’s all just a way of kicking the ball down the street because they don’t care about the future! It’s all about NOW and MORE.
On a cheery note.
Things will be fine as long as we do ‘it’ before ‘it’ is too late.
It’s just a question of … timing.
“The steady state economy is fully capable of meeting human needs and providing a high standard of living for all citizens. Such an economy aims for better, not bigger; quality, not quantity. It focuses on strengthening communities rather than making and using ever more stuff – including oil.
In a steady state economy, societies can redevelop local networks for commerce rather than misallocating precious energy resources. Changing the economic goal to a gradual transition toward a steady state economy is the best way to ensure ecological health and true wealth for this and future generations. In fact, a sober consideration of thermodynamics and basic ecological principles tells us it’s the only way.
Economic growth will end one way or another. Classical economists believed that after a period of expansion, the economy would stabilize. Current ecological economists have updated the theory, but largely reached the same conclusion – that a steady state economy of sustainable scale is a desirable scenario for society. Peak oil has the power to stop economic growth and even cause economic contraction. If economic growth is going the way of the passenger pigeon (or numerous other species that have been lost to economic growth), shouldn’t we attempt to make the transition on our terms? Why wait until our behavior and policies produce disastrous consequences? The sooner we get to work on the transition, the more we can avoid the pain of a forced transition. Peak oil is the messenger telling us it’s high time to change the economic goal.”
This poster gets it:
“I can suggest one reason why economic growth has been a public policy imperative: greed! People, especially those already at the top, tend to have an insatiable thirst for money and power. Economic growth allows the “haves” to pursue the extremes of wealth and power without it being a politically explosive issue with the masses. In a steady state economy, growth in wealth of one individual has to come at the expense of someone else. So, a small elite amassing great fortunes would have to come at the price of impoverishing great swaths of society. With the continuous growth paradigm, however, it is possible to at least placate the masses with the belief that they too, someday, can join the privileged ranks of the wealthy.
In my opinion, continuous economic expansion is a necessary condition to allow the rich to amass even greater fortunes without political blow-back!”
Or this one:
“The highly trained professional (say a surgeon) derives increased wealth from others because society believes that their time is more valuable – using professional sports people as an allegory; if one swings a stick at a ball often enough, then one will inevitably get good at it. Does anyone truly believe that professional sports people and other entertainment people are really worth the millions they “earn”, and don’t get me started on “executives” at (for example) Bear Stearns, Carlyle Capital, Enron, US West, all the ratings agencies, the SEC, the FSA (in the UK), the actuaries and executives at the companies insuring the CDO’s and on and on and on. They have bilked millions (literally) from the collective commons for far to long.
For people not to know the truth about entities like JP Morgan, the Federal Reserve System (sic), et al – is a VERY sad indictment of the USA.”
Sander do you have a link for those quotes? Thanks
There seem to be some very good ideas floating around.
Huh.(Weird to be “on the same side”) . . .
Okay so if unprecendented and questionable changes were made to the contract, who benefits?
These come from one of my favorite sites
TheOilDrum
http://www.theoildrum.com/
They discuss issues of oil, energy and economy. Mostly professors and other big heads.
Vive la France! Merci John McCain.
Thanks for that link, Sander.
Great.
DWB,
I like to post quotes as opposed to links because not everyone will go off and read a link and are more likely to read a snippet.
But of course links are precious. It’s how I learn these days. LinkLearn
Here:
“Our politicians are not interested in sustainable economics. Time and time again, they mouth the word “growth” when speaking to our economic situation. Just yesterday Barack Obama delivered a major speech on economics, which included the words “sustainable growth” on at least 3 occasions. Over the past few years, the money pundits have twisted the concept of “sustainable economics” into “sustainable growth” and now this has become the new buzz phrase which the politicians have adopted to soothe the sheeple.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03…..ant…
The U.S. economy is addicted to deficit spending from the Government. Any downturn leads to more and bigger deficits, with no attempt to face the realities of ultimate limits on this finite Earth. I think that the Great Depression scared many people into accepting the idea of continued growth, as the alternative was so painful at the time. Of course, the ultimate “consumption economy” is that of war, where everything produced is thrown away and the associated destruction guarantees future employment to replace the destroyed buildings and infrastructure. I’m afraid that our present situation with Peak Oil will lead to the sort of thinking we saw before WW II, when Germany went to massive production of war materials and the unemployment rate went to zero. What fraction of the U.S. economy is involved in our war machine today? Are we not on a permanent war footing in Iraq and the Persian Gulf?”
sustainable growth = tautology
McCain has a message for these workers slushing around the nasty weather protesting their company moving off-shore. McCain’s message to them is, Get a job!
Retrain, again. That’s the problem. They need to retrain. There is a shortage of teaching nurses.
McCain never had to earn a living. He needs a job.
You’re joking of course.
Most of these people consider talking on the phone and making deals and networking as work.
Yes. Should have put snark in there. I get very caustic on this subject when people in policy making positions come from great privilege. They haven’t a clue what living from paycheck to paycheck with no rich daddy safety net.
SanderO – Language is twisted. It is Alice in Wonderland with up being down and in being out.
You are a wise person, Sander.
And, as I hope you know, I appreciate that.
I am back from walking the dogs and preparing some pasta sauce.
I am not wise, but I learned to ask a lot of questions.
Well here I am again a day late and 2 hours after the last post but I must respond even if the only viewer is me. Why don’t the foreign companies relocate here? They swould save on shipping and fuel and any tariffs and whatever; Why not. Wel the answer is the one question that we all need to know to understand the whole mess. The reason they don’t relocate here is that they would have to obey our rules and pay our costs and wages. If they did that they couldn’t comepete here. Get this-THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN COMPETE HERE IS IF THEY ARE LOCATED OVER THERE. READ IT AGAIN. It is the economy of the foreign country that is competing against our country’s economy. (forget all the other bullshit like wage structure and environmental rules, the big picture is their economy versus ours.) Like any other form of competition, the entity with the lowest cost structure will prevail. They will always win until we become as third world as they are. It is the economy stupid.
tula-just heard–gm is closing a plant-sorry, didn’t hear the name, sounded like heimline, due to not being able to get parts from american axle.
i’m finding it hard to believe. all set up.ready to close. like they can’t find a part from somewhere they already had lined up. even i know how to back up not having eggs. what a bunch of assholes.
sander0–tautology, a new word to me.