Reply #2: Thanks for your reply... [View All]

[Sufi Marmot]

Hi - thanks for your long and thoughtful reply. Back in the day I more or less supported Clinton on NAFTA, but I've come to reconsider that opinion - I'm just not convinced that the loss of all those American jobs has been offset in any meaningful way. And like you, I don't see any upcoming consumer industries (except maybe for entertainment/media) that will replace those jobs.

I would be curious to know how the economic benefit corporations get from shipping jobs overseas compares with the negative economic impact on communities when factories are closed. I assume there has to be a considerable negative multiplier effect in communities that lose good paying jobs - like the texile manufacturing communities in North Carolina. If it does exist, I'm surprised that manufacturers and retailers haven't figured it out yet - or maybe loss of consumer spending power hasn't yet offset the gains in profit..

I'm all for job retraining when an industry becomes completely obsolete (like buggy-whip manufacturing...), but it seems stupid for consumer goods that Americans are always going to need (clothes, furniture, houseware, etc.) to be made elsewhere.

I wonder whether some items like clothing couldn't be manufactured locally by collectives or co-ops who would purchase materials, assemble them, and then sell them more or less locally, paying themselves a decent salary from the profits, but with no cut of the profits going to CEO salaries or stock portfolios. I have no idea if the economy of scale would work, but is there any reason we can't produce a decent pair of blue jeans in America for $25-30 with higher labor and production costs offset by the lack of high end salaries for management, overseas shipping, and the need to pay out dividends?


-SM, who should probably start reading Paul Krugman...

Edited to add:

It occurs to me that at some point the American middle class is going to have to make a difficult choice about the economic philosophy which is best for America, and I'm not convinced that most people are aware of it:

a) complete free-market economy with somewhat lower priced consumer goods and higher rates of return on investments/securities (mutual funds/401Ks, etc.), but significant permanent loss of blue and white collar jobs overseas, downward pressure on wages, unhealthy communities (fiscally and otherwise) due to decreased tax revenues and high unemployment.

b) protectionist economy focusing on retaining American jobs by implementing severe financial disincentives for corporations to go overseas. This would mean higher consumer prices and a lower rate of return on investments, but increased public fiscal heath and stronger communities.

Am I off base here?