General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"there’s reason to believe the link between falling unemployment and rising wages has been severed"
by Robert Reich
Why Wages Won’t Rise
TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 2015
Jobs are coming back, but pay isn’t. The median wage is still below where it was before the Great Recession. Last month, average pay actually fell.
What’s going on? It used to be that as unemployment dropped, employers had to pay more to attract or keep the workers they needed. That’s what happened when I was labor secretary in the late 1990s.
It still could happen – but the unemployment rate would have to sink far lower than it is today, probably below 4 percent.
Yet there’s reason to believe the link between falling unemployment and rising wages has been severed.
For one thing, it’s easier than ever for American employers to get the workers they need at low cost by outsourcing jobs abroad rather than hiking wages at home. Outsourcing can now be done at the click of a computer keyboard. ..............(more)
The complete piece is at: http://robertreich.org/post/107998491550
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)This is is broken - or fixed, depending on your point of view.
MH1
(17,608 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)to have it dissolved
djean111
(14,255 posts)bottom.
yep.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the US' negotiating position on employment (and the environment) is EXACTLY the opposite:
Ensuring respect for worker rights is a core value. That is why in TPP the United States is seeking to build on the strong labor provisions in the most recent U.S. trade agreements by seeking enforceable rules that protect the rights of freedom of association and collective bargaining; discourage trade in goods produced by forced labor, including forced child labor; and establish mechanisms to monitor and address labor concerns.
Specifically, in the TPP we are seeking:
•Requirements to adhere to fundamental labor rights as recognized by the International Labor Organization, as well as acceptable conditions of work, subject to the same dispute settlement mechanism as other obligations in TPP;
•Rules that will ensure that TPP countries do not waive or derogate from labor laws in a manner that affects trade or investment, including in free trade zones, and that they take initiatives to discourage trade in goods produced by forced labor;
•Formation of a consultative mechanism to develop specific steps to address labor concerns when they arise; and
•Establishment of a means for the public to raise concerns directly with TPP governments if they believe a TPP country is not meeting its labor commitments, and requirements that governments consider and respond to those concerns.
http://www.ustr.gov/tpp/Summary-of-US-objectives
If successfully negotiated, this will be a win for the American worker because off-shoring will be significantly more expensive (i.e., less attractive).
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Nice talking points you got there!
So how EXACTLY will the TPP prevent
US workers from competing with off-shore workers?
What tariffs are included in the TPP to level the field?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)in fact, I doubt there will be tariffs. But that would not be necessary.
What makes off-shoring attractive is the low wage/low workplace/low environmental regulation of our trade partners. By establishing a universal floor (consistent with the US standards ... as the summary indicates) ... would remove the primary incentive for off-shoring (cost reduction).
And, because of the way business systems work, the wage floor would not have to be anywhere near the US minimum wage, to level the field.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Previously you summarized your talking points as thus:
That's a BIG IF.
Without tariffs how will off-shoring be more expensive?
What EXACTLY is this "universal floor"?
One dollar a day wages?
What EXACTLY are the environmental protections?
The EPA is under attack, being dismantled and underfunded here.
What EXACTLY will they do in Vietnam?
So far you just have talking points.
Nice sounding talking points.
But if the TPP is "successfully negotiated" how much more
"expensive" or cost prohibitive will off-shoring become?
Are we supposed to believe that the corporations writing
the trade agreement will drive up their costs for the benefit
of US workers and families??? Seriously???
djean111
(14,255 posts)would just say Fuck you people, the corporations win. Be more honest.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)from what I've seen.
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)Not to mention being the main reason we have the people in government that we do.
For every James Inhofe there are thousands of small investors helping him & ALEC shape our future.
And from what I can tell, they truly could care less. The money is what matters, not living a life that tries to make things better for people, wildlife and tomorrow.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)by raising the wage floor for trade partner nations, increasing working conditions regulations and allowing for collective bargaining ... all of which increase the cost of labor for those nations.
"expensive" or cost prohibitive will off-shoring become?
That is an unknown; but we know the CURRENT wage rate for our partner nations is significantly below that of the US ... any increase will make it more expensive to off-shore.
the trade agreement will drive up their costs for the benefit
of US workers and families??? Seriously???
Hyperbole aside (corporations are lobbying for, not writing, nor negotiating the trade agreement), No ... the corporations are unconcerned about US workers or our families ... however, they ARE concerned with access to a stable trade environment, and TPP gets them there, even if it drives up their costs in the short-run.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)'It is incomprehensible to me that the leaders of major corporate interests are actively involved in the writing of the TPP, while the elected officials of this country have little or no knowledge as to what is in it,' says senator
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/01/05/incomprehensible-secrecy-sanders-demands-release-trade-agreement-text
and since we know who most government officials actually work for, it's pretty clear that corporations are negotiating tpp as well.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)but you understand that "lobbying" activity is/can be considered "actively involved in the writing of", right?
No ... that does not follow, except for with the most cynical.
TheKentuckian
(25,034 posts)Arguing against the reality of corporate capture of government is full on delusional.
You may as well be arguing that water isn't wet or fire isn't hot on this one. Probably worse, somewhere in an infinite universe there may be conditions where the fire and water things don't hold true, here we have direct observation to guide us to the absolute fact.
Among all but the most delusional Pollyannas and the biggest liars the debate on this subject is in the arena of degree. "If" is a long settled matter.
And
No, I don't think there is an anywhere near acceptable variety of lobbying that passes for any legitimately valid definition of actively being involved in the writing of legislation.
You really have to stop feigning this 8th grade civics literalist stuff, we know good and well that current employees of or beloved "stakeholders" are literally and actually working with legislative aids drafting these marks and we are told directly that our elected officials and their staffs are NEGOTIATING (not consulting or gathering feedback...negotiating) with the good "stakeholders". We see the news reports that occasionally wind their way through even the corporate media, forget the shenanigans at Interior? Forget BP issuing orders to the EPA and blacking out the media? Did you not see how the economic blowout played out?
Sure people are cynical with many a good reason over a long period of time but on this one it isn't required, all you have to do is pay attention and don't lie to yourself.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)How much EXACTLY in absolute and relative terms
will the "floor" be raised?
From 5 cents an hour to a dollar a day?
Unless you can provide specifics in real world economic terms
the talking point about "raising the wage floor" is meaningless.
As to environmental protections... name a few.
Are GMOs protected?
Will Roundup ready patented seeds be forced on farmers?
Again, it's just nice sounding words with no details.
Talking points and big "IF"s won't make a difference
to US or off-shore workers.
Why are you soft peddling a pro-corporate
anti-worker trade agreement?
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)enacted and applauded by the revolving "new democrats". I'm sorry, but the usual affection for the president cannot explain this one. TPP pitch men have GOT to be operatives of the turd way, or the Koch brothers.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)is NOT peddling the TPP.
sendero
(28,552 posts)... is a lot of boilerplate rhetoric with no remedy specified. Meaning it is worth a bucket of warm spit in terms of a functioning agreement.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and not "Finalized Agreement - Labor."
sendero
(28,552 posts).. that will be ignored by the negotiators.
If they had any intention of creating a serious agreement that actually benefited real people, they would not be doing it under a veil of secrecy.
You can fall for this shit if you like but those of us who remember NAFTA and what was promised and what was delivered don't remain so naive.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)It is because it was ... the perfect formula for progress.
sendero
(28,552 posts)... except for banksters and large corporations. Exactly WHO in this process are you putting all this faith in? Please don't say Obama because I will spit my coffee with laughter. He's completely in the pocket of the money men and that couldn't be more obvious if he had a sign on his back stating so.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)They have probably written the TPP. They have had widespread access to the TPP over a long period of time, and their lobbyists surely have lots of their wishes and desires included within it.
Do you really believe they will be lobbying for legislation that will make generating profits abroad more burdensome? Do you really believe that they are writing this legislation and aggressively lobbying for it so that jobs will be more attractive for Americans instead of making things easier for them to make more profit everywhere they do business? They have the interests and well-being of American citizens in mind even if it comes at a cost to their bottom line when creating the TPP?
These multinational corporations have no loyalty to any one nation's citizens. Their loyalty is to their bottom line, and they have approved (if not written) this "trade" agreement.
I think you are naive about the extent to which corporations get to actually write legislation in this country as well. Lobbyists hand drafts over to legislators all the time that seem to make it into final legislation. I see no reason to believe that they haven't been able to do the same with the TPP (especially since it would be even easier to do behind the cloak of secrecy that surrounds it).
And, I just don't believe that they would be willing to drive up their costs in the short-run. I don't buy that for a minute. I need to see and read the TPP before I could ever begin to support it. Have you read it? If not, how could you be so sure about the arguments you are making on its behalf?
If a cadre of hundreds of corporate lobbyists are clamoring for this agreement, then I am definitely against it until I have seen it, read it, and understand the ramifications of it. I have no idea how anyone could feel differently in today's political climate.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)do not equal to "Have" or "did."
That's a bunch of questions in one paragraph; but ...
No, as you correctly mention, (most) corporations do not give a second thought to the interests of nation-state, nor their citizens; but, corporation are known for trading profits for security/predictability in dealing. That is what trade deals do ... provide that security/predictability in dealings.
No ... I am not naïve to the workings ... ALEC has proven that industry actor can and do write legislation for elected officials, how press them into law ... sometimes without even redacting ALEC's name; but those are elected official ... that take industry dollars, not trade negotiators, i.e., professional bureaucrats.
I'll go one better ... I need to see and read the TPP before I, even, take a position (pro or con) on the proposed agreement. Go through everything I have written on the TPP ... point to a single instance where I have taken a position on TPP. I have, however, posted that part of the TPP "debate" that is being left out ... the US' negotiating objectives. Including information is not the same as advocating for a particular out-come.
QuestionAlways
(259 posts)It could just set the standard below our minimum, and put pressure n our wages
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)in order minimize/eliminate the low wage incentive to off-shore.
The US is trade partners with Germany and France both of which have minimum wages significantly high than the US, neither of which is being pressured by our wages.
djean111
(14,255 posts)Plus - most of the TPP is really about giving the Investor State more powers, and I don't think those powers will be used to pay people any more money than they can get away with, because the overriding theme of the TPP is corporate profits no matter what the cost to people.
Do you really think the Vietnamese, for instance, are really going to clean up the way they harvest, feed, clean, pack the shrimp they sell us? I do not.
And it looks like the TPP will do away with labeling country of origin, because, for example, who would buy shrimp from Vietnam once they see the condition of the shrimp and the workers?
Even if the small parts about workers do come to pass, the rest of the TPP reeks, and there is no excuse for it. That's why, I believe, Obama wants Fast Track, so none of it can be amended or deleted.
Support for the TPP will pretty much determine who I vote for.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)People, already, DO buy shrimp from Vietnam ... with the labeling and under the current conditions of the shrimp and workers. So, doesn't that kind of moot that argument?
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)so there's no point in labeling imports?
Nice how you dismiss the concerns of others so causally
because some people DO buy shrimp from Vietnam.
What kind of a person would deny others the right to
know where their food or other products are being created
because "some" people are uninformed or ill informed consumers?
And NO it "doesn't that kind of moot that argument".
Don't you care if people WANT to know and make informed choices?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)How did you get that from what I have written?
because some people DO buy shrimp from Vietnam.
LOL ... MOST of the shrimp sold in the US comes from Vietnam (and nearly ALL comes from the would be TPP covered nations) ... so, no ... labeling does not seem to be having much affect of the US consumer's buying habits ...
Don't you care if people WANT to know and make informed choices?
Well ... based on the current origin labeling and shrimp sales, most people don't care where their shrimp comes from. So, YES ... that argument is mooted by reality.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)It's intellectually dishonest to suggest that because some people
buy Vietnamese shrimp then the point about food labels is moot.
You seem to be soft peddling the idea that since people already
consume particular foods from a particular nation
there is no point in food labeling.
To wit:
That is a casual observation and omits the fact that
informed consumers make very different choices.
You do know Gulf shrimp and Gulf sea food in general
were hurt the the BP oil disaster?
How do you KNOW people don't care?
And why should the fact some people "don't care" be used
as an excuse for NO LABELING?
You do realize your position come off as shilling for
corporate interests and against the public interest?
You seem to be soft peddling the idea that the stupid sheeple
already buy questionable foods and as such they don't deserve
to be fully informed?
You really don't seem to care about the public in your rhetoric.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)this is the latest of your post that indicate that you; either, do not understand, or have not read, what I have written.
The post that I responded to:
Is not about whether TPP allows labeling; but rather, whether labeling will have an origin-based affect on shrimp consumption ... that is the argument that is mooted by reality ... our current state labels shrimp by country of origin and, not just some, MOST Americans continue to consume shrimp from Vietnam ... despite the condition of the shrimp and/or the workers.
You are arguing against the voices in your own head.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)pointing out that which other prefer to ignore, i.e., the labor and environmental objective of the US negotiators, is not promoting anything but information.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)but ignoring the elephant in the room.
The impact of the agreement on legal recourse
and national sovereignty.
NAFTA already showed us how these agreements screw
the tax payers of respective nations.
April, 1997
Ethyl Corporation's $251 million lawsuit against a new Canadian environmental law is sure to set off alarm bells throughout the public interest world. The suit, brought under the terms of the North American Free Trade Agreement, demonstrates how present and future international economic pacts could pose a danger to environmental regulations and other safeguards.
In early April, the Canadian Parliament acted to ban the import and interprovincial transport of an Ethyl product -- the gasoline additive MMT -- which Canada considers to be a dangerous toxin. Ethyl (the company that invented leaded gasoline) responded on April 14 by filing a lawsuit against the Canadian government under NAFTA. Ethyl claims that the Canadian ban on MMT violates various provisions of NAFTA and seeks restitution of $251 million to cover losses resulting from the "expropriation" of both its MMT production plant and its "good reputation."
https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/212/45381.html
In the largest Chapter 11 suit yet brought against the United States, the Canadian corporation Methanex in 1999 sued the U.S. government for $970 million because of a California executive order phasing out the sale of a Methanex product. Methanex claims that California's phase-out of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), a gasoline additive, violates the company's special investor rights granted under NAFTA because the California environmental policy limits the corporation's ability to sell MTBE. If a NAFTA tribunal decides that California's environmental policy violates NAFTA's investor protections, the U.S. government can be held liable for the corporation's lost profits from not selling MTBE.
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=648
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)pointing to the labor and environment wish list (as opposed to the equally, undecided, corporate wish list) is not promoting anything. Right?
djean111
(14,255 posts)None of my friends or family buys shrimp from much of anywhere, any more. If we do not see a label, we do not buy, either.
Or buy stuff that just says "processed" in the US. There really is no individual food that I NEED to have. Honey - local honey, not honey that might be adulterated, from China. That's how I shop now. Paying attention. It will just be more difficult, but I am not going to eat crap just so someone else can make money from it.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
grasswire
(50,130 posts)That means the only shrimp my family ever eats are the baby shrimp harvested a hundred miles away. I absolutely refuse to buy Asian fish or seafood.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)this past year, a good portion of the vegetables that my family and I ate, came from my first garden in better than 30 years.
But that makes me way outside the mainstream of American consumers.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)of them in the tiny conservative town I live in.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)are also, outside of the economic mainstream.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)They're not outside the economic mainstream, the market is becoming the mainstream, for two reasons.
1. Better quality
2. Better prices
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)than the local mega-grocery store?
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)have a farmers' market, and now the two we have are crowded during the entire season, it's a big change.
you don't seem to have any sense of trend lines.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But that speaks not to the economic mainstream.
Rilgin
(787 posts)This is written as a goal the negotiators are "seeking" rather than what they will accept. The only clear statement is they will seek to discourage (not prohibit but that may just be words) "forced labor, including forced child labor". This is good but is the only clear statement. The rest is some general statement of goals and does not provide any specific details that we could actually evaluate.
However, please note that even in describing negotiation goals, this paragraph does not in any point refer to individuals or their rights. It does not actually say that individual workers will have enforceable rights when it refers to "dispute settlement". It is not clear who will be able to activate the "dispute settlement" that the negoatiators are "seeking".
Will workers be allowed to sue their employers if they violate the TPP labor standards whatever or wherever they are in an international forum like the corporations will be able to or again is this only a right of business to sue its competitors? It seems to say only formation of a consultative mechanism not an enforcement mechanism in addressing labor concerns. What exactly does that mean? Who needs consultation if you have standards and enforcement.
Further, note that again in one of the other more direct statements it says Rules that will ensure that TPP Countries do not "waive or derogate from labor laws". However it does not link this to harm to individuals. Read the statement. It would have rules that do not allow Countries to waive labor laws [b"]in a manner that affects trade or investment". Again, although it sounds good to have rules against waiving labor laws, it does not say whose laws and more importantly it only mentions such laws in the context of affecting trade or investment and not people. Again emphasis, labor laws should protect people not investment. Who cares if a country waives a labor law if it affects trade or investment. That is not the purpose of a labor law. We should only care if it would have an actual negative affect on the people doing the labor
Ultimately, the devil is/will be in the details but this seems more like Nafta where they promised that labor and environmental problems would be worked out later. The TPP is a trade deal and our history does not give much hope that it will be better than the last one for most of us.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)is couched in such terms.
I, largely, agree ... but the included objective of allowing freedom of association and collective bargaining, gives me hope for a different outcome.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Show me all the other trade agreements that were good for workers?
Show me the corporation that gives a shit about workers
If this is so good why can't it be debated in full light?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Does my NOT running around with my hair on fire and looking at how this trade deal COULD possibly NOT be Armageddon for the American worker, based on the way the actual world works, bother you?
I can't ... so therefore, I should assume that this one is not - despite this agreements negotiating position/objectives, being wholly different from other agreements.
That's a little easier, though that depends on what you mean by "gives a shit about workers."
These, are better than most: http://money.usnews.com/money/careers/articles/2011/05/11/top-25-companies-for-work-life-balance
Because no "deals", trade or otherwise, are negotiated in public ... and because, at this point, there really is NOTHING to "debate" ... the terms of the agreement have not been agreed to.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)IN what capacity and where is relevant.
Do you work in a political or economic department?
Maybe in pubic relations, or international relations?
Is you Major University funded by participants in the TPP?
Professional bias is relevant.
If you have a professional interest in the TPP
it would be honest of you to put that in the open.
If you have nothing to hide, just be honest.
A continuous soft peddling of pro-corporate disinformation
is a disservice to this community.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)you, either: do not read or cannot understand what I have written ... at the least, it is clear the term, "context" is foreign to you ... My stating: "I work for a Major University ... why? ...", was in response to the direct question, "Who do you work for?" (The "WHY?" should have been the give-away)
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)You work in academia, you support backroom trade deals,
you want to sell us on the idea that the TPP is good for "us",
and you "trust" the negotiations will favor "us".
Just because you are soft peddling the TPP
and not having a "hair on fire moment" doesn't
diminish your possible professional interest
in passing the TPP.
Parsing words and nuanced "context" tends to obscure your agenda.
It seems you frequently side with corporate interests?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)
MADem
(135,425 posts)or other issues of real importance. I understand and share your frustration.
The conversation automatically gets personal--YEW must LUUUUUUV the TPP....YEW want to screw the workers....YEW want to keep wages low...
It's just so exhausting.
A few years back, I remember seeing threads about how awful manufacturers were to pay little kids a dollar a day to sew hundred dollar sneakers. Now the threads are all about those little kids "Takin' our JERBS and workin' fer CHEEEEEP!"
The problem with debating the TPP in public is exactly what we're seeing here, writ small--the shitflinging and accusations would be lobbed in the public square. Reasoned conversation would be drowned out by personal vitriol.
While I am a fan of a couple of things (that won't happen), I don't think a hair-on-fire attitude helps. The things I'd like to see are
--A longer discussion/public comment period ahead of the vote.
--The opportunity for a small group of Senators from both parties (because it would have to be that way) to review the documents before they are finalized and offer some guidance to the negotiators.
There's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip, too. Not only does the Senate have an opportunity to say "Hell to the NO," the POTUS has a veto pen.
You know, you could tell me that you work for the US Trade and Development Agency, or the Tradewinds Seafood Restaurant--it just doesn't matter where you work or where I work or where anyone works, really--people could be making shit up, and how would we know? Ideas stand on their own, without a "I'm an INSIDER with Special Knowledge" patina, most of the time, anyway--certainly when discussing an issue like this, unless someone says they are on the inside of those negotiations (and then they'd get in trouble for revealing any details as they're all on a non-disclosure agreement). I know you know that--it's just sad that we can't converse like adults.
This does have potential to change our world, to level that playing field, to make life a bit more tolerable for THEM, while maybe making it a bit less tolerable for US. We just won't know until the details are made public.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)
You spend a LOT of words lamenting the lack of "reasoned debate"
Lets have a reasoned debate about your idea...
Why would have to be this way?
"small group of Senators"?
Don't they have copy machines, email,
or other technology to share the information?
Does the House have no responsibility?
Why can't ALL of the Congress know the details?
Who are the "negotiators" BTW?
MADem
(135,425 posts)"small group of Senators"?
Don't they have copy machines, email,
or other technology to share the information?
Because this is the way the Senate handles classified material that isn't ready for dissemination. A small group of politicians has access to the material, but the grouping is small enough so that if anyone leaks, it's pretty clear who is doing the leaking. By entering into these negotiations, we, the USA, AGREED to keep the negotiations secret. Why? So that nations would feel free to propose ideas without getting the shit kicked out of them for doing nothing more than talking out their asses, or thinking out loud. The negotiations are to happen around the table--not in the public square.
Does the House have no responsibility?
This is a trade agreement, not an expenditure. Appropriations begin in the House. This is a Senate thing--they have the lead on this. The paperwork starts with them.
Why can't ALL of the Congress know the details? Assuming that the TPP is "fast tracked"--and that is also a key element of our participation (the rest of the countries who are "in on" this process are not going to go back to the table if a hundred Senators want to change "happy" to "glad" for example)-- there will be no changes to it. It'll start in the Senate and there will be no changes. The House doesn't like it? They can vote it down. The POTUS isn't happy with the end result? He can veto.
On another level, individual politicians (those who stand for election more frequently than every six years, e.g.) will take proposals, turn them into done deals in their heads, and use them get people shitflinging in order to raise money for their next election. "They're gonna take our JERBS!!!!! They're gonna take over our computers!!!"
Who are the "negotiators" BTW?
This guy and his staff: http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/biographies-key-officials/united-states-trade-representative-michael-froman
These links should answer your questions:
http://www.ustr.gov/tpp
http://www.ustr.gov/tpp/Summary-of-US-objectives
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/03/mitch-mcconnell-tpp-tea-party_n_6182126.html
The EFF objects to the agreement because they fear that the gubmint's gonna take over our computers, and make it harder to rip off intellectual property--those aren't their only concerns, but they're the ones that get people the most excited, and these are the concerns you read about most here on DU and elsewhere:
https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and I will pre-emptive note, you have NOT taken a position on the merits/flaws of the TPP ... IOWs, ignore the sure to come claims that you are a 3rd-way corporate lackey that hates American workers.
MADem
(135,425 posts)It doesn't matter if I haven't come down for or against if someone wants a fight--facts (or lack thereof) be damned!
I've been called 3rd Way so often that it ceases to be a "slur." I look at that charge as a shorthand way of saying "I can't refute your argument, so let me call you a name, the definition of which I really don't appreciate, but I've been given to understand that it's really, really baaaaad...." It's a bit sad, actually. This is such a good website and a lot of us would enjoy discussing these issues without the whole "So you must be...." and "Well, that that means you must support..." blah-blah-blah. I mean, hell, we're Democrats--we shouldn't be afraid of ideas, even ones that aren't terribly good. If we don't talk it through, hash it out, how will we learn?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)only one half of the "argument" is already decided and the other side ignored.
To be clear, if corporations fulfill their "wish list", exactly as they wished it; TPP will likely be bad for the American worker (and workers everywhere) ... On the other hand, if the US accomplishes it's negotiating objective(s), it will likely be good for the American worker (and workers everywhere) ... if it comes out somewhere in between, we'll have to "run the analysis" to arrive at any conclusion. I suspect that there will be some good stuff and some not so good stuff ... that IS the nature of negotiations ... but the weight of the good versus the not so good ... is undeterminable at this point.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Funny ... despite all the accusations, I have yet to take a position on TPP ... I can't until I have what the agreement is. Negotiating positions are just that, negotiating positions. The closest I've come is to say I could support a trade deal that meets the only information that I have ... the US' negotiating objectives.
--A longer discussion/public comment period ahead of the vote.
--The opportunity for a small group of Senators from both parties (because it would have to be that way) to review the documents before they are finalized and offer some guidance to the negotiators.
I completely agree.
Yep. But, understand ... the people opposing the TPP, are also the same ones that have no confidence in Congress or this President, so how do they manage living in this democracy, where their voice is, but one of many? Such nihilism and cynicism, I have not much use for.
What amazes me, in a really sad way, is the number of people putting forth the twin; but, contradictory arguments, that we don't know what's in the TPP (even though, there's no known agreement on TPP terms) AND this is Armageddon for the American worker because someone leaked something ... apparently, the thought has not occurred, even after 10+ years of distrusting what we are being told, that we may be being played ... the leaks are being leaked for a reason.
Agreed, and the TPP has the potential of leveling the trade playing field, giving corporations the security of stability across the board AND making life a bit easier (in terms of preserving jobs) for the American worker.
I don't know; but, that would be the case if the US negotiating objectives are met. Yes, we will just have to wait and see.
MADem
(135,425 posts)If anyone has gripes, they need to scream.
What's funny is that a lot of the wingnuts who loved it (like Rand Paul) are getting pushback from the libertarian crowd, and now they don't know what to think.
I don't think this is a slam dunk by a long shot, and I also don't think the vote will necessarily fall down on party lines. But, like you said, we'll have to wait until we see what's in the doggone thing.
I'm not prepared to raise it up on high, or dash it to the ground and stomp on it. I don't see any point in pre-judging something I haven't even seen.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I have a suspicion that this "agreement" is a long way off.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Your hair should be on fire if you gave fuck about the rest of us.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)but that cuts against how people associated with academics tend to respond.
And no, I am not a PR person for anything.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)and how this agreement will effect their lives. You can look at anything from some academic macro point of view and never understand that. It's called not seeing the forest for the trees.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)how Americans lives will be affected IF your concerns come to pass; while ignoring, the stuff that does not feed your point of view.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)You soft peddle the notion that the TPP
"if negotiated successfully" will be
wonderful for the workers of the world.
That the workers in 3rd world countries
will be lifted from poverty, and the environment
will be saved because corporations can be trusted to
think of the workers and the environment, and not quarterly profits.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I am NOT "soft peddling" anything ... I am stating: "if negotiated successfully" will be
wonderful for BENEFICIAL TO the workers of the world. That the workers in 3rd world countries
will be MIGHT BE lifted from poverty (THOUGH MERELY RAISING INCOMES CAN ALSO HAVE NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON THIRD WORLD PEOPLES), AND IT WOULD SERVE AS A DISINCENTIVE FOR CORPORATION DOMICILED IN THE US, TO CONTINUE OFF-SHORING OF JOBS, and the environment will be saved POSITIVELY AFFECTED, NOT because corporations can be trusted to think of the workers and the environment, and not quarterly profits, BUT BECAUSE CORPORATION VALUE STABILITY IN DEALINGS/PREDICTABILITY OVER NOMINAL PROFITS.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Yet it's all speculation and based on a great big "IF".
The idea that we use trade deals to
"lift" workers from poverty is misguided.
Is that what US policy is supposed to do?
What about our people in poverty?
TPP will NOT help them, will it?
And yet you qualify the idea of lifting from poverty
with the caveat that raising income can have negative effects.
Is this a Catch-22? Or just setting up rationals to explain failure?
You suggest that the TPP would create a disincentive to off-shore.
That sound incredulous!
What recent trade agreement has worked to that effect?
It's also inconceivable that the negotiators would create
disincentives for corporations that makes staying in the US desirable.
Doesn't the US have the *highest corporate taxes in the world*?
There is no evidence available that the environment will be positively effected.
In fact history has shown the opposite is more probable.
Where is the evidence that the environment will be positively effected?
And by what metric will this be measured?
The premise that corporations value stability and predictability
over nominal profits is based on what? The invisible hand?
Simply valuing something does not equate with action.
There are plenty of cases where nominal profits trump rational action.
Basically, you seem to sum up support for the TPP based on feel good
and wishful thinking about what might happen "if negotiated successfully".
The leaks coming out about TPP show that the "negotiators" are not
working in good faith.
In fact, its been said that the public would oppose the treaty
if the details were made known.
http://www.citizen.org/documents/Leaked-TPP-Investment-Analysis.pdf
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"lift" workers from poverty is misguided.
Response: Why? Are you saying that trade deals cannot have as an objective to lift workers out of poverty, i.e., create more consumers?
Is that what US policy is supposed to do?
Response: To this point in our nation's history, it hasn't; but, one would think a liberal would hope that it would be considered.
What about our people in poverty?
TPP will NOT help them, will it?
Response: As I've stated repeatedly ... If the US negotiating objective(s) are met ... Yes, it will work to lift more Americans out of poverty, as it will slow, if not stop, the off-shoring of jobs.
And yet you qualify the idea of lifting from poverty
with the caveat that raising income can have negative effects.
Is this a Catch-22? Or just setting up rationals to explain failure?
Response: Neither, it's a recognition of the damage that globalism, i.e., introducing cash into traditionally agrarian/barter societies, can do/has done.
You suggest that the TPP would create a disincentive to off-shore.
That sound incredulous!
Response: Only to someone that knows very little about economics and business systems. The reason corporations off-shore jobs is to take advantage of low wage/low regulation markets, the TPP, if the US negotiating objectives are successfully negotiated, will shrink the cost advantage ... perhaps to the point where the 12+ hour engineering/production separation no longer makes sense.
What recent trade agreement has worked to that effect?
Response: None, that I am aware of. Name an insurance company that covered pre-existing health/medical conditions. None, until negotiations resulted in pre-existing health/medical conditions being covered. Times change.
It's also inconceivable that the negotiators would create
disincentives for corporations that makes staying in the US desirable.
Doesn't the US have the *highest corporate taxes in the world*?
Response: No ... the effective US corporate tax rates, what corporations actually pay, are pretty much some of the lowest of industrialized nations.
There is no evidence available that the environment will be positively effected.
In fact history has shown the opposite is more probable.
Where is the evidence that the environment will be positively effected?
And by what metric will this be measured?
Response: Regulations that outlaw the dumping of industrial sewage into the nearest stream/river won't positively affect the environment? Really?
The premise that corporations value stability and predictability
over nominal profits is based on what? The invisible hand?
Response: Economics ... and your mentioning of the invisible hand, in this context, suggests that you haven't the faintest idea what I am talking about.
Simply valuing something does not equate with action.
There are plenty of cases where nominal profits trump rational action.
Response: Really? ... and the businesses that make those choices, typically, are not in business long.
Basically, you seem to sum up support for the TPP based on feel good
and wishful thinking about what might happen "if negotiated successfully".
Response: And your opposition to TPP is based on similar, but negative speculation about economic Armageddon. No?
The leaks coming out about TPP show that the "negotiators" are not
working in good faith.
Response: No ... the leaks coming out about TPP show nothing but what a/a few/some/several or a number of trade partners have proposed, nor do they say anything about what the US negotiators' have proposed or counter-proposed.
In fact, its been said that the public would oppose the treaty
if the details were made known.
Response: Yes, I know that has been said ... by people that claim to have not seen, nor been a part of, the negotiations. Doesn't that give you a moment of pause?
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)has been good for American workers. Why do corporations want trade deals. Think!
What is going to stop us from becoming an oligarchy? What is going to reverse the income disparity in this country?
Who is looking out for workers rights and the ability to organize labor today? Where are the pension protections and the increase in Social Security payments to retirees?
You can't see the forest for your academic blind spot. All you have to do is open your eyes and look around you!
They don't write trade deals because of a sence of bettering the lives of mankind!
Trade deals are written by wealthy in order to increase their wealth by removing restrictions that hinder growing wealth. And if you believe in supply side economics you should drop out of what ever school you are at.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)the lives of millions of Americans, as well as agricultural workers across the border in Mexico jobs.
Not enough, now they want to take a projected 10,000 more away from working Americans, and screw China in the process by sending their jobs to cheaper Vietnam.
That's more lives destroyed than any terrorist has ever dreamed of.
The2ndWheel
(7,947 posts)Like the right wanting to go back to the 50's socially, the left wants to go back to the 50's economically. Neither one is going to happen.
ProfessorGAC
(65,325 posts)While he is right about his basic premise, it's not at all linear across the UE level.
When UE was as high as it was, there were so many people starting to get, or already desperate, that those newly created opportunities didn't have to be high wage.
As a result, the fall in UE % has not impacted wages upward. If it continues to fall, that is when the upward presssure on wages begin to retain talent.
It's still too high for that. The author is looking at a big change, but 10 to 6 is a whole lot different than going from 7 to 3, or 6 to 2.
TheKentuckian
(25,034 posts)"It still could happen – but the unemployment rate would have to sink far lower than it is today, probably below 4 percent".
The problem is that we are now looking at contextually absurd numbers to make the impact.
That 4% is a rare, rare bird in modern times for this purpose I think we can agree 1970 is not an unreasonable place to start from and only once in that four and a half decades has it been down to 4%, never below.
Tough row to hoe, I don't think he sees a path to the required conditions and I not sure even that would work because of the pretty drastic changes in the very nature of employment now versus times when we last saw the required numbers.
We are talking the late 60's, the 50's, and 1944 (1.2%), the likes of which we will never see again it is probably pretty safe to say.
We now have all kinds of part time cap sub - subsistence crap, a ton of people contracting and temping, near destruction of organized labor, right to work laws all over, gutted and often captured labor boards, and a very, very different worldview about and value on labor. Then you have to account for global environment, laws passed, treaties and "agreements" entered, resource depletion, and Lord knows what else.
Even from the the late 90's to 2000 when we saw that 4.0 and low 4's is now a long time ago and a different world in a way, way deeper hole.
I might be cynical because I've never fully recovered from the FIRST Bush recession in real dollars much less accounting for inflation but I think a serious counter argument is hard to come by.
Reich is right again but is too optimistic, I fear. I hope I'm wrong but from here the shit looks insanely deep.
Johonny
(20,929 posts)For instance many companies I know took the opportunity of the recession to fire older works out of "need." Now 6 years later they are hiring but they are hiring mostly young fresh outs. So you are replacing people with 30-40 years of experience with people with 0 years experience. They tend to be cheaper. Meanwhile they are hiring some experience back, it is not nearly as much as they've let go.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)And I believe a major one. It is never, just one thing.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)a part not being discussed, except in very vague (High wage jobs being replaced with low(er) waged jobs) terms.
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)When an entity can control the supply, the demand will rise to the point where the entity can name its price.
As far as an industry is concerned, competition is good when they have a demand but very,very bad when there is a competition for their product.
The solution is to break up the trusts. Kill the oligopoly. Make the corporations bid for labor. Then wages and benefits will rise. We don't need a minimum wage, we need a minimum level of competition.
The local business paid for for talented workers cause they had to compete with the factory down the road. The factory down the road had to compete for workers with other factories.
As soon as the factories closed... we bid for the right to work.
Enter the Race to the Bottom between states and it gets even worse.
ProfessorGAC
(65,325 posts)This isn't a "local factory closed" phenomenon Reich is discussing. It's a macroeconomic situation.
And, his point is that even though the job market increase has reduced control the "demanders" have over the supplly of talent, wages haven't gone up. That's the opposite of your conclusion.
So, it seems you're concluding things that are counter to what Reich actually says, because that's what you want it to say, and then concluding "Reich nails it".
How?
"the job market increase has reduced control the "demanders" have over the supplly of talent"
= how so?
ProfessorGAC
(65,325 posts)He is saying that wages should rise as demand for talent increases, right? If the demand continues as the numbers of unemployed go down to the point that there starts to become a dearth of available talent.
The "demanders" (companies) lose control over the supply of available talent because the supply is actually lower. I didn't mean to imply that's happened yet. But, when it does is when the linkage Reich says doesn't exist is likely to manifest itself again.
As i've said in two other posts, there is still a VERY large number of unemployed people who want a job. The improvement still has us above the threshold where demand for talent drives wages up as companies are competing for the talent. Right now they don't have to compete.
So, they haven't lost control of the supply yet. That's why i think Reich is wrong.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)"lose control" because supply is lower? What does that mean? In what way do they lost control? Lose control over what?
seabeckind
(1,957 posts)Those jobs that were lost in the local factory most times drove the entire economy within that area. Each factory job probably has a half dozen or so service jobs to help support that worker.
Auto dealers, repair shops, groceries, restaurants, etc.
Then there is the competition for labor in the area. If a worker has the talent to make more working in the steel mill, why would he work in a local foundry? That means the foundry has to pay more to get decent workers. But what happens if that steel mill closes? What pressure is on the foundry for wages and benefits?
Each entity in the supply chain has a dependency on a supply of resources which it then manipulates to send on to its consumers. It is both a supplier and a consumer.
That entity on the consumer side of its equation wants to reduce that cost as much as possible. Labor is his supplier, as well as the materials they use. If the entity can get the labor force to bid for his job he can hold them hostage to his offers. He wants the individual workers to compete with the other workers for his jobs. And the more they compete the better off it is for him.
On his demand side for his product, he wants as little competition as possible. He wants to control the market...to get a corner. Then he can charge as much as the market can bear. And even worse for us, he can control the quality of the product also.
Hence the oligoply. They control the wages, they control the pricing.
I think that is what Reich was saying. That there is no longer a link between the labor supply and wages.
ProfessorGAC
(65,325 posts)And only because the UE rate is still high, so the impact he's looking for is unlikely to occur until employers really start to have difficulty finding talent.
If the 4% or so improvement had been from 6% to 2%, i think the linkage would still be there.
Going from 10 to 6 means that there is still 1 in every 16 people who want a job don't have one, and will be willing to work for whatever pay is there.
The employers need to feel the squeeze for talent, and at 6% remaining unemployed is still too big a number to cause the squeeze need to drive wages up.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
Calista241
(5,586 posts)less than 50% of Americans are working full time.
Janet Yellen said last year that "The existence of such a large pool of partly unemployed workers is a sign that labor conditions are worse than indicated by the unemployment rate."
Perhaps that is why wages have not gone up.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)When full time, full benefits jobs are turning into basically part time, no benefits jobs, it effects the entire economy. I had someone with a PhD come in for a secretary job because she was too expensive for the crap wages they wanted to pay, newly divorced and needed a job to raise her children. I hired her and told her to leave a quickly as she found the situation she was looking for. It took her a year.
Whole swaths of industries have been decimated. And now we're supposed all be for the TPP? Fuck that.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)At least they are honest - they don't care about income and wealth inequality, and so it is reasonable to conclude that no provisions whatsoever will be made to mitigate any dislocations that occur as a result of the implementation of this unfair agreement.
And as Robert Reich likely saw after NAFTA was implemented, off-the-record and unfunded promises to retrain and help workers whose jobs are lost are utterly worthless.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)And as we know, positively 100%, the people who are affected the most are minorities and women. If you keep people poor and powerless, one minute away from a life on the street or indentured servitude for life, what sort of equality could they possibly have? It defies logic in every way.
I have been told as a PoC that I don't care about racial equality because I argue for economic fairness. I could be wrong, but I don't think you can have one without the other. I have yet to find a good argument of how that's not true.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)The TPP is a piece of crap legislation pushed by the same interests that pushed for NAFTA - the Chamber of Commerce, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, and others who stand to benefit massively AT THE EXPENSE OF working Americans.
Skittles
(153,258 posts)
marmar
(77,109 posts)bhikkhu
(10,725 posts)and its nowhere close to historic lows:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/US_Labor_Participation_Rate_1948-2011.svg
One of the main drivers of the upswing was the baby boomer's very high participation, which included women at a much higher rate than previous generations. The downswing has two main drivers - the recession, and the latest generation of students going to college rather than getting jobs right out of high school. College attendance rates are at record highs, which bodes well for the future.
Or you can look at the number of people seeking work:
?uuid=06f96fca-9b5d-11e4-8445-e286f69b8633
Its all encouraging, but as the OP and everyone else has been saying for the last year - until we see higher wages, no one's really convinced.
Skittles
(153,258 posts)is you now need a college degree to get many jobs that did not need college degrees in the past
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)at very decent wages. Full-time also but we never know for how long, right?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)
Octafish
(55,745 posts)NAFTA.
pansypoo53219
(21,005 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Life in Neverland is all beer and skittles
xchrom
(108,903 posts)
annabanana
(52,791 posts)Man from Pickens
(1,713 posts)so it's no wonder it's lost its link to wages - it's also lost its link to representing the actual state of unemployment in this country
the pool of unused labor-hours in this country has never been larger, and no matter what the bogus U-series might claim, it's not shrinking either
Labor demand translates to higher wages which translates to a higher standard of living. It's that simple. Statistics that imply a violation of this causal relationship fall somewhere in the spectrum from misleading to fraudulent.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)"To make things worse, a majority of Americans have no savings to draw upon if they lose their job. Two-thirds of all workers are living paycheck to paycheck. They won’t risk losing a job by asking for higher pay."
the goal is to push wages as far down as possible. The TPP will speed it up fast. And Hillary Clinton is a big supporter of the TPP.
ybbor
(1,557 posts)*Southern Hemisphere, Asia Free Trade Agreement, TM Thom Hartmann, aka TPP
Free trade agreements have our workers best interests at heart, just ask the capitalists.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)"Speaking on Radio 4’s Today programme, Dr Stuart Armstrong from the Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford said that there was a risk that computers could take over human jobs “at a faster rate than new jobs could be generated.”
“We have some studies looking at to which jobs are the most vulnerable and there are quite a lot of them in logistics, administration, insurance underwriting,” said Dr Armstrong. “Ultimately, huge swathe of jobs are potentially vulnerable to improved artificial intelligence.”"
"A recent paper by Carl Benedikt Frey and Michael A. Osborne of Oxford University suggests that nearly half (47 per cent) of all American jobs are under threat and could be automated in “a decade of two”."
- http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/advances-in-artificial-intelligence-could-lead-to-mass-unemployment-warn-experts-9094017.html
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)And 35 mpg is as good as it gets.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)We so need people in Congress who will fight hard against these Corporations.
