whole different topic i suppose.....the federal gov't should be doing that....protecting all the states, and the companies in them....tariffs worked well for years....all the other countries who are all for "fair" trade are doing it....china pegs their currency....japan won't let us get a foot in the door in there country....
problem is, the federal gov't is involved in way too much of what the states should be handling, and they are letting there responsibilities go....
our whole country is for sale to the highest bidder.....just like you said once one company does it, the rest have to follow to be competitive.....its a tragedy
yep, i can agree about the greed and the working together....
whole problem that started all this crap is the fed...and there endless printing of money....the more they print, the less your dollar buys....so what happens?
workers want raises...and companies look for ways to increase the profit margin because the product costs more to build....and it all trickles down to the consumer...who now can't afford it...
so they want raises.....there jobs then get outsourced...ect....
then companies start to outsource....profits go up...everyone that competes has to follow suit or go under.....
then what do you have? a bunch of people either looking for the gov't to give them money....or taking some crap job....and then what happens?
everyone has to go buy that crap they are selling anyway cause thats all they can afford.....it makes me sick...
Quote: These are good manufacturing, IT, customer service positions.
Were good manufacturing, IT, customer service positions.
The argument is always that either illegals or those work call centers in India or wherever is taking away a good job for an American ... however, there is a flaw in that logic -- it's no longer a good job.
Now, certainly there are exceptions to this ... but for the most part, if you ask someone, 'Hey, this assembly job pays $2.50 an hour and you must work 50-60 hours a week. Want it?' ... you're probably going to get a 'no', and I certainly don't think many would call that a 'good' job.
See, once that wage floor is lowered ... it's no longer a good job.
We view it as someone now getting paid $4 an hour for a job an American would be doing for $10 ... without realizing that is has, in fact, become a $4/hour job. Talking about it as if it were still a $10/hour job is missing the picture.
You could argue that Company X is greedy, and they're at fault for cheapening the position ... and that argument has merit, but in essence it's arguing completely against our system of living.
Supply and demand, folks. If someone jumps up and says 'I'll do this for four dollars less an hour!' ... that job is most likely going to go to them. And once that shift has been made ... is it really a good job anymore?
And when examining this issue ... I don't see a satisfying logical answer.
Quote: So I don't see these jobs doing a lot for Guatemala's standard of living.
Quote: The only people in this country that have seen what we are facing is the old generation - the one's that were kids during the great depression. The rest of us? We'll find out what poor means - within at tops 10 years - but I feel more like 5 years. It is crashing down upon us, and the flimsy umbrella isn't going to cut it.
Not exactly...that generation, WWII, most in the 80s and 90s now, did see some tough times as kids. My mother in law, now 82, said she remembers eating a lot of soup and her mother making her cloths. By the time WWII started, many went into the military. When soldiers returned home after they served their time, they returned with some great benefits, such as the GI Bill.
Those who did not pursue higher learning were able find work, in the industrial boom that followed WWII. I know of many of that generation who worked at one factory their entire working years and were never laid off and never worried about their jobs being outsourced.
Outsourcing has become more common place over the last decade or so. The American worker cannot compete with workers from those countries (governments) that allow slave labor wages, allow businesses to disregard environmental laws while their governments provide universal healthcare for their workers.
To make matters worse for American workers, we have had a government that supplements businesses that outsource our manufacturing jobs with tax breaks and write offs to help American companies close plants in the USA and move them to slave labor countries.
Until our government gets tough on outsourcing...and stops helping or making it easy and affordable for American factories to close in the USA and move off shore, manufacturing "will" die a slow death in the USA. When manufacturing goes, so will the rest of the country.
I'm not asking for anymore protectionism than is provided by the countries that steal our jobs. Not one cent of US tax dollars should be given to a U.S. company that chooses to leave the United States. If American companies are looking for a tax break or write off, let them get it from the countries they move to.
If Dell Computer wants to buy a million dollar machine for their Chinese workers...let China depreciate that machine when Dell files their Chinese taxes.
If a company such as Dell chooses to move it's factor to a country such as China that fails to abide by trade agreements, Dell needs to know that their is no guarantee that their products will not have a tariff added by the U.S. government, when it returns to the USA for sale.
When outsourcing was sold to our elected representatives, it was supposed to be a win-win situation with more exports from the USA entering countries such as China and in return, goods made in China would be allowed into the USA. It has been a one way street with our government allowing anything and everything, including toxic, lead poisoned, cheap goods from China while American exports to China have fallen and sometimes difficult to gain approval from the Chinese Government.
It is time for the United States Government to start playing hardball with the rest of the world that seeks access to our markets. The USA has the largest consumer market in the world and it's time we used that advantage to help American workers and companies thrive here in the USA.
If the United States Government continues to operate as if all is well, it won't be too many more years before the USA economy collapses due a lack of jobs for the middle class.
thats the point....its not a level playing field....those jobs didn't become 4 dollar/hour jobs...thats what someone in a different country will work for...is every manufacturing job now worth only a buck and hour? cause thats what they are doing it for in china....with no safety, no epa....and no research and development for that matter either.....they just reverse engineer the stuff we invent.
good jobs existed here for a long time just fine...we didn't need the outside world....we were so rich that they couldn't afford our stuff...
now if the cost of living was the same the world over....everyone had the same money, and everyone played by the same rule book, had the same minimum wage, ect. then maybe it would work alittle better.
you could easily make that product cost as much as the product being made here....then the entire process is done my Americans...computers and the internet changed a lot, but Americans can and will work...and if they don't want to then maybe the company should offer a better wage...
is a $100 watch still a $100 dollar watch if its stolen and sold for $20?
Quote: thats the point....its not a level playing field....those jobs didn't become 4 dollar/hour jobs...thats what someone in a different country will work for...
Someone in a different country willing to work for $4/hour makes it a $4/hour job.
If you had widget you produced, and you're selling it for $50, and things are humming along until four people from China show up on your block selling them for $10, it now becomes a $10 product.
yes, and no....the 10 dollar product shouldn't exist...
did they follow epa regulations and factor that into the price? did they research it themselves or steal a patient? did they provide working conditions that are reasonable? is the product up to our standards? health and safetywise?
none of that is the case when it comes to what china is doing to us...
we ought to be telling them they are gonna play by the same rules that our businesses have to follow, or i would slap a 40 dollar tariff on each one....then guess which one Americans will buy? The one made by us.....
technology has decreased the need for as many workers...that hurts enough...
you ever wonder why Americans live the way they do? its because we were richer than the rest of the world. because we had good paying jobs...
thats has since been undermined on three fronts....illegal immigrants, outsourcing, and moving production out of the country....
all of this means less taxes...for the gov't to spend....unless they print a ton of cash....
at which point inflation will go thru the roof (in reality, not by there b.s. figures) and our buying power will be shot...
Quote: yes, and no....the 10 dollar product shouldn't exist...
Why shouldn't it?
Isn't the very foundation of our economic system based on a system of supply and demand?
I don't see anything in the tenets of capitalism that include nationalism, working conditions or safety regulations.
It's about capitalizing -- capitalizing on cheap labor or production is a very basic cog of a capitalist system.
You can't pick and choose what parts of a system you want ... America buttered it's bread with this system for a very long time -- and now that the tables are turning, folks are crying 'foul'
Quote: we should be protecting our companies...
Why protect an entity that has little or no allegiance to us?
I was expressing my frustration that these (manufacturing/IT/Customer service) should be good jobs, but they aren't anymore. In fact I would not recommend anyone going into IT at this point. Way too uncertain of a field, too much outsourcing going on. TaTa, Cognizant, many other companies in India either will import workers into the US or they will do the work in India.
As far as Guatemala and their standard of living, I totally agree that these outsourced manufacturing jobs don't help. But people there are so desperate for any kind of work, even with low pay, bad work conditions, long hours, no benefits, that they are more than willing to take the jobs.
I also agree that this trend will decimate the middle class if unchecked. We will have the "haves", the corporate owners, bankers, executives, a few higher level managers perhaps, making lots of money on the "cheap" outsourced labor that should have been middle class jobs for U.S. citizens. Then things will start spiraling downward since people won't be able to afford goods in the stores.
Sorry for the rant - this is a very sensitive issue to me.
if a product is made cheaper by technology, or if someone is able to build it for cheaper then fine...but the rules aren't the same.
company A in the US has to have millions in invested to not damage the environment, to to at least minimize it...wage laws, safety standards...
company B in china, just dumps it into the river and pollutes the air, has no minimum wage, and forget safety.
company A's product costs more than company B's because of this....is that good for our country? we made those laws to protect our country's environment and its people...
thats not right...and its got nothing to do with supply and demand....its all about profit....
and I understand that companies are in business to make money...the way the system is working, the only way that they can do that is to leave....not so great for the American worker...
Big corporations, banks, and the federal government are all screwed up big time. They should be entitled to a profit. well not the government
I care about one thing....MY country....its where I live...where I work...
People need a few things to survive...food, shelter, to feel safe......all those are getting real hard to come by. Its time to start worrying about Americans.
Quote: thats the point....its not a level playing field....those jobs didn't become 4 dollar/hour jobs...thats what someone in a different country will work for...
Someone in a different country willing to work for $4/hour makes it a $4/hour job.
If you had widget you produced, and you're selling it for $50, and things are humming along until four people from China show up on your block selling them for $10, it now becomes a $10 product.
But see they were producing the widget for $20 and selling it for $50, then outsourced to slave labor countries and produce the widget for $10 but still try to sell it to the out of work people in their home country for the same $50 it cost before.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
We also have to take into account the American consumer. We have become a WalMart culture, wanting the cheapest price irregardless of the consequences that will in turn bring over time.
Companies are forced to keep prices down to sell, and the cost of raw materials is a fixed cost, the only way to cut costs is to lesses labor costs. So they outsource.
We(in the general sense, since I HATE Walmart) have created a scenario where we pushed the sales price below the cost/profit ratio of acceptable business.
We as a society need to stop shopping at the big box stores all the time and go back to the days of the mom and pop stores on the corner. Support your local small businesses, even though it may cost a few extra bucks. In the end the result will save jobs, and maybe even your own.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
Someone in a different country willing to work for $4/hour makes it a $4/hour job.
If you had widget you produced, and you're selling it for $50, and things are humming along until four people from China show up on your block selling them for $10, it now becomes a $10 product.
It becomes a $4/hour job not because the company can pay someone $4/hr to do it but because executives can get bigger bonuses so ship the job off to somewhere and pay $4/hr. The company may require you have a Bachelors or Masters here in the States and have to pay you based on that...however that same job will be done in India, China or the Philippines for a fraction of the cost by someone with rudimentary skills in comparison. If that same job was offered to unskilled people in the States the wages would be much lower as well.
Outsourcing companies overseas will provide workers with degrees as well, they can roll out a person with a degree in a matter of months and charge US companies top dollar. I've spent longer on a project segment than some of the offshore resources spent getting a degree...and the company will pay them more for it as well.
My old company originally began outsourcing to India years ago to make more money, now they have no choice but to send more jobs overseas to remain open...the whole time they keep selling less and less, which makes them cut more jobs. That's the funny thing about hiring people that can't afford your product, pretty soon nobody will be able to buy it.
Many US companies also do business outside of the US. That means that they not only have to worry about competition from other companies at home also competing in the overseas market .... they also have to worry about those paying far less undercutting them in foreign markets.
In other words .... say Company A Is a US company that makes Widgets, and they sell them in the US and all over the world. Their pricing s based upon a $15/hour rate of pay for their workers. Company B is located in another country that we'll call Bob. Each country has a large market. Unfortunately, Company B pays its workers $8 per hour. As a result, Company B sells their product for $5 less than Company A.
While there may be some sentiment for citizens of the US to buy Company A's Widget ..... the rest of the world probably will not pay more for it.
Now the US could impose tariffs to protect its own market ... but then the Bob does the same against other goods produced in the US. Now Company A has an advantage in the US, but is still at a disadvantage worldwide, and other companies in the US are now also unable to compete in the country of Bob. When this happens, Company A must cut costs in ordr to compete ... and that $15/hour job becomes unsustainable at that pay rate .... and becomes an $8-10 job.
Unfortunately, things aren't as simple as they were decades ago. Back in the 1950s, the US manufacturing market was the US. Today, many US mnufacturers have huge markets overseas. Hell, GM employs about 4-5 times as many workers outside the US as they do inside the US. Part is labor, and I'd be willing to bet that part is logistics. Does it make sense to manufacture a car in the US and ship it to the Far East, or Middle East .... or Europe .... or does it make more sense to build there and cut shipping costs dramatically? I'm sure that is a big part of the equation.
What people forget is that the fastest growing market for automobiles is not in the US ... but rather just about everywhere except the US. Unfortunately this means that manufacturing of certain products will be cut in the US in favor of manufacturing elsewhere. Do I necessarily like it? No .... but it is the nature of business .... and if GM (for example) cannot compete worldwide, and is forced to be a US only company .... well, they'll die, pure and simple ... because the US market alone will not support them. In fact, I seem to recall reading rcently that China either is, or soon will be, GM's largest market.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Quote: thats the point....its not a level playing field....those jobs didn't become 4 dollar/hour jobs...thats what someone in a different country will work for...
Someone in a different country willing to work for $4/hour makes it a $4/hour job.
If you had widget you produced, and you're selling it for $50, and things are humming along until four people from China show up on your block selling them for $10, it now becomes a $10 product.
Perfect example of what I'm talking about...why should China be allowed "free" access to American markets while China does not abide by trade agreements?
NO, China should not be allowed to show up anywhere in the USA to sell their cheap products while their government supplements their industries...keeping their workers wages low, ignoring enviromental laws and pays for their workers health care.
Again, American workers are not asking for anymore protectionism than is practiced by those countries trying to flood our markets with their cheap products to drive American businesses out of business.
Here is a good read...
Trade Tensions Flare Between U.S., China as G-20 Nears
JEFFREY BROWN: The president's appearance before big labor today came just days after a set of trade sanctions announced by his administration that brought praise from unions and reproach from free trade advocates.
Late Friday, the U.S. said it would impose a 35 percent tariff on Chinese-made tires. That followed a complaint by the steelworkers union, contending that Chinese imports are flooding the market and have led to the loss of some 5,000 American jobs.
Yesterday, the Chinese government warned it might retaliate against American auto and poultry exports and said it would bring its own complaint to the World Trade Organization.
We explore this trade tiff and its potential consequences now with Congressman Sander Levin of Michigan, a Democrat who chairs a key trade subcommittee, and Daniel Price. He was an assistant to President Bush for international economic advisers and he's now a partner at the law firm of Sidley Austin.
Congressman Levin, I'll start with you. Fill in the picture as you see it. What's the case for sanctions here?
REP. SANDER LEVIN, D-Mich.: This isn't a case of free trade versus unions. This is a matter of trade policy, sound trade policy. When China entered the WTO, we worked on this. They agreed specifically to section 421. If there was a surge of products, we could take action. And there was here. And the International Trade Commission, the ITC, found that.
In just four years, tire imports here surged from 15 million to over 45 million. Prices were undercut by that. There was a 30 percent displacement in terms of American production, and about 5,000 American jobs were lost.
So this was a matter of sound trade policy. The president has said during the campaign that he was going to enforce trade agreements reached by the Congress, take each of these cases one by one. He took this case, and he abided by the ITC recommendation, unlike the Bush administration. Four times the ITC recommended action; four times the Bush administration said no.
Sound trade policy means expanded trade and rules of competition, and that's what is exactly at stake here.
Rep. Sander Levin D-Mich.
[T]he United States is saying, look, trade policy won't work if we have expanded trade and rules of competition, but the rules of competition aren't followed by the other country.
The rationale for the tariff JEFFREY BROWN: All right, let me get a response from Daniel Price. Sound trade policy? How do you see it?
DANIEL PRICE, former presidential adviser on trade: I see it a little bit differently. What's so curious here is that there was no allegation of unfair trade. There's no allegation of subsidies or dumping. Rather, this provision was invoked to deal with the consequences of fairly traded goods, but it was originally negotiated with China to allow the U.S. domestic industry time to adjust to a surge in imports.
Curiously, we have no domestic manufacturing in the type of tires that are at issue here. So it leaves many wondering why this import tariff was imposed to protect a domestic manufacturing capacity that simply does not exist.
JEFFREY BROWN: Some people brought up -- some people point to politics as -- to support -- the president's helping support -- or the president helping his supporters -- excuse me -- the trade unions. Is that what you're suggesting?
DANIEL PRICE: Well, you know, it's interesting. Given that there was no real national economic interest at stake, one can ask, what was the motivation? Now, some have suggested, including Congressman Levin, that taking this type of action will pave the way for positive trade initiatives in the future.
I certainly hope that's the case, but one must view this action against the backdrop of the inaction of this administration and the Congress on the pending Korea and Colombia free trade agreements and, really, a fairly stale, if not nonexistent affirmative agenda.
JEFFREY BROWN: All right, let me go back to Congressman Levin. Go ahead. Do you see a real gain for American workers in this?
REP. SANDER LEVIN: Absolutely. Absolutely. The attack just heard is absolutely wrong. Tires made by these companies include the tires imported from China. That's fact number one.
Number two, when we negotiated 421, it simply required there be a surge, that there had to be a significant impact in terms of injury. That's true here. The surge was clear, 45 million versus 15 million. It impacted jobs in the United States of America.
And this notion that we had to find other things, when China specifically agreed to section 421 when they entered the WTO, and what the president was doing was enforcing the China agreement with China. And now that they're going to the WTO, it's better than unilateral action by them, but when they agree to something, essentially the president of the United States is saying, look, trade policy won't work if we have expanded trade and rules of competition, but the rules of competition aren't followed by the other country.
There has to be a mutuality here, and that's what section 421 is involved. Jobs were at stake here. The president stood up for jobs in America, under section 421 specifically put in to the China entry into the WTO.
Fears of a trade war JEFFREY BROWN: Mr. Price, what is the fear here about creating a kind of trade war with China? What is the potential that they have to impose on us? What do you see happening?
DANIEL PRICE: Well, there's two concerns. But, first, could I say, I agree with Congressman Levin that we need vigorous enforcement. And, in fact, the Bush administration brought I believe it was eight WTO cases against China.
REP. SANDER LEVIN: Yes, only six of them, Dan, when we took over the House. Before that, the Bush administration sat on its hands in terms of trade relations with China and the rest of the country, other countries.
And the way they handled 421 was the supreme example. Four times, the ITC said, "Act." Four times, the Bush administration sat on its hands. What this administration is saying, hands-on, instead of this hands-off approach.
JEFFREY BROWN: OK. Come back to where we are right now, Mr. Price.
DANIEL PRICE: Thank you. I think our trading partners, not just China, are going to look at this with some alarm. As I said -- and the congressman and I can disagree about the facts -- there is no domestic manufacturing capacity that has been impaired by these imports.
REP. SANDER LEVIN: That's not true, Dan.
DANIEL PRICE: Well...
JEFFREY BROWN: Hold on. Hold on, Congressman.
DANIEL PRICE: Right. Second, as I said, it will be looked at in the context of repeated G-20 leader pledges not to engage in protectionist or trade-closing measures, whether or not those measures are permitted by the WTO. There's lots of discretionary actions that governments can take to raise barriers, and this was one taken by this administration, and I think it's unfortunate.
U.S. signal to G-20 nations JEFFREY BROWN: Well, Congressman, that's another issue is the timing, of course. The G-20 meeting is coming up in Pittsburgh pretty soon. The president didn't have to do this at this time. Is there some concern about doing it now and the signal that it sends to the rest of the world?
REP. SANDER LEVIN: Look, there was a time limitation here. Under the law, he had to act one way or the other. And enforcing trade laws agreed to by other countries is not protectionism; it's the opposite of protectionism.
It's for a trade policy built on expanded trade, but with rules of competition that everybody should follow. And what the president was saying here was, China, you agreed to it. We're now going to enforce that agreement, because American jobs are at stake.
JEFFREY BROWN: And, Mr. Levin, just briefly, let me ask you, is there any fear here that this might expand to other areas? I saw that the head of the steelworkers union, Leo Gerard, was talking about at least looking at some other areas of U.S.-China trade. Does that concern you?
REP. SANDER LEVIN: There are standards built into 421. They were met here. There has to be a finding that the standards are met here. There has to be a market disruption. And they found that here, a material impact here, jobs lost, surge of tires.
So I think we have standards here. What we are doing in this case is following those standards, while the Chinese are not. And you can't have sound trade policies when one side abides by its agreement and the other side doesn't.
JEFFREY BROWN: And, Mr. Price, are you worried about this?
DANIEL PRICE: Yes. As I said, there was no allegation that China breached any trade rules or did not abide by agreements.
And I think there is concern about the future. We see -- I read the same quote you did. There's discussion about cement, steel, glass, textiles and apparel. They're lining up to invoke this relief, and they're hoping that the president will do the same thing.
The real question is, having said once yes when there is no domestic manufacturing capability, how do you say no when there, in fact, is? And once you start feeding that protectionism beast, how do you ever sate it?
JEFFREY BROWN: All right, we have to leave it there. We'll watch how this develops. Daniel Price and Congressman Sander Levin, thank you both very much.
Here is another article on the subject of China attempting to flood the American market with their cheap tires...Something for Ohio folks to think about...Ohio is big in the manufacture of tires and has been since the early 1900s. I'm not sure how many "tire" workers are employed in Ohio, but needless to say, the last thing Ohio needs is the loss of another industry.
President Barack Obama slapped a stiff tariff on the import of Chinese-made tires into the U.S., but elected not to act as tough as he could have. The politically charged decision appeared calibrated to strike a middle ground between satisfying his influential labor constituency while signaling to much-needed China that the U.S. values the bilateral relationship. It comes while the White House is attempting to hold together the Democratic majority in Congress in order to pass the President’s No. 1 priority – health care reform.
In the Sept. 12 decision, Obama imposed a 3-year tariff on Chinese-made tire imports. In the first year, it will be set at 35%, far below the 55% levy recommended by the U.S. International Trade Commission. The second year it will be 30%, and the final year 25%. The tariffs begin in 15 days.
The decision was in response to a complaint by the United Steelworkers union, which invoked a provision in China’s agreement to join the World Trade Organization that allows protection from surging imports from the country. The union documented a tripling of Chinese tire imports from 2004 to 2008 that it said threatened thousands of jobs at U.S. tire factories. No U.S. tiremakers backed the complaint. Most major U.S. tiremarkers manufacture tires in China.
The ITC ruled in the union’s favor. Then Obama had to decide whether to accept the decision, and if so to what degree. He issued his decision five days before a Sept. 17 deadline, and one night after commencing a hard push to get health care reform approved in Congress.
United Steelworkers President Leo Gerard said in a statement that the decision “means China and other countries can no longer assume they can engage in predatory trade practices with impunity.” On Sept. 9, Gerard had told reporters in a Washington news conference that he expected tough sanctions by Obama. Here is a clip from the news conference.
In a statement, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama “decided to remedy the clear disruption to the U.S. tire industry based on the facts and the law in this case.” Separately, U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk said, “This Administration is doing what is necessary to enforce trade agreements on behalf of American workers and manufacturers. Enforcing trade laws is key to maintaining an open and free trading system.”
The decision was cheered by key congressional Democrats. Rep. Sander Levin, chairman of the House Trade Subcommittee, said, “This remedy is consistent with WTO rules governing China’s membership, and President Obama is making good on his commitment to pursue a new trade policy that puts Americans workers, farmers and businesses first.” Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus said, “Strong trade enforcement must be the cornerstone of U.S. international trade policy.”
But David Spooner, a lawyer with Squire, Sanders & Dempsey who represents trade associations of China’s tire producers, said in a statement, "These tariffs are unwarranted. It's troubling that the Administration would invoke an import surge safeguard over the objections U.S. industry and in response to falling imports. Not a single U.S. tire company supports’ the tariffs."
You still haven't answered my questions from earlier in this thread mac.
Why is that? Why will you not answer my questions mac? Why?
But, getting back to your original post ... what does the Steelworkers Union have to do with tires? Why is the Administration taking this action against the wishes of every tire company in the US? (Not 1 single tire company asked for this "protection")
The US very well have placd these tarrifs illegally, in violation of existing trade agreements and rules.
By the way ... how has China responded to US tarrifs? Oh, that's right .... with tarrifs of their own on US produced goods. Chicken and auto parts are a couple of the items that China now paces a tarrif on. Wonder if that might hurt say ..... GM .... when they build cars in China with parts made in the US?
This stuff is all in the hands of the World Trade Organiation now.
GENEVA (AP) -- The World Trade Organization will launch an investigation into American import taxes on Chinese tires at a meeting of trade diplomats next week, according to a statement Monday.
Further in the article .....
The WTO included China's complaint in an agenda published for a meeting on Jan. 19 of its dispute body. Washington delayed Beijing's request last month for the establishment of an investigative panel, but cannot do so again under WTO rules.
The panel will be asked to evaluate whether the U.S. tariffs violate rules governing trade among the WTO's 153 members. Trade cases often take years to resolve, but can result in the WTO authorizing retaliatory sanctions.
Obama ordered the higher tire tariffs for three years, including a 35 percent additional charge in the first year. It comes on top of a regular 4 percent tariff.
If The Obama administration was in the right ... why delay the investigation.
Of course, this guy will be long gone from office when the consequences hit.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
While there may be some sentiment for citizens of the US to buy Company A's Widget ..... the rest of the world probably will not pay more for it.
The mistake there would be producing the same widget for the US and the rest of the world. In my travels there have been many countries that sell items so shoddy I have purchased my 'souvenirs' back in the States. In many markets we shouldn't be competing at the same price point because most likely we are selling better stuff. Yes, I know that doesn't hold up from domestic experience, here we always say the foreign stuff is better made...and it may be because of our rules. Gifts from my last trip to Cebu and China resulted in 3 good quality shirts from the Tokyo airport, 2 toys from the local ToysRUs and dinner out for my wife. I saw nothing in 3 weeks overseas I felt safe or good giving to my children...
YTown...we are already there. and we don't tariff. Think Japan and the automobile market. They basically slapped so many traiffs and quality standard checks (1000x higher than their own cars) that they basically made it too expensive to own an american made car in that country. That's just one aexample. We have been in a MASSIVE trade deficit for DECADES.
But we do have a trump card. And why we haven't played it, I don't know. We are the biggest market ANYWHERE, for everyone. WE buy just about EVERYTHING from EVERYONE. And it's about high time we take that power and start turning it in our favor. And not in ways where we procure loans from China to cover our debts.
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
To add tarriffs on them are going to hurt them far more than tariffs on us in the long run as we are the largest consumer in the World.....So I say draw that line in the sand...you want to play hardball??? Let's go...
Who is going to buy their products?
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
But we are not the biggest comsumer of some items anymore.
Cars, for example ..... China is a larger market than the US. GM hasthe largest foreign auto maker share in China.
China's market is still expanding. Ours has reached saturation. We are approaching the point where being in their market is more advantageous than them being in ours.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Quote: But we are not the biggest comsumer of some items anymore.
Cars, for example ..... China is a larger market than the US. GM hasthe largest foreign auto maker share in China.
China's market is still expanding. Ours has reached saturation. We are approaching the point where being in their market is more advantageous than them being in ours.
And as our manufacturing goes away even more and more we will not be the largest consumer in many other raw materials also. Further weakening our spot in the global market.
Right now the US is the largest consumer in the world as far a retail items,or things people use. Food,clothes,electronics. If there are no jobs because everything is made in China then that will change also.
Its all a downward spiral created by greed.
King
You may be in the drivers seat but God is holding the map. #GMSTRONG
Quote: But we are not the biggest comsumer of some items anymore.
and why is that? what you should be asking yourself is why were we?
We were because we had good paying jobs, and a decent standard of living...we could afford to buy stuff...
I saw a chart the other day about auto sales....sales in china are more right now...but they didn't go up as much as American sales went down...
And why is that? Because nobody can make a living anymore.
We could close the borders tomorrow, and this country would flourish...there would be some hurdles for sure, and some prices would go up...there would even be things that weren't available for a time, but we would survive.
If we have to trade, then it should be fair, or forget it. We hold the power, not them.
How come Americans aren't making TV's? Radios? If those TV's were suddenly twice as expensive what would happen? You would have companies shipping there factory's back here....new businesses would spring up...construction....less workers unemployed....then it would happen again, and again...competition would bring prices back down....competition between American companies...American workers.....
Not competition between some country with a fraction of our minimum wage laws, with no epa restrictions....we need a level playing field.....and we have one right here in this country. Its time to worry about ourselves....
How come Americans aren't making TV's? Radios? If those TV's were suddenly twice as expensive what would happen? You would have companies shipping there factory's back here....new businesses would spring up...construction....less workers unemployed....then it would happen again, and again...competition would bring prices back down....competition between American companies...American workers.....
So you're advocating a complete end to trade? Do you know what that would do the economy?
"When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God." Leviticus 19:33-34
Why is something so simple so hard for our leaders to comprehend?
I don't know.. if you reduce the income of americans or reduce the number of americans making a living wage, you limit the buying power of americans as a whole..
Why that's hard to grasp, I don't know..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
if you look back at the history of this country, it was heavy tariffs from the start.....and this country flourished....we had competition within the states.....with other American companies...
what is going on is not free trade...we were the kings...either other countries had to come up to our level, or we would have to go down.....guess which way we are headed? fair trade...fine....not the crap we have now...
when japan wanted to put a car building plant in this country, our companies should have been allowed to do the same in japan...but that didn't happen....they protected there companies, we left ours to die...
when china dumps cheap products here that are at below cost, and destroys our manufacturing, that should have been stopped....
patents being stolen, and products duplicated.....that should be stopped....
toys with lead...all the bs.....screw them....
huge influxes of illegals....
oh but we need them all ....cause stuff is so cheap...and i couldn't afford American made....bull...now its a catch 22....people think they need them because thats all they can afford...when the truth is they don't have jobs because of them....
if they had a better paying job then they could afford something better...
its all supply and demand, and friggin greed...
huge corporations, central banks, the stock market...we're all a victim of our own creation...
when nobody has jobs...it will all come crashing down....hyper-inflation, crime, and civil unrest will be result...
don't come crying to me when your making a buck and hour...
Quote: what does the Steelworkers Union have to do with tires?
YT...did you find the answer to your question above yet?
Quote: Why is the Administration taking this action against the wishes of every tire company in the US? (Not 1 single tire company asked for this "protection")
YTown..this explains the situation and answers your question...
President Obama's Upcoming "Section 421 Tire Case" Trade Enforcement Decision
When China was accepted into the World Trade Organization, they agreed that if we experienced import surges of Chinese goods that caused "market disruption," we would be allowed to limit the import of those goods. The particular section of the agreement is called "Section 421."
When the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) determines that the level of imports from China cause or threaten to cause market disruption to American producers of competitive products, it proposes a remedy that can include quotas or other relief. The President of the United States then makes a decision whether to enforce that recommendation.
President Bush repeatedly (seven times) refused to enforce Section 421 even when our own ITC found that American companies, factories and jobs were being lost. Bush claimed at the time that the destructive effects of dramatic, sudden increases in Chinese imports that Section 421 was meant to mitigate were actually good for the U.S. economy. Bush's policy was the opposite of "protectionism" -- it actually favored China's companies over our own! (I think we've seen how that has worked out.)
Very soon we will have an opportunity to see where President Obama comes down on this issue. The ITC has decided by a 4-2 vote that the U.S. tire industry has been harmed by a large increase in imports. They have recommended increasing tariffs starting at 55%, falling to 35% over three years. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative now has to give its recommendation on this to the White House by Sept. 2.
President Obama has until Sept. 17 to make a decision. This is just one week before the upcoming G-20 summit in Pittsburgh. There is considerable pressure on him to to signal that the US will restore trade balance and help manufacturing in America, by following the rules of the WTO that China agreed to.
According to the United Steel Workers, which represents workers in the tire industry, thousands of jobs are being lost and tire plans in the US are shutting down. Also at this page is a chart from the ITC showing that the benefits of enforcing remedies "are two-and-a-half times greater than the costs" to consumers.
Mike Elk wrote the other day at the Campaign for America's Future blog,
President Obama stands at a crossroads in the fight to rebuild the American economy. President Obama has made a commitment in the past to uphold previously signed trade agreements. China, however, is violating these agreements by flooding the market with a massive 300 percent increase in tire imports in an attempt to wipe out American tire manufacturers. In 2004, China sent 14 million tires to the U.S. valued at $453 million. By last year, that had increased to 46 million tires valued at $1.7 billion.
Mike also points out,
Chinese importers, in conjunction with the Chinese Chamber of Commerce, have ironically formed a lobbying front group ironically named American Coalition for Free Trade in Tires. The coalition is run by Jochum, Shore & Trossevin, a Washington D.C. lobby firm run by former Bush trade officials who are cashing in on their years of U.S. government service to advise foreign competitors. Jim Wansley, former USW Goodyear local president, testified about the impact of the closing of the Goodyear plant in Tyler, Texas where he had worked for 39 1/2 years:
The closure put hundreds of workers, many of whom had given decades of service to the plant, out of work. The closure was devastating to the workers and their families, but it is also being felt throughout the community of Tyler, Texas. Tyler has a population of about 100,000. Like many small and medium-sized towns that depend on manufacturing for middle class jobs, the loss of these jobs has taken its toll. The Goodyear plant directly benefitted the local economy by supporting local small businesses who served as its suppliers and service providers. The plant also provided enormous indirect benefits. Jobs at the plant paid good wages and benefits, enabling workers to lead decent middle class lives, buy homes, send their kids to college, and save for retirement. These are the kind of jobs that support an entire community as families pay their doctor bills, buy new cars, and contribute to local charities. The plant and its workers were also an important source of tax revenue for the city, the county, and the state.
. . . The victims will not only be the workers and their families, but the suppliers, service providers, local businesses, and entire communities that depend on the industry. In sum, there is an enormous cost to doing nothing. If more plants like Tyler close, we can expect to suffer total additional losses of almost a billion dollars per plant, per year.
On the other hand, The Washington Post points out,
If Obama backs the tariff, he risks upsetting the Chinese at a time when the United States needs China to keep buying U.S. government debt to fund stimulus efforts. This is not just an intellectual discussion. This, like all trade issues, is about American workers losing their livelihoods and communities losing their economic base. At the same time the policies of the Bush administration -- borrowing trillions of dollars from them while allowing our manufacturing base to deteriorate -- have placed China in a very strong position of economic advantage which gives them the power to demand concessions.
For more information: (Note..if you click on the link at the top of this story, you will be able access the links below, for more information)
USW fact sheets, background, other info related to tire trade case against China
Statements by Senators, other lawmakers supportive of USW unfair trade case claim against Chinese tires
More Members of Congress, Senate praise ITC ruling in tire trade case
A post at TradeReform.org: Trade Community Awaits President's Decision on China Tire Safeguard
Testimony of Senator Sherrod Brown before the U.S. ITC on the tire issue.
Gilbert B. Kaplan, Former Deputy Assistant and Acting Assistant Secretary of the U. S. Department of Commerce, writing at Huffington Post on this and other trade issues with China.
ManufactureThis.org: Making the Case for Relief from Chinese Tire Imports
One group in opposition to this ruling is American tire distributors, who benefit from the low prices of Chinese imports. (Note this is published by the Chinese Xinhua News Agency.) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
YT...Why didn't the tire companies to support a claim filed on behalf of American tire workers, with International Trade Commission?
Could it be that each of the major tire companies in the USA have invested in factories in China, with the hopes of selling their cheap Chinese made tires back in the USA?
I'm sure all the tire companies were hoping that Obama would continue to operate as Bush did, in the seven previous cases filed with the ITC, that the American workers won...BUT BUSH DECIDED NOT TO UPHOLD.
As I said, the USA has what every country in the world wants...a market to consume their goods...but not at the cost of American jobs.
This country sure could use those 3 million manufacturing jobs that Bush lost while he was in office.
Part of it is reasons you have brought up ... but part of it is also pure and simple market saturation.
We have 300 million people .... give or take a few hundred thousand .... living in this country. For the most part,we have multiple TVs ..... a refrigerator .. washing macine ... automoble .... and so on.
Our first $X are not going to buy these things. For many of us. we already have them.
Futher, we can go buy used in a lot of cases. If we do not want to spend the money on a new car .... refrigerator ..... washer ..... etc, we can go buy a used one, because there are thousands upon thouands of them floating around.
We have a huge market .... but it's saturated, and more people buy because they want something rather than need it.
We have an average annual income somewhere around $100,000.
Now look at China. Their population is more than 3 times ours. (Over 1 billion people) Most of their people do not have cars. They do not have aooliances. They do not have TVs and personal computers,. (or if they do, they are likely horribly out of date) They have a huge untapped market of people who not only want things .... they actually need them.
Much bigger market .... need vs. want ..... and rapidly (though still way below the average for developed countries) rising income all make China a much more attractive market than the US in many respects.
As far as why we don;t manufacture TV, shoes, clothes, etc .... well ... it's really quite simple. Tey became less expensive to manufacture elsewhere .... and US consumers went for the less expensive route. We can complain about how that impacted jobs and manufacturing jobs in this country .... but the bottom line is that businesses have to compete locally and globally .... in our market, and often in foreign markets .... or they go out of business.
A business like GM cannot sustain itself just on its US operations alone. It wou,d hurt GM far more to lose China as a market thn to lose the US. GM no longer manufactures close to everything in this country. Gm will sell more than 2 million vehicles in China this year. In 2008, it was 200,000 vehicles sold. That's a dramatic increase, and one that GM cannot ignore if they are to survive.
In a strange quirk of fate ... GM is one of the biggest investors in China (if not the largest foreign investor) and is now owned by the US government and the UAW in a weird partnership ..... so the US government and the UAW are now jointly one of the largest investors in the Chineese economy .......
Quote: If we have to trade, then it should be fair, or forget it. We hold the power, not them.
The problem is that we do not hold the power ..... and we have not for the better part of the past decade. (or even longer) As foreign economies develop ..... their denand for product increases. The US is a largely saturated market .... so if we go putting the hammer on foreign imports, and the other countries do the same in turn, it is ultimately the US who is hurt more.
Right now, the US is paying the price for the rest of the world's development. When manufacturing and developed economies were the perue America and a very few European countries ..... and those countries had active demand for product .... then America had the power. We manufactired to an almost captive marketplace. Of course, this also led to the Great Depression when easy credit and over-saturation ceated massive overstocks of inventory and unemployment ...... and history often does repeat itself.
Getting back to the post depression/post WWII era ..... we went whole hog manufacturing because people had money ... wanted things .. and we were the only country at the time with manufacturing capacity left largely undamaged. We held a monopoly on a great many areas ... and we proceeded as though that would last forever. However, Europe recovered .... Japan recovered (Man did they ever recover) and we lost some manufacturing capacity and jobs because we lost our "unnatural" monopoly. The more capable the rest of the world become ..... the more developed the rest of the world becomes .... the less monopolies we enjoyed. NO longer could we say to the rest of the world .... if you want "Product X", you have to buy it from us because we are the only ones capable of manufacturing it". Other countris begam to slowly build manufacturing capacity. This, theoretically, shold create a more peaceful overall world, because as one peoples' wellbeing and economy are tied into everyone else's, wars and such not unly become undesirable, but economically disasterous.
Anyway .... I've rambled enough here. To sum up .... it really isn't as simple as "fair" in that US manufacturers need access to developing economies as much or more than foreign manufacturers need access to us. We can talk about manufacturing lost based upon sales figures ... but if TVs hadn't dropped to $200 ... very few people would own 4 or 5 of them. A TV in every room is the result of cheap prices and want, not need.The US economy is based on want. Developoing countries' are based on need. An enormous economy with billions of consumers who need products, and rising wages (even when they are well below the wages of people in developed economies) make China and similar developing economies essential to the survival of US manufacturers, even if it means jobs are lost.
It is unfortunate, but true.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
OK mac ... 1 questions down and a dozen to go. (and with yet another Huffington post to boot) Do you live on that website .. or is that the only site that delivers the google responses you want?
Quote: This country sure could use those 3 million manufacturing jobs that Bush lost while he was in office.
And if we're playing "gotcha", we could sure use the 4 million jobs lost since Obama took office.
I have explained my reasons and opinions regarding manufacturing ..... and you are welcome to respond to them ,..... with your own actual arguments and not some left wing opinion piece. Of course, I doubt that you are capable of doing so .... so I'll expect another Huffington piece as a response. *sigh*
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
Quote: I don't really think that total economic isolationism is the way to go here.. but that's just me.
Total economic isolationism,,, No, I don't believe that's the answer. but at some point, common sense should take over. If we keep shipping manufacturing and service work out of the country, we really are killing the middle class.
I wish I had the answer.. I don't. way way over my head that's for dang sure.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
Quote: This country sure could use those 3 million manufacturing jobs that Bush lost while he was in office.
i see you are back to your "the US economy started in 2000" line of thinking again. Forget that Clinton lost over half a million manufacturing jobs in his second term? Lost almost all of them in his final year.. why? Because the economy was headed in that direction.. Bush might have sucked at stopping it, but he didn't start it.
I guess it didn't matter though because the economy under Clinton was replacing the manufacturing jobs with seriously inflated "IT" jobs that were grossly overpaid and unsustainable..
I understand what you are saying about other countries consumers not having what we have, but i don't believe that the market is saturated....or else why are they shipping huge amounts of products to be sold here?
why not just save the boat ride and sell them to that huge market over there?
the biggest thing imo was the value of the dollar....foreigners could afford our stuff....so in a sense, those markets didn't work too well for US companies...
sure there are untapped buyers everywhere, but to say a company won't survive is not right...companies survive by turning out good products....then people want them
where do you get that income number from? that seems kinda high....irregardless, if thats correct, then thats another reason why products are heading to our shores....we've got disposable income....
whats the average income in china? gonna say a buck an hour x 2080 hours....(actually i'm gonna be an evil business owner ) and work the workers twice as hard and let em have $4160 per year....what the heck are they going to buy when its made by an American company with workers making a fair wage? And i'm not even factoring in that the stupid chinese got their currency pegged low. so our stuff just got more expensive.
as far as the rest of china...who cares....our cars cost over 20 years of earnings for most of them....its like a friggin house payment...sure there are those that can afford it, but i'll bet the vast majority are living in poverty....and can't afford crap.
Quote: As far as why we don;t manufacture TV, shoes, clothes, etc .... well ... it's really quite simple. Tey became less expensive to manufacture elsewhere .... and US consumers went for the less expensive route. We can complain about how that impacted jobs and manufacturing jobs in this country .... but the bottom line is that businesses have to compete locally and globally .... in our market, and often in foreign markets .... or they go out of business.
i get the cheaper part....but why? for profit, and profit only...sure they can sell the cheaper tv's to foreigners....i get that part of the picture....but at what cost?
mostly we are talking about big corporations....ford and gm were doing fine for years....competition is great, but not when its aimed at destroying American jobs...
I blame the stock market for this....gotta show the expected profit and gains....geez dell only made 20 million this quarter and we were guessing they were gonna do 21 million....sell...sell.... (and no i have no clue what dell makes nor do i care )
we don't have to sell globally....companies just want to....and for that to happen American wages had to go...
i understand your point about the power....we did bomb the heck out of alot of stuff i still maintain that our dollar made it virtually impossible for others to afford our stuff...
I do think that we have some power, as we are the ones doing the buying....they need us too....
another big problem is china buying our debt....now that i think about it, your probably more right then me on that issue....
i still don't like it...the end result is for this all to work out, its all going to have to balance out.....that means a total destruction of our wages...for Americans to be able to compete....and i just don't see it happening even then, because these other countries just don't have the rules we have....epa and such.....
these were hard fought things that made us the best country around....now we can't compete because we "have" to be global....corporations want to be global....most of the country just wants to earn a fair living...
Quote: And if we're playing "gotcha", we could sure use the 4 million jobs lost since Obama took office.
yt...lol..who lost those jobs...the jobs you want Obama to take credit for?
Nice try, but you damn well know the economy tanked on Bush's watch as he exited and the cause was bush's 8 yrs trickle down economic GOP policy that did not work...yet again.
Wall St. needed bailed out and the American people wondered if we had another stock market crash on our hands and closed their wallets, businesses of all kinds slowed...that GOP "trickle down" effect lead to the US laying off workers by the thousands long after the cause, which happened on Bush's watch in the fall of 2008.
One of the reasons Obama's stimulus plan had to be so large was, at that time, no one knew just how bad the economy was going to get since we were in the early stages of the recession/possible depression. Some experts actually thought Obama's stim plan was not large enough.
Think about this...according to your GOP sources...Bush's right hand man on economic issues...had Obama not bailed out GM and Chrysler, 25 million Americans would have lost their jobs...again, your GOP source that you want to ignore.
So, while ditto heads like to credit Obama for all the job layoffs, those who know truth from friction know those jobs were lost the day Bush announced that Wall St. had to be bailed out...the layoff had not occurred yet but they were on the way.
BTW...how do you like Bush's record for upholding our trade laws...0 for 7 on action taken to help American workers who prevailed in their ITC cases.
Had Obama not supported the Americans who make tires, when they prevailed in their ITC complaint against China for dumping cheap tires in the USA, how many more thousands of Ohio workers would be out of jobs today?
Youngstown...they make tires in your area of Ohio...do you have any friends or relatives who could have lost their jobs, had Obama not stopped China from devastating yet another Ohio manufacturing industry?
Why did Bush side with companies and against workers, 7 times, when the workers won their cases before ITC?
Tell everyone what a good job the GOP does for working class people here in Ohio.
Why does the GOP hate working class folks in Ohio?
See mac, this is why nobody takes you seriously...
Quote: Nice try, but you damn well know the economy tanked on Bush's watch as he exited and the cause was bush's 8 yrs trickle down economic GOP policy that did not work...yet again.
You say stuff like this with a straight face but you refuse to acknowledge the fact that as Bush was taking office the economy was also tanking, the NASDAQ was in deep trouble, we had lost almost half a million manufacturing jobs in Clintons last year, the tech boom was over... a lot of the foundation for the housing boom/bust was put in place by Clinton... then shortly after he took office, 9/11. A few years after that, Katrina..
See you want to offer up all kinds of Bush blaming excuses for your boy Obama but Bush gets no such latitude with you.. and that's why nobody takes you seriously...
