Pretty sobering when Bernie rattles off the issues and includes the fact that the national debt is 4 trillion. It has since more than quadrupled to 18 trillion and rising. Bernie was right, and so was Ross Perot, and every other person in the past that screamed about the effects of shipping all our jobs to foreign countries. I still don't think the full effect of that has been felt. Also, I can't figure out if the guy in the background smirking finds Bernie amusing or if he is glad Greenspan is getting grilled.
^^Yeah Ross Perot was right about so much yet was written off as a "loose cannon" and for having "large ears". Very sad.
Bernie seemed so vigorous back then. That Bernie would have struck fear into all the candidates he's facing today. It would be great to hear him lash out like this against Trump. The stage might catch fire with the ensuing exchanges.
He's still as energetic, it's just that he really has that old man voice now. I really think that takes away some of his appeal. It's not brought up much right now but I really think his age could be a factor if he makes it to the general. 8 years is a long time for a 74-year-old that already sounds pretty old.
He wasn't really right, though. Why does it matter how many people work specifically in manufacturing? And attacking Greenspan for being a right-winger on fiscal policy (which he has no control over) or other laws seems pointless in that setting. Seems like a lot of grandstanding.
Yeah he looked stronger. Too bad he didn't/couldn't run sooner, although I don't think his push would have worked 10 years ago. The internet was a lot less popular back then, people just watched TV and didn't really fact-check what was being said.
It matters because the labor movement was centered around manufacturing, which is why those jobs paid good wages with good benefits. Do you think a service sector job at Wal-mart, or Starbucks, is equivalent to the jobs we lost at Delphi when it was outsourced?
The loss of manufacturing employment was inevitable as the economy advanced (just as the earlier loss of farming employment was), and the weakening of labor was largely related to politics. And Greenspan, of course, had nothing to do with that anyway.
Jack the only reason the jobs didn't leave much sooner was trade tariffs. I find the idea that trade tariffs being removed was inevitable to be laughable. It was a decision that was made, it was not the sun rising.
Manufacturing employment declining as a share of total employment was certainly inevitable and ultimately a good thing for the U.S. economy. Labor weakening and displacement were bad things, but they should be dealt with through other policy means.
You just restated your position jack. In 1955, did the US have higher wages, regulation, and taxes then? Was it not profitable to move out of country to a cheaper labor market in 1955? Why wasn't it done then Jack, because I far as I can tell, the only thing that prevented it was trade tariffs. The union made clothes from the 1970's could have been made in cheaper labor markets, they weren't because of trade tariffs.
I don't think data on wages goes back that far, but it's up a lot since 1967, which is the earliest I can find. Federal revenue was 16.1% of GDP in 1955 and 18.3% in 2015. Don't know how to measure regulation. Probably not, considering the logistical challenges and the lack of a place to effectively move out to. Anyway, the U.S. economy has obviously evolved (improved) a lot since 1955. One of the effects of that evolution is a shift away from manufacturing.
Jack, you need numbers to know that wages were higher in the US, than in Singapore in 1955? I would think having the largest middle class the world has ever seen would be evidence of this. Jack, there is no logistical challenges to moving textile work overseas. It was already done all over the world. Clothes have been made by looms, since Jesus Christ supposedly walked the earth.
You asked whether the U.S. had higher wages in 1955 than it does now, no? That's how I interpreted the question, anyway. The answer is that real wages are almost certainly much higher now than they were in 1955. Sure there have been challenges. You need a reasonable level of development for it to be viable. And generally, other than the fact that historically, manufacturing jobs have had a stronger union presence (and that's not some law of nature), I haven't seen any explanation for why we want that sector specifically to employ more people.
Ah, I see. We misunderstood each other. My question was whether wages, taxes, and regulation(The things that create the profit motive to outsource) in 1955 overseas, was less than in America in 1955. This is where we agree Jack, there is nothing stopping a labor movement from turning our service sector jobs, into middle class jobs. Where we may disagree, is on whether it is wise to completely abandon a battle field, that people literally fought and died for in turning manufacturing into good middle class jobs, to fight a new fight in the service sector. I would prefer those who support labor, and labor itself, could walk and chew gum at the same time.
