Since 2000, corporations have shipped more than 525,000 white-collar overseas, and three million manufacturing jobs.
2007-10-20 05:38:41 · 12 answers · asked by Zardoz 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
http://www.aflcio.org/issues/jobseconomy/exportingamerica/index.cfm
2007-10-20 05:39:34 · update #1
I do not agree that exporting American jobs is good for the economy. My family was directly affected as my husbands job was shipped out of this country so some Republicans would have you think that I just have a case of sour grapes and so forth. Democrats want us to believe that they don't support exporting jobs but on the other hand they willingly accept campaign donations from these corporations.
When trade agreements are fair it can be a good thing for the economy. Back room agreements with poor language can do nothing but hurt our economy in my opinion.
I have to wonder what these corporations will do when the cheap labor in these countries decide to revolt for better wages and benefits. Karma can be a good thing.
2007-10-20 05:58:09 · answer #1 · answered by Cleo 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Republican occasion is many times far greater useful in that regard than are the Democrats....however the Republican occasion has a great many neo-cons interior of their ranks that spend a ways too plenty, have loony suggestions as to increasing infringements on guy or woman liberty, and desire continual wars that have not have been given any earnings to the U. S. (the comparable issues the Democrats lay on us). i'm involved by Republicans that desire to diminish spending extensively, do no longer seek for to shrink guy or woman liberty, are no longer involved in pushing forth law to guard corrupt company practices, and are not involved in construction and holding an American empire international.
2016-10-13 08:09:36 · answer #2 · answered by dotel 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The theory is that totally uninhibited trade is beneficial for everyone and it has been somewhat proven in the past. However, with such severe discrepancies in the global economy, the outcome is really very uncertain, especially for those workers in the USA who have the skills to do those jobs, but not the education to pursue something else.
2007-10-20 05:45:10 · answer #3 · answered by You are all, weirdos. 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Umm, it was President Clinton that signed NAFTA. To answer your question. No! But I think this is a non-partisan issue, it the guys that own the companies that are doing it. Don't try to lie to me and tell me that no democrats are business owners. Like John Kerry and his wife owning Heinz.
2007-10-20 05:43:41 · answer #4 · answered by tugar357 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
See...this is the question that makes blue-collar Republicans stutter and wealthy Republicans squirm and hope the blue-collars get distracted by something shiny before they can begin to really think about it.
2007-10-20 05:41:58 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
It is good for the corporations, because they don't have to pay benifits. They can also pay low wages to these workers.
But it is not good for Americans.
2007-10-20 06:17:45 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Only a stubborn fool believes this is good for our economy and our country.
2007-10-20 06:02:11 · answer #7 · answered by BOOM 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's NOT good for the economy, and I doubt that all republicans say it is.
2007-10-20 05:43:33 · answer #8 · answered by Sarah S 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
More of less is better...or is less better for more who need less...they surly only want the best for all of us...right?
2007-10-20 05:46:28 · answer #9 · answered by edubya 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
its like a have you stopped beating your wife yet question....i agree that stopping union thugs from holding american business hostage for unfair wages is good for the economy. if it takes export to get through their thick heads...so be it.
2007-10-20 05:43:37 · answer #10 · answered by koalatcomics 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋