31–40 of 86 posts
Out of curiosity, is it a common practice to require foreign companies opening American branches to have a "predominantly American management corps"? I always assumed that multi-national companies tend to send executives from their headquarters for strategic decision making, and only hire local managers for execution.
I am glad that in some countries there is still an ethos of standing up for your own citizens. I couldn't imagine any action being taken against a Chinese company for discriminatory hiring practices in New Zealand or Australia, where such discrimination is rampant, not only in employment but also in real estate.
I dunno. Reading this article left a bad taste in my mouth. It wasn't the Chinese that turned a large portion of industrial America into a rusty meth-infused wasteland, yet it is the Chinese that are opening these factories. I applaud a desire to maintain safety standards, but if it wasn't for Fuyao, there wouldn't be anyone to unionize, you know?
It's somewhat surprising for the NYT to put forward the proposition that ethnocentrism and disregard for worker safety is a part of Chinese culture, but I guess I'll take their new wokeness as a sign of progress.
I think it's worth pointing out that this appears to be mainly Chinese culture from the mainland. Chinese from other areas like Hong Kong and Taiwan seem to be completely different. When I visited Taipei I was pleasantly surprised to see how polite these people were, they lined up in queues to board their subway!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Workers voted for Trump because he was the only candidate who offered to help them, regardless if he was lying. I wouldn't be amused; it's a canary in a coal mine (no pun intended).
This is also true. They were foolish to vote for the kind of person who left them jobless. They thought it wise to vote for the only person promising them something. The latter happened because they're too superficial: most districts vote out the honest, well-performing folks early. That superficial "he-said-she-said" stuff is what they need to stop doing the most.
What 'kind' of person are you referring to? I think you might be over-generalizing. Trump has long been opposed to outsourcing American jobs, reportedly.
In any case, we should differentiate between the actions of individual business owners, and the policy that establishes the playing field. For example, current US corporate tax policy creates a strong incentive for many businesses to keep their cash overseas, and not repatriate it and pay the tax. You can criticize each individual company that operates in this way, such as Apple, but if you want to fix the problem, you need to look to policy solutions like changing the tax law.
A person can be in favor of changing policy even while they optimize within the current policy framework. For example: a wealthy person might be in favor of a tax on the wealthy even as they personally employ all available techniques to reduce their tax burden; there is no contradiction. No rational citizen will pay higher tax than the code obligates.
Criticizing individuals who optimize their actions within the current policy framework isn't productive. We should expect everyone to operate according to the current policies, laws, and incentives -- and if we don't like those, then we should change them through the political process.
So even if you consider Trump as somehow in the same category as company owners who ship jobs overseas, the point that you shouldn't overlook Trump's stated policy objective to create jobs in the US and remove the incentives to ship them overseas.
I am glad that in some countries there is still an ethos of standing up for your own citizens. I couldn't imagine any action being taken against a Chinese company for discriminatory hiring practices in New Zealand or Australia, where such discrimination is rampant, not only in employment but also in real estate.
I dunno. Reading this article left a bad taste in my mouth. It wasn't the Chinese that turned a large portion of industrial America into a rusty meth-infused wasteland, yet it is the Chinese that are opening these factories. I applaud a desire to maintain safety standards, but if it wasn't for Fuyao, there wouldn't be anyone to unionize, you know?
Maybe the Chinese or perhaps anyone wouldn't have invested in the first place if they think they can not generate enough profits to sustain, so giving an easy pass for safety standards or any regulations would encourage this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is also true. They were foolish to vote for the kind of person who left them jobless. They thought it wise to vote for the only person promising them something. The latter happened because they're too superficial: most districts vote out the honest, well-performing folks early. That superficial "he-said-she-said" stuff is what they need to stop doing the most.
> They were foolish to vote for the kind of person who left them jobless. What 'kind' of person are you referring to? I think you might be over-generalizing. Trump has long been opposed to outsourcing American jobs, reportedly. In any case, we should differentiate between the actions of individual business owners, and the policy that establishes the playing field. For example, current US corporate tax policy creates…
How many employees does he have overseas? And how much does he depend on overseas goods when generating his wealth or power despite local ones available? I have a guess on one aspect given he spends a lot of time on Twitter using a smartphone that isn't 100% American despite he and others here having ability to fund one. Decent reasons, too, if we're talking espionage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is also true. They were foolish to vote for the kind of person who left them jobless. They thought it wise to vote for the only person promising them something. The latter happened because they're too superficial: most districts vote out the honest, well-performing folks early. That superficial "he-said-she-said" stuff is what they need to stop doing the most.
> They were foolish to vote for the kind of person who left them jobless. Clinton's policies would've left them just as jobless (by way of her supporting the TPP, finishing off those crippled by NAFTA, which was a project of Clinton's husband during his presidential stint). When in doubt, vote for the person who says they'll burn everything down, which appears to be on schedule.
"most districts vote out the honest, well-performing folks early."
Leave us to Trump or Hillary by the end of it. Russian roulette has better odds of success.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's worth pointing out that this appears to be mainly Chinese culture from the mainland. Chinese from other areas like Hong Kong and Taiwan seem to be completely different. When I visited Taipei I was pleasantly surprised to see how polite these people were, they lined up in queues to board their subway!
Taiwanese people love queueing. Queueing for the train, queueing waiting for the bus, and - of course - queueing around the block to wait to eat at a 'famous' restaurant (:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They were foolish to vote for the kind of person who left them jobless. Clinton's policies would've left them just as jobless (by way of her supporting the TPP, finishing off those crippled by NAFTA, which was a project of Clinton's husband during his presidential stint). When in doubt, vote for the person who says they'll burn everything down, which appears to be on schedule.
A great, Democrat example of: "most districts vote out the honest, well-performing folks early." Leave us to Trump or Hillary by the end of it. Russian roulette has better odds of success.
https://medium.com/theyoungturks/dnc-we-can-legally-choose-c...
We could have voluntarily decided that, ‘Look, we’re gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way,’” Bruce Spiva, lawyer for the DNC, said during a court hearing in Carol Wilding, et al. v. DNC Services Corp
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is also true. They were foolish to vote for the kind of person who left them jobless. They thought it wise to vote for the only person promising them something. The latter happened because they're too superficial: most districts vote out the honest, well-performing folks early. That superficial "he-said-she-said" stuff is what they need to stop doing the most.
> They were foolish to vote for the kind of person who left them jobless. Clinton's policies would've left them just as jobless (by way of her supporting the TPP, finishing off those crippled by NAFTA, which was a project of Clinton's husband during his presidential stint). When in doubt, vote for the person who says they'll burn everything down, which appears to be on schedule.
In terms of actual consequences NAFTA has had almost no effect on the US economy, either positive or negative: a 2003 CBO report found that it had increased the US's GDP by only a few billion dollars[1].
Different sides have presented job loss and gain in different industries over the last 20 years as evidence of enormous failure or success, but the reality is that the 20+ million growth in overall employment since NAFTA has probably been normal economic growth.
The real benefits of agreements like NAFTA for the US are geopolitical stability and economic dominance - Mexico is asymmetrically dependent upon us for trade, and that dependency has been central to their willingness to cooperate in border migration and drug policing efforts (which are arguably terrible uses of power, but are good examples of the influence brought by trade). The TPP presents (or presented) similar opportunities in Asia.
I don't reject the claim that people feel disenfranchised by trade agreements, or that the industrial-service shift has harmed millions of previously middle-class Americans. However, trade agreements can't be blamed for either of those: the first is a political talking point, and the second is unavoidable in a developed country with a chronic aversion to new job training and safety nets for workers.