fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2069 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2069 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

[The City of Dreaming Books]

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

[Teen Girl Squad]

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

[Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind]

__________________________________________________

14.

[Avengers]

__________________________________________________

15.

__________________________________________________

16.

[The Monkees]

__________________________________________________

17.

__________________________________________________

18.

__________________________________________________

Notes:

Important: I'm really sorry about this, but I accidentally clicked the wrong thing and deleted the submission post from last week instead of saving it. Managed to save the first page (25) of secrets, but the rest (a bit over 100) are gone.

If you submitted something last week (Aug 26-Sept 1), please resubmit it here and it will still go up this week.

The submissions post for next week is linked below as usual.

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 000 secrets from Secret Submission Post #296.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I’m not from the US, nor am I an Economics professor. Still, after hearing all the hoo-haa about the election on the internet, I need to ask: since firms are constantly on the lookout for cheaper labour and production costs, doesn’t that mean that, no matter what, America still wouldn’t solve its job problems because of its expensive labour and production costs? And also, does everyone really think voting for this-or-that politician can change the global economy?

I’m really curious about this.

I can't speak to the first question, but for the second, no. I think it's funny in a very sad way when people over here blame Obama for high gas prices, like he's actually in control of the global oil industry.

disclaimer: i don't have any formal training in these subjects

1. if the us can offer more incentives (tax breaks, etc) to keep jobs domestic, it might be possible to shift some jobs back to the us. this might not affect menial labor like manufacturing (minimum wage is far above the amount that chinese workers get paid and giant corporations are unlikely to start investing in american factories to produce cheap goods) but when it comes to outsourcing jobs in things like computer tech or engineering, you might see an increased effort to hire locally. also "job problem" is a pretty broad brush--i don't think it's just a lack of job openings; maybe it also entails a geographic mismatch between talent and position, etc. america really enjoys its capitalism which is why the economics (hell, even the politics) here probably seem business-centric. but policies can be changed and the government can take a bigger or smaller role in regulating trade as the time sees fit. neither the problem nor the solution are simple.

2. i'm afraid i haven't taken a close look at either of the platforms for this election but viewpoints on economics generally take a domestic tone (like tax cuts, etc)? so in that sense, no not really. but depending on whether or not the domestic policies are successful in garnering growth vs. recession, the federal budget can change. the us gives a pretty significant amount of aid to third world countries and i'm pretty sure also loans money to other countries. but looking beyond the direct policies of the government, in today's day and age it might be more prudent to consider the policies of multinational corporations. if any of them are based in the us--which a lot of them are--you might see domestic policies taking effect overseas via changes in company tactics.

wow long post is long.

Edited 2012-09-02 01:57 (UTC)

I like your first remark about incentivizing (I would add, punishing, in the opposite way) jobs to stay in/return to the US. As for paying more expensive domestic labor for manufacturing, read my comment below. But credits for keeping/returning/creating more jobs here should be better.

On a personal note OP, I am really sick of this "job creators" bullshit one party is trying to substitute as code for "wealthy people." If you want to be called a job creator, you ought to be forced to show a net-positive creation of jobs year over year, of a certain number or percentage, or in some cases, at least a maintenance of a certain number of existing jobs. Hoarding a pile like Scrooge McDuck does not make you a job creator.

If that were true, every developed nation in the world would have the same problems as the US.

As for politicians, I think that the US's politics are far too convoluted for one man or woman to ever make any significant difference. It's one of the ways that individualism has shot them in the foot. Repeatedly.

The government can offer tax breaks and other incentives to encourage companies to bring jobs back, so there *is* a way they can try to impact it - but if it will work or not depends on a variety of things, including some that aren't in the US' control.

As for the politician...if you're strictly speaking about the global economy...eh...maybe, but that's not the issue most people vote by so I'm not sure how much people actually *believe* that. A lot of what's voted by is domestic issues [Gay rights, or abortion, for example] and for what that person's stance is on things like the Iraq war.

One problem that gets overlooked a LOT is a basic of economics: Money cycles. Sure, union labor is more expensive, as are safer production practices, but with the second there are fewer injuries and deaths (lawsuits); and as for the first - if the unwashed masses don't have a disposable income, how are they supposed to buy goods and services ... which puts their paychecks back into becoming business income ... which goes back into being company profit and paying employees making those items? Obviously not everybody can be paid like the head of Ford, but it's ridiculousness to think a country full of people making $8.50 or less an hour is ever going to be able to afford to spend enough to keep an economy afloat.

This also applies to people complaining how expensive education is. History has shown SO MANY TIMES how much more expensive and detrimental an uneducated populace is on the overall economy.

[ SECRET POST #2069 ]

Curious question: Economics… and Politics.

Re: Curious question: Economics… and Politics.

Re: Curious question: Economics… and Politics.

Re: Curious question: Economics… and Politics.

Re: Curious question: Economics… and Politics.

Re: Curious question: Economics… and Politics.

Re: Curious question: Economics… and Politics.