The US has a trade deficit. What is that spike at 2001 fourth quarter all about?
Why is the balance for services different than the trade of goods?
You know this. It is some of the easiest understanding a person can draw on to oppose additional trade policies as huge as the GENERALIZED trade agreements opposed by unions across the Pacific and Atlantic? Are these agreements static in their number of members?
Balance of trade.
When trade increases in a country there is a shift in jobs and communities to their ability to take care of themselves. The trade in the USA caused a huge shift in the stability of jobs in the USA. The jobs went to cheaper labor outside the USA. In that lies the understanding when good paying jobs are lost to trade negotiations it effects all jobs left within the USA. The jobs remaining within the USA are faced with a glut of workers. There is no reason for good paying jobs to exist at all in the USA if there is a glut of available workers within the economy.
Large number of labor workers in the USA is a "? what word do I want to use ?"
Large numbers of labor workers in the USA are a push back against the power of a union. Why not simply end a contract with a union and venture into the available labor pools? So a glut of workers is a Wall Street dreamscape regardless of the country.
I always encourage a government that struggles to develop a Middle Class to invite established unions into their country to assist with upward movement. Unions are ambitious by nature and can change the way people view work and it's rewards. Unions also develop these new perspectives among the citizens so a country like the USA is not removing monies from the country's GDP. It is important. Citizens need services, such as health care and good homes to live in, etc. Unions do that within the population and not from without. Unions are very beneficial to a country's treasury, especially in emerging world countries.
I know, I know. Wall Street might even lean on governments to outlaw unions. That is a mistake. If every country had a Middle Class it would sincerely stabilize the global economy. It might be boarding for Day Traders, but, who should care about them?
But, as to a trade deficit.
Let's use percentages. If 100 percent of an available labor source is employed the economy is stable and might even lend itself to inflation because labor is so important to companies manufacturing. There might be jobs that remain unfilled and they are usually the low paying jobs. Who wants those? That is where immigration comes in. Immigration is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT discussion.
But, the very stable economy is static. A conservative government is brought into office for social reasons alone. As part of their agenda is opening up trade to other countries and agreements are signed. The population of the country sees it as a good thing. They believe trade is benevolent to the people and other countries in providing a moral content to a country's international identity. Such loyalties invite allies. The strength of a country to impact other countries in a benevolent responsibility is about sovereignty of both countries. That relationship is another discussion. Back to percentages.
So, the trade agreements 'open end' the impact on employment. Jobs are shipped overseas. The average person isn't really interested in how that impacts jobs or IF that impacts jobs at all; all they want to understand is a feel good feeling about the relationship between other countries.
The trade agreements in this idealized example costs the country 20 percent of it's jobs. The number of unemployed increases and the economy's cost to business drops. No taxes change, but, a CEO can now manipulate their HUMAN RESOURCES (depersonalized words to personnel) for greater profits and the CEO looks like a genius. The CEO receives enormous bonuses and all is good with Wall Street. Or, so they think. The Wall Street financial environment lives on hubris because it works. Hubris is a component to the instability of an economy. If hubris works to increase profits Wall Street will reward that paradigm like contributions to the political candidates that created this at one time elusive dreamscape. The elected officials don't care about the national debt because it is invisible and can be covered with loans from banks, etc.
Why did the national debt begin and/or go up? Because there is less income to the country's treasury. Twenty percent are facing unemployment. The twenty percent would be a rolling number because the shift doesn't happen like a virus. The shift is like a cancer.
What happens to the twenty percent unemployed? To begin they accept jobs that are still open and even growing because of the new trade relationships. BUT, the jobs they now have pay lower and aren't unionized. The vulnerabilities of the worker glut are exposed and the worker now has to earn their pay with growing responsibilities written into the job descriptions, so quality of life is sacrificed and job stability/security is gone, too.
After about a decade the DEFINITION of high wage changes. The shifting paradigm is never really exposed as a political failure. The shifting paradigm now is THE ONLY JOB a worker can find and the slide of quality of life is now a fact of life. The jobs in the economy are service jobs and dock workers and a college education is diminished. There are so many high school grads every June, Wall Street is as happy as a pig in s%&t. The contributions to political enablers continue to secure the high profits. The NEW economy is designed by Wall Street and states the immorality of the loss of quality of life is the responsibly of the government and not Wall Street.
Now, the lack of jobs is tapped for regulation changes and hence a toxic political environment (some would say a Third World environment) starts to dominant the political speak in the country. Now, regulations are viewed as toxic to job creation and the people expose their well being as well as their quality of life.
The draconian Wall Street and it's political candidates are more willing to say there are profound problems with BIG GOVERNMENT. Shrinking government will relieve tax burdens but at a cost. There is now increasing unemployment rates, the workers will now accept lower and lower wages as the employment glut continues.
The USA has suffered greatly for the development of other countries with a trade deficit that cannot be surmounted by the current government incumbency.
Any trade agreement has it's impacts on the USA populous. The impacts in the USA are directly related to well being of Americans. The quality of life as understood by previous generations has been bargained away in a very interesting Wall Street strategy. That is real. Our people suffer as Wall Street profits increase and the worker has now become a burden to businesses.
TRADITIONALLY good paying jobs can only be found in a smaller and smaller percentage of workers as mechanization takes place and unemployment continues to increase. The American worker is estranged from work, sometimes in large percentage. Wall Street in it's profit paradigm has completely justified it's immorality as CAPITALISM.
The loss of INTEGRITY of the Middle Class in the USA was never even recognized. The American people are convinced unions and regulations and big government is the next hurdle to finding relief to their impoverishment.
Then comes the "Right to Work" legislated agenda from ALEC. The country's economies continue to degrade and workers don't realize how important unionization is to maintain their QUALITY OF LIFE rather than HOPING for an economy of well being.
The reason there is a static jobs market in the 'trade economy' with the USA is because there are more imports than exports. The very imports in the USA have created jobs, but, they aren't the traditional well (not good) paying jobs that paid the national debt.
The USA trade deficit has caused impoverishment with poor wages and quality of life has been completely sacrificed. The politicians point to the gain in trade jobs. Sure, there is going to be a few more jobs in the trade economy, but, that won't return quality of life to the people. The pay rates are far too small to give the USA the uptick it needs to rid itself or even punch a hole in the national debt.
The reason the trade deficit has grown to such an enormous state is because there are no other quality goods manufactured in the USA. QUALITY GOODS are more expensive than cheaper foreign imports. There is more and more imports and the USA has less and less goods to trade so the balance of trade is way out of line.
When the trade deficit in the USA increases, more jobs are lost, the jobs now available pay far less, offer no benefits and cast families into poverty. Good conscience gives way in government (on occassion) to food stamps and other government subsidies. But, the glide path the USA is on under Republican demands for their cronies will ultimately destroy the USA. The USA has less monies in it's treasury with every Republican majority and the future of the USA become has become perilous.
I hope I added some clarity. I am never sure if I did or it is just because Wall Street has added more money to election coffers.
But, 2016 is seeing a return of direly needed advocacy for the American people, including the Undocumented. The American people are handling more and more of the USA economy at a local level. That is a good thing. It disperses Wall Street draconianism on a more diffuse basis.
No matter how the trade agreements are coined it effects the QUALITY OF LIFE of the American people. I don't know of any trade strategy that will result in stability of the USA economy or the integrity of it's people. Remember now, the reason other countries want to practice capitalism is because they believe capitalism paves the streets of the USA with gold. The streets in the USA are no longer gold and capitalism has become an enemy to even the USA military and it's costs and budget.
Oh, while I'm thinking about it, a complaint about the legitimacy of fees to unions and the right wing union busting laws should be litigated before the NLRB on a CASE BY CASE basis. It is far more equitable and benevolent to the employee and employer if the arguments are made on PARTICULARS of the fiduciary relationship.
Why are unions entitled to their fees? This is easy.
Let me get rid of the nonsense about unions.
What do unions do? They negotiate.
What do they negotiate?
Pay, fairness - grievance representation by member and possibly a lawyer - benefits - basically unions set the standard for upward movement, fairness in job advances, fairness in job practices, no that is not all of it, fairness and stability in job practices (unions set standards based in reality of expectations of human beings), safety in the work environment and it is the link between the human being working in employment and the employer.
I don't know of any organization more important in the free world than unions.
If there are widespread unions in Greece, they would working to help the companies stay in business and in turn the government to balance their budgets. That is the power of unions. It is more than additional monies in the paycheck.
The problem in Greece is the collapse of the global market in 2008. It ripped the Greece treasury out from underneath the people. If Greece can hold banks responsible for it's problems, of which one is sovereignty, it should sue them for continued assistance with national debt with supervision from the IMF. I think Greece is a study in civilization, sovereignty and the responsibility of the plutocrats. When Wall Street runs roughshod over a countries population and take all their money they should held responsible. Tell me that Wall Street isn't better off post 2008 than most countries on Earth. What was it Romney said, "The money didn't disappear in the global economic collapse; it goes somewhere." Indeed, it did.
Now, they do they deserve their fees? Why is the work statues of the Republicans dangerous to our democracy?
The unions deserve their fees. Their fees are not a burden. They make sure they are a burden. It costs real money to organize and maintain a union. Most unions have lawyers on consultation. Going into an executive meeting of a union, it is not unusual for a lawyer to be present to assist in the best way to deal with an employer. Grievances are real and a vital part of a union's advocacy.
So, do unions deserve their fees? Do they deserve fees from everyone employed in what is known as "a union shop?"
Unions EARN their fees. The increase in income of the employee due to the actions and expertise of the union provides for THE OPERATING EXPENSES and the continued practices of unions. The non-members in a union shop receive benefits from the union. The non-members receive pay and benefits from the contract. The contract applies to everyone and there are reasons why a union will include all employees. Unions don't want the idea floating around in a 'union shop' that they are coerced to join. Employees should exhibit free will and join for the best and moral reasons. Coercion is a real problem among people earning a living from WORK. As a matter of fact coercion is illegal.
Coercion is illegal in the actions taken by a person within a 'union shop.' The only way a union can help with a member's behavior in employment is to remove the reasons they would carry out certain behaviors. Creating a beneficial work environment is a unions prerogative. That doesn't mean stress goes away. Work includes certain types of stress. That is work related. The unions seek to be remove any stressed that might be theirs. It is correct to do so and it is moral to do so. I don't know of a union that doesn't support their members through work shops and guest speakers at meetings. It is all good. Really. Unions can and should be beneficial to an employer. I wish sometimes there were financial advisers at union meetings to create a continuum of a balance of the employer and the realistic demands of unions. But, in the year 2015 there is need for that because Wall Street is skyrocketing. That is another question, why is Wall Street skyrocketing, but, that goes with the first question.
So, the contracts include everyone to a certain point. The Union dues to the non-members are in proportion to the benefits they receive in the contract. Usually 50% of the fees to members. So there is fairness in the difference in the union dues.
