General Discussion Undecided where to post - do it here. |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
![]() |
#21 |
|
There is one, arguably two subjective questions on the survey, Asher: "third-world employees working for American companies are exploited" and "the standard of living is higher now than 30 years ago". That's "many"? Jobs will be lost with free trade. That's a fact. They may very well be made up elsewhere, but that doesn't stop it from leading to unemployment. I consider at least 37.5% of the questions being blatantly subjective/nuanced as "many". ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#22 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#23 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#24 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#25 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#27 |
|
There are no intelligent people here who agree with this post. Free trade DOES lead to unemployment. This is a basic economic fact. It has been proven. This is the reasoning behind H1-B quotas in the US, among many other things. True free trade puts American workers out of jobs. The job numbers may equalize GLOBALLY due to free trade, but that perspective isn't made clear in the survey NOR is it a practical implication for the people being asked. I don't give a **** about the employment rate in Mexico. Free trade enables jobs to leave Canada (unemployment) while getting created in other countries. They cause unemployment. |
![]() |
![]() |
#28 |
|
There are no intelligent people here who agree with this post, either. ![]() Free trade causes people to lose their jobs as they get exported to other countries. This is a fact. This is causing unemployment. FWIW, I am a proponent of free trade and a global economy. I just don't pretend there's no ramifications for it like you do. |
![]() |
![]() |
#29 |
|
Consider: Ford closes a plant employing 6,000 people in Southern Ontario and opens up a new plant in Mexico employing 6,000 people.
To pedantic actuaries and economists, there's obviously no unemployment here. But if you ask one of the 6,000 workers, or anyone from their communities, they sure as **** did cause unemployment. It was a terrible question from a pretty stupid group. |
![]() |
![]() |
#30 |
|
Don't be such a bore. You're trying to have an ontological debate about the "nature of Things". I'm trying to tell you that if we don't have any model, we might as well call the stuff "subjective", because the only object we know is indeed "different to different people". |
![]() |
![]() |
#31 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#33 |
|
|
![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 11 (0 members and 11 guests) | |
|