Kerry and American Jobs

[Pastor Larry]

Can someone explain this to me: Kerry's candidacy makes a big deal out of companies who take jobs to other countries in order to cut costs and maintain viability in the American market. He calls it exporting and says that American companies should not export jobs. He even called them traitors.

Kerry's candidacy also makes a big deal out of American drug companies, who I presume are employing American workers at livable incomes. He says we should quit buying drugs from American companies that employ American workers and instead buy from Canadian companies that employ non-American workers.

Why is Kerry inconsistent? If we should pay higher prices to keep American jobs here, then why should we fund Canadian workers to buy cheaper drugs, at the expense of American workers who will lose their jobs because the drugs they make are now cheaper from Canada?

How is this not inconsistent?

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Of course it's inconsistent. Did you expect better?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Not really ... but I just wonder why no one is commenting on it.

 

[Gina B]

I don't see that as inconsistant at all. There are two different issues.
Taking work out of the country is as dumb as bringing illegal workers into the country. Both prevent Americans workers from working and providing for their families. If a company wants to work that way it should not be awarded and promoted by our country, which is what Bush is doing.
The drug companies are a different issue. Competition between providers is good for your wallet. If we're allowed to purchase from Canada do you really think the American drug companies are gonna shrug and say oh well, or will they lower their prices and/or attempt to provide a better product?
Gina

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Both Kerry and Bush favor the policies, such as OPIC, which give financial incentives and insurances to companies who move their operations overseas.

You get what you vote for.

 

[Daisy]

Actually, it's a nonsensical issue.

He says we should quit buying drugs from American companies that employ American workers and instead buy from Canadian companies that employ non-American workers.

He said no such thing. What Larry has failed to understand here is that the drugs will still be made by the same companies who currently make them. These companies sell their drugs to the Canadians at such a reduced rate that reimporting them cost the consumer less than the same drugs sold here.

American pharmacists are squeezed by the giant near-monopolist chains who can undercut them. If they were allowed to buy from Canadian suppliers, they might be able to compete with the biggies. The drugstore clerks, stockboys and cashiers still have their jobs selling OTC items.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I don't know Daisy. Doesn't look that way ...

Why so cheap?

There are several factors that make drug prices lower in Canada than in the U.S.

Perhaps the most obvious is the exchange rate. For the last few years the Canadian dollar has hovered between 60 and 70 cents, giving Americans more bang for their greenback.

Another reason is the fact that Canadian drug companies are not allowed to market their products directly to consumers. That's a substantial savings not realized south of the border, where so-called direct-to-consumer marketing has been allowed since 1997. According to the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, drug companies spent almost $3 billion on direct-to-consumer advertising – a price that gets passed on to the consumer.

But the biggest reason for the price disparity is the existence of drug price controls in Canada. The Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, a quasi-judicial body of the government created in 1987, reviews pharmaceutical prices and enacts caps for patented drugs and medicines prices.

" target="_blank">[url]http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/drugs/

[/url]

But anyway, it was just a question I had wondered about.

 

[Daisy]

It looks pretty much that way to me. Your story fails to show where jobs would be lost in the States. Even the ad agencies don't lose out, as they are still allowed to create desire for their drugs here.

"Ask your physician if Vioxx would be right for you". Then scamper across the border, prescription in hand and get it cheap in Canada. Or on the internet, increasingly.

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

*Niether* party gets it right concerning Jobs for American Workers...

Both parties have supported and proposed GATT, NAFTA, and soon to bee FTAA...

All of which have had and will continue to have a chilling effect on Americans being employed at a reasonable standard of living...

Why is this so?

Because of two mutually & equally powerful things...

Companies want to make money...

Americans don't want to spend a dime more on a product than they have too...

These trade agreements give quick, though short term, solution to both...

Another issue is the National Sales Tax, or, even a Flat Tax...

Hasn't anyone realized that unless tarrifs are levied against American Companies doing business in other countries and importing both products or services that this will be another 'back door' to job loss?

Consider this why should an American Company buy buildings and materials in the US and pay tax on them when they can do so overseas???

And, pay niether Sales Tax or Payroll taxes...

Think about that!

 

[Pennsylvania Jim]

Yep. And, the sad thing is that Americans, including most Christians, keep arguing over which ones are desroying our nation the fastest, while re-electing the very people who push the policies that work against us.

You get what you vote for.

 

[Pastor Larry]

So Daisy, if we start buying Canadian drugs with the result that American pharmaceutical plants can no longer sell all they are making, will not the American plants have to lay off workers?

BTW, I have no problem with buying Canadian drugs.