"Analyzing the Labor Shortage in China
Early this year, at a job fair held in Fuzhou, more than 50,000 positions designed to encourage farmers to move to urban areas went unfilled. Of the more than 400 farmers who left their hometown of Qinghai last year to work in Fujian’s Quanzhou City, less than a third stayed. Usually, the two to three months following the Spring Festival are the time when farmer-workers leave their families and start work in cities. But this year, many labor-intensive enterprises in China found themselves in need of workers to start the engine.
In fact, this is not the first time that China has experienced a labor shortage. An article published in The Economist in October 2004 pointed out that although there were 19 million farmer-turned-workers in the Pearl River Delta in Guangdong, the area still faced a shortage of two million workers.
In 2005, the problem extended from the Pearl River Delta into the Yangtze River Delta and the coastal areas in the North. According to a 2005 survey conducted in Guangdong Province, although a third of the manufacturers there have tried to solve the labor shortage by raising wages and benefits, overall demand still exceeds supply by more than one million positions.
This year, the labor shortage has spread to other cities, including Beijing and Tianjing, and beyond. It’s estimated that in 2006, Shenzhen will see about 400,000 manufacturing jobs remain unfilled. The labor shortage is expected to be just as severe in Guangzhou.
Such a phenomenon has led to concerns that China may not be able to sustain its low-cost labor advantage. Against this backdrop, Knowledge@Wharton interviewed some experts for their opinions on China’s labor issues.
The City or the Farm?
According to Zhong Naiyi, a researcher at Shanghai Institute for International Studies, what has caused the “labor shortage” is the fact that although farmers’ income has risen in recent years, migrant workers haven’t seen much growth in their income. As a result, farmers feel less inclined to leave for a city job.
In January 2004, the first year of the labor shortage, the government issued new rules to extend the land contract time for farmers in order to improve productivity. Many migrant workers then left their jobs in cities and went back to their villages. Also that year, farmers received additional subsidies from the central government because of a short supply of grains. Over the past three years, the central government has stepped up its efforts to help farmers by lowering taxes and improving their incomes. All those measures have helped narrow the income gap between farmers and migrant workers. As a result, said Zhong Naiyi, “it pays better to stay with” farming.
About 150 million farmers in China are currently idle. As productivity continues to improve -- even with slower growth in the farmer population -- that number is still expected to stay between 120 million and 180 million over the next 15 years. In theory, those “unemployed” farmers would have to go to cities for jobs.
Yu Nanping, a researcher at East China Normal University, notes that it is because of the population structure -- not the shortage of workers -- that Chinese enterprises are having a hard time filling positions. In general, the supply of laborers still exceeds the demand due to the simple fact that there are about 150 million farmers now idle. Part of this is caused by the fact that labor-intensive enterprises prefer to hire younger workers.
For example, says Yu Nanping, “Zhejiang Province has a very advanced textile industry and therefore is in need of a lot of female workers between the ages of 18 and 25. The city of Shaoxing, for instance, has experienced a labor shortage this year. The preference for younger workers has further restrained the labor supply.” In addition, thanks to the growing economy and technological advancement, there is a rising demand from enterprises for technical expertise. This year, 30% to 40% of the 400,000 unfilled jobs in Shenzhen are technical positions. That figure is 20% to 30% in Guangzhou. Yu Nanping added that “most of China’s migrant workers today are involved in jobs that require no technical skills, and so they are easily replaceable. With technological advancement, however, those workers have to try to gain knowledge and technical expertise.”
Salaries: Rising or Falling?
A direct consequence of the labor shortage is rising wages, which then leads some people to question whether China will lose its advantage of being a low-cost manufacturing base. In recent years, that prediction has become more and more widespread. A professor at Qinhua University declared that “China is going to lose its low-cost advantage in the next five to eight years.” Some researchers in Germany are even more pessimistic, saying China can only sustain the advantage for another three to five years.
For a long time, says Yu Nanping, “basic wages for migrant workers have remained at a very low level. And migrant workers also lack a basic safety net, which should be accounted for when you calculate labor cost.” Some studies indicate that in the last 12 years, migrant workers in the Pearl River Delta have seen their monthly salaries go up only 68 yuan. If inflation is taken into account, a migrant worker’s income has actually declined.
In many places, there are enterprises that pay only paltry wages to workers who engage in very labor-intensive work. As Zhong Naiyi notes, “Despite some salary increases in certain regions, the income level in most of China remains the same. It’s fair to say that salary increases only pertain to a minority of migrant workers. A recent press report says that a migrant worker who started work 10 years after his father makes the same amount of money as his father. The reason is that the large working population in China has given companies huge employment choices.” If there are 10 million to 12 million new jobs every year, he added, it still would take 15 to 20 years to absorb the excess labor supply. Of course, the precondition is that China’s GDP has to grow at least 7.5% every year.
Hua Min, a professor at Fudan University, brought up another factor contributing to migrant worker’s low wages. “Currently, it’s the market that decides how much they get paid. Because the urban and the rural markets are so distinctly separate and different, migrant workers earn far less than what average urban workers make.”
He notes that a series of factors, including China’s residency policies and land policies, all increased the costs for farmers to move to the cities. Migrant workers don’t have free job fairs, don’t have training opportunities, and don’t have the same rights as city residents. Their children are denied free education. All things considered, their income is very low. “In such an economic structure, it’s impossible to expect equal earning opportunities,” Hua Min says.
With Challenges Come Opportunities
Yu Nanping suggests that it is only natural for wages to increase. In the end, any economic and social advancement is reflected through the growth in income and social welfare. Even though an excess supply of laborers is going to persist in China for a long time, wages are bound to increase due to factors such as the shift in industrial structures from a labor-intensive model to a capital- and technological-intensive one.
At the same time, the concern about China losing its low-cost labor advantage is giving rise to another important question: How to better exploit China’s labor resources. “Labor advantage is not just about quantity, but about quality,” says Yu. “China’s labor advantage also lies with low intellectual cost.” Take a look at all the workers in China who have received higher education. “An employee in China with a PhD only makes one twelfth what an employee with a PhD in a developed country in the west makes. We need to further improve worker’s education, substituting quality for quantity. And that’s a key question we have to think about.” Adds Hua Ming: “We need to change our economy’s over-reliance on low-cost labor. We must invest more in training and education.”
Early this year, at a job fair held in Fuzhou, more than 50,000 positions designed to encourage farmers to move to urban areas went unfilled. Of the more than 400 farmers who left their hometown of Qinghai last year to work in Fujian’s Quanzhou City, less than a third stayed. Usually, the two to three months following the Spring Festival are the time when farmer-workers leave their families and start work in cities. But this year, many labor-intensive enterprises in China found themselves in need of workers to start the engine.
In fact, this is not the first time that China has experienced a labor shortage. An article published in The Economist in October 2004 pointed out that although there were 19 million farmer-turned-workers in the Pearl River Delta in Guangdong, the area still faced a shortage of two million workers.
In 2005, the problem extended from the Pearl River Delta into the Yangtze River Delta and the coastal areas in the North. According to a 2005 survey conducted in Guangdong Province, although a third of the manufacturers there have tried to solve the labor shortage by raising wages and benefits, overall demand still exceeds supply by more than one million positions.
This year, the labor shortage has spread to other cities, including Beijing and Tianjing, and beyond. It’s estimated that in 2006, Shenzhen will see about 400,000 manufacturing jobs remain unfilled. The labor shortage is expected to be just as severe in Guangzhou.
Such a phenomenon has led to concerns that China may not be able to sustain its low-cost labor advantage. Against this backdrop, Knowledge@Wharton interviewed some experts for their opinions on China’s labor issues.
The City or the Farm?
According to Zhong Naiyi, a researcher at Shanghai Institute for International Studies, what has caused the “labor shortage” is the fact that although farmers’ income has risen in recent years, migrant workers haven’t seen much growth in their income. As a result, farmers feel less inclined to leave for a city job.
In January 2004, the first year of the labor shortage, the government issued new rules to extend the land contract time for farmers in order to improve productivity. Many migrant workers then left their jobs in cities and went back to their villages. Also that year, farmers received additional subsidies from the central government because of a short supply of grains. Over the past three years, the central government has stepped up its efforts to help farmers by lowering taxes and improving their incomes. All those measures have helped narrow the income gap between farmers and migrant workers. As a result, said Zhong Naiyi, “it pays better to stay with” farming.
About 150 million farmers in China are currently idle. As productivity continues to improve -- even with slower growth in the farmer population -- that number is still expected to stay between 120 million and 180 million over the next 15 years. In theory, those “unemployed” farmers would have to go to cities for jobs.
Yu Nanping, a researcher at East China Normal University, notes that it is because of the population structure -- not the shortage of workers -- that Chinese enterprises are having a hard time filling positions. In general, the supply of laborers still exceeds the demand due to the simple fact that there are about 150 million farmers now idle. Part of this is caused by the fact that labor-intensive enterprises prefer to hire younger workers.
For example, says Yu Nanping, “Zhejiang Province has a very advanced textile industry and therefore is in need of a lot of female workers between the ages of 18 and 25. The city of Shaoxing, for instance, has experienced a labor shortage this year. The preference for younger workers has further restrained the labor supply.” In addition, thanks to the growing economy and technological advancement, there is a rising demand from enterprises for technical expertise. This year, 30% to 40% of the 400,000 unfilled jobs in Shenzhen are technical positions. That figure is 20% to 30% in Guangzhou. Yu Nanping added that “most of China’s migrant workers today are involved in jobs that require no technical skills, and so they are easily replaceable. With technological advancement, however, those workers have to try to gain knowledge and technical expertise.”
Salaries: Rising or Falling?
A direct consequence of the labor shortage is rising wages, which then leads some people to question whether China will lose its advantage of being a low-cost manufacturing base. In recent years, that prediction has become more and more widespread. A professor at Qinhua University declared that “China is going to lose its low-cost advantage in the next five to eight years.” Some researchers in Germany are even more pessimistic, saying China can only sustain the advantage for another three to five years.
For a long time, says Yu Nanping, “basic wages for migrant workers have remained at a very low level. And migrant workers also lack a basic safety net, which should be accounted for when you calculate labor cost.” Some studies indicate that in the last 12 years, migrant workers in the Pearl River Delta have seen their monthly salaries go up only 68 yuan. If inflation is taken into account, a migrant worker’s income has actually declined.
In many places, there are enterprises that pay only paltry wages to workers who engage in very labor-intensive work. As Zhong Naiyi notes, “Despite some salary increases in certain regions, the income level in most of China remains the same. It’s fair to say that salary increases only pertain to a minority of migrant workers. A recent press report says that a migrant worker who started work 10 years after his father makes the same amount of money as his father. The reason is that the large working population in China has given companies huge employment choices.” If there are 10 million to 12 million new jobs every year, he added, it still would take 15 to 20 years to absorb the excess labor supply. Of course, the precondition is that China’s GDP has to grow at least 7.5% every year.
Hua Min, a professor at Fudan University, brought up another factor contributing to migrant worker’s low wages. “Currently, it’s the market that decides how much they get paid. Because the urban and the rural markets are so distinctly separate and different, migrant workers earn far less than what average urban workers make.”
He notes that a series of factors, including China’s residency policies and land policies, all increased the costs for farmers to move to the cities. Migrant workers don’t have free job fairs, don’t have training opportunities, and don’t have the same rights as city residents. Their children are denied free education. All things considered, their income is very low. “In such an economic structure, it’s impossible to expect equal earning opportunities,” Hua Min says.
With Challenges Come Opportunities
Yu Nanping suggests that it is only natural for wages to increase. In the end, any economic and social advancement is reflected through the growth in income and social welfare. Even though an excess supply of laborers is going to persist in China for a long time, wages are bound to increase due to factors such as the shift in industrial structures from a labor-intensive model to a capital- and technological-intensive one.
At the same time, the concern about China losing its low-cost labor advantage is giving rise to another important question: How to better exploit China’s labor resources. “Labor advantage is not just about quantity, but about quality,” says Yu. “China’s labor advantage also lies with low intellectual cost.” Take a look at all the workers in China who have received higher education. “An employee in China with a PhD only makes one twelfth what an employee with a PhD in a developed country in the west makes. We need to further improve worker’s education, substituting quality for quantity. And that’s a key question we have to think about.” Adds Hua Ming: “We need to change our economy’s over-reliance on low-cost labor. We must invest more in training and education.”
Published : 2006.04.26 "
Early this year, at a job fair held in Fuzhou, more than 50,000 positions designed to encourage farmers to move to urban areas went unfilled. Of the more than 400 farmers who left their hometown of Qinghai last year to work in Fujian’s Quanzhou City, less than a third stayed. Usually, the two to three months following the Spring Festival are the time when farmer-workers leave their families and start work in cities. But this year, many labor-intensive enterprises in China found themselves in need of workers to start the engine.
In fact, this is not the first time that China has experienced a labor shortage. An article published in The Economist in October 2004 pointed out that although there were 19 million farmer-turned-workers in the Pearl River Delta in Guangdong, the area still faced a shortage of two million workers.
In 2005, the problem extended from the Pearl River Delta into the Yangtze River Delta and the coastal areas in the North. According to a 2005 survey conducted in Guangdong Province, although a third of the manufacturers there have tried to solve the labor shortage by raising wages and benefits, overall demand still exceeds supply by more than one million positions.
This year, the labor shortage has spread to other cities, including Beijing and Tianjing, and beyond. It’s estimated that in 2006, Shenzhen will see about 400,000 manufacturing jobs remain unfilled. The labor shortage is expected to be just as severe in Guangzhou.
Such a phenomenon has led to concerns that China may not be able to sustain its low-cost labor advantage. Against this backdrop, Knowledge@Wharton interviewed some experts for their opinions on China’s labor issues.
The City or the Farm?
According to Zhong Naiyi, a researcher at Shanghai Institute for International Studies, what has caused the “labor shortage” is the fact that although farmers’ income has risen in recent years, migrant workers haven’t seen much growth in their income. As a result, farmers feel less inclined to leave for a city job.
In January 2004, the first year of the labor shortage, the government issued new rules to extend the land contract time for farmers in order to improve productivity. Many migrant workers then left their jobs in cities and went back to their villages. Also that year, farmers received additional subsidies from the central government because of a short supply of grains. Over the past three years, the central government has stepped up its efforts to help farmers by lowering taxes and improving their incomes. All those measures have helped narrow the income gap between farmers and migrant workers. As a result, said Zhong Naiyi, “it pays better to stay with” farming.
About 150 million farmers in China are currently idle. As productivity continues to improve -- even with slower growth in the farmer population -- that number is still expected to stay between 120 million and 180 million over the next 15 years. In theory, those “unemployed” farmers would have to go to cities for jobs.
Yu Nanping, a researcher at East China Normal University, notes that it is because of the population structure -- not the shortage of workers -- that Chinese enterprises are having a hard time filling positions. In general, the supply of laborers still exceeds the demand due to the simple fact that there are about 150 million farmers now idle. Part of this is caused by the fact that labor-intensive enterprises prefer to hire younger workers.
For example, says Yu Nanping, “Zhejiang Province has a very advanced textile industry and therefore is in need of a lot of female workers between the ages of 18 and 25. The city of Shaoxing, for instance, has experienced a labor shortage this year. The preference for younger workers has further restrained the labor supply.” In addition, thanks to the growing economy and technological advancement, there is a rising demand from enterprises for technical expertise. This year, 30% to 40% of the 400,000 unfilled jobs in Shenzhen are technical positions. That figure is 20% to 30% in Guangzhou. Yu Nanping added that “most of China’s migrant workers today are involved in jobs that require no technical skills, and so they are easily replaceable. With technological advancement, however, those workers have to try to gain knowledge and technical expertise.”
Salaries: Rising or Falling?
A direct consequence of the labor shortage is rising wages, which then leads some people to question whether China will lose its advantage of being a low-cost manufacturing base. In recent years, that prediction has become more and more widespread. A professor at Qinhua University declared that “China is going to lose its low-cost advantage in the next five to eight years.” Some researchers in Germany are even more pessimistic, saying China can only sustain the advantage for another three to five years.
For a long time, says Yu Nanping, “basic wages for migrant workers have remained at a very low level. And migrant workers also lack a basic safety net, which should be accounted for when you calculate labor cost.” Some studies indicate that in the last 12 years, migrant workers in the Pearl River Delta have seen their monthly salaries go up only 68 yuan. If inflation is taken into account, a migrant worker’s income has actually declined.
In many places, there are enterprises that pay only paltry wages to workers who engage in very labor-intensive work. As Zhong Naiyi notes, “Despite some salary increases in certain regions, the income level in most of China remains the same. It’s fair to say that salary increases only pertain to a minority of migrant workers. A recent press report says that a migrant worker who started work 10 years after his father makes the same amount of money as his father. The reason is that the large working population in China has given companies huge employment choices.” If there are 10 million to 12 million new jobs every year, he added, it still would take 15 to 20 years to absorb the excess labor supply. Of course, the precondition is that China’s GDP has to grow at least 7.5% every year.
Hua Min, a professor at Fudan University, brought up another factor contributing to migrant worker’s low wages. “Currently, it’s the market that decides how much they get paid. Because the urban and the rural markets are so distinctly separate and different, migrant workers earn far less than what average urban workers make.”
He notes that a series of factors, including China’s residency policies and land policies, all increased the costs for farmers to move to the cities. Migrant workers don’t have free job fairs, don’t have training opportunities, and don’t have the same rights as city residents. Their children are denied free education. All things considered, their income is very low. “In such an economic structure, it’s impossible to expect equal earning opportunities,” Hua Min says.
With Challenges Come Opportunities
Yu Nanping suggests that it is only natural for wages to increase. In the end, any economic and social advancement is reflected through the growth in income and social welfare. Even though an excess supply of laborers is going to persist in China for a long time, wages are bound to increase due to factors such as the shift in industrial structures from a labor-intensive model to a capital- and technological-intensive one.
At the same time, the concern about China losing its low-cost labor advantage is giving rise to another important question: How to better exploit China’s labor resources. “Labor advantage is not just about quantity, but about quality,” says Yu. “China’s labor advantage also lies with low intellectual cost.” Take a look at all the workers in China who have received higher education. “An employee in China with a PhD only makes one twelfth what an employee with a PhD in a developed country in the west makes. We need to further improve worker’s education, substituting quality for quantity. And that’s a key question we have to think about.” Adds Hua Ming: “We need to change our economy’s over-reliance on low-cost labor. We must invest more in training and education.”
Early this year, at a job fair held in Fuzhou, more than 50,000 positions designed to encourage farmers to move to urban areas went unfilled. Of the more than 400 farmers who left their hometown of Qinghai last year to work in Fujian’s Quanzhou City, less than a third stayed. Usually, the two to three months following the Spring Festival are the time when farmer-workers leave their families and start work in cities. But this year, many labor-intensive enterprises in China found themselves in need of workers to start the engine.
In fact, this is not the first time that China has experienced a labor shortage. An article published in The Economist in October 2004 pointed out that although there were 19 million farmer-turned-workers in the Pearl River Delta in Guangdong, the area still faced a shortage of two million workers.
In 2005, the problem extended from the Pearl River Delta into the Yangtze River Delta and the coastal areas in the North. According to a 2005 survey conducted in Guangdong Province, although a third of the manufacturers there have tried to solve the labor shortage by raising wages and benefits, overall demand still exceeds supply by more than one million positions.
This year, the labor shortage has spread to other cities, including Beijing and Tianjing, and beyond. It’s estimated that in 2006, Shenzhen will see about 400,000 manufacturing jobs remain unfilled. The labor shortage is expected to be just as severe in Guangzhou.
Such a phenomenon has led to concerns that China may not be able to sustain its low-cost labor advantage. Against this backdrop, Knowledge@Wharton interviewed some experts for their opinions on China’s labor issues.
The City or the Farm?
According to Zhong Naiyi, a researcher at Shanghai Institute for International Studies, what has caused the “labor shortage” is the fact that although farmers’ income has risen in recent years, migrant workers haven’t seen much growth in their income. As a result, farmers feel less inclined to leave for a city job.
In January 2004, the first year of the labor shortage, the government issued new rules to extend the land contract time for farmers in order to improve productivity. Many migrant workers then left their jobs in cities and went back to their villages. Also that year, farmers received additional subsidies from the central government because of a short supply of grains. Over the past three years, the central government has stepped up its efforts to help farmers by lowering taxes and improving their incomes. All those measures have helped narrow the income gap between farmers and migrant workers. As a result, said Zhong Naiyi, “it pays better to stay with” farming.
About 150 million farmers in China are currently idle. As productivity continues to improve -- even with slower growth in the farmer population -- that number is still expected to stay between 120 million and 180 million over the next 15 years. In theory, those “unemployed” farmers would have to go to cities for jobs.
Yu Nanping, a researcher at East China Normal University, notes that it is because of the population structure -- not the shortage of workers -- that Chinese enterprises are having a hard time filling positions. In general, the supply of laborers still exceeds the demand due to the simple fact that there are about 150 million farmers now idle. Part of this is caused by the fact that labor-intensive enterprises prefer to hire younger workers.
For example, says Yu Nanping, “Zhejiang Province has a very advanced textile industry and therefore is in need of a lot of female workers between the ages of 18 and 25. The city of Shaoxing, for instance, has experienced a labor shortage this year. The preference for younger workers has further restrained the labor supply.” In addition, thanks to the growing economy and technological advancement, there is a rising demand from enterprises for technical expertise. This year, 30% to 40% of the 400,000 unfilled jobs in Shenzhen are technical positions. That figure is 20% to 30% in Guangzhou. Yu Nanping added that “most of China’s migrant workers today are involved in jobs that require no technical skills, and so they are easily replaceable. With technological advancement, however, those workers have to try to gain knowledge and technical expertise.”
Salaries: Rising or Falling?
A direct consequence of the labor shortage is rising wages, which then leads some people to question whether China will lose its advantage of being a low-cost manufacturing base. In recent years, that prediction has become more and more widespread. A professor at Qinhua University declared that “China is going to lose its low-cost advantage in the next five to eight years.” Some researchers in Germany are even more pessimistic, saying China can only sustain the advantage for another three to five years.
For a long time, says Yu Nanping, “basic wages for migrant workers have remained at a very low level. And migrant workers also lack a basic safety net, which should be accounted for when you calculate labor cost.” Some studies indicate that in the last 12 years, migrant workers in the Pearl River Delta have seen their monthly salaries go up only 68 yuan. If inflation is taken into account, a migrant worker’s income has actually declined.
In many places, there are enterprises that pay only paltry wages to workers who engage in very labor-intensive work. As Zhong Naiyi notes, “Despite some salary increases in certain regions, the income level in most of China remains the same. It’s fair to say that salary increases only pertain to a minority of migrant workers. A recent press report says that a migrant worker who started work 10 years after his father makes the same amount of money as his father. The reason is that the large working population in China has given companies huge employment choices.” If there are 10 million to 12 million new jobs every year, he added, it still would take 15 to 20 years to absorb the excess labor supply. Of course, the precondition is that China’s GDP has to grow at least 7.5% every year.
Hua Min, a professor at Fudan University, brought up another factor contributing to migrant worker’s low wages. “Currently, it’s the market that decides how much they get paid. Because the urban and the rural markets are so distinctly separate and different, migrant workers earn far less than what average urban workers make.”
He notes that a series of factors, including China’s residency policies and land policies, all increased the costs for farmers to move to the cities. Migrant workers don’t have free job fairs, don’t have training opportunities, and don’t have the same rights as city residents. Their children are denied free education. All things considered, their income is very low. “In such an economic structure, it’s impossible to expect equal earning opportunities,” Hua Min says.
With Challenges Come Opportunities
Yu Nanping suggests that it is only natural for wages to increase. In the end, any economic and social advancement is reflected through the growth in income and social welfare. Even though an excess supply of laborers is going to persist in China for a long time, wages are bound to increase due to factors such as the shift in industrial structures from a labor-intensive model to a capital- and technological-intensive one.
At the same time, the concern about China losing its low-cost labor advantage is giving rise to another important question: How to better exploit China’s labor resources. “Labor advantage is not just about quantity, but about quality,” says Yu. “China’s labor advantage also lies with low intellectual cost.” Take a look at all the workers in China who have received higher education. “An employee in China with a PhD only makes one twelfth what an employee with a PhD in a developed country in the west makes. We need to further improve worker’s education, substituting quality for quantity. And that’s a key question we have to think about.” Adds Hua Ming: “We need to change our economy’s over-reliance on low-cost labor. We must invest more in training and education.”
Published : 2006.04.26 "
http://www.knowledgeatwharton.com.cn/index.cfm?fa=viewfeature&languageid=1&articleid=1364
"Shocking Need: American Kids Go Hungry
Medical research has shown that lack of nutrition can permanently alter a child's brain architecture, stunting intellectual capacity and a child's ability to learn and interact with others.Click here to learn how you can help families struggling with food insecurities.
Yet the NSA, FBI, and CIA economic warfare analysts are unwilling to start burrying traitors to our economy and tax bases. Like we did todays MalConey back int he day when we made McConey island.
Malconey I believe sold off all of GM's high tech eletrical cars IP to sell out our jobs in the US. Where they then shut down over 30,000 jobs and shipped them to Communist China. After he sold out the US's only major SOE car company to Communist China SOE joint venture. As they would not allow him in unless he gave them his IP and went into a Joint Venture. So instead of fighting and showing force with teh DOD and CIA espionage units to say we will not be bullied. I believe he might of actually taken it up the but in his hotel by one of the CCP elder's, literally.
During President Obama's campaign we have never seen a country bully the US as much as Communist China has with regards to outsourcing our jobs. With such things as innovation policies, forced IP seizures to do business, rare earth resources that force draw companies to build there ti compete internationally, and forced joint state owned ventures, along with Communist party secretaries that are forced to be in every joint venture in Communist China to keep track of the part of the business that is a free market business. If I was the President I would have used the CIA and DOD to make them think twice about bullying the USA. Like every other President has done and President Obama was advised he could have done.
The research report I did on Coney island. Was a man who was a very powerful business man owned a major business. It was considered to be a national security business and he worked very closely with his individual ownership with the government. Then a foreign national governmnt came to him to get him to sell it to them for a massive price. That would be a one time greatness for him but a trajic loss to the USA of an industry. Which would have enriched one of our worst enimeis. So the clandestine units in a major set of agencies. That have to makes ure our babies are feed, schooled, cared for and secured and properly have taxes and jobs for folks to do that. Got together. They came up with the idea to stop that generations from doing it again by making it obvious that they will place you on an Island. Thus Coney, thus it is funny Malconey lead this generations loss of business and major strategic industries by allowing his own leadership and the US's personally owned industry right into the Communist Chinese as he was bullied and was unwilling to fight for what was right. Which was a fair entrance into their market for our exports. The decades of electrical car and motor Intellectual Property we had was just given away by MalConey to the Communist Chinese. So they could now own and operate our US SOE engine company. Which now sells more cars internationally through exports from Communist China than it does in the USA.
This is the First President that such bullying has been allowed with out full scale military reprisal. Prior Presidents allowed outsourcing of course. But this President has allowed the Innovation policy and rare earth bullying. Which is way out of hand. As the Innovation Policy forces all business that wish to trade in Communist China to give up their Intellectual Property and join a joint Venture. While the rare earth resources, forces tons of strategic business, like the military, high technology, and motor industries to be forces to go to Communist China. Where as before our strategic industries where not forces but just basic textile and basic manufacturing was outsourced.
Today we only see Communist Chinese raiding Allied forces mines, like in the Philippines, India, Africa and other nations where the Allied forces have mineral mines. While Communist Chinese 97% monopoly on resources goes untouched literally. During the cold war, the Soviets knew that they could not reach past 50% without a full scale civil revolution of the areas of their SOE's that where trying to gain world monopolies to control the root of economics. Which is resources and manufacturing. Today we see our agencies creating civil wars like in Libya, or in Sudan. To help create Democracy. But then we still Communist China coming in and taken the minerals that we helped protect from the dictators they won them from. But yet we allow them to sell them to the dictatorial party that was funding the dictator that was trying to kill them.
Afghanistan a war in which Communist China admits to funding Hamaz and Al Queada. Yet, Afghanistan has allowed the majority of their production resources to go to them. Instead of one of their own citizens or the countries that helped fight against the ones who want dictatorship. Libya Communist China was the biggest funder of Gadafi and exploited their resources and world's lowest prices. Then during the civil war Communist China was the biggest funder of proxy agents from neighboring countries and Gadafi's army. During the cold war Democracy hitters Republicans and Democrats agents. New that if they helped out with their forces to stop a dictator or the Soviets. That the resources where not going to go to the enemy who funded your enemy. Cause the forces that helped you would hit you for doing that. As the macro war of economic implosion is lost that way. We have to re-coupe our cost at all cost. A couple times we had to have a couple different civil revolutions just to find a good group of leader who where not willing to work with the Soviets cause they paid them more. As they where the one's trying to take over their lands and control them for the Soviets, and not let their culture be freely governed by themselves.
That means whether the saved area for cultural Democracy; owns the resources and sells it to us at a discout off the stock market. Which during the cold war we called anchor wells and mines. Or whether the US individuals own it. We are not properly dealing with cleaning up macro economics and we are allowing the enemy of those we help to own the resources we need. This is a serious problem with our macro economic implosion grids. Furthermore, we have pretty much lost all of our anchor wells. As the Communist Chinese have come in and bought them or the countries we helped during the cold war have flourished like Brazil to be their own country with a stock market. This means that we have lost what the Suadi's have Russia has and Communist China has. Which is countries that the west goes into to save from the leftist dictators. That have anchor wells not on stock markets. That sell to them very cheaply. The loss of the anchor wells has allowed the Communist Chinese to create a stock market where it is very easy to make the US market place vulnerable for economic advancement in the world and in our own market system. As anchor wells during the cold war. Created set prices where we knew we could obtain them. Allowing us to create anchor industries as per our ability to compete internationally.
In my personal opion it is better that they own them so long as they show respect to the west and create anchor wells for at least 10-20 years. For those that helped liberate them against those like Russia, Saudia Arabia and Communist China who are trying to oppress them. If you read Kevin Freedman's Secret Weapons with a really cool picture of a famous window with a bullet whole through it. Then you will see the solution in a macro policy that he does not speak about. That solves the whole issues in the books is the recreation of western anchor wells off the stock markets. For example, Venezuela actually sells the western forces oil at going rates as per the OPEC stock market controls and Communist Chinese stock market snipers (great story on catching a nest of those). Which then they sell to Russia and Communist China at very lower barrel prices, some leaked documents actually have Venezuela oil trades with Communist China at $5 a barrel. Which deflates their economy, so the dictator can feel safe and call in their espionage agents against the other political parties democracy battle to have him removed through votes.
In the futre as a lot of old cold war anchor wells are now parts of their own stock markets. What we might want to do with the left over Soviet dictators we are removing for Democracy as we won the war. We need to set up a counter OPEC system. As one cartel system needs to be competed against by another. So in the next 10-20 years they can own their own mineral anchor mines. Sell to the west as currently they are just selling out their mines for a small one time fee and an even smaller royalty fee to the enemy who funded against their cause. Which the anchor well system would allow much more jobs, for their people, growth, education in the industry and over the long period of time a substantial way more control of their country and enrichment of their allied forces. Then when they mature like Brazil has. They can start their own stock market once they are secure and best's friends with us, and not the enemy who fought gainst their Democracy like big bad Commy lander China's did. Then they can create a counter OPEC system. Which could counter the daily costs of oil. So if OPEC's cartel is mad at the allied forces, they can't attack us as the Allied forces countries taht they helped out could say hey, we got your back we remeber the goat head on the tank and the mcmuffin drops with the big apache bosy rolling over our heads watching over us.
"Shocking Need: American Kids Go Hungry
In high school, Katherine Foronda trained herself not to feel hungry until after the school day had ended. She wasn't watching her weight or worrying about boys seeing her eat.
She just didn't have any food to eat or any money to buy it.
"I thought, if I wasn't hungry during class I'd be able to actually focus on what we were learning,'' said Foronda, now 19.
Every day, children in every county in the United States wake up hungry. They go to school hungry. They turn out the lights at night hungry.
That is one of the stunning key findings of a new study to be released Thursday by Feeding America, a network of 200 food banks and the largest hunger charity in the country.
As many as 17 million children nationwide are struggling with what is known as food insecurity. To put it another way, one in four children in the country is living without consistent access to enough nutritious food to live a healthy life, according to the study, "Map the Meal Child Food Insecurity 2011."
Those hungry children are everywhere, and with the uncertain economy, the numbers are only growing, experts say.
The consequences of malnutrition can be severe. Several studies have shown that food insecurity affects cognitive development among young children. And for older children, students like Foronda, school performance is affected. Additional research shows that with hunger comes more frequent sickness and higher healthcare costs.
Medical research has shown that lack of nutrition can permanently alter a child's brain architecture, stunting intellectual capacity and a child's ability to learn and interact with others.Click here to learn how you can help families struggling with food insecurities.
"The consequences and costs of child hunger make addressing this issue an economic and societal imperative, in addition to an obvious moral obligation," said Vicki Escarra, president and CEO of Feeding America.
Feeding America's study, funded by ConAgra Foods, is based on 2009 statistics compiled by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which runs 15 food aid programs, including the nationwide free and subsidized school lunch program and WIC, a supplemental food program that provides tailored food supplements to pregnant women and families with children under age 5 whose household income is less than 185 percent of the gross federal poverty limit. That's an annual gross income of $41,348 for a family of four.
In fact, a shocking 49 percent of all babies born in the U.S. are born to families receiving food supplements from the WIC program, according to Jean Daniel, spokesperson for the USDA.
Previously, the only numbers available to illustrate the scope of child food insecurity across the nation were figures broken down by state.
Previously, the only numbers available to illustrate the scope of child food insecurity across the nation were figures broken down by state.
But the newly available county-by-county numbers are aimed at helping local and federal providers of food aid better reach the people who need it.
The study also breaks down child food insecurity rates by congressional district, which could send a powerful message to Washington. The proposed House budget for 2012 includes substantial cuts to food aid programs in the 2012 budget cycle. The cuts could affect up to 350,000 recipients of the WIC program alone. The Emergency Food Assistance Program, which provides agricultural products to food banks to pass on to the poor, is also facing a proposed $50 million cut, representing one fifth of the budget for this program."
Is this amazing our leaders like Diane Feinstein outsource our jobs to Communist China. President Obama allows 80% of the US green tech stimulus and over 40% of the US green tech new industry jobs to be outsoursed. While the majority of world cars that the US companies like GM that the US bailed out are now produced and made by foreign companies like Communist China. Where their citizens get the jobs and their countries get the taxes.Yet the NSA, FBI, and CIA economic warfare analysts are unwilling to start burrying traitors to our economy and tax bases. Like we did todays MalConey back int he day when we made McConey island.
Malconey I believe sold off all of GM's high tech eletrical cars IP to sell out our jobs in the US. Where they then shut down over 30,000 jobs and shipped them to Communist China. After he sold out the US's only major SOE car company to Communist China SOE joint venture. As they would not allow him in unless he gave them his IP and went into a Joint Venture. So instead of fighting and showing force with teh DOD and CIA espionage units to say we will not be bullied. I believe he might of actually taken it up the but in his hotel by one of the CCP elder's, literally.
During President Obama's campaign we have never seen a country bully the US as much as Communist China has with regards to outsourcing our jobs. With such things as innovation policies, forced IP seizures to do business, rare earth resources that force draw companies to build there ti compete internationally, and forced joint state owned ventures, along with Communist party secretaries that are forced to be in every joint venture in Communist China to keep track of the part of the business that is a free market business. If I was the President I would have used the CIA and DOD to make them think twice about bullying the USA. Like every other President has done and President Obama was advised he could have done.
The research report I did on Coney island. Was a man who was a very powerful business man owned a major business. It was considered to be a national security business and he worked very closely with his individual ownership with the government. Then a foreign national governmnt came to him to get him to sell it to them for a massive price. That would be a one time greatness for him but a trajic loss to the USA of an industry. Which would have enriched one of our worst enimeis. So the clandestine units in a major set of agencies. That have to makes ure our babies are feed, schooled, cared for and secured and properly have taxes and jobs for folks to do that. Got together. They came up with the idea to stop that generations from doing it again by making it obvious that they will place you on an Island. Thus Coney, thus it is funny Malconey lead this generations loss of business and major strategic industries by allowing his own leadership and the US's personally owned industry right into the Communist Chinese as he was bullied and was unwilling to fight for what was right. Which was a fair entrance into their market for our exports. The decades of electrical car and motor Intellectual Property we had was just given away by MalConey to the Communist Chinese. So they could now own and operate our US SOE engine company. Which now sells more cars internationally through exports from Communist China than it does in the USA.
This is the First President that such bullying has been allowed with out full scale military reprisal. Prior Presidents allowed outsourcing of course. But this President has allowed the Innovation policy and rare earth bullying. Which is way out of hand. As the Innovation Policy forces all business that wish to trade in Communist China to give up their Intellectual Property and join a joint Venture. While the rare earth resources, forces tons of strategic business, like the military, high technology, and motor industries to be forces to go to Communist China. Where as before our strategic industries where not forces but just basic textile and basic manufacturing was outsourced.
Today we only see Communist Chinese raiding Allied forces mines, like in the Philippines, India, Africa and other nations where the Allied forces have mineral mines. While Communist Chinese 97% monopoly on resources goes untouched literally. During the cold war, the Soviets knew that they could not reach past 50% without a full scale civil revolution of the areas of their SOE's that where trying to gain world monopolies to control the root of economics. Which is resources and manufacturing. Today we see our agencies creating civil wars like in Libya, or in Sudan. To help create Democracy. But then we still Communist China coming in and taken the minerals that we helped protect from the dictators they won them from. But yet we allow them to sell them to the dictatorial party that was funding the dictator that was trying to kill them.
Afghanistan a war in which Communist China admits to funding Hamaz and Al Queada. Yet, Afghanistan has allowed the majority of their production resources to go to them. Instead of one of their own citizens or the countries that helped fight against the ones who want dictatorship. Libya Communist China was the biggest funder of Gadafi and exploited their resources and world's lowest prices. Then during the civil war Communist China was the biggest funder of proxy agents from neighboring countries and Gadafi's army. During the cold war Democracy hitters Republicans and Democrats agents. New that if they helped out with their forces to stop a dictator or the Soviets. That the resources where not going to go to the enemy who funded your enemy. Cause the forces that helped you would hit you for doing that. As the macro war of economic implosion is lost that way. We have to re-coupe our cost at all cost. A couple times we had to have a couple different civil revolutions just to find a good group of leader who where not willing to work with the Soviets cause they paid them more. As they where the one's trying to take over their lands and control them for the Soviets, and not let their culture be freely governed by themselves.
That means whether the saved area for cultural Democracy; owns the resources and sells it to us at a discout off the stock market. Which during the cold war we called anchor wells and mines. Or whether the US individuals own it. We are not properly dealing with cleaning up macro economics and we are allowing the enemy of those we help to own the resources we need. This is a serious problem with our macro economic implosion grids. Furthermore, we have pretty much lost all of our anchor wells. As the Communist Chinese have come in and bought them or the countries we helped during the cold war have flourished like Brazil to be their own country with a stock market. This means that we have lost what the Suadi's have Russia has and Communist China has. Which is countries that the west goes into to save from the leftist dictators. That have anchor wells not on stock markets. That sell to them very cheaply. The loss of the anchor wells has allowed the Communist Chinese to create a stock market where it is very easy to make the US market place vulnerable for economic advancement in the world and in our own market system. As anchor wells during the cold war. Created set prices where we knew we could obtain them. Allowing us to create anchor industries as per our ability to compete internationally.
In my personal opion it is better that they own them so long as they show respect to the west and create anchor wells for at least 10-20 years. For those that helped liberate them against those like Russia, Saudia Arabia and Communist China who are trying to oppress them. If you read Kevin Freedman's Secret Weapons with a really cool picture of a famous window with a bullet whole through it. Then you will see the solution in a macro policy that he does not speak about. That solves the whole issues in the books is the recreation of western anchor wells off the stock markets. For example, Venezuela actually sells the western forces oil at going rates as per the OPEC stock market controls and Communist Chinese stock market snipers (great story on catching a nest of those). Which then they sell to Russia and Communist China at very lower barrel prices, some leaked documents actually have Venezuela oil trades with Communist China at $5 a barrel. Which deflates their economy, so the dictator can feel safe and call in their espionage agents against the other political parties democracy battle to have him removed through votes.
In the futre as a lot of old cold war anchor wells are now parts of their own stock markets. What we might want to do with the left over Soviet dictators we are removing for Democracy as we won the war. We need to set up a counter OPEC system. As one cartel system needs to be competed against by another. So in the next 10-20 years they can own their own mineral anchor mines. Sell to the west as currently they are just selling out their mines for a small one time fee and an even smaller royalty fee to the enemy who funded against their cause. Which the anchor well system would allow much more jobs, for their people, growth, education in the industry and over the long period of time a substantial way more control of their country and enrichment of their allied forces. Then when they mature like Brazil has. They can start their own stock market once they are secure and best's friends with us, and not the enemy who fought gainst their Democracy like big bad Commy lander China's did. Then they can create a counter OPEC system. Which could counter the daily costs of oil. So if OPEC's cartel is mad at the allied forces, they can't attack us as the Allied forces countries taht they helped out could say hey, we got your back we remeber the goat head on the tank and the mcmuffin drops with the big apache bosy rolling over our heads watching over us.
No comments:
Post a Comment