The "working poor" Patsy? Give me a break.

What does America need to solve that problem? A "working poor" that vote for a social safety net, like every other first-world country in the world has. Like America could so easily afford.

Why don't the "working poor" vote for that? You tell me. Perhaps because the Democratic Party, supposedly the party representing the "working poor" don't even offer that as part of their platform.

There's a guy who works guarding the door in the Beijing office building in which I once worked. He makes 10 RMB a DAY to support himself and his family. Look up the conversion yourself.

What do China/India/etc. need to solve that problem? Jobs. Preferrably in the relatively low skilled manufacturing sector. That way, that 10 RMB a day might become 200 a week, and that family might be able to educate their kid, who might be able to demand better wages.

And the cycle goes on. Look back into America's own history to see this at work.

China knows this, and so makes it really easy for western companies to set up their manufacturing in China. To go back to a previous Leonard column, that's simply playing the game by the rules that we have set up, not some Fu Manchu plot.

America, on the other hand, is so easily distracted from its very real, and very solvable, social problems by idiotic bleating about the "Chinese taking our jobs".

It is, as always, so much easier to blame someone else for your problems than fix them.

shannonr, according to posters on this forum:

*clearly not the sharpest tack in the box

*She degrades our democracy with her callousness

*What total naivity

*letter was based on pure spite and holier-than-thou posing

*they hate us more (yes, shannonr there is an "us")

*I'm glad you take responsibility for killing Americans and driving them into poverty, destroying families

posters on this forum, according to shannonr:

*I assume that you've never [bought things made in China] if you have [while complaining about outsourcing] then you're a hypocrite

Yeah.

Like I said. Find a good dictionary, look up ad hominem. I don't think it means what you think it means.

It's no accident that one of the recent discussions we had on globalisation here ended up as a rant (mine) about social safety nets -- namely the US predeliction for not having one, or anything that even looks like one.

As the song says, socialism is not communism! And to extend that, social safety nets are not socialism, either.

Social safety nets, including well managed wide public health coverage, are just simply more efficient than the alternatives.

Australia's economy, for example, is roaring along, with all the same challenges that the US economy faces in terms of outsourcing, and they have free medicine for all, and an extensive (but sensible) retraining and unemployment benefits system.

Not that this argument is likely to succeed in a climate of a multi-trillion-dollar war.

Labor standards are also key.

In this part of the discussion, we sadly see the historically racist positions of the labor-left come back to haunt the various political parties "representing" this portion of the population in developed countries: viz "Those [insert racist epithet here] are taking our jobs!"

Whatever happened to the global solidarity of workers!?

The current "enforcement by inspection" regime that exists has had some remarkable success -- particularly with product lines made for the so-called "family entertainment" conglomerates -- and should be strengthened, but also needs to be followed up with a concerted effort by developed nations to make certain standards a pre-requisite for doing business.

We're already doing this for high-tech stuff -- play our game on IP or don't access our markets -- it could easily be extended to manufacturing.

Yes, shoes and shirts will probably get more expensive as a result. The consumer, as always, will be the one to pick up the tab.

>>> On the other hand, when legroom is limited the firwst thing I do is pull all the magazines out of the seatback and stick them under my seat -- gains me at least an inch of legroom.

Ah, not sitting in front of me you don't.

I'm 6 foot 6, so every tiny bit of that space is used up by my feet.

The space under your seat doesn't belong to you on any airline -- it belongs to the person sitting behind you.

If you want to put oddments (including purses, magazines, etc.) somewhere, you PUT THEM UNDER THE SEAT IN FRONT OF YOU.

Jeez.

Doesn't ANYONE listen to the instructions at the start of every flight? "The overhead bins or..." I'm sure you've heard the rest of that.

Where will they go? That's the same question as asking who pays in an auto accident.

The answer is the same -- the person or persons at fault.

In this case, the world's largest polluter (by far); the country that refuses, still, to cut emissions; the country still allowing its companies to sell CFCs overseas:

The grand old US of A.

Where will they go? There's only one fair answer to that question.

Funny thing, of course, life being full of irony, is that it would also be the "Christian" thing to do to take them in.

Sorry Z. Smith, "under your seat" is quite different to "under your seatcushion".

How do I know?

Being the aforementioned 6 foot 6, probably every fourth or fifth flight I take involves a heated discussion with someone (usually a woman) who wants to put her handbag literally under her seat.

So, you may be right, our previous caller was perhaps thinking of sitting on his "inch" of magazines (try that on a 14-hour trans-Pacific! You're clearly not a medical doctor...) but my personal experience is that the "yo-yos" out there certainly outnumber me.

Cheers!