Jobs are moving overseas because of free market capitalism.
Wait, when did America get free market capitalism back?
Labour and materials are far cheaper overseas so production moves over there and shipping costs to move goods to Western markets are next to nothing.
If government weren't involved in affecting the costs related to labor and materials perhaps those jobs could have stayed here. As an example, look at GE. Currently GE is slowly moving their appliance manufacturing back to the Louisville, KY plant. They have found that the more they send out of the country the higher their quality complaints and service calls have become. It closed in on a point where the benefits of outsourcing labor were being outweighed by the consequences. No matter how much cheaper it is, if it nearly kills your sales and marketshare it is a waste.
Now, one would think that GE would look at this lesson and learn from it. Where possible, they have. Aero and medical is still in the US. But in recent years they shutdown every single lightbulb factory and moved them overseas. Free market capitalism? On the surface, sure. It is cheaper to make new lightbulbs overseas. But why is it? The factory closings coincided with new lightbulb regulations and various energy subsidies. For GE it became more profitable because they needed to produce CFL bulbs. They had to meet regulations. CFL bulbs contain mercury, which has a various job safety rules tied to it, but not overseas. But even bulbs not regulated went completely CFL. Why? Because for producing energy efficient products there are tax subsidies. In fact, remember when everyone was upset to discover GE, outsourcing kings, paid no taxes and even got a massive tax refund? We paid them hundreds of millions to send thousands of jobs overseas. We created the environment that made outsourcing preferable. And it was all done with GE CEO Jeff Immelt working as a jobs advisor to the president.
Now, out of those thousands of jobs lost, would you suggest that none of those people turned to crime? None of them turned to drugs or alcohol, resulting in the other points I listed that you don't have issue with?
On the other side is what should be the triumph of free market capitalism, where anyone can produce a better product than the current goods and services on the market. The problem is that when new barrier of entry rules are proposed the big companies lobby for them. It will cost them, but if it means less new competition, it is a great thing. This most recently has been going on with the Internet tax that Congress is looking at. It is supposed to be a fairness rule to help small businesses, but it is being lobbied for by the largest online retailers, like Amazon. Why would Amazon want to have to do this? Because they developed the software that anyone can buy from them to handle it. They want a new barrier of entry that is overcome by paying them. If this happens a small business owner trying to create an online retail presence could not compete with Amazon without paying Amazon first. Similarly, despite talk in public, the primary lobbying efforts for our new healthcare law was done by the very companies it was supposed to regulate. Insurance companies were upset in front of cameras, but striking deals to be the offered of the insurance exchange plans. You can't compete with health insurance now because they are part of the system.
So to get into an existing business many cases require you to have tons of money to get started or be willing to strike some under the table deals that may even put employees or customers at risk.
And all the many government/corporate tweakings in the market and economy lead to things like bubbles in certain markets, and all bubbles burst, taking out a lot of people with it.
Now, can I draw a very direct line from corporatist actions to a specific crime? Not without tons of time and money. Can it be argued that certain corporatist actions harm the economy more than help, which can lead to individuals becoming part of the other groups that no one disagrees are causes of crime? I believe so. You may disagree. If so, fine. It is virtually impossible to give you very specific examples before all of this is recent debate is long forgotten. Consider yourself to have won this point, or whatever makes you feel better. I will concede that the current path we are on is one that has been debated amongst economists for centuries, and still is today.
Meanwhile, take a crack at explaining this, in relation to corporatism rise or decline in the last 20 years. Not sure anyone would argue that corporatism is down in the last 2 decades but crime seems to be so, and dramatically, an apparent contradiction:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/us/study-gun-homicide/?hpt=hp_t2
Hey, the past called. It suggested you learn how to scroll up and save us all the trouble of rehashing something GTSail and I went over eight hours ago. It all even started with Keef linking an LA Times article that discussed the very study your CNN article does.
I won't bother rewriting my entire post. I'll just suggest a little statistical reasoning on your part might make you realize that this is now you using broad generalizations to try to make your point. I never said corporatism, by itself, is the result of all crime. And I know you are smart enough to understand that.
