Bush's first try at naming a Manufacturing Czar

[Flasch186]

love to see how the admin. views keeping our jobs here. They put someone in charge of over seeing it that did the same damn thing. Nice. Staus Quo. Can someone say lying and crooked. I know Ill vote for the man who calls them like he sees them and ABSOLUTELY will change his mind on a topic if he sees it isnt working (some call it a flip - flop I call it reevaluating). I wish The admin could do the same and not be so stubborn as to see when things aren't working that change may be necessary...Even Schwarzenegger admitted he would make changes to his platform and ideas when necessary. That is a GOOD trait, NOT a bad one. I love how he points out that the loss of the 75 jobs had nothing to do with the China plant....sheer coincidence. ugh, im so used to this now.



White House - AP

Bush Nominee Withdraws After Kerry Remark
1 hour, 13 minutes ago Add White House - AP to My Yahoo!


By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer

WASHINGTON - A Nebraska business executive withdrew from consideration to be President Bush (news - web sites)'s point man on manufacturing Thursday after presumptive Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry (news - web sites) raised questions about his stance on shifting U.S. jobs to foreign countries.



The Bush administration said Anthony Raimondo's withdrawal was related to Nebraska political issues and not the flap raised by the Kerry campaign.


But the nomination had appeared in doubt after Kerry's campaign had raised questions of why the Bush administration was picking someone to guide government efforts to halt the hemorrhage of American manufacturing jobs who had laid off 75 of his own workers in 2002 after announcing he was constructing a $3 million plant in China.


Raimondo, the chief executive of Behlen Manufacturing Co. of Columbus, Neb., could not be reached immediately for comment after the White House announced late Thursday that he was withdrawing from consideration for the post.


Earlier in the day, he had defended his company's operations in China, saying that the Chinese facility had not meant lost jobs for his four U.S. plants but rather was an effort to sell into the Chinese market. Behlen manufacturers steel buildings and farm equipment.


"We have not shipped jobs overseas," he said. "We are manufacturing buildings inside the China market for the China market." The Kerry campaign had no immediate reaction to Raimondo's withdrawal, but earlier Kerry had criticized the appointment of a so-called manufacturing czar "too little, too late" to deal with the current crisis in American manufacturing.


The administration had scheduled a news conference for Thursday to announce its selection for the job of assistant commerce secretary for manufacturing. Bush last September had announced the position to coordinate the administration's efforts to bolster the country's beleaguered manufacturing sector.


However, the planned news conference was scrapped after Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate, and other Democrats raised questions about Raimondo's stance on shifting U.S. jobs to foreign countries, a hot political issue given the loss of 3 million manufacturing jobs since mid-2000.


But an administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Raimondo's withdrawal was not connected to Kerry's criticism.


The official hinted at problems on Capitol Hill with getting Raimondo confirmed. During congressional consultations, in-state political issues arose that made Raimondo's confirmation impossible, the official said.


The Nebraska congressional delegation found itself split on the nomination. Sen. Ben Nelson, a Democrat, was enthusiastic about the nomination while the state's Republican senator, Chuck Hagel, questioned on Wednesday why the White House had not consulted with the state's Republican delegation before making the announcement.


After Raimondo's withdrawal, Mike Buttry, a spokesman for Hagel, said, "This is unfortunate for everybody. Somehow the process broke down and this thing got off the tracks."


In a statement, Nelson said, "Tony Raimondo would have been a remarkable assistant secretary for manufacturing."


The flap over Raimondo was the latest in a series of economic embarrassments for the administration this year.


Gregory Mankiw, the president's chief economist, had to apologize for appearing to be insensitive to the plight of unemployed workers in comments he made about outsourcing service jobs, such as call center workers to foreign countries.


The administration backtracked on its own economic forecast, which had predicted that 2.6 million jobs will be created this year, a figure private economists said was wildly optimistic.


The administration, however, insisted that it was pushing ahead with efforts to bolster the country's beleaguered manufacturing sector.





"It's not so important when we make the announcement. It's who it is," Commerce Secretary Don Evans said in an interview on CNBC.

Rep. Lee Terry, R-Neb., took to the House floor on Thursday to defend Raimondo, and to accuse Kerry of playing election year politics.

Terry said that Raimondo's four plants in the United States employed 1,200 U.S. workers and that the China factory would employ 180 people making farm equipment for sale in China, not for export back to the United States.

"This isn't an issue of outsourcing jobs," Terry said. "This is an issue of being efficient in a global economy."

___

Associated Press writers Terence Hunt in Washington and Tara Godvin and Margery Beck in Omaha, Neb., contributed to this report

[JonInMiddleGA]

Tell you what Flasch, let's make it illegal for any U.S. company to outsource any jobs to another country.

Screw efficiency, screw allowing the companies to be competitive in a global marketplace, by golly we've got to keep those jobs here no matter what. So what if the manufacturers can't compete, at least those jobs will stay here ... until the companies either fold completely or sell off their operations to a foreign competitor.

And of course, to be consistent, we'll also have to refuse any foreign companies who want to open plants & such here in the U.S. We can't allow them to do something we deem so terrible, just wouldn't want to be a part of such a thing.

Yeppers, that ought to fix everything

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Tell you what Flasch, let's make it illegal for any U.S. company to outsource any jobs to another country.

And of course, to be consistent, we'll also have to refuse any foreign companies who want to open plants & such here in the U.S. We can't allow them to do something we deem so terrible, just wouldn't want to be a part of such a thing.

Yeppers, that ought to fix everything

Not suggesting an ALL or nothing approach but the admin has done nothing to stem the tide of "outsourcing" and as a matter of fact has encouraged it (see: Econmic adviser's comment that "outsourcing is good" for the economy). Im saying the government can put together some incentives for keeping compnaies on our soil, through, tax breaks, welfare incentives, efficiency bonuses, etc. There are things that can be done, you cant just jump to the other extreme to absolve the discussion, there has to be a compromise that can keep our man., IT, and service sectors alive in our country while the world opens up in a Global economy (which is inevitable) but to allow the hemorhage to continue will only exacerbate the gap b/w Rich and Poor thus squeezing out the middle class, which in my opinion is what the Republican econmic platform equals anyways....thus the status quo. Unfortunately the admin has allowed trade issues between us and other countries to become poilitcized and now were scared or dont want to interrupt the flow of jobs to those countries SO we just sit back while other countries slap US with tariffs (see EU).

Like most democrats we are screaming for a compromise, crying for some help, asking for some assistance in keeping jobs, growing jobs, saving jobs. But the Admin. says, "Have faith. Faith based economics". Well those dont create jobs, or save jobs and with the guy owning the company in office he says "bring me your downtrodden, your poor" So i can put them to work for minimum wage....oh, wait someone in Bangladesh will do the same thing for half of minimum, MINIMUM wage, sorry....go live in the slums and when you have problems getting your food stamps, call the customer service line. (in 40 states the other line will be answered by someone NOT in the US)

Where is the plan to lead the country? apparently in another country.

[Dutch]

Let's hope the Japanese don't close down all their companies and manufacturer plants in the U.S. for the same reason. Why put so many millions of American's out of work?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Im saying the government can put together some incentives for keeping compnaies on our soil, through, tax breaks, welfare incentives, efficiency bonuses, etc.

Ah yes, let the government pay for it.
Now why does that approach not surprise me any?

Or, in other parts of your suggestions, the administration supports a tax break ... which will then be criticized as "tax breaks for the rich", "cronyism" or any of the other regular litany of criticisms that flow from the left.


[quote] there has to be a compromise that can keep our man., IT, and service sectors alive in our country[quote]

The thing that'll do that most effectively is a competitive wage structure. But that's not something that I think you're going to find too many people are willing to accept.

An alternative would be to produce a product/service that's clearly superior to what's available elsewhere. And by "clearly", I mean to a
degree that an adequate number of consumers are willing to pay more for it. And I'm just not convinced we're capable of that on a consistent enough basis to effect the sort of sector security you're talking about.

The other alternative is to be ahead of the market in terms of demand,
i.e. provide a product/service/good that people want in increasing quantity.
But to do that, you've pretty much got to meet one of the two conditions above, otherwise the company goes under before it gets there.

Somewhere in all this, there is a delicate balance between maintaining a domestic economy that can buy your widget & the cost of making the widget. In other words, you pay a little more for production but it comes back to you in consumption. I believe that's the balance that many U.S. companies are struggling find.

[Warhammer]

Unfortunately, the more government intervenes in the economy the worse it gets.

The sad fact is that most people in this country believe they have a right to a job. That is not true, you have to sell yourself to a potential employer, and show him that you can do what needs to be done. What is killing the job market right now is the increased productivity we have seen throughout all sectors of the economy. Why hire more people, if the people you have are working more efficiently, and getting the job done?

I think a scarier thought, is that we really do not produce many products in the States anymore. Think about it, where are most of our clothes, shoes, and consumer products manufactured? Sure, we produce a lot of services, and we flip a lot of burgers, but we really need more manufacturing jobs here. The problem is, for a domestic company to be competitive, we need to hire people at say $10.00 per hour. However, most factory workers would be insulted to work at those wages. That is part of the reason a lot of jobs go overseas, not because they do not want to locate here, but people will not work at the wages they would need to for the company to be profitable.

NOTE: My views have been slanted by seeing such wonderful government involvement such as not letting a steel plant in SC expand because it was too close to a wetlands. (The wetlands was formed over 20 years ago when they put a highway through. The wetlands is the median of the freeway!)

[ISiddiqui]

Econmic adviser's comment that "outsourcing is good" for the economy

It is... from an economic point of view.

[Flasch186]

that is the same as them throwing their hands up when it comes to the immigration policy and saying, oh well, we cant enforce it. Thats crap. The law was passed now enforce it...or get some legislators to change it but its not their job to determine which laws should be enforced and which shouldnt. Outsourcing is good for a bottom line of a company but last time i checked the US is not a company. See a CEO will run a company into the ground at the same time that he is exercising stock options and building his homesteaded house here in FL. then when the comaony goes belly up he can shut it down, send the former employees on their way and move here. The country cannot do that. Perhaps a solution is that CEO's make less money OMG imagine that. But how will they survive? Only 25 million / year? no, cant be done.

[SFL Cat]

The problem is this. While Americans scream about wanting to keep manufacturing jobs in this country, they also want to be able to waltz into WAL-MART and pay next to nothing for products. Sorry, the only way the consumer can get what he wants is if companies ship the work to countries where they can pay willing workers what would amount to slave wages in this country.

I'm conservative, but I believe in fair trade rather than free trade. Whatever tariffs or limitations a country wants to put on our exports, we put the same restrictions on their products. This would also be true for American companies who produce products overseas, encouraging corporate giants to flex some muscle to ensure that governments enforce fair trade. It might be painful at first, since consumers would likely see an immediate hike in the cost of goods, but in the long run, I think it would be good for everyone.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Perhaps a solution is that CEO's make less money OMG imagine that.

Imagine indeed.

We wouldn't want to allow someone to be paid whatever a company feels he/she is worth, now would we?

I do believe you just took us right to where Warhammer made a great point

The sad fact is that most people in this country believe they have a right to a job. That is not true, you have to sell yourself to a potential employer, and show him that you can do what needs to be done.

And that's pretty much where I ultimately end up on this subject -- there is no "right" to a job other than what the market is willing to offer. That's about as American a principle as I can think of; a right to the pursuit of happiness, not a guarantee of happiness.

Sadly, the latter is what I believe a sizable portion of the population is looking for. And they're seeking a grail that simply doesn't exist. That's what it seems to me that some people can't stand. Well, that & the notion that someone else might be considered worth $25m/yr while they aren't deemed worth $15/hour. It just galls the hell out of some people, but it's a harsh bottom line fact.

[Flasch186]

I agree with SFL cat and would be willing to pay a bit more for a good that comes from America. I believe the quality of most goods that are American made are excellent for the most part and would pay a bit more for it. You have to undertsand that there are extremes. 25mil/yr. is an extreme and so is .25/hr and neither is acceptable to me. I would be for fair trade not FREE trade because as of now it is not fair. We get tariffs levied on us and republicans dont mention it once but try to levy a tariff on the Chinese Steel industry which is absolutely an unfair trade pratcice and no one talks about It like its some sort of off limits subject. Youre just saying to each his own and every man for himself and Im simply opposed to this. We need to look out for our neighbor and not try to horde our money, exhaust our resources, and vanquish the lands in an effort to have our stock prices go up. Hence my leaning to the left. If your selfish IMHO then you lean to the right. Maybe thats why the head of the NYSE made so much money from those that he was supposed to regulate...selfish and criminal IMO. I would be for the gov't PAYING for helping out our businesses here which in turn means i would pay more in taxes. Look WE will have to pay more in taxes someday PERIOD. Our budget cannot run like this forever and you simply cannot pull the plug on ALL govt programs and aid and subsidies over night, although some would like to. We all agree that some programs need reworking and efficency evaluation but the way the republican economic machine views this is backwards. Cut taxes while we spend MORE money on ANYTHING doesnt make any sense to me at all. And watching the GDP shrink and not care is baffling.

[SportsDino]

Currently companies enjoy the tax breaks from the federal government whether they outsource or not, giving them more 'incentives' of that nature will therefore have no real effect. You would need to tie tax breaks in some manner directly to job creation in order for them to have that effect. Cutting taxes on income, capital gains, dividends, and so on will only increase the return to the big guys on everything, including outsourcing.

Perhaps instead of cutting taxes at the top and having 'faith' that the dollars will fall down the chain (and remain in the U.S.) the idea should change towards some subsidy tied directly to an individual worker which the company only gets if said worker is employed. For instance, if the cost (including salary and benefits, etc.) of a foreign worker is $5 per hour and the cost of a U.S. worker is $10 (yes, unlikely) then a $5 subsidy would make them economically 'equal' in the eyes of the employer. At which point the logical choice would be to select wherever will give them the best advantages, where it could be argued the U.S. might offer some bonuses such as technology and closeness to the market.

Obviously, like any plan this has negatives, for instance the subsidy could be said to be too huge to be economically feasible for one. Even a billion dollars, when divided over one hundred million workers only comes to ten bucks a head which isn't very much. The expense of this program would likely be astronomical and therefore unable to reach a level of impact.

On the other hand, the distribution of the government dollars is changed. With the subsidy you know those employees are getting $5 an hour more for every $5 you spend (neglecting overhead), whereas a trillion dollar tax cut may only have less than half of that go to that employee class and who knows how long it will be till that other half makes its way down the food chain to help them out (if it ever does).

I by no means advocate such a policy (in this oversimplified form), but it does demonstrate that there exists alternatives beyond those policies which have become commonplace in modern politics. So called 'faith-based' economics have reduced effect because they are so indirect, with the effect further diluted by the fact that most incentives can be enjoyed without making the investments they are intended to support.

Furthermore, as has been shown earlier in this thread, CEO's are selfish agents whose best interests do not always correspond with higher profits. Indeed, with the consolidation of power at the top of many corporate structures (board's in the palm of the executives...) the reward of to raid a company in the short-term can outweigh the more difficult work of finding ways to make more revenue in a competitive market. Why waste time on a risky project that may or may not see a profit, when you can rearrange some accounting details to create a favorable image and liquidate your position as carefully as possible before it is discovered (or you push the costs into the future)?

To get back to the point though, what does this mean in terms of outsourcing? Outsourcing can be good for the economy, as efficiency is defined as the most benefit at the least cost. Is all outsourcing okay then if it increases profits? No, it is not, as has been mentioned other issues need to be considered especially from the perspective of a national government. Currently, many of these 'low-cost' economies have governments that are willing to suffer a large class of their population in poverty in order to support slave-wage systems. The short-term benefit again is dominating, with the hope of long-term gain (though how much a community can grow on subsistence level of wages is questionable).

Perhaps the U.S. should take a policy of encouraging these other governments to insist on a higher standard of living for their own citizens (not necessarilly U.S. level, but decent housing, food and education would be a start), and punish companies that exploit countries that are not developing those standards.
We have no jurisdiction of course on policy in other lands, but we do have influence in the form of our considerable clout in world finance (not just private markets, but the strength of organizations like the World Bank and IMF). We could suggest that funds and interest rates will be more favorable for those nations that adopt 'fair-wage' standards, as those nations will be more likely to show the sort of growth and returns that those loans/grants are intended to spawn in the first place. This assumes that those organizations are interested in the overall health of world and U.S. populations (some would argue they have been heavilly corrupted in those purposes to supporting corporate friendly policies).

Which brings us to this appointment. The reason the protest may be valid is that this person hardly seems to have any background that would suggest creativity in job creation. His credentials as a business man may be great, but as has been said, business policy does NOT correspond to the best public policy (the government's bottom line is not money or even votes, but constitutionally, the health and welfare of all persons and their freedoms). On the surface the outsourcing of jobs looks bad, even if he is telling the truth that it was making the best decision to fit into a Chinese market. If however, that factory was created to avoid paying people decent wages and benefits (whether Chinese or American) I do not think we want that person making decisions concerning improving the number and quality of jobs here, or anywhere. That type of person has proven only their ability to destroy jobs by finding the most broken of men and offering them scraps of a life that by law they would be unallowed to do in the United States.

[Flasch186]

I think everyone would agree that I couldnt have said it better myself

[BigJohn&TheLions]

Remenicent of Energy Department Secretary Spence Abraham who, as a Michigan Senator co-sponsored legislation to eliminate the Energy Department in 1999, then acpeted Bush's nomination. Let's see... I'll nominate a guy to head a department that he tried to eliminate. I'll nominate a guy to keep watch over companies so that they don't elimiate jobs and send them overseas, like he did. This is either a string of bad coincidences or it's what the administration wants.

[Flasch186]

there are a litany of those appointments....

the person in charge of watching over the Alaskan wilderness used to lobby for the oil companies and is pushing to open it up for the oil companies. just another one.

[SunDancer]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Tell you what Flasch, let's make it illegal for any U.S. company to outsource any jobs to another country.

Screw efficiency, screw allowing the companies to be competitive in a global marketplace, by golly we've got to keep those jobs here no matter what. So what if the manufacturers can't compete, at least those jobs will stay here ... until the companies either fold completely or sell off their operations to a foreign competitor.

And of course, to be consistent, we'll also have to refuse any foreign companies who want to open plants & such here in the U.S. We can't allow them to do something we deem so terrible, just wouldn't want to be a part of such a thing.

Yeppers, that ought to fix everything

I find this statement way out in left field. Foreign companies are more "American" then our own companies. The foreign carmakers are alot more American then the Big 3. Sadly, people want to shop at Wal-Mart, buy Nike, Dell, ect....but then complain about outsourcing? I find it an error in the logic of shoppers. If you do not want to keep outsourcing jobs, then do not buy the products of these companies. Buy products that are American-made.

As stated before, you are what you make of yourself. Go to college, get a degree, ect...I agree with SFL Cat. I am not too fond of Free Trade like NFTA, but I am a fan of Fair Trade. I think the US should pull out of NFTA and the WTO, and work out deals that are fair to both sides. Do not sign a deal with Mexico or Taiwan until the government improves standard of living costs, if not, impose a tarriff. I believe that we are expected to be "guaranteed" jobs, ect. This country is a free-market, freedom-protecting society that allows Americans to do whatever they wish within legal and moral justifications. I love the fact that I start a business, and do what I want. You do what you make of yourself, if not, then go to a differnet country that fits your requirements.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

Originally Posted by SunDancer

...impose a tarriff.

What is sad is that we open our markets to countries that impose tarrifs on our goods. Japan sells very few American cars. Why? They impose a tarrif and a stigma on American cars. Is there any chance that a kid in China wears a shirt that says "Made in the U.S.A?" The whole reason we got involved and took over the war for independence in the Philipenes was to get a foothold in the asian market. Did we do this to import their goods? No. We did it to sell them ours. Our current system is set up so that the top executives want to charge top dollar for goods and pay the least amount to manufacture them. This way they can pile the money up in their own accounts. It is NOT a way of saving americans money. Items manufactured in the U.S. can not only compete with foreign goods, but surpass them in quality and affordability IF corporate greed was not what it is.

It's not only manufacturing jobs that are leaving this nation. Everything from computer programming to reading x-rays to telephone service centers are all heading overseas because companies can get away with exploiting workers in other countries with long hours and cheap wages. Then the companies are setting up false business addresses in the bahamas to take advantage of trade rules that allow them to avoid taxes.

If something is not done about this we will have only service jobs left. And that's only because a guy in India can't deliver your pizza in 30 minutes or less...

[mgadfly]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Imagine indeed.

We wouldn't want to allow someone to be paid whatever a company feels he/she is worth, now would we?

What I never understand about this argument is why a corporate honcho has a right to negotiate whatever wage s/he is "worth" (usually including a nice severance package) while the blue-collar worker is somehow out of line when wishing to use our representative democracy/republic to negotiate a system of laws that protect their job and enable them to negotiate a wage for what they believe they are "worth"

If companies benefit from their relationship with the United States (people), then the people do have a RIGHT to make laws that regulate/etc... those businesses. They have a right to, through our government, impose tariffs, trade restrictions, tax incentives and disincentives, and whatever else they care to do. You may not agree with it, but don't act all insulted that they want to use the system and its leverage as being somehow wrong, or immoral or outrageous, or whatever you're implying by your position.

I might be wrong, and I'm not necessarily for trade restrictions and the prevention of out-sourcing, but I don't think those who have ideas of how to use our governments power/mechanisms in a way that I oppose are so outrageous or out of line.

I'm obviously reading a lot into what you posted, and if I mistook what your point was, I apologize.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Not suggesting an ALL or nothing approach but the admin has done nothing to stem the tide of "outsourcing" and as a matter of fact has encouraged it (see: Econmic adviser's comment that "outsourcing is good" for the economy). Im saying the government can put together some incentives for keeping compnaies on our soil, through, tax breaks, welfare incentives, efficiency bonuses, etc. There are things that can be done, you cant just jump to the other extreme to absolve the discussion, there has to be a compromise that can keep our man., IT, and service sectors alive in our country while the world opens up in a Global economy (which is inevitable) but to allow the hemorhage to continue will only exacerbate the gap b/w Rich and Poor thus squeezing out the middle class, which in my opinion is what the Republican econmic platform equals anyways....thus the status quo. Unfortunately the admin has allowed trade issues between us and other countries to become poilitcized and now were scared or dont want to interrupt the flow of jobs to those countries SO we just sit back while other countries slap US with tariffs (see EU).

Outsourcing is good- whether democrats like to admit it or not. The European tariffs are because of Bush's protectionist idiocy (steel and co), and that's an issue the democrats love- they would like further tariffs. Hell, the crux of your arguement relies on that.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by BigJohn&TheLions

What is sad is that we open our markets to countries that impose tarrifs on our goods. Japan sells very few American cars. Why? They impose a tarrif and a stigma on American cars. Is there any chance that a kid in China wears a shirt that says "Made in the U.S.A?" The whole reason we got involved and took over the war for independence in the Philipenes was to get a foothold in the asian market. Did we do this to import their goods? No. We did it to sell them ours. Our current system is set up so that the top executives want to charge top dollar for goods and pay the least amount to manufacture them. This way they can pile the money up in their own accounts. It is NOT a way of saving americans money. Items manufactured in the U.S. can not only compete with foreign goods, but surpass them in quality and affordability IF corporate greed was not what it is.

No, they can't- that last statement has little basis in reality. Other countries (like India, China, much of Africa if given the chance) have lower labor costs and a competitive advantage in some facets that the US can't replicate -it has nothing to do with "corporate greed." Your current system is set up as a product of a consumer culture, and the desire to get things cheap- what's wrong with that ? Do you want to double your food costs, or your cost of living ? Impose more tariffs- they end up hurting you.

It's not only manufacturing jobs that are leaving this nation. Everything from computer programming to reading x-rays to telephone service centers are all heading overseas because companies can get away with exploiting workers in other countries with long hours and cheap wages. Then the companies are setting up false business addresses in the bahamas to take advantage of trade rules that allow them to avoid taxes.

If something is not done about this we will have only service jobs left. And that's only because a guy in India can't deliver your pizza in 30 minutes or less...

As a national of one of these countries being "exploited", I don't think the concept of purchasing power is clear here- a company paying an individual $3000 a year in India is paying him 6 times the average wage- and the purchasing power of $3000 in India is a lot more than here. I hate it when this arguement is made - it has no basis in the real world. A standard here is not a standard everywhere.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by BigJohn&TheLions

What is sad is that we open our markets to countries that impose tarrifs on our goods. Japan sells very few American cars. Why? They impose a tarrif and a stigma on American cars. Is there any chance that a kid in China wears a shirt that says "Made in the U.S.A?" The whole reason we got involved and took over the war for independence in the Philipenes was to get a foothold in the asian market. Did we do this to import their goods? No. We did it to sell them ours. Our current system is set up so that the top executives want to charge top dollar for goods and pay the least amount to manufacture them. This way they can pile the money up in their own accounts. It is NOT a way of saving americans money. Items manufactured in the U.S. can not only compete with foreign goods, but surpass them in quality and affordability IF corporate greed was not what it is.

It's not only manufacturing jobs that are leaving this nation. Everything from computer programming to reading x-rays to telephone service centers are all heading overseas because companies can get away with exploiting workers in other countries with long hours and cheap wages. Then the companies are setting up false business addresses in the bahamas to take advantage of trade rules that allow them to avoid taxes.

If something is not done about this we will have only service jobs left. And that's only because a guy in India can't deliver your pizza in 30 minutes or less...

Where do you think these goods are being bought? Cheaper costs equals cheaper prices for consumers. It also frees up labor in the US to be reallocated to where the demand is. Playing who has the bigger prick in international trade only hurts both sides.

[BishopMVP]

Aadik already got to parts of these, so I'll probably overlap with some of his points.

Originally Posted by mgadfly

What I never understand about this argument is why a corporate honcho has a right to negotiate whatever wage s/he is "worth" (usually including a nice severance package) while the blue-collar worker is somehow out of line when wishing to use our representative democracy/republic to negotiate a system of laws that protect their job and enable them to negotiate a wage for what they believe they are "worth"

Because the corporate honcho is negotiating directly with one company while a system of laws affects a wide range of markets/businesses/people. I don't see how the two situations are comparable. And we already have a system of laws that allow everyone to negotiate for a wage they think they are worth, with the exception being that there is an artificially imposed floor. True free-market economics would dictate a removal of the minimum wage.

If companies benefit from their relationship with the United States (people), then the people do have a RIGHT to make laws that regulate/etc... those businesses. They have a right to, through our government, impose tariffs, trade restrictions, tax incentives and disincentives, and whatever else they care to do. You may not agree with it, but don't act all insulted that they want to use the system and its leverage as being somehow wrong, or immoral or outrageous, or whatever you're implying by your position.

People have the right to do it, but that doesn't mean that it should be done or that it would benefit the people.

Originally Posted by BigJohn&TheLions

What is sad is that we open our markets to countries that impose tarrifs on our goods. Japan sells very few American cars. Why? They impose a tarrif and a stigma on American cars.

We impose tariffs on many goods and countries that don't do the same to the US. If you take the argument against outsourcing and companies using "offshore" tax havens and look from the European Union, the US is the one in the role typically viewed as the 3rd-world country. We make more from other countries outsourcing work here than we lose, due to the unprecedented productivity in the US.

Our current system is set up so that the top executives want to charge top dollar for goods and pay the least amount to manufacture them.

This would require removing the minimum wage and the many price caps, regulation etc. currently in the market.

This way they can pile the money up in their own accounts. It is NOT a way of saving americans money. Items manufactured in the U.S. can not only compete with foreign goods, but surpass them in quality and affordability IF corporate greed was not what it is.

It's not just corporate greed. Unless you have a situation where there is a monopolistic structure, economic profit will result in more businesses entering the market and increased competition driving prices down. And while US goods can (and do) surpass other countries in quality, it just isn't cost-effective to pay someone here $6.75 an hour for tasks that can be performed nearly as well by someone making $1 an hour.

It's not only manufacturing jobs that are leaving this nation. Everything from computer programming to reading x-rays to telephone service centers are all heading overseas because companies can get away with exploiting workers in other countries with long hours and cheap wages.

In general, it IS NOT EXPLOITING the workers. These companies go in and build a factory, and even when paying a wage that would be unconscionable in the US, they have no trouble finding workers because it represents an improvement over what emplyment was previously available. These are the best jobs available, and the salary is not nearly as bad after you factor in cost of living.

Then the companies are setting up false business addresses in the bahamas to take advantage of trade rules that allow them to avoid taxes.

Again, listen to EU countries bitch about companies setting up shop in the US to avoid paying taxes.

If something is not done about this we will have only service jobs left. And that's only because a guy in India can't deliver your pizza in 30 minutes or less...

In the foreseeable future, that's not true. There are many benefits to living and working in the US that don't get mentioned. The infrastructure, culture, amount of entrepreneurial capital and other factors contribute to this. I think that Indian workers currently have 15% the productivity of American workers. This means that paying someone in India 1/5th the money to do the same job isn't helping the companies bottom line. This isn't going to change soon, and it also means that while low-paying jobs go overseas, higher-paying jobs are being created here by the same forces of globalization.

[mgadfly]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Aadik already got to parts of these, so I'll probably overlap with some of his points.


Because the corporate honcho is negotiating directly with one company while a system of laws affects a wide range of markets/businesses/people.

Do you really believe this? One person making $39,000,000 per year has a substantial affect on the market/business/people in the industry. You're free to disagree.

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

I don't see how the two situations are comparable.

The right to negotiate directly is only permissible because we the people allow it. That's why they are comparable. We could just as easily create laws about how one person may negotiate with another individual (in fact that is what contract law is about). I think it is a good idea for government to keep their hands out of it, but that isn't because an individual has some absolute right to negotiate with other individuals that is inherently superior to collective bargaining rights. Both are creatures of our social contract with one another manifested through our mechanisms and creations of law. Thus, they are comparable.

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

People have the right to do it, but that doesn't mean that it should be done or that it would benefit the people.

I agree with this completely. But my point was that a lot of people act like laws limiting out-sourcing (for example) are outrageous because they are claiming a right (as mentioned in this thread) that is non-existant. That's not the real problem they have with it. What they should say is, "that is a legitimate perspective, however I don't think it is a good idea because..." Not act like the suggestion at all is somehow unAmerican, corrupt, a claim of a non-existant right, outrageous liberal propaganda, and all the other mud people sling at such suggestions.

Liberals are well within their rights, to the same extent that contract law that allows agreements between individual parties is within our rights, to create whatever laws and incentives they believe are right. We can disagree with the solution, but the suggestions are valid.

[Sharpieman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Ah yes, let the government pay for it.
Now why does that approach not surprise me any?

Or, in other parts of your suggestions, the administration supports a tax break ... which will then be criticized as "tax breaks for the rich", "cronyism" or any of the other regular litany of criticisms that flow from the left.

Apperantly, you don't know whats going on in the government right now. Today, Senate Republican majority struck down a bill that would recind the tax breaks for those Americans making over 1 million dollars a year. Is that middle class? I don't think so.

[Desnudo]

Originally Posted by Sharpieman

Apperantly, you don't know whats going on in the government right now. Today, Senate Republican majority struck down a bill that would recind the tax breaks for those Americans making over 1 million dollars a year. Is that middle class? I don't think so.

What does that have to do with the middle class either way?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Tell you what Flasch, let's make it illegal for any U.S. company to outsource any jobs to another country.

Ok. It sounds good to me.

Actually, if they are going to make items to sell in only that market, then that is personally acceptable to me. An example of this would be Toyota building their cars destined for the US market inside the US. An example of someone breaking this would be EarthLink putting call centers in India while they only sell service in the US. If you want to send your workforce overseas to replace jobs that were held here in the US previously, while importing the output of that work back into the US, you should send that same percentage of executives overseas as well. Some of these CEOs rave about the savings of offshoring jobs, but neglect to explain why they don't offer to offshore their own job which in some cases would save the company millions by itself.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

Where do you think these goods are being bought? Cheaper costs equals cheaper prices for consumers. It also frees up labor in the US to be reallocated to where the demand is. Playing who has the bigger prick in international trade only hurts both sides.

Over the past two or three years this "labor in the US" has been reallocated to the unemployment ranks. There are 2.4 million fewer jobs in the US, according to the U.S. Department of Labor under George W. Bush. Where is this labor being reallocated? It's one thing to preach the idealistic view of it, but tell me how this is really happening and use real data to support this stand.

[SFL Cat]

If nothing else, keeping a healthy capability to manufacture goods in the U.S. is in the best interests of our national security. We'd find ourselves S.O.L. if we got into some kind of armed conflict with *for the sake of argument* China, and 90% of the goods sold in this country were manufactured in China.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SunDancer

I find this statement way out in left field.

Umm ... it was meant to be. I assumed my sarcasm would be easily recognizable.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by SunDancer

Go to college, get a degree, ect...I agree with SFL Cat.

The people who are having their jobs offshored now are workers with degrees. Some of them with multiple degrees.

I agree with your take on shoppers. The problem is mainly that the masses in America are fools, who don't know much of anything. They don't know who the President is, they aren't registered to vote, they don't read the newspapers, they don't keep up with current events, etc. They are mainly ignorant and prefer to stay that way until some event in their life forces them to find out that they have been contributing to the problem that has finally caught them in its net. Most people aren't interested in the truly meaningful (aka boring) things. Oh, sure, they get outraged about symbols on flags, about same-gender marriage, about breasts popping out at the Super Bowl, and the things that Howard Stern says on the radio, but they don't even know who the Mayor of their city/town is or that their property taxes are about to be increased.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by mgadfly

I'm obviously reading a lot into what you posted, and if I mistook what your point was, I apologize.

I think you may have mistaken my point, but then again, I'm not entirely sure.

Maybe this'll help clarify, I dunno.

Congress can take whatever action (within Constitutional limits) it wants regarding trade, business, etc. And whoever wants to can lobby, attempt to influence, etc Congress how they see fit. As you say, that is indeed their "right".

They're welcome to do so if they see fit.

My point was more to the effect that I believe they're damned fools to believe it would have effect they're looking for.

To make a long story short, if I've started to investigate the possibility of moving my business (with a grand total of 2.5 employees) out of the U.S., then I can only imagine how attractive the idea would be to a manufacturer, large employer, etc.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Where is this labor being reallocated?

To the "obsolete" bin perhaps? Due to a combination of unmarketable skills & unrealistic views of what those skills are worth in the 2004 marketplace.

Let's assume for a minute that's the case ... what's your alternative?
A modern-day WPA program?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

To the "obsolete" bin perhaps? Due to a combination of unmarketable skills & unrealistic views of what those skills are worth in the 2004 marketplace.

I know what you are saying, but I don't know a single person that has been laid off, due to their job being offshored, that was given an option to work for the same rate as the Indian who got the job. So, it would have nothing to do with unrealistic views of what those skills are worth. It also has nothing to do with unmarketable skills, as there is plenty of demand for the same skillset all over the world. It has to do with cost of living and what people in one part of the world can afford to work for and what another can't. For what people work for in India, you'd be homeless and would need to eat at the soup kitchen to stay alive.

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

OMG imagine that. But how will they survive? Only 25 million / year? no, cant be done.

This is one of those argument flags. You see it, and just leave the table.

[Tekneek]

Like I said, I will change my opinion completely when these CEOs offshore their own jobs (or have it done by their Board of Directors). It will finally demonstrate that they really believe what they've been saying (the work is equal) and give them a real opportunity to practice what they preach. My own experience at a company that has started offshoring jobs over the past couple of years is that they steadily drove down the standards of performance so that when the offshoring picked up pace they could state that everything would be the same quality as it currently was. We've been told that any loss in quality is worth the savings. That's the reality of it, and not what is claimed in the public or in this thread.

[QuikSand]

Corporations have an obligation to maximize the value of the shareholders. That's it.

To expect them to do anything else, within the context of sensible laws and regulations passed to protect the general public interest, is inappropriate.

"Corporate greed" is a bullshit slander on the cultural and political elements that made this country great, and built from the ground up the very standard of living that the "anti-greed" people now want to treat as an entitlement.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

It has to do with cost of living and what people in one part of the world can afford to work for and what another can't.

Then perhaps some should consider packing up & moving where the cost of living is lower. I've found that to be quite helpful in making the most of my money, both personally & corporately.

And before you point out something along the lines of "that isn't always an option", I'd like to mention again that there is no guaranteed right to be employed.

[Tekneek]

At the end of the day, I would have very little problem with it if companies were upfront about it. They try to deny it, though. They assign workers in India "American" names, and US cities to pretend they are in, to try and pull a fast one on the dumb customer. They talk about the quality being exactly the same, or better, when in reality the quality may not be what it was a few years before (and the company knows this). It may not be "corporate greed", but most companies are lying about their motivations and making outrageous claims about the benefits (these benefits, generally speaking, are only that these new employees work more for less and don't care about benefits...the gains are not that they are getting a higher quality service/product out of it).

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And before you point out something along the lines of "that isn't always an option", I'd like to mention again that there is no guaranteed right to be employed.

Of course not, but people on the other side of the argument could use a good dose of reality as well. The Indian government won't let just anybody move there from another country and compete for jobs with their own citizens.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

The Indian government won't let just anybody move there from another country and compete for jobs with their own citizens.

Ain't life a bitch?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Ain't life a bitch?

Yeah, because it defeats your entire argument that you can just relocate to where the jobs are and the cost of living is lower.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Yeah, because it defeats your entire argument that you can just relocate to where the jobs are and the cost of living is lower.

Actually, my primary argument is that the stark reality is that it is more fiscally responsible for the companies for these jobs to go elsewhere. Otherwise, they wouldn't be going there in the first place.

Sometimes reality sucks. Sometimes reality bites. And this particular reality has bitten quite a few asses, but as a wise old IT manager used to say "some things just are".

Earlier you raised a good point, about the cost of living in the U.S. vs elsewhere. Well, short of installing an entirely different economic system, that isn't likely to change considerably.

As has already been pointed out in this thread, a company owes its primary responsibility to its shareholders. These are not government-owned industries, they're either held privately or ultimately by a collection of individuals.

If it makes corporate fiscal sense for jobs to be outsourced, then so be it AFAIC. The companies don't owe anybody a job, their primary task is to make money ... for themselves and their owners/shareholders.

I really don't see why that seems so hard to grasp.

[Tekneek]

I don't know why that reality is so hard to grasp either. I totally understand that, and I do not think I have demonstrated otherwise.

I also do not understand why corporations are not completely honest about doing it. If they do not want to tell anyone, or admit it, then they must not feel it is such a good idea after all. If I was doing something with my business that I thought was wonderful, and that my shareholders would love, why would I try to keep it a secret?

EDIT:

I thought of a reason: "competitive edge." However, this would not apply to industries where the major players are already doing it. In that kind of case, keeping it secret is only meant to be deceptive.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I also do not understand why corporations are not completely honest about doing it.

Sure you do.

They know two things about outsourcing -- it makes fiscal sense from the production standpoint & it makes for bad p.r. for domestic sales.

Shareholders like it, companies like it, the masses (who could care less about anything but themselves) don't like it.

But very few people have ever gone broke overestimating the stupidity of the American public.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

But very few people have ever gone broke overestimating the stupidity of the American public.

Hmmm. It's that kind of thing that may eventually bring about the downfall of this nation...which *will* happen eventually.

I was thinking about the "corporate greed" point from earlier, and I don't think that is generally pointed at corporations, per se. It is pointed at the executive officers of the corporations. While these big savings are, in theory, for the shareholders, the company brings on more Executives, who take home bigger salaries and bigger bonuses as their rewards for eliminating the jobs of others. I think has also been directed, more appropriately, at the people behind the big financial accounting scams who were probably motivated by greed.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Corporations have an obligation to maximize the value of the shareholders. That's it.

To expect them to do anything else, within the context of sensible laws and regulations passed to protect the general public interest, is inappropriate.

While this is true, I think in the long run, corporations are going to find that many of the jobs they have sent off shore are going to cost them in ways that they are not anticipating, especially in terms of customer service. I'm also a big believer in the Service-Profit Chain Theory, the crux of which is that companies have three sets of customers they have to keep happy to maximize profit potential - the shareholders, the people they sell to, and their employees. And one thing I know for sure, having worked in a company that is outsourcing jobs, is that there is little that a company can do to destroy morale among the remaining employees more than sending jobs overseas. I think that companies are eventually going to regret doing this on the scale that they are. Most of the time, I don't think shareholders have the foggiest idea what really makes sense for a business to do, because they are too distant from the information decisions are being based on, and it's mostly a pathological obsession with favoring shareholders over everyone else that's causing this problem. Shareholders care about numbers, and that's about it. To get to the numbers shareholders like to see, you have to concentrate on satisfying the other two sets of customers.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by clintl

While this is true, I think in the long run, corporations are going to find that many of the jobs they have sent off shore are going to cost them in ways that they are not anticipating, especially in terms of customer service.

Already happened. Dell is moving (has moved?) a call center from India back to the US due to complaints about poor service from some of their corporate customers.

[mgadfly]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Corporations have an obligation to maximize the value of the shareholders. That's it.

To expect them to do anything else, within the context of sensible laws and regulations passed to protect the general public interest, is inappropriate.

"Corporate greed" is a bullshit slander on the cultural and political elements that made this country great, and built from the ground up the very standard of living that the "anti-greed" people now want to treat as an entitlement.

The propoganda about corporate greed is basically the same as the propoganda about unions. People are transfering the characteristic of a few corrupt corporations/executives to the whole class of corporations. Bullshit it may be, but the "all unions are corrupt and ran by the mafia" propaganda is pretty much the same. And I suppose, depending upon what side of the political spectrum you're on, one seems to have more validity than the other.

However, I think that the people are not limited by "senisble laws" when attempting to force American corporations (or foreign corporations who want to do business here) to have a greater financial incentive to remain in the states. They can pass whatever law they want so long as it doesn't violate the Constitution, and if it does, they can pass (or work toward) an Amendment. Just like there is no absolute right to be employed (I know you aren't the one saying this) there is no absolute right to property, no absolute right make as much profit as you can, and no absolute to almost anything.

The government has the right to take your liberty, your life, and your property. So arguing this as "there is no right to be employed" is not the point, as there aren't many, if any, rights that are absolute. The real question is what do we want our social contract witho one another to be? Our Constitution gives us the mechanism to work for changes, and a self-righteous attitude that there is some Right that supports your position, while no such Right exists for the opposing view, is narrow-minded and pathetic.

With all that above, I'd just like to be clear that I'm not advocating unions, or that we prevent out-sourcing or anything else. I'm just saying that all this talk about a corporations duty or whatever is silly because the whole point to the countering opinion is that we should make it financially benefitial for companies to stay in the United States.

[ISiddiqui]

Perhaps the U.S. should take a policy of encouraging these other governments to insist on a higher standard of living for their own citizens

You do realize that these 'slave-labor' jobs in the Third World ALREADY are a higher standard of living for people who work in those factories. What, do you think Nike forces people to work there? No, of course not. Nike offers a much higher wage and better conditions then they would have had working in agriculture or another industry in the country.

By increasing the wage even further, you would get massive problems with inflation, with only the factory workers being able to afford many things.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

Where do you think these goods are being bought? Cheaper costs equals cheaper prices for consumers. It also frees up labor in the US to be reallocated to where the demand is. Playing who has the bigger prick in international trade only hurts both sides.

OK, here's an idea. We take every job and send them overseas. Then everybody can be happy on welfare that isn't making $700 million.

As far as the arguement about how much cheap labor effects market price, gym shoes cost about the same to make a pair that cost $50 and a pair that cost $250. Both of these shoes cost what, $5 to make? Let's say we triple the production cost to make it in the US. That's $15. 50-15=35 or 250-15=235 still decent profits. Why won't this be done? Profit margin. It's not like corporations are the Robin Hoods of the economic sector, taking jobs from rich. fat Americans and delivering them to the needy of the world. It's all about greed.

And why do these other nations need to service us anyway? Does this not foster resentment? Working long hours in a factory to produce goods that you could never afford yourself just so that Americans can have their expensive things produced cheap at your expense? I read another post that basicaly said "well, exploit me!" The main problem is that the US had changed from a nation of producers to a nation of consumers.