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]

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]

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?http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

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]

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 :D

[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]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.



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.



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]

Ah yes, let the government pay for it.
Now why does that approach not surprise me any?http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

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]

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]

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]

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]

I find this statement way out in left field.
Umm ... it was meant to be. I assumed my sarcasm would be easily recognizable.

[Tekneek]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[The Afoci]

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.

God I hope you never ask for a raise.

[JonInMiddleGA]

It's all about greed.
Well ... duh.

That's the basis of the entire American economic system.

"Greed" is one of those words that gets a bad rap AFAIC, without it, you're basically left with Socialism.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

Well ... duh.

That's the basis of the entire American economic system.

"Greed" is one of those words that gets a bad rap AFAIC, without it, you're basically left with Socialism.
But it keeps getting worse. There's nothing wrong with wanting to be successful and rich. The idea is what gives hope to us all. The problem now is that nobody feels they should share the wealth. Hell, I made it, fuck the rest of 'em! The gap between the wealthies and the "middle-class" continues to grow. Why were the monopolies busted up 100 years ago? because it was for the good of the nation. Why would this not happen today? Because there is more corruption than ever before. Tammany Hall would be proud of this government.

As a nation, we are doomed if we contimue to send jobs overseas. These nations who feel dependant on these jobs to service us are also doomed to fail when our economic system collapses. When this happens, the guys who made all the money will be living well, and won't give a damn because there is no way that they can have the same fate as King Louis.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

God I hope you never ask for a raise.
Haven't had one in over 3 years. I know better than to get a raise because they have been firing the people who make any decent money.

My mother just got a pay cut of 50%. This is after a cut of 10% 6 months ago. The excuse her company gave is that they don't want to lay off the employees. Lucky them.

My sister's father-in-law just got laid off because his job was sent to India.

Yup, the economy's great!

[The Afoci]

Haven't had one in over 3 years. I know better than to get a raise because they have been firing the people who make any decent money.

My mother just got a pay cut of 50%. This is after a cut of 10% 6 months ago. The excuse her company gave is that they don't want to lay off the employees. Lucky them.

My sister's father-in-law just got laid off because his job was sent to India.

Yup, the economy's great!


Hmmm... My dad's income has increased by 4 times what it was only 4 years ago. My mother has doubled her pay. My girlfriend is now making over triple what she did last year.

All these people changed jobs and found much better ones. My dad started a business and has been much more successful than he could have imagined. My mother is a manager at a local grocery story. My girlfriend trains horses and works at a bar.

You are right, the economy is great.

[Tekneek]

That's too bad. Your sister's father-in-law must be some deadbeat loser to be laid off. After all, he should have changed his wage demands, skills, and geographic location to suit their needs. His failure to do those things is his own fault.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

Hmmm... My dad's income has increased by 4 times what it was only 4 years ago. My mother has doubled her pay. My girlfriend is now making over triple what she did last year.

All these people changed jobs and found much better ones. My dad started a business and has been much more successful than he could have imagined. My mother is a manager at a local grocery story. My girlfriend trains horses and works at a bar.

You are right, the economy is great.
Good for them! What were they doing before to be able to increase their pay by such extraordanary measures? Unfortunately, your family and friends have not been the norm thru the country.

My mother has been looking into starting her own business. I have even considered it, but while in school and paying child support on an 11 year old is probably not the best time...

[Crapshoot]

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.


Dood, most foreigners don't want Indian jobs- but those who do are welcome there - I can't find the latest article on it off-hand, especially if they have expertise. When you make statements like this- its best to have something to back it up with.

[Tekneek]

Dood, most foreigners don't want Indian jobs- but those who do are welcome there - I can't find the latest article on it off-hand, especially if they have expertise. When you make statements like this- its best to have something to back it up with.

That's not the impression I've been getting from the online papers I read from India, but I'm not up on their law. What I read seems very slanted towards the work being done by Indians and wanting protections so that foreigners don't come in and disrupt the industry much. All I had been told about going to India was that you had to have already been hired, and there is a time limit unless you become a citizen. This is what I was told by someone who has apparently agreed to go over and work as a trainer for some offshoring call-center company (not training them on call center stuff, but training them on American culture...).

[The Afoci]

Good for them! What were they doing before to be able to increase their pay by such extraordanary measures? Unfortunately, your family and friends have not been the norm thru the country.


My dad was the Recon Manager at a dealership. He now does Paintless Dent Removal for himself.
My mother use to make lefse, but in this horrible economy was able to find a job at a grocery store that payed better, plus had full medical and dental benifits for the family. Great since my dad is self employed.

My girlfriend was a parts runner while going to college. She got the job she desired, prior to getting her degree and now trains horse, takes kids on trail rides, and works at a bar.

I wonder if maybe your family is not part of the norm...

[gstelmack]

A key factor that gets left out of these rich vs. poor vs. middle-class discussions is that our economy remains full of mobility. People can still move up OR down the economic scale at will. Gaps may be changing, but the people that make up the classes are also changing. Heck, the 90s were full of Internet entrepeneurs that weren't rich at the start of the decade but are now.

Opportunity exists, it's just up to you to find it, or make some of it yourself.

[Tekneek]

Despite some anecdotes, the Bush Administration itself says there are 2.4 million fewer jobs in this country than there was in 2000. We could argue about their numbers all day, but this is what they came up with for themselves.

[Easy Mac]

Didn't they just reclassify 1.5 million standard jobs as manufacturing jobs? So manufacturing jobs are up.

[Crapshoot]

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.

That is absolutely ridiculous- suggestions like that raise the cost for everyone involved, and hit the poorest people the most- who benefits more from cheap food - JimBob with an annual income of $10,000, or C.Montegomery, with an income of a $1,000,000 ? Tariffs and barriers to trade hurt the poorest people in the world the most- hell, most of the jobs being preserved by "Fair" traders come at a ridiculous cost to everyone else. Take steel for example- estimates of the average cost to America to preserve each steel job come to approximately $750,000- because the net effects filter down to everyone (every industry that buys more expensive steel- every consumer that then buys the product- every employee of a company that buys steel). Closed economies are a relic of a bygone era, and are nothing more than excercises in inefficiency.

[Crapshoot]

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.


Point 1: Because corporations are private entities- damnit, they don't work for your good, just like you don't work for them out of a sense of misplaced alturism.

Point 2: The resentment arguement is ridiculous, given that the wages and conditions in these are often well above the median- its raising the standard of living there. IF you're assinine enough to view my previous post as "Exploit me", you don't understand the meaning of the word. I have never quite understood how many an American doesn't realize that a standard here or a way of doing things here is not the same across the board.

[Desnudo]

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.

You obviously have some very strong feelings on the subject. On your point about exporting all the jobs overseas the fact is that won't ever happen. What will happen is that the labor that is now available in the US will shift to areas where there is demand over the long term. And as long as capital is available for investment in new ideas and products and people are free to make decisions on how to allocate that capital, this country will continue to have jobs.

Other nations don't need to service us, they choose to because it provides economic benefit to them. It's a mutually beneficial relationship. That's what a free market entails. I don't know if it fosters resentment, and I think it's really not relevant to a discussion about economics, but people certainly have the choice whether or not to work in an US company's assembly plant. The reason why they do is that they receive more economic benefit than the alternatives.

[Desnudo]

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.

Property rights are one of the pillars of a democracy. And the government does not have the "right" to take your liberty, your life, and your property. Just because they can does not mean they have the right. It's an important distinction because as soon as you accept that the government can control your life you are no longer living in a democracy. I realize you are talking philosophically, but I disagree that there are no fundamental rights that make up a political system.

[CamEdwards]

this has been an interesting argument.

Regarding the 2.5 million jobs lost, that's the employer survey. The household survey shows an entirely different picture. In 2003, for instance, the household survey showed an increase overall of 1.5 million jobs. That's jobs gained. The payroll survey showed a decrease of 74,000 jobs for the year. More people doing contract work, starting LLC's, etc. And David Malpass, the chief global economist at Bear Stearns, says that typicially payroll numbers tend to be revised upwards in later months, better reflecting the household survey numbers. Just FWIW.

On the issue of free/fair trade. Eugune Volokh (http://www.technorati.com/cosmos/links.html?rank=&url=http://volokh.com%2F2004_03_07_volokh_archive.html%23107910131605396142) links to a story about consumer driven outsourcing.

If you call the lender E-Loan Inc., you can have your loan application processed by either U.S. or Indian workers. If you choose the U.S. workers, it takes about two days longer to hear a response. Roughly 86% of applicants opt for the Indians.

Most people want more bang for their buck... it's as simple as that.

[BishopMVP]

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.The argument is that the company shouldn't pay the person $39,000,000 if he isn't worth it. I don't think the government needs to step in and do it. If the company is overpaying CEO's and executives, these inefficiencies will lead to the company's downfall in the long run. The market, not the government should correct it.

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.
It seems that most accusations of being un-American are directed at the "Benedict Arnold" CEO's of companies that use outsourcing and offshore tax havens, not people proposing more trade barriers.

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.Of course they are, but these suggestions are counter-productive. I'm not saying someone shouldn't propose that the government prevent outsourcing, I'm saying they're misinformed if they think it will help.

The gap between the wealthies and the "middle-class" continues to grow.In terms of wealth or income, absolutely. In terms of standard of living, not true.

And your arguments about the rich have made it and said screw the rest ring hollow considering the size and extent of entitlement programs funded by citizens. Basically, these programs were first implemented by Bismarck and others because while the free market helps countries, they felt most people wouldn't understand and unemployment benefits were to prevent the masses from uprising against the free-market economy and hurting the country.

[Flasch186]

Well i think its moreso about biting the hand that feeds us. At this pace 50 years from now the economy will be in shambles and we will be more dependent on MANY other countries than we are now simply on fuel.

It is an ABSOLUTELY unfair argument to bring in the household survey numbers AND a statistical falsehood as the numbers WERENT used in previous employment numbers. BASIC statistics says that if you are going to include these numbers in this admin's jobs report and compare than you must go back and apply the same survey to previous years. THE CURRENT admin failed to do this and thus the numbers should either be thrown out or not compared. This stands true in any statistical evaluation.

The minute we say the gov't can take life, liberty, etc. we are already too far gone. I hope that no one feels this way legitimately or else they may as well be in Fatherland.

Unless you are in a boom town, ie. Jacksonville, FL. Where I live and in a great job therein, new home sales, the economy is the pits. Lets see the numbers in those midwest states where the unemployment numbers are below PAR for any recent recoverty....its not even close. As a matter of fact those numbers are even below the median line....that signals future problems as the NEXT recession somewhere 15 years from now could destroy our economy.

The gap will be so exhorbinant that our economy may have to consider Indentured servitude somewhere down the line. Sounds extreme? Well without a middle class and most jobs in that global economy existing anywhere, what will be left for people to do here? Quite difficult to start your own biz. when you have no money, no one wants to lend you any, and youre in debt up to your ears cuz you just got laid off while the CEO got a HUGE bonus for moving that plant offshore. this is irresponsible, shortsighted, unconscienable, and in some cases criminal. THAT is the problem.

YES, consumerism is a cause....but if more people understood the ramifications of paying an extra nickel for some car wax then maybe they would. YES< hugely overpaid CEO's are a problem as this money could be reinvested, and be used to keep jobs here. AND YES SLAMMING opposition as UNPATRIOTIC is unamerican and unfortunately all too common under the current admin. God forbid my wife ever work for the CIA.

[SunDancer]

The minute we say the gov't can take life, liberty, etc. we are already too far gone. I hope that no one feels this way legitimately or else they may as well be in Fatherland.

Unless you are in a boom town, ie. Jacksonville, FL. Where I live and in a great job therein, new home sales, the economy is the pits. Lets see the numbers in those midwest states where the unemployment numbers are below PAR for any recent recoverty....its not even close. As a matter of fact those numbers are even below the median line....that signals future problems as the NEXT recession somewhere 15 years from now could destroy our economy.

The gap will be so exhorbinant that our economy may have to consider Indentured servitude somewhere down the line. Sounds extreme? Well without a middle class and most jobs in that global economy existing anywhere, what will be left for people to do here? Quite difficult to start your own biz. when you have no money, no one wants to lend you any, and youre in debt up to your ears cuz you just got laid off while the CEO got a HUGE bonus for moving that plant offshore. this is irresponsible, shortsighted, unconscienable, and in some cases criminal. THAT is the problem.

YES, consumerism is a cause....but if more people understood the ramifications of paying an extra nickel for some car wax then maybe they would. YES< hugely overpaid CEO's are a problem as this money could be reinvested, and be used to keep jobs here. AND YES SLAMMING opposition as UNPATRIOTIC is unamerican and unfortunately all too common under the current admin. God forbid my wife ever work for the CIA.

Then why even use stats, if they are not accurate or "good"? I believe the housing market/construction is doing really well. I am curious, what is a CEO "worth"? Who's job is it to determine that? What if he is doing a great job, then what do you pay him? Blame the shareholders and board of directors, not the CEO's. They set his pay.

"Quite difficult to start your own biz. when you have no money, no one wants to lend you any, and youre in debt up to your ears cuz you just got laid off while the CEO got a HUGE bonus for moving that plant offshore. this is irresponsible, shortsighted, unconscienable, and in some cases criminal. THAT is the problem." Care to explain how's it irresponsible, shortsighted, unconscienable, and criminal? It's the CEO's job, and the principle of business, to make money. If they do it legally, then they are doing exactly what they paid to be doing, to make a max profit. I find it funny, if we had this kind of money, we would have the same greed. Look at someone who wins the lottery, what do they do? They go out and blow it on luxuries, and lost all the win. I find it more of a case of the jealous-vs.-those who made it.

[Glengoyne]

I really don't get it. How can all of you people say that the economy is in the crapper, when all of the economists say it is on the rebound. You people remind me of my parents lamenting about the terrible economy all through the 80s. I think the economy has become a much more partisan issue than it should be. I don't think it is going great guns, but I think it is coming along fine and likely to get better.

I think this mirrors my position on the President. I think he is doing a fair job, but he has also handled some things so poorly that I am a bit reluctant to support him completely. Kerry on the other hand can get my vote, if only he vows to make the tax cuts permanent. Regarding all of the jobs leaving the country, I am thinking NAFTA deserves a shot to see what happens in the long run. It really might create jobs here over time. I certainly think backing out of it can likely do more harm than good.

[Warhammer]

Just to get $.02 in here.

Up until a month ago, I sold parts and repair services to factories in the Southeast. I saw a few things.

1) Companies were struggling due to increased competition, and less domestic demand for their products.

2) There were glaring inefficiencies throughout the factories. People taking 8 hr. coffee breaks, etc.

3) Employees were unwilling to try something new, as they were afraid of losing their jobs if they did not work out.

4) The employees that were still at the plants were overworked and could not do anything but keep the plants running.

How can government change any of these items? I can see a few ways:

1) Give incentives to oil companies to find new domestic sources. Heck, let's drill in ANWAR. Never understood why that was such a hot topic with the environmental crowd. Effect is debateable, as oil in the Middle East will still be far cheaper to produce than using domestic sources.

2) Relax EPA regulations so that companies can get licensed to build new domestic plants easier.

3) Do away with the minimum wage. Blasphemy, I know. Fact is, most of these jobs you cannot live on anyway, and most of these jobs are filled by high school kids. The minimum wage is there so unions can argue that their workers do so much more than people earning the minimum wage, they should get 3x minimum wage, etc.

4) Get out of health care. The way Medicare works is that the government says performing a service costs X. The doctor's costs to perform the work is actually X+Y. He passes the Y onto all of his other non-Medicare customers. This pushes insurance premiums up for everyone, employees and employers alike.

3) and 4) above will help reduce the cost per job domestically for employers and their shareholders (means our 401k's go up). While 2) will give incentives for companies to locate plants here. Part of the reason some go overseas is due to more lax environmental licensing and liability.

May not be the most coherent post, but it is past my bedtime.

[Flasch186]

"I really don't get it. How can all of you people say that the economy is in the crapper, when all of the economists say it is on the rebound."

They also point out record lagging job growth so the recovery very well may be faulty in that the jobs necessary to keep it afloat arent being created.

"You people remind me of my parents lamenting about the terrible economy all through the 80s. I think the economy has become a much more partisan issue than it should be."

the republicans would say this cuz theyre scared to death of it. Democrats want ti to be. Doesnt mean youre wrong or right...but admittedly the jobs are a key issue when someone walks intot he ballot box.

The Statistics charge is simple. You cannot compare Apples to Oranges and say, "Wow look the Oranges are Orange therefore theyre better.". Pull an apple off an orange tree, prove its an apple THEN say the Orange is more orange. Capeesh. To compare statistics on the same subject, in a chronoligical comparison must be comprised of the same stuff to make the outcome comparable.

"Kerry on the other hand can get my vote, if only he vows to make the tax cuts permanent."

Dont you think its crazy to make ANYTHING permanent? How do we know if 10 years down the line we wont NEED to raise taxes, maybe for the next bush war we will need to, who knows. but to make them permanent. Thats irresponsible and shortsighted.

Why are companies irresponsible and shortsighted, and sometimes criminal. The criminal part im sure i dont need to explain as sometimes they are, enron. Shortsighted because in the long run, if we keep the pace were at then the US wont need to be here anymore. Follow, If all that matters is the mighty dollar, even the step from 30 million to 31 million /yr in salary, then shit, let the US go to crap and move where the grass is greener. We could say the US was a stepping stone to opening up to the global economy and the US will be filled with illegal immigrants, who wont be illegal anymore, cuz the borders will be gone and we wont be able to support anything gov't. wise unless the rich guys donate money....i sure hope theyre feeling benevolent...they sure dont now. We have to feel some loyalty to our country or else why does it matter what the future holds. We and they shouldnt care if it falls like every other empire or not. To me, and my love thy neighbor mind, THAT is irreponsible, shortsighted, and negligent.

[clintl]

Here's an idea. If a company outsources someone's job, the company is required to pay in full for retraining the laid-off employee for a new job, and that employee does not need to stick around to train his replacement to get the benefits.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Here's an idea. If a company outsources someone's job, the company is required to pay in full for retraining the laid-off employee for a new job, and that employee does not need to stick around to train his replacement to get the benefits.
Hmm ... seems that would encourage an employer to avoid hiring someone here in the first place. After all, you can't outsource a job that never exists.

So, re-train the ones you've got. And then have no one willing to hire 'em.

But hey, at least we get the joy of starting yet another entitlement program.http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[clintl]

That is not really a valid argument, Jon, if what the economists argue about outsourcing jobs is true. The argument they make is that by driving down costs, outsourcing jobs saves companies money, and allows them to create new kinds of jobs that should be available eventually. So you focus the retraining programs skills needed for these new jobs. Now, if the economists are lying about that, then maybe you have a case.

As far as creating an entitlement program, I have no problem with that. I don't think that all entitlement programs are bad, and I don't think that holding companies accountable for mitigating the negative effects of their business decisions on the economy is a bad thing, either.

[JonInMiddleGA]

... and allows them to create new kinds of jobs that should be available eventually.
I've never really bought into that argument, at least not in terms of making the previous employer responsible for the needs of some future employer.

As far as creating an entitlement program, I have no problem with that.

Then we probably aren't going to find much to agree on this subject
no matter how long we try.

[clintl]

Well, there is going to be an entitlement program of some kind for those out of work, but wanting to work. The question is who pays for it, the former employer, the taxpayers, or some kind of sharing between the two. That is just part of the reality of civilization. Even if the employer doesn't pay for retraining, there is a pretty good chance that the retraining will be subsidized by taxpayers, either through grants or through public post-secondary institutions.

[SportsDino]

1) Companies were struggling due to increased competition, and less domestic demand for their products.

2) There were glaring inefficiencies throughout the factories. People taking 8 hr. coffee breaks, etc.

3) Employees were unwilling to try something new, as they were afraid of losing their jobs if they did not work out.

4) The employees that were still at the plants were overworked and could not do anything but keep the plants running.

How can government change any of these items? I can see a few ways:

1) Give incentives to oil companies to find new domestic sources. Heck, let's drill in ANWAR. Never understood why that was such a hot topic with the environmental crowd. Effect is debateable, as oil in the Middle East will still be far cheaper to produce than using domestic sources.

2) Relax EPA regulations so that companies can get licensed to build new domestic plants easier.

3) Do away with the minimum wage. Blasphemy, I know. Fact is, most of these jobs you cannot live on anyway, and most of these jobs are filled by high school kids. The minimum wage is there so unions can argue that their workers do so much more than people earning the minimum wage, they should get 3x minimum wage, etc.

4) Get out of health care. The way Medicare works is that the government says performing a service costs X. The doctor's costs to perform the work is actually X+Y. He passes the Y onto all of his other non-Medicare customers. This pushes insurance premiums up for everyone, employees and employers alike.

3) and 4) above will help reduce the cost per job domestically for employers and their shareholders (means our 401k's go up). While 2) will give incentives for companies to locate plants here. Part of the reason some go overseas is due to more lax environmental licensing and liability.



Observations:
1) I agree.

2) I would like to think 8 hour coffee breaks are the exception, however, this doesn't suggest the inferiority or work ethic of all people in the U.S. It does show however that some people who are employed may not deserve it, and that management (which is getting so highly paid anyway) isn't doing its job of, well management actually. They must be paid for looking good in those suits.
You could argue the unions are causing some of this inefficiency, and I would agree. A union (or its leadership) also has considerations beyond its intended purposes that could cause it to pursue inefficient actions for society and even its own members.

3) This is a major problem today. If the U.S. has any advantage in the world marketplace it is that our employees are among the most creative in the world. However, the industry has created a culture of 'don't rock the boat' (a successful strategy for a manager who only needs to sit there and look good in a suit...) that is seriously ruining such potential. We want people coming up with new technology and strategies, as that ultimately creates economic growth (basic macroeconomics here). Hiring ten people at wages that don't support all of their needs (although yes they will be better off than the completely starving folk living around them) does not create economic growth (it does create higher GDP/GNP, but those numbers are not as important as has been emphasized over time). Even without outsourcing, I do think we have stagnation in the intelligence department here in the U.S. People taught not to think, and threatened not to speak will not provide the sort of leadership that creates new companies and jobs.

4) But overworked employees provide so much 'productivity' it makes everything look good on a financial statement. Companies are just trying to milk their existing employees for as much as they can, because as long as people think the economy is in bad shape they won't demand more compensation for such abuse. As soon as the need for more output grows beyond the level of these workers to produce (even at frantic stressed out rates) the jobs that are supposed to go along with the recovery will finally appear. However, they are banking on people's fear in order to maximize their profit over time (which is a decent strategy I have no problem with, as long as you can reasonably expect your work force to be docile like most Americans). Eventually this stage will pass, as you can't hire new workers to handle the same rate of output as these poor overworked folk, and if the overworked folk see new bodies only doing a fraction as much as they are they are going to ask for, and typically receive, a lighter burden themselves.

Solutions:
1) Companies don't need incentives to get natural resources here. Natural resources are valuable, especially non-renewable ones, and we want LOWER rates of extraction to maximize our long term well-being. Why would we want to sell all of these resources right now when they are relatively cheap? Hey, lets drill up all that oil so we can flood the market until the price goes down a few pennies (if that, I doubt the markup to final consumer will not change one cent...). Here is where you want to look at the demand side of the equation for your growth. Improve technology and efficiency so you can compete at lower cost (less resources), don't spend millions on lobbying the government to open a resource that will not reduce your cost of production.
Also, as much as they are looking at ethanol for vehicles, why haven't they considered it for big industry/power plants?

2) Please don't relax the EPA any further, it already seems to be in a coma. EPA standards are trying to recognize a cost of production (pollution) that is generally ignored by the corporate side. We pay that cost, through government cleanup, increased medical costs, and so on, which is why this 'free' incentive ends up more costly than the numbers indicate. If a company is going to expand, it is going to do so regardless of whether you let them trash a lake/forest/city etc. Yes, this may lead them to locate in other countries with no EPA regulations.
However, we can't compete with that (as I've mentioned previously in my post on wages). If a country is willing to destroy its own population to lure in a company there is nothing you can do to compete on that battleground.

US - Sure, we'll let you build a medium sized factory near that lake there.
Other - We'll let you build a large factory right next to the hospital!
US - Okay we'll let you build a large factory, just come here please.
Other - Oh, go ahead and dump that toxic waste in the river, three eyed fish are a great delicacy.
US - All right, we'll look the other way when you open those waste pipes.
Other - We've got masses of starving wretches that will work for a banana a day.
US - Damn the minimum wage!

We all hear the ridiculous stories about the EPA, but we should look at repairing such regulations, not removing them willy nilly for a quick-buck. Not to mention you never know how such an indirect incentive will impact jobs anyway. Measuring pollution cost against work force increases involves two variables that are very hard to measure and certainly to predict.

3) The minimum wage is not killing any business in the U.S. If your job doesn't create enough value to justify a person getting X dollars an hour for it, then don't create the job. The union will make exorbant demands regardless of the existance of a minimum wage in any case, so that is not a good reason to abolish it. What the minimum wage says is that the United States recognizes the inefficiencies in the labor market and the historical fact that companies can extract work from individuals at wage rates below those necessary to support their long term survival. No, people can't just find another job, as the forces involved here are not perfectly flexible when you factor in the opportunity cost of job search, negotiation, etc.
The argument against the minimum wage is to increase a corporations margin that much further.

If you eliminate it, we still don't compete with other countries. Our people are not used to starving, they still have enough self-respect to demand more than those living in severe poverty would ever dream of.
I've already said my peace earlier about where to target on this issue.

4) Insurance costs are calculated by a number of variables, one of which is profit. To state that all or even most of those increases are due to Medicare (a subsidy which does pump money into the health care system by the way) is far too difficult to support. From your proposals I can see you take certain 'popular' positions that have been floating around for ages, but you really need to think of these matters with a few more shades of gray between the black and white.

Evaluation:
I would argue that 3 and 4 would have little to no impact on the cost of hiring US workers. It would however have a significant impact on certain minorities in the U.S., an impact so negative relative to any observed gain that it would be unethical for the U.S. to pursue (I wouldn't go so far as to use the word 'criminal' as has been thrown about of late).

401k's, being tied to the stock market, would not be affected in any observable way. If you want to put the stock market into any equation you'll need to realize it goes up and down based on so many factors that it is impossible to predict. If the government (being so controlled by corporate interests as it is) knew for a fact that eliminating Medicare would cause a spike in the stock market (enough to make it visible in an average 401k) they would do it in a heartbeat to give some of their sponsors a reward in the wallet.

Yes, companies do choose to locate elsewhere to get out of liability they would face in the U.S. I like the word liability, you can think of it as 'debt'. If they were in the US they would be required to recognize the debt they owe to the population from breaking environmental or labor regulations. Elsewhere, that debt can be ignored. If you have to pay a 0% interest rate on a loan, or a 10% interest rate on a loan, you will take 0% every time. This in effect is what it is, every time the U.S. allows a company to pollute a natural resource or health of the populace it is granting a loan (of no dollars but certainly some value, present or future) to that company.
Eventually, the other country, giving that loan with no return, will feel the effect in the form of deaths, revolutions, or cleanup expenses and will only have to hope that the indirect benefits (taxes collected from the new business/workers) will outweigh that interest. I argue, at less than a certain level of wages/taxes, that it is a bad deal for that other country, though it may not look like it in the short term.

[Desnudo]

I really don't get it. How can all of you people say that the economy is in the crapper, when all of the economists say it is on the rebound. You people remind me of my parents lamenting about the terrible economy all through the 80s. I think the economy has become a much more partisan issue than it should be. I don't think it is going great guns, but I think it is coming along fine and likely to get better.

I think this mirrors my position on the President. I think he is doing a fair job, but he has also handled some things so poorly that I am a bit reluctant to support him completely. Kerry on the other hand can get my vote, if only he vows to make the tax cuts permanent. Regarding all of the jobs leaving the country, I am thinking NAFTA deserves a shot to see what happens in the long run. It really might create jobs here over time. I certainly think backing out of it can likely do more harm than good.

Perception is everything these days. People don't like talking facts anymore. Since most people don't bother to educate beyond watching Fox News this is what you get. Factor in idealogues and elitists who can't stand President Bush at a personal level and you get a lot of unhappy people.

[Flasch186]

Factor in idealogues and elitists who can't stand President Bush at a personal level and you get a lot of unhappy people.

Most people i think would say Elitists mostly favor Bush but that is neither here nor there, doesnt matter.

Statistics when used accurately can be a powerful tool but unfortunately unless you do the study yourself you only get interprative stats. and that can be wholley inaccurate to absolutely accurate, you just wont know for sure. The best bet is to take a bunch of studies and gather the info then try to boil out the opinion and hang on to as much info. that is useable as possible.

I have found that a LOT of the information that comes from the Admin's appointees is inaccurate or sometimes false. Even their own economic comittee had to back off their own statements a week later (the household survey #'s included) and said their own guesstimates are not reachable. Making hamburger flippers and fast food workers part of the manufacturing sector AGAIN would be a way to skew the numbers, or else they have to go back and put those same numbers in the old estimates to compare evenly.

The budget numbers dont even include military numbers for Afghanistan and Iraq. NOw some people are going to argue that those numbers are never included in a budget proposal. I counter back that that would be fine if we were running a surplus ALREADY but unfortunately we are way in the red and therefore ALL the numbers need to be put on the table for the congress and us to see.

Smoke and Mirrors much like Faith based economics, retraining for new jobs w/o saying what they'll be and how they'll be paid for is another secret. I like the idea of the former employers having to pay for retraining, thats a good one.

[Desnudo]

Most people i think would say Elitists mostly favor Bush but that is neither here nor there, doesnt matter.

Statistics when used accurately can be a powerful tool but unfortunately unless you do the study yourself you only get interprative stats. and that can be wholley inaccurate to absolutely accurate, you just wont know for sure. The best bet is to take a bunch of studies and gather the info then try to boil out the opinion and hang on to as much info. that is useable as possible.

I have found that a LOT of the information that comes from the Admin's appointees is inaccurate or sometimes false. Even their own economic comittee had to back off their own statements a week later (the household survey #'s included) and said their own guesstimates are not reachable. Making hamburger flippers and fast food workers part of the manufacturing sector AGAIN would be a way to skew the numbers, or else they have to go back and put those same numbers in the old estimates to compare evenly.

The budget numbers dont even include military numbers for Afghanistan and Iraq. NOw some people are going to argue that those numbers are never included in a budget proposal. I counter back that that would be fine if we were running a surplus ALREADY but unfortunately we are way in the red and therefore ALL the numbers need to be put on the table for the congress and us to see.

Smoke and Mirrors much like Faith based economics, retraining for new jobs w/o saying what they'll be and how they'll be paid for is another secret. I like the idea of the former employers having to pay for retraining, thats a good one.

If it doesn't matter then don't comment on it. I'll correct it to say intellectual elitists (aka the lifeblood of the Democratic party). ;) And I don't think anyone who puts faith in the statistics the government gives you deserves to be allowed to vote. There are plenty of outside sources to look at.

[Tekneek]

And I don't think anyone who puts faith in the statistics the government gives you deserves to be allowed to vote.

Oh my. If that was put into place, we might actually get a third party candidate into national office. I suspect that most Democrats and Republicans, running for a position in D.C., talk about government reports like they are the unbridled truth.

[Flasch186]

So we should blindly accept the government/admin's statistics and not question them? Thats like going into a country to free it based on faulty info. and then when the info comes out that it is faulty accusing everyone who questions it as being unpatriotic. I think that THAT would be undemocratic and totalitarian, not good IMO. Perhaps the people in charge, no matter who they may be, need to not be so stubborn as to be stuck in one direction afraid of changing their minds on something when all evidence points to the contrary. That is the sort of stubbornness that gets us into messes. Open mindedness is the best for everyone. The right to dissent is why we are here anyways. I hate to keep bringing it up but the Puritans came here on that sole reason alone. So I think dissent is our right as Americans unless eventually the rich get so rich and the poor get so poor that they actually have the power to change the gov't. to a different type like a feudalistic type. WE could have noblemen and all the poor would live on their property and pay a tax to their lord. Sounds far fetched but isn't that the final outcome of the gap? Eventually?



EDIT - After re reading comment that brought above diatribe I see I misunderstood and humbly apologize for asserting that you said what I thought you said. I stand by my comments on the Topic though.

[Desnudo]

So we should blindly accept the government/admin's statistics and not question them?

Actually I said the exact opposite. Unless you are referring to someone else.

[Desnudo]

Oh my. If that was put into place, we might actually get a third party candidate into national office. I suspect that most Democrats and Republicans, running for a position in D.C., talk about government reports like they are the unbridled truth.

Since they are part of the system that creates said reports, I wouldn't doubt it. Don't let the man keep you down!

[BigJohn&TheLions]

My dad was the Recon Manager at a dealership. He now does Paintless Dent Removal for himself.
My mother use to make lefse, but in this horrible economy was able to find a job at a grocery store that payed better, plus had full medical and dental benifits for the family. Great since my dad is self employed.

My girlfriend was a parts runner while going to college. She got the job she desired, prior to getting her degree and now trains horse, takes kids on trail rides, and works at a bar.

I wonder if maybe your family is not part of the norm...
Maybe they are not. Mom is in computer progrograming. Sis's dad-n-law was a automotive design engineer. He may have to retire at 63. I happen to work in media, but am working to get out.

Some people have it better than others. I wonder why you think that everyone has it as well as your family.

ALso, what are "lefse" and how horrible does it pay to make it?

[SunDancer]

Maybe they are not. Mom is in computer progrograming. Sis's dad-n-law was a automotive design engineer. He may have to retire at 63. I happen to work in media, but am working to get out.

Some people have it better than others. I wonder why you think that everyone has it as well as your family.

ALso, what are "lefse" and how horrible does it pay to make it?
Aren't those decent-paying jobs? Sounds like a decent life to me.

[Tekneek]

Aren't those decent-paying jobs?

Only when they exist.

[SunDancer]

Only when they exist.

Yeah, but they do for his parnets. It sounds also a debate of the haves and not-haves.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I like the idea of the former employers having to pay for retraining, thats a good one.
You should be in a pretty good mood today, I hear the Socialsts are having a good showing in the elections in Spain.

[Tekneek]

You should be in a pretty good mood today, I hear the Socialsts are having a good showing in the elections in Spain.

Hahah. These little zingers are just too much.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Hahah. These little zingers are just too much.
Sometimes they just write themselves http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif