American Jobs Outsourced

[Sparky's]

sorry:(

[wdlove]

Samuel Zell, chairman of the nation's largest real estate investment trust and known for his sometimes contrarian views, said yesterday that sending jobs overseas not only isn't a bad thing, it's the way Americans will protect their own leading position in the world's economy.

"Most of you have suffered demagoguery surrounding this bad word `outsourcing,' " said Zell, the founder of Chicago-based Equity Office Properties Trust, the leading owner of office space in the Boston area, with about 13 million square feet under its name.

Speaking yesterday at a Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce breakfast, Zell cited a study projecting 3 million jobs would be lost to cheaper labor offshore over the next decade.

http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2004/02/27/zell_outsourcing_is_way_of_the_world/

[Sparky's]

I have had a little time to reflect on the issue I thought I posted originally, but I only got angry. I am not sure how to post a link to a PDF on my own MAC so here is the original article that got my blood boiling:

[Desertrat]

Sparky's, do you think that the insurance company deliberately made US salaries higher than those of India? Or that it was somehow responsible for the disparity in wages?

Nobody can stay in business unless the business is profitable. It doesn't matter if it's a little shop in a mall, or my wife's little box-building business for the crafts/hobby world, or Generous Motors.

The world has been changing, with many countries playing "catchup" to the US during this last forty or fifty years. Folks in the US have been sitting around, fat, dumb and happy in the belief "As it has always been, so shall it ever be." Oops!

Buggy whip jobs went away in the 1920s. Linotype-operators had to find a new line of work, in the 1960s. Textile mill workers' jobs first left New England for the Carolinas, and now to SE Asia. The same sort of thing is now happening in the white-collar world.

It will continue.

The only solution I see is for individuals and the individuals who make decisions for companies to figure out what can be made here that people in other countries will buy. Aand, what services can we provide here that other countries will use...

Some people always have been hurt by changes in the way things are done, and for a long, long time. That won't change. The world will always be in a state of flux, with all manner of changes. The irony in much of this is that satellite communications, an offshoot of NASA's efforts, were invented here and the various uses have been invented here.

"Welcome to the Information Age; it's open to everybody in the world. Step right in!"

'Rat

[Thomas Veil]

The only thing about that is, this is ultimately a self-defeating trend. If more and more people are going to see their jobs go overseas and their salaries cut to half of what they made before (which is typical for people who lose their jobs), who exactly is going to buy the goods and services that the foreign workers are offering?

And I just don't see jobs like housepainting to be a great alternative. Fewer people are going to have the money to hire someone to do things like that for them.

[kuyu]

Desertrat, great points. Robert McTeer wrote a brilliant article about this very subject called "The Churn: Paradox of Progress". His point is right in line with yours.

Things change, and great societies change with the world. Corporations will continue to farm work out of foreign countries as long as it's profitable. The labor is cheaper, and the taxes are very mild compared with our corporate double tax.

We, as Americans, are going to have to choose between kissing corporate @$$ in the form of major tax breaks that ensure our own comparitive advantage, or forcing companies to leave by keeping decades old tax policy.

Which reminds me... If Bush is so buddy-buddy with "corporate special interests", then why are companies leaving America in droves?

[mactastic]

Which reminds me... If Bush is so buddy-buddy with "corporate special interests", then why are companies leaving America in droves?

'Cause they all wave their patriotic flags here in the States while filing for taxes in the Cayman Islands. It's ridiculous how little some very, very large corporations pay in taxes due to all kinds of loopholes. I guess they need the money to continue to buy access to Congress though. I hear Walmart has moved from something like 750th to top 5 on the list of corporate givers over the past 4 years or so. Kinda like Microsoft realizing that once you get really big you better have some expensive lobbyists schmoozing for you in DC or things just don't go your way....

[2jaded2care]

I agree with you in theory, Desertrat, but it sure doesn't help the unemployed much to hear about the jobs going away. And politically, it is not helpful to Bush. (Luckily for Bush it's not PC to complain about "undocumented workers" filling the menial jobs which used to be filled by minority US citizens.)

Personally, I don't think the recovery will take hold until petroleum prices go back down. During the later '90s, gas was cheap, which meant lots of savings for many industries. Simplistic view, I know, but until someone convinces me different...

[wwworry]

Which reminds me... If Bush is so buddy-buddy with "corporate special interests", then why are companies leaving America in droves?

Because Hoover vacume cleaner corporate charimen moved production overseas cutting labor costs without lowering prices. THat equals profit! Less wages, more profit for the CEOs. What's not to luv?

All this outsourcing is just a way to increase profits for a few at the expense of American jobs. Most of the manufacturing jobs overseas are crap too. The race to the bottom will not end well. Usually these sort of races end in a crash.

[Desertrat]

'Cause they all wave their patriotic flags here in the States while filing for taxes in the Cayman Islands. It's ridiculous how little some very, very large corporations pay in taxes due to all kinds of loopholes. I guess they need the money to continue to buy access to Congress though. I hear Walmart has moved from something like 750th to top 5 on the list of corporate givers over the past 4 years or so. Kinda like Microsoft realizing that once you get really big you better have some expensive lobbyists schmoozing for you in DC or things just don't go your way....

mac, as the government has become ever more heavily involved in the affairs of corporations, their lobbying efforts and budgets have increased. Are you surprised? Whether individual, corporation or country, organisms seek to defend themselves from "outsiders".

Regulations impose costs on corporations--and all businesses--and raise the cost of doing business. When the accountants start rubbing the P/E ratio against wages and regulatory costs, something's gotta give.

In a sense, as a country we're not competitive with the rest of the world when it comes to industrial production--just as some corporations are not competitive among themselves. As a country, we're on the verge of Chapter 11, and it ain't gonna be a fun time.

I suggest signing up for the free email subscription to "The Daily Reckoning". It's a contrarian financial newsletter. It takes a while to sorta figure out what is being talked about, since it's an ongoing discussion of economic affairs. I find it's value to be that it doesn't swallow nor follow the CNBC party line, nor drool all over Greenspan's obfuscations. I also subscribe to "Strategic Investment". I've made more than enough money off their advice to justify the subscription cost, although I'm not much of an investor at the moment....

'Rat

[mactastic]

mac, as the government has become ever more heavily involved in the affairs of corporations, their lobbying efforts and budgets have increased. Are you surprised?

Not surprised a bit 'Rat. Are you content with the status quo?

[wwworry]

I hear a lot about dreaded regulations but not much about specific regulations that are bad. What are some of these bad regulations we should get rid of?

In terms of tax code I believe it's big business and big money that prefers complicated laws with small specific loopholes. They can afford full time tax consultants and lobbiests to take advantage of the system. There are a lot of multi-billion dollar corporations that pay almost no taxes. Some even get refunds on top of subsidies.

I think it's hard on small business (which create most of the jobs that stay in this country) but good for mega-corps that pay most of the lobbiests and benefit most from the govt. trough. This administration gives lip service to small business and huge breaks to outsourcing mega-corporations.

[Desertrat]

mac, whether or not I'm happy with the status quo doesn't matter. Whether or not government regulation is "good" doesn't matter. The amount of regulation we now have contributes to making our corporations non-competitive with the rest of the world. How do we deal with that fact? I don't know.

wwworry, our present tax structure has "growed like Topsy" for over 50 years. I don't pretend to be a corporate accountant nor a corporate tax expert, but I'd bet any corporation would come out ahead if we had a flat tax: "What was your income? What were the costs of production? Send in 10% of the difference." Talk about salary savings! Of course, that would lead to unemployment on a grand scale within the law firms which specialize in tax issues.

Regardless of any of the above, there is no duty for any entity which hires people to make things to be in any one place, nor to operate at a loss. IMO, a lot of this lobbying for Congressional favors of whatever sort is part of a rather wild struggle for survival in a world in which competitiveness is a helluva problem. If the favors don't actually help, the corporation leaves for other locations. Those who stay, outsource as they can.

I saw a window sticker the other day which said that the Ford Exploder's engine was made in Germany and its transmission was made in France. I know some Buick V6 motors come from some country in SE Asia. Question: Is it good that wages rise in otherwise lower-income or in poverty-stricken countries? Does this correlate at all to any idea that we in the US have some sort of right to high wages? Do we have some sort of right to have high wages and very high prices--stipulating high import tariffs on clothing, etc.? Wht do we tell the poor folks who barely can afford a $5 shirt at WalMart (made in China), when to support a domestic textile industry that shirt becomes $20?

I don't have any real answers...It just seems to me that there is little-to-nothing that any laws or regulations can do. And, I see no point in accusing the corporate world of chicanery when they're just trying to survive.

'Rat

'Rat

[Sayhey]

'Rat,

how about international agreements, like GATT, but instead on minimum wages (relative to GDP), environmental standards, and right of workers to organize. Think such things might not only be good for stopping job flight, but also would help workers in other countries to deal with the worst effects of globalization?

[Desertrat]

GATT, being an international agreement, would require a lot of votes in favor of that minimum wage. Do we have the votes? I think not.

What do you do about China? I just now got a "teaser" about investments in the face of China's efforts at economic domination. (From Gary North.) (Mostly, buy commodities.) Anyhow, it was mentioned that not only is the average wage around $0.61/hr, there are 200 million workers available to step in to replace those now working at those jobs.

China makes 40% of the world's laptop computers, 38% of the world's cellphones, and half of all shoes.

In 1979 there were no millionaires in China. Now, the richest 100 average $230 million. There are some ten thousand who are worth $10 million or more.

U.S. consumers spent $160 billion more on stuff from China than was sold from the U.S. to China--which takes me back to my earlier comment about the idea-folks getting it together.

The Asian rim "Tigers", I think, wouldn't vote in favor of a minimum wage of the US size, since this would raise the cost of their exports.

I imagine the Bushies are hoping and praying that the efforts to weaken the dollar will improve our export picture, and lead to more jobs in export-related manufacturing. The problem is that at some point inflation sets in because of the increased costs of imports (among other things). The government spending via budget deficit seems reminiscent of the proverbial little Dutch boy, trying to plug the holes in the dike. "Let's try to keep this sucker alive, until something good happens." I hate to say it, but we all better hope that this monetary pattern does indeed pay off. (I don't think it will.) A problem I have is that I don't see an alternative--except for the US consumer to shred credit cards and stay home--which means massive unemployment in the service sector.

Got plenty of KY?

'Rat

[mactastic]

mac, whether or not I'm happy with the status quo doesn't matter. Whether or not government regulation is "good" doesn't matter. The amount of regulation we now have contributes to making our corporations non-competitive with the rest of the world. How do we deal with that fact? I don't know.

It does matter 'Rat. If you don't like something you work to change it. Your inaction signals that you are content with a pay-to-play government.

I know, I know... Dangfino, they all do it, it could be worse, we're better than those other guys.

[IJ Reilly]

Some people always have been hurt by changes in the way things are done, and for a long, long time. That won't change. The world will always be in a state of flux, with all manner of changes. The irony in much of this is that satellite communications, an offshoot of NASA's efforts, were invented here and the various uses have been invented here.

"Welcome to the Information Age; it's open to everybody in the world. Step right in!"

The brave words of a retired person. When manufacturing jobs moved abroad it was reasoned that the service sector would take over. Just as that process began, companies figured out how to send service jobs overseas. The sad truth is, working class wages in the US are on a downward spiral, and quite possibly, an inexorable one. If you don't believe that, take a look at the settlement in the recent supermarket strike in California. You may choose to have blind faith in "the system," but I can't help thinking about what the country will be like in 20 years if this process continues unabated.

[kuyu]

This is a great thread. Lots of great points on both sides.

Anyway, did you know. It costs our government ~$150,000 a year to keep each steel job here? These jobs average $40,000/year pay. It would be cheaper to pay these people to sit at home.

Also, I buy stuff made in sweat shops on purpose. If we all boycott these businesses, where will those people work? There is not some $40/hour factory down the street from them.

Here's the conclusion of "the churn"
Job creation and job destruction are intertwined. They are both key elements in the process through which a society raises its living standards. This shouldn't be all that surprising to most Americans. It's so familiar, in fact, that the concept is captured in a single word--progress. Societies that deny the churn by trying to freeze employment actually retard the formation of new jobs and new sources of income. Societies that allow the churn to work reap the rewards of more employment and better living standards. in these fundamental concepts, ironic as they may seem, lies the key to achieving higher living standards.

[IJ Reilly]

Here's the conclusion of "the churn"
Job creation and job destruction are intertwined. They are both key elements in the process through which a society raises its living standards. This shouldn't be all that surprising to most Americans. It's so familiar, in fact, that the concept is captured in a single word--progress. Societies that deny the churn by trying to freeze employment actually retard the formation of new jobs and new sources of income. Societies that allow the churn to work reap the rewards of more employment and better living standards. in these fundamental concepts, ironic as they may seem, lies the key to achieving higher living standards.

I used to subscribe to this theory, that was until service sector jobs began to be exported. These jobs already tended to pay less than the manufacturing jobs they replaced. The net benefit of all this "churn" does not necessarily accrue to all of the players just because they have faith that it will. The trend seems to be towards raising living standards in poorer countries with few labor or environmental protections, at the expense of living standards in the more affluent nations. To make matters worse, the evidence points towards the types of service jobs in the US which by definition can't be exported, set on a downward wage spiral. This is not a path that leads to higher living standards in countries like the US, no matter how much faith one has in the basic economic forces at work.

[2jaded2care]

I'm afraid that we are in another situation in which technology has brought disadvantages as well as benefits. However, as those teenagers clamoring for the deaths of the RIAA and MPAA will tell you, there is no turning the clock back.

[IJ Reilly]

Perhaps not, but this isn't a good argument for not looking over the next hill and trying to get a sense of where we're headed and whether we really want to go to that place. There's a huge space for us to explore between reactionary protectionism and blind faith in market forces, and I'm afraid that the latter ideology is winning out at the moment. If we continue to take the fatalistic course, I believe the trend is towards the nations who are not afraid of more proactive economic policies eating our lunch, and then our breakfast, and our dinner.

[wwworry]

This is a great thread. Lots of great points on both sides.

Anyway, did you know. It costs our government ~$150,000 a year to keep each steel job here? These jobs average $40,000/year pay. It would be cheaper to pay these people to sit at home.

Also, I buy stuff made in sweat shops on purpose. If we all boycott these businesses, where will those people work? There is not some $40/hour factory down the street from them.

Here's the conclusion of "the churn"
Job creation and job destruction are intertwined. They are both key elements in the process through which a society raises its living standards. This shouldn't be all that surprising to most Americans. It's so familiar, in fact, that the concept is captured in a single word--progress. Societies that deny the churn by trying to freeze employment actually retard the formation of new jobs and new sources of income. Societies that allow the churn to work reap the rewards of more employment and better living standards. in these fundamental concepts, ironic as they may seem, lies the key to achieving higher living standards.

Great, now you can be cheap and feel good about it too.

Alot of these "wonderful" jobs we are so graciously bestowing on impoverished countries do not even pay enough for that country. You talk about creating high standards of living elsewhere in the world but that is not what is driving these mega-corps to outsource the jobs. It's more profit in the CEOs pocket. Please don't mistake the two.

High standards of living here were created by unions driving up wages and gains in productivity. It was not so long ago that crappy working conditions were the norm here and working poverty was the norm. Well now we are creating that squalor somewhere else except this time when the locals start asking for some of their share of the profits the company will know to leave the country immediately - before they have to pay a living wage.

[Dont Hurt Me]

What it all boils down to is Greed, more Greed and then some more. These companies along with our Govt could care a less about Americans. What they care about is money, they love money and will do whatever it takes for more. Same for business. If building those Imacs in China with child labor, no health care, no taxes,no Osha,and no concerns for the enviroment will profit Apple they will do so even more. Apple is only one of thousands doing this. Our Govt is making it happen. Big Business executives are happy because they get the Money and can screw the common man a little more. Its about Greed. This is why Big Business loves George and the gang. Greed,more Greed and then some more.

[2jaded2care]

Unfortunately for many of us, competition creates a kind of "domino effect" when these sorts of things start. Once the first company goes offshore, others usually find that they must do so as well to remain competitive (and please the shareholders, IOW keep their jobs). Companies don't have much incentive to keep jobs here, because most consumers don't know and don't care where a product was manufactured (or a service performed), as long as it is the best "value" for their money. You can chalk it up to greed and more greed, but once the first domino falls, the others generally follow.

At least a few economists (not just in the White House) have been arguing that it's better just to let things run their course, instead of trying to stave off the inevitable and just postponing (or worsening) the problems later. They may be right -- but then again, the economists' jobs aren't going to India (yet).

[IJ Reilly]

At least a few economists (not just in the White House) have been arguing that it's better just to let things run their course, instead of trying to stave off the inevitable and just postponing (or worsening) the problems later. They may be right -- but then again, the economists' jobs aren't going to India (yet).

At some point you've got to ask yourself where that course leads. Otherwise you're going on blind faith, and that's no way to run a railroad. Another way of explaining this careless attitude towards jobs and wages is to consider for whom this government is run. Do corporations care about the rate of unemployment? Are they for or against wage growth?

If Bush can win this election after millions of jobs are lost and wages stagnated on his watch, then he's liable to concluded that unemployment, like deficits, really don't matter. And maybe that's very much what his advisors and supporters have been telling him all along.

[Sparky's]

Wow, I laid something out there in anger because I got really irritated that my citicard support line lead to India, and my brain got fried because the person on the other end of the phone couldn't understand ME! I got to thinking about all the d**n greedy labor unions in this "fair" country of ours and why they insist on being paid $28.00 an hour to produce a $.50 piece of cr** that falls apart in a week then I see the point, but then I also realize that we have been defeated at our own game and it saddens me that my son has to try and survive in this.
Have at it folks, it's just a reality snap. :mad:

[mactastic]

Did Citibank's phone support used to be performed by unionized workers, or are you just venting your anger at Citibank's greedy corporate folks at labor unions reflexively?

[Desertrat]

The reason I earlier said that opinions don't matter is because I don't see any institutional way to reverse what's going on about outsourcing. Government is helpless, other than some sorts of stopgaps which might be of short-term help but would only serve to make it worse, later on.

Implied before, I think we need more people of the Steve Jobs or Bill Gates type, to come up with ideas that lead to major, highly-paid employment. I have no clue as to what those ideas might be. We need others to figure out ways to produce manufactured goods at competitive prices, yet use methods which lead to higher pay for the workforce. Again, I have no answers about "How?"

It's up to individuals, as it has always been. Government can't do it. Existing corporate-structures can't do it. (If either of them could, it would already be different; it would already have been done.)

Government has never been in the production business. Most folks in government haven't a clue about how business is done, nor what's needed in order to make a profit. Corporations grow from taking a good idea and putting it into production of whatever sort--be it a railroad, a car, a plane or a cellphone. But that idea came from some individual...

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

Government isn't helpless unless we design it to be helpless. For one thing, international trade agreements need to be a lot smarter. If nations want favorable trade arrangements, they should be required to implement labor and environmental standards on some level of parity with the developed world. There's no way we can complete with nations that treat their people as expendable, and there's no reason we should even try.

[Sayhey]

I have yet to see an example of outsourcing from industries that are not already making a profit. It is a question of how much profit a corporation makes. One can argue that if a corporation doesn't lower its costs then its competitors will beat them in the market place. However, this is only one way of trying to make a profit. How about the revolutionary idea of making a better product? Some companies actually focus on innovation instead of undercutting their labor force. I'm typing these words on a computer from one such company.

I have to ask how many of these companies that do this outsourceing are under pressure from competitors from India or the Philippines or wherever the jobs are going? These are, in the main, US companies deciding to increase their profits by leaving the employees that made the companies in the first place high and dry.

I understand that the pressures on companies are great because it seems that everyone is doing it, but if we have a government that is dedicated to international treaties protecting the environment, safety standards, minimum wages, and labor rights of workers, perhaps this trend can be stopped. If we continue to have a government dedicated to opening every door to increase profits for corporations regardless of the consequence, then we will be destroying any semblance of an acceptable standard of living for US workers.

[IJ Reilly]

Testify, brother Sayhey!

[Desertrat]

IJ & Sayhey, sorta sying your comments together: What can government do to make the quality of a Chevrolet equal to or better than a similar size/performance Toyota? Would you outlaw GM's buying doorhandles from Canadian manufacturers? Or buying Buick V6 motors from SE Asia?

What can government do to keep Nike from buying $2 shoes from Thailand or wherever, and selling them here for $100?

If we quit buying from overseas suppliers, how do they get the money to buy from us?

Sayhey, lemme repeat: Gross dollar profit isn't the same as profitability in terms of return on investment. To exaggerate, you can sell a billion dollars' worth of stuff, and you make, say, $1,000 above the cost of production. You've made a profit, but if your physical assets in land and plant are worth a billion dollars, you've wasted a helluva lot of investment capital. That's the problem that corporations are facing. They're making profits, but the return on investment has the stockholders irate. And people DO NOT try to create a FoMoCo or DuPont or NexTel for the pure pleasure of avoiding boredom.

A smaller--but common--example from real life: My wife's little company has been the primary U.S. and Canadian supplier of unfinished wooden boxes for the crafts/hobby industry. For various reasons the market demand is less, and we know there is a certain amount of competition within the U.S. She is no longer uhique. She owns the buildings from which she operates. In terms of net dollars per hour, she'd be better off closing the business, selling the buildings, and investing the money into some other business activity. (To stay in business and make a more worthwhile profit, she could move to someplace in Mexico. For over 40 years that sort of move has been called "maquiladora".)

Another facet: If your factory makes widgets, you commonly sell to wholesale distributors at "50/10/10". That is, retail less 50%, less 10%, less 10%. That means you receive 40.5% of the retail value of your widget. The distributor gives a 40% discount to the retailer who then sells at the retail price. A WalMart-type chain (could be autoparts or paint or whatever) can afford to sell into the retail market at the 40% discount, relying on volume and acting as both distributor and retailer. (WalMart's profitability comes from the relatively low value of their stores as compared to their inventory and the sales.) The real problem: Small producers can't afford to gear up to sell to WalMart or Sears. They can't get their volume up to do well at 40.5%, unless they go in hock for investment capital. And small stores can't get the 40.5% price in order to sell at a discount. And all of this example can be applied to U.S.-made products.

Folks have tried passing laws for a command economy. It doesn't work. It never has worked. It never will work. Bet on it.

'Rat

[Sayhey]

'Rat,

there is a huge, huge difference between a command economy and a well regulated one. I don't see where IJ or I or anyone else have advocated going to a command and control model. All I was advocating was regulation on an international level that would have beneficial effects for workers in all countries. Would it mean that globalization would stop? Hell, no! Would it mean that the worst effects of it would be ameliorated? Yes! For at least the last 60 plus years corporations have been able to grow and make tremendous profits from an economic structure that demanded certain standards. I don't see why agreements to make those standards transnational will stop them from making profits in the future.

(Brother IJ, how am I doing? Got to be careful on the soapbox, it gets wobbly at times and I'm liable to fall off! ;) - sorry, have to go get my kids, I’ll check back tonight.)

[mactastic]

Obviously if you aren't for unregulated trade you're a communist. 'Cause it's gotta be one or the other, there ain't no middle ground. [/sarcasm]

[IJ Reilly]

(Brother IJ, how am I doing? Got to be careful on the soapbox, it gets wobbly at times and I'm liable to fall off! ;) - sorry, have to go get my kids, I’ll check back tonight.)

Keep it up. You've got the congregation shouting "hallelujah!"

You picked up on my point immediately. What's the problem, 'Rat? Surely this argument isn't so obscure as to be undeserving of a direct response.

[Desertrat]

I'm always happy to provide some sort of direct response. :) But, what with moderating over at The High Road and trying to do some work around my own place, I'm sorta hit and run. I've been alternating between being Mr. Operator on the backhoe and grader, and Mr. Mechanic in maintenance. And parts gotta come via UPS. I'm playing catchup from a couple of years of neglect around the joint, from dealing with family (and me) stuff. The Inet is sorta play-therapy for mental health, I guess...

Anyhow, when folks talk about international agreement, who decides? Who gets to vote on the agreement? Somalia? Bolivia? Or, just the Biggies?

I'm in favor of health and safety regulations. But regulating business? I just fail to see how some small group of countries can tell the rest of the world how to do trade and how to price their products. I realize that y'all don't mean the Communistic form of "total control" command economy, but when you start trying to regulate in the manner y'all seem to be, you're certainly edging toward some amount of command economy.

I dunno. Certainly I'm not pleased with what's happening to the U.S. worker. However, I just don't see where there's any sort of "right" for us to tell the rest of the world to raise pay scales so stuff becomes more expensive here. It would be both pragmatic and moral for other countries to control worker safety and industrial pollution, but how is it our right to be the arbiter? We should invade? :) Remember, the "international agreement" that is the Kyoto accords restrains the developed countries, not the developing countries like China, et al.

These sorts of questions lead to my opinion that our government has no power to create a solution. Given the past history of international agreements, it'll be ten or twenty years before anything good could happen via negotiation. I have a certain amount of faith in "Yankee Ingenuity" to believe that we'll find some better mousetraps by that time, anyway. It's our history.

For the short run of the coming five or ten years? Batten down the hatches.

Again: The Bushies' policy of weakening the dollar against foreign currencies is making our exports more attractive. Let's hope that continues; it's productive jobs as opposed to consumptive jobs. (From the standpoint that skilled machinists' pay is higher than that of burger flippers.) The "however" is that foreign stuff will become more expensive, at least from the Euro countries. The problem children in the deal are China and Japan, and they're a couple of our biggest BOT-deficit countries.

'Rat

[kuyu]

Great post 'Rat. I agree with you. The present situation is very a difficult one, that will require years to figure out.

Perhaps that's the problem with international policy. Every president has tried to make this country better than it was when he swore in. But, often times these "long-run" policies don't begin to net a real effect until long after those responsible have left office. I believe, and I could be wrong, that our problems in America stem from a sort of "pot-luck policy" in which 4-5 administrations' long-run goals overlap.

The solution is beyond me, but luckily I'm not running for office. Pot-lucking also explains both parties rabid dogfight to claim the oval office. They both believe the other is responsible for crappy mismatched laws and regulations. However, both parties are 50% responsible. As such, nothing is likley to be settled anytime soon.

If W wins, the reps will spend four more years trying to undo Clinton, and if the Kerry wins, the dems will spend four years trying to undo Bush.
BOTTOM LINE: either way, it's gonna be 1992 again before we know it.
One step forward and four steps back, it's the American Way.

[IJ Reilly]

Anyhow, when folks talk about international agreement, who decides? Who gets to vote on the agreement? Somalia? Bolivia? Or, just the Biggies?

When it comes to international agreements on matters such as intellectual property protections, these questions don't seem to form a rationale for inaction. The issues and difficulties are worked out because huge sums are involved, and the corporations pressure their respective governments to make certain their interests are protected. So these types of agreements are hardly impossible. If a will existed to protect the environment and labor rights on a global basis, then without a doubt, the path to accomplishing these goals would be found in time. They haven't because corporations are seen by their governments to be more important than people, not least of all in the United States. I'm afraid what I'm hearing now is fundamentally an agreement on that point, though phrased a bit differently: regulating business is bad and treating people and the environment as expendable is inevitable.

[pseudobrit]

However, both parties are 50% responsible. As such, nothing is likley to be settled anytime soon.

Really? Because I see only one that has 100% control over every branch of government.

If W wins, the reps will spend four more years trying to undo Clinton

Holy ****, if that's the case we're in trouble. In four years Bush has thrown the budget off by nearly a TRILLION DOLLARS. If that's "undo"ing Clinton I don't want to see what four more years of undoing will bring.

I guess I'd move to a nation where the currency wasn't becoming as worthless as the Reichsmark.

[Desertrat]

kuyu, I've usually applied "Growed like Topsy" and "Muddlin' through" for the way things get done in this country. Heck, maybe the world. I read of multitudes of grandiose schemes and plans, and then reality changes it all in just a heartbeat. That "heartbeat", however, usually is no more than the first really visible part of some trend which has been ongoing for quite a while...

One thing I do believe about the reactions to today's events is that we have fairly few who are activists who were around during the Hard Times of 75 years ago. I was just a little kid in the later years of the Great Depression; born in '34. About all it means to me as to direct impact is that by comparison, my total possession of toys was less than a modern's single trip through a WalMart. I didn't know at the time why the worried looks of my parents and grandparents.

Thus what to the oldsters is not as bad as what they've already endured is a real horror show to those whose expectations are so much higher than those of folks in the 1920s. Today's roof has not yet collapsed.

The consumers of this country have partied hard for several decades, now. I've noticed that Saturday night sprees are usually followed by Sunday morning's coming down. But Johnny Cash already sang about that, didn't he?

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

'Rat, how about addressing my point without any references to country music?

[Desertrat]

IJ, I'd happily address whatever point you've made, were I able to find it.

If your point is about corporate influence over governments, it seems to me there's an obvious reason: Corporations provide jobs, the income from which provides taxes. Corporate health = federal income, albeit "second-hand". Corporations import and export; more taxes. And, sales of their products generate the ripple effect of more federal taxes from those who sell, plus sales taxes at the state level. Some variant of this exists in all developed countries, and in the less-developed countries you have the direct association with the powers that be on a personal and/or bribery basis.

I've merely tried to point out the problems with regulation of business vis a vis outsourcing or moving away from the U.S. That's an area of regulation which I see as different from such things as worker's safety/health and environmental matters.

If your point is that I see exploiting people and the environment as inevitable, well, yeah, I guess I do. The amount of exploitation varies from country to country, but it does and will happen. If you're saying you think I see this as acceptable or morally good, well, generally, no, but that can easily depend on how one defines exploitation.

I've tried to explain my beliefs about the "why" of what's going on. That I think I have some understanding does not in any way imply my advocacy of these events. I attempt to be objective about these sorts of things, since getting all bilious about them is a total waste of energy...

I like country music. However, you may feel free to consider the present world business restructuring as a Valse Triste, if you wish. :D

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

You've demonstrated that you know perfectly well what my point is, but that you're determined to dance around it as best you can.

Please correct me if I misunderstand your position. It seems to me that you believe that addressing labor and environmental standards within global trade agreements is either (1) impossible or (2) undesirable.

[Sparky's]

Gentlemen and Ladies, I have been trying to keep up with the discussion that I seem to have stirred some emotional responses in posting. I am 52 years old and have over my life kept my minds eye on what society is doing. I guess that yes I do vent anger when I come across something that to me should not happen. The sociopolitical "deep" meaning of all this isn't what #1 I even understand, and #2 can't intellectually comment on, but when I pick up the phone and call an 800 number for some advice or support on something that is to me having to do with my culture and my society, I don't want to hear some foreign accent on the other end from a person who has no sympathy for my problem let alone any understanding of my situation. I was really sad to hear that Levis closed the last "American" manufacturing plant losing over 3,000 jobs so they could cut cost by having it done overseas. To a point I understand the need for a "Global" corporation to find the best solution to the cost vs. profits scenario, and I again have to think of the labor unions who may indirectly have been responsible for forcing "Corporate America" out of this country. These are personal feelings, and if I sound like a hurt child striking out in anger, because what I perceive to be happening is wrong, than as I said it's personal.
Finally the economics behind this country losing thousands of jobs on a monthly basis, including the upper management positions kind of overwhelms me. How does the well educated middle income re-evaluate their position in the work force to regain the job level they once had? I work for a commercial printer in Up-State New York as a desktop publisher. I know my trade, I feel, better than most, but I can see the possibility of even my job being done (sorry it already is) by "kids" just out of school who know all about the software I use but have no real practical experience of the commercial printing world but again "Corporate America" only wants to pay half of what I make for these services, and soon may be done by some twerp in some other country for $5 an hour. I guess I'm glad I'm getting out of this soon (or die first) I couldn't compete with that.

The reading has been interesting, and I thank you all for the input.
Good-bye

[Sayhey]

To a point I understand the need for a "Global" corporation to find the best solution to the cost vs. profits scenario, and I again have to think of the labor unions who may indirectly have been responsible for forcing "Corporate America" out of this country. These are personal feelings, and if I sound like a hurt child striking out in anger, because what I perceive to be happening is wrong, than as I said it's personal.


Sparky's,

you buy into the xenophobia and antiunion rhetoric in the face of a situation that is plainly the decision of corporate managers. I would remind you that the overwhelming number of these "support services" workers at call centers and the growing number of programmers were never union in the first place. This is not the running away from what you think are overpriced union wages, this is the running away from employees who have little or no way of fighting back. If they were, in the main, union employees their would have been an organized campaign to stop the transfer of jobs. These jobs range from relatively low paid workers to highly paid programming jobs. The point is that none of them have either a union to fight for them or a President who gives a damn.

[Desertrat]

IJ, I don't think it's possible. I think a large part of the reason is the extreme touchiness about national sovereignty, among other things. Now, I do believe that wages will rise in other countries; we have post-WW II Europe as one example, and Japan as another. I think in some countries it will require unionization. In others, competition for among employers for workers will improve wages. As to environmental protection issues, I dunno. Not likely anytime soon.

Environmental protection example: A country in need of electricity, but poor, can maybe afford the capital investment for a basic power plant, but not the scrubbers to remove SO2 from the stacks. The Carbon II project in Mexico, across from Eagle Pass, Texas, lacked the necessary $300 milllion for scrubbers, so our summertime visibility here in the Big Bend of Texas really suffers. Mexico has EPA-type laws on the books, but their priorities are for the voltage, not the environment.

Sayhey, how can a union stop the transfer of jobs? Next question: If a corporation can only remain in business by either outsourcing or moving offshore, what's the alternative? Last, would you outlaw the starting up of a business which is solely outsource?

'Rat

[Sayhey]

Sayhey, how can a union stop the transfer of jobs? Next question: If a corporation can only remain in business by either outsourcing or moving offshore, what's the alternative? Last, would you outlaw the starting up of a business which is solely outsource?

'Rat

It is not easy, but unions have waged many campaigns including such tactics as boycotts of products from companies that run away from union conditions. The point is that a unionized firm has some way of fighting back, even if the deck is stacked against them, individuals have none.

In the current round of outsourcing, I don't think you can make a case that the decisions to move call centers and programming jobs is because the corporations are in danger of going out of business. Such a claim might be made in some industries where the skill level of the workers are not as high (ie Levi's decision to move its plants elsewhere.) That is why in those situations international treaties are necessary to set a "floor" for conditions and wages. The problem is not that a profit cannot be made by corporations who pay living wages to their workers; the problem is that those corporations can't compete with other corporations that don't do so.

In answer to your last question, I've never advocated a law against outsourcing. My only proposal, and I'm hardly the only one making it, is that through international agreements on the scale of the GATT, we set standards for minimum wages, environmental conditions, health and safety of workers, and the right of people to organize. I think such an approach would benefit workers in all nations.

[IJ Reilly]

I don't see how we can know what's possible if we never try (to paraphrase something my mother used to tell me). In fact to illustrate my point, I've provided an example one stringently enforced international agreement, on intellectual property. It isn't easy or trouble-free to make this work, and it sometimes causes friction. But the heavy lifting is accomplished because the stakes are sufficiently high for the interested parties, and those parties have the ear of governments.

There's no rule in any book that says we have to grant favorable trade status to or make tariff agreement with countries that treat their people and environmental resources as expendable. There's also no rule in any book that says that we who take these issues seriously should be effectively subsidizing the economies of countries that don't.

If you place individual interests on at least a parity level with corporate interests, I think this point is easy to see. If you're determined to believe that the interests of business should always trump every other consideration -- simply because that's the way it is now -- then I'm afraid you'll never see my point here.

[bonehead]

IJ, I'd happily address whatever point you've made, were I able to find it.

If your point is about corporate influence over governments, it seems to me there's an obvious reason: Corporations provide jobs, the income from which provides taxes. Corporate health = federal income, albeit "second-hand". Corporations import and export; more taxes.

'Rat

Just to point out, for fiscal 2003, coporate taxes were 1.3% of GDP. Since 1940, only 1983 and 2002 were lower. Now, I understand that you might be speaking of income taxes from individuals. In that case, for fiscal 2003 income taxes from individuals were 8.3% of GDP, the lowest since before WWII.

I'm not trying to refute your basic points just point out that despite the cries of most "free marketeers", corporations (and individuals) actually have a historically low tax burden at the present.

BTW, I realize this is somewhat tangential to the topic but I thought I would bring it up in case someone started arguing in favor of more tax breaks for companies to keep jobs in the U.S.

All the best.

[kuyu]

Really? Because I see only one that has 100% control over every branch of government.


That's a bit bold, don't you think? Besides, my post was about the overlapping of policy from one admin to the next. You can't honestly believe that all our nations problems started 3 years ago.

hey Sparky, I'm young "kid" entering the labor force, but don't worry, I'm not in your field. ;)

I see your point in living color on a daily basis. My peers all feel they are owed a great job right out of school. What most don't realize is that good jobs are earned, not handed out like candy to anybody with a degree. I think today's expectations come from the boom of a few years back, when any old B.S. or B.A. would get a kid 50+. Nowadays it's more like $8/hour.

The answer.... intern, intern, intern :)

[IJ Reilly]

You can't honestly believe that all our nations problems started 3 years ago.

In fact quite a few of them did. But I realize you are talking about the economy here, so I'll simply point out that the recession officially began in the spring of 2001 and officially (if memory serves) only lasted two quarters. Of course the definition of a recession is negative GDP growth, and nothing else counts towards that definition, not even the rate of unemployment. So what we've had since that time is unprecedented in the economic history of this county: GDP growth with negative employment growth. What policy or policies has the Bush administration implemented in all of that time to address this issue?

[pseudobrit]

What policy or policies has the Bush administration implemented in all of that time to address this issue?

Tax cuts (to "give back" the surplus).

And more tax cuts (to stimulate the faltering economy).

Then some more tax cuts (more stimulus to create jobs and turn the deficit around).

Followed by a dose of tax cuts, which is just the cure for all the problems created by the first three rounds of them. You know, like the fact the opposite of what was promised happened every time.

The Bush economic dynamic... your tax dollars at play

[Desertrat]

I guess we've sorta wandered off from the immediacy of US jobs and outsourcing, and gotten into long-term ideas for solutions. The obvious question is the economic survival of the lost-job folks in the interim.

From Sayhey: "My only proposal, and I'm hardly the only one making it, is that through international agreements on the scale of the GATT, we set standards for minimum wages, environmental conditions, health and safety of workers, and the right of people to organize. I think such an approach would benefit workers in all nations."

I agree with the idea of benefits. For the moment, though I'd like to ignore all issues but wages. I have some questions.

Would there be a worldwide minimum wage? Do you view minimum wage as an entry-level pay for beginning, generally unskilled workers? How do you deal with comparative costs of living in various countries? How much unfairness would you envision if higher wages brought about higher costs of living? This last relates to those who don't find these newly-high-paid jobs. Would you envision "Equal pay for equal work" in, say, the automotive industry? I.e., a worldwide UAW payscale as example?

Last, for the moment, what sort of time frame do you think implementation would require?

IJ, I don't argue the desirability of the status quo. I look at the number of years it takes for any sort of international agreement to come about--GATT, for instance--and I'm dubious. I've mentioned a few of my ideas as to objections from many countries. It seems to me that for all that GATT took a long time to achieve, it is relatively uncontroversial when compared to these other ideas of worldwide industrial parity. And I hark back to my opening comment above: What can be done now--short-term, anyhow--to alleviate the problems of those who have lost jobs here?

'Rat

[2jaded2care]

I guess it wouldn't hurt to try to include some requirements into our trade agreements, but I can't see developing countries agreeing to it. Aren't we criticized for refusing to sign the much-praised Kyoto Treaty, ostensibly on the grounds that it excluded developing countries from the same pollution requirements it would have imposed on us?

... One thing I always remember about unions was from working a political event at a union hall. A common T-shirt worn by members was "If you ain't union, you ain't s***". The union does not care about any worker except a union worker. In their minds, everyone else is leeching off their work, and indeed detrimental to their goals (a "scab").

Even if we could get other nations to agree to a comparable minimum wage, for example, wouldn't we still get clobbered by unfavorable exchange rates? I assume that Canadians are able to live somewhat as comfortably as we do (those of us who have jobs, anyway), but I know that, for example, lots of movie production has moved there from L.A. because it's cheaper to do business there with the exchange rate (plus gov't tax incentives, admittedly). I'm not sure how much a minimum wage would help.

Sorry to be Mr. Negative here. Wish I had better answers.

[Sayhey]

Would there be a worldwide minimum wage? Do you view minimum wage as an entry-level pay for beginning, generally unskilled workers? How do you deal with comparative costs of living in various countries? How much unfairness would you envision if higher wages brought about higher costs of living? This last relates to those who don't find these newly-high-paid jobs. Would you envision "Equal pay for equal work" in, say, the automotive industry? I.e., a worldwide UAW payscale as example?

Last, for the moment, what sort of time frame do you think implementation would require?

'Rat

As I said, I can't take credit for this idea. In the recent Democratic primary campaigns Dick Gephardt raised this idea (which had been floated by others) and it began to get more play in the media. Here is a LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-outlook12jan12,1,4021018.column?coll=la-headlines-nation) article on the topic.

The idea is simple. Gephardt says that as a condition of membership in the World Trade Organization, every nation should be required to adopt a minimum wage. The level would vary from country to country, depending on productivity and the level of development. But everywhere, he says, workers should be guaranteed a wage high enough "to allow someone to live like a human being."

The International Labor Organization estimates that at least 85 countries have a minimum wage on the books. But in many places, it is honored more in the breach. Gephardt, who has always valued the practical over the prophetic, is preaching a revolution: the idea that any country seeking to participate in the global economy should be required to pursue a decent level of existence for its workers.


Most of the forms of this proposal do not set a hard international wage for every country, but rather follow Gephardt's approach of tying it to productivity or GDP or some such index. I think something of this sort would be necessary. It would clearly have to be something that would be phased in. That phased in period could be not only be from country to country but also from sector to sector inside nations. There is a lot of discussion on this issue among labor unions and progressives globally, if you are interested a quick search will find you lots of information.

[IJ Reilly]

This isn't a short-term problem so I am not looking for short-term solutions. I'd be happy to see these issues even put on the table for serious discussion. That in itself would be a victory. The US needs to provide the kind of leadership only the US can, or it probably won't happen. When Kyoto failed, possibly for very good reasons, the US responded by letting the matter drop, when the responsible reaction would have been to propose a new approach. The reason we didn't is clear: corporate interests are very much opposed to environmental regulations, and they are the ones who set the governmental agenda.

On the labor front, I'm not suggesting anything remotely like a global minimum wage. That's obviously a silly concept. But nations that desire to trade with us on a level playing field should be required to have, and enforce, basic labor rights laws. The rights to organize, and to strike. The right to have some influence over working conditions. I'm certain we could think up a number of other fundamental labor rights, because we've had them here for decades. The third-world nations we're competing against aren't simply low waged, they are exploited. American workers are competing against both, and I can't think of a single good reason why they should be placed in that dilemma.

[Sayhey]

... One thing I always remember about unions was from working a political event at a union hall. A common T-shirt worn by members was "If you ain't union, you ain't s***". The union does not care about any worker except a union worker. In their minds, everyone else is leeching off their work, and indeed detrimental to their goals (a "scab").


I think you missed the message of the T-shirt. The idea is that without a union you are treated by the boss like you aren't worth s***, not that non-union workers aren't as good as union workers. There is a huge, HUGE difference in the eyes of the union movement between non-union workers and "scabs." A scab is a strike-breaker, specifially someone who crosses a union picket line to take a job from those on strike. No unionist worth his or her salt would ever call someone who works in a nonunion shop a "scab."

I've participated in many organizing drives and never have I seen the kind of attitude towards nonunion workers that you discribe. Rather it is a question of trying to convince workers in unorganized workplaces to take the step to band together to try and get a better life. The few unions that don't try to organize unorganized shops are quickly going out of existence. The Labor movement can't afford the attitude you describe.

[2jaded2care]

Sayhey, it is hard to believe that such an eloquent slogan could be open to interpretation, but I will admit that yours is one possibility -- it's just not consistent with the attitude I've observed in the southern right to work states. I will admit that I've never heard a union member refer to a nonunion worker as a "scab" -- that's just the undertone I've picked up on in some instances.

Back to subject somewhat, I find it interesting that we have normal trade relations with China, arguing that such trade is "constructive" and will lead to greater human rights for its citizens in the long term. However, we have exactly the opposite stance regarding Cuba. Now, I know that these countries are hardly the same, but it does seem like wanting to have it both ways.

[IJ Reilly]

Back to subject somewhat, I find it interesting that we have normal trade relations with China, arguing that such trade is "constructive" and will lead to greater human rights for its citizens in the long term. However, we have exactly the opposite stance regarding Cuba. Now, I know that these countries are hardly the same, but it does seem like wanting to have it both ways.

Because our national trade policies are formulated to suit the most powerful political interests. They don't make any other kind of sense.

[Sparky's]

Its been a while but I thought this was an interesting concept:

http://www.oocenter.com/t273.html

[Rebel]

After two years of falling fortunes, the collective net worth of the world's billionaires jumped half a trillion dollars in the past year, to $1.9 trillion. The biggest gainer in sheer dollars was Warren Buffett, who added $12.4 billion to his net worth and now is only a few billion dollars shy of ending Bill Gates' 10-year reign as the richest person on the planet.

This year, Forbes reports a record 587 billionaires, including 64 newcomers hailing from 19 countries.

Why? Because when you’re a billionaire, you own companies or stock within companies. And with millions of Americans losing jobs to cheap foreign labor, the owners of companies or stock within companies, get VERY RICH – VERY QUICKLY.

Instead of praising these individuals for their moneymaking prowess, we should be looking at all the lives they crushed in their moneymaking madness. In addition, the jump in foreign billionaires is directly related to the amount of American work shipped over-seas.

Come on America wake up!


UCAnation.org (http://www.ucanation.org/) - Changing the nation for you.

[Desertrat]

Rebel, I suggest that choosing Warren Buffet rather disproves your comment about "Instead of praising these individuals for their moneymaking prowess, we should be looking at all the lives they crushed in their moneymaking madness."

Some two or three years back, Buffet stated his belief that stocks were way over-valued. (Oh, really? :D ) He for the first time ever had Berkshire-Hathaway move money into the silver market. A buy and hold strategy, for several billion dollars' worth. This action hurts absolutely nobody.

More recently, he publicly stated that the dollar is going down against foreign currencies. He has moved some $12 into various currencies which are rising, such as the Aussie dollar and the Euro. Again, a buy and hold strategy. Again, this action hurts absolutely nobody.

And you might as well say that guys like Jobs, Dell and Gates should never have gotten into the software/hardware business, since we're all suffering so much from their endeavors.

Back to outsourcing: Of the roughly 2.5 million jobs lost in the last two or three years, 300,000 of them are now outsourced. This means that some 2.2 million jobs are gone from either closed-down companies or changes in the way some work is done. Of this latter, I don't know if it's increased robotics or a lesser need for middle management or whatever...

'Rat

[Sparky's]

Rockerfeller
Carnegie
DuPont
etc.
and now we have Hilton, Trump and so many more that don't even get press.
money makes money and for me (35,000 a year) I'll keep buying my lotto, and hoping I can get my "Sparky's Marinade"© on the grocers shelf soon :>)

[zimv20]

money makes money and for me (35,000 a year) I'll keep buying my lotto, and hoping I can get my "Sparky's Marinade"© on the grocers shelf soon :>)

read The Millionaire Next Door and you'll see that, even at your salary (though maybe not your age, iirc you're nearing retirement), just about anyone can be a millionaire. the book's a real eye-opener.

[IJ Reilly]

read The Millionaire Next Door and you'll see that, even at your salary (though maybe not your age, iirc you're nearing retirement), just about anyone can be a millionaire. the book's a real eye-opener.

I might, even probably will, have a seven-figure net worth by the time I retire (assuming I ever do) in about 20 years. Problem is, by then a million bucks will likely represent a fairly modest sum and possibly not enough to live on comfortably for the next 20-30 years.

[Desertrat]

If by the time of retirement one is free of debt, and one isn't "eat up with the I-wants", it's amazing how relatively little money it takes to cover the overhead. I guess it all depends on how one defines "comfortable living". :)

'Rat

[numediaman]

If you are of modest means, there is only one place you can retire and be "comfortable":

;) ;) ;)

[IJ Reilly]

If by the time of retirement one is free of debt, and one isn't "eat up with the I-wants", it's amazing how relatively little money it takes to cover the overhead. I guess it all depends on how one defines "comfortable living"

Income, you mean. If you've got a home of your own, probably half of your net worth is tied up in it. The amount of cash you need also depends on whether you've got a pension coming to you. I won't, so I will need a fairly startling amount of cash on hand at the time I stop working to not find myself in living in reduced circumstances. I sock away at least 10% of my gross income every year, so I'm probably not going to have a problem, but that doesn't change the fact that seven figures in savings will not mean as much in twenty years as it does today.

[Desertrat]

IJ, you being smart enoug to sock away 10% of your gross, I can't see how you'd have a problem. I'd bet you're smart enough to know when to not follow the herd on investments, and that markets go down as well as up. :) I didn't start out that smart, and had to do a lot of risk-taking and pyramiding before things began to jell.

Yeah, numediaman. "Terlingua: The Contentment Capital of the Universe" :)

An aerial view of my little chunk of dirt is at http://terraserver.microsoft.com/image.aspx?t=1&s=11&x=1593&y=8120&z=13&w=2

A lot of our locals are river guides, working the Rio Grande during the winter and New Mexico/Colorado during the snowmelt season. A fully-employed guide can make, oh, maybe $10,000 or so a year. Other folks here do other tourist stuff, for about the same amount of money. The retirees run the gamut of incomes. Follks are judged by what's in their hearts, not what's in their billfolds.

Land is cheap, and dirt and rock is free. There's a lot of the old "barn raising" and helping out among the neighbors. We're pretty much an extended family, and we take care of our own.

Check out www.lajitas.com for an example of "a fool and his money". Some $75 million stuck into it, and no customers. They've provided us with a large amount of free entertainment, though, laughing at all the mistakes. (The owner made a billion with "Excel Telecommunications"; sold a bunch of stock, bought Lajitas. The market crashed, his wife split the remaining money with him, but he's still allegedly optimistic about his luxury resort on the Rio Grande. Nothing like optimists, I alllus sez. Reminds me of Scotty's Castle in Death Valley.)

:), 'Rat

[Frohickey]

mac, whether or not I'm happy with the status quo doesn't matter. Whether or not government regulation is "good" doesn't matter. The amount of regulation we now have contributes to making our corporations non-competitive with the rest of the world. How do we deal with that fact? I don't know.

wwworry, our present tax structure has "growed like Topsy" for over 50 years. I don't pretend to be a corporate accountant nor a corporate tax expert, but I'd bet any corporation would come out ahead if we had a flat tax: "What was your income? What were the costs of production? Send in 10% of the difference." Talk about salary savings! Of course, that would lead to unemployment on a grand scale within the law firms which specialize in tax issues.

Deal with government regulation, or not. It doesn't matter. If there is too much regulation, businesses will go to where it has a competitive landscape with which to operate and hopefully turn a profit. To lure businesses away from an existing locale, it would have to garner a greater profit if it were to move than if it had stayed. This includes any costs incurred in the move. I think that the government regulations we have in the USA are encouraging businesses to move offshore to other countries. Luring them back might not be as easy as removing the past few regulations, but really rolling the regulations back to where you might not want them to.

I don't see any of that happening. Congress is predominantly composed of lawyers. A flat tax rate would decimate, worse, annihilate law firms that specialize in tax issues, as well as accounting firms. Too bad Congress is not composed of professional wrestlers. At least it would be fun to watch, and you know the damage they cause is only pretend.

[Frohickey]

GATT, being an international agreement, would require a lot of votes in favor of that minimum wage. Do we have the votes? I think not.

What do you do about China? I just now got a "teaser" about investments in the face of China's efforts at economic domination. (From Gary North.) (Mostly, buy commodities.) Anyhow, it was mentioned that not only is the average wage around $0.61/hr, there are 200 million workers available to step in to replace those now working at those jobs.

If you were one of these foreign countries that is seeing an influx of jobs, business, why would you sign your country up to an agreement that would shackle your economy and see this influx stop to a trickle?

Sounds like the best idea is no idea. Just keep the things as status quo as long as possible, that way you end up with more jobs and business from the other country that have saddled their businesses with lots of regulation and red tape. (Yes, I consider minimum wage laws as regulation that ends up hurting US competitiveness.)

[Frohickey]

The brave words of a retired person. When manufacturing jobs moved abroad it was reasoned that the service sector would take over. Just as that process began, companies figured out how to send service jobs overseas. The sad truth is, working class wages in the US are on a downward spiral, and quite possibly, an inexorable one. If you don't believe that, take a look at the settlement in the recent supermarket strike in California. You may choose to have blind faith in "the system," but I can't help thinking about what the country will be like in 20 years if this process continues unabated.

What is your solution to the problem though?

You have a foreign country with a cheap source of labor.
You have this country with minimum wage laws that make labor more expensive.
You have a system of government that respects the concept of private ownership of property, both material, intellectual, and individual.

Which one of the three do you change? Or is there another one that I have missed that could affect the current situation

[Frohickey]

Great, now you can be cheap and feel good about it too.

Alot of these "wonderful" jobs we are so graciously bestowing on impoverished countries do not even pay enough for that country. You talk about creating high standards of living elsewhere in the world but that is not what is driving these mega-corps to outsource the jobs. It's more profit in the CEOs pocket. Please don't mistake the two.

High standards of living here were created by unions driving up wages and gains in productivity. It was not so long ago that crappy working conditions were the norm here and working poverty was the norm. Well now we are creating that squalor somewhere else except this time when the locals start asking for some of their share of the profits the company will know to leave the country immediately - before they have to pay a living wage.

What would be your definition of spending your limited money wisely?

Would it be to pay for a higher priced good of adequate quality, or paying for a lower priced good of equal adequate quality?

I think that by choosing the former, you have assigned an extra value to the higher priced good that is entirely emotional, and not tangible. Also, by doing so, there is no incentive for the manufacturer for the higher priced good to improve quality, or lower prices. How is this good for the long term continuation of this manufacturer when the other manufacturer manages to lower prices even further and increase quality?

Its not about whether I'm rewarding a CEO that is pocketting the difference into their shareholders. Its about whether I'm maximizing my return on my limited money.

As to unions driving up wages and productivity, its the gains in productivity that make it possible to pay higher wages. The collective bargaining power of unions make it more of a probability that the higher profits from high productivity translate to higher wages. Why pay $8/hour wages to a $4/hour job? That just doesn't make sense, unless you are in the business of going out of business.

[Frohickey]

What it all boils down to is Greed, more Greed and then some more. These companies along with our Govt could care a less about Americans. What they care about is money, they love money and will do whatever it takes for more. Same for business. If building those Imacs in China with child labor, no health care, no taxes,no Osha,and no concerns for the enviroment will profit Apple they will do so even more. Apple is only one of thousands doing this. Our Govt is making it happen. Big Business executives are happy because they get the Money and can screw the common man a little more. Its about Greed. This is why Big Business loves George and the gang. Greed,more Greed and then some more.

I did not see any child labor being used to make iMacs in China. Some of them were cute though. :p

What would be your solution though? Forcing China to raise taxes, institute OSHA, EPA and health care? What if China refuses? Do we refuse to trade with China? Remember, the US is not the only country with businesses. What if Commodore (or whatever the German company is now called) decided to do business with China because of its lower labor costs? What if it built the Commodore65 in China and exported it to the US, and its 1/2 the price of a US-built iMac? Do we stop trading with Germany? Maybe declare war and invade Germany? (oh wait, we've done that already :p)

What if Steve Jobs decide to move Apple to China, does the US put him in jail for trading with China?

[Frohickey]

At least a few economists (not just in the White House) have been arguing that it's better just to let things run their course, instead of trying to stave off the inevitable and just postponing (or worsening) the problems later. They may be right -- but then again, the economists' jobs aren't going to India (yet).

What is the inevitable? That jobs will go to where the lowest labor costs are? That jobs will go to where the productivity is highest? Or that jobs will exit the US and go to India or China?

The inevitable is the first two that I mentioned. And if the business climate in the US does not change, the third as well.

There is a change that can be done. Make the United States more competitive, productive, lower cost labor, etc. That will stem the flow, and could reverse it. Doing so, changes things, and you let things run their course as well.

[Frohickey]

Wow, I laid something out there in anger because I got really irritated that my citicard support line lead to India, and my brain got fried because the person on the other end of the phone couldn't understand ME! I got to thinking about all the d**n greedy labor unions in this "fair" country of ours and why they insist on being paid $28.00 an hour to produce a $.50 piece of cr** that falls apart in a week then I see the point, but then I also realize that we have been defeated at our own game and it saddens me that my son has to try and survive in this.
Have at it folks, it's just a reality snap. :mad:

You know, you could write a letter to Citibank and tell them how long you were on the toll-free phone line with a wonderful Indian worker with a heavy Indian accent, and how you are planning on spending more of Citibank's toll-free phone line for another night of Learning Indian 101. :D

That would probably add a small pebble in their cost-benefit analysis of moving certain jobs offshore.

[Frohickey]

The reason I earlier said that opinions don't matter is because I don't see any institutional way to reverse what's going on about outsourcing. Government is helpless, other than some sorts of stopgaps which might be of short-term help but would only serve to make it worse, later on.

Implied before, I think we need more people of the Steve Jobs or Bill Gates type, to come up with ideas that lead to major, highly-paid employment. I have no clue as to what those ideas might be. We need others to figure out ways to produce manufactured goods at competitive prices, yet use methods which lead to higher pay for the workforce. Again, I have no answers about "How?"

It's up to individuals, as it has always been. Government can't do it. Existing corporate-structures can't do it. (If either of them could, it would already be different; it would already have been done.)

Government has never been in the production business. Most folks in government haven't a clue about how business is done, nor what's needed in order to make a profit. Corporations grow from taking a good idea and putting it into production of whatever sort--be it a railroad, a car, a plane or a cellphone. But that idea came from some individual...

'Rat

But... you mean to tell me that the free goodies that government gives to welfare queens are not conjured up from thin air??? :eek:

More automation. You would need enough automation, flexible robotic workers that do not eat, do not sleep, do not need health care, do not need bathroom breaks. Manufacturing robots that manufacture other products. Service jobs that service the manufacturing robots. Programming jobs that give instructions to the manufacturing robots. But what do you need first, the ability to produce and operate automation cheaper. But I see manufacturing jobs as gone in the United States with the various regulations you have to go through.

(If this idea takes off, I just hope that the first speaking robot does NOT have an Austrian accent.) :D

[Frohickey]

Government isn't helpless unless we design it to be helpless. For one thing, international trade agreements need to be a lot smarter. If nations want favorable trade arrangements, they should be required to implement labor and environmental standards on some level of parity with the developed world. There's no way we can complete with nations that treat their people as expendable, and there's no reason we should even try.

What if they refuse?
What if they don't need the favorable trade arrangements because even with the penalties that we throw in, its still beneficial to them?

[Frohickey]

After two years of falling fortunes, the collective net worth of the world's billionaires jumped half a trillion dollars in the past year, to $1.9 trillion. The biggest gainer in sheer dollars was Warren Buffett, who added $12.4 billion to his net worth and now is only a few billion dollars shy of ending Bill Gates' 10-year reign as the richest person on the planet.

I dunno.

I recently changed my auto insurance to Geico. I liked the geko animation, plus my insurance premium went down when I switched.

[Frohickey]

Income, you mean. If you've got a home of your own, probably half of your net worth is tied up in it. The amount of cash you need also depends on whether you've got a pension coming to you. I won't, so I will need a fairly startling amount of cash on hand at the time I stop working to not find myself in living in reduced circumstances. I sock away at least 10% of my gross income every year, so I'm probably not going to have a problem, but that doesn't change the fact that seven figures in savings will not mean as much in twenty years as it does today.

Haven't you heard of the power of compounding?

Also, don't you wish you can put more than 10% of your gross income into savings for retirement?

[IJ Reilly]

What is your solution to the problem though?

You have a foreign country with a cheap source of labor.
You have this country with minimum wage laws that make labor more expensive.
You have a system of government that respects the concept of private ownership of property, both material, intellectual, and individual.

Which one of the three do you change? Or is there another one that I have missed that could affect the current situation

None of the above. I've explained my thoughts about this at some length a couple of times at a minimum. If you're going to respond to old posts, please be kind enough to read them.

[IJ Reilly]

Haven't you heard of the power of compounding?

Also, don't you wish you can put more than 10% of your gross income into savings for retirement?

Haven't you heard of the power of paying attention?

[Rebel]

DesertRat, you said:

"Regardless of any of the above, there is no duty for any entity which hires people to make things to be in any one place"

This statement made me so mad at your stupidity that I have to stop throwing up long enough from what I've been reading to respond.

Were you born yesterday or have you simply never known the basis of what the United States of America is all about?

Yes Rat, there IS A DUTY FOR AMERICAN COMPANIES TO SUPPORT AMERICAN CITIZENS.

That's the whole god damned point!

American companies if they wished to suck from the huge American consumer teat, used to be required to give back to the country.

In other words, we the US will provide you with opportunity. Opportunity like no where else on the planet, in return you will give back to the US by way of employment and support of the country.

This new Parasitic system that you and your Bush buddies favor is fucing the American citizen in the ass and if you would take 2 minutes to do some thinking on your own instead of self-brainwashing yourself with the diatribe you subscribe to, you'd realize why I want to reach through the screen and strangle you for treason.

I have felt the same at times. Unfortunately, many people in this country are brainwashed to be either a republican or democrat. It is very frustrating and downright scary. In another post I mentioned that our school systems no longer teach our children how to think. They are learning allot of stuff, but they (mine included) can't think themselves out of a paper box let-alone the box that our political structure has placed them in.



Go UCA (http://www.ucanation.org/) !

[skunk]

Yes Rat, there IS A DUTY FOR AMERICAN COMPANIES TO SUPPORT AMERICAN CITIZENS.
American companies if they wished to suck from the huge American consumer teat, used to be required to give back to the country.

In other words, we the US will provide you with opportunity. Opportunity like no where else on the planet, in return you will give back to the US by way of employment and support of the country.

This new Parasitic system that you and your Bush buddies favor is fucing the American citizen in the ass and if you would take 2 minutes to do some thinking on your own instead of self-brainwashing yourself with the diatribe you subscribe to, you'd realize why I want to reach through the screen and strangle you for treason.

Exactly where is this so-called "Duty" set out? Surely the only duty of a company is to maximise the value of shareholder's holdings, insofar as this is possible within the ethical or political stance of that company, if known. If you want the ethical aspect to be further reinforced, short of insisting that every US company made everything they sell, you would have to legislate for each company to make a statement of its criteria, a bit like a Constitution, and let itself be judged by that. Bear in mind, though, that the computer you are typing on would probably cost rather a lot more if it was built in the US. You are in effect proposing to outlaw sub-contracting.

[kuyu]

Hey Wakka, I see your point and wish that it really did work that way. But a companies only obligation and purpose for existing is to make money for the owners. Period. Luckily, all of us can own small pieces of lots of companies, and even start our own.

Thus, as the firm makes money, so do we. It's a beautiful system. The problem is that in recent years, many companies have found that they can be more profitable if they farm work out of other countries. As you can see, this causes a bit of a dilemma.

Our government can either become "buddy-buddy" with more corporations, or we can watch as firms exploit the workforce comparitive advantage of foreign workers. It's got to be one or the other. Both can't happen as they are mutually exclusive of one another.

"If your company will go to the ends of the earth for its employees, it will likely find it can pay them half what it pays Americans." Demotivators.com ;)

[IJ Reilly]

I think what everyone is forgetting here is that corporations are creatures of government. They would not exist without the laws which enable them and the police powers that protect their interests. Government can (and does) demand something in return for this deal. The question should be whether government is demanding enough, or the right things, from corporate America. I think it should be clear from the last few years of rampant corporate fraud that they haven't been demanding enough of the right things, and when they don't, corporations become the snake that eats itself.

[Desertrat]

IJ, while I agree that governments have passed multitudes of laws concerning coprorations, corporations don't need government in order to exist. :)

The two fundamental purposes of any corporation are first, a way to spread the risk in raising capital for investment in the "better mousetrap", and, also, to limit personal liability. If your mousetrap doesn't sell, you'd like to not lose your house when the corporation goes broke. Same sort of deal but different paperwork from a limited partnership.

The natural progression of success is that a corporation sells enough mousetraps and then widgets in other countries that it becomes multi-national. It's no longer "merely" or "only" a U.S. or French or Filipino corporation, but its responsibilities still are first toward its investors. Mousetraps and widgets will be made where the cost of production is lowest.

I find it ironic that some 20 to 30 years ago, we were inundated with talk in the media about the end of the industrial age and the beginning of the information age. Fewer smokestacks, and more need for more highly-educated workers.

Here we are, now, with Wakka and others all harumphy because what was predicted back then has come true, and now even IT is changing. It reminds me of comments about the views of the future on the part of the lay public, of scientists, and of science fiction writers. While the latter group sees a steeper curve of progress/change, reality generally outstrips them. Few of the "wild eyed dreamers" of the '30s, '40s and '50s envisioned us having somebody walk on the moon by 1969.

I dunno. When I hear a prediction and then a trend does indeed set in that's in line with the prediction, I figure my likes and dislikes don't matter. I just try to figure out how this trend might benefit me and act accordingly. I also try to figure out how this trend might harm me--and act accordingly.

If a corporation is going to be hurt by a trend, a wise fella moves to some other sort of work, seems to me. Is Wakka's idea of loyalty a two-way street? Should a worker hang on to his job until the corporation goes broke, even if he sees it's going broke?

'Rat

[skunk]

IJ, while I agree that governments have passed multitudes of laws concerning coprorations, corporations don't need government in order to exist. :)'Rat

What IS wrong is the laws granting corporations the same rights as individuals under the Constitution: corporate personhood. This is a travesty.

[IJ Reilly]

What IS wrong is the laws granting corporations the same rights as individuals under the Constitution: corporate personhood. This is a travesty.

This is part of my point. The other would be the use of police powers, international treaties and infrastructure investments to promote and protect corporate interests. I'm not saying it's wrong or right, though. I'm saying that corporations get their share of the benefits from government. Some people think it's the job of government to provide these benefits and the duty of corporations to avoid paying for them.

[Desertrat]

Absent corporate "personhood", how does one provide for ownership of real property or intellectual property? Or defend against trespass? How would you have the buying and selling handled, if not by the corporate person? Another issue is that of liability: If a lawsuit against the corporate person were to also involve all those who've invested in it, who would ever invest in a corporation in the first place?

As far as benefits and payments therefor, do corporations provide no benefits to society? If not, we then don't need to worry about "10 million jobs in four years", among other things. :) Corporations pay ad valorem taxes and franchise taxes. Royalties in the case of minerals. And, for all that folks complain about low payments of taxes by corporations, I note that the income tax on wages and salaries provides some 20% to 25% of the federal government's income. Where could the other 75% to 80% come from except from business activity?

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

'Rat, you're missing the point. The question of whether corporations should be treated as individuals under the law is completely apart from the fact that they are, and that government makes it possible for them to protect their property, real and intellectual. That government imparts these powers and abilities to corporation through the law, the police and the courts, suggests a social contract of some kind between them and the rest of the nation. I think we've witnessed enough examples for one lifetime just in the last few years of what happens when that contract breaks down, and corporations and the people who work behind the (government created) corporate shield, are not held to account for their end of the bargain.

[Rebel]

What IS wrong is the laws granting corporations the same rights as individuals under the Constitution: corporate personhood. This is a travesty.


You all are going to jump on me for this, but I ask that you really think about this system.

Today, politicians and corporations work hand-in-hand. Many laws are passed in order to make corporations happy. This is not a bad thing since it keeps the majority of the population working. However, many laws are instituted that hurt the working person and their families, let-alone the unemployed.

My view of how this should work, and what our forefathers envisioned when they created our republic, is: Politicians should work for the people, and have their best interest in mind when dealing with corporations and instituting laws. And you all know as well as I, that this is not happening today.

Now just think out of the box on this, if governments could only tax individuals who had employment, they would be more inclined to work harder with corporations to keep more of the population working. It is the only structure that would force a renewed thinking to what our core creation of this country was all about.

Now you all know that I support U-ACT (http://www.ucanation.org/uact.htm/) . It is the only income-only tax system on the table within our government. Is this system perfect? No. Will it need further work? Yes. Does it close all the holes? No. Will it create a foundation for a completely new way of tax collection and political attentiveness to the individual? Yes. Will it need further refinement? Absolutely.

However, fight for the system first, and then work on the refinement. If we wait for the perfect system to be presented first, it will never come.

[Frohickey]

'Rat, you're missing the point. The question of whether corporations should be treated as individuals under the law is completely apart from the fact that they are, and that government makes it possible for them to protect their property, real and intellectual. That government imparts these powers and abilities to corporation through the law, the police and the courts, suggests a social contract of some kind between them and the rest of the nation. I think we've witnessed enough examples for one lifetime just in the last few years of what happens when that contract breaks down, and corporations and the people who work behind the (government created) corporate shield, are not held to account for their end of the bargain.

Think of a corporation as a child that never grows up. Its always taken care of by other adults or persons, CEO, BoD, etc. It can't vote. It can own property, real or intellectual. It can pay taxes.

Hmm... I remember us going to war over taxation without representation a few hundred years ago.

[pseudobrit]

Think of a corporation as a child that never grows up. Its always taken care of by other adults or persons, CEO, BoD, etc. It can't vote. It can own property, real or intellectual. It can pay taxes.

Children have rights and responsibilities too.

Hmm... I remember us going to war over taxation without representation a few hundred years ago.

That's a laugh. Corporations are the most overrepresented "people" in our society.

[skunk]

Think of a corporation as a child that never grows up. Its always taken care of by other adults or persons, CEO, BoD, etc. It can't vote. It can own property, real or intellectual. It can pay taxes.

Hmm... I remember us going to war over taxation without representation a few hundred years ago.

A strange and not very enlightening analogy. A corporation is nothing like a child (except when spoilt and wayward). Property ownership is nothing to do with personhood: being able to plead the fifth is. And as for representation, this administration is in the pocket of big business, many of whom seem to avoid paying taxes even when they make a massive profit.

[Rebel]

A strange and not very enlightening analogy. A corporation is nothing like a child (except when spoilt and wayward). Property ownership is nothing to do with personhood: being able to plead the fifth is. And as for representation, this administration is in the pocket of big business, many of whom seem to avoid paying taxes even when they make a massive profit.


It is not only this administration that is in big business pockets. It is every politician, at every level, regardless of their political party.

Why would someone spend $4 million dollars plus, to be elected to an office that only pays $132,000 per year? Do you think they believe there will be a return on their dollar at some point in the future?

[Desertrat]

Okay, IJ. I think I've got it now.

I'm not sure that I agree about the social contract part, at least as far as the deal with outsourcing or relocation. If I as a sole proprietor find my store losing money, I don't worry about "social contract" when I tell my employees to find another job. Nor am I concerned should I desire to move to some other town where the business environment might be better. I'm supposed to go broke on account of a social contract?

A corporation is supposed to stiff the investors/stockholders because of a social contract?

If the social contract is superior to the notion of profitable operations, how long before Wall Street goes inactive?

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

Okay, IJ. I think I've got it now.

I'm not sure that I agree about the social contract part, at least as far as the deal with outsourcing or relocation. If I as a sole proprietor find my store losing money, I don't worry about "social contract" when I tell my employees to find another job. Nor am I concerned should I desire to move to some other town where the business environment might be better. I'm supposed to go broke on account of a social contract?

A corporation is supposed to stiff the investors/stockholders because of a social contract?

If the social contract is superior to the notion of profitable operations, how long before Wall Street goes inactive?

That's not precisely what I mean by social contract. What I am trying to convey is that corporations get their breath of life from government, and in many respects are sustained and protected by government, and from government they can be asked for something in return. Taxes and regulations, to name two.

[Frohickey]

A strange and not very enlightening analogy. A corporation is nothing like a child (except when spoilt and wayward). Property ownership is nothing to do with personhood: being able to plead the fifth is. And as for representation, this administration is in the pocket of big business, many of whom seem to avoid paying taxes even when they make a massive profit.

I beg to differ...

A child is represented by parents or guardians... a corporation is represented by CEOs and other employees
A child does not have full rights, such as voting... a corporation cannot vote.
A child can be aborted... a corporation can be dissolved. :eek:

Property ownership has a lot to do with personhood. If property ownership were not, then we would all be slaves. If you do not own your body, if you do not own your labor and the results of your labor, what are you if not a slave?

[mactastic]

How many of us really own the results of our labor? I know I don't. I get paid to make pretty drawings, but they are my boss's property.

Guess that makes me a slave.

[pseudobrit]

I beg to differ...

A child is represented by parents or guardians... a corporation is represented by CEOs and other employees
A child does not have full rights, such as voting... a corporation cannot vote.
A child can be aborted... a corporation can be dissolved. :eek:

Property ownership has a lot to do with personhood. If property ownership were not, then we would all be slaves. If you do not own your body, if you do not own your labor and the results of your labor, what are you if not a slave?

This is ****ing silly. There is no use in comparing corporations to people.

A corporation has no body or soul. It does not have a pulse, it cannot be jailed, it cannot be killed. It is not born, it does not mature, get married and have children. It has no brain; it does not think, breathe, love, hate, live or die.

It is not a person. It may be controlled by real people who do all the things above, but the corporation itself is nothing more than an economic entity.

If you want to talk in pointless metaphors and continue this masturbatory exercise, go to the Philosophy forums.
Oh, wait...

[skunk]

I beg to differ...

A child is represented by parents or guardians... a corporation is represented by CEOs and other employees
A child does not have full rights, such as voting... a corporation cannot vote.
A child can be aborted... a corporation can be dissolved. :eek:

Property ownership has a lot to do with personhood. If property ownership were not, then we would all be slaves. If you do not own your body, if you do not own your labor and the results of your labor, what are you if not a slave?

Bollocks!

[Frohickey]

How many of us really own the results of our labor? I know I don't. I get paid to make pretty drawings, but they are my boss's property.

Guess that makes me a slave.

I get paid to make pretty drawings, but they are my boss's property.

How is that any different from you making drawings and selling it someone else? End result is that someone else (boss) owns the drawings, and you get money for the sale.

[zimv20]

a corporation cannot vote.
now *i* beg to differ. i feel corporate america has a bigger say in politics than i do.

[Desertrat]

Taxes and regulation. Hmmm. Never really considered the notion of "social contract" for those. Taxes? Well, some amount of government is needed, so somebody's gotta pay something into the kitty. (My opinion that we want too much from government and thus taxes are too great a percentage of either personal income or GDP is another issue entirely.)

Regulation: Rules, guidelines, level playing field. Level for both corporation and customer. Level as between corporations.

That last is why I've always supported the EPA as a federal agency, and not favored state-by-state anti-pollution efforts. A paper mill in a strong-regulation state wouldn't be competitive with one in a weak-regulation state.

Ah, well. It will be interesting over the next several years to see how all these changes in what's manufactured where and sold where else will all play out. And I've wondered how a consuming society which is in decline as to production will make out when the money runs out...

'rat

[zimv20]

I've wondered how a consuming society which is in decline as to production will make out when the money runs out...

skyrocketing property crimes, i reckon

[IJ Reilly]

Taxes and regulation. Hmmm. Never really considered the notion of "social contract" for those.

Sure, the system doesn't help you get unless you also give. This is especially true in the case of corporations. They are a completely artificial construct. They can't exist without government making laws to create them and the exercise of the state's police power to enforce those laws. All of the good things that you say come from corporations, such as the protection of capital, happens because the state makes it so. When corporations don't hold up their side of the bargain, you get your Tycos, your Enrons and your Adelphias.

[skunk]

And I've wondered how a consuming society which is in decline as to production will make out when the money runs out...

'rat

You change to a service economy. Seems to work quite well over here.....

[mactastic]

I get paid to make pretty drawings, but they are my boss's property.

How is that any different from you making drawings and selling it someone else? End result is that someone else (boss) owns the drawings, and you get money for the sale.

Well now if you'd said I own the fruits of my labor I'd agree. You said if I don't own the results of my labor I was a slave. :p

[Desertrat]

Our three stock exchanges list, what, over 8,000 corporations? I think there are many hundreds of "penny stock" corporations, as well. Yet all folks comment about in the context of "corporations" are the Enrons.

What I found interesting about the whole Enron deal is the absence of discussion about why Enron went broke. There was hardly any mention of the play in derivatives, with the Enron decision-makers betting wrong. (Remember the Barclay's Bank debacle?) One reason I've tried to learn something about how the derivatives markets work (and I'm yet unable to explain it) is reading that the total "play" in them is some $160 TRILLION. That's five times the total annual economic activity of the whole darned world.

And probably 99% or more of all corporations just do their thing and nobody notices except via pay check or at the cash register...

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

I'm not sure what you're driving at, 'Rat. Yes many if not most corporations play by the rules. The operative term here is "rules." Absent the rules, nobody would play by them, if you get my drift. Corporate fraud would be the rule, not the exception.

[Desertrat]

Not really driving at anything in particular.

I gotta disagree with "Absent the rules, nobody would play by them, if you get my drift. Corporate fraud would be the rule, not the exception." because you just can't do business unless there is some amount of trust.

The majority of profits come from "comeback" or repeat customers. You don't have them without your product functioning as the buyer expects. Whether corporations of whatever size or sole proprietorships or farmers or ranchers, the buyers have a certain amount of belief that the product is what it's represented to be--and that the checks are good, and/or the billings will be paid on schedule.

Sure, "caveat emptor" always applies, but there is still a level of trust that enables business transactions. Without that, nobody would buy from anybody except as some absolute minimum amount for survival--and then with a lot of arguing and screaming. Heck, without that level of trust, do you think that even EBay could function?

:), 'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

What about the trust between corporations and their investors, and between corporations and their employees? Over the last few years we've seen the massive kind of violations of that trust can occur -- even with rules in place.

[Frohickey]

What about the trust between corporations and their investors, and between corporations and their employees? Over the last few years we've seen the massive kind of violations of that trust can occur -- even with rules in place.

Rules are only of use if they are followed by everyone. Thats why the accounting firm used by Enron was also to blame in the defrauding of the investors.

[mactastic]

Not really driving at anything in particular.

I gotta disagree with "Absent the rules, nobody would play by them, if you get my drift. Corporate fraud would be the rule, not the exception." because you just can't do business unless there is some amount of trust.


But surely you can see the potential for trust to exist between robber barons? They trust they'll all stick to screwing the little guy right?

[IJ Reilly]

Rules are only of use if they are followed by everyone. Thats why the accounting firm used by Enron was also to blame in the defrauding of the investors.

Yes, and so what does this suggest to you?

[mactastic]

Yes, and so what does this suggest to you?

That there are too many rules! Less government 'mommy-ing' us and people will be sure to behave better than they do with all the rules we have now. :p

[G4scott]

Not sure if anybody's seen this, but it appears outsourcing has some positive effects in the hi-tech industry.

link (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=SVBIZINK4.story&STORY=/www/story/03-30-2004/0002137661&EDATE=TUE+Mar+30+2004,+01:30+PM)

U.S. Offshore Outsourcing of Computer Software and Services to Grow 26%
Annually

WALTHAM, Mass., March 30 /PRNewswire/ -- Global Insight, Inc. announced today the release of a new study, "The Impact of Offshore IT Software and Services Outsourcing on the U.S. Economy and the IT Industry," commissioned by The Information Technology Association of America (ITAA), the leading trade association for the IT industry. The Global Insight research team was led by chief economist Dr. Nariman Behravesh, who is recognized as one of the world's most accurate economic forecasters. Nobel Prize winning economist Dr. Lawrence R. Klein, the founder of WEFA and a Global Insight associate, made significant contributions to the Study.
The in-depth Study found that global sourcing of computer software and
services, while displacing some IT workers, actually benefits the U.S. economy and increases the number of U.S. jobs. According to Study findings, the U.S. economy has much to gain from global sourcing and an environment of free trade, open markets and robust competition. Benefits include job creation, higher real wages, higher real GDP growth, contained inflation and expanded exports resulting in increased economic activity.
According to the Study, U.S. spending for offshore outsourcing of computer software and services is expected to grow at a compound annual rate of almost 26%, increasing from approximately $10 billion in 2003 to $31 billion in 2008. During the same period, total savings from the use of offshore resources will grow from $6.7 billion to $20.9 billion. Using offshore resources lowers costs and boosts productivity. As a result, inflation is lower, interest rates are lower, and economic activity is higher. The increased economic activity creates a wide range of new jobs, both in IT and other industries. While there are some dislocations that affect both industries and regions, the overall economy adjusts so that offshore IT outsourcing actually creates new jobs. Over 90,000 net new jobs were created in the U.S. through 2003. The number of net new jobs is projected to grow by 317,000 in 2008. The impact on U.S. jobs does vary by industry sector, with the major beneficiaries for the next five years being construction, transportation and utilities, education and health services, wholesale trade, and financial services.
"The benefits of free trade clearly provide a boost to the U.S. economy,"
stated Dr. Behravesh. "Using offshore resources reduces costs, dampens inflation, lowers interest rates, increases spending and creates additional jobs. The challenge is to help displaced workers transition to other productive activities," he concluded.
The Study estimates the total number of new jobs by state, by examining each state's industry employment concentration and its forecasted industrial growth. The results of the Study indicate states that are larger and more economically diverse will gain the most new jobs through sheer size such as California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan. However, the states that will lead in terms of expected growth in the number of new jobs will be Kansas, Nevada, Washington, Arizona, North Carolina, Colorado, South Carolina, Iowa and Georgia, according to the Study.
"We have long held the position that worldwide sourcing creates more jobs and higher real wages for American workers," said ITAA President Harris N. Miller. "Now we have the data that prove it. This research replaces fear with sound economic analysis, allowing for an informed approach to the global marketplace."

Protecting US jobs by forcing out overseas competition does nothing more than stifle innovation and progress. Just compare US cars to japanese cars. The difference isn't as bad now, but when they finally took trade restrictions off of japanese cars, they flooded the US market because they were so much better than any GM or Ford car you could buy. US car manufactures had become effectively inbred, producing cars that couldn't compete with japanese automakers. In the end, it just hurt the US automakers.

[Rebel]

Not sure if anybody's seen this, but it appears outsourcing has some positive effects in the hi-tech industry.

link (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=SVBIZINK4.story&STORY=/www/story/03-30-2004/0002137661&EDATE=TUE+Mar+30+2004,+01:30+PM)



U.S. Offshore Outsourcing of Computer Software and Services to Grow 26%
Annually

WALTHAM, Mass., March 30 /PRNewswire/ -- Global Insight, Inc. announced today the release of a new study, "The Impact of Offshore IT Software and Services Outsourcing on the U.S. Economy and the IT Industry," commissioned by The Information Technology Association of America (ITAA), the leading trade association for the IT industry. The Global Insight research team was led by chief economist Dr. Nariman Behravesh, who is recognized as one of the world's most accurate economic forecasters. Nobel Prize winning economist Dr. Lawrence R. Klein, the founder of WEFA and a Global Insight associate, made significant contributions to the Study.
The in-depth Study found that global sourcing of computer software and
services, while displacing some IT workers, actually benefits the U.S. economy and increases the number of U.S. jobs. According to Study findings, the U.S. economy has much to gain from global sourcing and an environment of free trade, open markets and robust competition. Benefits include job creation, higher real wages, higher real GDP growth, contained inflation and expanded exports resulting in increased economic activity.
According to the Study, U.S. spending for offshore outsourcing of computer software and services is expected to grow at a compound annual rate of almost 26%, increasing from approximately $10 billion in 2003 to $31 billion in 2008. During the same period, total savings from the use of offshore resources will grow from $6.7 billion to $20.9 billion. Using offshore resources lowers costs and boosts productivity. As a result, inflation is lower, interest rates are lower, and economic activity is higher. The increased economic activity creates a wide range of new jobs, both in IT and other industries. While there are some dislocations that affect both industries and regions, the overall economy adjusts so that offshore IT outsourcing actually creates new jobs. Over 90,000 net new jobs were created in the U.S. through 2003. The number of net new jobs is projected to grow by 317,000 in 2008. The impact on U.S. jobs does vary by industry sector, with the major beneficiaries for the next five years being construction, transportation and utilities, education and health services, wholesale trade, and financial services.
"The benefits of free trade clearly provide a boost to the U.S. economy,"
stated Dr. Behravesh. "Using offshore resources reduces costs, dampens inflation, lowers interest rates, increases spending and creates additional jobs. The challenge is to help displaced workers transition to other productive activities," he concluded.
The Study estimates the total number of new jobs by state, by examining each state's industry employment concentration and its forecasted industrial growth. The results of the Study indicate states that are larger and more economically diverse will gain the most new jobs through sheer size such as California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan. However, the states that will lead in terms of expected growth in the number of new jobs will be Kansas, Nevada, Washington, Arizona, North Carolina, Colorado, South Carolina, Iowa and Georgia, according to the Study.
"We have long held the position that worldwide sourcing creates more jobs and higher real wages for American workers," said ITAA President Harris N. Miller. "Now we have the data that prove it. This research replaces fear with sound economic analysis, allowing for an informed approach to the global marketplace." .

Don’t be so gullible.

Forrester Research Inc. released its prediction that by the year 2015, more than 3.3 million white-collar jobs will have been shipped overseas. Since July 2000, this country has lost 2.7 million jobs. Unlike other recessions, this recession has yet to begin to return jobs to the jobless. Why? In their search to save money on salaries and benefits, companies are shipping jobs overseas. The bottom line is more important than our national employment levels.

The 317,000 jobs created by 2008 is laughable.



UCAnation (http://www.ucanation.org/)

[G4scott]

Don’t be so gullible.

Forrester Research Inc. released its prediction that by the year 2015, more than 3.3 million white-collar jobs will have been shipped overseas. Since July 2000, this country has lost 2.7 million jobs. Unlike other recessions, this recession has yet to begin to return jobs to the jobless. Why? In their search to save money on salaries and benefits, companies are shipping jobs overseas. The bottom line is more important than our national employment levels.

The 317,000 jobs created by 2008 is laughable.
UCAnation (http://www.ucanation.org/)

So that's the liberal strategy? If they don't like the data, then dismiss it as useless? It's sad, really. If you want, vote for Kerry. Let him put his protectionist measures in place, and watch American manufacturing, technology, and everything else made in the USA go down the ****ter, because that's what'll happen. It happened before, and Kerry has chosen to ignore history, and is inevitably doomed to repeat it. Also, raising taxes will only kill jobs...

There's this thing called capitalism. It works, really.

Maybe you should read this: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/meyer200403290851.asp

[mactastic]

So that's the liberal strategy?

I love how anyone who disagrees with you is labeled a liberal...

[Rebel]

So that's the liberal strategy? If they don't like the data, then dismiss it as useless? It's sad, really. If you want, vote for Kerry. Let him put his protectionist measures in place, and watch American manufacturing, technology, and everything else made in the USA go down the ****ter, because that's what'll happen. It happened before, and Kerry has chosen to ignore history, and is inevitably doomed to repeat it.

There's this thing called capitalism. It works, really.

Liberal? Are you out of your mind?

I am an American - If you want to know what I am about, visit this site - UCAnation.ORG (http://www.ucanation.org/)

[G4scott]

I love how anyone who disagrees with you is labeled a liberal...

LIBERAL!!!! :eek: :p

Well, would you prefer Democrat? Radical? Socialist? One who Undermines American Values?

Or are you more of a moderate?

I think anyone who would disagree with that article, would probably fall under the "socialist" category, and all socialists I know are very much Liberals. I don't think conservative socialists exist... There might be moderate socialists, but I think those are just leftists who are denying their affiliation with the left...

[zimv20]

Well, would you prefer Democrat? Radical? Socialist? One who Undermines American Values?

how about "Rebel?" he's the one who said it.

[G4scott]

how about "Rebel?" he's the one who said it.

That works too.. Kinda hard to find on the political spectrum, though...

[mactastic]

LIBERAL!!!!

Well, would you prefer Democrat? Radical? Socialist? One who Undermines American Values?

Or are you more of a moderate?

I think anyone who would disagree with that article, would probably fall under the "socialist" category, and all socialists I know are very much Liberals. I don't think conservative socialists exist... There might be moderate socialists, but I think those are just leftists who are denying their affiliation with the left...
Oh I'm most definetly a liberal. Probably one the undermines American Values by your standards. That's not the point though. Did you stop to consider whether Rebel is a liberal before you shot your mouth off?

[zimv20]

That works too.. Kinda hard to find on the political spectrum, though...
fwiw, i think it's more useful to understand an individual's positions than to try to cram them into a predefined category. i'd also point out that by implying one or more of the categories "undermines american values" doesn't add much to the conversation.

if you want to have an intelligent discussion of what american values are and how individual decisions affect the strengthening or weaking of each value, i'm all for it. in the meantime, i highly doubt that broad, unfounded slurs are going generate anything useful. one might even call such behavior troll-like.

[IJ Reilly]

That works too.. Kinda hard to find on the political spectrum, though...

I'm sorry, are we getting in the way of your efforts to neatly pigeonhole everyone who doesn't agree with you?

[mactastic]

So that's the liberal strategy?

Liberal? Are you out of your mind?

Yep, Rebel is your stereotypical liberal isn't he?

Would you like some salt for your other foot?

[timmyOtool]

not flaming or baiting here, just a question. What keeps jobs in other developed countries like Germany or Japan?

[Rebel]

Yep, Rebel is your stereotypical liberal isn't he?

Would you like some salt for your other foot?


Are you all getting slap-happy today? Share some of those happy drugs...

[Frohickey]

not flaming or baiting here, just a question. What keeps jobs in other developed countries like Germany or Japan?

Inertia.

[timmyOtool]

Inertia.
Why does the effect of inertia not apply to jobs being shipped out of the U.S.

There has to been a reason, or is it just that this globalization is only just starting and in the future all delevoped nations will go through this phase. Maybe these other nations just protect thier markets better.

[mactastic]

Inertia.

IOW, we should be more like Japan and Germany? :D

[zimv20]

not flaming or baiting here, just a question. What keeps jobs in other developed countries like Germany or Japan?
better education systems?

[G4scott]

I'm sorry, are we getting in the way of your efforts to neatly pigeonhole everyone who doesn't agree with you?

Actually, if I was pigeonholing everyone who didn't agree with me, I'd say you guys were making it quite easy, if that were the case.

So, now that everyone has neatly placed me in the "Conservative Troll" slot...

Rebel, I apologize for lumping you into the liberal category. Apparently, your views on taxation and government differ. While I may not agree with all of the beliefs of UCA, I respect the fact that you have your opinions, as do I.

As far as an intelligent discussion, I would, if my beliefs weren't so quickly stifled by the ideology of the majority of the people on these boards. When the first response to any article I post is "Don't be so gullible", it shows me how little people are willing to see beyond the fact that the article was posted by a conservative, and take any of it seriously.

Since nobody's said anything about it, I'll post the article again. This article provides another insight as to the current job situation, and what can be done to help alleviate the problem.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/meyer200403290851.asp

timmyOtool, I'm not sure about Germany, but in Japan, I'm pretty sure that labor prices, and no import/export taxes within Japan make it easier for their companies to manufacture goods.

[mactastic]

Actually, if I was pigeonholing everyone who didn't agree with me, I'd say you guys were making it quite easy, if that were the case.

You gotta admit, you really stuck your foot in it by calling Rebel a liberal. That's why you got so much flak, because you obviously didn't even stop to think before you blasted away at 'the liberals'.

So, now that everyone has neatly placed me in the "Conservative Troll" slot...

I wasn't the one accusing liberals of Undermining American Values. Don't want to be labeled a troll? Don't say things like that.

Rebel, I apologize for lumping you into the liberal category. Apparently, your views on taxation and government differ. While I may not agree with all of the beliefs of UCA, I respect the fact that you have your opinions, as do I.

Does that respect extend to all those who disagree with you? Or just to other conservatives?

As far as an intelligent discussion, I would, if my beliefs weren't so quickly stifled by the ideology of the majority of the people on these boards. When the first response to any article I post is "Don't be so gullible", it shows me how little people are willing to see beyond the fact that the article was posted by a conservative, and take any of it seriously.

And you can't seem to get over the fact that the criticism of your article was leveled at you by someone NOT of the liberal persuasion. The funny part is, not one liberal ACTUALLY criticised you or your article, yet you went off blaming us for it. You must be taking lessons in mis-direction from the WH.

Since nobody's said anything about it, I'll post the article again. This article provides another insight as to the current job situation, and what can be done to help alleviate the problem.

Thanks, but we saw the article already. You don't really want to hear what I think about it anyway, you'd just dismiss it out of hand since I have a liberal opinion which is one you don't seem willing to listen to.

[G4scott]

Does that respect extend to all those who disagree with you? Or just to other conservatives?

You get that same respect too. I'm not going to force you to believe in what I believe in. This is America, right?


Thanks, but we saw the article already. You don't really want to hear what I think about it anyway, you'd just dismiss it out of hand since I have a liberal opinion which is one you don't seem willing to listen to.

No, actually, I'd be quite interested to hear what you have to say about it. I know I won't like it, but maybe you can enlighten me on the liberal thoughts about economics. You just might be able to change my perspective, or clear up my definition of what a liberal believes in.

[mactastic]

You get that same respect too.

Hard to tell when you let loose with something like 'One who undermines American values'.

[Rebel]

Rebel, I apologize for lumping you into the liberal category. Apparently, your views on taxation and government differ. While I may not agree with all of the beliefs of UCA, I respect the fact that you have your opinions, as do I.

As far as an intelligent discussion, I would, if my beliefs weren't so quickly stifled by the ideology of the majority of the people on these boards. When the first response to any article I post is "Don't be so gullible", it shows me how little people are willing to see beyond the fact that the article was posted by a conservative, and take any of it seriously.



This is a very depressing time for Americans.

"The economic recovery has arrived and turned out to be much healthier and stronger than advertised," said Sung Won Sohn, chief economist at Wells Fargo in Minneapolis. "But 2004 won't be as rosy as 2003." He said that some of the unexpectedly strong earnings could be attributed to the dollar's depreciation as well as 2003 tax cuts.

But those effects could be more tempered in coming quarters, while the risk of rising interest rates continues to grow. "It's possible the market's expectations have run ahead of economic fundamentals," Sohn said.

So according to this expert, we actually had a healthy economy in 2003, even though 16 million people and counting are out of work, and he is suggesting that 2004 will not be as good as 2003.

Why am I fighting for a Universal American Citizens tax (http://www.ucanation.org/uact.htm) ? Here are projections that a leading economist organization garnered from the U-ACT tax system.

According to projections, the U-ACT plan will help the economy to create 6.5 million jobs over the next three years vs. the 1 million projected by the current tax cut. With 16 MILLION Americans currently out of work, U-ACT will have all of America working in 5 years. The current tax system will take 16+ years.

Taken together, the U-ACT tax proposal will put an additional $650 billion to work in the private economy within the first year. "And there's no better way to help our economy grow than to leave more money in the hands of the men and women who earned it,"

The U-ACT tax proposal will bring real and immediate benefits to ALL Americans. Ninety-two million Americans will keep an average of $4,500 more of their own money. A family of four with two earners and $39,000 in income will receive more than $4,000 in tax relief -- real money to help pay the bills, raise a family, send children to college, save for the future, and push the economy forward.

[G4scott]

Hard to tell when you let loose with something like 'One who undermines American values'.

That was merely an element of a list of possible political affiliations or positions that I was throwing up in the air. I would also say that you claiming I get lessons in misdirection from the White House was quite harsh.

So, mactastic, what about your views on that last article? I dare you to try to change my mind. Go for it.

[G4scott]

Why am I fighting for a Universal American Citizens tax (http://www.ucanation.org/uact.htm) ? Here are projections that a leading economist organization garnered from the U-ACT tax system.

According to projections, the U-ACT plan will help the economy to create 6.5 million jobs over the next three years vs. the 1 million projected by the current tax cut. With 16 MILLION Americans currently out of work, U-ACT will have all of America working in 5 years. The current tax system will take 16+ years.

I'm interested. What specifically does U-ACT propose that will create so many new jobs?

Taken together, the U-ACT tax proposal will put an additional $650 billion to work in the private economy within the first year. "And there's no better way to help our economy grow than to leave more money in the hands of the men and women who earned it,"

The U-ACT tax proposal will bring real and immediate benefits to ALL Americans. Ninety-two million Americans will keep an average of $4,500 more of their own money. A family of four with two earners and $39,000 in income will receive more than $4,000 in tax relief -- real money to help pay the bills, raise a family, send children to college, save for the future, and push the economy forward.

There are some things that I can agree on with U-ACT, but others, like the Government not being able to raise taxes ever again, seem quite silly. It would also seem to involve the mass privatization of everything, like health care, social security, and toll roads (which I'm all for), but it worries me some. Capitalism is great, but it occasionally needs government intervention to keep things from getting out of hand. You can see how fast the wheels of Capitalism took out Enron, but the Government was needed to create the regulations, and enforce them.

Overall, it seems like a great plan on paper, but I think it oversimplifies things a bit too much.

[pseudobrit]

That was merely an element of a list of possible political affiliations or positions that I was throwing up in the air.

Conservatives are all Nazis.

Fair game under the above rule: I was merely throwing up in the air an element of a list of possible political affiliations or positions (please excuse my PA Dutch dialect grammar).

Oh, no, let me pose it exactly as you did and see how you like hate speech directed at you:

CONSERVATIVE!!!

Well, would you prefer Republican? Fundamentalist? Fascist? One who Undermines Human Rights?

Or are you more of a moderate?

I think anyone who would disagree with liberals, would probably fall under the "fascist" category, and all fascists I know are very much Conservatives.

[pseudobrit]

And as for the article, I noticed a strange contradiction of sorts (emphasis mine):

People who create jobs are entrepreneurs...The jobs that entrepreneurs create — keep in mind that 80 percent of all new jobs are created by small businesses — provide incomes to the people they hire, who in turn spend their money on the products and services they need and want.

Until we get Americans to understand that their welfare depends utterly on those few among us who create work — that "soaking the rich" also means "no work for you" — we will never create enough new jobs no matter how rapidly our economy may grow.

Small business owners, "entrepreneurs" in this article, are hardly the group of wealthy job-makers they're made out to be. They are more likely to be middle class than rich, and their job-creating ability lies in their breadth (80% according to the article, because there are so many of them) rather than their depth. They have deeper pockets than most, but the only reason they will ever add jobs is when they can afford it AND they're forced to by business/market forces (either an increased need for labor or a new type of labor is added).

I don't understand how he can point out that small business provides 80% of new jobs in one breath and utter the word "few" in describing them in the next. If there were just a "few" of them, we wouldn't be talking about small business, we'd be talking about big business.

[Rebel]

1) I'm interested. What specifically does U-ACT propose that will create so many new jobs?

2) There are some things that I can agree on with U-ACT, but others, like the Government not being able to raise taxes ever again, seem quite silly.

3)It would also seem to involve the mass privatization of everything, like health care, social security, and toll roads (which I'm all for), but it worries me some.

4)Capitalism is great, but it occasionally needs government intervention to keep things from getting out of hand. You can see how fast the wheels of Capitalism took out Enron, but the Government was needed to create the regulations, and enforce them.

5)Overall, it seems like a great plan on paper, but I think it oversimplifies things a bit too much.

I itemized to keep things simple:

1) U-ACT (http://www.ucanation.org/uact.htm) is an income only tax system created to get our governments working for the people. The concept of a servitude government is vanishing.

2) If Americans are working and recieving annual raises and bonuses, our governments will get more tax money. If the people succeed, so will government coffers. U-ACT is a percentage system. As people earn more, obviously their contribution increases as a percent to total.

3) Yes! - It worries you becasue it is a change. Human nature is to resist change. But if we do nothing, we allow governments to keep spending out of control.

4)This system will not starve the beast, but it will place it on a strict diet. Our military will still receive over $400 billion dollars annually( same as today). All our other major social programs will not be impacted. U-ACT basically forces our governments, at all levels, to think and plan and negotiate, before they spend.

5) That is the point. It makes things very simple. If Americans are earning income, and thriving in our lives, so will our governments. We are all in it together.

I encourage you to read the entire proposal - LINK to U-ACT (http://www.ucanation.org/uact.htm)

[skunk]

4)This system will not starve the beast, but it will place it on a strict diet. Our military will still receive over $400 billion dollars annually( same as today). All our other major social programs will not be impacted. U-ACT basically forces our governments, at all levels, to think and plan and negotiate, before they spend.

Surely spending $400 billion on the military hardly represents a diet? $400 billion is a budget designed for global domination. If you used a fraction of this for a decent aid programme to reduce the grinding poverty around the world, perhaps you wouldn't need such paranoiac designs.

[krimson]

I haven't had time to read the entire thread, i kind of skimmed a few that caught my attention.

The place i work for outsources alot of the work to offshore companies in India. The main reason is cost, it is 8x's cheaper to have our research and programming done in india than it would be here, and with a 2-3% profit margin (currently) there would be no way for us to have the work done here and still continue to stay in business.

That's it, pure and simple. Survival or close shop, and loose more jobs. Some of you can debate how bad it is and how unamerican it is to outsource jobs, but at the same time remember to denounce capitalism and convince those on Wall Street to stop looking at numbers before investing.

[IJ Reilly]

I haven't had time to read the entire thread, i kind of skimmed a few that caught my attention.

The place i work for outsources alot of the work to offshore companies in India. The main reason is cost, it is 8x's cheaper to have our research and programming done in india than it would be here, and with a 2-3% profit margin (currently) there would be no way for us to have the work done here and still continue to stay in business.

That's it, pure and simple. Survival or close shop, and loose more jobs. Some of you can debate how bad it is and how unamerican it is to outsource jobs, but at the same time remember to denounce capitalism and convince those on Wall Street to stop looking at numbers before investing.

Yup, you're in the middle of a frantic race to the bottom, and I suspect that your opinion about the calculus of sacrificing some US jobs to save others might change when your job is the one up for outsourcing to India.

[Frohickey]

Surely spending $400 billion on the military hardly represents a diet? $400 billion is a budget designed for global domination. If you used a fraction of this for a decent aid programme to reduce the grinding poverty around the world, perhaps you wouldn't need such paranoiac designs.

How about we spend a fraction of this $400 billion to purchase property instead? Lousiana purchase only cost $15 million, we should be able to get a lot for part of $400 billion. We could buy part of Egypt or Yemen, or whatever else country would like to exchange money/aid for land.

[Frohickey]

Better education? I don't know about that.

[IJ Reilly]

How about we spend a fraction of this $400 billion to purchase property instead? Lousiana purchase only cost $15 million, we should be able to get a lot for part of $400 billion. We could buy part of Egypt or Yemen, or whatever else country would like to exchange money/aid for land.

I'm presuming this is intended as a joke, but since this isn't the first time you've mentioned the Louisiana Purchase I have to clarify just for the record that the US didn't buy this land from the French, because France never actually owned it. What the US did was buy out the French colonial claims.

[krimson]

Yup, you're in the middle of a frantic race to the bottom, and I suspect that your opinion about the calculus of sacrificing some US jobs to save others might change when your job is the one up for outsourcing to India.


Ya know what, about 1/2 of what I actually do IS outsourced to India. That's fine with me, because those are the menial stuff i dont care to do now, and give me more time to what is needed and more productive.

It's fine that you seem to think that it's a bad thing to outsource, but that is capitalism, and unless you want to go and become a "red" LOL, there isn't much you can do about it.

But ill give you some information on our situation.
We're a private company performing property certifications.
Each certificate can cost about $1.75 - $4.00

Our manual certification people are paid at a minimum of $10.00 starting and the highest currently is $18.50.
Each certificate can range anywhere from 15 minutes to 2 hours EACH.

You do the math, and please tell me how we are supposed to stay in business without using outsourced labor. Because if you can, then you should run for some kind of office or win some award.

[zimv20]

how we are supposed to stay in business without using outsourced labor.
automation*!

* if it's even possible in your business

[krimson]

we have it (92.1%), and trust me, it still isn't enough.

-edit: let me add that we used to have over 80 employees, and 7 programmers from India who we paid to live here and work.
Now we have 25 here, and sent those guys back.

Outsourcing was the LAST option for us, and it was debated for months before we actually set up shop over there.

[Frohickey]

We bought the French out for $15 million.
We bought the Russians out for $7.2 million.

I think that maybe we can buy the Saudis, or maybe some other middle eastern country out for part of $400 billion. Then, we can have exotic middle eastern vacations for cheap. Imagine the tourist dollars that would bring in. Plus, the advantage of employing lots of restless muslim people. People working to pay off their Chevy and a mortgage do not go out and commit suicide attacks.

[IJ Reilly]

It's fine that you seem to think that it's a bad thing to outsource, but that is capitalism, and unless you want to go and become a "red" LOL, there isn't much you can do about it.

Since you've only just arrived in this forum, I think it's fair to say you don't really know what I think. And what's more, LOL, there's a lot of territory between laissez-faire capitalism and communism. In fact probably 99% of the world's economies are neither laissez-faire nor communist.

[zimv20]

I think that maybe we can buy the Saudis, or maybe some other middle eastern country out for part of $400 billion. Then, we can have exotic middle eastern vacations for cheap. Imagine the tourist dollars that would bring in. Plus, the advantage of employing lots of restless muslim people. People working to pay off their Chevy and a mortgage do not go out and commit suicide attacks.
i'd hazard a guess that, to muslims, the idea of americans merely being in the holy land and owning it (complete w/ victoria's secret, mcdonalds, the gap, starbucks, etc) would not be a small matter.

maybe the chinese should buy the US. if they could afford it, would you be okay with it?

[Frohickey]

A sale of US territory would need to be approved by Congress and signed by the President first. Besides, I don't see us needing the money since the government can always print more... one of the advantages of fiat money. ;)

I'm sure that you could convince an arab tribe somewhere that a sale of territory to the United States wouldn't be a bad idea. Lets see, pick a small group of arabs that have been consistently persecuted by the larger groups, offer to buy the land and make them United States citizens after becoming naturalized. Then, if the larger groups decide to come and pick on them...

[krimson]

^
I read somewhere that Canada is trying to buy some carribean islands and add them as another provience ;D


Since you've only just arrived in this forum, I think it's fair to say you don't really know what I think. And what's more, LOL, there's a lot of territory between laissez-faire capitalism and communism. In fact probably 99% of the world's economies are neither laissez-faire nor communist.

I was actually directing it exactly at you, but just in your general direction. More so, im trying to state that there are other factors than just "jobs are leaving the country". If i can provide credible reasons on why outsourcing is done, without spin for either side, then i've done what I wanted.

I may be new here, but that also means you dont know what I think either, nor my situation. ;)

[IJ Reilly]

I was actually directing it exactly at you, but just in your general direction. More so, im trying to state that there are other factors than just "jobs are leaving the country". If i can provide credible reasons on why outsourcing is done, without spin for either side, then i've done what I wanted.

I may be new here, but that also means you dont know what I think either, nor my situation. ;)

Hmm, I'm trying to figure out the difference between not at me but in my general direction. (Are we playing "hand grenade toss" here?)

Anyway, I'm not assuming anything about what you think beyond what you've said. You made what sounded to me like a binary representation of the possible economic systems. If that's not the case and you'd like to explain further, please feel free to do so!

[Rebel]

Yup, you're in the middle of a frantic race to the bottom, and I suspect that your opinion about the calculus of sacrificing some US jobs to save others might change when your job is the one up for outsourcing to India.


You have a point. I really didn't get too emotional about politics in general until I was let go right after 9/11. You tend to notice the massive abuse of our tax money when you don't have enough money to keep the roof over your children’s head. Some friends and I conceptualized the UCA (http://www.ucanation.org/) while we were watching our nation respond to the attacks. The callous disregard of our money by rich and spoiled politicians is infuriating. We created an organization that will force the will of the people back into politics. We will make the idiots work for our common good once again. But it will take a nation, united under one organizational voice, fighting for one common purpose, to force the change that must take place to save us from ourselves.

I encourage all of you to get involved and help.

[krimson]

Hmm, I'm trying to figure out the difference between not at me but in my general direction. (Are we playing "hand grenade toss" here?)

Anyway, I'm not assuming anything about what you think beyond what you've said. You made what sounded to me like a binary representation of the possible economic systems. If that's not the case and you'd like to explain further, please feel free to do so!


It's not at you directly, but towards your direction because it was you who responded. Basically, im saying it's not personal. If that makes sense... it might not, it's 6am, and i haven't had my coffee, or breakfast.

As for the binary systems.. its just easier to state it in that fashion.

[IJ Reilly]

As for the binary systems.. its just easier to state it in that fashion.

Easier perhaps -- but is it accurate?

[krimson]

not entirely, i admit that, but nor is saying that outsourcing is completely bad and that it should be banned outright.

or am i too off center? :)

[IJ Reilly]

not entirely, i admit that, but nor is saying that outsourcing is completely bad and that it should be banned outright.

or am i too off center? :)

I haven't said anything about banning outsourcing. Moving manufacturing assets offshore should not be encouraged through the tax laws, as it is now, and I don't believe we need to treat as equal trading partners nations that don't see fit to protect their environmental resources and who regard their workers as expendable.

[Frohickey]

Okay... now that John F Kerry has made a decision and he is against the outsourcing of American goods and jobs, does this mean that Steven P Jobs won't be supporting John F Kerry in his presidential bid?

Macs are made overseas, don't cha know?

[pseudobrit]

Okay... now that John F Kerry has made a decision and he is against the outsourcing of American goods and jobs, does this mean that Steven P Jobs won't be supporting John F Kerry in his presidential bid?

Macs are made overseas, don't cha know?

Wrong. Some are, not all.

[Frohickey]

Wrong. Some are, not all.

Wrong. All are. Some are being assembled in the US, namely, in the Sacramento, California factory... that is the only factory left that is making Macs.

Prior to that, there was the Fountain, Colorado factory that made the guts of the machine, the electronics if you will. That was closed a long time ago, with the work contracted out to domestic companies. These days, that work is contracted out to foreign companies in Far East Asia.

[pseudobrit]

Wrong. All are. Some are being assembled in the US, namely, in the Sacramento, California factory... that is the only factory left that is making Macs.

So how is them being assembled in Sacramento "overseas?"

This I gotta hear.

[mactastic]

So how is them being assembled in Sacramento "overseas?"

This I gotta hear.

Sacremento, as the liberal Kapital of Kalifornia, doesn't really deserve to be called part of the US? :D

[G4scott]

Mactastic, I'm waiting for your reply to that last article I posted.

Here's some more stuff to chew on: http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/wm467.cfm

[Frohickey]

Depends on the content of labor. In Sacramento, with the assembly, not a lot of work is performed. Its essentially assembling into a computer, and putting into a box. The intensive labor tasks are done overseas. The making of the motherboard, the making of the case, these are high material cost and high labor cost. So, from a percentage basis, more is done overseas than in the People's Socialist Republic of Kalifornia. :p

[pseudobrit]

Depends on the content of labor. In Sacramento, with the assembly, not a lot of work is performed. Its essentially assembling into a computer, and putting into a box. The intensive labor tasks are done overseas. The making of the motherboard, the making of the case, these are high material cost and high labor cost.

Such is the case for those components also, and the ones that are wholly manufactured overseas. Just because my iBook and iPod were "Assembled in Taiwan" doesn't mean they're 100% Taiwanese.
But I wouldn't say they weren't made in Taiwan just because they were "only" assembled there.

The motherboard is created on an assembly line and the cases are stamped just the same. They are hardly labor intensive tasks. Why then do they do it in Asia? Because of the proximity to materials and tech infrastructure.

You know that every computer manufacturer outsources many or all the components in their systems, right?

If your definition of "made overseas" is that there were foreign components or labor involved somewhere in a US-assembled good, then there's almost nothing truly "Made in the U.S.A."

Now, tell me again how a Powerbook assembled in California is being made overseas.

[pseudobrit]

Here's some more stuff to chew on: http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/wm467.cfm

From a conservative think-tank. You don't see anyone posting liberal think-tank garbage on here, do you? It's a known biased source of information and you'd do better posting FACTS from reputable sources rather than well turned OPINION from think-tanks.

[Frohickey]

Detroit began putting some numbers as to what is domestic content versus foreign content in the automobiles manufactured, and offered for sale in the United States.

If computers did the same thing, I would hazard a guess that 75% are foreign in content.

[zimv20]

Detroit began putting some numbers as to what is domestic content versus foreign content in the automobiles manufactured, and offered for sale in the United States.

that was mandated, right? do you know if it applies to all manufacturers, or just those in the US?

[Frohickey]

that was mandated, right? do you know if it applies to all manufacturers, or just those in the US?

Dunno.

But the question is, will Steven P Jobs now pull his support for the DNC and John F Kerry after being called a 'Benedict Arnold CEO"?

[pseudobrit]

Dunno.

But the question is, will Steven P Jobs now pull his support for the DNC and John F Kerry after being called a 'Benedict Arnold CEO"?

Was Kerry referring to just outsourcing or was he referring also to offshore relocation that exploits tax breaks?

I have a much bigger problem with companies that "relocate" offshore to avoid taxes and/or then avoid paying taxes on profit by deferring that profit for future foreign reinvestment. That's what I really find crooked.

[Frohickey]

You need to remember, that the DNC, and John F Kerry are beholden to the labor unions, and that by necessity means labor unions that are based in the United States. These are the very organizations that would lose membership and union dues when jobs are outsourced overseas.

The jobs that are kept and maybe expanded when jobs are outsourced overseas are the ones that are exempt from unions. These would be jobs in program management and highly technical fields, not the assembly line/manufacturing line jobs that are unionized.

[mactastic]

Mactastic, I'm waiting for your reply to that last article I posted.

Here's some more stuff to chew on: http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/wm467.cfm

Sorry buddy, haven't had a chance to get to it yet. Maybe later today.

[mactastic]

You need to remember, that the DNC, and John F Kerry are beholden to the labor unions, and that by necessity means labor unions that are based in the United States. These are the very organizations that would lose membership and union dues when jobs are outsourced overseas.

The jobs that are kept and maybe expanded when jobs are outsourced overseas are the ones that are exempt from unions. These would be jobs in program management and highly technical fields, not the assembly line/manufacturing line jobs that are unionized.

And you need to remember that the RNC is beholden to big businesses that aren't even beholden to the US. These are the very organizations that would lose their traitorous tax status when Kerry reigns them in and forces them to pay taxes on the money they make.

We're not talking about outsourcing when we talk about 'Benedict Arnold' corporations. That's another mis-direction frim the right. We're talking about tax shelters offshore. Outsourcing is another issue entirely.