Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by mcrain, Dec 28, 2010.
This is what many of us have been saying all along. All our jobs are being outsourced. No one can tell me this is good for the US.
The GOP, the Chamber of Commerce, free-market libertarians, tea-party members and conservatives everywhere will happily try to convince you that this is good for the U.S.A.
Corporate CEOs and billionaires will happily tell you that this is good for them.
That's the answer! Everyone should just become CEOs! Wow! I'm so relieved now that I know.
It used to be that companies outsourced the jobs that did not require any decision making skills. Providing the job followed a strict flow chart and never required an "exception", the job was likely outsourced or on the way to being outsourced.
Now, we employ lawyers and decision makers in India (for example). My job can be outsourced at any time as a matter of fact and my company does employ attorneys in India.
It's a real shame when someone is unable to get a job in their own country. I don't isolate this to America alone.
On the flip side, I think it was Bill Gates who has requested to be able to hire more foreigners. His plight is not just that they're are "better", but because if we're going to educate "them" in our universities then why not employ them instead of sending them home? In short, Gates believes that there is a shortage of qualified Americans to do the job.
So what about this? I mean, this is not off-shoring, this is obviously saying that the "best" qualified should be hired regardless of residency status but there are other implications here about visa caps and so forth.
The difference is that these workers are staying here, paying taxes, and many are making this their home and going through the same issues the rest of the country is going through. This is one way to keep the salaries paid here in the US.
Unfortunately, companies are outsourcing anything they can to firms more "specialized". This makes sense business wise, but unfortunately to keep that outsourcing competitive, it is becoming almost always an off-shore model.
What many companies are finding is that off-shoring is NOT always the cheapest option when you start taking quality, setup costs, turnover rates, and project implementation time into account.
What ticks me off is that when a company outsources to an Indian IT company, they bring many folks on-shore in addition to the off-shore people.
Except often times the additional costs are offset by tax tricks used to maximize profit taking. In other words, it may be more expensive to hire people overseas, but by using various US and State tax code rules on international transactions, they still make money.
I'm curious why they'd be hiring lawyers who aren't trained in US law.
Source? If so then yes, in those cases then outsourcing is definitely bad.
They just use more complicated flow-charts.
Blast from the past
Well that sounds reasonable.
This genie ain't going back into the bottle.
While we consider companies like Caterpillar to be "American" they see the world as their domain. I really don't see that changing. The notion of American companies hiring American workers is as quaint and bypast as rotary phones.
Eventually the world playing field will level. We're just in the unfortunate position of being ridiculously rich and facing the downhill slide, while other nations realize an increased share in the wealth. It was an unsustainable imbalance to begin with.
It's really not that complex. If you keep raising taxes, keep raising the minimum wage, keep raising insurance burdens, regulatory burdens, etc. companies will look for places less hostile to business to setup shop. A Democrat complaining about outsourcing is like a Republican complaining about the high number of inmates in jail for marijuana use.
You can't regulate and manipulate the free market to prosperity my liberal friends. It's been tried over and over again in history, and your central authority will do nothing but cause continued damage and continued loss in prosperity.
I actually agree with you. We need effective and efficient regulatation, we need incredibly strict enforcement so that when someone f's up like with the deepwater horizon or the massey mine disaster, the business is shut down and assets seized. That would put the companies in the drivers seat to either comply with the rules or be shut down. This would drastically reduce the costs of regulation and enforcement (whistleblowers). That would help reduce the "democrat" side of that equation. On the flip side, tax policy and business law should be changed eliminate loopholes and tax breaks, the very wealthy should be taxed on their income and estates, and policies should be designed to bring in more revenue. This would reduce the need to have higher corporate tax rates. That's the republican side of the equation.
Why was it brought up so close to the elections? If it really is a job creation bill or one that slows outsourcing of jobs, then why wasn't it introduced 2 years ago? 18 months ago? 12 months ago?
More BS politics.
So your solution to keep US companies from using labor in 3rd world countries is to turn the US into a 3rd world country (at least with regards to the workforce)? We should roll labor law back about 100 years so that sweatshops, child labor, company towns, etc., are all brought back? We should repeal EPA regs and OSHA standards so that improper landfills full of toxic heavy metals can be sifted through by people w/o any protective gear what so ever (which is how computer 'recycling' is done in India)?
Or am I taking what you said too far?
The timing may be politics, but the substance is not. Forget the politics for a second, and ask why the Republicans blocked this bill? Was it BS politics or as is more likely, they are opposed to the substance of the bill.
If they weren't, they could have supported it and used it for political gain. Except, of course, the only political gain they care about is from their billionaire benefactors who don't support bills like this.
In Bill Gates' industry, this is not belief. It is fact. The dot-com boom (perhaps paradoxically, in the fog of distant hindsight) perhaps did not kill, but at least gravely wounded computer science enrollment among American kids. Up to 2000 they bought into the "get rich quick" mentality and fled from universities with hobbyist-level skills into relatively menial tech jobs at unsustainable levels of compensation. When the bust came, their heads were the first on the chopping block, and it is almost funny in hindsight how many of them fled into real estate, the "next big thing" after the double whammy of the bust and 9/11. Even after a reasonable recovery those university seats didn't refill because the goldmine had been taken away. Universities had to recruit foreign students that much harder just to keep their programs from withering.
The system demands absolute blind loyalty from real people in the name of patriotism, but makes businesses more powerful "people" than real people in terms of political influence and yet insists that it is a criminal infringement upon the freedom of the corporate "people" to suggest they should have any bias at all towards the nation and economy that fosters them. The veneer of sense over this arrangement is thinner than gold leaf and scratches off with a fingernail. Truthfully it isn't so much that I lean left as I lean away from the right because I don't like being made a sucker.
Accountability and illegal seizure are two different things. Companies should be accountable per the law for any damage they cause.
What would? The only reason that BP had limited responsiblity was because the government put it's nose where it didn't belong, signed a contract with BP stating that their responsibility would be limited to a specific dollar amount in exchange for drilling in deeper (more difficult) locations. Keeping bureaucrats out of the decision making end of business would be a great way to ensure these types of things happened less often.
Tax loopholes exist because the tax system is so f'ed up and complex... they exist because bureaucrats in Washington want to control every aspect of our lives through the tax code. This results in unnecessary complexity, confusion, waste, and... loopholes. I think we both advocate a DRASTICALLY more simple tax code. Something else we should also agree on is that corporate taxes are nothing more than hidden consumer taxes. It's consumers who pay the price in the end any way.
At some point you'll need to leave your fairytale world that suggests that government is our almighty protector and that without their thumb pressed firmly on the backs of business we'd return to the conditions of the Industrial revolution without even the slightest consideration for the business cycle and the path all nations must go through to become a prosperous westernized nation. You'll have to at some point realize that it's business, not government, which has given us our prosperity, our excellent work conditions, our excellent life span, standard of life, and more. You'll have to at some point realize that it's employees and companies working in 100% willful relationships (each party free to go it's separate way at any point they feel the contract is no longer mutually beneficial) that has led to these things and not government regulatory bureaucracy. Everyone agrees that there need to be certain rules under which we live and under which we do business, what we don't agree with is that the legislative and executive branches have nearly endless power within and beyond the scope of the constitution and whether we're generally better off with big overreaching oppressive government or whether we're better off with people, groups, companies, localities making decisions better for their area and their own individual lives. The founders were quite clear with what they wanted... today's American society is quite different.
I know what you're saying. Problem is, barring some kind of well-planned, radical international currency manipulation (which ain't gonna happen), it will be multiple generations until that playing field becomes level.
Well, that doesn't really answer LethalWolfe's post.
Are you seriously arguing that oppressive government rules have a more pervasive and deleterious effect on people nowadays than oppressive business practices? 'Cause I think a whole lot of Americans would give you an argument on that one.
I also think the founding fathers would've found our modern corpocracy just as repressive as the monarchy they left behind.
I think it answers it just fine. Do you honestly think regulations and big government did more to improve the quality of life and work for the Average American than the success of the free market, willful employment arrangements, and the industrial revolution did? Do you honestly think that if OSHA wasn't around we'd all be working in deplorable conditions? Yes, I definitely think that government burdens have a much more deleterious effect on Americans than corporate business practices do. Look at our unemployment rate, look at the rate jobs are being sent overseas, look at the rate companies are leaving states like California. All of these are due to oppressive government policies which stifle business and consequently everyone's employment opportunities and standard of living.
As for the founding fathers, you're very correct that they'd be upset with our 'corpocracy'. What you fail to understand though is what they would consider to be the solution. The solution would be less government involvement - less subsidies, less complex tax structures and loopholes, less government handouts and a destruction of the culture of government redistributing our wealth and deciding winners and losers (in place of the free market) which is the only reason business colludes with government.
Don't forget the contributions of unions in the improving of the workplace conditions and workers lives.
I think you are the one living in a fairy tale world. Many companies have returned to conditions of the industrial revolution by going to third world countries that have little to no regulation when it comes to working conditions and environmental impact. This is proof that your idealist view of capitalism doesn't work.
At some point you'll have to realize that your ideology falls apart when it meets reality. In a perfect world I agree that there would be no need for government regulation because business owners and workers would always do right by one another. Unfortunately that's not how it pans out in reality. Too many business owners leveraged their wealth and their power to the extreme detriment of their workers and the only viable recourse workers have is to either act en mass (i.e. unions) or to go to their elected officials. What are people to do when companies, behind the scenes, agree to artificially regulate the marketplace? What are people to do when a single company becomes so powerful it can easy force the competition out of business? These are not hypothetical questions. These are things that have happened and continue to happen which is why there are laws against them and those laws need to be continuously enforced. It's not like child labor law pre-dates child labor or laws against polluting pre-dates people dumping hazardous material into lakes and rivers.
Speaking in generalities I don't think government should be a friend nor an enemy to business. I don't think government should be picking winners and losers. I think the role of government should be neutral and like that of a referee equally enforcing the rules of the game so that all players win or lose on their own merit. To use a couple of recent examples, Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to use it's 800lb gorilla status to unfairly block out the competition (i.e. threatening vendors not to pre-install Netscape on their PCs) while Apple shouldn't be penalized for nothing more than making products that people love.
Within reason government has a responsibility to the health and safety of it's citizens which is why I think we need agencies like the FDA, OHSA, EPA, etc., because history has shown that businesses and individuals left to their own devices will not always make choices that are in line with the common good.
Going off on a slight tangent...
The marketplace is a manmade concept and treating it like it's some aspect of nature that inherently seeks balance is a farce. At it's core it's little more than a game created by man and like any game it needs rules, and rule enforcers, to make sure the playing field is level and that no one is cheating.