NationStates Jolt Archive

I know it falls under the area of "DUH"

I love hearing how it benefits everybody. My vendors still raise prices and the support we receive is rather poor.

It is one thing if they were doing comprable work for a lessor salary but from our perspective we are seeing lessor work for a lessor salary. Mind you there is the disclaimer that I don't mean all of them are bad. We get a good one every now and then.

Oh yea linky

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/invest/forbes/P93373.asp?GT1=4529

Hmmm now the CEO makes 301% more then the average worker.

Libertarians need not comment! :p

Geez, I say that job exporting should come w/a tax penalty

It seems I need to become a CEO.

its no surprise at all--its a very deliberate policy of class warfare republicans--thats why working people who vote republican have to be some of historys biggest suckers

Geez, I say that job exporting should come w/a tax penalty
Well, Kerry isn't talking about tax penalties so much, but he is talking about closing the tax loopholes for outsourcing companies.

It seems I need to become a CEO.
What the hell...what a novel idea...

Hey, I know...let's let Letila be the CEO of Wal Mart. Then he'll shut up, eh?

What the hell...what a novel idea...
The idea of making 301% more then an average worker is sort of appealing.

Hey, I know...let's let Letila be the CEO of Wal Mart. Then he'll shut up, eh?
Sounds like a plan. Wal Mart will be out of business within a week.

I have to say why I support outsourcing. Let's start with one of our biggest benefactors of it, the IT industry. Everyone decried back in the early 1990s how modems, monitors, and chips were made overseas, and that it was the end of IT industry in America. It inspired our R&D to research more, and today, the US is considered a main focal point in not just IT, but in high tech as well. A considerable amound of computer componets are also made here.
More recently is the flight of the textile industry. It inspired scientists to research high-tech fibers. Now, bullet proof vests are made in the US with spider silk, which can be extracted from goat's milk through genetic engineering. As it has 5 times more strenght than steel, yet is infinitly more flexible, it can be used for many things from stictches to buildings, and this will revive the textile industry in the first world, as it requires expertise to make. Other high tech threads exist, like a cloth being developed for the military that makes a soldier near invisible.
Outsourcing isn't bad. It brings money to everyone, and in time, it compensates for any intial loss on an economy. Boardmembers shouldn't just get higher wages for doing this, they should be lecturing on this technique at universities.

Wait a second...outsourcing = technological advancements? That's a bad comparison. THere is not telling whether or not those advancements would've happened without outsourcing...

Now for my big question: How the HELL do you get spider's silk from goat's milk? And since when did spiders have silk?

CEOs are people to.

CEOs are people to.
Do they have the knowledge of extracting secret spider silk from goat's milk?

Wait a second...outsourcing = technological advancements? That's a bad comparison. THere is not telling whether or not those advancements would've happened without outsourcing...
The advancements themselves may have happened without outsourcing, but not their technological sophistication. Notice how the pace of science in the US wasn't as fast when we were a purely manufacturing society. Everything we needed was there. With outsourcing, we're forced to look for new and better resources.
Now for my big question: How the HELL do you get spider's silk from goat's milk? And since when did spiders have silk?
Spiders always had silk. And genetic engineering allows the mamory glands of goats to make spider silk. It can't be farmed from spiders, as they are cannabalistic.

I would think libs would be more open to outsourcing. It probably does more to help the poor around the world - who would probably be happy to live in any American, Canadian, or European inner city - than any amount of foreign aid could.

CEOs are people to.
but theyre guilty of economic treason against america

but theyre guilty of economic treason against america

1. Nationalism is stupid
2. It is not the fault of the CEOs that they get paid so much, it is up to the board of directors, who are elected by the shareholders.
3. Dammit, I got a phone call and forgot what I was talking about....
4. The daily show is awesome

its no surprise at all--its a very deliberate policy of class warfare republicans--thats why working people who vote republican have to be some of historys biggest suckers
I'm no fan of the Republican party but that's just outright ridiculous. I have never once heard about 'class warfare' from anyone but Democrats (not just people who 'tend to vote Democratic' but people who /are/ Democrats). I've never seen the 'two americas' -- for the most part the people I see really well off are those that save their money well (or, temporarily, those that do the opposite and go into huge debt), and the exceptions on both ends -- the very poor and the very rich -- are just that: exceptions. Asking for things to be 'perfectly equal' is not only impossible its stupid -- if you /could/ accomplish it the effect would be a stagnated society with no innovation (I prefer equity to equality every day of the week, and anyone who thinks the major management jobs are 'sit on your duff all day' is sadly mistaken).

These CEOs are getting raises for cutting costs, generally considered a good thing. If people don't want the jobs exported then they need to either
a.) stop buying from companies that do this (never happens)
b.) get rid of the minimum wage and other regulatory costs so that American workers are /able/ to compete with the cost of other nations.


Similar to the "protective" and "retaliatory" arguments is the idea that free trade in general is bad because foreign industry may be able to use "cheap labor" that is not available to domestic industry. What is behind this argument, however, is simply an anti-capitalist misconception about labor. What goes with the idea of "cheap" foreign labor is the assumption that the labor is cheap because it is "exploited," while domestic labor is protected against "exploitation." Since "exploitation" is a moral evil, it must be morally prohibited, even if its use would benefit domestic consumers. The moral dimension of this argument puts it in a different category from the others, but it is a category that shares the moral confusion of other kinds of anti-capitalist arguments. If an industry can hire foreign labor at much below domestic labor market prices, this is because wages really are lower in the foreign labor market, and that is because of the nature of the foreign economy, not because of the intentions, good or bad, of the employers. The foreign economy will simply be "underdeveloped." The wages offered to foreign workers will either be above or below the market wages of that economy. If below, then workers will not work for them anyway, but if too much above the market wage, the extra money will simply contribute to inflation in the foreign economy, not to greater wealth or to an improved a standard of living. If unemployment is high in the foreign economy, this will usually mean that wages are too high, not that they are too low, or that capital formation and entrepreneurship are artificially suppressed, all of which, like high wages, can be the result of anti-capitalist political action.

Instead of "exploitation," what we tend to see is the natural development of an "underdeveloped" economy. New industry attracts workers by paying market wages or somewhat better. In some places, e.g. India, Pakistan, Thailand, Central America, etc., this may include children, which provokes another confused moral response, since most people now think that child labor is simply a moral evil which can be stopped at any time with the right intentions, rather than an unavoidable stage in the process of economic development. If it is assumed that all the production of a foreign industry is exported, so that domestic consumers enjoy all the advantage of the cheaper labor, the foreign consumer does not benefit at all. This would indeed be "exploitation" if otherwise foreign domestic production is politically suppressed, for the unspent wages of the foreign workers would naturally go into savings, which then makes for expanded production. If there is no foreign savings or capital formation, and no corresponding importation of products to balance the exports, then the greater wages of the foreign workers, whether they are high or low, would simply, again, fuel a price inflation, benefiting no one.
-- http://www.friesian.com/smith.htm

I believe you mean 301x, not 301%. Big difference.

That said, CEOs are generally overpaid for the job they do, and the salary gap is increasing.

It's part of the way execs scam out small investors, effectively speaking - profits being split with the executives produces all those executives who end up worth a great deal more than the company they pumped and dumped, as per Enron and dozens of other corporations gone bad. More squeeze on the workers means more money to be split between the really rich people - executives - and the people who actually own the company.

In theory, a capitalist society should see the profit return to the shareholders, but in practice, executives with a large influence on the board of directors and some key mid-sized blocks of actual voting shares manage to get much of it put into their salaries and benefits. Libertarians everywhere should be outraged at the perversion overpaid CEOs represent.

I'm no fan of the Republican party but that's just outright ridiculous. I have never once heard about 'class warfare' from anyone but Democrats (not just people who 'tend to vote Democratic' but people who /are/ Democrats). I've never seen the 'two americas' -- for the most part the people I see really well off are those that save their money well (or, temporarily, those that do the opposite and go into huge debt), and the exceptions on both ends -- the very poor and the very rich -- are just that: exceptions. Asking for things to be 'perfectly equal' is not only impossible its stupid -- if you /could/ accomplish it the effect would be a stagnated society with no innovation (I prefer equity to equality every day of the week, and anyone who thinks the major management jobs are 'sit on your duff all day' is sadly mistaken).

These CEOs are getting raises for cutting costs, generally considered a good thing. If people don't want the jobs exported then they need to either
a.) stop buying from companies that do this (never happens)
b.) get rid of the minimum wage and other regulatory costs so that American workers are /able/ to compete with the cost of other nations.


-- http://www.friesian.com/smith.htm

As a small note, Marx forsaw capitalism requiring constant expansion into new markets. As another small note, I do see the "two Americas." Actually, I see more than two Americas - we're more stratified than that - but the basic idea of fundamental and continually expanding gaps in wealth is one that I see in my life.

Curiously enough, Marx also guessed that would happen. He had a pretty good grasp of how money worked, that man. Then again, it doesn't take a genius to understand the effects of exponential growth factors.

Are you saying you approve of child labor, or was that just part of the quote?

Final note: Management may not involve "sitting on your duff" in many cases, but in very few if any companies is the work a CEO does worth more than the company's end profits.

It inspired our R&D to research more, and today, the US is considered a main focal point in not just IT, but in high tech as well. A considerable amound of computer componets are also made here.
The majority of it is now overseas.


Outsourcing isn't bad. It brings money to everyone, and in time, it compensates for any intial loss on an economy. Boardmembers shouldn't just get higher wages for doing this, they should be lecturing on this technique at universities.

Eww I love this argument.!

All right I am listening. How does everybody get more money? The executives and board members sure. What money is the laid off work force getting?

How are people going to be compensated in time? Job retraining? For what? Anything IT is now exportable. What new jobs are we talking about here? Anybody who has worked with WebEx knows that you don't need many people onsite anymore.

What are you going to job retrain with? It requires money and if you are out of work? Can't get help from the Goverment if the Repubs get their way on taxes.

Lower prices don't mean squat if you are making lower wages then what you had. Much underemployment going on.

So do make your arguments!

I believe you mean 301x, not 301%. Big difference.



Whoops! Good catch!

Eww I love this argument.!

All right I am listening. How does everybody get more money? The executives and board members sure. What money is the laid off work force getting?

Executives, board members, stockholders, and anyone who purchases those goods. The money they get is pumped back into the economy through spending and investments. That is how new companies start - the more money they make, the more that can be put into IPOs and such.

Some people will lose their jobs, and that sucks for them. This all happened already with the textile industries, they got sent to Mexico. And now Mexico is sending them to Asia as they become more advanced. That's how it works.
It is not any different than having japanese cars come into the market.


Anything IT is now exportable. What new jobs are we talking about here? Anybody who has worked with WebEx knows that you don't need many people onsite anymore.

Maybe they should have thought of that before entering that profession.



Lower prices don't mean squat if you are making lower wages then what you had. Much underemployment going on.

So do make your arguments!

Outsourcing affects the jobs of only a few...but everyone gets the benefits of cheaper products.

As foreigners increase their salary, they will begin to demand more advanced products, such as those produced in the US. You know about that trade deficit?

As a small note, Marx forsaw capitalism requiring constant expansion into new markets. As another small note, I do see the "two Americas." Actually, I see more than two Americas - we're more stratified than that - but the basic idea of fundamental and continually expanding gaps in wealth is one that I see in my life.
Define your Americas then. I've heard rich and poor and I can tear that apart with just about every technique (statistics, anecdotes, your choice. You can always claim whichever one I use is flawed, they all are, but I haven't seen one that supports the claim)

Curiously enough, Marx also guessed that would happen. He had a pretty good grasp of how money worked, that man. Then again, it doesn't take a genius to understand the effects of exponential growth factors.
Marx had a horrid grasp of how money would work. "Take a genius to understand the effects of exponential growth factors" -- I take it you mean economic growth. So, lets see -- people learning how to make their lives better than before with the same resources at exponential speed. Effects? Much better lives. Am I missing something?

Are you saying you approve of child labor, or was that just part of the quote?
Column A, Column B. Read the article linked under it, its quite good. Child Labor was standard around the world until Capitalism had so much wealth children didn't need to work to support themselves -- parents could do it on their own. Now people seem to think child labor is a universal evil that can never be allowed because here in America its not needed anymore.
Look at the article Put Your Money Where Their Mouths Are By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF -- it was in the NYT but you should be able to google for it.
Here's some quotes from it to help


It's appalling that Abakr, like tens of millions of other children abroad,
is working instead of attending school. But prohibiting child labor wouldn't
do him any good, for there's no school in the area for him to attend. If
child labor hawks manage to keep Abakr from working, without giving him a
school to attend, he and his family will simply be poorer than ever.

And that's the problem when Americans get on their high horses about child
labor, without understanding the cruel third world economics that cause it.
The push by Democrats like John Kerry for international labor standards is
well intentioned, but it is also oblivious to third world realities.

Look, I feel like Scrooge when I speak out against bans on sweatshops or on
child labor. In the West, it's hard to find anyone outside a university
economics department who agrees with me. But the basic Western attitude ‹
particularly among Democrats and warm-and-fuzzy humanitarians ‹ sometimes
ends up making things worse. Consider the results of two major American
efforts to ban imports produced by child labor:

In 1993, when Congress proposed the U.S. Child Labor Deterrence Act, which
would have blocked imports made by children (if it had passed), garment
factories in Bangladesh fired 50,000 children. Many ended up in worse jobs,
like prostitution.

Then there was the hue and cry beginning in 1996 against soccer balls
stitched by children in their homes (mostly after school) in Sialkot,
Pakistan. As a result, the balls are now stitched by adults, often in
factories under international monitoring.
and this is more to the point I'm trying to make:
I'm not arguing that child labor is a good thing. It isn't. But as Jagdish
Bhagwati, the eminent trade economist, notes in his new book, "In Defense of
Globalization," thundering against child labor doesn't address the poverty
that causes it.
And that "poverty" he references is simply what would've been considered 'lower middle class' in many first world nations as recently as 100 years ago. If these nations are allowed to grow, child labor will fall by the wayside as it tends to do in that scenario with or without government intervention.


Final note: Management may not involve "sitting on your duff" in many cases, but in very few if any companies is the work a CEO does worth more than the company's end profits.
If a company is paying a CEO more than their profits the company has horrid management. UNLESS you mean that his pay comes out before profit
for the math -- are you saying (profit)-pay or sales-(costs+pay)=profit
If the first, doing that would make them lose money and that is, of course, idiocy. The second is acceptable, sometimes true. If profits are $100 and a CEO comes in and promises total profits of $120 but will only work if they pay him 100x the previous CEO -- they'll accept. Because that bottom line is still higher (because, by our equation, his new profit has to account for his own pay before hand).

Maybe they should have thought of that before entering that profession.

:rolleyes:

That is why Bill Gates says he is worried by the significant drop off in Computer Science enrollment.

Right now I don't advise any high schoolers to look at Computer Science. At least from the IT side.


Outsourcing affects the jobs of only a few...but everyone gets the benefits of cheaper products.

Sorry I am not talking factory work here. Right now only the help desks are over seas. It is not cheaper for us. Our maintence contracts are going up as normal as before. Our times on the telephones have increased by 30-45 minutes per call.

So how is it cheaper?

It benefits the vendor, not me.


As foreigners increase their salary, they will begin to demand more advanced products, such as those produced in the US. You know about that trade deficit?

Ok what do we really produce anymore? How many made in the USA stuff do you see? Just a curiosty question as I really don't see it that much.

Prosperity of foreign nations does not guarantee it here.

Ok what do we really produce anymore? How many made in the USA stuff do you see? Just a curiosty question as I really don't see it that much.

Prosperity of foreign nations does not guarantee it here.
The US is the single largest exporter (and importer) in the world. Many of the things the US exports now you can't really stamp as you could a cheap little toy. Agricultural products, for instance, and of course services themselves. Nevertheless, the US still exports things like cars, and airplanes too.

I'm no fan of the Republican party but that's just outright ridiculous. I have never once heard about 'class warfare' from anyone but Democrats (not just people who 'tend to vote Democratic' but people who /are/ Democrats). I've never seen the 'two americas' -- for the most part the people I see really well off are those that save their money well (or, temporarily, those that do the opposite and go into huge debt), and the exceptions on both ends -- the very poor and the very rich -- are just that: exceptions. Asking for things to be 'perfectly equal' is not only impossible its stupid -- if you /could/ accomplish it the effect would be a stagnated society with no innovation (I prefer equity to equality every day of the week, and anyone who thinks the major management jobs are 'sit on your duff all day' is sadly mistaken).

These CEOs are getting raises for cutting costs, generally considered a good thing. If people don't want the jobs exported then they need to either
a.) stop buying from companies that do this (never happens)
b.) get rid of the minimum wage and other regulatory costs so that American workers are /able/ to compete with the cost of other nations.


-- http://www.friesian.com/smith.htm
so what your saying is in order for jobs not to be exported american workers must accept to be paid like mexicans and need to sacrifce all their rights and benefits? what next? begging and time off for mandatory grovelling?

Dear God.
A Libertarian just HAD to come in here and try to work his Subjective reasoning. Oh well, life goes on.

Free trade (particularly outsourcing) has some very negative effects on the countries that the workers are from. True, jobs are created, but these jobs are usually below the rule of Iron Wages (the idea that wages should be just high enough for the workers to live above starvation level.) I mean, for god's sakes, the wages for labour in Latin American countries is only enough so that the factory workers eat a handful of ground coffe and a glass of sugar water every day. (and yes, I have looked into this. The average wage, per day, is 25 cents, while the cost of living (just above hunger level) averages out at about $1.30 per day.)

Sure, the benefits of this conduct are helpful to us, but at the same time, they close potential markets that could have arisen in these countries (note, I'm not saying fully what I believe, just Libertarians tend to scoff at worker compassion as Marxist bullshit, so I won't go into there).
Higher wages will be beneficial if companies can, in turn, sell their products to the countries that produce them. By simply paying workers enough so that they may save money, the global economy will start rising exponentially.

Note, I will be entertaining the idea of Capitalism throughout this thread, but I do not believe in it. Only an objective Communist can entertain such fancy (although, frankly, it makes me want to gag)

bump

I hate it when these things stagnate

Libertarians are cool on social issues but on economic issues they promote corporate facism

I agree. But sometimes Corporate Fascism is more important to worry about then people doing what they feel like.

BTW, I don't hate Libertarians, I just don't like hearing people use buzz words that they think everyone believes in (like fundamental rights). I find myself in class next to libertarians and totally agreeing with them, until the economy gets involved. Then we try to kill each other.

The US is the single largest exporter (and importer) in the world. Many of the things the US exports now you can't really stamp as you could a cheap little toy. Agricultural products, for instance, and of course services themselves. Nevertheless, the US still exports things like cars, and airplanes too.

Well I can't speak for the central farming states but in California (my part of it) I see farming getting eliminated because that land is needed for strip malls and homes. I have even read that the trend is going from food production to food importation.

Car production? Hmmm Chrysler is now a german company. I wonder how much exports are amercian now?

Planes are doing well so far but the EU is catching up(airbus?).

What services do we export?

Well, Kerry isn't talking about tax penalties so much, but he is talking about closing the tax loopholes for outsourcing companies.
Better than the way it is now!

Well I can't speak for the central farming states but in California (my part of it) I see farming getting eliminated because that land is needed for strip malls and homes. I have even read that the trend is going from food production to food importation.

Car production? Hmmm Chrysler is now a german company. I wonder how much exports are amercian now?

Planes are doing well so far but the EU is catching up(airbus?).

What services do we export?
Chrysler is also the weakest of the "Big 3" now. Ford and GM are still American. Chart of exports on motor vehichles and their parts :
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/Press-Release/current_press_release/exh18.pdf
-- We import more than we export, but we still export a significant amount.

On Argiculture :
http://usinfo.state.gov/ei/Archive/2004/May/28-55113.html
Biggest year of exporting ever for the US in '04.

Chrysler is also the weakest of the "Big 3" now. Ford and GM are still American.

Doesn't Ford belong to GM?

:rolleyes:

That is why Bill Gates says he is worried by the significant drop off in Computer Science enrollment.

Right now I don't advise any high schoolers to look at Computer Science. At least from the IT side.



Worried? Why does he care? Because there will be fewer and he will have to pay them more?


Sorry I am not talking factory work here. Right now only the help desks are over seas. It is not cheaper for us. Our maintence contracts are going up as normal as before. Our times on the telephones have increased by 30-45 minutes per call.

So how is it cheaper?

It benefits the vendor, not me.


Vendor's profits go up, and they can either: pay workers more or reinvest the profits. If they are not giving you a cheaper price, and are causing increased costs, you might want to switch vendors.

Of course outsourcing doesnt make sense if the people are incompetent. That's the real issue in your case. If all their help desk folks were from the US, but had a bad Long Island accent, you'd have the same problems.


Ok what do we really produce anymore? How many made in the USA stuff do you see? Just a curiosty question as I really don't see it that much.


That was my point exactly, once other countries become wealthier two things will happen: 1 - they will be able to afford our more expensive products...2 - their products will become more advanced/costly thus curtailing our imports.

We produce high tech things - computer chips, medicine, wireless tech, energy (oil - downstream), and who can forget Hollywood...things that don't normally come with a "made in the..." label on them.

Doesn't Ford belong to GM?

Nope

Not much different in Australia. Everytime I ring some helpdesk, there's a very good chance I'm talking to someone in India ...

Not much different in Australia. Everytime I ring some helpdesk, there's a very good chance I'm talking to someone in India ...
The Netherlands have the same problem. In the next few years some 125,000 ICT jobs, mainly helpdesk, system and software development will be outsourced to India and Eastern Europe. And I'm about to start an 18 month ICT course. :mad:

Worried? Why does he care? Because there will be fewer and he will have to pay them more?

No. His concern was on the inovation side. If the trend continues, he feels that we will be following instead of leading.


Vendor's profits go up, and they can either: pay workers more or reinvest the profits. If they are not giving you a cheaper price, and are causing increased costs, you might want to switch vendors.


Well switching is probably not an option since they all seem to be rushing to India and China.

At least Dell is making a comittment to service. The corporate people complained about the service levels and they returned support to the US.

They will probably offshore it but probably not untill the staff is trained.


Of course outsourcing doesnt make sense if the people are incompetent. That's the real issue in your case. If all their help desk folks were from the US, but had a bad Long Island accent, you'd have the same problems.


The fact that so many are incompetent kind of suggests the managment doesn't care. They see dollar signs.


That was my point exactly, once other countries become wealthier two things will happen: 1 - they will be able to afford our more expensive products...2 - their products will become more advanced/costly thus curtailing our imports.

That sounds great if you are at the top of the food chain. I don't know of very many people that want to suffer so that other countries might improve their standard of living.


We produce high tech things - computer chips, medicine, wireless tech, energy (oil - downstream), and who can forget Hollywood...things that don't normally come with a "made in the..." label on them.

We design chips. Most are manufactoried overseas. The same for meds, wireless.

So as a goverment official what do you do with a displaced work force? ;)

The displaced workers will naturally find employment somewhere else, just like the displaced manufacturing workers did back in after those jobs started to move away. Outsourcing is generally considered a cause, but not the reason for the total job loss recently.

The displaced workers will naturally find employment somewhere else, just like the displaced manufacturing workers did back in after those jobs started to move away. Outsourcing is generally considered a cause, but not the reason for the total job loss recently.

Ok.

Find work in what?

Manufactoring is more or less gone.

Software is going.
IT is going.

Should we end the "middleclass dream" and join the rest of the world and have a class system?

If you are in California, it's rather hard to own a home on wages paid by starbucks or mcdonalds. Teachers? Nurses? Policemen? Firemen?

What is the solution? I don't have one.

Ok.

Find work in what?

Manufactoring is more or less gone.

Software is going.
IT is going.

Should we end the "middleclass dream" and join the rest of the world and have a class system?

If you are in California, it's rather hard to own a home on wages paid by starbucks or mcdonalds. Teachers? Nurses? Policemen? Firemen?

What is the solution? I don't have one.
30 years ago, who would have known the huge industries built around computers? Entrepreneurship is still a quality in many people, new ideas spring up, and new jobs come. Besides that, offshoring and outsourcing is not the hemorrhage of jobs people like to think. First off, other countries outsource jobs to the USA in order to find well educated and experienced workers. Second, most of the jobs lost lately are the product of cyclical unemployment (the recession) rather than outsourcing of structural unemployment, which would suggest that they will come back. Protectionists, unionists, and others have rallied against free trade, outsourcing, and things like new technology for centuries, now, using the same old, tired arguements.

30 years ago, who would have known the huge industries built around computers? Entrepreneurship is still a quality in many people, new ideas spring up, and new jobs come.


Ok again what new jobs? Entreprenurs have to have an offshoring clause to get funding from venture capitolists.

I keep hearing don't worry there will be new jobs!

"Don't worry be happy" Wasn't that a Regan theme song?


Besides that, offshoring and outsourcing is not the hemorrhage of jobs people like to think. First off, other countries outsource jobs to the USA in order to find well educated and experienced workers.


All right I will bite. What jobs are outsourced here?


Second, most of the jobs lost lately are the product of cyclical unemployment (the recession) rather than outsourcing of structural unemployment, which would suggest that they will come back. Protectionists, unionists, and others have rallied against free trade, outsourcing, and things like new technology for centuries, now, using the same old, tired arguements.

Why shouldn't they? It affects them. Not the executives of the companies.

For the fatherland mentality just doesn't cut if you are middle class.

People understand jobs can be lost.

It's one thing to find comperable work output for a cheaper wage and another to find less quality for a cheaper wage.

Many people are ready to retrain. Regan taught them that. But nobody has an answer.

Don't worry be happy.

Ok again what new jobs? Entreprenurs have to have an offshoring clause to get funding from venture capitolists.

I keep hearing don't worry there will be new jobs!

"Don't worry be happy" Wasn't that a Regan theme song?
Not sure. The percentage of adults employed now, even after the recession, is higher than the number at any point during the Reagan years, despite outsourcing of service jobs being more of a problem now. There have been new jobs created for those displaced since the industrial revolution. The service sector wasn't dominant in at any time before the mid to late 1900's, and when manufacturing jobs began dissapearing, people said the same things that people are saying now. Jobs, like wealth, are not zero-sum. If someone gains something, that does not mean that someone loses something equally.

All right I will bite. What jobs are outsourced here?
All sorts of jobs. Obviously, they aren't being outsourced in as great numbers as we are outsourcing them, but there have been foreign companies setting up sites here to take advantage of relatively high levels of education. Again, not in the same numbers, but it is happening.

Why shouldn't they? It affects them. Not the executives of the companies.

For the fatherland mentality just doesn't cut if you are middle class.

People understand jobs can be lost.

It's one thing to find comperable work output for a cheaper wage and another to find less quality for a cheaper wage.

Many people are ready to retrain. Regan taught them that. But nobody has an answer.

Don't worry be happy.
America is relatively better off now than it ever was before. Jobs can be lost. What people don't understand is that jobs aren't zero-sum . If we offshore to India, it could easily mean that there are more jobs created here in the long run, or even in the short run - and these jobs are often better than those that are outsourced. Thats why when we moved from a manufacturing based economy to one on services, we ended up being better off than we ever were before.

A good thing on IT Outsourcing :
http://www.itaa.org/itserv/docs/execsumm.pdf

I'm no fan of the Republican party but that's just outright ridiculous. I have never once heard about 'class warfare' from anyone but Democrats (not just people who 'tend to vote Democratic' but people who /are/ Democrats). I've never seen the 'two americas' -- for the most part the people I see really well off are those that save their money well (or, temporarily, those that do the opposite and go into huge debt), and the exceptions on both ends -- the very poor and the very rich -- are just that: exceptions. Asking for things to be 'perfectly equal' is not only impossible its stupid -- if you /could/ accomplish it the effect would be a stagnated society with no innovation (I prefer equity to equality every day of the week, and anyone who thinks the major management jobs are 'sit on your duff all day' is sadly mistaken).

The reason why the Democrat party keeps raising class warfare issues is because the Republican party keeps employing class warfare techniques. It isn't the Democrats who overwhelmingly supported a tax cut for those who need it least first because we could afford it, then because it would stimulate our economy, then because it was staving off economic collapse. It isn't the Democrats who are building an insurmountable national debt that will be passed on to youth, overwhelmingly on the poor end of the fiscal stick. It isn't the Democrats who are tacitly supporting corporations' moves to cut costs by slashing worker health benefits, or by reducing their taxes to zero by putting a mailbox in the Caymans while still being able to fully benefit from the infrastructure such taxation is supposed to provide. It isn't Democrats who have been pushing for welfare cuts on the poor while simultaneously balooning them for corporations. The reason, Mercurian, why the Democrats are talking about class warfare is because for the last 25 years, the Republican party has actively been waging it, and the blows to our infrastructure are becoming critical. Sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade.

Additionally, regarding the fuzzy liberal concept of "exploitation", I'll admit, when I learn that African workers work 80+ hours a week to farm their land for the earnings of a dollar per day or less, to raise cash crops that their government has forced them to raise instead of food, because said government needs the cash crops to sell to the West to pay off debt to a World Bank controlled by the West, and then said farmer starves because he cannot with the product of his labor buy enough food from farmlands in the West, not because there isn't enough food to go around but because most Westernized nations heavily subsidize their agriculture and artificially inflate the price, then yes, I do tend to think that such a situation just might be exploitative. When I hear about Indonesian workers who work 12-16 hour days for pittance wages in unsafe sweatshops, but are unable to get a raise because it is quite easy for Nike or whomever we are speaking of to simply replace them, and it is impossible to unionize because the nation has made unions illegal, not because it wasn't popular with workers but because said companies made clear that if unions were ever made legal they would promptly move to Bangledesh where leaders have less temerity and leave everyone unemployed, then yes, I do think that multinationals are a little exploitative. The real question is not whether multis exploit their workers, as that is the source of profit: getting more than you invested in labor and infrastructure back out in return. The real question is what level of exploitation should we be willing to accept, how much are multis exceeding it, how to bring them back into line, and why in heaven's name would anybody defend these people.

Doesn't Ford belong to GM?
You're thinking of Chevy.

Define your Americas then. I've heard rich and poor and I can tear that apart with just about every technique (statistics, anecdotes, your choice. You can always claim whichever one I use is flawed, they all are, but I haven't seen one that supports the claim)


Marx had a horrid grasp of how money would work. "Take a genius to understand the effects of exponential growth factors" -- I take it you mean economic growth. So, lets see -- people learning how to make their lives better than before with the same resources at exponential speed. Effects? Much better lives. Am I missing something?

"People learning how to make their lives better than before with the same resources at exponential speed" seems rather false to me. I refer instead to the accumulation of more wealth into fewer hands and the steady decline of the relative wealth of the many. Unearned income is favored in everything from the fundamental mathematics to the tax structures to the very rates of exponentiation utilitized within the monetary mathematics. The mathematics say the rich will get much richer so long as they don't screw up dramatically and the poor poorer taken as a whole.

My Americas? I can divide them many ways. Rich and poor over the course of generations? Rich, really rich, upper middle, lower middle, poor, and really poor. Hereditary monetary nobility, lucky few social climbers, the buffer class, and the proletariat.

Column A, Column B. Read the article linked under it, its quite good. Child Labor was standard around the world until Capitalism had so much wealth children didn't need to work to support themselves -- parents could do it on their own. Now people seem to think child labor is a universal evil that can never be allowed because here in America its not needed anymore.
Look at the article Put Your Money Where Their Mouths Are By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF -- it was in the NYT but you should be able to google for it.
Here's some quotes from it to help
Children working all day in factories occurred fairly little before the 19th century, as I recall; it was not eliminated when parents had sufficient wealth (indeed, children in poor families find ways to earn money fairly early on) but rather only when sufficient political pressure introduced legislation. There is no competitive economic reason for a corporation to cease using child labor so long as it remains legal in the country considered.

However, for a democracy to function well as a political entity, it must have public education of some sort. Is capitalism more important than democracy? To my mind, the fundamental political and civil freedoms of a functional democracy are more important than the economic system utilized.

and this is more to the point I'm trying to make:

And that "poverty" he references is simply what would've been considered 'lower middle class' in many first world nations as recently as 100 years ago. If these nations are allowed to grow, child labor will fall by the wayside as it tends to do in that scenario with or without government intervention.

There is no profit motivated reason for a corporation to summarily cease using child labor, even if a country becomes wealthy enough that most children need not work; there will always be poor within the country, and children will continue to command a lower wage than adults to do the same simple tasks. Only when automation becomes sufficiently inexpensive to completely replace children paid next to nothing or legal/social pressure forces the company to cease does it increase potential profits.

In terms of relative wealth within the world? No. As a share of the total money flowing into the business? No. In terms of basic living conditions? How many sweatshop workers own their own house - one that would not fall apart? How many can support a family? In terms of what consumer electronics would have cost a hundred years ago, they are, of course, much better off. Within the monetary system? I even doubt that for most child workers.

The game is entirely different with other sorts of outsourcing, of course.

If a company is paying a CEO more than their profits the company has horrid management. UNLESS you mean that his pay comes out before profit
for the math -- are you saying (profit)-pay or sales-(costs+pay)=profit
If the first, doing that would make them lose money and that is, of course, idiocy. The second is acceptable, sometimes true. If profits are $100 and a CEO comes in and promises total profits of $120 but will only work if they pay him 100x the previous CEO -- they'll accept. Because that bottom line is still higher (because, by our equation, his new profit has to account for his own pay before hand).
Yes, I am considering for the point of elucidation "real" profit to include the ludicrously large CEO salary in these cases. Think of it as "potential" profit - what would the profit be if you stopped overpaying the idiot who inherited 10% of the company's voting stock and is good buddies with the board of trustees, whom he milks regularly after getting himself installed in the executive position of daddy's old business?

I do consider it horrid management, but it happens often enough - imagine the company earns a net profit, in the traditional sense of the term, of $10,000,000... and the CEO also earns $10,000,000 a year. Of course, in some cases, we have companies that fail to make a profit for their first several years while paying their CEOs multimillion dollar packages in anticipation of the books going into the black... and then the company collapses when it turns out that the business plan is probably never going to work, or that accounting fraud was involved, etc, and the investors are left holding the bag. Enron ring any bells?

As a side note, any CEO who demands 100x the salary of the old one and can still increase net profits by 20% is probably either breaking the law, doing something that someone else could also do for substantially less (producing a greater net profit), or both.

You're thinking of Chevy.
I knew it was car brand.

Dang, TJ. Heck of a post. . .