Would somebody PLEASE explain to me how exporting jobs out of this country helps US citizens?

What's left for Joe Q. Public?

What am I missing here?

I have heard so many high-faluten explanations about free trade,
but wasn't the USA doing just fine before NAFTA was enacted?

(edited to add link below)

At the expense of all the rest of us.

The rest of non-Republicans are on our own.

The sooner, the better.

They're killing the goose that laid the golden egg... job by job by job by job

for quite some time now...some of us anyway...

and many electronics. I would prefer US made and somewhat more exAmericans don't!

As more companies import the goods they sell, corporations no longer pass through the savings in labor cost to the consumer. They keep it as profit to boost their stock prices.

As the trade deficit increases, the value of the dollar declines as the US runs up its debt to foreign countries. It takes more dollars to buy foreign goods.

Since most people buy goods on their credit cards, the high interest payments they pay on their balances actually outways any minor cost savings due to cheaper labor costs that may be passed through to the consumer.

As more jobs are offshored, tax revenues for federal, state, and local governments drops since unemployed people don't pay income tax. Higher government deficits means less money for infrastructure maintenance, less for education, and less for other services. At the same time, to pay for what they do provide, governments borrow money which means more debt and a further devaluing of the dollar.

With more inflation and more people competing for fewer jobs, wages stagnate even as it takes more dollars to buy those foreign goods. What looks good when only a few companies import products, becomes a macroeconomic disaster when every corporation plays that game.

Speaking as a non-American, I find the notion that companies choosing to employ people in companies in countries other than America are doing something immoral somewhat bewildering.

I am all in favour of protecting American labour at the expense of American capital. I am *not* in favour of protecting American labour at the expense of non-American labour.

Companies are not "sending US jobs overseas"; they are replacing US jobs with jobs in other countries.

The only way one can make an even faintly persuasive argument that companies who choose to do this are doing something immoral is to criticise the employment conditions of the workers they end up employing and their business practice, but that's *not* the line that most of their more vocal critics take, and the response to it is "some of the companies moving jobs out of America are doing wrong by exploiting their workers, and should offer them better employment conditions", not "all the companies moving jobs out of America are ipse facto doing wrong, and should employ Americans instead".

"Bad for America" does not mean "bad", I'm afraid.

I am more interested in helping American citizens
before helping the Chinese or Indian cultures.
If that makes me bad, so be it.

A large part of the US's wealth is built on using its economic and military muscle to force one-sided trade terms on other countries. Wanting to continue that is bad, I'm afraid.

Companies employing people in countries other than America is, on balance, bad for the US - the benefits they gain from cheaper products are outweighed by the cost of higher unemployment. But that doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

And wanting to use legislation to force companies to employ Americans is no more justifiable than other countries trying to use legislation to force companies to move jobs from America to them.

markets, & that US capital must colonize the earth in order to provide people with "jobs". But at the same time, that those "jobs" are necessarily a scarce commodity; if they exist in India, they can't exist here, & vice-versa.

None of these assumptions can bear the light of day.

Some developing countries appear to be developing their internal markets; some don't and indeed seem to be moving in the opposite direction.

That's nothing to do with them competing for external markets, though - independently of how the internal market develops, international companies choosing to employ Chinese people instead of Americans will be good for China.

And having that wealth coming in from abroad will help develop the internal market; without that, it will be much harder, especially when any local production has to compete with foreign imports.

Offering employment is not "colonisation", incidentally.



Job creation isn't a zero-sum competition, but it is a competition - a company which wants to employ N people has to choose which country to employ them in. So yes, jobs being in India often (not always) means those jobs won't be in the US - that's what the whole "outsourcing" (a silly name for choosing to employ non-Americans instead of Americans) controversy is about.

from one place to another - a highly different thing than creating a new job in a new location to service an existing market.

This shouldn't be seen as a "protect US" jobs type of argument, but rather as one of treating workers fairly and putting an end to "anything goes if it makes the shareholder more wealthy" capitalism

If they ship all the US jobs to China, US suffers and China living standards rise - until they ship those Chinese jobs to Africa because labor is cheaper. And it becomes an endless cycle with the globalized corporation simply moving jobs around to increase profits while human beings keep going through this boom/bust cycle along with wages being depressed overall. Each time the jobs move, they can cut the wage further because they've created a downward pressure through unemployment.

Putting Americans out of work also drags down the economy in the country(s) we are sending our $$$'s to. China, along with much of the rest of the world is now experiencing a drop in growth as a result of the decline of demand for consumer goods by the unemployed here. That is just one example of how foreign countries, becoming too dependant on the dollars from us and our lack of them is bad not just for America, but the rest of the world. There has to be some kind of balance and the leveling of the field. We must insist that people who are replacing US workers in other countries are paid a fair living wage. We need Fair Trade, not Free Trade.

the rich in the US want us progressives to diminish their wealth and power. Whatever you have, you feel you deserve and want to hold onto.

Through most of the past century we grew accustomed to jobs and incomes that were the envy of most (though not all) of the rest of the world. Along with the rest of the developed world (a minority of the world's population, to be sure) we want to protect ourselves from the large numbers of poorer people who would like a chance to live the lives that we live which many of them view as unbelievably rich. Similarly the rich here want to protect themselves from our middle and lower classes who view their lives as unjustifiably rich.

Our rich use the law, police, politicians and the courts to maintain their hold on power and wealth. Many progressives seek to have the government use the law, ICE agents, politicians and America's international economic and military power, to keep "our" jobs out of the reach of those poorer people in the rest of the world.

The best way for me to earn $100,000 a year (other than in my dreams) is for everyone else to earn that much. That way my employer can't replace me with someone cheaper. The alternative of having the government use its power to enforce (using the instruments of power above) a law that enabled me to make $100,000 while others made much less, while good for me, is not very progressive.

have you seen what is happening to America lately???

there will be a lot of unemployed Chinese and Indians if their best markets are in the US and Americans can no longer buy their stuff.

The extremely low wages paid to Chinese and Indian labor, which is promoted and enforced by the American corporations that export jobs, is preventing sizable local markets from developing in China and India. Keeping those countries dependent on American purchases is part of the global economic plans of the corporations.

With job losses increasing in the US, this country's debt to foreigners may never get paid off. Nobody wins except the corporations.

This is the real cause for the economic crisis in the U.S. that is affecting the world. So it is "bad." For America, there is a hidden cost in the outsourcing of our jobs.

Basically, big business outsourced the jobs Americans did to India and China and they outsourced their poverty to us.

Thanks to the ultra-free-enterprise mania that has reigned here since Reagan, the burden of losing a job is not distributed fairly across the spectrum of society. We do not enjoy good pension plans or unemployment insurance. Social Security and unemployment payments barely provide a subsistence standard of living, for example.

Social Security, for example, pays maybe $1,000 per month for people 65 and over. Here in Los Angeles, generally an apartment costs at least $1,000 a month plus electricity, water, heat, telephone, and other necessities. I have an elderly friend who lost most of her money in the recent stock market crash. Although her apartment is not large, she has been forced to get stranger for a roommate.

Further, the workmanship and quality of the products we are getting is really poor. It's shocking to me as an older person when I think of how things were here 40 years ago.

The outsourcing has lowered our standard of living incredibly in so many respects. It wouldn't be so evil if it just lowered the standard of living of the rich or those who waste, but it is affecting the poor the most. With the middle class jobs hard to get, people with college degrees are accepting the jobs that the poor used to do. It's evil.

Big business has killed the goose that laid the golden egg -- the middle class American consumer. I lived in Europe for many years. We are not living as well as they are according to friends of mine who travel over there.

Do the people of China or India care about our standard of living? I don't think so.

Americans devised a system that provided enormous wealth. We were not as wealthy as Argentina at one point. We were much poorer than Europeans for a long, long time.

We had a relatively egalitarian society in which people were able to join the middle class and become upwardly mobile in terms of economics.

It is not the American middle class that outsources jobs. The wealthy few outsource the jobs. The American middle class loses jobs -- and is forced to buy shoddy products manufactured overseas.

I watched the good department stores start closing in the late 1980s. The last of them are starting to close now. We are left with really cheap merchandise sold in horrible places that hire virtually no clerks.

The thing that is "bad" about the outsourcing is that it is purely motivated by greed. It is the manifestation of greed. It is a means of making Americans subservient. We believe in equality. The outsourcing is causing a lot of inequality in terms of economic opportunity in the US. Trust me, the outsourcing will not work.

Just as African-Americans stood up to the racial discrimination of an earlier time, middle class Americans will stand up to the economic injustice of outsourcing.

If your measure of "which of these is better?" is "which helps the most American people?" then clearly America adopting policies to force companies to employ Americans instead of non-Americans is a good thing.

If your measure is "which helps the most people?" then clearly it isn't.

There is certainly a strong case to be made that it is in America's interest to adopt such laws.

There is not a case to be made that it is moral to do so.

Myself, I never expected to see much more than a relatively brief "window of opportunity" for developing nations to come out of this "globalisation" and "outsourcing" malarkey. Some have taken the opportunity, and have by this stage hopefully reached a stage where they can, by necessity if not by choice, concentrate now more on nurturing their own internal markets and (hopefully, progressive) "middle classes" (now, there's a loaded term). And, also hopefully, many of the newly-developed economies such as China will remain well beyond the reach of what in the past has too often been the next phase in such cycles: That where, as in the US's (and once UK's) so-called backyard (Latin America), the newly-developed and potentially autonomous economies are militarily and otherwise invaded and/or exploited by the still far more rich and powerful in order to confiscate whatever there is of value to the benefit of the imperial metropolis.

Yes, it is better for each and every local (I don't like the term 'nation', so let's say, 'polity') to develop a sound, productive, self-sustaining and progressive social economy. But with a big (and this is relatively new in the world cultural consciousness) with a big proviso: NOBODY, NO POLITY, NO ECONOMY can continue to 'develop', to produce and consume more and more (as if that were a reasonable definition of wealth or of 'happiness' anyway) without taking into account the ENVIRONMENTAL, ECOLOGICAL as well as SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL consequences (eg. at present, total destruction of the human life-supporting biosphere) that may well entail.

India is poor because of the legacy of its horrible caste system. The people who are taking American jobs to give to the poor Indians are creating a caste system here. That is what we are fighting.

As for China, again, its poverty was the result of thousands of years of economic injustice. We are trying a different way. China, for example, emulates and has adopted some of the aspects of our economic model, but they have carefully avoided adopting our political model which would require them to allow free speech and free elections. Freedom comes first and economic justice follows.

We have the freedom to vote out governments that do not protect our economic justice. That is precisely what we will do. We live here. We are responsible for the economic justice within our country. Outsourcing is causing economic injustice here for our people. It is our responsibility to insure economic justice for our people. Therefore outsourcing will have to go or become a vehicle for economic justice not just for people in India and China but also for Americans. That is the choice.

Either the global economy becomes a vehicle for prosperity for ordinary people here in the U.S. as well as in other countries or we Americans will recede into an American universe and forget the rest of the world.

Impossible you say? Maybe it will not be possible to maintain our current standard of living if we recede, but our standard of living here in the U.S. (for ordinary people) is declining drastically as we speak. We gain absolutely nothing from the global economy other than grapefruit on our grocery shelves in August. And that grapefruit is only valuable so long as we have jobs from which we earn enough money to afford to buy it. Once we can no longer do that, we will not be a part of the global economy.

I'm not making a moral judgment. I am predicting what I believe the reality will bring.

or Chinese?

The concept of a "democracy" is enlightened self-interest. What you posit...I don't know what it is. :shrug:

There is undoubtedly a clear case based on American national self-interest for America to adopt laws aimed and forcing companies to bring employment to America rather than to othe countries.

But I get annoyed by people who act as though there's a moral case for it - it should be recognised that such a policy is purely a case of a powerful nation using its power to preserve their priviledge at the expense of others.

Is that immoral? Why?

and YOU would live like the poorest people on the planet while sharing YOUR wealth with the world.

But that's not what you propose. You propose to sacrifice the American Working Class on the alter of "morality" so that you yourself need not make any sacrifice to your own standard of living.

That's a self-serving form of "morality", if it even qualifies as such.

You are quite right - I should do what you describe. I don't do so; not because it's not the right thing to do, but because I'm not a good person.

A saline drip that can stop a baby in Africa dying of diahorrea costs only a few pounds. Every time you or I buy a new book, we are effectively condemning a baby to death.

Once one has realised this, any claim by anyone in the first world to be a good person looks kind of silly.

*But who I am and how I live isn't relevant to whether what I'm saying is true or not.* Yes, I'm a blaggard and a hypocrite. I'm not, however, wrong.

You accuse me of "being willing to sacrifice the American working class". Aren't you just as willing to sacrifice workers in other countries?

On the other hand, as I said in my first post, while I think laws that protect the American poor at the expense of the (usually even poorer) poor in other countries are a bad thing, I think that laws that protect the American poor at the expense of the American (and non-American) rich are a good thing. So if I were dictator (and if I were a good person) then redistribution would cut both ways for the American poor.

"You accuse me of "being willing to sacrifice the American working class". Aren't you just as willing to sacrifice workers in other countries?"

Nope. I reject the premise that it is my responsibility to provide a minimum standard of living to every person on the face of the planet (not the least of which is because providing this standard would merely lead to population growth and a concomitant reduction in the aforementioned minimum standard as the same resources are stretched further and further.)

This is your morality, not mine! :hi:

"On the other hand, as I said in my first post, while I think laws that protect the American poor at the expense of the (usually even poorer) poor in other countries are a bad thing, I think that laws that protect the American poor at the expense of the American (and non-American) rich are a good thing. So if I were dictator (and if I were a good person) then redistribution would cut both ways for the American poor."

As I said before, as a Brit, your "morality" is exceedingly self-serving.

Britain, of course, will not be heavily affected either way by US anti-"outsourcing" laws so I don't have a dog in the US version of the fight; Britain is losing jobs to "outsourcing" but so far as I know we're not contemplating legislation to oppose it.

to the best of my knowledge.

Britain also provides a strong social safety net not available to workers in the US.

Rather our "enlightened" economic policy (as well as our military, environmental, and every other policy) should take the effect of our actions on other people into consideration. Foreigners don't control what our military does, but we should take into consideration the affect on them before we employ the military in a foreign country. Foreigners don't control our environmental policy, but the world is interconnected and we should all take into consideration the effects of our actions on the global, not just our local, environment. Economic policy should be no different.

and regardless of the negative impact of same policies on the American electorate.

As they say in Chinese, "half a catty of one, 8 tael of the other."

I did (and do) say that American economic policy should take account of the benefits of non-Americans, and in some cases should aim to benefit them even if there is a cost to Americans.

I didn't say "regardless" of that cost, however.

I can only assume that it means that the American working class should sacrifice their standard of living for the benefit of the world's poor so that you are not required to do so, as that is your over-arching theme on this thread.

Rather than suggesting that American economic policy should be dictated by foreigners, I believe that the poster is stating the belief that our economic actions affect the rest of the world, just like their actions can affect us. It would be ridiculous for foreigners to control our economic policy, just as it would be for us to control that of another country.

That does not mean that we cannot have an "enlightened" view of what is the best way to balance the protection of the economic self-interest of American workers with a plan to alleviate poverty among workers in other countries, who are almost always poorer than ours. It is not progressive for our economic policy to solely focus on the benefits to our economy without regard to the effects on people in other countries any more than our military policy should focus on benefits to our country (access to oil and the like) without regard to the impact on people in other countries.

On that I wholly agree. :)

Last year, thousands of toys made in China were recalled because of lead in them that presents a potential hazard to children. In 2007, many pets died due to pet food made in China.

The safety standards are much higher in the United States than they are in China.

The cheap labor costs in China and India most benefit the companies such as Walmart.

:sarcasm:

The person you're responding to is just a troll and has more in league with his home country.

If we were a one world government or whatever, it wouldn't be as bad. At least, in theory, and theories are never proven until actually done. And what happens if the theory ends up proven wrong... if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it. Somebody tried to fix what (from a perceivable level) isn't broken, broke it big time, and it now has to be fixed.

pimping off jobs to the lowest bidders overseas SUCKS

:evilfrown:

The American economy is teetering because of that, and that has affected the entire GLOBAL ECONOMY.

Which includes your job too. It affects everybody.

Nor is it expansion when it has only been migration.

Whatever. Que sera sera.

For one, it makes poor countries more reliant on American companies, making them more vulnerable to downturns in our economy.

Two, it prevents native companies from developing and competing in a market no one sane would call "free."

Three, the only reason to export jobs is to save money via treating those workers like early industrialists in the U.S. treated them here - replaceable machinery, to be paid only enough so that they don't starve to death (because retraining a new employee costs money).

Four, it creates a race to the bottom for wages in this country - those companies left trying to stay here either have to lower wages or close up shop to compete with slave-labor prices imported from China and elsewhere.

Your argument seems to be the same one conservatives use to people who complain about jobs here - hey, you should be thankful you have a job, so shut up. Have you seen or read about the conditions these workers labor in? It would make the robber barons of old weep for joy.

A free marketplace can only be free if all parties trading are following the same rules. Different rules mean a different market; the current system is like going to a different grocery store for every item you need.

Prices stay low because instead of the natural increases in costs associated with wage increases, companies instead shift labor to lower paying locales which allow them to maintain/cut prices for the end consumer. Of course this cycle would certainly seem to come crashing down when so many jobs get shifted overseas that no one in the US can buy anything, even at lower relative prices, because no one has a job.

To make matters worse, my nephew had to train his replacement to do his job.

:shrug:

Global unionization with collective bargaining for wages, compensation, workplace rules and the like would be a VALID reaction to corporate outsourcing .... BUT: expect the leadership of the other nations to violently resist the organization of unions ...

The governments of Vietnam, China, Singapore, India, etc .... They PERSONALLY benefit from providing cheap labor to multinationals .... They dont want anybody upsetting their cash cows ....

to see that side...

We have a global economy, global corporations, and a few hundred regional governments.

http://www.google.es/search?q=International+Union

:fist:

Local and International

http://www.union-organizing.com/unions.html

:toast:

http://www.iww.org/

check it out!

First, NAFTA, the WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank are NOT instruments to promote "free trade". They are, in fact, corporate cartel agreements designed to allow a handful of corporations to control and dominate trade in order to maximize profits, reduce employment in America to promote a docile and compliant labor force, evade paying US taxes, and PREVEMT competition in world markets.

Second, the biggest cause of the coming depression is not the housing crisis, nor the government deficit, nor the Ponzi schemes of the stock market, but rather the massive trade deficit CAUSED by the offshoring of jobs. Since most of the goods and services that this country consumes come from foreign countries, especially Asia, this country has generated a debt to foreigners that can never be repaid. We cannot produce enough goods and services to sell abroad to generate the income necessary to pay off the debt.

The converse is that the foreign countries now hold IOU's from the US that are essentially worthless since they can't collect the money. The crooks in the financial sector who collected the bailout money were essentially given the government money that the foreign countries "loaned" us to pay our bills. The foreign countries bought US government securities which were intended to be used to pay down our debts. The crooks in the financial sector fooled a gullible and ignorant Congress to give them that money. It won't save the economy. It will only prop up the operators of the Ponzi schemes so that they can "cash out" before the real economy tanks. The bailout of the banks is already speeding the collapse of the "real" economy.

The only solution that will save this country is to establish trade and tax policiies that will bring jobs back to America. That means getting rid of NAFTA, the WTO, the IMF. and the World Bank and replace them with trade policies that support jobs in the US. At least seventy-five percent of goods purchased in America should be made in America.

This will allow the US trade balance to be kept under control. This will reduce foreign debt. This will produce revenue from income and corporate taxes to pay down the federal, state, and local government debt. This will provide funds to support education, health care, and infrastructure maintenance. The tax laws have to be rewritten so that corporations and wealthy individuals cannot profit from offshoring jobs and avoiding taxes by means of foreign dummy corporations.

The US government can throw a trillion dollars into the economy for a bailout. However, unless the steps outlined here are taken to get the trade deficit under control, they might as well throw that money down a rat hole for all the good it will do. By the way, the stock market is irrelevant to the "real" economy. The stock market is a rich persons' gambling casino that is rigged to steal the savings of the middle class for the enrichment of the wealthy. The model of the corporation is Enron.

To understand the overall picture of what is happening read any of Kevin Phillips' recent books. Some titles are "Wealth and Democracy" and "Bad Money". If the Obama people want to learn real economics, they should read Kevin Phillips.

Arguments for free trade in parentheses.

First this is just the arguments that I have heard, they got gapping flaws if you do not put a certain ideology first.

(That ideology is that the market fixes all ills, the great supply and demand of capitalism leads to forms of greatness in people and countries.)

Notice the vague terms that are not defined, because once you hang your hat on ideology, especially when you do not think about it, you have to use labels that may mean nothing. More importantly if you do know the truth, you have to use labels so the truth is not known or spoken to others.

(The first thing that is said is that in a market system if there is a more productive way to do things, including cheaper labor, it has to be taken. Because if it is not you are artificially propping up a weaker system, and that weaker system must be forced to be stronger by the competition, or it should not exist. If 25 cent worker can do the job, then an American should be able to do it for 24 cents, or he is being supported to be weaker, and you hurt both his character and his long term success.)

This can also be called "the race to the bottom" yes I used terms or labels, but I will explain them. If you believe productivity is the only determiner that should be considered, then the company or country that can treat its people the worst, its environment the worst, hide these things the best through deception and PR, will be the expanding part of society. Every year, newer ways to treat people badly will trump the old ways, making the life of 95% of the planet worse and worse every year.

In America we made child labor illegal, we made 7 day 14 hour work weeks be compensated with overtime, and we made it so 'disposable workers' should not have to lose fingers or lives at work. Now we are being told that we should compete with countries that use these same labor conditions.

(this is counter argued by saying that if people actually care about pollution or peoples rights, that will become a factor in purchasing Basically if people want others to be able to work with respect shown to them, they would not buy a 'disrespected workers' products. This would add a competition element to the treatment of others. So it puts the blame on the consumer who will take a cheaper product over the dignity of the person that made it)

But deception, fear of lack of ability to even survive, and the programmed ideas of materialism and consumerism, and even the exploitable weakness of man such as greed, make this a weaker ability, when compared to the deception about what is going on. Notice all the factors that allow a person to buy a product made with bad conditions are dark side. Fear, greed, deception. Simply put this idea celebrates and advocates for selfishness.

'Lower price for me, trumps conditions of person that is making the product. Lower price also trumps truth by even hiding the conditions to make it easier to be selfish.'

And more importantly, the advocate of people, that is hired by people to look out for what is best for them, including avoiding race to the bottom, is government, and so that entity needs to require an advocacy for people. For example, when TV honors the market ideology, government should point out those flaws as an advocate for people.

When Wallmart puts a price by a product, the fact of who made it, how many jobs were lost, how many fewer dollars were earned by those workers, and the conditions they live in to reach that price, should be right next to the price on the big display of 3rd world products.

9.99 Widget, made by this girl, who does not get to go to school, and is very thin and tired, and missing a couple fingers. and a picture of a couple Americans saying, this family is now unemployed because of this product.

This inequality of information, derails the possible competitive force of a people not going along with lead in toys, and poisoned baby food. Because they do not get the info, the argument that they have the ability to choose not to partake, as a market force, is removed.

I want to state, I want that little girl to have a job also, not just the American family, but I want her job to start after she graduates from school, and for the job to pay enough to stimulate a demand for goods to create the need for her job, and the American job.

--------
Secondly
(Free trade will make other peoples more prosperous and lead to freedom. This is because as people see how they can control there lives by being profitable and making own decisions in market system, they will also realize ideas of free thinking leading to social freedoms)

Although it is true that there is a form of freedom to be able to choose to start a business. Like the family that choose to open a firecracker wrapping business worked by children in huts, away from main house to avoid losing house if things explode. They quit school to be able to work.

The comment that a free market creates Freedom feelings is backwards, for a person to really have a choice, and experience this bloom of freedom, they must be secure in home, health, opportunity, and supplies of food. Then they can experience choice of career. Many people under these working conditions feel imprisoned not more free.

This type of free trade freedom, is also a misnomer, because people do not choose to do these jobs as a free choice, they do them because if they don't they might starve. Or they might steal food to eat, and end up in a state ran prison company making parts, or in some countries get arrested and filled as migrant worker and given a national work camp job. Just because a person agrees to do something instead of dieing, does not mean they are expanding in free thought.

And further more, and most devastating to this argument, is many countries have de-facto government control over industry, or even other way around, and the people have no ability to engage in the ideas of choice, because they can not assemble to voice ideas, they can not group and strike or file grievance, and they can not read or write about conditions in their lives due to money/state controlled media.

China having large barracks for women to live in when they are not working in sewing shops is not a free choice of a life or a job, it is a state choice with fear of jail, or worse if they are not productive and go along with conditions.

-----------
(Third reason told from the perspective of a person making a bonus from outsourcing:

It makes him money, and if he can control the press and the government and hide the truth from people. Then that is what he will do, because F*ck all the rest of you, if others want better work conditions, then you should go F*ck someone else like he is doing to you. He does it not because it is right, but because nobody has stopped him. And if they don't stop him, as far as he thinks, that makes it right.)

This argument is only taught in some business schools, and in certain groups that have created and embraced ways to break all empathy with other groups in society. It is not spoken of openly that often, cause it is bad PR.

Sorry for language, but it is appropriate.

I hesitate to single out one point you made from all the rest, because they're all valid and thought provoking, but this one seemed to flash at me: "In America we made child labor illegal, we made 7 day 14 hour work weeks be compensated with overtime, and we made it so 'disposable workers' should not have to lose fingers or lives at work. Now we are being told that we should compete with countries that use these same labor conditions."

It costs more to make it here, then make it somewhere else.

To make it here cheaper we would have to reduce the cost of production,

1. Reduce effects of EPA.

2.Reduce labor cost. Take back the money Wall STreet stoled and pay for childcare, health-care, transportation. Then the cost of labor would go down and we all would go up.

Leave things alone, like we have done for the last 30 years and we get 40 years of drought.

Very drastic changes are needed to save the USA and the world.

It's not labor stealing money. Labor all over the world is suffering or starting to suffer. It's the people making money from the fruit of other people's labor that is stealing it.

I heard a guy on the radio the other night and a lot of what he said made sense. Long story short, the jobs to India are the payoff for India competitively bidding up the price of oil against China. This source says that China cannot effectively get a decent deal on energy because of U.S. interference.

This expert's entire thesis is that this is an economic war in which the U.S. is seeking to strangle China and Russia. The theory is "when we bleed, they hemorrhage."

Now, I don't really believe this helps John Q. Public but the people running the "economic war" think that overall economic hegemony helps the average American job seeker.

Cher

The past decade or so (yes, I include Bill Clinton) has made me rather cynical and disillusioned about this matter.

We -- the citizens of the US -- got redefined as "consumers" a long time ago. But that was okay as long as we kept MAKING what we consumed. Now we don't make anything anymore, and imo that leaves us very vulnerable indeed.

I could go on, but I'm no economist. The only one who has ever written about the economy in a way that (a) I can understand, (b) makes sense from my experience, and (c) actually teaches me something is Paul Krugman, professor of econ and well-deserved Nobel Prize recipient. Any column of his is recommended reading, in my book.

Hekate

For every job we export it means someone in another country will have a job. These newly employed workers will then have an income, and be able to buy American Products that are .... made...ummm...errr...overseas...

....nevermind.... :evilgrin:

The legislation promoting job exportation was mostly done under Clinton, championed by people like Hillary Clinton and Larry Summers. Those folks will never come near an Obama admin... one second... you say that Hillary Clinton and Larry Summers are *part* of the Obama administration? Oh well, BOHICA.

If the people who are taking those jobs were coming here for them, and working for far less, this thread, the op, and replies would be deemed racist. Funny how that works, after all, most of those who are benefitting from those jobs are just poor people trying to make a better life for their familiies. Sound familiar? It should. Cheap labor means profits for corporations, whether the jobs are here, or there. Ideology becomes more important and relevant when it's easy. Believing and living it when it is not in one's best interest is a bit harder. Why not "get over it". McDonalds is taking applications as I write this. Thanks.
quickesst

(I don't buy) the argument = outsourcing allows less expensive, more profitable, products.

All we need to do to stop outsourcing is to BUY AMERICAN. Focus on that, and we will win.

If not, why is it wrong for American consumers to buy non-American products.

What I am saying is that the free market ain't wrong. It is what is killing the working poor and making corporate millionaires.
I think it is patriotic to buy local.

But you may have not read my other response to you yet.

But I have two problems.

First, what the fuck do we manufacture anymore? I've got a Dodge and a Ford already, and they don't need replacing.

Secondly, I don't have a damn job, because even though I managed to compete with Indian programmers for a long time, there just seem to be no jobs available any more. So I'm lucky if I can afford the cheap stuff, let alone theoretical American goods.

1-survive...if you need to buy cheap shit from china and walmart..do it.
2-do what you can..if you can either buy a plastic box to hold toys in or make a toy box..try to make it if possible..
3-when you find something that is cheap, well made, and made by union labor, buy it.
4-think..try to find good stuff, even if it takes a little more time.

Peace and low stress and the best of luck with everything..

Or, the economy is. People assume there is one less job in the US whenever one is exported, as if there is never any growth in the economy and that the number of jobs is always stagnant.

We have lost all entrepreneurial spirit and have become entirely dependent on somebody else, usually a big corporation, to provide us a "job." Furthermore, we object when the "job" changes.

Maybe they are making the stuff in China but the jobs in distribution and retail must be here in bigger proportion. College graduates have an easier time finding jobs than non college graduates, who would have depended on the manufacturing jobs. But then the products would have been more expensive and there would not have been enough Americans to fill them all, leading to legal immigration. Frankly, the outsourcing is what many people get for their objection to that.

... and have become entirely dependent on somebody else, usually a big corporation, to provide us a 'job'."

I know this will come as a shock to you, but we have no right to healthcare in the U.S. Our access to healthcare is dependent on having a job with a company, until age 65 when single-payer Medicare kicks in.

If we had single-payer healthcare like first-world, civilized countries have, people could quit jobs that they hate and go into business for themselves. If we were to get single-payer, you would at that time see an explosion of entrepreneurship. But it'll never happen in this country, because HMOs/PPOs own congress lock, stock and barrel. :eyes:

What you're asking for is the degree of resilience and freedom that a degree of socialism can and provenly does effectively provide (unless daddy's rich, of course - in that case, no worries :puke:

All the taxes and bullshit you have to go through to start a business is a serious deterrent. Utility bills are at least double that of residential. They will not let you legally live in your place of work so you have to pay 2 rents or rent and mortgage. Insurance is through the roof as well as fire and burglar systems. Typical little 2 man store in Florida ...$5000 a month to stay open. How do even begin? ...and look at the risk you have to take with your saved up money. Forget getting a start up business loan too.

neoliberals are.

Who made a point of keeping a specialized workforce with no hope of self-sufficiency.

before nafta it was`t a problem and as soon as the effects of nafta hit the mexican poor they came to america to survive.

there should be a tax benefit for creating good jobs here in the US. It doesn't have to be ongoing, it could be a one-time tax bonus.

This recession is terrible for the entire world - And don't get me wrong here people - I BLAME THE CORPORATIONS - NOT the people of either country! This could have been a win win for both our countries if it had been done right!

From The Onion:

Illegal Immigrants Returning To Mexico For American Jobs

May 3, 2006 | Issue 42•18

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/47978

MEXICO CITY—As dozens of major American corporations continue to move their manufacturing operations to Mexico, waves of job-seeking Mexican immigrants to the United States have begun making the deadly journey back across the border in search of better-paying Mexican-based American jobs.

"I came to this country seeking the job I sought when I first left this country," said Anuncio Reyes, 22, an undocumented worker who recrossed the U.S. border into Mexico last month, three years after leaving Mexico for the United States to work as an agricultural day laborer. "I spent everything I had to get back here. Yes, it was dangerous, and I miss my home. But as much as I love America, I have to go where the best American jobs are."

.......

And this list of companies in Mexico that have moved from the U.S. with a $1.00 a day pay for some - this is the tragedy here:

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=1528

Maquiladoras (a factory that imports materials and equipment on a duty-free and tariff-free basis for assembly or manufacturing and then re-exports the assembled product, usually back to the originating country) in Mexico:

* 3 Day Blinds
* 20th Century Plastics
* Acer Peripherals
* Bali Company, Inc.
* Bayer Corp./Medsep
* BMW
* Canon Business Machines
* Casio Manufacturing
* Chrysler
* Daewoo
* Eastman Kodak/Verbatim
* Eberhard-Faber
* Eli Lilly Corporation
* Ericsson
* Fisher Price
* Ford
* Foster Grant Corporation
* General Electric Company
* JVC
* GM
* Hasbro
* Hewlett Packard
* Hitachi Home Electronics
* Honda
* Honeywell, Inc.
* Hughes Aircraft
* Hyundai Precision America
* IBM
* Matsushita
* Mattel
* Maxell Corporation
* Mercedes Benz
* Mitsubishi Electronics Corp.
* Motorola
* Nissan
* Philips
* Pioneer Speakers
* Samsonite Corporation
* Samsung
* Sanyo North America
* Sony Electronics
* Tiffany
* Toshiba
* VW
* Xerox
* Zenith

Some kind of lime flavored sine wave?

:shrug:

That's all I have to add.

Gotta love Champagne Socialist!

...even though I've lived in places that were supposedly infested by these "limousine liberals."

that hails therefrom. :eyes:

OK, as long as we know who you're attacking.

just questioning your attribution of it to 'limousine liberals' - which looks like a right wing attack; we now find out you're blaming the Kennedys for outsourcing. Strange.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I think the closest I may have come is arguing that outsourcing is an inherent consequence of an expanding consumer and service sector based economy. Anyway, why don't you confine that argument to the thread in which it originated.

Yes, I am aware of the existence of rich, powerful liberals. However, I don't necessarily see that being a rich, powerful liberal implies hypocrisy.

You're simply one of those who cries bloody murder any time class is mentioned or someone (heaven forfend!) suggests that the scions of a wealthy political dynasty might not have the best interests of the working classes at heart.

And if you can't figure out why it's derogatory there's really no point in continuing this discussion. As for your class argument, yeah, I take issue with ascribing a whole host of characteristics and motivations to a group of people simply because they happen to share several characteristics.

Highest childhood poverty in the developed world on one hand, yibbehobba's hurt feelings on the other...

Hmmm....

"yeah, I take issue with ascribing a whole host of characteristics and motivations to a group of people simply because they happen to share several characteristics."

Err, our entire society is based on class stratification. Talk about "ascribing a whole host of characteristics" on a group of people because of a characteristic "they happen to share" (hint: it's poverty)

:eyes:

Highest childhood poverty in the developed world on one hand, yibbehobba's hurt feelings on the other...

I am not espousing an economic policy.

Err, our entire society is based on class stratification.

Well then let us define terms, yes? I would like to know your definition of class as it exists in the United States. As far as I can tell from what you've written so far, your definition includes the existence of such a thing as a "limousine liberal," and is mostly defined in terms of wealth, political affiliation and geographical location. Unfortunately in the case of the limousine liberal, it also asserts a set of characteristics that are not factually accurate.

Talk about "ascribing a whole host of characteristics" on a group of people because of a characteristic "they happen to share" (hint: it's poverty)

Actually, we were talking about limousine liberals, a term which has no set definition. As far as I can tell, it's meant to include wealthy liberals from coastal areas. (Why wealthy liberals from areas such as Chicago and Santa Fe are not included is something known only to you.) And I'm still not sure what you're trying to get at. The primary characteristic shared by the poor is that they are poor. What exactly are you trying to say? Unless you're attempting to define a term such as "moonshine liberal" then I have no idea where you're actually going with your argument, and I'd take just as strenuous an objection to the definition of a moonshine liberal as I would to a limousine liberal.

And you are trying to make me pay for even daring to mention class (gasp!)

By having a conversation with yourself.

Lame.

So I'll start by giving you some of my ideas on class as it exists in the United States. I see it as being primarily economic and social, and specifically not political. I don't believe that the US has the same sort of lineage-based class distinctions that still exist in some European countries. I see class in the US as being primarily defined by who you know and how much money you have. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that who you know is in large part determined by how much money you have.

To use myself as an example, I come from a family that would be considered working class. I, however, would likely be considered middle class if not upper middle class specifically due to my income. However, neither the politics of my family or myself really affect my class identity. My parents were both quite libral, blue collar folks. Had they been blue collar Republicans, I don't think that would have changed either their own class identity, or the class identity assigned to them by the public at large.

Relative to what you've been saying in previous posts, I don't accept political disposition as part of class stratification in the US. I don't see any class delineation between a rich liberal and a rich conservative.

So based on that, let's go back to what you originally said about outsourcing:

It transfers wealth from the working class to the wealthy. Which is why limosine liberals love it.

In that statement I see a specific political component, in addition to the class component. It is the political component with which I took issue, NOT the class component.

In conclusion, please take your self-righteous class warrior act somewhere else. I'm done with you and this thread.

Last post to this thread in response to anything save "free trade".

Btw, LOVE how supporting rightwing economics = being a "postpartisan" Democrat.

Mentioning the coalition between well-to-do coastal Dems and corporations however? "Freepspeak"! :eyes:

If we can outsource some jobs like manufacturing toys, we can have more higher paying jobs focused on designing computers. This is according to some of theories behind free trade.

Obviously, there are flaws in this theory which is why it hasn't worked out as well as practiced.

in a factory making toys, may not be interested in or capable of learning computer design (which could be outsourced) or, maybe, neurosurgery (unlikely to be outsourced). The poor worker kicked out of his or her $20+ an hour manufacturing job is most likely now flipping burgers for minimum wage with minimal benefits. It's not rocket science. No jobs, no money, no purchasing power, no economy. I agree entirely with the OP.

The college loan industry has benefited really well from that.

That would be socialism after all.

Just curious. :shrug:

Just because our economic and trade policies have been skewed for the last 8 (28?) years does not mean that we are incapable of walking and chewing gum (promoting the welfare of our own workers and reducing global poverty) at the same time.

What a profoundly silly thing you've posted. We live in the country with the greatest disparity of wealth in the developed world, but "we're all in this together!"

:silly:

:eyes:

:puke:

the global economy. If your crack about loaning you a couple of grand is a RW comment that progressives talk a good game, but rarely donate to a charity or do any volunteer work, I'll just leave it alone. If you think that progressives are all about "Me, me,me" and don't believe that "We are all in this together", you are entitled to your opinion. We just don't agree.

We do indeed live in a country with a great disparity of wealth. Rather than focus on what we can domestically to correct this situation (progressive taxation, regulation, health care, etc.), some prefer to portray this as a "us (Americans) vs. them (foreigners)" problem.

Since we're "all in this together", you should support what's good for me, even if it hurts you personally.

That's your argument in a nutshell, so I thought I test how your philosophy applies to the everyday world. The results are as expected.

will convince you that I really believe that we are all in this together. Kind of sounds like I have to "pay to play" this game of yours. No thanks. And I doubt that you want to hear about my volunteering or donations, since none of that puts money in your pocket.

Do you really believe that one's actions don't affect others and their actions don't affect you? (Many Iraqis would advise you that the actions of Americans have had a great effect on them.) Once you accept that your actions have an effect on others, it is not hard to put forth some effort to make sure that the effect is beneficial (even if it doesn't put money in the pockets of everyone who wants it) not harmful.

If you believe that's it's every man for himself, except for when someone can give you money (that being the exception to your rule), I wish you a happy life.

You subscribe to a much more ancient philosophy: "looking out for #1."

But you are willing to negotiate with my money, my livliehood, and my community, aren't you?

"Do you really believe that one's actions don't affect others and their actions don't affect you?"

No. Did anyone even suggest this?

"(Many Iraqis would advise you that the actions of Americans have had a great effect on them.)"

How ironic you should mention this, as our "Empire Building" is a necessary corollary to globalism.

"If you believe that's it's every man for himself, except for when someone can give you money (that being the exception to your rule), I wish you a happy life."

Of course I don't believe this; I am the one positing that I have a special responsibility to care for those in my own community. YOU are the one positing that you have no such responsibility, because, as you say, "we're all in this together!"

Of course, you don't really believe "we're all in this together," as I've demonstrated in this thread. Or else, where's my check? I'll donate it to PROJECT THAW. :hi:

Based on your say-so or on something that I said.

"But you are willing to negotiate with my money, my livliehood, and my community, aren't you?"

"my money" - When we discuss what the government should do, we are talking about everyone's money - not just your money and my money. You are right that many government policies cost us money, whether it is international trade rules, tax rates, military spending and a million other things.

"my livelihood" - We all have a right to a livelihood - you, me, the guy in Kenya, the woman in China.

"my community" - I agree. I just define "my community" to include more people (including many who do not look like me, talk like me or have the same kind of passport that I have) than you do.

""Empire Building" is a necessary corollary to globalism." - Don't tell that to Canada, Western Europe, Australia, Japan and others. They seem to play the "globalism" game quite well without a lot of "empire building".

It is good to know that both of us feel a special responsibility to care for those in our community. The only difference we have is where we draw the lines around our community. Some may limit their "community" to their family, some to their neighborhood, some to an organization the belong to, some to their city, some to their state, some to the country and others to the world. I know plenty of good people who focus on different definitions of their "community". They are not better or worse because they have a different concept of their "community". They feel a special responsibility to help others. :hi:

"Based on your say-so or on something that I said."

Based on the fact that you value your own well-being ahead of mine. (Or else you'd give me the $2000 I keep asking for! :hi: )

"'my money' - When we discuss what the government should do, we are talking about everyone's money - not just your money and my money."

No. You're mistaken, we're talking about the US taxpayer's money. Why should the US taxpayer being any more selfless with their money than you are with your own?

""Empire Building" is a necessary corollary to globalism." - Don't tell that to Canada, Western Europe, Australia, Japan and others. They seem to play the "globalism" game quite well without a lot of "empire building".

Google "Canada & Darfur" and get back to me. At any rate, all Western countries shelter under America's worldwide military intervention. There were calls a couple weeks ago for the US Navy to intercept Somali pirates who were threatening German shipping interests, for example.

"It is good to know that both of us feel a special responsibility to care for those in our community. The only difference we have is where we draw the lines around our community."

Saying that you care about all the people of the world equally is the logical equivalent of saying that you don't feel any special responsibility for your neighbors.

their city, their state, their country and the rest of the world. The drop off in my caring level as you progress through those levels may not be as fast as yours. I agree with you that we all have a largest responsibility for our family and our neighbors and the least for people that live on the other side of the world. My volunteering is local in nature - coaching, refugees, fair trade.

Where I suspect we disagree is my level of caring for the welfare of people on the other side of the world is not zero, while you seem to think that caring about them is flawed in some way. If I misjudged you and you do care about those folks on the other side of the world, just not as much as you do your neighbors, then we agree in principle just no on how to balance the values we give to each.

The taxpayers either subsidize the remaining industries in this country through corporate welfare or we subsidize new industries that can be competitive internationally.

It doesn't work that way when Republicans take over the reigns. But, even if we had had none of the free trade ideas in effect, Republicans would have destroyed our economy anyways, just to make their fun of profiting from boom and bust cycles. It might, MIGHT, even have been easier to perpetrate without NAFTA.

Free trade should be built upon the idea of human rights, not corporate rights. But, tell that the to imbeciles who thought Republicans were just great back when NAFTA was being crafted and pragmatism yielded too much to those now more infamous Republican creeps.

As we headed for even greater wealth from the base of our already wealthy nation, the rest of the world looked at US as being one big "haves" and themselves as the "have nots." Further, as our world becomes smaller, the disparity we were increasing would lead to unrest.

So, we headed to bring all along with us, and some fools capitalized on the good graciousness. They're called .. Republicans.

Raygun began "serving" his terms.

http://www.iww.org/

8643

I mean in the way of things that won't have an overall worse effect than the outsourcing in the first place.

your tooth and get ready to go over to the pasture after dark to visit your favorite sheep.

Of course if You're not a freeper it ain't worth a shit!

"Error: you can only recommend threads which were started in the past 24 hours"

As for the middle/working/poor classes . . . er . .. not so much.

This was a response to a talking-point happy dope who supports free trade. Enjoy.

:shrug:

According to an article I read recently....

Each and every American working for someone else the past three decades has put away huge amounts of money into their 401(k) and other investments. The smarter ones borrowed heavily and invested that in the market as well right after those stupid New Deal regulations making that illegal were removed.

So by this point, the vast majority of Americans are independantly wealthy. Which makes it kind of stupid for us to be working when we could just sit back and let poor people in other countries do all the work for us while we rake in the profits.

Of course, not all jobs can be off-shored, and not all Americans had the sort of employment where they could make those kinds of investments. But since non-ownership Americans are such a small percentage of the population, they can now demand pretty anything they want for those necessary, on-shore services: the building trades, etc. Which in turn makes them wealthy.

In fact, there are so few Americans still willing to work -- what with 80+% of us being independantly wealthy now -- that we have to import workers into the United States to help do jobs that can not be off-shored. Which is why, terrorism concerns aside, we need to bring in outside labor.

If the people in the poor countries get better wages, etc, it will impact the bottom line of the average American who no longer has to work for a living. This is why it is necessary to stop movements like Hugo Chavez's.

Gee, dude, where you been the past three decades?

It costs more to make it here, then make it somewhere else.

To make it here cheaper we would have to reduce the cost of production,

1. Reduce effects of EPA.

2.Reduce labor cost. Take back the money Wall STreet stoled and pay for childcare, health-care, transportation. Then the cost of labor would go down and we all would go up.

Leave things alone, like we have done for the last 30 years and we get 40 years of drought.

Very drastic changes are needed to save the USA and the world.

It's not labor stealing money. Labor all over the world is suffering or starting to suffer. It's the people making money from the fruit of other people's labor that is stealing it.


www.callchet.com Before you judge ^ See where I am coming from and where I want to go. " People First "

Wrong button