Originally posted by: FrodoB
Many democrats preach about equality and jobs for all. But does that only apply to Americans? Isn't it a good thing that more people around the world now have access to better jobs and higher standards of living?
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: SuperTool
I guess we all gotta give up our health benefits and agree to work for $3/hr to keep our jobs
unless we can do like the unions did in the early part of this century and coerce the foreign gov'ts into siding with us then we'll have to wait around for their own people to do so.
I don't remember such a thing happening in the last 4 years. Refresh my memory please.
I remember Spain's govt siding with Bush without having their people do so, but I don't remember the union angle.
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: FrodoB
Many democrats preach about equality and jobs for all. But does that only apply to Americans? Isn't it a good thing that more people around the world now have access to better jobs and higher standards of living?
Are you an internationalist or an American?
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Originally posted by: tallest1
we not only need to globalize jobs but also globalize worker protections, rights, and benefits.
And how are you going to do that??? Hmmmmmmmmm......? I'm still waiting. Are you going to invade all these countries and force their governments to do what we want?
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Oh wait, you're not going to change them. People will enact change when they want it. We wanted all these changes and we got them.
Originally posted by: dirtboy
It's called survival of the fittest. If someone is willing to work without health benefits, then they are more likely to get a job because it will cost an employer less. Deny that will you? Try running a business for a day.
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Other people are willing to take our tech jobs because they have no other choice. Over time, they will begin to demand more rights. Just because it doesn't happen today or when you want it to happen, doesn't mean it won't. There's a huge difference in intelligence between someone who assembles shoes and someone who write code. The smart ones will seek change down the road.
In the meantime, you just gotta face that this is the way things are.
Originally posted by: dirtboy
You get all excited about high paying tech jobs, but ask yourself how many Mom & Pop stores, the ones you claim to love and want to protect so badly, have gone out of business due to Internet retailers who undercut their prices. I don't see you complaining because you are too busy cashing your big paycheck.
Originally posted by: tallest1
No, thats what you would probably do.
We would push for worker rights the same way we 'fight' for human rights in China and woman's rights in the middle east. Through diplomacy and regulation (I'll further on this in 30 secs), we mold the world into a better place.
This isn't protectionism, this isn't global lawmaking. This is to insure that money isn't earned by means of the sweat and blood of the unfortunate.
BS! If you believed that, you would've been against the war on Iraq. But I digress, you're not going to see 10 year old kids in Africa standing up against a multibillion corporation now are we? These people could enact change but the problem is that those same American businesses would leave them just as quickly as they left us.
Wow, talk about coldhearted. Lets just pay everyone in this country $5/hour and corner the world market while we're at it. Hell, lets start an ebay for jobs with a person who offers to work for the least gets the job. That way the small business owners win, the big businesses win, sounds like Utopia doesn't it? :disgust:
I partially agree with this but what can you say when every company comes to you and says "Heres a job we should pay you $60,000/yr for but instead we'll pay you $25,000/yr without benefits. Take it or leave it?". For as long as there are people elsewhere to exploit, conditions won't get any better. If American (or even better, the global community) doesn't respond to this, every demand for rights will be ignored.
Believe me, I shed a tear when I see Mom & Pop stores close down. I make it a priority to eat at a Mom & Pop's restaurant at least once a month and I avoid Walmart like the plague.
To a degree you're right. Progress & innovation is causing people to lose jobs and lower their profit margin.
Its a horrible thing to see but unless you equate outsourcing with progress & innovation, you're a bit off.
do you really think replacing the modern american worker with an underpaid worker in another country is Progress? Innovation?
There are certainly casualties in both cases - of course, that guy who used to program in Basic for a living will have to adapt - but I refuse to see Americans adapt because companies can exploit people elsewhere.
Originally posted by: chess9
If keeping as many jobs in America as possible is protectionism, then I'm in favor of protectionism. But, I suspect that protectionism is simply one of the limpdick battle cries of the brain dead supporters of ManCow and his ilk.
-Robert
**Film at Eleven**While reliable figures aren't available for the last two years, the Commerce Department estimated on March 18 that the number of Americans employed by U.S. affiliates of majority non-U.S. companies grew by 4.7 million from 1997 through 2001. In the same period, the number of non-Americans working at affiliates of majority-U.S. companies abroad rose by 2.8 million.
Originally posted by: burnedout
**Breaking News**
According to Bloomberg, the U.S. received more outsourced jobs than it is losing.
**Film at Eleven**While reliable figures aren't available for the last two years, the Commerce Department estimated on March 18 that the number of Americans employed by U.S. affiliates of majority non-U.S. companies grew by 4.7 million from 1997 through 2001. In the same period, the number of non-Americans working at affiliates of majority-U.S. companies abroad rose by 2.8 million.
Originally posted by: burnedout
**Breaking News**
According to Bloomberg, the U.S. received more outsourced jobs than it is losing.
**Film at Eleven**While reliable figures aren't available for the last two years, the Commerce Department estimated on March 18 that the number of Americans employed by U.S. affiliates of majority non-U.S. companies grew by 4.7 million from 1997 through 2001. In the same period, the number of non-Americans working at affiliates of majority-U.S. companies abroad rose by 2.8 million.
A good piece on the subject in the Financial Times
The first mistake of many politicians, argues Matthew Slaughter, a professor at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth College, New Hampshire, is to assume that a job created overseas is one not created in the US. "An overseas worker is sometimes a substitute for a US worker but very often they are a complement for a US worker," he says. "Expanding an overseas network frequently means you have to hire more workers in the US too."
This is one of the arguments as well:
"Economists also argue that while the job losses caused by offshoring are conspicuous, the benefits are larger. Although the gains are hard to quantify, some analysts are now attempting to do so.
Assuming that companies shift staff overseas partly to save money, economists argue that the effect of offshoring is to lower prices in the US. This raises the purchasing power of US consumers and, on the margin, helps keep interest rates lower. This in turn should lead to higher consumer spending and stronger economic activity, which creates more jobs.
"That concept tends to be beyond the sophisticated, deep-thinkers in Democratic politics, though. Ironically, it's one of the few Clinton-era positions that they haven't retained, and one of the few that they should have. Even Al Gore seems to have forgotten much on this score, and is almost unrecognizable from the man who made the case for NAFTA on similar grounds."
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Thanks for posting this. Another confirmation that U.S. Companies must drop the "U.S." in front of them and be designated the "Foriegn" Companies that they are.
A fair and level playing field is all anyone is asking for.
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Thanks for posting this. Another confirmation that U.S. Companies must drop the "U.S." in front of them and be designated the "Foriegn" Companies that they are.
A fair and level playing field is all anyone is asking for.
And even if that happened, that would change things in what way? Oh right, it wouldn't change things at all. That's what I thought.
Originally posted by: tallest1
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Thanks for posting this. Another confirmation that U.S. Companies must drop the "U.S." in front of them and be designated the "Foriegn" Companies that they are.
A fair and level playing field is all anyone is asking for.
And even if that happened, that would change things in what way? Oh right, it wouldn't change things at all. That's what I thought.
Its good to see that your "me me me" mentality has finally shown through. We're not arguing for a level playing ground so that companies are forced to come back to the US. We're arguing so that these highly talented and/or key producers of goods and services are treated as such. However, you're too busy hoping for blood stained soil and cheaper t-shirt prices to care.
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Originally posted by: tallest1
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Thanks for posting this. Another confirmation that U.S. Companies must drop the "U.S." in front of them and be designated the "Foriegn" Companies that they are.
A fair and level playing field is all anyone is asking for.
And even if that happened, that would change things in what way? Oh right, it wouldn't change things at all. That's what I thought.
Its good to see that your "me me me" mentality has finally shown through. We're not arguing for a level playing ground so that companies are forced to come back to the US. We're arguing so that these highly talented and/or key producers of goods and services are treated as such. However, you're too busy hoping for blood stained soil and cheaper t-shirt prices to care.
Why don't you try posting again when you can make sense or did you offshore your posting? :Q
Originally posted by: chess9
That was Smoot-Hawley, and it was a tariff. Tariffs are not to be confused with jobs, though tariffs do have an impact on the number of jobs, granted. My beef is with companies moving American jobs off-shore.
I've heard the old saw about tariffs prolonging the Great Depression, a notion propogated by some economists who should have been sweeping floors insteading of guessing how the economy should be run. I'd trust Donald Trump before I'd trust an economist and I consider Trump a complete low-life.
I am 100% with Lou Dobbs on this issue. (After he supported the war in Iraq I left, but I've snuck back. )
-Robert