A Workforce Betrayed - Watching Greed Murder the Economy

[First]

^ Well, not like Roberts can't make good economic points despite being a 9/11 truther. But he certainly loses a ton of credibility among most people who know how ridiculous the 9/11 Truth movement is. It just looks bad, even in the cases where his points are solid and well supported. That said, his points aren't well supported in this article, and it wouldn't take him more than 20 minutes to find enough data to support his argument if he knew where to look. Maybe he doesn't, who knows.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Capitalizt

Originally posted by: Craig234

I say we make it REALLY attractive. The poorest 80% of the Americans are designated 'slave labor' and have to work as instructed by the corporation who bids the highest in a one-time auction by the governmnent to pay off the debt. Corporations need only feed them and provide any sort of housing, and can release them to be bought by another corporation if needed. All possessions, including any real estate, of those 80% will go to the corporation who buys them. The 20% above that can be the workforce like now, but no unions allowed, and they pay all the taxes. Capital gains are not only not taxed, but are given a 10% bonus by the government to 'incent productivity', paid for by taxes on the wage workers. All wage, safety, discrimination and other regulations are eliminated.

Now that would 'make our country attractive to attract corporations'..

Craig, you silly goose. You know darn well that capitalism is incompatible with slavery. In fact, it is the opposite of slavery. Pure capitalism is nothing more than the absence of physical force...the absence of coercion. Your beloved institution of government has the ability to legally enslave people. No private entity has that power.

First, as usual, you ignore the point of the post and only respond to a side issue.

The point is that such a system would do even more of what you say you want to 'make our nation attractive' to corporations.

It's only a matter of degree - you want to zero their taxes, which would be paid for 100% by the people of the nation, either in increased taxes, or reductions in spending on them.

The more you go that direction, the more the people pay. Make it more attractive by banning unions and lowering wages, the people pay. Make it more attractive by reducing regulation, reducint workplace safety requirements, reducing restrictions on pollution, and the people pay.

What we *actually* need is a global coalition of governments to cooperate and not allow the corporations to force them into a 'race to the bottom' of zero taxes and other policies.

We need a global coalition of labor for the same purpose, to prevent 'global labor arbitrage'.

But we don't have those things, and so indeed we see a one-time, one-direction shift draining the US of its wealth - hidden by the mask of debt and enriching authoritarian societies like China, who is playing the game well, not rocking the boat too much as long as the wealth is pouring in - until they don't need us anymore, and then things will change.

Capitalizt, the difference betwen a discussion and a troll post is the way you don't respond to countless points against your posts - you just skip along ignoring the points.

My main point above, my point on how your theories were tried and shown disastrous in other nations, another poster's rebutting your claim with info on *effective* US tax rates, my point about your bad analogy with railroad investors, on and on, you don't respond, but just repeat the same right-wing ideology. That's trolling, not discussing.

Your nonsense about capitalism not having violence, well, is too absurd for a response. When capitalism says the wealthy guy owns the formerly public beach, how are the people stopped from going and enjoying it when they disagree? Are you familiar with the private forces corporations hired to commit violence against workers who tried to organize unions before FDR? Do you have any idea of the violence done by poverty when people are lacking in medicine, shelter, healthy food? There's a log more, but hardly worth the posting.

You are in a right-wing fantasyland, where round pegs fit in square holes, more delusional than the communists.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
^ Well, not like Roberts can't make good economic points despite being a 9/11 truther. But he certainly loses a ton of credibility among most people who know how ridiculous the 9/11 Truth movement is. It just looks bad, even in the cases where his points are solid and well supported. That said, his points aren't well supported in this article, and it wouldn't take him more than 20 minutes to find enough data to support his argument if he knew where to look. Maybe he doesn't, who knows.

Roberts has written a long line of well supported stories on the economy over the last few years. He is correct that the current US economy is built on debt, offshoring and accounting acrobatics.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
^ Well, not like Roberts can't make good economic points despite being a 9/11 truther. But he certainly loses a ton of credibility among most people who know how ridiculous the 9/11 Truth movement is. It just looks bad, even in the cases where his points are solid and well supported. That said, his points aren't well supported in this article, and it wouldn't take him more than 20 minutes to find enough data to support his argument if he knew where to look. Maybe he doesn't, who knows.

Roberts has written a long line of well supported stories on the economy over the last few years. He is correct that the current US economy is built on debt, offshoring and accounting acrobatics.

Maybe he has (I have not read anything else he's written), but the article as quoted is lousy.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Capitalizt

Craig, you silly goose. You know darn well that capitalism is incompatible with slavery. In fact, it is the opposite of slavery. Pure capitalism is nothing more than the absence of physical force...the absence of coercion. Your beloved institution of government has the ability to legally enslave people. No private entity has that power.

Who is John Galt?

I too used to believe that, however, it is very conceivable that under true laissez-faire capitalism the scale could tilt in the other direction and that instead of having freedom you could end up with less freedom than what we have today in our current mixed economy. No force needs to be initiated per se, at least not directly. However, under true laissez-faire capitalism your lifestyle could be dictated to you.

What if you were "forced" to change your religion and adopt another religion? What if employers only want to hire people of a certain religion? Ditto for sexual orientation, political beliefs, diet, weight, smoking habits, etc. (Remember, under true capitalism private property rights prevail so it would be legal to discriminate against people for any reason no matter how irrational.)

What happens if you are the wrong color or have the wrong religion or you hold a political or philosophical belief that somehow ends up being made public and everyone in town wants to boycott you and not do business with you? No force is being initiated per se, but no one will sell you gas or food, etc.

Have you considered the problem of encirclement? In this case, because under real capitalism all property is privately owned, what happens if the landowners who encircle you decide that they don't like you for some reason and won't let you cross their land? No physical force has been initiated and you're free to stay on your own plot of land unmolested. You might starve to death but at least you have your freedom.

It's very conceivable to me that true laissez-faire capitalism could result in dictatorship if not slavery. All you need to do is to put your imagination to work. Heck, even today employers want to dictate to employees whether or not they can smoke in the privacy of their own homes.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

What can be done? The US economy has been seriously undermined by offshoring. The damage might not be reparable. Possibly, the American market and living standards could be rescued by tariffs that offset the lower labor and compliance costs abroad.

Another alternative, suggested by Ralph Gomory, would be to tax US corporations on the basis of the percentage of their value added that occurs in the US. The greater the value added to a company?s product in America, the lower the tax rate on the profits.

Uhh... so the solution is for the gov't to get more money? Or is this solution wrapped in "helping" so we'll buy the argument for giving the gov't more money.


When are people going to learn that the answer to our problems is NOT more gov't and/or allowing the gov't to take more money. Sheesh

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Evan LiebWell, not like Roberts can't make good economic points despite being a 9/11 truther. But he certainly loses a ton of credibility among most people who know how ridiculous the 9/11 Truth movement is. It just looks bad, even in the cases where his points are solid and well supported.

Could you please tell us a little more about the "9/11 Truth Movement" why it's so kooky? What do the "Truthers" believe happened? I can't say I've paid much attention to the issue. I will say that I don't trust our government at all and that I'm open to the possibility that the government may have played some sort of a role or that it isn't reporting the whole story for some reason.

That said, his points aren't well supported in this article, and it wouldn't take him more than 20 minutes to find enough data to support his argument if he knew where to look. Maybe he doesn't, who knows.

The article was intended as a newspaper op-ed and not for an academic journal just as our posts in these forums are intended as informal discussion and not as formal academic debate. I think, implicit in those kinds of op-eds is the message, "This is what is happening based on my research into and knowledge of these subjects, if you're interested, you can do your own research to verify all of this and if you are rational this is what you will conclude." Also, a writer may presume that anyone reading his newspaper op-ed (and thus the newspaper) has already read a myriad number of news reports over the years and that his op-ed is not intended to report research results but merely to summarize that mass of information and to make it coherent.

I can't speak for Mr. Roberts, but I, for one, certainly don't feel like engaging in research and tracking down old sources and the hundreds of news reports I've read over the years to make a point in a throwaway discussion forum post to people who are probably already set in their views anyway. I could respond to your posts in the other threads and and we could debate how the BLS calculates the unemployment numbers based on what they've posted at their website, etc., but I just post here for fun and have no interest in making a career or serious hobby out of it.

 

[PokerGuy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

What can be done? The US economy has been seriously undermined by offshoring. The damage might not be reparable. Possibly, the American market and living standards could be rescued by tariffs that offset the lower labor and compliance costs abroad.

Another alternative, suggested by Ralph Gomory, would be to tax US corporations on the basis of the percentage of their value added that occurs in the US. The greater the value added to a company?s product in America, the lower the tax rate on the profits.

Uhh... so the solution is for the gov't to get more money? Or is this solution wrapped in "helping" so we'll buy the argument for giving the gov't more money.

CAD, I don't think he's suggesting the government get more money, he's suggesting that the rate of taxation depend on how much value is being added in the US instead of abroad. Total taxation would remain the same, but the companies would have incentives to keep things in the US rather than abroad because it would reduce their tax rates.

When are people going to learn that the answer to our problems is NOT more gov't and/or allowing the gov't to take more money. Sheesh

100% correct, more government and more money to the government are rarely a good answer to anything.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
The US has some of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. If politicians truly wanted to put a dent in outsourcing, they would drop these convoluted solutions and advocate a 0% tax on business. Make it more attractive for them to stay and much more attractive for them to COME here. Everything boils down to incentives...and while this wouldn't stop all outsourcing, it would certainly make it less attractive for those considering it.

That's absolutely correct. Lots of people talk about how outsourcing is bad, blah blah blah but they never talk about what the solution should be. American corporations exists for one thing and one thing only, to make profit. And the only way to make them hire American workers is to make it worthwhile for them. If you want to force American company to hire American workers, you might as well have the government take over all the companies and make them government agencies and see what it will do to American productivity.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: babylon5
Sure, those with education with prevail. But problem is America as a whole is nowhere as educated as other countries, especially when it comes to science and tech. Manufacturing used to be those people's ticket to an "American Dream" (whatever that is). Now those jobs are gone, maybe service sectors will absorb most of those unskilled and no-so-educated people with low wages. But what will that do to the economy as a whole?

One of the problems is that we already have an oversupply of people who are trained to work in the science and tech fields. Did you know that we have an oversupply of Ph.D. scientists? Yup. After 9-10 years of education you would think that after you graduate with your Ph.D. you'd walk into a nice $60,000/year job to start. Sound reasonable? Instead these guys end up working gypsy scientist positions called postdoctorates, often working 70+ hours/week without any job security and often without benefits for, say, $30,000/year. "Here is your Ph.D., congratulations, now go back into the research lab for 70+ hours/week and low pay and purify some more protein so we can try to make crystals for x-ray crystallography, slave." When that sort of thing happens, the market for labor is telling us something.

What we're seeing today is that the science and tech jobs as well as jobs in other fields (including even patent law) are being done in other countries by equally qualified people willing to work for less wealth in exchange. (Also, we're importing foreigners on H-1B and L-1 visas who are willing to work for lower wages.)

We could send Americans to college until we're blue in the face and it wouldn't solve our nation's economic and employment problems. If we already have an oversupply of PhDs, computer programmers, MBAs, lawyers, and possibly engineers (as Engineer might claim), then what good would spending time and money to train more people for those fields do for us? The problem is that there isn't anything for the displaced manufacturing workers to retrain and reeducate for; the college-education-requiring knowledge-based-jobs are subject to global labor arbitrage, too, just like the manufacturing jobs.

Ironically, I've read comments from people who were displaced from the manufacturing field saying something to the effect, "So, the college-educated people are losing their jobs--why should I care? They didn't care when I lost my job." I can't fault those guys for seeing it that way.

Medical field seems will be in demand, so they could be trained to take care of our baby boomers.

Yeah, but we really can't export that and the medical field cannot support itself independently; it isn't self-sustaining. The medical field cannot employ everyone and when people and the government no longer have money with which to purchase medical care, the medical field will die too. The medical field cannot sustain the economy alone.[/quote]

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: rchiu

That's absolutely correct. Lots of people talk about how outsourcing is bad, blah blah blah but they never talk about what the solution should be. American corporations exists for one thing and one thing only, to make profit. And the only way to make them hire American workers is to make it worthwhile for them. If you want to force American company to hire American workers, you might as well have the government take over all the companies and make them government agencies and see what it will do to American productivity.

The issue of international trade isn't inherently about whether your nation is capitalist or socialist and it would be quite possible to have internal capitalism. Heck, if a capitalist nation trades with a socialist nation, and, to an extent, merges its economy with the socialist nation's economy is that still capitalism?

According to capitalist theory, what would happen if every other land mass on earth besides the U.S. suddenly vanished or never existed?

My understanding is that rational selfish interest and the profit motive would motivate people to produce goods and services and to use them to exchange value for value voluntarily for mutual benefit and that people would have to be responsible for themselves and that people would suffer economically for their irrationality and laziness and that they would benefit from their rationality and hard work and no one would be forced to pay for another person's poor decisions or misfortune and that, thus, the economy would flourish because people would be rewarded for their good actions and suffer for their bad actions.

If having a flourishing but insular American free market is inconceivable to you then how is it that the world's economy is able to survive (I don't want to say thrive) without interplanetary trade?

Thus, to answer your post, it would be possible to have trade protectionism or no international trade at all and capitalism internally at the same time. (What if the rest of the world is filled with socialist or communist slave states and, as a matter of principle, the people in a free society refuse to trade with them and to contribute to foreign government's initiation of physical force against their own people?) As far as I know, having capitalism doesn't require that the entire world or galaxy be part of your economy.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: rchiu

That's absolutely correct. Lots of people talk about how outsourcing is bad, blah blah blah but they never talk about what the solution should be. American corporations exists for one thing and one thing only, to make profit. And the only way to make them hire American workers is to make it worthwhile for them. If you want to force American company to hire American workers, you might as well have the government take over all the companies and make them government agencies and see what it will do to American productivity.

The issue of international trade isn't inherently about whether your nation is capitalist or socialist and it would be quite possible to have internal capitalism. Heck, if a capitalist nation trades with a socialist nation, and, to an extent, merges its economy with the socialist nation's economy is that still capitalism?

According to capitalist theory, what would happen if every other land mass on earth besides the U.S. suddenly vanished or never existed?

My understanding is that rational selfish interest and the profit motive would motivate people to produce goods and services and to use them to exchange value for value voluntarily for mutual benefit and that people would have to be responsible for themselves and that people would suffer economically for their irrationality and laziness and that they would benefit from their rationality and hard work and no one would be forced to pay for another person's poor decisions or misfortune and that, thus, the economy would flourish because people would be rewarded for their good actions and suffer for their bad actions.

If having a flourishing but insular American free market is inconceivable to you then how is it that the world's economy is able to survive (I don't want to say thrive) without interplanetary trade?

Thus, to answer your post, it would be possible to have trade protectionism or no international trade at all and capitalism internally at the same time. (What if the rest of the world is filled with socialist or communist slave states and, as a matter of principle, the people in a free society refuse to trade with them and to contribute to foreign government's initiation of physical force against their own people?) As far as I know, having capitalism doesn't require that the entire world or galaxy be part of your economy.

The very definition of capitalism is operation for profit and without government intervention. So my question to you is how do you enforce trade protectionism or no international trade at all and not violate that very definition. That's what I am trying to say. We operate in a capitalistic society, and that how we prosper. If government/society doesn't provide incentive for the companies to hire local people and stay local, what else do you plan to do other than complain all day?

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
The US has some of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. If politicians truly wanted to put a dent in outsourcing, they would drop these convoluted solutions and advocate a 0% tax on business. Make it more attractive for them to stay and much more attractive for them to COME here. Everything boils down to incentives...and while this wouldn't stop all outsourcing, it would certainly make it less attractive for those considering it.

That's absolutely correct. Lots of people talk about how outsourcing is bad, blah blah blah but they never talk about what the solution should be. American corporations exists for one thing and one thing only, to make profit. And the only way to make them hire American workers is to make it worthwhile for them. If you want to force American company to hire American workers, you might as well have the government take over all the companies and make them government agencies and see what it will do to American productivity.

The customer demands is what the corporations must adhere to, if they want made in America goods and are willing to pay for it instead of overseas products the corporations would have to respond.

Unfortunately the customer over the years has been psychologicaly conditioned through marketing tricks as well as their own greed to only look at the short term costs known as the (cheaper is better mentality) and not looking at the long term impact of their buying decisions.

Also known as consumerism and now it has caught up with America.

 

[Capitalizt]

Craig, here is the bottom line. Corporations are leaving America because the costs of doing business in America are too high. The myriad of regulations and red tape greatly increase the cost of doing business, and the penalty (taxation) for success is too great.

Your solutions all involve raising costs with convoluted labor laws, or raising taxes on companies and investors to subsidize other parts of the population. This is what all leftist policy involves...ALL OF IT. More regulation, more control, and a higher penalty on success. Your political philosophy contradicts any sensible policy that may keep jobs here and you are too blind to see it.

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

What if you were "forced" to change your religion and adopt another religion? What if employers only want to hire people of a certain religion? Ditto for sexual orientation, political beliefs, diet, weight, smoking habits, etc. (Remember, under true capitalism private property rights prevail so it would be legal to discriminate against people for any reason no matter how irrational.)

This is a huge strawman. Such things would never happen in a free market because they would be punished severely. Capitalism is based on self interest, and any business that discriminates based on race/sex, etc would be clearly acting AGAINST their own interests. By discriminating against certain groups, they would be denying themselves able workers from those groups as well as thousands of potential customers from those groups. A corporation's first duty is profit. In order to succeed, a business must hire the most skilled people for the job regardless of their race/gender/sexual preference etc. If a manager is bigoted enough not to hire the best people based on these attributes, his company will be losing great assets to competitors. And refusing to serve an entire class of people based on trivial things like race or gender means losing a HUGE segment of the population (customers) to the competition. The beauty of capitalism is that it cuts across racial and religious divides, and boils down to satisfying public demand. To achieve this, a company must #1 Find the BEST people for the job, and #2: Sell to the largest audience as possible. Violating these rules based on racial or religious bigotry gives your competitors a huge advantage, and it means you won't be in business very long.

 

[Vonkhan]

capitalism ... deal with it, red

 

[Capitalizt]

Craig, here is the bottom line. Corporations are leaving America because the costs of doing business in America are too high. The penalty (taxation) for success is too great.

Your solutions all involve raising costs with convoluted labor laws, or raising taxes on companies and investors to subsidize other parts of the population. This is what all leftist policy involves...ALL OF IT. More regulation, more control, and a higher penalty on success. Your political philosophy contradicts any sensible policy that may keep jobs here.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
Evan, thanks for the voice of reason. This guy is a cook (see his 9/11 nonsense), and he offers nothing but anecdotal "evidence" to support his claims. Some of his points are valid, but the article comes across as more of a rant than a well researched and thought out piece.

I agree. All of the evidence presented in the article is wholly arbitrary in nature. Citing Chrysler and GM as reasons the U.S. workforce is fleeing to foreign lands? Talk about cherry picking the worst possible examples. How about adding Microsoft to those examples, a company that is adding 20,000 servers to new data centres a month, mostly in North America? How about VMWare, which now employs over 6,000 with quarterly sales of ~$500 million?

There is absolutely no supported reason given that the United States cannot remain a leader in research and design while things are built elsewhere - which, I should add, they are not. (Manufacturing locally was at an all-time high until recent events.) The demonization of "offshoring of innovation projects" is idiotic. It's called sticking to your core competencies and using hired guns when necessary. You'd have to be a fool to do otherwise.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Capitalizt

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
What if you were "forced" to change your religion and adopt another religion? What if employers only want to hire people of a certain religion? Ditto for sexual orientation, political beliefs, diet, weight, smoking habits, etc. (Remember, under true capitalism private property rights prevail so it would be legal to discriminate against people for any reason no matter how irrational.)

This is a huge strawman. Such things would never happen in a free market because they would be punished severely. Capitalism is based on self interest, and any business that discriminates based on race/sex, etc would be clearly acting AGAINST their own interests. By discriminating against certain groups, they would be denying themselves able workers from those groups as well as thousands of potential customers from those groups. A corporation's first duty is profit. In order to succeed, a business must hire the most skilled people for the job regardless of their race/gender/sexual preference etc. If a manager is bigoted enough not to hire the best people based on these attributes, his company will be losing great assets to competitors. And refusing to serve an entire class of people based on trivial things like race or gender means losing a HUGE segment of the population (customers) to the competition. The beauty of capitalism is that it cuts across racial and religious divides, and boils down to satisfying public demand. To achieve this, a company must #1 Find the BEST people for the job, and #2: Sell to the largest audience as possible. Violating these rules based on racial or religious bigotry gives your competitors a huge advantage, and it means you won't be in business very long.

I'm familiar with that argument and it crossed my mind. Yes, ideally that is how things would work; or (I think it was George Reisman who said it), "Capitalism is the cure for racism." However, it assumes that you have a tight labor market where employers cannot pick and choose from a large quantity of able and willing applicants and that employers are going to be rational. (What if the labor market has been merged with the global labor market where the supply of labor is relatively infinite?) Also, what if every business enacts the same or similar policies? ("We don't like to hire blacks because in our experience, industry-wide, it's just unprofitable," etc.) Perhaps some businesses would prefer to earn lower profits in exchange for not having to hire gays, blacks, Jews, atheists, Christians, ugly people, men, women, older people, liberals, conservatives, etc. If businesses could legally discriminate, I don't see any reason why they wouldn't do it today.

I'd like to think that it would work the way you described it but I guess I'm a non-believer; I just don't see it happening. I think we'd end up with a cultural and religious balkanization similar to what we had in decades past. Heck, even if 100% of the populace adhered to the philosophy of Objectivism, I can still envision all sorts of discrimination occurring as a result of people's having different views about art and over the nuances of philosophical issues and what they value doing in their free time. ("Computer games are irrational--I'm not tolerating someone who chooses to spend their time doing that instead of reading the beautiful works of Victor Hugo, so, it's not in my selfish interest to do business with you.")

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: yllusThere is absolutely no supported reason given that the United States cannot remain a leader in research and design while things are built elsewhere - which, I should add, they are not. (Manufacturing locally was at an all-time high until recent events.) The demonization of "offshoring of innovation projects" is idiotic. It's called sticking to your core competencies and using hired guns when necessary. You'd have to be a fool to do otherwise.

What if part of being able to do the R&D work requires having had hands-on experience with the building of the products? What it having an intimate familiarity with the manufacturing processes enhances creativity? What if the costs of engaging in research and design work is less expensive in other countries? It's not as though Americans have a God-given monopoly on innovation. Is there a reason why biotech and nanotech research have to be done and will be done in the U.S.? As I understand it, the average IQ is higher in some of the Southeast Asian countries.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: rchiuThe very definition of capitalism is operation for profit and without government intervention. So my question to you is how do you enforce trade protectionism or no international trade at all and not violate that very definition. That's what I am trying to say. We operate in a capitalistic society, and that how we prosper.

It depends on your definition, but yes, using a classic definition that includes a non-initiation of force principle, you would have to allow unrestricted international trade. However, it's very possible to conceive of a predominantly capitalist society that didn't have international trade (or no other nations or planets to trade with).

Regarding "we operate in a capitalist society and that's how we prosper", for the record, we do not have real capitalism, far from it. Instead what we have and have had is a mixed economy--a mixture of freedom and controls--a mixture of capitalist and statist policies.

If government/society doesn't provide incentive for the companies to hire local people and stay local, what else do you plan to do other than complain all day?

I'm unsure exactly what your point was with this sentence and how it relates to the greater discussion. Obviously, I don't advocate pure capitalism but rather a mixed economy.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: yllus
There is absolutely no supported reason given that the United States cannot remain a leader in research and design while things are built elsewhere - which, I should add, they are not. (Manufacturing locally was at an all-time high until recent events.) The demonization of "offshoring of innovation projects" is idiotic. It's called sticking to your core competencies and using hired guns when necessary. You'd have to be a fool to do otherwise.

What if part of being able to do the R&D work requires having had hands-on experience with the building of the products? What it having an intimate familiarity with the manufacturing processes enhances creativity? What if the costs of engaging in research and design work is less expensive in other countries? It's not as though Americans have a God-given monopoly on innovation. Is there a reason why biotech and nanotech research have to be done and will be done in the U.S.? As I understand it, the average IQ is higher in some of the Southeast Asian countries.

Using that logic, could you explain how Intel's research and design continues to be done in the continental U.S., while actual chip manufacture is done overseas and in Mexico?

Replies to threads like these are always incredibly narrow in focus. Do you really want to know why America is the world's centre of innovation? It's not because the country is historically hands-on with technology. It's because of the top-notch schools churning out educated, intelligent workers. The access to cheap and plentiful water and electricity. The ease of access to money from investors. The transparency of markets allowing good faith in business practices. The peaceful conditions that lead people to immigrate here and seek a new life. And another hundred things embedded into the American landscape that you'd never think twice about.

Will the rest of the world catch up? Sure, it's inevitable as they pull even on infrastructure, schooling and all the rest - people have the same capacity to be brilliant and inventive the world over.

However, little to no edge lies in being able to get your hands grimy with the machines that actually spit products out. Chrysler is actually a fantastic example of this: It's been many years since they did their first car design completely within the computer without creating a clay/wood model. Their manufacturing process is also, IIRC, designed in the virtual world. You're vastly overstated the need for local manufacture.

And lol @ the higher IQ quip. Asian countries still heavily rely on learning by rote, not by critical thought. It looks great on paper, but is lousy when you're asking people to innovate for the company. Don't be fooled by statistics.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
What if you were "forced" to change your religion and adopt another religion? What if employers only want to hire people of a certain religion? Ditto for sexual orientation, political beliefs, diet, weight, smoking habits, etc. (Remember, under true capitalism private property rights prevail so it would be legal to discriminate against people for any reason no matter how irrational.)

under 'true capitalism' the firms discriminating based on religion would go out of business because they wouldn't be competitive with the firms that don't.

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

What can be done? The US economy has been seriously undermined by offshoring. The damage might not be reparable. Possibly, the American market and living standards could be rescued by tariffs that offset the lower labor and compliance costs abroad.

Another alternative, suggested by Ralph Gomory, would be to tax US corporations on the basis of the percentage of their value added that occurs in the US. The greater the value added to a company?s product in America, the lower the tax rate on the profits.

Uhh... so the solution is for the gov't to get more money? Or is this solution wrapped in "helping" so we'll buy the argument for giving the gov't more money.


When are people going to learn that the answer to our problems is NOT more gov't and/or allowing the gov't to take more money. Sheesh

i like how you didn't read the very next sentence after the one you bolded part of.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: rchiuThe very definition of capitalism is operation for profit and without government intervention. So my question to you is how do you enforce trade protectionism or no international trade at all and not violate that very definition. That's what I am trying to say. We operate in a capitalistic society, and that how we prosper.

It depends on your definition, but yes, using a classic definition that includes a non-initiation of force principle, you would have to allow unrestricted international trade. However, it's very possible to conceive of a predominantly capitalist society that didn't have international trade (or no other nations or planets to trade with).

Regarding "we operate in a capitalist society and that's how we prosper", for the record, we do not have real capitalism, far from it. Instead what we have and have had is a mixed economy--a mixture of freedom and controls--a mixture of capitalist and statist policies.

If government/society doesn't provide incentive for the companies to hire local people and stay local, what else do you plan to do other than complain all day?

I'm unsure exactly what your point was with this sentence and how it relates to the greater discussion. Obviously, I don't advocate pure capitalism but rather a mixed economy.

Everything is relative, there is no country in the world that is pure capitalist. Every country has government control one way or the other. But the US is right up there as one of the country with top economic freedom with the current economic controls. Forcing companies not to do business with other country is a severe limitation that only countries at the bottom of the list employs. The fact is that there are other nations we can and do trade with, so don't give a fantasy scenario like there are no other nations or planets to trade with. So my point is, if you like America and what it has accomplished as it is, as oppose to countries like Venezuela, Cuba, Iran and Libya. You better stop proposing unrealistic severe limitation of what companies can or cannot do, and address the real problem behind the outflow of jobs, like the lack of desirable skills, lack of incentive, lack of consumer demand for made in US goods....etc.

 

[yuppiejr]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: babylon5
Sure, those with education with prevail. But problem is America as a whole is nowhere as educated as other countries, especially when it comes to science and tech. Manufacturing used to be those people's ticket to an "American Dream" (whatever that is). Now those jobs are gone, maybe service sectors will absorb most of those unskilled and no-so-educated people with low wages. But what will that do to the economy as a whole?

Medical field seems will be in demand, so they could be trained to take care of our baby boomers.

Those with higher educations should get significant but optional increased rewards - we should not leave others in economic crisis, simply perfectly able to meet basic needs.

Um, why should someone get a reward from the government just for going to college? If they've invested in a degree providing skills that make them more valuable in the workforce they will be rewarded for their efforts naturally. Having a high demand skill with a low supply of people with the appropriate skills guarantees a reward a-la a larger paycheck. If they spend 4 years in college on some hack degree (basket weaving, philosophy) that does not have a high market demand why should they be rewarded for it?

An education is an investment, choose wisely and you will be rewarded - choose a less valuable education and you won't realize the same level of benefit. In my experience, most college grads, regardless of their degree, have an easier time getting jobs and interviews of any sort than someone with no post-secondary education so a reward mechanism of sorts already exists. No need to create yet another government handout when the free market already has a reward system in place for those who can hack it in the real world and make smart investments in their education.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
What if you were "forced" to change your religion and adopt another religion? What if employers only want to hire people of a certain religion? Ditto for sexual orientation, political beliefs, diet, weight, smoking habits, etc. (Remember, under true capitalism private property rights prevail so it would be legal to discriminate against people for any reason no matter how irrational.)

under 'true capitalism' the firms discriminating based on religion would go out of business because they wouldn't be competitive with the firms that don't.

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

What can be done? The US economy has been seriously undermined by offshoring. The damage might not be reparable. Possibly, the American market and living standards could be rescued by tariffs that offset the lower labor and compliance costs abroad.

Another alternative, suggested by Ralph Gomory, would be to tax US corporations on the basis of the percentage of their value added that occurs in the US. The greater the value added to a company?s product in America, the lower the tax rate on the profits.

Uhh... so the solution is for the gov't to get more money? Or is this solution wrapped in "helping" so we'll buy the argument for giving the gov't more money.


When are people going to learn that the answer to our problems is NOT more gov't and/or allowing the gov't to take more money. Sheesh

i like how you didn't read the very next sentence after the one you bolded part of.

Uhh, actually I did read it. However, I am not naive enough to believe that if the gov't did either of these things that "the lower the tax rate" means lower than current tax rates.