Originally posted by: benchiu
How is this different than the many manufacturing jobs that have moved to other countries? Market demand dictates that companies have to cut costs. Not all IT jobs will move overseas, people need to learn and adapt to the market.
Originally posted by: Freejack2
Nothing is going to stop outsourcing or Bush getting re-elected. Why pay a white collar worker in the US $30k - $100k a year when you can pay someone in India $10k a year for the same job. Why pay a factory worker $5 - $15 an hour when you can pay 13 cents an hour in China? A companies bottom line is how much money they can make, there is nothing more important to a company than this, NOTHING! If they can make more money by outsourcing they will do so in a heartbeat. Say they have 10,000 workers doing some job in the US, say data centers where they are paying an average of $35k a year for these workers. That's 350 million a year just for salaries, that doesn't include medical insurance, benefits and whatever else. Now if they can move those jobs to a foreign country they can pay an average of just 8k a year. That's a 270million a year savings just on salaries alone.
Now tell me what corporation is going to say "270 million a year isn't much, we should keep the jobs in the US."? NONE.
It's all about the bottom line.
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Anything it takes to keep the shareholders happy... Why not ship all the low cost jobs to Mexico & China, ship the top paying jobs to India, Russia and the Phillipines, so there will only be 2 classes in America, those who work retail and those that own stock?
Precisely. There will be the poor and the wealthy. The middle class is historically a freak anomaly that will eventually be eliminated again. Do I think it's right? No. Can I do anything about it? No. The people with power are those with money.
As some lowly middle class worker I have no power or say what goes on in the world.
Originally posted by: Freejack2
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Anything it takes to keep the shareholders happy... Why not ship all the low cost jobs to Mexico & China, ship the top paying jobs to India, Russia and the Phillipines, so there will only be 2 classes in America, those who work retail and those that own stock?
Precisely. There will be the poor and the wealthy. The middle class is historically a freak anomaly that will eventually be eliminated again. Do I think it's right? No. Can I do anything about it? No. The people with power are those with money.
As some lowly middle class worker I have no power or say what goes on in the world.
We can elect someone who will do something about it.
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Anything it takes to keep the shareholders happy... Why not ship all the low cost jobs to Mexico & China, ship the top paying jobs to India, Russia and the Phillipines, so there will only be 2 classes in America, those who work retail and those that own stock?Originally posted by: Freejack2 Nothing is going to stop outsourcing or Bush getting re-elected. Why pay a white collar worker in the US $30k - $100k a year when you can pay someone in India $10k a year for the same job. Why pay a factory worker $5 - $15 an hour when you can pay 13 cents an hour in China? A companies bottom line is how much money they can make, there is nothing more important to a company than this, NOTHING! If they can make more money by outsourcing they will do so in a heartbeat. Say they have 10,000 workers doing some job in the US, say data centers where they are paying an average of $35k a year for these workers. That's 350 million a year just for salaries, that doesn't include medical insurance, benefits and whatever else. Now if they can move those jobs to a foreign country they can pay an average of just 8k a year. That's a 270million a year savings just on salaries alone. Now tell me what corporation is going to say "270 million a year isn't much, we should keep the jobs in the US."? NONE. It's all about the bottom line.
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: Freejack2
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Anything it takes to keep the shareholders happy... Why not ship all the low cost jobs to Mexico & China, ship the top paying jobs to India, Russia and the Phillipines, so there will only be 2 classes in America, those who work retail and those that own stock?
Precisely. There will be the poor and the wealthy. The middle class is historically a freak anomaly that will eventually be eliminated again. Do I think it's right? No. Can I do anything about it? No. The people with power are those with money.
As some lowly middle class worker I have no power or say what goes on in the world.
We can elect someone who will do something about it.
But will that person give passionate speeches that makes us feel warm and fuzzy inside?
Originally posted by: TommyVercetti
But will that person give passionate speeches that makes us feel warm and fuzzy inside?
Thats all the person will do. Good luck finding elected leaders who will actually do something.
Originally posted by: TommyVercetti
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Originally posted by: Freejack2
Originally posted by: Nitemare
Anything it takes to keep the shareholders happy... Why not ship all the low cost jobs to Mexico & China, ship the top paying jobs to India, Russia and the Phillipines, so there will only be 2 classes in America, those who work retail and those that own stock?
Precisely. There will be the poor and the wealthy. The middle class is historically a freak anomaly that will eventually be eliminated again. Do I think it's right? No. Can I do anything about it? No. The people with power are those with money.
As some lowly middle class worker I have no power or say what goes on in the world.
We can elect someone who will do something about it.
But will that person give passionate speeches that makes us feel warm and fuzzy inside?
Thomas J. Whitmore is just make believe. Let's face it the latest batch of Presidents have just been turds, some just have been more polished than others
Originally posted by: benchiu
In terms of electing someone to do something about it, what can a President do to stop this? To bring back the manufacturing example. Unionized labor has a huge lobbying presence in Washington, why havent more manufacturing jobs stayed in the US? The only thing that an elected official could do would maybe limit the number of H-1 and similar visas that allow overseas workers to come here. You can't stop a company from trying to reduce costs by moving jobs overseas, you can make a little more difficult, but the cost advantages are just to great to ignore.
Originally posted by: Nitemare
change the tax lawsOriginally posted by: benchiu In terms of electing someone to do something about it, what can a President do to stop this? To bring back the manufacturing example. Unionized labor has a huge lobbying presence in Washington, why havent more manufacturing jobs stayed in the US? The only thing that an elected official could do would maybe limit the number of H-1 and similar visas that allow overseas workers to come here. You can't stop a company from trying to reduce costs by moving jobs overseas, you can make a little more difficult, but the cost advantages are just to great to ignore.
Originally posted by: benchiu
Originally posted by: Nitemare
change the tax lawsOriginally posted by: benchiu In terms of electing someone to do something about it, what can a President do to stop this? To bring back the manufacturing example. Unionized labor has a huge lobbying presence in Washington, why havent more manufacturing jobs stayed in the US? The only thing that an elected official could do would maybe limit the number of H-1 and similar visas that allow overseas workers to come here. You can't stop a company from trying to reduce costs by moving jobs overseas, you can make a little more difficult, but the cost advantages are just to great to ignore.
Care to be a bit more specific?
Actually, its often not about the bottom line. Often, its about not going bankrupt.Now tell me what corporation is going to say "270 million a year isn't much, we should keep the jobs in the US."? NONE. It's all about the bottom line.
Originally posted by: tcsenter
Actually, its often not about the bottom line. Often, its about not going bankrupt. You can't expect any company to unilaterally disarm. Many companies have made heroic efforts to keep jobs here for as long as they could while they lost market share to foreign imports or domestic competitors who began off-shoring years ago. Above all, consumers are voting with their dollar. Among my few burning desires, is to have enough money to pay a private investigator to shadow several well-known viscerally outspoken critics of off-shoring long enough to film them buying cheaper import cars, cheaper import consumer electronics, cheaper import clothing, cheaper import shoes, cheaper import home appliances, cheaper import everything, and giggling all the way home about how much money they saved over buying American. And I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the question is not if they are doing this, but how long it would take to catch them doing it.Now tell me what corporation is going to say "270 million a year isn't much, we should keep the jobs in the US."? NONE. It's all about the bottom line.
Originally posted by: HokieESM
I think all CEOs should be paid an integral multiple of the lowest paid employee at their company. No stock, no golden parachutes. (isn't a CEO owning stock like the DEFINITION of insider trading? not only do you have a certain amount of information, you can INFLUENCE stock price). And it can be a HIGH multiple (100... 200... 500?). But some of the CEOs would think twice about moving a job from America to India when the lowest worker goes from a $20K a year janitor to a $2000 a year IT person. Oh... and someone was asking why this was bad: who is going to buy all the stuff that they're producing when they get rid of the middle class? In the societies with upper-to-lower (and no middle), the upper class is a VERY small percentage.
Originally posted by: benchiu
Originally posted by: HokieESM
I think all CEOs should be paid an integral multiple of the lowest paid employee at their company. No stock, no golden parachutes. (isn't a CEO owning stock like the DEFINITION of insider trading? not only do you have a certain amount of information, you can INFLUENCE stock price). And it can be a HIGH multiple (100... 200... 500?). But some of the CEOs would think twice about moving a job from America to India when the lowest worker goes from a $20K a year janitor to a $2000 a year IT person. Oh... and someone was asking why this was bad: who is going to buy all the stuff that they're producing when they get rid of the middle class? In the societies with upper-to-lower (and no middle), the upper class is a VERY small percentage.
Actually, that has been tried before, I think it was Peoplesoft that first tried paying their CEO a certain multiple of the lowest paid employee. It didn't work and they got rid of that policy pretty quickly. You simply can't attract the proper talent/leadership with that method.
Nonsense. The law requires the label to state the country of origin and there are still many goods made right here in the US of A. I'm betting they don't even look at any label other than the price tag and never have."Buying American" almost doesnt exist anymore. The global marketplace has changed so much that it's impossible to distinguish "American" goods from others.