• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

"It is a problem for America, but it is not necessarily a problem for business."

Phokus

Phokus

Lifer
http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/2010/07/06/americas-waning-days-of-opportunity/

Tom Wilson, the CEO of Allstate (another underwriter of the festival), made the essential — and brave — point that the fates of American business and American society may be starting to diverge. “I’ll get them [workers] anywhere in the world,” Wilson said. “It is a problem for America, but it is not necessarily a problem for business. I have workers in Belfast, I have workers all over the world. American business will adapt.” Like Splinter, Wilson urged more investment in education.
Click to expand...

Finally, one CEO who'll readily admit how America's being hurt badly by these insane free trade policies.

How often have we have these weasels lie through their teeth and tell us that outsourcing of jobs is actually GOOD for us?*

*By "us", they mean the top 1% of Americans who benefit from the destruction of the middle class.
 
The responsibilities of the company is to earn money/value for the people that own the company.

Just like your responsibility is to earn a wage to support your family.
You can choose how you wish to obtain that wage; honest work, pan handling, theft, fraud, drugs, etc.
Some methods have a greater ROE of your time than others - it is up to you to choose, no one else.

If the people that own the company feel that they get a better ROE using offshore then they should.
ROE can be subjective - that is up to the owners to decide not the observers
 
Maybe if we hadn't spent the last half of the century convincing people that we can have anything and everything we want, and the government will take care of our every need, and it is our right to succeed in spite of our own efforts, we wouldn't have a population that expects to maintain an ever improving quality of life while working less and less to achieve it.
 
Less work in the US means less money to spend on the products these companies make. Isn't it in their best interest to keep their customer base working?
 
Invest in education, YES, its very necessary. But I have one question for the dimwit numnut, you will get workers anywhere, true, very true, but where in the name of emm effin god will you get emm effin customers you moron, good luck trying to expand you business to China, India and Korea, Idiot.
 
I wish I was top 1%. Like most small business owners I depend on a large middle class to make any money... sold houses to them now sell booze want to sell food but I'm too scared. Likewise I depended on middle class paying for my education and a middle class job to get seed money and get credit built up over the years to borrow in the first place. My name is not GWB who can drive multiple businesses in ground and get 5 million to start another. I got only one shot! Maybe I can build yachts for them? Doubt that too since one of their friends will own Yacht building business and farm all work to slave wages someplace. Basically we are fucked until we re-learn lessons of old. Tariffs, unions and high progressive taxation to redistribute the marbles. Or we could go back to homesteading which was made illegal in 1976.
 
Last edited:
Red Dawn said:
Less work in the US means less money to spend on the products these companies make. Isn't it in their best interest to keep their customer base working?
Click to expand...

That would depend on if cost of investment is still less than profits gained. If it cost less to make something they can get away with selling less, and still make a profit. Fact is though there's still 90% employment, that's a LOT of people earning money still, and spending.
 
Red Dawn said:
Less work in the US means less money to spend on the products these companies make. Isn't it in their best interest to keep their customer base working?
Click to expand...

That's the 'collective view'.

A company employing hundreds sells to thousands or millions. The reduction in their own workforce has no effect on their customer base in their 'individual view'.

But the collective view is a reality for us as a whole; one we are suffering now.

Fern
 
Phokus said:
http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/2010/07/06/americas-waning-days-of-opportunity/



Finally, one CEO who'll readily admit how America's being hurt badly by these insane free trade policies.

How often have we have these weasels lie through their teeth and tell us that outsourcing of jobs is actually GOOD for us?*

*By "us", they mean the top 1% of Americans who benefit from the destruction of the middle class.
Click to expand...

The rest of the world has the right to improve their standard of living...

With that said, American consumers also have the choice of choosing to do business with the ones that employ Americans, unless the entire industry has been moved offshore. My comment relates to being able to speak to an insurance company rep who speaks English well. I don't really care where they push their papers as long as my privacy is respected.

I, for one, don't do business with Allstate.
 
xj0hnx said:
That would depend on if cost of investment is still less than profits gained. If it cost less to make something they can get away with selling less, and still make a profit. Fact is though there's still 90% employment, that's a LOT of people earning money still, and spending.
Click to expand...
Not spending like they were and if their earning power decreases then they'll have less disposable income to spend on good from Companies like Nike and the like who employs workers at near slave labor wages, emplyess who can't possibly afford their products themselves.
 
Red Dawn said:
Less work in the US means less money to spend on the products these companies make. Isn't it in their best interest to keep their customer base working?
Click to expand...

It's not about money it's about power. When you have all marbles you can control govts, laws don't apply to you, and you're way ahead of rabble regardless of denominations. Instead Kings chosen “by the grace of God”, who don't answer to ordinary mortals we are replacing that with the “free marketplace” as the new Valhalla.
 
Zebo said:
It's not about money it's about power. When you have all marbles you can control govts, laws don't apply to you, and you're way ahead of rabble regardless of denominations. Instead Kings chosen “by the grace of God”, who don't answer to ordinary mortals we are replacing that with the “free marketplace” as the new Valhalla.
Click to expand...
So our Nemesis of the late 20th Century the Communists has been replaced by the Capitalists/ Corporatist of the early 21st Century?
 
Red Dawn said:
So our Nemesis of the late 20th Century the Communists has been replaced by the Capitalists/ Corporatist of the early 21st Century?
Click to expand...

Fuck communism just as bad as totally free market. No we replaced balance preached and served us well by social contract theorists such as Locke/Smith etc with oligarchy.
 
Red Dawn said:
Less work in the US means less money to spend on the products these companies make. Isn't it in their best interest to keep their customer base working?
Click to expand...

More money in India means they will have an increasing lifestyle and have a higher demand for goods and services. Global economy doesn't just mean making stuff in other countries it also means selling stuff there.

Basically they can expand their workforce AND their customer base at the same time.
 
Red Dawn said:
Not spending like they were and if their earning power decreases then they'll have less disposable income to spend on good from Companies like Nike and the like who employs workers at near slave labor wages, emplyess who can't possibly afford their products themselves.
Click to expand...

It depends on what you are talking about, there is too broad a brush there. For instance our customers, we saw a huge influx of new pilots the last three years, because of price, and availablity from a new company, that company drove over all prices down in the field. That sheer volume of new customers is down a little, but the core is still spending what they spent then.

Funny story, we had a customer call and cancel an order the week they voted to extend or stop unemployment benefits sighting that he didn't know if he was going to be getting another check, he called back afterwards and replaced his order.
 
Phokus said:
-snip-

How often have we have these weasels lie through their teeth and tell us that outsourcing of jobs is actually GOOD for us?*
Click to expand...

IMO, "outsourcing" is just another term for globalization.

Politicians love globalization, yet decry "outsourcing". It's a farce.

Think globalization is just selling your products abroad for profit to spend back here? Well, 'services' are a product too, and that's what others are selling to us - i.e., outsourcing of jobs.

'Services' are what the average American has to offer, and globalization devalues that by making us compete to sell our services with others in poorer countries.

IMO, the larger view of globalization is that it's a system to 'average' the world. Poorer countries will get richer, richer countries will get poorer. Given that we are/were on the richer scale you can guess my opinion of where that will put us.

Solution? Yeah, the world is engaged in economic war with one another. We need smarter trade agreements that benefit us. That's not 'PC' ("we're raping poor countries" etc) , but we've got to find a way to maintain (or grow) our wealth and still help poorer countries improve. But not to our detriment as is happening now.

Somewhere in here resources plays a big role, and we're not managing those very well. I don't mean CO2 etc, I mean we've depleted much of ours' such as lumber and must purchase that from other countries. If you can't manage to be self-sustaining, somebody else has you by the short-hairs.

Fern
 
Red Dawn said:
Not spending like they were and if their earning power decreases then they'll have less disposable income to spend on good from Companies like Nike and the like who employs workers at near slave labor wages, emplyess who can't possibly afford their products themselves.
Click to expand...

But eventually the people will demand a better standard of living. China is currently moving in that direction and so the "slave labor" will be found elsewhere while more and more people in China will become consumers.
 
Darwin333 said:
But eventually the people will demand a better standard of living. China is currently moving in that direction and so the "slave labor" will be found elsewhere while more and more people in China will become consumers.
Click to expand...

yeah in 100 years.
 
Fern said:
IMO, "outsourcing" is just another term for globalization.

Politicians love globalization, yet decry "outsourcing". It's a farce.

Think globalization is just selling your products abroad for profit to spend back here? Well, 'services' are a product too, and that's what others are selling to us - i.e., outsourcing of jobs.

'Services' are what the average American has to offer, and globalization devalues that by making us compete to sell our services with others in poorer countries.

IMO, the larger view of globalization is that it's a system to 'average' the world. Poorer countries will get richer, richer countries will get poorer. Given that we are/were on the richer scale you can guess my opinion of where that will put us.

Solution? Yeah, the world is engaged in economic war with one another. We need smarter trade agreements that benefit us. That's not 'PC' ("we're raping poor countries" etc) , but we've got to find a way to maintain (or grow) our wealth and still help poorer countries improve. But not to our detriment as is happening now.

Somewhere in here resources plays a big role, and we're not managing those very well. I don't mean CO2 etc, I mean we've depleted much of ours' such as lumber and must purchase that from other countries. If you can't manage to be self-sustaining, somebody else has you by the short-hairs.

Fern
Click to expand...

While I am not familiar with the lumber market, I believe you are spot on in your statement but fell short on the real "got you by the short-hairs" and that is energy. Lumber might be important but without energy all the lumber in the world won't stop us from diving into the worst depression we have ever seen. We have allowed ourselves, and continue to allow our economy, to be controlled by other countries, some of which don't particularly care for us. It isn't some evil corporation that did that to us either, it was and is us.
 
JSt0rm01 said:
yeah in 100 years.
Click to expand...

Or maybe tomorrow?

It only takes a small portion of China's population to replace our "middle class" and its not an all or nothing deal. China was just an example, if you really think that these corporations aren't marketing and selling their services/goods to other countries then you are naive, a fool, or both.

Like I said, "global economy" does not mean that goods are made elsewhere and ONLY sold in the US. When you drop the cost of production to $5 for an item that sells for $50 in the US that doesn't mean that you must sell it for $50 to make a profit.
 
JSt0rm01 said:
the only answer is to suck moar oil out of the aerth!!!1!!1!!
Click to expand...

That is exactly right, at least for the next 20-30 years IF and only if we develop a sound energy plan today and we follow through with it. That will also require significant investment from the government (at least a trillion dollars, not billions). The private sector isn't going to carry us on this one bud.

If you have a better idea I am all ears but since I make a living in renewable energy and used to drill for oil I have a pretty good picture of our energy needs and capabilities. So please do tell, what is your grand plan to get us off of "suck moar oil out of the aerth!!!" regardless of who is doing the "sucking"? One stipulation is your plan can't nuke the economy or put our nation at a further economic disadvantage. Whatcha got?
 
Fern said:
That's the 'collective view'.

A company employing hundreds sells to thousands or millions. The reduction in their own workforce has no effect on their customer base in their 'individual view'.

But the collective view is a reality for us as a whole; one we are suffering now.

Fern
Click to expand...
Tragedy of the Commons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top