Senate GOP blocks bill that would promote less outsourcing

[Freshgeardude]

Unless this bill caused taxation on the companies with a greater amount than what they are saving from outsourcing, this bill would have been yet another ploy by the democrats to increase the taxes on the rich.


I dont see a tax honestly outweighing the savings, especially if we look at how cheap labor is in china.

 

[LunarRay]

I feel for the people who will lose their job as a result of out-sourcing. I'm losing my job next month (although not because of outsourcing, but budget cuts.) But I think we are wiser to focus on a long term solution, which requires a frank recognition that people are going to buy the cheapest goods they can. We can continue to delay the inevitable (that we cannot compete with developing countries' manufacturing prowess), or we can recognize it and make the uncomfortable choice of diverting our work-force to something we can do that China/Vietnam/India can't. Yes, people will suffer short term. But we'll be on the right track, and in the long term we will prosper as a result.

FWIW, Comparative Advantage isn't right wing ideology. It's one of the core principles of microeconomics .

The economic affect of 'outsourcing' should be looked at in the near term and the long term and the agenda that drives it. Additionally, we should look at how each 'outsourcing' entity (or segment if appropriate) provides what benefit to the US economy or doesn't.
I submit that IF the ownership of such 'outsourced' activities are owned by US citizens that is one thing and has some benefits to the US economy aside from price reduction (?) and if ownership lives elsewhere why would that be supported by our elected officials.
IF the folks who are employed by the 'Outsourcing' providers spend their monies on US products that could be good or if they don't you need to ask with whom do they establish benefit. And, what might be the agenda that supports, if not encourages, that.

Sure Americans and most everyone else will buy according to the theoretical expectations even to the detriment of their own economy and ergo, its population... so what might underlay support for that condition in the US? Could it be the methodology that in the near term we suffer but in the long term we all... the planet... reach equilibrium and when that situation is achieved we'll not war, we'll obviate poverty, and on and on...
But, who might be in charge of the new Eden? Are these Eden creators suffering today? Do they care about the people alive today or is their agenda looking out fifty or more years with no regard for the reality such an agenda provides?

Does the power that understands, supports, and established this One World Order concept care about how they get us to that ideal?

Might these thinkers have in mind the notion that the best world is one in which there is one class.... and they as the elite group insuring the survival of the complying?

 

[GaiaHunter]

Sure Americans and most everyone else will buy according to the theoretical expectations even to the detriment of their own economy and ergo, its population... so what might underlay support for that condition in the US? Could it be the methodology that in the near term we suffer but in the long term we all... the planet... reach equilibrium and when that situation is achieved we'll not war, we'll obviate poverty, and on and on...

Look at this way.

Person A and Person B, similar income, go shopping and both need to buy the same things to survive.

Person A buys made in US products if there is a choice between US/foreign product (or if you want to branch it only made in their homeland) while Person B buys whatever product offer's the best price/quality, regardless of where it is produced.

Person A spends $150. Person B spends $100.

Person B is now $50 richer than person A, since it spend $50 less to obtain the same products.

Some people will say "Oh but person A is helping US economy, while person B is being selfish".

And at this point most people stop thinking, feeling satisfied that person A is the better human being. But is it?

It isn't the end of the story.

With those extra $50 person B now can do stuff person A cant.

Maybe person B will buy some cheese, maybe it will go to the cinema or have a meal, maybe it will buy some made in US t-shirt, save it to buy a new phone, save it for kids education, etc.

If everyone was like person A all those other products and jobs in which all person B spend will suffer.

It is easy to see the jobs person A help saving but it is harder to see the jobs person B is creating by choosing the best price/quality products.

As we can see, person B not only is helping creating efficient competitive jobs but it is also having a higher quality of life.

"Ah" you say "there isn't enough products/services/categories where US products are the most efficient!".

And that is who's fault? The person that is simply trying to have the best possible life?

Why is it that in several categories US isn't competitive? And is it only because of wages? Or are there other barriers to competitiveness?

Because despite wages there areas where US is competitive.

Why isn't US making part of the stuff it imports? How can it be cheaper to produce abroad and then import it if US has a trade deficit? How can US import European goods and then it is cheaper for Europeans to fly over US and buy them instead of buying them directly in Europe?

 

[lothar]

Unless this bill caused taxation on the companies with a greater amount than what they are saving from outsourcing, this bill would have been yet another ploy by the democrats to increase the taxes on the rich.


I dont see a tax honestly outweighing the savings , especially if we look at how cheap labor is in china.

What moron executive would change their mind because of this bill?
If you save $1 million by moving to China/Vietnam, or stay here and get refunded 35%(The "payroll" tax isn't anywhere near this percentage of corporate income and I'm using maximum corporate tax with no deductions) of $1 million($350,000) to stay.

You lost $650,000+ by not moving to China or Vietnam.

This bill is a tax deduction, not a tax credit.
Two different things.

Only stupid people would think that because the government allows them to claim a tax deduction of $100, they would get $100 back from the government in their hand.

 

[Darwin333]

Explain me how that works because I don't see how it can work.

Actually it seems that it is because US is a consumer society that doesn't produce enough for its own consumption that it is in a recession that has good chances of going into depression.

Well, US actually produces something massively - US dollars which have been financing the consumption, but that is only paper with some ink on it.

I guess that is why Gold (something that can't be created from thin air at a whim) keeps going from record high into record high.

Maybe the day we go into a shop with a credit/debit card and pay in grams of gold isn't to far away.

The vast majority of gold is mined outside of the United States. Having another country, or a lot of other countries, or a vast corporation who can buy up all those mines control the "supply" of our currency is just not smart.

An "asset" backed currency should only be considered if that asset is made entirely within our own borders. Unfortunately you still get back to the same problem, someone will always be able to manipulate the supply. Personally, as bad as it might seem, I would much rather the US government control the supply of whatever it is we use for currency in the US than the Somali's or Chinese or Ruskies or even the Europeans for that matter.

 

[Narmer]

It's done once, on your way out of the country (so to speak).

After that it would be a foreign corporation and not subject to US tax (generally).

Fern

What about American companies that outsource? THey don't leave the country but it's just the same with them. The only difference is once all the work has been transplanted, they do not get taxed differently, right?

 

[GaiaHunter]

The vast majority of gold is mined outside of the United States. Having another country, or a lot of other countries, or a vast corporation who can buy up all those mines control the "supply" of our currency is just not smart.

An "asset" backed currency should only be considered if that asset is made entirely within our own borders. Unfortunately you still get back to the same problem, someone will always be able to manipulate the supply. Personally, as bad as it might seem, I would much rather the US government control the supply of whatever it is we use for currency in the US than the Somali's or Chinese or Ruskies or even the Europeans for that matter.

It doesn't matter.

Gold is rare and it requires effort to mine it.

If there is no supply it simply means the Fed can't print more dollars because each dollar is linked to a specific amount of gold - to print more money the Fed needs to buy more gold. If the dollar start to loses value because of the US economy losing competitiveness, the Fed will have to remove dollars for circulation (or buy more gold). US economy becomes more competitive, each dollar starts to be worth more gold and so Fed prints more dollars.

That makes impossible, or at least much harder, for governments going crazy with budget deficits.

Why do you think the US got rid of the Gold standard?

Because that kept the crazy ambitions of politicians in check.

A Gold standard is a leash on government.