Tell me why I should vote for Kerry

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: lordtyranus
Are you retarded? Or do you not grasp the American economy? ...

WTF laws are you talking about?... I know, you love evil, so I'm going to stop talking to you as well.

Having fun with your friends from the conservtative thread yesterday. LOL. You were sure yucking it up. Gues they're not that funny now. Yesterday you were sharing in the laughs, now he's calling you retarded. Hmmm... :laugh:

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: lordtyranus
Are you retarded? Or do you not grasp the American economy? ...

WTF laws are you talking about?... I know, you love evil, so I'm going to stop talking to you as well.

Having fun with your friends from the conservtative thread yesterday. LOL. You were sure yucking it up. Gues they're not that funny now. Yesterday you were sharing in the laughs, now he's calling you retarded. Hmmm... :laugh:

I'm trying to find my trolling style, back off, man...

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

*looks around cubicle*
Huh, this office building sure FEELS like it's a corporation. You obviously don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. Just put your blinders back on and keep pretending money is the only important thing in the world.

Hmm, that's surprising. Money isn't the most imprtant thing in the world, but it's one of the most important things. And it should the the most important thing to a company. Have you ever stopped to think how many other jobs would be lost if a company had to incur the costs of bringing all the overseas jobs back to the US? You think they could afford it, as long as they cut the CEO's salary?

I have to admit, I am surprised that you work for a corporation and aren't more concerned about the bottom line. Do you receive stock options or bonuses, based on the company's performance? Telemarketers also work in cubicals for a corporation, and I can understand why they wouldn't give a crap about their company's profits.

 

[lordtyranus]

WTF laws are you talking about?
BTW, you think the type of worker whose job gets shipped overseas is likely to own stock? Sure, some of them may, but I would guess not more than 10% of them. I know, you love evil, so I'm going to stop talking to you as well.

Laws governing economics and business.

If you don't own stock that's your own fault for not investing in your future.

*looks around cubicle*
Huh, this office building sure FEELS like it's a corporation. You obviously don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. Just put your blinders back on and keep pretending money is the only important thing in the world

If money is not important then why are you crying about losing jobs to oursourcing?

Wherever you work, its a good think you are a worker bee and not an executive.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Rob9874

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

*looks around cubicle*
Huh, this office building sure FEELS like it's a corporation. You obviously don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. Just put your blinders back on and keep pretending money is the only important thing in the world.

Hmm, that's surprising. Money isn't the most imprtant thing in the world, but it's one of the most important things. And it should the the most important thing to a company. Have you ever stopped to think how many other jobs would be lost if a company had to incur the costs of bringing all the overseas jobs back to the US? You think they could afford it, as long as they cut the CEO's salary?

I have to admit, I am surprised that you work for a corporation and aren't more concerned about the bottom line. Do you receive stock options or bonuses, based on the company's performance? Telemarketers also work in cubicals for a corporation, and I can understand why they wouldn't give a crap about their company's profits.

No, I'm a web developer / DBA. The only bonus I get is a bigger raise if I performed well the previous year. Money's main importance is in providing the essentials of life, and little else beyond that. I'm concerned with my company's profits only because they relate to me being able to provide a house for my family. But I do my best to call them on it whenever they try anything I consider unethical.
You'd probably also be surprised that my job prior to this was serving in the military.
Like so many other things, outsourcing is a pandora's box that's a bitch to get closed once you open it. Do you think maybe outsourcing has had something of an effect on our economy domestically? The consumers that lost their jobs or had to take lower paying jobs spend HUGE amounts domestically, and that's not gonna happen with any of the money being paid to outsourced foreign employees, now is it?

 

[lordtyranus]

The consumers that lost their jobs or had to take lower paying jobs spend HUGE amounts domestically, and that's not gonna happen with any of the money being paid to outsourced foreign employees, now is it?

They won't be spending the money, but the investors who just received a higher dividend certainly will instead.

 

[Rob9874]

What is the national unemployment rate these days, something like 5.4%? How much of that is attributed to outsourcing? I don't think a job overseas = a lost domestic job. On an individual level maybe, but from a grand scheme of things, I seriously doubt it. I could be wrong, and would like to see data on it.

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: Rob9874
What is the national unemployment rate these days, something like 5.4%? How much of that is attributed to outsourcing? I don't think a job overseas = a lost domestic job. On an individual level maybe, but from a grand scheme of things, I seriously doubt it. I could be wrong, and would like to see data on it.

Yeah, I see outsourcing as slave labour for the US economy. I'm sure it's costing some jobs, but it's also pumping billions into the pockets of Amercian businessmen.

I don't think outsourcing is the main economic problem in the US right now.

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
I'm sure it's costing some jobs, but it's also pumping billions into the pockets of all Amercians.

Fixed your statement. You benefit from outsourcing when you can buy a nice computer for $1200, and not $4000. You benefit when you can buy the latest DVD player for $99, and not $700.

When costs go up, companies pass that on to the consumer. When cigarette taxes increase, do you think RJ Reynolds eats that cost? No, the price of cigarettes just goes up. If the price of labor increased, I think the price of goods would increase as well. So great, we'd be creating more domestic jobs, but those people couldn'f afford the very goods they're making.

 

[Moonbeam]

So, Mill, how's it coming along.

 

[kage69]

Fixed your statement. You benefit from outsourcing when you can buy a nice computer for $1200, and not $4000. You benefit when you can buy the latest DVD player for $99, and not $700.

PCs sold for $4000 back in 94 largely because certain memory components were only manufactured at a single solitary plant in Northern Japan, which later was destroyed by fire during an earthquake. Demand far exceed supply, hence the prices. Once that facility (and other newer ones in Taiwan and South Korea) came back into production prices came down dramatically, and all this happened long before the outsourcing trend that started during Bush's term. The latest DVD players at $99? You're on crack, not to mention painting exaggerated pictures to further your argument.


There is a certain amount of outsourcing to be expected, and it does benefit consumers but mostly companies. Where these companies get into hot water is when they try to relocate a facility overseas purely to maintain CEO payrolls. I read awhile ago about a town in Georgia that re-wrote laws, gave tax credits, and the employees even accepted pay cuts if the company would just stay put and not take away 400-some jobs. The projected loss for the company were it to stay local would have been a paltry $1million. Company packed up and left anyway. :frown: Crap like that is what makes people mad, myself included.

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: kage69

Fixed your statement. You benefit from outsourcing when you can buy a nice computer for $1200, and not $4000. You benefit when you can buy the latest DVD player for $99, and not $700.

PCs sold for $4000 back in 94 largely because certain memory components were only manufactured at a single solitary plant in Northern Japan, which later was destroyed by fire during an earthquake. Demand far exceed supply, hence the prices. Once that facility (and other newer ones in Taiwan and South Korea) came back into production prices came down dramatically, and all this happened long before the outsourcing trend that started during Bush's term.

That is so wrong. When I was in college in the mid-90's, we learned so much about the pros and cons of outsourcing. Michael Moore made "Roger & Me" in 1989 about GM's outsourcing to Mexico. This is not some new trend that Bush has started, despite what you've heard on Air America. I know Intel has been outsourcing labor since the 90's. You can't tell me that if all their chips were manufactured in the US, with 4X the labor costs, PCs wouldn't be more expensive.

The latest DVD players at $99? You're on crack, not to mention painting exaggerated pictures to further your argument.

This is my DVD player. I bought it for $99 to replace my old Sony DVD player that I bought in '99 (for $450!), because this one has progressive scan, plays DVRs, and plays MP3 discs. Know your facts before you begin to argue. It makes you not look so dumb.

There is a certain amount of outsourcing to be expected, and it does benefit consumers but mostly companies. Where these companies get into hot water is when they try to relocate a facility overseas purely to maintain CEO payrolls. I read awhile ago about a town in Georgia that re-wrote laws, gave tax credits, and the employees even accepted pay cuts if the company would just stay put and not take away 400-some jobs. The projected loss for the company were it to stay local would have been a paltry $1million. Company packed up and left anyway. :frown: Crap like that is what makes people mad, myself included.

First of all, companies don't outsource to pay for CEOs' salaries. My company has 80,000 employees worldwide, and there are enough checks and balances to override any decision made that merely pads the CEO's wallet. Contrary to what you may think, CEO's do not always have dictatorship authority over how their company runs. Your example of a company that saved $1 million by outsourcing labor is one example. I guarantee their decision to outsource based on a $1 million ROI means their revenue is relatively small. Say their revenue is $2.5 million, and their operating expenses are $1.5 million, yeah, I would say a $1 million savings would justify outsourcing. Regardless of the $50,000 in tax savings the town offered. And I guarantee their CEO isn't getting the majority of that savings. But most large corporations that are outsourcing, which are capable of employing many people, are saving alot more than $1 million by doing so.

Companies structure their CEO's pay so that he is compensated for increasing profit. Sometimes that is done by reducing costs. It's done to motivate them to make the company succeed. So yes, a result of outsourcing is always going to be an increase in pay for the CEO. But that is not why the company and shareholders decide to do it. It also makes money for all the employees, and all the shareholders. If my company didn't outsource, they might not be able to pay me enough to buy a home, or to provide health insurance for me. No, I'm not willing to give that up, just to bring low-paying jobs back to the US.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

First off -- I'm not a partisan person, but I do lean toward the Libertarian and Republican side.

That's an oxymoron, but not the way it used to be. If you think about this a little bit, you answered your own question.

HINT: Checks and balances.

 

[Rob9874]

I suggest all the libs read this article before continuing to argue about outsourcing. How many of you have business degrees? How many of you fully understand what you're arguing about? The problem I have with most lib arguments is that they're almost always oversimplified. I never get the feeling that liberals are fully educated on the topic at hand. "US companies hiring people overseas? That must mean a lost job in the US!"

Rage against off-shoring is off target - cnn.com

Or is it just real stupidity? The fact is, we can't stop off-shoring -- and we shouldn't try.

The U.S. is helping the rest of the world work its way into wealth. That is in all of our interests. And it isn't a zero-sum game.

That's the problem. Libs think everything is a zero sum game. He even calls that out in this article. Why can't you understand the concept of win/win? Everything is a conspiracy to make the rich richer. :roll:

 

[AntiEverything]

You'd think liberals would be all about sending jobs overseas. They love the UN and want the US to be a member in good stading of the international community. If we send some of our money to the underpriveleged in other countries, isn't that a good thing?

Or is just more hypocrisy?