Why the Hatred for Outsourcing?

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Give some thought to this while you're in the shower. What do we need to maintain a middle class standard of living in this country? Where does our wealth come from? What is the source of wealth? Is it really possible to obtain a "lower price" and to get something for nothing or do we have to produce our wealth? Should we produce wealth for ourselves or should we trade our land and our capital assets to purchase wealth other people have produced?

I watched Wall Street last night (With Charley and Martin Sheen) and Martin Sheen said it best...

It's time you started to produce something, rather living off the buying and selling of others. ...

He's so very right.....

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: Deudalus
Ya know it is interesting and it almost belongs in that oxymoron thread (like the pro-life pro-death penalty people being hypocrites and such).

Left leaning people are in general more worried about how the world thinks, wants more world involvement, and preaches how important everyone else is not just Americans.

But then outsource some jobs and those same people who are just as valuable as we are are all the sudden not quite so important as we are.

You seem to have no grasp of any poltics right of pure facism. Here, let me help you out a bit.

There is a difference between wanting to generally help people, as well as help people help themselves and giving all you have away to help someone. Sort of like this scenario.


Scenario 1

You give a homeless guy some clothes, some basic skill training and help him go job hunting till he finds a job. You help him find an apartment and teach him how to properly grocery shop for himself. You take him to AA so he can clean up, to a barber shop where they teach him how to groom himself properly. You buy him a few college courses so his brain starts working again. (Btw, all the while he is getting incentive to do this). you befriend him, than you take him back to homeless strip and let him see how far hes come. Usually they will want to stay where they now are (poverty to middle class). (this can also apply to helping other countries start an economy.)

Society now has two contributors

Scenario 2

You find a homeless guy and give him a few basic college courses and job specific training. You than give the homeless guy your job since the job specific training was for you. You than take the homeless guys clothes are a while and go sit on the corner with his bucket as he works your job. You feel warm fuzzies because you helped out society.

Society still has one, very inferior contributor.



The left generally wants to do #1.

 

[SpunkyJones]

Originally posted by: Engineer
Because it's taking an Amercan's job, that's why. The only people to benefit from the outsourcing are the investor class, which is typically the upper 1% of the population (1% owns over 80% of all stocks of business). The rest of us piss ants get the trickle down...and shit rolls down hill so that's our trickle.

Fuck the rest of the world. Let them even the currency and have "FAIR" trade rules. Until then, fuck em.

Why should Americans give up their jobs so that other countries can have jobs. Why can't they develope their own jobs? Why don't you go to their countries and help them or better yet, donate your job to them?

:thumbsup:

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: SpunkyJones

Originally posted by: Engineer
Because it's taking an Amercan's job, that's why. The only people to benefit from the outsourcing are the investor class, which is typically the upper 1% of the population (1% owns over 80% of all stocks of business). The rest of us piss ants get the trickle down...and shit rolls down hill so that's our trickle.

Fuck the rest of the world. Let them even the currency and have "FAIR" trade rules. Until then, fuck em.

Why should Americans give up their jobs so that other countries can have jobs. Why can't they develope their own jobs? Why don't you go to their countries and help them or better yet, donate your job to them?

:thumbsup:

I wish everyone that supports this view would take a step back and do a little thought expirement. When america was young, and we were still moving west, did some jobs that were done on the east coast move to the new cities? If they did, what happened to the people who used to do those jobs on the east coast?

 

[BarneyFife]

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: SpunkyJones

Originally posted by: Engineer
Because it's taking an Amercan's job, that's why. The only people to benefit from the outsourcing are the investor class, which is typically the upper 1% of the population (1% owns over 80% of all stocks of business). The rest of us piss ants get the trickle down...and shit rolls down hill so that's our trickle.

Fuck the rest of the world. Let them even the currency and have "FAIR" trade rules. Until then, fuck em.

Why should Americans give up their jobs so that other countries can have jobs. Why can't they develope their own jobs? Why don't you go to their countries and help them or better yet, donate your job to them?

:thumbsup:

I wish everyone that supports this view would take a step back and do a little thought expirement. When america was young, and we were still moving west, did some jobs that were done on the east coast move to the new cities? If they did, what happened to the people who used to do those jobs on the east coast?

So we should move to China???

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: SpunkyJones

Originally posted by: Engineer
Because it's taking an Amercan's job, that's why. The only people to benefit from the outsourcing are the investor class, which is typically the upper 1% of the population (1% owns over 80% of all stocks of business). The rest of us piss ants get the trickle down...and shit rolls down hill so that's our trickle.

Fuck the rest of the world. Let them even the currency and have "FAIR" trade rules. Until then, fuck em.

Why should Americans give up their jobs so that other countries can have jobs. Why can't they develope their own jobs? Why don't you go to their countries and help them or better yet, donate your job to them?

:thumbsup:

I wish everyone that supports this view would take a step back and do a little thought expirement. When america was young, and we were still moving west, did some jobs that were done on the east coast move to the new cities? If they did, what happened to the people who used to do those jobs on the east coast?

As Barney stated, move to China if you want outsourcing/offshoring. Give them your job if you want them to have jobs. Otherwise, don't preach on giving other's jobs to the rest of the world.

 

[Slew Foot]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: geoffry

I chose a field where a nearly limitless amount of people can work, so I think I'm safe unless I make plenty of mistakes and go belly up.

Although now some of those evil machines do the work people used to.

Please...please tell the American masses what this magical field is! A field where a nearly limitless amount of people can work (and presumably be able to afford a middle class or at least lower middle class lifestyle)?

I suppose nursing is as close as you can get in the US right now. Easy to train for, buckets of pay and opportunities. In CA with OT, nurses make more than some physicians, its pretty pathetic.

Anyhoo, death to the outsourcers, the rest of the world can go F themselves.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: SpunkyJones

Originally posted by: Engineer
Because it's taking an Amercan's job, that's why. The only people to benefit from the outsourcing are the investor class, which is typically the upper 1% of the population (1% owns over 80% of all stocks of business). The rest of us piss ants get the trickle down...and shit rolls down hill so that's our trickle.

Fuck the rest of the world. Let them even the currency and have "FAIR" trade rules. Until then, fuck em.

Why should Americans give up their jobs so that other countries can have jobs. Why can't they develope their own jobs? Why don't you go to their countries and help them or better yet, donate your job to them?

:thumbsup:

I wish everyone that supports this view would take a step back and do a little thought expirement. When america was young, and we were still moving west, did some jobs that were done on the east coast move to the new cities? If they did, what happened to the people who used to do those jobs on the east coast?

As Barney stated, move to China if you want outsourcing/offshoring. Give them your job if you want them to have jobs. Otherwise, don't preach on giving other's jobs to the rest of the world.

Except, we would all bitch and moan when the cost of goods/services go up if we kept all of these jobs home.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: SpunkyJones

Originally posted by: Engineer
Because it's taking an Amercan's job, that's why. The only people to benefit from the outsourcing are the investor class, which is typically the upper 1% of the population (1% owns over 80% of all stocks of business). The rest of us piss ants get the trickle down...and shit rolls down hill so that's our trickle.

Fuck the rest of the world. Let them even the currency and have "FAIR" trade rules. Until then, fuck em.

Why should Americans give up their jobs so that other countries can have jobs. Why can't they develope their own jobs? Why don't you go to their countries and help them or better yet, donate your job to them?

:thumbsup:

I wish everyone that supports this view would take a step back and do a little thought expirement. When america was young, and we were still moving west, did some jobs that were done on the east coast move to the new cities? If they did, what happened to the people who used to do those jobs on the east coast?

As Barney stated, move to China if you want outsourcing/offshoring. Give them your job if you want them to have jobs. Otherwise, don't preach on giving other's jobs to the rest of the world.

Except, we would all bitch and moan when the cost of goods/services go up if we kept all of these jobs home.

And those costs haven't went up anyway? How about a depreciating dollar because of the money being lent back to us to help our deficits? (acutally, the lower dollar plus higher shipping costs might start / be reversing this trend...only time will tell). Productivity has went up tremendously during that time also to the point that the US worker is the most productive per capita in the world yet our wages are stagnant (or negative vs inflation for over 1/2 decade). Consumerism = 2/3 of our national product (GPP - and I'm not sure why spending money = so much. I would like to think that things PRODUCED = product but that's another story). Consumers need good paying jobs to keep the money flowing (or credit cards/ home equity and we see how that is working out). Keep sending producing jobs out of the country and you will se the US like every other empire in history before long.....fallen.

 

[1prophet]

How the top retailer in America controls the fate of outsourcing and imports.

If you suffer from cliff note-ites, there will plenty of time to read the article on the unemployment line or the poor house if those comeback.

Well, how did the Wal-Marts of the world get this power? What gives them this power?

The reason Wal-Mart was able to get the power they have is the U.S. economy has gone through a major transition where jobs have been moved offshore for cost reasons. Once jobs have moved offshore, U.S. manufacturers no longer have an edge in terms of where things are made, and it really shifts power to the hands of the companies that are selling these products, that know what U.S. consumers want. So Wal-Mart and other companies like them have developed global sourcing networks that allow them to identify factories all around the world that can make what they need at a relatively low price and with all the other features or specifications that Wal-Mart wants.

So these global retailers have really become the companies that scan the globe for the best producers anywhere in the world. They've become disconnected from the production side.


So are you saying retailers like Wal-Mart are deciding where things are going to be produced; that it's Wal-Mart deciding it's going to be done in China, rather than India or Bangladesh?

Right. Retailers like Wal-Mart are deciding where production should take place around the world and how production should shift from one country to another. ?


So where does Wal-Mart get this clout?

Wal-Mart gets its economic power because it is a gateway to the U.S. consumer. Wal-Mart is the largest retailer in the United States. It's the largest employer in the United States. The demand for Wal-Mart stores is what provides China and other countries in Asia with their access to the most powerful capitalist economy in the world. So Wal-Mart is providing a gateway into the American economy for overseas suppliers in China and elsewhere, and it's doing it on a scale that is unprecedented. No company has had the kind of economic power that Wal-Mart does, to be able to source products from around the world. ... Wal-Mart is able to transfer whole U.S. industries to overseas economies.


[Can you name a few of the industries?]

Well, for example, Wal-Mart is the number one supplier in the United States for clothing, for sporting goods, for groceries, for toys. So in a sense, Wal-Mart controls the fate of these U.S. industries in terms of where it's making its purchasing decisions. In the past, those products used to come from the United States. Today, those products come from overseas.

In 1995, 6 percent of Wal-Mart's total merchandise was imported. Today, in 2004, 60 percent of Wal-Mart's total merchandise is imported. That is a dramatic shift that is really taking jobs from the U.S. economy to overseas economies, and Wal-Mart, therefore, becomes the gatekeeper, in many ways, to the U.S. economy.


And this is concentrated demand, because it represents 100 million shoppers a week. It has that power. Is that what does it?

Right. Well, Wal-Mart is a big part of this buyer-driven model of the world economy that exists today, but it's so much bigger than all of the other retailers together that Wal-Mart is almost single-handedly shaping access to U.S. demand. It's really become the paragon company for the buyer-driven global economy. It's got the fate of many U.S. industries in its hands, and it's because Wal-Mart is able to make these concentrated decisions about where goods are going to be produced around the world. And if it wants to shift goods from different offshore locations, it can do it.

But at the beginning, Wal-Mart was one of the key forces that propelled global outsourcing, offshoring of U.S. jobs, precisely because it controls so much of the purchasing power of the U.S. economy. They say that 20 percent of total U.S. demand in the retail sector comes from Wal-Mart sales. So when Wal-Mart has that kind of concentrated clout within the U.S. economy, the decisions it makes about where it's going to go around the world don't just affect the U.S. economy, but they affect the fate of the countries that are exporting to the United States as well. Other countries really want Wal-Mart to be going to them, and so Wal-Mart is in a position to orchestrate what goes on in many different countries around the world, not just the U.S. economy.


So you're saying Wal-Mart has life-or-death decision power over many industries: bicycles, furniture, lawn mowers, microwaves -- not just clothing, apparel, toys and things we're used to seeing made overseas.

Right. Wal-Mart has life-or-death decision [power] over all the consumer goods industries that exist in the United States, because it is the number one supplier, retailer of most of our consumer goods -- goods like not just clothes, shoes, toys, but home appliances, electronic products, sporting goods, bicycles, groceries, food. Wal-Mart goes from high-tech products down to the most essential items we have in the United States, and it's in a commanding position in all of these different industries.


... There are a lot of people in this city, in Washington, who are blaming the Chinese, saying, "The Chinese are doing this; the Chinese are doing that."... In effect, you're saying when we're blaming the Chinese, we're blaming the wrong people. Is that it?

One of the big problems in the global outsourcing debate is that the United States is looking for external enemies. We're trying to blame countries like China or other big exporters to the United States for the import surge we're facing. In fact, the biggest drivers of U.S. imports are U.S. retailers. So we, ourselves, are to blame in some ways for the kind of offshoring of production. ... If we're asking, "Who's to blame for global outsourcing?," we shouldn't be looking at the countries that are exporting to the United States. We should be looking at U.S. firms that are going offshore and offsourcing products. And the biggest U.S. company that supplies goods offshore is Wal-Mart.


But they say, "Oh, we're just following consumer demand." Is that right? Are they just following consumer demand, or [are] they also shaping it? Do they have a power of decision? I mean, everybody sort of says: "It's the power of the market; it's the power of the consumers. All we're doing is responding. This process is inevitable." Is that right?

The Wal-Mart model is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, Wal-Mart is probably the most efficient company in the history of American business. It's pushed a low-cost, global sourcing model to the nth degree. It's created suppliers that produce goods cheaper than they ever could before.

The flip side of that model is that this has come at the cost of U.S. jobs that are actually moving offshore, and even Wal-Mart's own suppliers are concerned that by pushing costs down so low, companies can no longer be profitable. So in a sense, it's like we have two models in the world economy. We have the efficiency model, which is based on low cost and global sourcing, and Wal-Mart is the best company of its kind in promoting efficiency, low-cost sourcing. But we also have an innovation model based on higher wages, new products, good benefits for U.S. workers.

And those two models are in conflict to some degree. Wal-Mart has actually been producing global efficiency, but it's as though the efficiency model doesn't have a floor.


So a race to the bottom?

Wal-Mart is one of the major companies that's been promoting a global race to the bottom. It's like we're on a bus with an accelerator pedal with no brakes. We're going in this global sourcing, global efficiency direction, and it's pushing everybody's costs down to the floor, but suppliers are complaining about this model because they can't make profits. They can't pass higher costs on to Wal-Mart, because Wal-Mart is so big, it holds the fate of any one of its suppliers in its hand. And workers are concerned that, even if you work for Wal-Mart or you work for one of Wal-Mart's suppliers, this efficiency, low-cost model drives your wages to a point where you feel you can't even consume the goods that you're selling or the goods that you're making.

Wal-Mart is the biggest, most respected company in the United States, but it's very interesting to compare Wal-Mart with General Motors, which was the best known, largest, most respected company 50 years ago. I think these two models are radically different models. The Wal-Mart model is premised on global efficiency. The General Motors model was premised on having workers that could afford to buy the products that they made.


Are you suggesting here that Wal-Mart is pushing prices so low and pushing wages so low that it may, in fact, eventually bankrupt its own customers because they won't be making enough money to go shopping?

Wal-Mart is pushing wages down to a level where the people that work in Wal-Mart stores are going to be forced to buy in Wal-Mart stores, because they can't make enough money to buy goods elsewhere in the economy.

The traditional model of American capitalism from the mid-20th century was that American corporations were respected because they were globally efficient, but they also paid their workers a good wage so that workers could become consumers and part of the middle class of American society. I think we've lost that model today, because globalization has pushed Wal-Mart and companies like them towards global efficiency, where consumer prices are the only things that matter. ...


... One of the things you hear Wal-Mart executives, CEO Lee Scott, their CFO [Thomas M. Schoewe], telling Wall Street analysts -- and they don't say this to the broad public very often -- but what they say is global sourcing is improving their profit margins. ...

Right. Global sourcing has not only made Wal-Mart one of the most efficient companies in the world, but it's also made them one of the most profitable companies in the world. Five of the 10 richest Americans are part of the Walton family. That same prosperity, however, hasn't been passed on to Wal-Mart workers, or even to the suppliers that are selling Wal-Mart the goods that they use.

We've got a bifurcated model here. Wal-Mart is doing fine for Wall Street. It's one of the most profitable companies in America. But Wal-Mart is not doing fine for Main Street. Even though it's the largest retailer, competitors to Wal-Mart, other retailers that could afford to pay their workers higher wages [and] more benefits, are being driven out of business by the Wal-Mart phenomenon.


So how does Main Street suffer?

Main Street is suffering because every time Wal-Mart moves into a community, other, smaller retailers get pushed out, because Wal-Mart can undercut their prices 20, 30 percent. And Wal-Mart has deep pockets. Wal-Mart can stay there. Other retailers leave. ...


Is Wal-Mart good for America?

Wal-Mart is both good for America and bad for America. The good side of Wal-Mart is that no other company has been able to deliver the kind of low prices on a continual basis that Wal-Mart has delivered for the U.S. consumer. And it's done so across a wide range of goods.

Wal-Mart is bad for America because it's hurting jobs in the United States. It's hurting jobs in two ways. Wal-Mart is putting a lot of pressure on the jobs of its suppliers, who are finding that they can't meet Wal-Mart prices, so Wal-Mart goes offshore. Those suppliers go out of business.

Wal-Mart is also having a negative impact on employment in the retail sector. Wal-Mart is the largest employer in the United States after the federal government. But Wal-Mart is also very well known for being a non-union company and pushing non-union conditions on its workforce. ... It pays its workers at a minimum pay scale with very few fringe benefits. Because Wal-Mart's the largest private employer in the United States, whatever Wal-Mart does in terms of the labor market, all other businesses have to follow. So Wal-Mart is really determining the direction in which the U.S. labor market is moving.


... In 1994, the most admired company in America was Rubbermaid. In 2003, the most admired company, according to Fortune magazine, was Wal-Mart. If you go back and you talk to people about Rubbermaid, they talk about quality; they talk about value; they talk about innovation. Rubbermaid didn't always charge the lowest price, but it insisted its trash cans and its totes were a lot better, because they were resistant to the sun, and the paint stayed on better and so on and so forth. So they got a premium price. They were not trying to get the lowest price. Then Wal-Mart comes along, and it's, as you said, going for the lowest price, the lowest price, the lowest price. ... If you look at the shift from Rubbermaid as the most admired company in 1994 [to] Wal-Mart as the most admired company today, in terms of the larger American economy, what does that mean? What does that say about the touchstones of success?

Rubbermaid represents an innovation-oriented, high road towards U.S. competitiveness. Wal-Mart represents a cost-driven, low-price low road towards U.S. competitiveness. And in a sense, they're two dramatically different styles in which the U.S. economy can be organized. The Wal-Mart model -- the global sourcing, efficiency model -- is winning out over the innovation-oriented model to a large degree. And that becomes a real challenge for the U.S. workforce. ...

... Suppliers like Rubbermaid valued innovation. They valued good quality for American products, and they also valued skilled workforces. Wal-Mart, on the other hand, has really led a race to the bottom in the U.S. economy, where buyers have the motivation to cut costs and lower prices, but U.S. jobs, U.S. suppliers are irrelevant to that process. ...


When does Wal-Mart go to China, to Asia, to start buying significant amounts of products? And is it the leader, or is it following others?

In the mid-1980s, Wal-Mart pioneered its "Buy America" campaign. At that point, imports were only 6 percent of total Wal-Mart merchandise. In the 1990s, however, Wal-Mart really began to follow a set of other U.S. companies that were going to Asia on a global sourcing model.

By the mid-1990s already, Wal-Mart was the dominant U.S. company in Asia and the dominant U.S. company in global sourcing. And in particular, Wal-Mart has a very close relationship with China. China is the largest exporter to the U.S. economy in virtually all consumer goods categories. Wal-Mart is the largest retailer in the U.S. economy in virtually all consumer goods categories.


It sounds like a commercial marriage made in heaven.

Wal-Mart and China are a joint venture, and both are determined to dominate the U.S. economy as much as they can in a wide range of industries. To illustrate ... Wal-Mart is China's biggest customer in the United States. Last year, Wal-Mart imported $15 billion worth of goods from China.


Directly?

Directly.


How about indirectly?

Indirectly, it would have imported far more than that. But if Wal-Mart were a country, Wal-Mart would have a larger share of China's export than Germany and Great Britain. So Wal-Mart has an enormous hold also on the Chinese economy.


You've been to China. You've talked to the Wal-Mart people in China. What do they tell you? Just what are the basic facts about the numbers of suppliers that Wal-Mart has in China?

When I was in China, I interviewed people in Wal-Mart's global procurement center in Shenzhen and I asked them about the total number of Wal-Mart suppliers, and I was told that Wal-Mart has 6,000 global suppliers. Eighty percent of those suppliers are in China. ... Wal-Mart has suppliers across hundreds and thousands of product lines, but 80 percent of Wal-Mart's global suppliers are located in one country, China.


Were you staggered by that?

I think that's an extremely significant concentration of suppliers. ...


Just how big is Wal-Mart's trade with China, do you think, overall?

We have to look at Wal-Mart's trade with China in two ways: direct Wal-Mart imports from China and indirect imports. Wal-Mart's direct imports from China last year were $15 billion, [making] it the largest single purchaser of Chinese goods.

But Wal-Mart also sources indirectly from China, because many of the brands that are sold in Wal-Mart, like Hasbro and Mattel and [others in] the toy business, those companies also have China factories. So in a sense, Wal-Mart's share of Chinese goods is multiplied. It's got the products it imports directly and the products that it sells through other, branded manufacturers who themselves buy their goods from China.


So what do you guess Wal-Mart's real imports from China are if you put direct and indirect together, $30, $40, $50 billion?

If we put direct and indirect imports together, Wal-Mart could have -- if Wal-Mart's direct imports from China are $15 billion last year, I think its direct and indirect, its total imports from China could be two or three times that number. ...

It's a staggering number.


... You mentioned ... Wal-Mart's "Buy America" campaign, how prominent it was in the mid-'90s. At the time of that "Buy America" program of Sam Walton, was Wal-Mart also importing, or did the importing come along later?

Even at the height of Wal-Mart's "Buy America" campaign, it was purchasing a lot of goods from international sources, because it would be buying from U.S. importers. So "Buy America" meant, "I buy from a company located, headquartered in the United States." It didn't tell us where those companies purchased their goods from.

Wal-Mart's "Buy America" campaign was a bit disingenuous for the American public, because even if Wal-Mart had a low level of direct imports back in the early 1990s, indirectly Wal-Mart was buying from U.S. companies that were sourcing their goods overseas. ...

It's important to understand that even during Wal-Mart's "Buy America" campaign, it was importing directly from overseas sources at a fairly low level -- perhaps less than 10 percent -- but many of Wal-Mart's products were indirect imports from overseas, because the U.S. brands or ... the U.S. companies that Wal-Mart bought from were importing their goods from offshore locations.

So from the very beginning, even during the height of Wal-Mart's "Buy America" campaign, a lot more goods were coming from offshore sources ... than official, direct statistics would indicate.


Now, for the American retail world, which you've described as being enormously powerful, did Wal-Mart lead the way going to China, or did others lead the way and it followed and very rapidly became the biggest?

Wal-Mart didn't lead the way in going to China. The first U.S. retailers that went to Asia back in the 1960s, and especially the 1970s, were companies like Sears, Kmart, JCPenney. They were the early globalizers in the U.S. retail industry.

Wal-Mart came in in a big way in the late 1980s, 1990s, but by the middle of the 1990s, Wal-Mart was the leading U.S. company in terms of global sourcing, and especially doing business in China. So Wal-Mart was a follower, but a fast follower and an extremely large follower of early U.S. business ventures offshore.


... How do you account for Wal-Mart overtaking all these others? What is the secret of Wal-Mart's success? How do they build themselves into such a powerhouse in the mid- to late '90s?

Wal-Mart's growth in the mid- to late '90s is one of the great success stories in American business. They were more single-minded in terms of global cost cutting and internal efficiency than any other U.S. retailer. And that helps us understand how and why they were able to pass companies like Kmart and Sears that were the early leaders in U.S. retailing and offshore sourcing.

So Wal-Mart has really taken the global efficiency model, internalized it and perfected it to a degree that none of the other companies have. And I think Wal-Mart, as an efficiency machine, has just done better than any other U.S. retailer, or perhaps any other U.S. company in history. ...


[Can you talk about how technology contributed to Wal-Mart's success?]

One of the fascinating things about the Wal-Mart story is that we in the public think about the low prices, global cost cutting, but in fact there's a high-technology story which is behind all of this. Wal-Mart was one of the leaders in American business in terms of getting its suppliers to manage Wal-Mart's inventory and to use sophisticated vendor inventory, vendor management systems, so that suppliers knew what individual Wal-Mart stores were selling, and they had the responsibility of providing those goods to those stores. So Wal-Mart really was a pioneer in terms of the information-technology revolution and the global logistics revolution.

Behind Wal-Mart's success are enormously sophisticated computer models that tell suppliers the Wal-Mart pricing in stores, but that also are able to take goods from any global location and bring it to the United States in dramatically more efficient ways than companies could do in the past. ...

One of the secrets of Wal-Mart's success was that they took their technological sophistication from the U.S. market in terms of information technology and logistics and distribution-center management and took it global. And in particular, when they went to China, they had managed to marry the high-technology system in terms of transportation of goods and delivery of goods with low-cost production in Chinese factories. So Wal-Mart has married high tech and low tech in the U.S. retail revolution.


And even though others went to China before them, like Sears, like JCPenney, like Kmart, they were the first to take a highly technical, globalized supply chain to China. Is that it?

Other U.S. retailers have been doing business in Asia and China for a long time. I don't think any other retailer has been as good as Wal-Mart in making that China sourcing a high-tech business venture. ...


[Is] Wal-Mart telling its American suppliers to move their production to China?

Wal-Mart is telling its American suppliers that they have to meet lower price standards that Wal-Mart wants to impose. The implication of that in many cases is if you're going to be able to supply Wal-Mart at the prices Wal-Mart wants, you have to go to China or other offshore locations that would permit you to produce at lower cost. ...


And Wal-Mart's giving them that clear signal?

Wal-Mart's giving them the clear signal that you can't be a Wal-Mart supplier if you can't produce at substantially lower prices.


And the only way you can do that is go to China?

You can go to China, or, in many cases, many U.S. suppliers can't make that move, and they just go out of business, because Wal-Mart is the dominant company for many U.S. suppliers. If they can't go offshore, those suppliers end up going out of business.

So Wal-Mart wants to create a global supply base. If big U.S. suppliers can set up Chinese or other offshore operations, Wal-Mart will continue to do business with them. But many U.S. suppliers aren't big enough to do that, and this price push of Wal-Mart squeezes them either out of the market or looking for other customers and a different kind of business.


So it's either go to China or go out of business?

It's either go to China or go out of business in many cases, yes. ...


In terms of a retailer, have we ever seen anything like Wal-Mart before?

...Wal-Mart's size and the scope of products that Wal-Mart is selling to the U.S. consumer make it a unique phenomenon in U.S. retailing. It's probably the broadest and most powerful company in U.S. business history. Wal-Mart's power to shape overseas sourcing as well as U.S. sales far exceed that of the largest U.S. manufacturers in the past -- whether it's oil companies like Exxon, automotive companies like General Motors or new diversified product companies like General Electric. Wal-Mart has a reach that none of these other companies had, both domestically and globally. ...

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: SpunkyJones

Originally posted by: Engineer
Because it's taking an Amercan's job, that's why. The only people to benefit from the outsourcing are the investor class, which is typically the upper 1% of the population (1% owns over 80% of all stocks of business). The rest of us piss ants get the trickle down...and shit rolls down hill so that's our trickle.

Fuck the rest of the world. Let them even the currency and have "FAIR" trade rules. Until then, fuck em.

Why should Americans give up their jobs so that other countries can have jobs. Why can't they develope their own jobs? Why don't you go to their countries and help them or better yet, donate your job to them?

:thumbsup:

Well, not disputing that. American have to watch for American's self interest. But is too much protectionism good for American? Look at what pro-labor UAW did to the American auto industry.

How do you expect American company to compete if they cannot use the cheapest available labor, favorable tax policy when they open a plant, cheap and good IT talent while their competitors from other countries are all using all that? If American companies cannot be competitive, who is gonna provide jobs in the US?

If you close America and stop US companies using labor and services from other countries, what stops other countries from using US investment banks, buying US agricultural products and other stuff.

At the same time, there should be some industry and skills that US must keep in house for national security and strategic reasons.

So this is not a black and white issue. You have to balance every thing to come up with policies that considers all side, not only investors, not only American workers, not only big companies and their CEO's, and not only political interests. Outsourcing is necessary if it's done right and selectively. To stop all outsourcing, you are hurting America more then helping.

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: SpunkyJones

Originally posted by: Engineer
Because it's taking an Amercan's job, that's why. The only people to benefit from the outsourcing are the investor class, which is typically the upper 1% of the population (1% owns over 80% of all stocks of business). The rest of us piss ants get the trickle down...and shit rolls down hill so that's our trickle.

Fuck the rest of the world. Let them even the currency and have "FAIR" trade rules. Until then, fuck em.

Why should Americans give up their jobs so that other countries can have jobs. Why can't they develope their own jobs? Why don't you go to their countries and help them or better yet, donate your job to them?

:thumbsup:

I wish everyone that supports this view would take a step back and do a little thought expirement. When america was young, and we were still moving west, did some jobs that were done on the east coast move to the new cities? If they did, what happened to the people who used to do those jobs on the east coast?

As Barney stated, move to China if you want outsourcing/offshoring. Give them your job if you want them to have jobs. Otherwise, don't preach on giving other's jobs to the rest of the world.

Ok, perhaps I was asking for too much thinking. Lets make this simple. A Lots of people came to america, moved west, started doing work cheaper than people on the east coast could do. B. East coast is still a thriving place to live and work, full of jobs, and continues to thrive.

Add A+B= Outsourcing the jobs to cheaper labor usually ends up improving our way of life not making it worse.

And just in case you doubt me, please explain why despite the fact that we have been outsourcing jobs for nearly 50 years, our lifestyles have continued to get better and better? Outsourcing may be the new word for it, but it's really just having cheap foreign labor make our stuff.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: SpunkyJones

Originally posted by: Engineer
Because it's taking an Amercan's job, that's why. The only people to benefit from the outsourcing are the investor class, which is typically the upper 1% of the population (1% owns over 80% of all stocks of business). The rest of us piss ants get the trickle down...and shit rolls down hill so that's our trickle.

Fuck the rest of the world. Let them even the currency and have "FAIR" trade rules. Until then, fuck em.

Why should Americans give up their jobs so that other countries can have jobs. Why can't they develope their own jobs? Why don't you go to their countries and help them or better yet, donate your job to them?

:thumbsup:

I wish everyone that supports this view would take a step back and do a little thought expirement. When america was young, and we were still moving west, did some jobs that were done on the east coast move to the new cities? If they did, what happened to the people who used to do those jobs on the east coast?

As Barney stated, move to China if you want outsourcing/offshoring. Give them your job if you want them to have jobs. Otherwise, don't preach on giving other's jobs to the rest of the world.

Ok, perhaps I was asking for too much thinking. Lets make this simple. A Lots of people came to america, moved west, started doing work cheaper than people on the east coast could do. B. East coast is still a thriving place to live and work, full of jobs, and continues to thrive.

Add A+B= Outsourcing the jobs to cheaper labor usually ends up improving our way of life not making it worse.

And just in case you doubt me, please explain why despite the fact that we have been outsourcing jobs for nearly 50 years, our lifestyles have continued to get better and better? Outsourcing may be the new word for it, but it's really just having cheap foreign labor make our stuff.

Because it's only recently in history that we started exchaning vast amounts of wealth out of this country in return for Barbie. Sure, we've had a trade deficit for decades, but not to the level that we have now. Coupled with government debt that's helping fuel and hurt our economy at the same time, you've got a real problem.

Also, this is the first "recovery" in our economic history that we have fewer manufacturing jobs than when we started the recovery.

When you stop producing things and importing everything, eventually you'll run into a problem. Also, I don't really care if it's one Amercan job or 10,000,000 lost. It's all too many.

And kiss my ass on the thinking comment too.

Have you decided to give up your job to a foreign worker and if you wouldn't, why not?

 

[geoffry]

Some good debating going on here.

I'm glad some people came to defend my point while I was away.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: geoffry
Some good debating going on here.

I'm glad some people came to defend my point while I was away.

In my, and many others around the US, your point sucks. If you could offshore your job to give it to someone in one of those foreign countries, would you?

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: daishi5

Originally posted by: SpunkyJones

Originally posted by: Engineer
Because it's taking an Amercan's job, that's why. The only people to benefit from the outsourcing are the investor class, which is typically the upper 1% of the population (1% owns over 80% of all stocks of business). The rest of us piss ants get the trickle down...and shit rolls down hill so that's our trickle.

Fuck the rest of the world. Let them even the currency and have "FAIR" trade rules. Until then, fuck em.

Why should Americans give up their jobs so that other countries can have jobs. Why can't they develope their own jobs? Why don't you go to their countries and help them or better yet, donate your job to them?

:thumbsup:

I wish everyone that supports this view would take a step back and do a little thought expirement. When america was young, and we were still moving west, did some jobs that were done on the east coast move to the new cities? If they did, what happened to the people who used to do those jobs on the east coast?

As Barney stated, move to China if you want outsourcing/offshoring. Give them your job if you want them to have jobs. Otherwise, don't preach on giving other's jobs to the rest of the world.

Ok, perhaps I was asking for too much thinking. Lets make this simple. A Lots of people came to america, moved west, started doing work cheaper than people on the east coast could do. B. East coast is still a thriving place to live and work, full of jobs, and continues to thrive.

Add A+B= Outsourcing the jobs to cheaper labor usually ends up improving our way of life not making it worse.

And just in case you doubt me, please explain why despite the fact that we have been outsourcing jobs for nearly 50 years, our lifestyles have continued to get better and better? Outsourcing may be the new word for it, but it's really just having cheap foreign labor make our stuff.

Because it's only recently in history that we started exchaning vast amounts of wealth out of this country in return for Barbie. Sure, we've had a trade deficit for decades, but not to the level that we have now. Coupled with government debt that's helping fuel and hurt our economy at the same time, you've got a real problem.

Also, this is the first "recovery" in our economic history that we have fewer manufacturing jobs than when we started the recovery.

When you stop producing things and importing everything, eventually you'll run into a problem. Also, I don't really care if it's one Amercan job or 10,000,000 lost. It's all too many.

And kiss my ass on the thinking comment too.

Have you decided to give up your job to a foreign worker and if you wouldn't, why not?

Your right you know it, I am going in to work tomorrow and smash all those robots that took people's jobs.... wait a minute, that was the last "oh my god my job is leaving scare."

Here is the problem, you seem to think that jobs are a pool, and once you drain that pool there are no more jobs. The second problem is that you are scared of change, the world changes, and it will never stop changing. Yes there are a lot of people who will be hurt by change, but that doesn't mean we should try to stop change. The chinese attempted to stop change with the Hai Jin, which prohibited all sea travel, especially trade. At that time China was one of the most advanced civlizations, but after that time most chinese advancements stopped. When they came out of their isolationism they were a poor country that was very far behind the rest of the world, and they are only now starting to recover.

The third problem is that you confuse outsourcing with trade deficit, they are not the same thing. A trade deficit is when you receive more goods than you export, outsourcing is when you hire foreign workers to do jobs that used to be done by local workers. The trade deficit is a cause for concern, and the fixed exchange rates are also cause for concern. They are both in some ways related to outsourcing, but outsourcing is not an integral part of either problem.
However, trade deficit ? outsourcing and trade deficit being bad ? outsourcing being bad.

Also, I would appreciate it if you stayed on topic. Changing the subject from outsourcing to trade deficit and then trying to make it sound like I was ignorant of the problems of the trade deficit is a dirty trick that I do not appreciate.

Edit: All those math classes and I still cannot count.

 

[geoffry]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: geoffry
Some good debating going on here.

I'm glad some people came to defend my point while I was away.

In my, and many others around the US, your point sucks. If you could offshore your job to give it to someone in one of those foreign countries, would you?

I've dabbled in algorithmic trading, I trust a machine more than another person any day.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: daishi5
Your right you know it, I am going in to work tomorrow and smash all those robots that took people's jobs.... wait a minute, that was the last "oh my god my job is leaving scare."

Here is the problem, you seem to think that jobs are a pool, and once you drain that pool there are no more jobs. The second problem is that you are scared of change, the world changes, and it will never stop changing. Yes there are a lot of people who will be hurt by change, but that doesn't mean we should try to stop change. The chinese attempted to stop change with the Hai Jin, which prohibited all sea travel, especially trade. At that time China was one of the most advanced civlizations, but after that time most chinese advancements stopped. When they came out of their isolationism they were a poor country that was very far behind the rest of the world, and they are only now starting to recover.

The third problem is that you confuse outsourcing with trade deficit, they are not the same thing. A trade deficit is when you receive more goods than you export, outsourcing is when you hire foreign workers to do jobs that used to be done by local workers. The trade deficit is a cause for concern, and the fixed exchange rates are also cause for concern. They are both in some ways related to outsourcing, but outsourcing is not an integral part of either problem.
However, trade deficit ? outsourcing and trade deficit being bad ? outsourcing being bad.

Also, I would appreciate it if you stayed on topic. Changing the subject from outsourcing to trade deficit and then trying to make it sound like I was ignorant of the problems of the trade deficit is a dirty trick that I do not appreciate.

Edit: All those math classes and I still cannot count.

So you're saying that offshoring jobs, specifically manufacturing jobs, doesn't effect the "different subject" trade deficit? The hell it doesn't. If you move production of widgets to another country and import them, you are doing a two fold as now you're not making them here (and possibly exporting them to other countries), you are now making them overseas and importing them. No, the trade deficit itself is not offshoring/outsourcing, but it is effected by it.

I guess in your world, everyone is going to be selling and servicing each other and not producing anything? Like I said earlier, every empire that has fallen (and they all have) has had step #6 in which they rely on all of their goods being produced from conquered and slave lands.

As for isolationism, I never said not to have trade. Maybe FAIR trade with no currency manipulation and no slave labor, but that won't happen. The corporations, i.e. investor class, doesn't want it. They want cheap labor not to lower your prices, but to increase their profits and their piece of the pie (which is over 95% as it is).


I've already addressed robots. They keep jobs here and plants open and producing in the US as well as many technical jobs HERE that build and support the lines. Might not be all of the production workers of the past, but better than ZERO when offshoring a complete plant.

Also, answer my question (any one of you offshoring supporters): Would you be willing to voluntarily give up your job to someone offshore to give them a job? I bet not a Goddamn one of you would do it. It's always give somebody else's job away and keep my smug little job. Well fuck that. I sincerely hope that each one of you lose your job to offshoring in the near future and it comes back to haunt you.

 

[frostedflakes]

I don't have anything against outsourcing in general, if a person in India can perform a job better than a person in the US, fine, hire the person in India and pay them a fair wage, give them proper benefits, etc. But outsourcing a job at fractions of the cost is just unfair to US workers. Same reason antitrust laws prevent corporations from significantly undercutting prices on a product, it's unfair and anti-competitive.

What's even worse is when people try to argue outsourcing cheap labor is philanthropic in any way, shape, or form. It's about cutting costs, nothing more, nothing less. Do you really think these corporations give a shit about employees in India or China?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I don't have anything against outsourcing in general, if a person in India can perform a job better than a person in the US, fine, hire the person in India and pay them a fair wage, give them proper benefits, etc. But outsourcing a job at fractions of the cost is just unfair to US workers. Same reason antitrust laws prevent corporations from significantly undercutting prices on a product, it's unfair and anti-competitive.

What's even worse is when people try to argue outsourcing cheap labor is philanthropic in any way, shape, or form. It's about cutting costs, nothing more, nothing less. Do you really think these corporations give a shit about employees in India or China?

Bingo....

 

[geoffry]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I don't have anything against outsourcing in general, if a person in India can perform a job better than a person in the US, fine, hire the person in India and pay them a fair wage, give them proper benefits, etc. But outsourcing a job at fractions of the cost is just unfair to US workers. Same reason antitrust laws prevent corporations from significantly undercutting prices on a product, it's unfair and anti-competitive.

What's even worse is when people try to argue outsourcing cheap labor is philanthropic in any way, shape, or form. It's about cutting costs, nothing more, nothing less. Do you really think these corporations give a shit about employees in India or China?

They care about those employees about as much as an American employee

 

[frostedflakes]

Or rather, they care about their employees to the extent that the law requires. Unfortunately, those standards are much lower in developing countries.

 

[daishi5]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: daishi5
Your right you know it, I am going in to work tomorrow and smash all those robots that took people's jobs.... wait a minute, that was the last "oh my god my job is leaving scare."

Here is the problem, you seem to think that jobs are a pool, and once you drain that pool there are no more jobs. The second problem is that you are scared of change, the world changes, and it will never stop changing. Yes there are a lot of people who will be hurt by change, but that doesn't mean we should try to stop change. The chinese attempted to stop change with the Hai Jin, which prohibited all sea travel, especially trade. At that time China was one of the most advanced civlizations, but after that time most chinese advancements stopped. When they came out of their isolationism they were a poor country that was very far behind the rest of the world, and they are only now starting to recover.

The third problem is that you confuse outsourcing with trade deficit, they are not the same thing. A trade deficit is when you receive more goods than you export, outsourcing is when you hire foreign workers to do jobs that used to be done by local workers. The trade deficit is a cause for concern, and the fixed exchange rates are also cause for concern. They are both in some ways related to outsourcing, but outsourcing is not an integral part of either problem.
However, trade deficit ? outsourcing and trade deficit being bad ? outsourcing being bad.

Also, I would appreciate it if you stayed on topic. Changing the subject from outsourcing to trade deficit and then trying to make it sound like I was ignorant of the problems of the trade deficit is a dirty trick that I do not appreciate.

Edit: All those math classes and I still cannot count.

So you're saying that offshoring jobs, specifically manufacturing jobs, doesn't effect the "different subject" trade deficit? The hell it doesn't. If you move production of widgets to another country and import them, you are doing a two fold as now you're not making them here (and possibly exporting them to other countries), you are now making them overseas and importing them. No, the trade deficit itself is not offshoring/outsourcing, but it is effected by it.

I guess in your world, everyone is going to be selling and servicing each other and not producing anything? Like I said earlier, every empire that has fallen (and they all have) has had step #6 in which they rely on all of their goods being produced from conquered and slave lands.

As for isolationism, I never said not to have trade. Maybe FAIR trade with no currency manipulation and no slave labor, but that won't happen. The corporations, i.e. investor class, doesn't want it. They want cheap labor not to lower your prices, but to increase their profits and their piece of the pie (which is over 95% as it is).


I've already addressed robots. They keep jobs here and plants open and producing in the US as well as many technical jobs HERE that build and support the lines. Might not be all of the production workers of the past, but better than ZERO when offshoring a complete plant.

Also, answer my question (any one of you offshoring supporters): Would you be willing to voluntarily give up your job to someone offshore to give them a job? I bet not a Goddamn one of you would do it. It's always give somebody else's job away and keep my smug little job. Well fuck that. I sincerely hope that each one of you lose your job to offshoring in the near future and it comes back to haunt you.

Would I voluntarily give my job to anyone? Lets phrase that question a little differently, would you give your job to the guy down the street that does not have a job?

Let me guess, the answer is no.

But you take this general question, would you willingly give your job to someone else, add a restriction to it to make me sound like a hypocrite and use that as your biggest defense? Or am I missing something, have you EVER willingly given your job to another american? Since this is about keeping jobs for americans, would you willingly give your job up for two americans to get jobs?

It is very simple, the fact that I like my job does not mean that outsourcing it is bad for the country, bad for me ? bad for the country. I would not like losing my job, but I have planned for it. So while I would not enjoy it, I would make it through relatively ok. The reason is, I know some day I WILL lose my job and I know I have to be prepared because it will happen.

And who in the hell suggested we were not producing anything, according to the CIA factbook:

agricultural products (soybeans, fruit, corn) 9.2%, industrial supplies (organic chemicals) 26.8%, capital goods (transistors, aircraft, motor vehicle parts, computers, telecommunications equipment) 49.0%, consumer goods (automobiles, medicines) 15.0% (2003)

We export a lot, just because some stuff is made on foreign shores the sky is not falling.



Let's take a new try at this, if your company decided to layoff some workers in your home town, lets say 5, and hire 5 people in another state where workers are paid less, would this cause you the same trauma? It is the exact same thing, only instead of it being exported out of your country its exported out of your state.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: daishi5
Let's take a new try at this, if your company decided to layoff some workers in your home town, lets say 5, and hire 5 people in another state where workers are paid less, would this cause you the same trauma? It is the exact same thing, only instead of it being exported out of your country its exported out of your state.

My company has closed down 7 of the 9 US manufacturing plants and move them to Mexico over the last 6 years. My own plant (tooling plant) was on the chopping block but our experience and dedication beat out the Mexican tooling plant and, to my amazement, they closed them about 6 months ago and left my plant as the only tooling plant in North America. You decide.

No, I'm not willing to give my job up but I'm not ADVOCATING giving up some other American's job either. You are indeed a HYPROCRIT when advocating giving up another American's job to foreign labor when you aren't willing to give your job to them. As far as I'm concerned, that makes you an asshole as much as a hyprocrit.

Look around your house and see what percentage of items are made here. I would say that you would be suprised, but from your tone, you would probably be happy.

Again, to those advocating others to lose their jobs to foreign labor, I hope you lose your job first and I hope, unlike you are now, you are not prepared at all to lose that job, period. If you don't like my stance, tough shit. I'm not changing my mind so the investor class can make more while saying "Fuck you" to my fellow AMERICAN wokers, period.

Comprende?

 

[imprimis]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I don't have anything against outsourcing in general, if a person in India can perform a job better than a person in the US, fine, hire the person in India and pay them a fair wage, give them proper benefits, etc. But outsourcing a job at fractions of the cost is just unfair to US workers. Same reason antitrust laws prevent corporations from significantly undercutting prices on a product, it's unfair and anti-competitive.

What's even worse is when people try to argue outsourcing cheap labor is philanthropic in any way, shape, or form. It's about cutting costs, nothing more, nothing less. Do you really think these corporations give a shit about employees in India or China?

these terms always get tossed around while discussing such topics.

care to define them?