Why the Hatred for Outsourcing?

[Lalakai]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Outsourcing, as currently practiced, will eventually destroy the market for the goods being outsourced. The use of credit on every level, huge balance of payments deficits, and negative savings rates merely confirm that the process of looting continues unabated. Which doesn't really matter to those at the top, at all. They're exploiting the lag time between cause and effect rather handsomely at the moment, and will be so wealthy and so diversified worldwide that their personal position will be unassailable. Well, unless they get caught by an angry mob before they can get to the airport...

one market segment that is getting burned by a failed exploitation of the lag time, is the lending industry that tried to develop the subprime market. initially they made good money, but now it's eatting them alive. unfortunately the ripple effect will get alot of innocent bystanders that had stock in the companies.

just heard (tried to search but couldn't find it), where one CEO managed to get his benefit package recaluculated, to exclude the negative earnings resulting from the subprime meltdown............................i have a tire, if someone has some gas.


edit = grammar fix

 

[imprimis]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: imprimis

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: imprimis

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I feel honored you stopped lurking to respond to my post.

Fair wages and benefits being those similar to what employees in developed nations are offered. Of course, the counter-argument is that a few hundred dollars per month, while nothing to us, is a livable wage in poorer countries. Obviously, the definition of a "fair" wage and benefits depends on where live.

My issue is when people like OP use philanthropy to support outsourcing to poorer nations. The only reason for outsourcing is to cut costs, don't try to spin it into anything else. If businesses were truly interested in improving the lives of the people in these nations, they'd be paying them a wage similar to the domestic workers they laid off.

lurking?, i only joined the forum a few hours ago.

and now you've used the term "liveable wage"...

let's pare this down a bit more. if you live in anytown USA what is a "fair wage"?

Depends on the work being done and where you live. Fair wage is obviously a bit ambiguous, average probably would have been a more appropriate word to use. Not sure exactly what the average annual wage in the US is, but think it's around $35k.

But anyways, where are you going with this?

yes, "fair wage" cannot be broadly defined. where am I going? you said "outsourcing a job at fractions of the cost is just unfair to US workers."
it is not unfair. we need to consider why a company would want to outsource, the obvious answer is to make more profit. making more profit is neither fair or unfair, it is the reason the business exists. a by product of a business is job creation, nothing else. labor is a resource, just like raw materials, energy supply etc..
now, lets consider how a company can move it's production facility 12,000 miles away and be more competitive than their domestic adversary.
obviously the power bill in bangladesh could be cheaper than anytown USA. perhaps the raw materials are as well, and that could account for some of the outsourcing we see. this topic however centers on outsourced labor, so why is US labor (highly skilled @ times) shunned for foreign labor?
maybe high skilled labor isn't necessary.
US labor though, skilled or otherwise is most always more expensive; sometimes prohibitively.
could it be because many American workers demand "fair wages, "proper benefits" etc as if these are entitlements?
in fact, many of these things, however defined, have become entitlements via legislation.
we have minimum wage laws, fmla, flsa, ada, cobra, discrimination laws, osha, unions (a major factor ) etc..

in essence, by law, we make our workforce highly unattractive when compared to many other countries.
is that fair?

Our entitlement programs are modest compared to most other first world nations. And it's not like you see companies outsourcing to countries like Japan or Germany, it's all going over to India, China, Malaysia, etc. where cost of living is lower and people are willing to work for much less. We cannot possibly compete with third world labor, I don't see how you can claim that's fair.

sigh...define "fair". again; The business does not exist to create jobs.

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I also understand that the whole point of a business is to make money, I just think most corporations take it too far. IMO, it's pretty immoral to screw over American employees and exploit third world poverty in order to increase my company's profits (and probably more importantly, my compensation). Is a bit of integrity and morality too much to ask from these people?

most corporations take making money too far?? should there be a limit of some sort of how successful a business should be? if so how would you determine that?
are successful businesses automatically immoral somehow?

If a company is in trouble and lays off employees in order to survive. Is that worse than just closing their doors, and thereby laying off everyone while still owing their creditors? does that not strike you as lacking integrity?

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: imprimis

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: imprimis

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: imprimis

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I feel honored you stopped lurking to respond to my post.

Fair wages and benefits being those similar to what employees in developed nations are offered. Of course, the counter-argument is that a few hundred dollars per month, while nothing to us, is a livable wage in poorer countries. Obviously, the definition of a "fair" wage and benefits depends on where live.

My issue is when people like OP use philanthropy to support outsourcing to poorer nations. The only reason for outsourcing is to cut costs, don't try to spin it into anything else. If businesses were truly interested in improving the lives of the people in these nations, they'd be paying them a wage similar to the domestic workers they laid off.

lurking?, i only joined the forum a few hours ago.

and now you've used the term "liveable wage"...

let's pare this down a bit more. if you live in anytown USA what is a "fair wage"?

Depends on the work being done and where you live. Fair wage is obviously a bit ambiguous, average probably would have been a more appropriate word to use. Not sure exactly what the average annual wage in the US is, but think it's around $35k.

But anyways, where are you going with this?

yes, "fair wage" cannot be broadly defined. where am I going? you said "outsourcing a job at fractions of the cost is just unfair to US workers."
it is not unfair. we need to consider why a company would want to outsource, the obvious answer is to make more profit. making more profit is neither fair or unfair, it is the reason the business exists. a by product of a business is job creation, nothing else. labor is a resource, just like raw materials, energy supply etc..
now, lets consider how a company can move it's production facility 12,000 miles away and be more competitive than their domestic adversary.
obviously the power bill in bangladesh could be cheaper than anytown USA. perhaps the raw materials are as well, and that could account for some of the outsourcing we see. this topic however centers on outsourced labor, so why is US labor (highly skilled @ times) shunned for foreign labor?
maybe high skilled labor isn't necessary.
US labor though, skilled or otherwise is most always more expensive; sometimes prohibitively.
could it be because many American workers demand "fair wages, "proper benefits" etc as if these are entitlements?
in fact, many of these things, however defined, have become entitlements via legislation.
we have minimum wage laws, fmla, flsa, ada, cobra, discrimination laws, osha, unions (a major factor ) etc..

in essence, by law, we make our workforce highly unattractive when compared to many other countries.
is that fair?

Our entitlement programs are modest compared to most other first world nations. And it's not like you see companies outsourcing to countries like Japan or Germany, it's all going over to India, China, Malaysia, etc. where cost of living is lower and people are willing to work for much less. We cannot possibly compete with third world labor, I don't see how you can claim that's fair.

sigh...define "fair". again; The business does not exist to create jobs.

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I also understand that the whole point of a business is to make money, I just think most corporations take it too far. IMO, it's pretty immoral to screw over American employees and exploit third world poverty in order to increase my company's profits (and probably more importantly, my compensation). Is a bit of integrity and morality too much to ask from these people?

most corporations take making money too far?? should there be a limit of some sort of how successful a business should be? if so how would you determine that?
are successful businesses automatically immoral somehow?

If a company is in trouble and lays off employees in order to survive. Is that worse than just closing their doors, and thereby laying off everyone while still owing their creditors? does that not strike you as lacking integrity?

There have been numerous corporate scandals, so yes, some go too far. I don't care how much money they make, as long as it's honest. Unfortunately, most executives could probably care less about ethics.

 

[Xavier434]

The bottom line when it comes to outsourcing is that it just makes the rich people in the big businesses richer and leaves the rest of us IN AMERICA with fewer jobs.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Outsourcing, as currently practiced, will eventually destroy the market for the goods being outsourced. The use of credit on every level, huge balance of payments deficits, and negative savings rates merely confirm that the process of looting continues unabated. Which doesn't really matter to those at the top, at all. They're exploiting the lag time between cause and effect rather handsomely at the moment, and will be so wealthy and so diversified worldwide that their personal position will be unassailable. Well, unless they get caught by an angry mob before they can get to the airport...

We have been hearing this since the 60's. When is it going to come true?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
The bottom line when it comes to outsourcing is that it just makes the rich people in the big businesses richer and leaves the rest of us IN AMERICA with fewer jobs.

Who are the rich people in big business?

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
The bottom line when it comes to outsourcing is that it just makes the rich people in the big businesses richer and leaves the rest of us IN AMERICA with fewer jobs.

The bottom line is that companies are supposed to compete. That means keeping the prices as low as they can, which means seeking the cheapest labor they can find, all of which benefits us, the consumers, so that we save money.

 

[piasabird]

Lets start outsourcing the job of the CEO and the board members of corporations and see how they like that! I say start at the top and then work your way down.

How would you feel if you knew your private bank records were outsourced to to China or India? Does that make you feel less secure or more secure about the privacy of your information? I am not kidding this has happened already. Bank of America outsourced part of the data entry for their Lock box Accounts. They had this plan of scanning the images and then people in India were going to do the data entry.

I kind of like to be able to discuss things in english.

I say we use members of congress and just hire some People from china and India to run the government. They dont get much done in DC anyway.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Outsourcing, as currently practiced, will eventually destroy the market for the goods being outsourced. The use of credit on every level, huge balance of payments deficits, and negative savings rates merely confirm that the process of looting continues unabated. Which doesn't really matter to those at the top, at all. They're exploiting the lag time between cause and effect rather handsomely at the moment, and will be so wealthy and so diversified worldwide that their personal position will be unassailable. Well, unless they get caught by an angry mob before they can get to the airport...

We have been hearing this since the 60's. When is it going to come true?

What do you think the inflation we're seeing is? The huge trade deficits over the past several decades were masked by easy consumer credit. That well is drying up, and how we're starting to feel it. Americans are running out of money to spend.

That's not to say we won't spring back, but some of those offshored manufacturing jobs are going to have to come back if things are going to recover. There's no future for a nation whose only jobs are retail clerk and lawyer.

 

[Jhhnn]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Outsourcing, as currently practiced, will eventually destroy the market for the goods being outsourced. The use of credit on every level, huge balance of payments deficits, and negative savings rates merely confirm that the process of looting continues unabated. Which doesn't really matter to those at the top, at all. They're exploiting the lag time between cause and effect rather handsomely at the moment, and will be so wealthy and so diversified worldwide that their personal position will be unassailable. Well, unless they get caught by an angry mob before they can get to the airport...

We have been hearing this since the 60's. When is it going to come true?

What do you think the inflation we're seeing is? The huge trade deficits over the past several decades were masked by easy consumer credit. That well is drying up, and how we're starting to feel it. Americans are running out of money to spend.

That's not to say we won't spring back, but some of those offshored manufacturing jobs are going to have to come back if things are going to recover. There's no future for a nation whose only jobs are retail clerk and lawyer.

There's also no future for a nation whose chief exports are their own capital investments and currency, and whose GDP is in no small way dependent on cashing in their home equity to pay their bills...

And no future in running huge federal deficits to mask the effects of trickle-up economics- no future in borrowing back huge balance of trade deficits, either... unless you consider being owned by uber-wealthy Americans, European money lenders, the Saudis and the Chinese to be some kind of future...

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Engineer

I recommend that you stick the international economics course up your ass.

Just for you: http://www.amazon.com/Internat...0321293835/ref=sr_1_2?

The word efficiency only means cheap, period. The US has the most efficient and productive workers in the world. Efficiency when it comes to foreign labor = cheaper, period.

And? What's your point in pointing out this reality, that efficient=cheap labor? Cheap labor is good, both from the perspective of the American firm AND American worker. The unemployment rate, job creation, and GDP per capita (including middle class salaries) have continued to rise in real terms adjusted for inflation for decades now (not as fast as the upper crust, but that's a different discussion). American labor can't be that bad off when they're currently better off (significantly so for middle and upper classes) than they were many years ago when outsourcing wasn't nearly as prevalent. In any case, the fact that you cannot address the reality that cheaper labor for firms means an increased ability for that firm to grow domestically (and, thereby, hire additional workers in the U.S.), pretty much says it all. Not to mention the positive side effects of growth, creating new segments of industries (and, again, more demand for labor)/.

I ask you the same as I asked the others...are you willing to give up your job so a foreign job can be created? Yes or no? If no, then you are a complete hyprocrit (like the others) who advocate giving up other American's jobs while not willing to give up your own.

Except your question isn't irrelevant because it doesn't actually answer what's actually germane to the topic; does outsourcing create net negative job loss for American workers? Most studies say no. So whether I like to lose my job or not (obviously not), I will have to accept the reality that firms hire labor based on the skill sets they provide and how much they have to pay to get it. If you don't like it, get educated in some other field. Life's tough, and your stories about buddies losing their jobs to outsourcing is nothing more than short-sighted and poorly researched bleeding heart nonsense. I'm sorry for your losses though, I just don't have sympathy for someone so utterly uninterested in educating themselves on the advantages of outsourcing to the American firm that hires American workers in the first place.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Engineer

I recommend that you stick the international economics course up your ass.

Just for you: http://www.amazon.com/Internat...0321293835/ref=sr_1_2?

The word efficiency only means cheap, period. The US has the most efficient and productive workers in the world. Efficiency when it comes to foreign labor = cheaper, period.

And? What's your point in pointing out this reality, that efficient=cheap labor? Cheap labor is good, both from the perspective of the American firm AND American worker. The unemployment rate, job creation, and GDP per capita (including middle class salaries) have continued to rise in real terms adjusted for inflation for decades now (not as fast as the upper crust, but that's a different discussion). American labor can't be that bad off when they're currently better off (significantly so for middle and upper classes) than they were many years ago when outsourcing wasn't nearly as prevalent. In any case, the fact that you cannot address the reality that cheaper labor for firms means an increased ability for that firm to grow domestically (and, thereby, hire additional workers in the U.S.), pretty much says it all. Not to mention the positive side effects of growth, creating new segments of industries (and, again, more demand for labor)/.

I ask you the same as I asked the others...are you willing to give up your job so a foreign job can be created? Yes or no? If no, then you are a complete hyprocrit (like the others) who advocate giving up other American's jobs while not willing to give up your own.

Except your question isn't irrelevant because it doesn't actually answer what's actually germane to the topic; does outsourcing create net negative job loss for American workers? Most studies say no. So whether I like to lose my job or not (obviously not), I will have to accept the reality that firms hire labor based on the skill sets they provide and how much they have to pay to get it. If you don't like it, get educated in some other field. Life's tough, and your stories about buddies losing their jobs to outsourcing is nothing more than short-sighted and poorly researched bleeding heart nonsense. I'm sorry for your losses though, I just don't have sympathy for someone so utterly uninterested in educating themselves on the advantages of outsourcing to the American firm that hires American workers in the first place.

I don't need your sympathy, your book links and I certainly don't share your beliefs and nothing you can say will change my mind on the subject. Call it short sighted if you will but I and many others feel the same about hypocritical people like yourself. Enough said.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Outsourcing, as currently practiced, will eventually destroy the market for the goods being outsourced. The use of credit on every level, huge balance of payments deficits, and negative savings rates merely confirm that the process of looting continues unabated. Which doesn't really matter to those at the top, at all. They're exploiting the lag time between cause and effect rather handsomely at the moment, and will be so wealthy and so diversified worldwide that their personal position will be unassailable. Well, unless they get caught by an angry mob before they can get to the airport...

We have been hearing this since the 60's. When is it going to come true?

What do you think the inflation we're seeing is? The huge trade deficits over the past several decades were masked by easy consumer credit. That well is drying up, and how we're starting to feel it. Americans are running out of money to spend.

That's not to say we won't spring back, but some of those offshored manufacturing jobs are going to have to come back if things are going to recover. There's no future for a nation whose only jobs are retail clerk and lawyer.

There's also no future for a nation whose chief exports are their own capital investments and currency, and whose GDP is in no small way dependent on cashing in their home equity to pay their bills...

And no future in running huge federal deficits to mask the effects of trickle-up economics- no future in borrowing back huge balance of trade deficits, either... unless you consider being owned by uber-wealthy Americans, European money lenders, the Saudis and the Chinese to be some kind of future...

I don't really see the reasoning behind this post. There is nothing wrong with running budget deficits as long as they are reasonable (obviously the current administration's spending is totally unacceptable). There is nothing wrong with reasonable net negative capital outflows (i.e. investment > saving). There is little wrong with direct foreign investment (and this supposed negative of being "owned" by wealthy Americans, Europeans, Chinese, etc.), save for perhaps foreign firms owning security-sensitive companies in industries such as defense or airliners. Certainly nothing wrong with consumers banking on home equity, especially since many use increased property value to invest and not just consume. I would love to hear why all of this is bad, though. Perhaps you simply disagree with the degree to which they're being done by some, and not the actual practice of those things.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Engineer

I recommend that you stick the international economics course up your ass.

Just for you: http://www.amazon.com/Internat...0321293835/ref=sr_1_2?

The word efficiency only means cheap, period. The US has the most efficient and productive workers in the world. Efficiency when it comes to foreign labor = cheaper, period.

And? What's your point in pointing out this reality, that efficient=cheap labor? Cheap labor is good, both from the perspective of the American firm AND American worker. The unemployment rate, job creation, and GDP per capita (including middle class salaries) have continued to rise in real terms adjusted for inflation for decades now (not as fast as the upper crust, but that's a different discussion). American labor can't be that bad off when they're currently better off (significantly so for middle and upper classes) than they were many years ago when outsourcing wasn't nearly as prevalent. In any case, the fact that you cannot address the reality that cheaper labor for firms means an increased ability for that firm to grow domestically (and, thereby, hire additional workers in the U.S.), pretty much says it all. Not to mention the positive side effects of growth, creating new segments of industries (and, again, more demand for labor)/.

I ask you the same as I asked the others...are you willing to give up your job so a foreign job can be created? Yes or no? If no, then you are a complete hyprocrit (like the others) who advocate giving up other American's jobs while not willing to give up your own.

Except your question isn't irrelevant because it doesn't actually answer what's actually germane to the topic; does outsourcing create net negative job loss for American workers? Most studies say no. So whether I like to lose my job or not (obviously not), I will have to accept the reality that firms hire labor based on the skill sets they provide and how much they have to pay to get it. If you don't like it, get educated in some other field. Life's tough, and your stories about buddies losing their jobs to outsourcing is nothing more than short-sighted and poorly researched bleeding heart nonsense. I'm sorry for your losses though, I just don't have sympathy for someone so utterly uninterested in educating themselves on the advantages of outsourcing to the American firm that hires American workers in the first place.

I don't need your sympathy, your book links and I certainly don't share your beliefs and nothing you can say will change my mind on the subject. Call it short sighted if you will but I and many others feel the same about hypocritical people like yourself. Enough said.

FYI, I edited my post.

But in any case, yes, enough said indeed. You aren't interested in understanding the positives as well as the negatives, and that sort of ignorance is indeed your prerogative.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
But in any case, yes, enough said indeed. You aren't interested in understanding the positives as well as the negatives, and that sort of ignorance is indeed your prerogative.

See International Economics Course suggestion above.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
But in any case, yes, enough said indeed. You aren't interested in understanding the positives as well as the negatives, and that sort of ignorance is indeed your prerogative.

See International Economics Course suggestion above.

No no, that was my suggestion based on having been actually formally educated on the subject. Now you're just getting confused.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
But in any case, yes, enough said indeed. You aren't interested in understanding the positives as well as the negatives, and that sort of ignorance is indeed your prerogative.

See International Economics Course suggestion above.

No no, that was my suggestion based on having been actually formally educated on the subject. Now you're just getting confused.

No, I'm not confused at all. I told you to stick the course up your ass and now I'm suggesting that you stick your comments above up your ass also. No confusion at all.

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't really see the reasoning behind this post. There is nothing wrong with running budget deficits as long as they are reasonable (obviously the current administration's spending is totally unacceptable).

Reasonable means what? Large deficits have become a permanent feature of repub governance- from RR thru GHWB and now explosively under GWB. Only the Clinton era proved to be any exception, at all, and that's only because he refused to cut taxes for the repub legislature... Debt maintenance is a huge and growing part of the federal budget, even at record low interest rates, a part that can only be cut through actual debt reduction or default. Ever increasing debt and its maintenance serve to mask the results of greedy and destructive economic policy and also act as a direct subsidy to the world's wealthiest people and institutions.

There is nothing wrong with reasonable net negative capital outflows (i.e. investment > saving).

There is when the savings rate is negative, and has been for many years, while domestic investment in actual production capacity is paltry, at best.

There is little wrong with direct foreign investment (and this supposed negative of being "owned" by wealthy Americans, Europeans, Chinese, etc.), save for perhaps foreign firms owning security-sensitive companies in industries such as defense or airliners.

There is when we're talking about the government itself, the most security-sensitive part of the whole kit and kaboodle...

Certainly nothing wrong with consumers banking on home equity, especially since many use increased property value to invest and not just consume.

Please. traditional uses of cashout refis and second mortgages (college tuition, home improvements, etc) don't even begin to cover the huge surge in refi cashouts used to bail out consumers in the wake of the dotcom bust.
and the only investment I've seen occuring from that has been to speculate in real estate... who'd take money out of their house to put it in the market when real estate was offering much better returns?

Temporary deficits cushioning economic downswings are appropriate, except nobody wants to pay them back when times are good. Foreign investment is fine, too, so long as it's not the only way foreigners have of getting value out of trade deficit dollars, and mortgage refinance is fine, too, for traditional and moderate purposes... but thats not what's been happening, is it?

Despite the rightwing's efforts to kill it, the US economy has shown remarkable resilience, with caveats. Dependence on ever increasing debt is unsustainable, and each recovery increasingly favors the investors over the workers simply because each recovery incorporates more offshoring of formerly high paying US jobs... they're not offshoring really low paying jobs, after all, are they? And we're beginning to see the effects of all of that, simply because the ability to comsume is ultimately linked to the ability to produce. People who work at WalMart can't afford to shop anywhere but WalMart- Capiche?

 

[imprimis]

Originally posted by: Engineer

I don't need your sympathy, your book links and I certainly don't share your beliefs and nothing you can say will change my mind on the subject. Call it short sighted if you will but I and many others feel the same about hypocritical people like yourself. Enough said.

obviously this is an emotional issue for you.
you don't have to admit to it, but I recommend you educate yourself a bit more on the subject.
[/sanity]
[vituperation]

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Temporary deficits cushioning economic downswings are appropriate, except nobody wants to pay them back when times are good. Foreign investment is fine, too, so long as it's not the only way foreigners have of getting value out of trade deficit dollars, and mortgage refinance is fine, too, for traditional and moderate purposes... but thats not what's been happening, is it?

Despite the rightwing's efforts to kill it, the US economy has shown remarkable resilience, with caveats. Dependence on ever increasing debt is unsustainable, and each recovery increasingly favors the investors over the workers simply because each recovery incorporates more offshoring of formerly high paying US jobs... they're not offshoring really low paying jobs, after all, are they? And we're beginning to see the effects of all of that, simply because the ability to comsume is ultimately linked to the ability to produce. People who work at WalMart can't afford to shop anywhere but WalMart- Capiche?

Well said.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: imprimis

Originally posted by: Engineer

I don't need your sympathy, your book links and I certainly don't share your beliefs and nothing you can say will change my mind on the subject. Call it short sighted if you will but I and many others feel the same about hypocritical people like yourself. Enough said.

obviously this is an emotional issue for you.
you don't have to admit to it, but I recommend you educate yourself a bit more on the subject.
[/sanity]
[vituperation]

See my above response about sticking it in your ass. I have no NEED or DESIRE to "educate" myself on the subject. Are YOU willing to give up your job right now so a foreign person can have a job? A simple yes or no (no long bullshit response needed) will do.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
But in any case, yes, enough said indeed. You aren't interested in understanding the positives as well as the negatives, and that sort of ignorance is indeed your prerogative.

See International Economics Course suggestion above.

No no, that was my suggestion based on having been actually formally educated on the subject. Now you're just getting confused.

No, I'm not confused at all. I told you to stick the course up your ass and now I'm suggesting that you stick your comments above up your ass also. No confusion at all.

Ah, in that case, my original comments regarding your concession of ignorance still stand.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Reasonable means what?

Not over-committing to future government programs, for one. For example, the prescription drug bill GWB passed (I believe 2 years ago), promising far too much that simply cannot reasonably be guaranteed without a quick reversal in gov't spending.

Large deficits have become a permanent feature of repub governance- from RR thru GHWB and now explosively under GWB. Only the Clinton era proved to be any exception, at all, and that's only because he refused to cut taxes for the repub legislature... Debt maintenance is a huge and growing part of the federal budget, even at record low interest rates, a part that can only be cut through actual debt reduction or default. Ever increasing debt and its maintenance serve to mask the results of greedy and destructive economic policy and also act as a direct subsidy to the world's wealthiest people and institutions.

On this I agree. For example, Bush's irresponsible tax cuts, which only marginally acted as an effective fiscal stimulus. I'd have done nothing rather than cut taxes, totally irresponsible and nothing but ideological nonsense on his part.

There is when the savings rate is negative, and has been for many years, while domestic investment in actual production capacity is paltry, at best.

I'm asking what is wrong with net negative capital outflow even if the investment is more foreign than domestic?

There is when we're talking about the government itself, the most security-sensitive part of the whole kit and kaboodle...

Save for the defense/airliner exceptions I referenced, what's the problem exactly? I'm not sure what "the gov't itself" is referring to in a discussion about direct foreign investment. What exactly is wrong with massive foreign investment?

Please. traditional uses of cashout refis and second mortgages (college tuition, home improvements, etc) don't even begin to cover the huge surge in refi cashouts used to bail out consumers in the wake of the dotcom bust.
and the only investment I've seen occuring from that has been to speculate in real estate... who'd take money out of their house to put it in the market when real estate was offering much better returns?

Huh? I'm not sure what this means. Plenty of people refinance and invest that capital in a multitude of interest-bearing accounts; whether it be a guaranteed CD, a multi-year life insurance policy, or stocks, they do it and do it much more often than they used to. Of course, we also have a sub-prime mortgage crisis, but that's just as much about bad lending practices by banks as it is bad management by people. I hope you aren't honestly suggesting it's bad to refinance to pull out equity. It's the most sensible, logical thing you can do if you're a smart investor. Otherwise the value of your house appreciates but does you no good (other than as collateral for a loan), they're lazy dollars with nowhere to go if you don't extract it to consume/invest (I'd invest it, but that's me).

Temporary deficits cushioning economic downswings are appropriate, except nobody wants to pay them back when times are good. Foreign investment is fine, too, so long as it's not the only way foreigners have of getting value out of trade deficit dollars, and mortgage refinance is fine, too, for traditional and moderate purposes... but thats not what's been happening, is it?

What do you think is happening, exactly? I see bad lending practices by banks that bet the farm, big, on people they shouldn't have been lending to. People with little to no credit history and little to no history of keeping steady jobs should not be getting large 5 figure loans for down-payments on houses.

Despite the rightwing's efforts to kill it, the US economy has shown remarkable resilience, with caveats. Dependence on ever increasing debt is unsustainable, and each recovery increasingly favors the investors over the workers simply because each recovery incorporates more offshoring of formerly high paying US jobs... they're not offshoring really low paying jobs, after all, are they? And we're beginning to see the effects of all of that, simply because the ability to comsume is ultimately linked to the ability to produce. People who work at WalMart can't afford to shop anywhere but WalMart- Capiche?

What high skill jobs in which industries, specifically, are being shipped overseas moreso than low-paying ones? I'd be interested in seeing some figures. I see a whole slew of examples, particularly now in India (where labor is now substantially cheaper than in China) of low-skilled workers receiving jobs. Not so much on the high-end (again, I'd be interested in seeing some figures so I have it quantified). I guess programming is an exception to the rule?

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
But in any case, yes, enough said indeed. You aren't interested in understanding the positives as well as the negatives, and that sort of ignorance is indeed your prerogative.

See International Economics Course suggestion above.

No no, that was my suggestion based on having been actually formally educated on the subject. Now you're just getting confused.

No, I'm not confused at all. I told you to stick the course up your ass and now I'm suggesting that you stick your comments above up your ass also. No confusion at all.

Ah, in that case, my original comments regarding your concession of ignorance still stand.

Listen asshole, I did not come into this thread to be persuaded or your so called "educated" on the subject. I came in purely to bash the living hell out of hyprocrits like you who are more than happy and willing to sacrifice American jobs when you aren't willing to give your own up. Fucking douchebag!

I really, really hope you bastards lose your jobs to offshoring and you have one hell of a time finding any kind of work. It's very deserving from your stance.

:|

As far as I'm concerned, you people deserve a good punch in the face and kick in the nuts.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Listen asshole, I did not come into this thread to be persuaded or your so called "educated" on the subject. I came in purely to bash the living hell out of hyprocrits like you who are more than happy and willing to sacrifice American jobs when you aren't willing to give your own up. Fucking douchebag!

I really, really hope you bastards lose your jobs to offshoring and you have one hell of a time finding any kind of work. It's very deserving from your stance.

:|

As far as I'm concerned, you people deserve a good punch in the face and kick in the nuts.

Bottom line, if you don't want to more intimately understand the benefits of outsourcing, but would rather reduce this to a game of "If you don't want to give up your job you're a hypocrite", then you just aren't going to be taken seriously by anyone informed on the matter, including those who actually get to make these decisions in the real world. Nothing I've said is hypocritical, as I wouldn't like to lose my job period, be it to outsourcing or to a fellow American. I suppose I could lie to you and tell you I would love to give up my job for to a foreigner, and maybe then you'd do some independent thinking on your own about what I've actually written. In either case, what you fail to understand is that labor is mobile and crosses borders, and that for the most part it shouldn't be viewed any differently than domestic labor, and most importantly it still benefits American labor on the whole.

But clearly this is a very personal and emotional issue for you, so I'll leave it at that.