President Defends Global Outsourcing 1075
mytrip wrote to mention a New York Times article discussing President Bush's trip to the Indian subcontinent. There, he urged Americans to welcome global competition for their jobs. From the article: "Mr. Bush, reiterating a theme of his trip, strongly defended the outsourcing of American jobs to India as the reality of a global economy, and said that the United States should instead focus on India as a vital new market for American goods ... 'The classic opportunity for our American farmers and entrepreneurs and small businesses to understand is there is a 300 million-person market of middle class citizens here in India, and that if we can make a product they want, that it becomes viable,'"
Re:Bush Whacked. (Score:3, Informative)
Bush just doesn't get it (Score:5, Informative)
(Kerry, FWIW, talked about eliminating some of the tax incentives that encourage companies to offshore. At least he understood the problem and had an appropriate, if timid, response.)
Re:Editors Shouldn't Bitch, Their Own Company Does (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bush Whacked. (Score:3, Informative)
"Doing the work for 10 times less" is a fallacy if the cost of living in the other country is also 10 times less. The only people who come out ahead in your scenario are the textile factory owners.
Re:Bush Whacked. (Score:3, Informative)
That's a rather deceptive statement. Certainly, Democrats get a good chunk of the corporate funding. However, the vast majority of that funding goes to Republicans.
This form isn't part of a proper global economy. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:the reality is... (Score:5, Informative)
Year Real GDP (billions of 2000 dollars)
1970 $3771.9
1971 $3898.6
1972 $4105.0
1973 $4341.5
1974 $4319.6
1975 $4311.2
1976 $4540.9
1977 $4750.5
1978 $5015.0
1979 $5173.4
1980 $5161.7
1981 $5291.7
1982 $5189.3
1983 $5423.8
1984 $5813.6
1985 $6053.7
1986 $6263.6
1987 $6475.1
1988 $6742.7
1989 $6981.4
1990 $7112.5
1991 $7100.5
1992 $7336.6
1993 $7532.7
1994 $7835.5
1995 $8031.7
1996 $8328.9
1997 $8703.5
1998 $9066.9
1999 $9470.3
2000 $9817.0
2001 $9890.7
2002 $10048.8
2003 $10320.6
2004 $10755.7
Detect a trend?
Re:Good. (Score:3, Informative)
United States Of Feudalism: +1, Helpful (Score:1, Informative)
BushCo is
Al-Qaeda [wnymedia.net].
News video clips reveal Bush dynasty connections to United Arab Emirates
WNY Media Network has a recent news video clip compilation that reveals the close connections between the Bush family and the United Arab Emirates. No wonder Bush is turning a deaf ear to the concerns expressed by Democrats and Repulicans.
President Bush's family and members of the Bush administration have long-standing business connections with the UAE... Bush defying his very own party leadership and his party in defending the Dubai port deal... The oil-rich United Arab Emirates is a major investor in The Carlyle Group, the private equity investment group where the President's father once served as senior advisor, and is a who's who of former high level government officials... Just last year, Dubai International Capital, a government buyout firm, invested in an 8 billion dollar Carlyle fund. Another family connection, the president's brother, Neil Bush, has reportedly received funding for his education software company from UAE investors. Then there is the cabinet connection: Treasury Secretary John Snow was chairman of railroad company CSX. After he left the company for the White House, CSX sold its international operations to Dubai Ports World for more than a billion dollars.
Hunger in the US (Score:4, Informative)
Iam in India (Score:1, Informative)
I completely empathize with people in the US who are at the receiving end. But somewhere most of us (even the better paid ones like me) need to realize that its humans we are dealing with and put an end to absolute exploitation. Iam tired looking for jobs and praying. I'll take a salary cut than see these kids go through this shit so early in their careers. Despite what they might tell you, most Indian workers go through hell with their employers.
I agree with him on this issue (Score:3, Informative)
Re:the reality is... (Score:5, Informative)
GDP is a pretty damn poor measure of economic peformance. GDP is a measure of aggregate economic activity, with no description of how that economic activity (income) is spread out amongst the population. Not to mention that it doesn't show how income is produced - is a service job at Wal-Mart as good for our economy as a job at GM producing cares? There are far more problems with using GDP as your golden measure.
What has effectively happened in our economy- and you probably know this considering you spat out a trend from 1970 to 2004 is that real income per person has remained fairly flat. In other words, the economy has grown but the normal worker has not seen the benefits. Go read Krugman over at the NY Times. Or better yet, read the source material Where did the productivity go? [nber.org] which describes what's happened to our economy.
You should damn well listen to the refrain and understand the numbers - something is going seriously wrong in America. The middle class is falling apart under increasing costs (college, health care, no pensions) while the absolute top has received nearly all of the benefits of outsourcing, increased productivity, and the last thirty years of economic growth.
Lyndon Johnson and Brown and Root (Score:5, Informative)
Lyndon wasn't much for house debate, nor was he a skilled lawyer, so writing and pushing through legislation was particularly difficult for him. Which for a congressman is a pretty serious drawback. But Lyndon was a big - physically imposing - man. And he had access to a lot of money through his connections at Brown and Root. So pretty soon Lyndon was passing contributions around to various Democratic congressmen in threatened races throughout the country. Because of this Lyndon grew very powerful in a very short time - powerful enough to attempt a run for Senate only two years after having won election as a congressman. He lost that first bid, but within a few election cycles large numbers of congressmen owed their seats to his arranged donations. Lyndon had the choice of committee seats at his disposal, and quickly became close friends with then congressional leader Sam Rayburn.
But Lyndon still wasn't satisfied. He wanted to be a Senator. So off to his friends at Brown and Root asking to finance a new election bid for Senate. This time he won, but only because he cheated. Didn't matter. Once again he climbed the ladder from junior Senator from Texas in 1948 to minority leader in a single six year term (the Democrats lost the senate majority during the election of '52). He did this through funneling corporate contributions, much of which came from Brown and Root.
Of course, we all know how Lyndon Johnson wound up as President. He was chosen to be JFKs vice presidential nominee in order to shore up the southern vote. Nobody expected him to have any power in that position. But JFK was assassinated in Dallas Texas on Nov 22nd, 1963 and soon thereafter Johnson assumed the Presidency.
Who was there right behind him scoring military contracts left and right? Brown and Root. Soon to be named Kellog, Brown and Root. And then soon thereafter to be purchased by Halliburton.
We all know who Halliburton is, don't we? History sure is a strange thing...
See the works of Robert Caro [robertcaro.com] for a detailed history of Johnson and his connection with corporate financing. He was arguably one of the founders of this whole cross state campaign financing fiasco.
Re:Bush Whacked. (Score:2, Informative)
Nothing you said was correct. AMD has two fabs--one in Texas and one in Germany. Intel has >20 fabs all around the world but a large number of its fabs are in the US, the vast majority of its employees are in the US, and most of its high-paying jobs are in the US. The vast majority of Boeing manufacturing takes place in the Northwestern United States. HP has moved only a portion of its manufacturing abroad, and almost all of its employees are in the U.S. Microsoft has <10 percent of its programmers abroad. Lenovo bought IBM? BWAHAHAHA apparently you know nothing about those two companies--IBM is vastly larger than Lenovo and is probably larger than any company in China. Lenovo bought the laptop & desktop divisions (not even x86 servers) which was ~2% of IBM's business, and IBM sold it because it was the least profitable part.
The US has never stockpiled food for its own people. It has nothing to do with exports--food is perishable and stockpiling it is expensive.YES all this trade profitable--do you think companies outsource because they anticipate taking a loss from it?
You mean foreigners are willing to export things to us, while importing nothing from us, in order to make use of our paper currency to trade between themselves? If so we should print dollars for export. Apparently, foreigners are willing to give us products for free ("flood our markets") with cars and computers in exchange for little slips of paper that they apparently never intend to redeem... The United States exports ~$1 trillion in products anually, including (but not limited to) the products I listed. For comparison, all of the countries in the European Union combined (population 460 million) have exports of about ~$1.4 trillion.Re:Comparative advantage, not surplus. (Score:2, Informative)
My original quote claimed that the 100x figure is incorrect both for PPP and non-PPP adjusted figures.
No. The raw median wage in China is almost $2,000 and the figure for the U.S. is ~$33,000. That's ~16x. None of his figures were closer, since the figures he cited were completely incorrect and the figure I cited was correct (whether it was PPP-adjusted or not).
True, the unadjusted wage is used to determine whether outsourcing will be profitable. But it's the unadjusted wage of the potential workers in that foreign-owned factory, and not the median wage for the country, which matters. In fact, the PPP-adjusted figure probably understates the case.
Bear in mind that the median wage you cited was for China as a whole, which is very deceptive since there are tremendous wage differentials between different regions in China. Almost all of the the factories producing goods for export are along the coastline where Chinese wages are almost 3x higher than in the mainland (regulations in China prevent labor mobility). It's those workers, the coastal workers in the industrialized areas, that Americans are competing against--not peasants on collectivized farms.
Note that Chinese laborers in foreign-owned factories typically make >$1/hour (NON-PPP adjusted) which is nowhere near 100x as much as an equivalent American unskilled laborer.
Furthermore, programmers in India often make the equivalent of >$20,000/yr (NON-PPP adjusted) which is nowhere near 1/100th what an American programmer makes--more like 1/4th.
Again, we must compare American wages to the wages of those Indians he'll be competing against. Obviously a programmer isn't going to have his job outsourced to an Indian gravel-maker who works by hand, or an Indian farmer who uses a hand-plow. The American programmer won't have his job outsourced to the 99.9% of Indians who can't even program a computer, to say nothing of the >40% of Indians who aren't even literate.
Equivalent laborers in China or India earn more than 1/15th what their American counterparts earn, in raw (unadjusted) terms.
No. I'm quoting median wage statistics and not per-capita GDP, therefore no adjustment is required for investments. (Not to mention, median income wouldn't much be affected by investments anyway). The median wage for a Chinese laborer along the coast who works in foreign-owned companies is closer to 1/10th what an equivalent worker makes in the U.S.
No. Labor is not free anywhere, even in Bangladesh. Even if a laberor were property (i.e. a slave), still his labor wouldn't be free insofar as the slaveowner would have to pay for his sustenance and the sustenance of his pro
Not entirely true (Score:2, Informative)
Maserati - Owned fully by Fiat (not American)
Just thought I'd point it out. The American Big 2 (as the 'third' is now owned by Germans) are also dying a slow painful death.
Back to the rest of your post. There hasn't been a massive capital flight from Europe (or anywhere for that matter) to the States, in fact it has been quite the opposite, hence the dollar dropping against everyone else so rapidly. I'm not sure how anyone can justify this deficit as ok. It is short-sighted suicide. Unless of course this Iraq war seriously pays off and keeps up swimming in oil for longer than the rest of the world. But from how pissed off the locals are (in Iraq) I don't think it's going to provide us with much.