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,'"
Bush Whacked. (Score:4, Insightful)
How many of you are making more money because of all the people in China, India, and other cheap-labor locales, who buy stuff that you produce? To vote, Click here [republicans.org]
Now, how many of you know somebody who lost their job because of overseas competition? To vote, Click here [democrats.org]
Based on that unscientific survey, I'd say that George Bush is talking smack. The only people who really benefit from offshoring are the business owners who can costs by firing American workers and replacing them with cheap overseas labor. There may be more wealth, but it's all concentrated in a few hands.
Bush can't understand what's it's like for an ordinary family to suffer the devastation of unemployment because he's never lived through it.
Outsource him (Score:5, Insightful)
Good. (Score:3, Insightful)
Umm, I'm not so sure about this (Score:5, Insightful)
What becomes viable? Almost any manufactured product the Indian middle class want can be made in India less expensively than the US can make it. If the Indians can't do it, the Chinese will do it for them.
I can envisage US companies making products in Asia for sale in Asia, with the profits coming back to the US companies. The only people in the US who will benefit are the owners of the companies who do are successful doing this.
It looks to me like Bush is one more pushing the "increased business profits are good for my friends" line. I'm not sure how the average US citizen will benefit from this strategy.
Editors Shouldn't Bitch, Their Own Company Does It (Score:4, Insightful)
VA Software in Fremont, Calif., a provider of software, information and community support to IT managers and development professionals, keeps core, business-critical work at home, according to Colin Bodell, CTO. "Work that benefits from close proximity to our customers stays in the U.S. Work that can be done anywhere is typically sent to India," he says.
Bottom line: Slashdot's parent company and President Bush are on the same boat on this one. Editors shouldn't ignore or forget that.
Easy to swallow (Score:5, Insightful)
Long story short, those unaffected by outsourcing directly will agree with Bush's view that there is a market to sell other goods (that are not already outsourced to India), and that is good for the country. Those affected by the outsourcing won't give a shit about a new market, and only care about their lost job/income/life.
Time to realize the world doesn't care. (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact is the world doesn't care. We either compete to win or we lose. If all you are willing to do is bitch about Bush or your employer (or usually the case - portraying yourself as victim even though it happened to someone else) then your going to lose.
The world economy is such fun. It doesn't care what you think and it don't care what you think your entitled to. Accept it and then deal with.
not much of market (Score:3, Insightful)
Bush's globalization focus is disturbing to me. It is reducing the US economy to one of consumption, while production is leaving the country. Couple that with increasing federal spending, and debt, and increasing personal spending, and debt, and the US will be an economic hostage to those who buy US debt securities.
Gas stations on the Garden State Parkway are now run by Lukoil, a Russian oil company. More and more of America's cash is leaving the country - our affluence is being purchased at the expense of our future.
Re:Good. (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortuniatly, we're competing with Asia, which doesn't value things such as human rights. As long as we're at an inherant disadvantage because our standard of living is higher, we don't have a chance. Assuming all thing are equal, though, you're right.
Of course, there might be something I'm missing. Feel free to point it out.
Re:Bush Whacked. (Score:5, Insightful)
Indians have programmed for years. (Score:4, Insightful)
1990's - Indian programmers programmed for major US corporations in the US.
2000's - Indian programmers program for major US corporations in India.
The evolution of the internet made this possible and will also make this impossible to stop.
the reality is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would they buy American? (Score:4, Insightful)
Globalization works great for the rich people. It forces their entire workforce to take pay and benefit cuts in order to eek out a living. At the same time, the people who sit on the top of the pile are getting tax cuts and crying about how unfair it is that they be asked to contribute anything to the society that made them rich in the first place.
Again, this shows that Bush and his ilk have no connection with the citizens of this country.
Re:Good. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: your post--just try importing food, goods, or labor to India. Guess what--the India/US import controls are not reflexively symmetric.
Comparative advantage, not surplus. (Score:5, Insightful)
A surplus of a particular good will end up being eliminated by market forces. If the supply exceeds the demand, then the price will lower until there is no more surplus.
Re:Time to realize the world doesn't care. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Bush Whacked. (Score:1, Insightful)
Look
Quality of life was crap back then. Especially for minorities. It may seem better because obviously everyone here got through it ok.
Also, you didnt have computers, instant messaging/internet infrastructure, etc.
Now, if you want to have all the same manufacturing jobs of back then go ahead and switch back to a factory labor economy. But be prepared to give up access to medical, cheap clothing, advanced high tech, super high cell cust. service and overall phone prices.
How come the US unemployment rate is at 6% ? Do you think that 6% can produce all the stuff China and India produce for us? You think if you got blocked off all trade the 6% would be working better jobs?? Fact is more things need to be produced. What would happen to all the jobs people CURRENTLY have? Expect people to have shitty automon factory jobs working crap hours.
We can make products they need over there such as infrastructure building technologies. They haven't the capacity to do it yet. Once they get that they will need more of other types of things we can do.
Have more faith and less suspicion and fear of people.
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
100% free capitalism cannot sustain itself over the long term, we've seen that before. This is why the government has a role to play in the economy. There is a vast middle ground between pure capitalism and pure socialism, and neither extreme can produce a sustainable economy.
A few problems (Score:3, Insightful)
2) A global economy only means more money for shareholders, not joe blow. If his job needs to go overseas, he's pumping gas to whoever is left that can afford a car.
3) What the fuck do we care about India (or China)? They don't pay our taxes. They aren't getting shot at in Iraq. That they don't like Pakistan is really the only useful thing about them. They didn't vote for Dubya, hell not even half of us did.
4) Their workers cannot compete fairly against american workers, owing largely to property values in the US. Ever try to buy a small house near San Jose? 50 year mortgage ring a bell?
5) US dollars invested overseas are not ending up in american hands. They're ending up in India. How is that good for us?
6) Why should US children bother to learn math or science? There will be no jobs utilizing those skills. Instead they should be learning history, deceit and bed pan frisbee.
7) Who is going to be left to build and design missiles, aircraft, tanks, and navy ships if our unskilled factory jobs are done elsewhere, and all our highly skilled design jobs are done elsewhere? Oh that's right, we have a great track record of peace lately.
8) The only thing keeping the investors in the US is the relative safety, uncorrupt government (by comparison), and generally complacent populace. If they start getting hungry they will get angry, and have no problem shooting your ass.
Re:Indians have programmed for years. (Score:5, Insightful)
2020's - Indian programmers program for major Indian corporations in India
2030's - US programmers program for major Indian corporations in the US
Re:Good. (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, there might be something I'm missing. Feel free to point it out.
1) Asia is not a country. It has different human rights values depending on where you are.
2) You equate standard of living and human rights - quite incorrectly. (Singapore for instance has a higher standard of living then the US, with less attention to human rights)
I find it intriguing... (Score:5, Insightful)
how the often libertarian gestalt of Slashdot suddenly advocates government-sponsored trade protectionism as soon as the topic of *computer-related* jobs comes up. Farm subsidies are economically inefficient, and they distort the true price of food. The same thing is true of the oil industry. Why can't the government get smart and start allowing non-distorted prices for gasoline?! Obviously the government is in the hands of special interests. Ah, but then the subject of outsourcing comes up, and the tech industry is under threat and in need of assistance!
There's clear hypocrisy at play here. We want competition and open markets, we want global cooperation in open source software development, we just don't want to give up top dog status in areas that directly affect our jobs.
Made in China is fine and programming in India is fine, as long as the price of laptops keeps dropping. When a product is even a few dollars more expensive than average, Slashdotters are more than willing to scream and yell about it. Well, lower prices are the result of global markets. More buyers, more sources of cheap production.
We'd rather get cheap, well-made goods and donate to aid organizations than truly allow developing economies to compete with us.
Re:Bush Whacked. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not only that, but people have been making these silly arguments for labor protectionism for years. Specifically, for around 300 years, since the time of Ludd at least. The fact is that the US has one of the highest average incomes on the planet, and we do this by sloughing off the job that don't lead to growth. These jobs are invariably replaced by better jobs. The fact is, that jobs and job markets change. If they didn't, we'd all be subsistence farmers or working in crappy factories, and no one wants that.
I think we can separate a feeling of empathy for the employee from a sense of doing what's best for the country. No form of protectionism has ever been good, labor or otherwise.
Re:Outsource him (Score:1, Insightful)
Besides, the whole job of the presidency has already been outsourced to whoever has enough money. And i think that would be haliburton at this moment.
Re:Bush Whacked. (Score:5, Insightful)
Corporate donations should be out, as should corporate lobbying.
Lobbying should be funded solely with private donations that are capped. If you want to do more yourself, then lobby yourself, but organisations should be limited.
And I'd like to make campaigning limited to local funds. I don't want funds from New England rich boys or Texas oil tycoons funding political ads in my state. If you want to campaign for a federal office (House, Senate, or Presidency) in my state, then you should have to have the funding come from MY STATE. If you can't raise funds here for your advertising, well, too bad.
Imagine what THAT would do to corporations. It would strip their power to screw over the average citizen. Then, perhaps, politicians might actually have to listen to their home base, instead of big oil or big media.
Ya' know, I'm starting to think... (Score:4, Insightful)
The mask is off. Now we get to meet the real Dubya.
Re:the reality is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Why will India be any different? People wil whine and complain, and 50 years form now India will be just as wealthy as the US, and Indian companies will have call centers in the US. I don't seem to be any poorer for the decades of manufacturing "moving to Japan", I just have a far better car than I otherwise would, and that car is built in a factory in the US, despite being a "Japanese" car.
Re:Indians have programmed for years. (Score:4, Insightful)
2000's - Indian programmers program for major US corporations in India.
2010's - Indian programmers program for major Indian corporations in India.
2020's - Major Indian corporations outsource work to U.S. programmers because wages are so much lower here.
Re:Good. (Score:3, Insightful)
We are at an inherent disadvantage because we have a decadent lifestyle. Every time a person who is living in poverty in the US eats at McDonalds or buys a beer, they're taking advantage of something that is not available to the poor in many other countries. Next time you have ramen for dinner and think "woe is me", know that there are people who would kill you in a heartbeat for your $0.10 dinner.
If my services are a commodity that can be outsourced to a place where the wages are much lower, I'm not providing value to my employer. I'm ok with this arrangement, because it will exist whether I want to believe in it or not. No one is entitled to any particular job. We are a means to an end. If we are not doing something that helps someone generate profit, there will be no money for us to be paid with. It's just a harsh fact of life.
Re:Bush Whacked. (Score:3, Insightful)
Outsourcing is promoting even more separation between rich and poor. I thought that the American Dream [wikipedia.org] was centered around doing your job well and getting promoted up through the ranks so you can retire a wealthy man. Apparently, that only applies to the Americans whose paychecks get bigger as business costs get smaller, leaving all of us hourly-wage earners (or salary earners) screwed. I can't get promoted no matter how well I do because there's a Mohandas-Ghandi-sound-alike who produces crap code that meets the immediate need with no regard for the future, who also accepts a third (or less) of what i earn. I write better code than the Indians and Chinese contractors that I work with. Everyone (including my managers) knows this, yet I'm still getting passed up for monetary incentives that I've rightfully earned, because there's always someone that will work cheaper. The American Dream apparently means for me that I work an 8-to-5 plus on-the-side contracting plus pinching pennies just to get by and support my family. Wait, the potential for wealth is there for me how?
So much for the American Dream.
A software guy speaks up. (Score:2, Insightful)
I lost my job to outsourcing. I was out of work for nearly a year.
It was hell, it was torment, and it was impossible to find work...until I outsourced my job search.
I was at wit's end until I was inspired by My Outsourced Life [smartmoney.com] and I did something about it and landed a great job thanks to my friend "Steven" in India.
Sure, Bush's attitude is cocky because I strongly suspect he thinks that we are "better than" India; but the important thing to take out of this is : outsourcing is not going away, and you can either exploit it or let it ruin you.
The cocky part is the American spirit, for overcoming adversity in the worst of times, with hard work, ingenuity and creativity. Dedication to excellence in the work you do will keep you going, and if you want something badly enough you will find a way to get it.
Re:Why would they buy American? (Score:3, Insightful)
Has it occured to you that by the very act of being able to post to slashdot, you are in fact, (compared to the rest of the worlds population) one of the rich people?
Re:There is a point in this... (Score:4, Insightful)
However, do a little googling on 'indian middle class' and you'll find that the US equivilent wage to lead a nice middle class life in India is placed somwhere (depending on the year and on the study) between $6,000 and $15,000 per year.
I'm no isolationist, but there is a serious catch here that noone on either side of the issue is directly addressing - I live in a place where it takes at least $40,000 to 50,000 to lead a nice middle class life. What can I possibly produce that would generate that income from a market in India? As other posters here have already alluded to, the indian middle class will get a much better deal from Indian (or Chinese, etc) produced goods.
In the end, U.S. workers can't compete until the cost of living differences, as well as the differences in currency valuation flatten out. Globalization will innevitably lead to this flattening, but the upheaval in the US, with its relatively high costs and current currency valuations, will be severe, I expect the ranks of the working poor to swell massively, with consequences that, so far, I have yet to hear any politician (or economist) deal with honestly.
Re:Mmmm Curry (Score:3, Insightful)
Which will have to pay franchising fees to McDonald's America, and also purchase raw product from McDonald's Indian Distribution centers which are owned by McDonald's America.
all those fancy plasma TVs aren't made in America
But are paid for and sold by American companies.
so the American working man won't benefit, but the big American companies will..
That depends on how you define the American "working man". "Working man" used to mean factory workers and service personnel. As time goes on, it has been changing to mean corporate workers (many of who can get $$$ bonuses for opening business in new areas) and entrepenuers. As long as the change isn't too sudden (thus leaving a massive number of specialized workers jobless), such change is far from a bad thing. In fact, it generally means more wealth and independence for all.
Re:Comparative advantage, not surplus. (Score:5, Insightful)
Suppose it takes China 10 h to produce a computer, and 2 h to produce a car . It takes America 2 h to produce a computer, and 1 h to produce a car. America has an absolute advantage over China, as they can produce more computers and cars in a fixed amount of time.
In the US, 1 computer costs 2 cars. In China, 1 computer costs 5 cars. In the US, 1 car costs 0.5 computers. In China, 1 car costs only 0.2 computers. As we can see, China gives up fewer computers for each car produced than the US does.
Thus, even though the US can produce both goods faster, and can hence produce more goods in a fixed period of time, it still costs them more to produce a car (in terms of computers). Thus China should focus on producing cars, while the US manufactures computers, because they each have a comparative advantage in that area.
Now, that's very basic trade economics. It doesn't necessarily apply well to the real world, but such examples do show us that one country can never produce everything for less than another nation. Even if both nations have the same productivity, the result is that neither has a comparative advantage nor an absolute advantage over the other.
Re:Umm, I'm not so sure about this (Score:2, Insightful)
What becomes viable? Almost any manufactured product the Indian middle class want can be made in India less expensively than the US can make it. If the Indians can't do it, the Chinese will do it for them.
How about x86 cpus, cell phones, optical equipment (for baliwood), chemical products and consulting. Indians buy all of those things and don't manufacture them domestically.
Re:Good. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Bush Whacked. (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit. They're making OUR infrastructure building technologies. They obviously have the capacity, capability, and will- they have *everything* we do already. There's no competitive advantage left for the United States- they can do everything so much cheaper than we can that there is nothing left that is unique to us.
Have more faith and less suspicion and fear of people.
Easy for you to say if you have had less than two weeks laid off in your entire life. Try saying the same after searching for a new job for two years- and watching your children starve while you're doing it.
What do we have to sell? (Score:5, Insightful)
Almost anything we make can be made cheaper in China or even India.
And as time goes by, more manufacturing will be moved there.
This isn't about DIFFERENT products. There aren't any different products. I can outfit an entire house at WalMart and almost all of their stuff is imported from China. So any country that would be a consumer of our products would be smarter to just get those same products from China. We do.
I'm in favour of a global economy, but not in the way it is being done.
Right now, we're in a race to the bottom because we aren't putting any barriers on countries without the same worker protections or environmental protections that we have.
Rather than dragging us down, we need to bring them up.
Re:To be frank.... (Score:1, Insightful)
What about the other 700 million? (Score:1, Insightful)
Just like every other president, he is bowing to elite business interests. The folks who will make money here are our elite, and their elite. Everyone else doesn't matter, as they are too poor to contribute to political campaigns. And there isn't a thing anyone can do about it. Just ask Vietnam, Nicaragua, Cuba, Guam, Iraq, all of Indochina, and Sudan what happens when you don't cooperate with US business interests, and try to develop an economy the US doesn't have influence over.
Re:Umm, I'm not so sure about this (Score:3, Insightful)
When Americans No Longer Own America (Score:5, Insightful)
Published on Monday, February 27, 2006 by CommonDreams.org
When Americans No Longer Own America
by Thom Hartmann
The Dubai Ports World deal is waking Americans up to a painful reality: So-called "conservatives" and "flat world" globalists have bankrupted our nation for their own bag of silver, and in the process are selling off America.
Through a combination of the "Fast Track" authority pushed for by Reagan and GHW Bush, sweetheart trade deals involving "most favored nation status" for dictatorships like China, and Clinton pushing us into NAFTA and the WTO (via GATT), we've abandoned the principles of tariff-based trade that built American industry and kept us strong for over 200 years.
The old concept was that if there was a dollar's worth of labor in a pair of shoes made in the USA, and somebody wanted to import shoes from China where there may only be ten cents worth of labor in those shoes, we'd level the playing field for labor by putting a 90-cent import tariff on each pair of shoes. Companies could choose to make their products here or overseas, but the ultimate cost of labor would be the same.
Then came the flat-worlders, led by misguided true believers and promoted by multinational corporations. Do away with those tariffs, they said, because they "restrain trade." Let everything in, and tax nothing. The result has been an explosion of cheap goods coming into our nation, and the loss of millions of good manufacturing jobs and thousands of manufacturing companies. Entire industry sectors have been wiped out.
These policies have kneecapped the American middle class. Our nation's largest employer has gone from being the unionized General Motors to the poverty-wages Wal-Mart. Americans have gone from having a net savings rate around 10 percent in the 1970s to a minus .5 percent in 2005 - meaning that they're going into debt or selling off their assets just to maintain their lifestyle.
At the same time, federal policy has been to do the same thing at a national level. Because our so-called "free trade" policies have left us with an over $700 billion annual trade deficit, other countries are sitting on huge piles of the dollars we gave them to buy their stuff (via Wal-Mart and other "low cost" retailers). But we no longer manufacture anything they want to buy with those dollars.
So instead of buying our manufactured goods, they are doing what we used to do with Third World nations - they are buying us, the USA, chunk by chunk. In particular, they want to buy things in America that will continue to produce profits, and then to take those profits overseas where they're invested to make other nations strong. The "things" they're buying are, by and large, corporations, utilities, and natural resources.
Back in the pre-Reagan days, American companies made profits that were distributed among Americans. They used their profits to build more factories, or diversify into other businesses. The profits stayed in America.
Today, foreigners awash with our consumer dollars are on a two-decades-long buying spree. The UK's BP bought Amoco for $48 billion - now Amoco's profits go to England. Deutsche Telekom bought VoiceStream Wireless, so their profits go to Germany, which is where most of the profits from Random House, Allied Signal, Chrysler, Doubleday, Cyprus Amax's US Coal Mining Operations, GTE/Sylvania, and Westinghouse's Power Generation profits go as well. Ralston Purina's profits go to Switzerland, along with Gerber's; TransAmerica's profits go to The Netherlands, while John Hancock Insurance's profits go to Canada. Even American Bankers Insurance Group is owned now by Fortis AG in Belgium.
Foreign companies are buying up our water systems, our power generating systems, our mines, and our few remaining factories. All because "flat world" so-called "free trade" p
Re:Bush Whacked. (Score:4, Insightful)
Interesting you should say that. About ten years ago there was a proposal by a presidential candidate which was titled, 'Can't vote, can't contribute'. Essentially, if you were not able to vote in an election you were not able to contribute.
This would exclude all PACs, corporations, etc from contributing to campaigns since none of them vote. Their members vote but not the entities themselves.
And I'd like to make campaigning limited to local funds.
This was another aspect of the above proposal. There is no reason someone from California should be contributing to a Senate race in another state. If they wanted to contribute money to the candidate they would have to move to the state in question.
In fact, as a classic example of how out-of-state funds can alter a campaign, Cynthia McKinney from Georgia was defeated as the direct result of thousands of dollars that was poured into her opponents campaign because she did not support Israeli policies in the Occupied Territories. Jewish donors from the Northeast responded and altered the outcome of the race.
Of course these changes to campaign finance laws will never happen because that would diminish the influence that business and PACs have. We couldn't have that happen, now could we?
Re:Time to realize the world doesn't care. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it's unfortunate that a lot of jobs are leaving the US. I also think there will be some serious long term problems that come from people not having opportunities to work in some heavily outsourced fields. At some point, we will run out of experts if there is no way to develop that experience over time because learning is not cost effective.
Outsourcing to call centers that don't speak the language well enough causes a backlash. There are already some companies that have moved their call centers back to the US. There are also training programs to teach people to speak with more recognizable accents. Ie, in India, there are people who specialize in speaking with an American, British, or Australian accent to communicate more effectively with the customers in those countries. If you're not able to communicate with your vendors, you need to complain to them. The people with the big checkbooks can refuse to renew service contracts if the service being provided is worthless. That affects the bottom line more than the cost difference between phone support in the US vs India.
Re:IP (Score:4, Insightful)
If the U.S. were to dominate the world economy via intellectual property (but not in any other way), why would other countries continuing paying us for knowledge which once in the wild can be reproduced again and again at no cost?
Right now countries will respect our IP "ownership", but that's because they can't sell their products here if they don't. With the U.S. still the largest economy on the planet, you don't want to be shut out. However, once the rest of the world develops robust middle-class markets the cost of paying the US again and again for ideas is going to lose its appeal. Intellectual property (especially in the form of patents) is a "I got here first, so you can't do this without my permission" model. It's a fiction that only works as long as everyone playing agrees to believe in it (unlike, say, a rock, which is there whether you believe in it or not).
Re:Comparative advantage, not surplus. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're wrong about that.
Suppose it takes China 10 h to produce a computer, and 2 h to produce a car . It takes America 2 h to produce a computer, and 1 h to produce a car. America has an absolute advantage over China, as they can produce more computers and cars in a fixed amount of time.
But since China's minimum wage is 1/100th of ours- they pay only the eqivalent of
In the US, 1 computer costs 2 cars. In China, 1 computer costs 5 cars. In the US, 1 car costs 0.5 computers. In China, 1 car costs only 0.2 computers. As we can see, China gives up fewer computers for each car produced than the US does.
But- here's the big one- China has a billion workers to feed. They have a virtually unlimited supply of labor. So they can make all the computers and cars THEY need, PLUS enough for export to swamp the markets of the United States and Europe with computers and cars, and drive the native manufacturers in the US and Europe out of business entirely, of both computers and cars.
Thus, even though the US can produce both goods faster, and can hence produce more goods in a fixed period of time, it still costs them more to produce a car (in terms of computers). Thus China should focus on producing cars, while the US manufactures computers, because they each have a comparative advantage in that area.
But since China has a relatively unlimited supply of workers, they can just bring more factories online and outproduce the United States in both cars and computers- thus utterly destroying the US market with cheaper goods.
Now, that's very basic trade economics.
It's also complete bullshit at this point, since China's wages are 1/100th of ours and they have no shortage of labor.
It doesn't necessarily apply well to the real world, but such examples do show us that one country can never produce everything for less than another nation.
It actually shows no such thing, because it has a severe lack of input data.
Even if both nations have the same productivity, the result is that neither has a comparative advantage nor an absolute advantage over the other.
Productivity means NOTHING when you have a billion starving workers to feed- you can always overcome productivity with sheer numbers. Ricardo was an idiot and if he were alive today I'd shoot him just for proposing such a dangerous piece of sheer propaganda and lies.
Re:He's an idiot, but he's right this time (Score:1, Insightful)
This is so ridiculous I can't help commenting. First of all, "most" of the USA does not live in poverty by ANY measure. Second, by the standards of the world, the poverty rate in the US is effectively zero. Take a look at how fat people are in "poverty" neighborhoods, and that will tell you something.
Not to say the US can't improve, but your point is just stupid.
Useless to Argue (Score:4, Insightful)
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls [bls.gov]
(select the 4th item and have them draw a graph for you!)
Outsourcing isn't bad, guys (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Bush Whacked. (Score:2, Insightful)
This is the sort of UTTER BULLSHIT that got GW Bush elected over Al Gore because people were voting for Nader.
If Al Gore were elected, would we be *torturing* people at Abu Gharaib and Guantanamo? Would we be sending citizens of Canada and other allies to countries like Syria and Egypt for torture sessions as part of an "extraordinary rendition" program?
Would the nation's environmental laws be gutted by federal department heads hired from the nation's worst polluters? Would the administration be bullying scientists from FDA, NASA and the Dept of Agriculture (to name but a few) to cover up the deadly side effects of drugs put out by big pharma or to hush up evidence of global warming?
Would the government have exempted million-dollar-plus estates from the estate tax, draining money from social programs? Would it have cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans?
Would THOUSANDS of soldiers have died for want of a $260 armor plate? Would the government be aggressively billing people for busted body army and time in military hospitals?
You might not know JACK SHIT about politics, but don't let that doesn't stop you from trying to corrode the electoral process with total IGNORANCE of the actual behavioral history of Democrat and Republican politicians!
Re:Comparative advantage, not surplus. (Score:3, Insightful)
Does it matter? They've got 29% unemployment, and 1/10th our minimum wage. That's a hell of a lot of worker dollars to soak up before productivity means anything at all- and when you throw in the fact that they could be trading with China, which adds another billion workers and 1/100th our minimum wage, our productivity doesn't mean squat unless it's 100x better than the entire rest of the world in at least one item.
In any case, India is a cheap labor market, but it has poor infrastructure, so it doesn't scale very well. It's going to take 50 years to build good roads, good power, and good communications infrastructure out to the far corners of India, just as it did here, and by that time India will no longer be a cheap labor market.
The point isn't that. The point is- they can do all of that with native labor importing nothing, so it means nothing as far as trade is concerned.
Also, while we're still losing manufacturing jobs to China, for example, China is losing manufacturing jobs far faster to robots. Eventually, all manufacturing will be highly automated and there won't really be any manufacturing jobs anywhere. That's just the continuation of the industrial revolution to its inevitable conclusion, and that will benefit everyone to judge from history.
Either that, or it will be feudalism all over again- the robots will benefit the top 1% of society and everybody else will simply starve to death.
Re:Good. (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes I hear you Sir. Asians are responsible for Guantanamo, they maintain secret prisons in Europe, have left Iraq in chaos with 30,000 civilians dead and were responsible for the only weapons of mass destruction ever used in human history.
You would be surprised to know that Asia is a continent. With that knowledge you probably would have not passed that sweeping remark. I dont hold it againts you because someone said "Never Assume Malice When Stupidity Will Suffice".
Grow beyond Fox News :)
Re:Good. (Score:3, Insightful)
1. A democracy does not mean you need total free trade. Democratic nations can vote for socialist leaders, or leaders who realize that unlimited free trade is a bad idea if only you are playing by the rules.
2. Our founding fathers were for free trade between the states, but wanted tariffs to protect American workers. They also thought citizens should be armed, believed in small government, and didn't think we should go overseas looking for monsters to slay or be involved in entangling alliances. Then again, what did they know?
3. As I hinted above, free trade isn't really free trade. India has Tariffs. China does as well. The only tariffs we have are to protect us against Canada (DUMB).
The free trade is going only one way, and it's not helping the middle class. This isn't all Bush, Clinton was the same way.
Re:Comparative advantage, not surplus. (Score:2, Insightful)
Even if, as you claim, EVERYTHING can be made cheaper in India than in the U.S., trade is still MUTUALLY beneficial. Unless everything is made cheaper in India in *exactly* the same ratio, there will be benefits to specialization and trade.
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
While that is true, the inequity would be sharply curbed if you couldn't make money from the labors of others. It would be within an order of magnitude, not six of them or so.
Re:Outsourcing complainers on Slashdot are hypocri (Score:2, Insightful)
Not all would change from that platform, but if it's a big country or corporation changing. You would find it hard to believe the account management people might lose their jobs as a direct effect? Or the indirect effect of lost revenues cutting workforce?
Sure it woulnd't happen every time directly, but lost of revenue is loss of revenue.
This is just ignorance. (Score:2, Insightful)
Firstly, Bush is promoting world economics, not just U.S. economics. Secondly, everybody always looks at politics and thinks "How does this benefit me?", but the fact is, most things the government does will not benefit you specifically. In the long run, you will benefit, but the effects will not be so easily traceable back to that policy you disagreed with so long ago. Promoting world economics promotes U.S. economics.
Outsourcing lowers the value of programming in the U.S. since it could be more cheaply acquired by outsourcing; it's true. Now, look past that. This lowers the number of demanded programmers in the U.S. (and the pay of those who do score programming jobs). Costs for software development is lowered, and the need for cheaper software is met. People who can't find jobs programming go on to find other kinds of jobs, those that are more profitable. Whenever a job is more profitable, that's because there is an unsatisfied need in the economy for that product or service. Overall, people will enjoy cheaper and more readily available products in every field, not just software.
Why should our economy be locked into these few things like software development when diverting our resources into more needy areas would be a greater benefit?
Re:Bush Whacked. (Score:3, Insightful)
Or perhaps we should only worry about the American poor.
Anyway, if there is job to be done, and someone in India can do it just as well, but cheaper, and he needs the money more, then how can we deny the job to the Indian? What exactly is the problem here?
Re:Bush Whacked. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Umm, I'm not so sure about this (Score:2, Insightful)
Buy stocks in the companies that are profiting overseas then. An initial investment of $5 or $6 million should be able to keep you going in the market for the rest of your life! Just borrow the money from your parents or a friend and then pay them back with your profits.
Re:Good. (Score:1, Insightful)
We rose to power on the free market system and wouldn't be what we are today without it. Now other countries are rising up thanks (in some small part) to us spreading democracy and freedom around the world. Some may view it as a threat to the US, ok, but if we are really better and should be commanding such high standards of living then we'll innovate and stay on top.
Many view the loss of production as a sign of a weak US economy, read some economic books, it's a sign of Americas strength. We've moved past those jobs, yeah it hurts some but all growing pains do. You don't complain when you can afford a full closet full of clothes or cheap electronics, all thanks to a global free market.
I'm an extremely proud American, but even I'll admit we don't have some higher right to better than the rest of the world, we have to earn it. If you start to buy into the fact that we're America so we deserve to be better than I'm sorry, you and the country don't have a future. But as long as we innovate & work hard we'll have a chance to stay on top; we already have the groundwork laid and a huge head start, so what are you complaining about? Competition can make everyone better.
Re:Bush Whacked. (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure, it's not a zero sum game, if you own a few hundred thousand shares in whatever corporation is raking it in in India. Guess how much stock I own? Is there nowhere in your sophisticated economics science that says that there are such things as phase change? You keep talking about how things will be as before, we'll come up with something new, and it will all be shiny and happy again. Me, I know that water continues to shrink as it gets colder, until it freezes, and then it expands. If you think economies can't have all sorts of counter-intuitive gotchas, it sounds more like religious faith than it does reason.
The media consists of corporations. (Score:5, Insightful)
We all know that war is often very profitable for both those who manufacture the supplies consumed during conflict, as well as for those who report on said conflict. Therefore it seems unlikely that those who are benefitting the most from a rather pro-war administration (if not an entire system) will stand against it.
Such an initiative would require the corporate mass media of the US to in turn speak out against itself. Again, it's doubtful that it would do it, at least to the extent where real change may happen.
Re:Not accurate. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes it can. One nation can be the best at producing everything. It's 100% possible in theory. In practive however, of course the French will always make better cream coffee than Americans.
However, when it comes to mass produced goods like cars, computers, software, clothes, etc, etc, etc... China can and is best at producing these goods at the lowest price.
Economists love to fudge this stuff, but the reality is a lot of them are simply bullshitting and/or don't really know how things are going to turn out. Cheaper goods from China may or may not make things better for Americans, or for Chinese people for that matter.
The weightless economy is an ivory tower concept, that is consistently held up as an aspirational one. But bottom line, countries with a relatively high manufacturing and exports boom. Countries without don't. America is currently without, and seems most likely to continue withou for some time. All because some economist says that goods produced in sweatshops by serfs living a totalitatrian state should be allowed to freely compete with citizens in a prosperous democracy.
Jobs go to China for one reason and one reason only. It's cheaper.
It tells me something different ... (Score:3, Insightful)
It tells me something different than it tells you.
"How fat people are" in the US is a piss-poor measure of their poverty level ... except, perhaps, in the opposite direction that you're assuming. Due mostly to warping effect of agribusiness corporations and their reps in Congress have on the market, it's cheaper to be fat and malnourished in the US than it is to be slim and healthy.
Re:What about "informational" ads on TV? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd love to see all of the money taken out of politics, but in this case the cure is a lot worse than the disease.
Re:Umm, I'm not so sure about this (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're okay with children starving in China, then it's fine to oppose this leveling. But if you actually want the world to be a better place, outsourcing is a good thing. Leveling the labor playing field is a good thing. Why is it that it's better for someone in the U.S. to prosper than someone in India? Think about it.
Historically what we've seen is that changes like this float all boats. Although I am not fond of him in general, Bush is right in saying that increased prosperity elsewhere creates opportunity here. The suck is that the imbalance will take a while to level out, and while that's happening we will experience some economic woes. But if the value of labor were the same in every country in the world, the result would be global prosperity, not global poverty.
I'll get back to you about whether this is okay with me when my job gets outsourced, but at least in the abstract it seems like a good thing.
Parity (Score:3, Insightful)
The common thread I keep seeing intoned over and over in threads here is all the doom and gloom, that everything can be done cheaper elsewhere and jobs will go and go never to return. To some extent this is true, jobs will leave. Things ARE cheaper in India. However what people neglect is how market conditions change in the target countries. In India for instance, the demand for that cheap labor is so high, that already you are seeing a substantial increase in wages over even 10 years ago (its still very small compared to US salaries, but it IS rising). This is generating that middle class spoken of in the article. At the same time these same engineers are creating a consumer class and discovering a sense of entitlement. Doesn't all this sound familiar, oh yeah, its what happened in the US over a span of 50-60 years or so. The general concept behind globalization isn't that the US economy and work for is destroyed and impoverished, but rather one of the world economy reaching parity. 10-15 years from now, the overall cost of labor will be comparable, or close to comparable between india and the US most likely. Companies won't offshore to india, it will instead be to china, or russsia, or some country in africa. The point to the theory is the that haves and the have nots will come closer together in a global economy. Workers in India will eventually earn the same rights and standards of employment as the US and Europe. At the same time Europe and the US will learn how to make its workers cost less to companies. And while all this is going on, new economic powers will be rising in the way india is now. The process in it ultimate form would have many many nations all competing on even footing, but before that can happen the process of realocation of resources needs to happen. Its painful, but its not the end of the world. Sure people will lose jobs, but we as people will adapt and move on. As has been mentioned we AREN'T entitled to anything by right, we work hard, we do jobs, we earn money. The US unemployment rate for all the doom and gloom is still one of the best in the world. There will always be people who suffer do to economics, and whenever thos people are concentrated in one sector they will complain loudly (look at the manufacturing sector of the past), but those same people always make do and move on.
Re:Bush Whacked. (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the sort of UTTER BULLSHIT that got GW Bush elected over Al Gore because people were voting for Nader.
Absolutely correct. I'm so sick of hearing that lame ass excuse. In case anyone forgot, the Republicans took control of both houses of Congress in 1994. Anything passed since then, no matter which president signed it, was Republican born and bred. That includes one of our all time /. favorites, the DMCA.
Stop using that crapass excuse for supporting a lying, corrupt and incompetent party. It does make a difference who you vote for.
Re:Bush Whacked. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll vote for the match vs. the flame thrower any day. At least with the match I have a chance of controlling the fire.
Do the Democrats who voted for Nader and the Greens really think we're no worse off under the current regime? If they do, I know they're too stupid to run a country.
Stupid Libertarians might think there's no difference, but every body count increase I see from Iraq tells me there's a hell of a difference.
The fact is that Al Gore might have got hit on 9/11 (keyword is might - it's pretty clear that had he been elected, his Attorney General might have been more interested in policing potential terrorists than in covering up nekkid statues), but he would have limited the retaliation to the Taliban in Afghanistan and put qualified people in there to nation build. Right now, because of this administration's stupid adventurism, we not only are in the midst of an escalating civil war in Iraq but, because our troops are occupied there, we are seeing our gains in Afghanistan slipping away.
So to all of you Greens and Libs that "see no difference", just remember that when the next body bag comes home.
P.S. To all of the apologists who say "but the Dems voted to go to Iraq, too," I really don't want to get into a long, long, long pissing match. Let's just say that history will show that the Iraq adventure was prety much all Bush's and the Neocon's thing.
s/give you scholarship/remove existing subsidies/ (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is just ignorance. (Score:4, Insightful)
The US economy is current diverting resources to needy areas such as government bureaucracy, the retail and service sectors, housing construction and the armed forces. Thank goodness we're not locked into software development and manufacturing!
Re:Comparative advantage, not surplus. (Score:4, Insightful)
And yet, manufacturing capacity (if not jobs) is returning to the US from China every year - robots work cheaper than people. America has one huge advantage over India and China right now: we have infrastructure. We have reliable power, good safe roads, good telecom infrastructure, and universities capable of graduating world-class engineers in every corner of the country. China and India have this in a few cities. We still have a real advantage in producing goods that require more than just cheap mindless labor.
A factory with high-tech automation, reliable power, and reliable delivery of raw materials is going to outproduce a sweat-shop eventually, it's just a matter of technology. I know my company, for example, might want to move all of its engineering work to India ASAP, but it simply can't: India doesn't have the infrastructure available to it yet. Not enough power and telecom to move big test labs there, not enough engineers graduating every year to move design there at what we want to pay.
Right now, India simply can't produce *enough*. Any one item, sure, that's cheap, but the entire capacity of the country gets consumed pretty quickly and then what? It takes generations to grow infrastructure.
Either that, or it will be feudalism all over again- the robots will benefit the top 1% of society and everybody else will simply starve to death.
Marx predicted this exact thing. He's been wrong for over 100 years in a row, so pardon my optimism. Growing up, my family was damn poor, but we could afford shoes for everyone, more than one chair, "silverware" (not silver, of course) for everyone to eat with, and a car. There's wasn't a single working-class family who could afford any of these things at the start of the industrial revolution. Just about every manufacturing job that existed 100 years ago is gone today, and yet everyone is better off. Ain't technology grand?
Futility (Score:4, Insightful)
Outsourcing is international trade. Two companies, one in America, one in India, exchange money for software.
If outsourcing is to a company's advantage then they will try to do it. That's a given. The only way to prevent outsourcing is to put up massive and draconian trade barriers.
Unfortunately, such trade barriers would impoverish the American people and cripple the American economy. An enormous amount of America's (and indeed the world's) wealth is due to international trade. It's one of the few points that most economists agree on.
So do you want to lose your job from outsourcing or from a crippled economy?
Re:Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Right. Rich men decided that a truly free market wouldn't always guarantee them a fortune. So they began to tinker with it by shutting out the smaller entrepreneurs who might have produced competition. They craved a leveled and massified population whom they could count on to keep the capital moving in their direction (because the people work for them!). They've intervened on the free market and made it something else instead. You said an oligarchy. I think you're right. I like that term for it, because it reveals the true nature of business today: Businesses are sovereign nations unto themselves. And they have no borders. We aren't mere Americans (etc.), we are citizens of the companies we work for, and we abide by their policies. If possible, our companies care less for our well-being than our government does; the profit must come first (whereas the government was intended for the people).
But your argument now becomes very interesting:
Here I say you are wrong. The problem with our "free market" is that it isn't a free market. It's dominated by monopoly and oligarchy, as you said. To fix the problem, we need to free the market again. Government tinkering doesn't make it any more free. Read the proceedings of the 73rd congress, 1934. You'll get a better idea of why government wants to regulate the economy. As it turns out, it's for the exact same reason that wealthy businessmen have for their own meddling. We want businessmen AND politicians out of the economy. There is no role for either of them. We need a FREE market.
A free market is a largely local market sustained by small business. International trade is performed by local entrepreneurs. The same principles of small government ought to apply equally to the business-state. We have to step back and ask ourselves, why are we working for somebody else? That's the root of the problem, and it won't be fixed easily.
If we had a government that could be relied on for its integrity and honesty, I would agree with you that the government should play a role in the economy. If we could have such a government, we might have a chance at a truly free market.
Mr. Bush has reinforced his belief that government serves not the people, but the economy (he will contend that "government serves the people best through the economy. I say: the people are the economy."). Mr. Bush refuses to protect "some Americans" for the sake of a robust bottom line. This was not the Founder's vision for our Republic, and such is a great crime against the people and a violation of our nation's charter.
Re:Bush Whacked. (Score:3, Insightful)
Tempting to believe, but wrong.
It sounds like you understand one important part that others fail to get, the principle of Comparative Advantage [wikipedia.org], which is why trade creates wealth.
But there's more to it. Look, for example, at the computer you typed this on. Although computers were all initially made here, they're now almost all made overseas. By your theory, this would mean that the companies that started that are swimming in dough. But they're not; most of them are gone, the people in that business are struggling, and computer prices are forever reaching new lows. Why? Because it's mainly the consumers that capture the benefits.
A few American factory workers lost. But we all gained much cheaper hardware, a much larger gain.
Bush can't understand what's it's like for an ordinary family to suffer the devastation of unemployment because he's never lived through it.
Yes, and that is indeed a problem.
Adjustments because of trade happen all the time, not just international trade. Amazon and their ecommerce ilk have undoubtedly put out of business many small stores, and countless people who used to take telephone and mail-in catalog orders. I'm sure that Yahoo and Google have decimated the ranks of people who used to answer Directory Assistance calls. The American worker probably has much more cause to hate California than India.
The solution isn't to stop trade and innovation. The solution is to tax the well off to pay for unemployment benefits and retraining. You can't outlaw winning and losing, but you can make sure the winners pay enough so that the losers can be winners again.
Re:Bush just doesn't get it - Maybe you don't? (Score:2, Insightful)
If you can catch five rabbits a day with your spear and someone else in another tribe has a bow and arrow and can catch thirty a day and trade them at a lower cost than you to your tribe, it's your responsibility to figure out a way to catch more rabbits at a lower expense - it is NOT your Village Chief's responsibility to outlaw the extra meat to protect your inefficient use of time and resources. It's time for you to find a way to get more rabbits - afterall, the benefits are crucial to all. If you're smart and watch the trends, you'll always be a step ahead.
One thing that we have fallen a behind on in the US, which is in part due to the conservative nasty policies of the Bush administration is Science and Technology. That's the only thing that will keep us competitive on the global market. For example, when a foreign entity develops breakthrough cures to all types of illnesses from research on stem cells which is really being hampered here in the US by conservative sectarian BS, they'll have a wonderful lucrative business and a monopoly on the business. Maybe when the technology becomes established and they've developed newer technologies, they'll outsource some of their lesser jobs to us - because we were too busy whining about losing some job to an Indian programmer who could do the same job much cheaper.
Whiny Americans. Stop bitching and create new things to help all of us.
My job is under threat of being outsourced, my boss brought it up at a meeting recently. I suppose it's time for me to do something that distinguishes me from the potential cheaper employees or get left behind. Imagine that - I have to work to stay ahead.
Marius
Let me get this straight... (Score:4, Insightful)
"gated resort countries" vs. "production countries (Score:1, Insightful)
Depends on to whom.
If you look at the long term consequences of the current "global economy" and "free trade" rules, it's not impossible to see a future world where due to outsourcing some countries will function almost as "gated resort countries" for the riches of the world, while other countries will function as the cheap, environmentally destroyed "production countries", where the poor population from the "gated resort countries" will be force-migrated.
Outsourcing for corporations: it's sure great. Tyen can find the ceapest labour, resources anywhere.
For this to happen the American CEO or shareholders don't not even need to move to India.
Outsourcing for local workers: not that great.
In order to sell your skills there, is not that easy, you probably would have to move there.
But why would they take you anyway, your job moved to India not because you were not good enough, but because someone in India will do it cheaper.
Outsourcing for local customers: not necessarily.
Sure, you can get cheaper all the goods made in India, but since you decided to stay in North America, the corporations are not willing to pass on you all the savings, just as much as keep them competitive here.
The global open economy is not that global for you as a local customer: you simply can not get goods for the best price, anywhere on the world. You can not even do that in the North American Free Trade zone, just think of buying something in Canada from someone in the "free trade" partner USA: you will have to pay duties. The great "free trade" rethorics applies only if you are a company. The very same corporations are demanding to keep different price structure for different regions of the world. See region coded DVDs: same product, different price.
But how can I send it? (Score:2, Insightful)
Outsource Everyone (Score:5, Insightful)
In short, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. The single best way to cut U.S. corporate labor costs is to outsource the top of the pyramid.
Re:the reality is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:the reality is... (Score:3, Insightful)
All 10 of the top 10 best cars in Consumer Reports' 2006 Cars issue are Japanese-made. [voanews.com]
Just today, US-based auto parts maker Dana filed for bankruptcy protection [yahoo.com]. This is a bombshell event, in addition to the ongoing malaise at GM and Ford. Billions of dollars in losses for the year ($1 billion of losses for GM in Q4'05 alone).
Just wait. There will be something to fill in this space soon.
Re:Bush Whacked. (Score:2, Insightful)
Hell, those people never even HEARD of health insurance, workspace safety hazard regulations, and retirement payments. A republican dream playground, no less!
Would you sell your soul to satan to get that economy going?
Bottom line: there is a right, and there is a wrong. On this one issue, the Republicans happen to get it wrong.
Re:the reality is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Which has exactly nothing to do with whether or not trade is a good idea. The numbers demonstrate that trade makes societies richer. Whether that makes individuals richer is up to the society.
And that's whatkills me about the various anti-trade movements. They are wasting all their political capital to make society poorer, rather ways to divert the increase in wealth to help the poor.
Re:Comparative advantage, not surplus. (Score:3, Insightful)
That may have been a valid simplification in the early 1800s, but it isn't today. A semiconductor fab plant can cost in the neighborhood of a billion dollars. A degree in computer science from a name school can easily run $200,000 (tuition, room, board, books, etc, plus 4 years lost wages).
Ricardo build a model of comparative advantage; don't assume it is a law.
As a thought experiment, consider the quote "the United States should instead focus on India as a vital new market for American goods ..." and estimate how many of those American goods are actually going to be manufactured in China.
Re:What do we have to sell? (Score:1, Insightful)
Why can you outfit an entire house with stuff from walmart? Because it is so cheap, right? Well, why is it so cheap?
They're using what amounts to slave labor. And, as long as their government suppresses them, there is no amount of outsourcing that will correct the situation.
"So any country that would be a consumer of our products would be smarter to just get those same products from China. We do."
I think this, in the long term, is very, very wrong. This is the reason: You can't treat people like slaves.
It is not smart, in the long run, to support opressive governments. Eventually, the people working in those sweatshops for two cents an hour so we can buy a shirt for three bucks aren't going to take it anymore. I think the internet will allow this to happen because someone over there will see where their products end up, and how we live over here, and wonder to themselves, "Why can't I live like them? Why do I have to work 16 hours a day and barely be able to feed my family, when people over there are free and are living off of my work?"
One day, it will come back to us, and it won't be pretty.
Ruined in the first sentence (Score:3, Insightful)
Where do they keep this silver? In what financial instruments is it invested?
Money does not just disappear when a person sells something for a fat profit. They invest that money in other instruments, in effect simply transferring their ownership from one set of companies to another. Foreign-based companies may own and operate in America more and more, but more and more the wealth of America is invested in foreign-based companies because that is where the growth is. So who owns who?
Re:Bush Whacked. (Score:5, Insightful)
Examples:
USA PATRIOT Act renewal [senate.gov]
Bankruptcy "reform" [senate.gov]
Highway Pork Bill [senate.gov]
I can come up with more examples if you like.
Notice we are not saying the Republicans and Democrats are the same. We are saying that they are close enough to warrant voting for someone other than them.
Re:Bush Whacked. (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? Are you sure about that? I'm not trying to troll, but you can't be sure about that. If you consulted an economic text, the theory says that you are correct, but we miss the bigger question:
Is the theory correct?
Re:Bush Whacked. (Score:3, Insightful)
Furthermore they use as almost their sole source of information a few large media-conglomerates that are also controlled by (you guessed it) big business.
It's all well and good to say that the general population should stop acting that way. Do you also have a plan for how to acomplish that ? Because for the last few decades the trend has been in the oposite direction: the people act ever more like that.
Re:This is just ignorance. (Score:3, Insightful)
Two points.
1) It's not just programmers any more. It is -any- high paying job that requires a very expensive education to qualify for. Radiologists, para-legals, programmers, even lawyers. I.e. There is no job safe except upper level management, government jobs (especially with security considerations) and work that must be physically performed here. In other words, a huge swath of jobs are being shipped overseas with very few jobs left to replace them.
2) The same corporations shipping things overseas are having laws passed that create artificial monopolies so the prices of their products sell for between 10 and 20 times more in the US as they do in other countries.
It would be one thing if all the products we were purchasing were dropping to a 10th of the price, so that we could afford to make less (and thus compete with outsourcing better). But our high costs are being locked in while the very businesses that are doing this are taking advantage of labor that costs a fraction of what ours does- in part because they are paying a 10th of the prices we are.
It's a really nasty mix. I can only see it ending very badly when we pass below some crucial tipping point and basically collapse economically down to the levels of the other countries and can't buy the products at the artificially inflated prices.
And at that point, there will be no market for products made in these other countries. Essentially these companies are getting rich by mining america's wealth built up over the last fifty years.
Re:When Americans No Longer Own America (Score:1, Insightful)
We live in an increasing state of global interdependence, and there are many good things about this, but to hear Americans, of all people, complaining about it is a bit rich.
Re:When Americans No Longer Own America (Score:1, Insightful)
That was a truly powerful rebuttal, AC. I was almost about to be convinced PK Dickhead's comments, but you swung me back to my senses with your clearly laid out arguments and statistics demonstrating why his post is untrue - phew, thanks!
Re:When Americans No Longer Own America (Score:3, Insightful)
No, you're presenting a false dichotomy. The solution is to conduct fair trade instead of free trade and to not sell our national security interests to foreign governments OR companies.
Fact of life: Joe Consumer doesn't care that his jeans aren't made in America, he just cares for the $10 savings he got because they aren't.
Joe Consumer won't be caring about buying any clothing at all if his good paying job fires him in order to hire Apu.
Re:When Americans No Longer Own America (Score:2, Insightful)
Exports exist to pay for imports. Foreigners export products to the U.S. because they wish to buy capital-intensive American products. Foreigners do not export products because they wish to give us things for free.
Even when foreigners buy debt (instead of our products), that means only that our exports of products to them are delayed. And when foreigners buy American companies, that means they're investing in our economy rather than their own.
As many European and Japanese companies have been bought by American firms. For example, Volvo, Saab, Mazda, Jaguar, Lambourghini, Maserati, and other car manufacturers are now owned by U.S. companies--and that's limiting our attention just to car companies.Just because a company is owned by a Swiss firm doesn't mean its profits go to Switzerland.
So what if Europeans are investing here. Phrased another way, there has been a massive capital flight from Europe to America. Investment is leaving Europe at a rapid pace and setting up shop in the U.S!
Is it really such a problem if foreigners would rather invest in our economy than in theirs?
Re:Bush Whacked. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Umm, I'm not so sure about this (Score:3, Insightful)
You're ignoring their history up until that point.