Ten years in the making, the US$2-million project is nearly ready for its inaugural run.
That's incredibly cheap for a project like this. Over the 10 years it took to build, that's only $200k/yr. That's only 2 or 3 salaries, not including materials, and overhead.
These kinds of reforms will never complete in fullest so long as those countries remain autocratic.
It's up to the people in those countries to promote reform. No one can do it for them.
we simply don't have enough resources to support that kind of lifestyle for all 7 billion.
At some point, that will be an issue. However, birth rates tend to go down as countries develop, and this fact may prevent such resource scarcity.
China, for example, controls its markets by manipulating their currency.
Now you are at the crux of the problem!
The only people who're actually making money on outsourcing manufacturing are owners of businesses that do it.
If you have a retirement plan, you own a business.
I would at least know that my money goes to workers who work decent hours, get a decent pay, and aren't otherwise abused.
Yes, you will know the workers weren't abused in a traditional sense. However, workers in the US didn't always have the rights they do today. I doubt workers in the 3rd world will remain abused as well. These kinds of reform take time, and we are already seeing conditions improve.
I don't see why it's an either-or. I would rather see citizens of those countries working in jobs that supply their own, domestic market with goods that it needs - and it surely needs a lot.
If undeveloped countries could produce all of the goods they need, they would be called developed countries. They have goods they can't produce economically, so they produce the goods they can in exchange. Believe it or not, China does buy things from the US, despite the huge trade deficit.
What you're describing is, essentially, charity under the guise of a commercial operation.
It's not charity, it's economics. Why give away money in aid, when you can trade goods and services to benefit everyone? In the long run, it reduces costs to everyone, with a temporary loss in wages to the US. The Chinese economy will grow, and increase its demand for goods and services. This increase in demand will be met through importing goods from the rest of the world. The U.S. will have a massive new market to sell it's goods and services and the trade imbalance will vanish or even reverse!
Why should U.S. be in the business of providing jobs to citizens of China?
Who says we are? We aren't in the business of providing anyone jobs. We're in the business to make money.
Would you rather pay a premium to buy American products and watch news stories about starving children in third world countries (you do donate to those children...don't you?), or would you rather put those children's parents to work making your iProduct?
People tend not to care about other people an ocean away because we don't see them every day. However, they are people too. Just because they don't live next door, they live in another country, or they don't look like you, doesn't mean you shouldn't care about them. We may have high unemployment in the US right now, but being unemployed in the US is not like being unemployed in a third world country. Buying goods made overseas isn't only economically sound, it's morally sound as well.
A quick google search reveals the average manufacturing job in China pays $134 per month. It has little to do with laziness or stupid jobs, its simple economics.
I think it's important to point out how US-centric this article is. People in China need jobs too. They apparently need them so badly, they are willing to work for $134 per month. The jobs go to those that need them the most, those that will take the lowest pay. Americans simply don't need those jobs bad enough, even if they are unemployed. Our standard of living is too high.
I only see a few ways out of this situation:
1. Return to protectionist policies.
2. Create enough growth to saturate the economies of the third world and raise their standard of living. (The ultimate goal IMHO)
3. Reduce the standard of living in the US to remain competitive with the third world. (Hint: this plan will not be popular)
Another option would be to hold all bonuses in escrow for some defined period (I would suggest at least 5 years). At the end of that period, the bonus may be claimed.
No, for two reasons:
1. There is no downside risk for the executives. If the company does well, they get a bonus. If it does poorly, they get nothing, while the investors, taxpayers, etc. lose money.( i.e. the point of TFA )
2. Stock options already work this way. Some executives get them instead of bonuses (more should). When bonus time comes around, they are offered the chance to buy stock at today's price, years later. Therefore, if their stock performs well, they make lots of money in the future. If it performs poorly, they get nothing.
Their stress is nothing compared to what we routinely ask soldiers, detectives, judges, and other people to do for a fraction of the pay.
Heck, while we're at it, even The President of the United States.
Always draw your curves, then plot your reading.
