Mon Mar 22, 2004 4:25 pm
What would you say the gov't is doing to "mitigate" against the American worker?
Mon Mar 22, 2004 4:34 pm
Originally posted by PudriK
What would you say the gov't is doing to "mitigate" against the American worker?
Well, sometimes they screw up like Bush's tariffs against foreign steel - he did it to try to protect the steel workers but the other nations countered with tariffs on American exports, which ended up hurting workers.
First of all, no legislation to prevent exportation of jobs. Secondly, allowing illegal immigrants to legally work in America.
Frankly, I think they should focus on improving Mexico rather than allowing illegals to work here. Better Mexico = fewer illegal immigrants.
Mon Mar 22, 2004 4:37 pm
Originally posted by C. Murgatroyd
First of all, no legislation to prevent exportation of jobs. Secondly, allowing illegal immigrants to legally work in America.
How exactly would we prevent the exportation of jobs?
Mon Mar 22, 2004 4:46 pm
Job tarrifs would result in the same economic inefficiencies as commodity price tarrifs.
And what would you recommend we do to "improve" Mexico?
And what would you recommend we do to "improve" Mexico?
Mon Mar 22, 2004 4:49 pm
Originally posted by JimmyTango
Again, a half truth. Both sides do it. Both sides lie, blur facts or even make them up to support theit view. Sadly, most Americans allow it to happen, and only blame the other side of the fence fo doing it.
The saddest thing is, we allow it to be a two party system, and the politicians have set it up so only the two parties are heard during presidential debates, when we are not supposed to be a two party system. I often find that 9 out of 10 times, neither side is right and the middle ground is. Instead of working towards that middle ground, each side finger points at the other side until their terms are up and have little to show for their time in office. Well, except for their great finger pointing skills, they can always use that on their next job app.
That's an excellent summary of our current political system.
Mon Mar 22, 2004 5:14 pm
Originally posted by Colonel Ingus
I wasn't even griping about the loss of the jobs I was merely pointing out that both political parties engage in this type of activity.
You are very correct on this. Republicans generally get the 'in corporate America's pockets' label, but the democrates are just as much in those pockets. They both are funded by them and they both bend over for them.
Mon Mar 22, 2004 5:15 pm
Originally posted by JimmyTango
http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/21/pf/autos/prices/
Also, the average price means nothing to begin with. You need to look at numbers of cars sold.
Think of how many $9,999 cars it takes to bring the level down to $30k for every $100k car sold, every $150k car sold, every $200K car sold, etc etc. The fact that the average selling price is $26K shows an extreme slant towards the lower end price range.
He's right y'know, and just think how many expensive cars 'Puffy be buying', that has got to drag the average up as well
Oh and for the record protectionism...Bad idea. This is generally agreed to have been one of the major factors in the great depression, which is why people try to steer away from it and why steel tarrifs didn't do you any good.
Tue Mar 23, 2004 5:00 pm
What would you say the gov't is doing to "mitigate" against the American worker?
L1 and H2 visas that allows companies to bring in a foreign worker at that countries wage. train them in an American job by the person they are going to replace, and then send them back to their country (Clinton era)
Legal status for the over 4,000,000 illegal (mostly hispanic) aliens so that they can stay and work here (Bush era)
Someone else already mentioned retalitory price wars. We tried this with Canada in the late 90's concerning lumber because the Canadians were selling lumber cheaper than American producers. End result was thet Canadians figured out how to be even more efficient and undercut American prices even with the tarriff.
How about no tax breaks for companies that move American jobs overseas? Companies are citizens also and they should bear the burdens of society just as much if not more than individuals.
Ingus, my point was that all the hemming-and-hawing has been over outsourcing as the cause of recent job loss, when the reality is most jobs were just plain eliminated, as usually happens during a recession, not offshored. We are focusing our energy on a relatively minor factor.
Where do you get the idea they were merely eliminated? My last very good job was installing factory production machinery for the circuit board industry. I lost that job because every single one of my midwest customers shut down. Did they stop making circuit boards? All that work moved to China (Shanghai specifically) because they can use prison labor and put out labor costs of under 20 cents an hour.
Over half a million IT jobs are in India right now. People stop using the internet? company stop using software? Hell this crap job I work at has its credit department in the Uttar Pradesh province in middle India.
This is no Minor Factor. The shortsightedness of the American Business paradigm is profit NOW. Lowest Common Denominator in American business philosophy is the employee. And the eventual result of this will be the concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer peoples hand and the elimination of the middle class, which as Jimmy points out, is the bedrock of America.
This isn't all driven by "market forces". Its almost exclusively driven by shortsighted greed. As you destroy thje bedrock of America's economic power the major corporations are killing the goose that layed the golden age and will not be able to realize future profits because everyone is poor. No one in China is going to be buying an X-box for 200 bucks or an SuV for 30,000$. The forces at work on our economy are making it so that it won't happen in America soon either.
Tue Mar 23, 2004 8:32 pm
Ingus, You bring up some good points, which I will have to research before answering. I need to check our numbers of jobs outsourced, eliminated (by market sector), and also immigrant labor statistics. So far niether of us has backed up our data. But one thought occured just now...
It is extremely expensive to close a factory, ship or purchase equipment overseas, train new people, and get it up and running, and it probably takes at least a year if not more to accomplish. For this reason, such a move is definitely not motivated by greed for short-term profits. Although such a move may be reflected in a gain in the stock price as investors anticipate greater efficiency, actual profit would not be realized until cost savings from the new factory have balanced out the initial capital investment of the move. Instead, I would argue that outsourcing is directly rooted in fundamental market forces---labor prices. As you said, overseas labor is much cheaper.
But notice what sort of labor is being moved overseas--unskilled manufacturing and low-skill service jobs. Foreign auto companies have been openning new car manufacturing operations IN THE US, because our workers, while more expensive, also produce better quality products, and are more skilled. American workers lead the world in productivity (an hour of American labor results in a product which is worth relatively more).
The issue is not whether jobs are being moved overseas, but whether the gains in productivity are resulting in better jobs in the US. This is why education, esp. technical and community colleges, are important, because they provide the relatively rapid retraining necessary to get a new job in growing domestic industries. Perhaps because many of these program are two years, we would expect a two year lag between market shifts and unemployment.
I would instead argue that the reason the middle class has been losing ground in recent history is that our education system is not producing the same quality of highly-skilled labor and professionals as other countries. The middle class, after all, consits mostly of technicians, professionals, and managers, not factory workers.
So I agree with you that the middle class is eroding, and that this is a very bad thing, but I disagree with you about the cause.
PS Found this article which addresses many of your points, regarding outsourcing and job losses. I have one contention with the author, though. He counterpoints the idea that manufacturing jobs are being replaced with lower-paying jobs by pointing to the rapid growth in high-paid managerial and professional sectors. I seriously doubt those who lost manufacturing jobs are the same ones who got hired as professionals, and I think this provides further proof that recent economic gains are going primarily to the upper class.
PPS This article, also by the Cato Inst., discusses immigration policy. Haven't finished it, though...
It is extremely expensive to close a factory, ship or purchase equipment overseas, train new people, and get it up and running, and it probably takes at least a year if not more to accomplish. For this reason, such a move is definitely not motivated by greed for short-term profits. Although such a move may be reflected in a gain in the stock price as investors anticipate greater efficiency, actual profit would not be realized until cost savings from the new factory have balanced out the initial capital investment of the move. Instead, I would argue that outsourcing is directly rooted in fundamental market forces---labor prices. As you said, overseas labor is much cheaper.
But notice what sort of labor is being moved overseas--unskilled manufacturing and low-skill service jobs. Foreign auto companies have been openning new car manufacturing operations IN THE US, because our workers, while more expensive, also produce better quality products, and are more skilled. American workers lead the world in productivity (an hour of American labor results in a product which is worth relatively more).
The issue is not whether jobs are being moved overseas, but whether the gains in productivity are resulting in better jobs in the US. This is why education, esp. technical and community colleges, are important, because they provide the relatively rapid retraining necessary to get a new job in growing domestic industries. Perhaps because many of these program are two years, we would expect a two year lag between market shifts and unemployment.
I would instead argue that the reason the middle class has been losing ground in recent history is that our education system is not producing the same quality of highly-skilled labor and professionals as other countries. The middle class, after all, consits mostly of technicians, professionals, and managers, not factory workers.
So I agree with you that the middle class is eroding, and that this is a very bad thing, but I disagree with you about the cause.
PS Found this article which addresses many of your points, regarding outsourcing and job losses. I have one contention with the author, though. He counterpoints the idea that manufacturing jobs are being replaced with lower-paying jobs by pointing to the rapid growth in high-paid managerial and professional sectors. I seriously doubt those who lost manufacturing jobs are the same ones who got hired as professionals, and I think this provides further proof that recent economic gains are going primarily to the upper class.
PPS This article, also by the Cato Inst., discusses immigration policy. Haven't finished it, though...
Tue Mar 23, 2004 9:55 pm
Pudrik, on the news tonight, 2.1 (or was it 2.2?) million jobs lost in the past 3 years to overseas. Also, they are not all "unskilled manufacturing and low-skill service jobs." Check this link out, I didn't even know this was going on until I read about this a couple of months back.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2004-02-23-overseas-outsourcing_x.htm
If company XYZ lets go of 20 programmers whose average salary is $60K/yr and ships that work over to a company like Tata consulting that uses overseas programmers making $6K/yr, then I would have to say that company XYZ is affecting their bottom-line in the "Short term".
Also, some people are doing something about it...
http://www.michigan.gov/gov/0,1607,7-168--88892--,00.html
Makes sense to me.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2004-02-23-overseas-outsourcing_x.htm
If company XYZ lets go of 20 programmers whose average salary is $60K/yr and ships that work over to a company like Tata consulting that uses overseas programmers making $6K/yr, then I would have to say that company XYZ is affecting their bottom-line in the "Short term".
Also, some people are doing something about it...
http://www.michigan.gov/gov/0,1607,7-168--88892--,00.html
Makes sense to me.
Wed Mar 24, 2004 8:22 am
Originally posted by Colonel Ingus
[B]
How about no tax breaks for companies that move American jobs overseas? Companies are citizens also and they should bear the burdens of society just as much if not more than individuals.
No. No tax breaks at all. Tax incentives instead. Instead of giving them tax breaks for the size of the company, give them tax incentives for opening up new jobs. This forces them to actually hire someone and puts money into the spending classes instead of pocketing the tax breaks and proving how wrong 'trickle down' economics is.
Wed Mar 24, 2004 8:35 am
Originally posted by JimmyTango
You are very correct on this. Republicans generally get the 'in corporate America's pockets' label, but the democrates are just as much in those pockets. They both are funded by them and they both bend over for them.
Isn't that so true, and a big part of the problems?
Wed Mar 24, 2004 10:39 am
Originally posted by JimmyTango
No. No tax breaks at all. Tax incentives instead. Instead of giving them tax breaks for the size of the company, give them tax incentives for opening up new jobs. This forces them to actually hire someone and puts money into the spending classes instead of pocketing the tax breaks and proving how wrong 'trickle down' economics is.
Though I certainly disagree with your thoguhts on trickle-down economics, Jimmy, I do agree that tax incentives is an excellent way to retain jobs in the US.
IMHO, it's pretty obvious that the reason for the outsourcing of jobs in the US is due to one thing - labor costs. If Company A can hire a US worker for $65,000 per year or hire an Indian worker for $15,000 per year, why would they hire the US worker?
I think the only way we can retain jobs in the US is to offset labor costs with tax incentives, cuts, and other means to reduce the overall cost. As much as we like to trumpet the social responsibility of corporations, they are almost all in business for one thing and one thing only - to make money for their investors.
What we need to do is make it more financially desireable to have jobs based in the US, rather than overseas. If we merely throw up tax and tariff barriers and other disincentives, we'll just accelerate the flight of businesses, except that they'll move their entire operations overseas, rather than just manufacturing and service.
Wed Mar 24, 2004 10:51 am
I recommend you all read Michael Moore's book 'Downsize This' if you ar intersted in this (and have not already read it) I found it to be an intersting and informative book as well as a little funny. I'm not pimping it but it is well worth the read.
Nice discussion by the way. No-one calling anyone else a **** or anything.
Nice discussion by the way. No-one calling anyone else a **** or anything.
Wed Mar 24, 2004 12:01 pm
SavageParrot, you ******! J/K
In looking for some numbers of how many and what types of jobs have been outsourced over the past three years, I have discovered that the numbers being quoted are not hard data from the BLS, but instead are being generated by various research organizations. Articles such as this simply point to a rapid fall in white-collar employment in "industries at risk to outsourcing," while not being able to point to any actual numbers of jobs outsourced. Notice these are the same industries we would expect to fall rapidly after the dot-com burst.
First, I am WRONG. I cannot back up what I said about the types of jobs being exported, and in fact several reports describe that high-paying white-collar jobs are also being outsourced.
I am concerned that data cited in the news regarding outsourcing of jobs is mostly anectodatal--it seems to be confined to one or another business in particular instead of industry-wide numbers.
IMPORTANT NOTE: The 2.2 Million number of jobs lost IS NOT number of jobs outsourced. It is the number of jobs lost to all factors, including downsizing. Read this article. The news, and you, are confusing total jobs lost with jobs outsourced. As far as I can tell, there is NO DATA on number of jobs outsourced, because it is not tracked.
The article discusses the two measures of employment, noting: "The household study shows a gain of 845,000 jobs since 2000, including 1.2 million new jobs in 2003 alone. Since it better measures self-employed individuals or those doing off-the-books work, some economists think it might be the more accurate gauge of job growth."
In regards to tax incentives, etc, these may help, but, no matter how you institute it or what you call it, if you make it cheaper for a company to higher domestic than foreign, it's a form of tarrif. Providing a tax incentive (cut) for hiring American workers is functionally the same as providing a tax increase of hiring a foreign worker--and the consequences are the same. So don't say you are against tarrifs and yet for tax incentives on trade, they are the same thing.
Didn't we have the same concerns during the early 80' (loss of manu. jobs) and early 90's ("Giant sucking sound"), and yet following this we had one of the biggest booms and lowest unemployments in history, until it went pop. Every time we have a recession, you hear people whine and moan that their jobs are being forever eliminated. Then the recovery comes, with growth in new industires. History shows that free trade raises the bar for everyone.
In looking for some numbers of how many and what types of jobs have been outsourced over the past three years, I have discovered that the numbers being quoted are not hard data from the BLS, but instead are being generated by various research organizations. Articles such as this simply point to a rapid fall in white-collar employment in "industries at risk to outsourcing," while not being able to point to any actual numbers of jobs outsourced. Notice these are the same industries we would expect to fall rapidly after the dot-com burst.
First, I am WRONG. I cannot back up what I said about the types of jobs being exported, and in fact several reports describe that high-paying white-collar jobs are also being outsourced.
I am concerned that data cited in the news regarding outsourcing of jobs is mostly anectodatal--it seems to be confined to one or another business in particular instead of industry-wide numbers.
IMPORTANT NOTE: The 2.2 Million number of jobs lost IS NOT number of jobs outsourced. It is the number of jobs lost to all factors, including downsizing. Read this article. The news, and you, are confusing total jobs lost with jobs outsourced. As far as I can tell, there is NO DATA on number of jobs outsourced, because it is not tracked.
The article discusses the two measures of employment, noting: "The household study shows a gain of 845,000 jobs since 2000, including 1.2 million new jobs in 2003 alone. Since it better measures self-employed individuals or those doing off-the-books work, some economists think it might be the more accurate gauge of job growth."
In regards to tax incentives, etc, these may help, but, no matter how you institute it or what you call it, if you make it cheaper for a company to higher domestic than foreign, it's a form of tarrif. Providing a tax incentive (cut) for hiring American workers is functionally the same as providing a tax increase of hiring a foreign worker--and the consequences are the same. So don't say you are against tarrifs and yet for tax incentives on trade, they are the same thing.
Didn't we have the same concerns during the early 80' (loss of manu. jobs) and early 90's ("Giant sucking sound"), and yet following this we had one of the biggest booms and lowest unemployments in history, until it went pop. Every time we have a recession, you hear people whine and moan that their jobs are being forever eliminated. Then the recovery comes, with growth in new industires. History shows that free trade raises the bar for everyone.