Outsourcing For Idiots

Busdrvr

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
2,217
0
The favorite of the Dems, and for good reason. apparently the U.S. educational system is so abysmally inadequate with respect to basic economics, that the average idiot (and apparently quite a few above average idiots...) cling to the notion that all U.S. jobs are going to India. "Outsourcing" improves standard of living HERE AND ABROAD.

Click here to CATCH A CLUE!!

He also said that offshoring only holds down US job growth in the short run. Over time, he said it is beneficial:

Schultze: In the short run, an increase in offshoring reduces U.S. job growth. But in the long run it improves the standard of living, increases real wages, and increases the country's economic growth.

Schultze is now Senior Fellow Emeritus at the Brookings Institution, with impeccable Democratic credentials. He was President Lyndon Johnson's budget director in the 1960's, and was chairman of President Carter's Council of Economic Advisers back in the late 1970's.




the ultimate irony is that the party that proclaims to be the "protector" of women and children, would rather they starve in other countries than offer them the opportunity to produce something, to have a job. You want to clean up pollution in other countries, encourage ECONOMIC GROWTH. you want to stop child labor? ECONOMIC GROWTH. Terrorism? ECONOMIC GROWTH. If your kid is hungry, you don't give a rats about "the polluted river". All you care about is feeding your kid. What a disgusting country we've become if half the population wants people, who bleed red and love their families and only want a chance, just like you and Me, people in other countries, to STARVE because you have some irrational notion they are "taking U.S. jobs." I challenge you to show me the model you wish to emulate. show me the workers paradise that doesn't allow 'outsourcing" Show me the Median income there. show me the unemployment rate.

The U.S has the highest rate of labor productivity growth of any developed nation. We have that growth because we INNOVATE. You can't continue to grow productivity at over 4% per year if your workers are sewing together under ware. you can only do it so fast. Productivity comes from innovation. In truth, Kerry would have opposed electricity because some candle industry worker would have been "displaced".

The biggest irony of all is that the guy who arguably CREATED the latest "offshoring" boom is one of Kerry's economic advisors, Robby Rubin. Mr. Rubin, in a bid to pump up the market and make himself and his other billionaire lib buddies like Johnny Corzine rich, proposed to jack up the value of the U.S. currency. In senate testimony (google it), he stated that making imports to the U.S. cheap, would "force" U.S. workers to be more productive. You see, they don't pay someone "$1.00 an hour" to work in India. They pay him in RUPIES. The fact that it may equal a $ is because of the EXCHANGE RATE. Pumping up the dollar with intervention by the treasury department in currency markets (which Rubin did REPEATEDLY) makes their labor CHEAPER.
 
Hmmm....How does outsourcing affect your industry? Here's one way...the person who USED to make $50k per year here and whose job was offshored to improve the economy of an impoverished nation wants to buy a plane ticket from Denver to Orlando, but he can't afford to pay any more than $160 for the round trip ticket. That means that you have to "give it up for the good of America". It hits home in many ways.
 
KCFlyer said:
Hmmm....How does outsourcing affect your industry? Here's one way...the person who USED to make $50k per year here and whose job was offshored to improve the economy of an impoverished nation wants to buy a plane ticket from Denver to Orlando, but he can't afford to pay any more than $160 for the round trip ticket. That means that you have to "give it up for the good of America". It hits home in many ways.
[post="194551"][/post]​


I'm sorry, was it the big words that got you?

"But in the long run it improves the standard of living, increases real wages, and increases the country's economic growth."

The problem with the industry has MUCH more to do with an exztremely high level of taxation, forced subsidation of the LCC's by the bigs, and folks who are unwilling to pay more for safety. :down:
 
Busdrvr said:
I'm sorry, was it the big words that got you?

"But in the long run it improves the standard of living, increases real wages, and increases the country's economic growth."

The problem with the industry has MUCH more to do with an exztremely high level of taxation, forced subsidation of the LCC's by the bigs, and folks who are unwilling to pay more for safety. :down:
[post="194567"][/post]​

In other words, it's great until it affects you...at which time a host of reasons are given why it wouldn't be prudent in your sector. If a person has to learn to be content making a fraction of what they made after their job was offshored, I guess the other sectors of the economy are going to have to adapt to a population of those are working with less.

BTW...the only two "LCC's" I see that where the "bigs" are forced to subsidize them are Song and Ted.
 
Busdrvr said:
The favorite of the Dems, and for good reason. apparently the U.S. educational system is so abysmally inadequate with respect to basic economics, that the average idiot (and apparently quite a few above average idiots...) cling to the notion that all U.S. jobs are going to India. "Outsourcing" improves standard of living HERE AND ABROAD.

Click here to CATCH A CLUE!!

He also said that offshoring only holds down US job growth in the short run. Over time, he said it is beneficial:

Schultze: In the short run, an increase in offshoring reduces U.S. job growth. But in the long run it improves the standard of living, increases real wages, and increases the country's economic growth.

Schultze is now Senior Fellow Emeritus at the Brookings Institution, with impeccable Democratic credentials. He was President Lyndon Johnson's budget director in the 1960's, and was chairman of President Carter's Council of Economic Advisers back in the late 1970's.

the ultimate irony is that the party that proclaims to be the "protector" of women and children, would rather they starve in other countries than offer them the opportunity to produce something, to have a job. You want to clean up pollution in other countries, encourage ECONOMIC GROWTH. you want to stop child labor? ECONOMIC GROWTH. Terrorism? ECONOMIC GROWTH. If your kid is hungry, you don't give a rats about "the polluted river". All you care about is feeding your kid. What a disgusting country we've become if half the population wants people, who bleed red and love their families and only want a chance, just like you and Me, people in other countries, to STARVE because you have some irrational notion they are "taking U.S. jobs." I challenge you to show me the model you wish to emulate. show me the workers paradise that doesn't allow 'outsourcing" Show me the Median income there. show me the unemployment rate.

The U.S has the highest rate of labor productivity growth of any developed nation. We have that growth because we INNOVATE. You can't continue to grow productivity at over 4% per year if your workers are sewing together under ware. you can only do it so fast. Productivity comes from innovation. In truth, Kerry would have opposed electricity because some candle industry worker would have been "displaced".

The biggest irony of all is that the guy who arguably CREATED the latest "offshoring" boom is one of Kerry's economic advisors, Robby Rubin. Mr. Rubin, in a bid to pump up the market and make himself and his other billionaire lib buddies like Johnny Corzine rich, proposed to jack up the value of the U.S. currency. In senate testimony (google it), he stated that making imports to the U.S. cheap, would "force" U.S. workers to be more productive. You see, they don't pay someone "$1.00 an hour" to work in India. They pay him in RUPIES. The fact that it may equal a $ is because of the EXCHANGE RATE. Pumping up the dollar with intervention by the treasury department in currency markets (which Rubin did REPEATEDLY) makes their labor CHEAPER.
[post="194522"][/post]​

Off shoring is a good thing to do with a bustling economy, but we went in the toilet after 911.
During the bustling economy, many immigrants came to this country, at the same time we were outsourcing.
Bush wants to give illegals amnesty and let them stay in our country while we don't have enough jobs for the people we have.
When things get hard we have more workers than jobs and that brings down wages.
This plays right into big business's hands. Which by some irony, the larger majority, are republicans. Go figure.
Let's screw the American worker for a better bottom line.
This is the reason unions came into being. Profits are never enough.
 
Bush wants to give illegals amnesty and let them stay in our country while we don't have enough jobs for the people we have.

That's because a host of people would rather sit home and collect welfare rather than work a job at minimum wage. These days, welfare is more profitable. And, by the way, somebody has to empty the trash at the McDonalds... so what if an immigrant worker takes the job? You're supposed to be much more compassionate if you want to call yourself a democrat.
 
Why allow people to sit around on welfare? It's one thing if they are working, but entirely a different problem if they're not. As far as I'm concerned, I'm still paying too much taxes to an entity that wastes approximately 35 percent of the tax revenue they take in. The concept of outsourcing is simple. Free trade has given companies an easy way out of costs by letting jobs go overseas, not just during Bush's administration either. In the 80's, IBM had almost 500,000 employees in the US. Through new production techniques AND outsourcing, they are lucky if they have 20% of that today. This is a problem that has gone on for a while. A way to change that would be to help develop more technological advances in production and development where you might not need as many unskilled persons at companies, but the better paying jobs stay here. This usually costs more money than training overseas when you factor in all of the benefits involved as well.
 
markkus757 said:
Why allow people to sit around on welfare? It's one thing if they are working, but entirely a different problem if they're not. As far as I'm concerned, I'm still paying too much taxes to an entity that wastes approximately 35 percent of the tax revenue they take in. The concept of outsourcing is simple. Free trade has given companies an easy way out of costs by letting jobs go overseas, not just during Bush's administration either. In the 80's, IBM had almost 500,000 employees in the US. Through new production techniques AND outsourcing, they are lucky if they have 20% of that today. This is a problem that has gone on for a while. A way to change that would be to help develop more technological advances in production and development where you might not need as many unskilled persons at companies, but the better paying jobs stay here. This usually costs more money than training overseas when you factor in all of the benefits involved as well.
[post="196817"][/post]​

That sounds good until it's your job that is sent overseas. Ask anybody who had a highly skilled, high paying IT job that was sent overseas.
 
KCFlyer said:
That sounds good until it's your job that is sent overseas. Ask anybody who had a highly skilled, high paying IT job that was sent overseas.
[post="197045"][/post]​


Where is it written that a company owes you a job?
 
FredF said:
Where is it written that a company owes you a job?
[post="197083"][/post]​

They don't. On the other hand, folks over in India aren't buying the product that the employee who was producing it here made. The folks they layed off can no longer afford to buy the product that they used to make. The result is a reduced tax revenue from the person who WAS being paid over here, since in many cases they take jobs that don't pay nearly as much, PLUS in many cases they have to use the services of their local government for such things as health care and food assistance. And since they can't buy the product from the company they were laid off from, it amounts to reduced revenues, which translate into reduced (from the already reduced) corporate tax revenues. Dang Fred....utopia would be a nation with 100% unemployment where the population made thier money from the 3 card monte game known as the stock market. Nobody pays taxes and everybody's rich. :rolleyes:
 
Have you always been Mr doom and Gloom?

If that company didn't move that job offshore and lay off 10% of it workforce and was still having to deal with the labor costs, then they could lay off about 20% of their work force or better yet go out of business and lay off 100% of their work force.

Gee, which one is better to you.

Keep 80% of the employess or none?

Companies are doing what they have to to stay in business. This is a business argument not a government argument. This country was founded on the principle of reduced government control of business. If you don't like the hiring and firing practices of the like of sprint, don't be a customer. Don't go run to the government complaining that you don't like what they are doing. Don't blame the president because a US corporation decided to reduce costs to compete.

I will say it again, it should not be a government function to telll companies who and where they can hire and fire employees and it is not the fault of the president, any president when companies decide to use employees in other countries.
 
FredF said:
Have you always been Mr doom and Gloom?

If that company didn't move that job offshore and lay off 10% of it workforce and was still having to deal with the labor costs, then they could lay off about 20% of their work force or better yet go out of business and lay off 100% of their work force.

Gee, which one is better to you.

Keep 80% of the employess or none?

Companies are doing what they have to to stay in business. This is a business argument not a government argument. This country was founded on the principle of reduced government control of business. If you don't like the hiring and firing practices of the like of sprint, don't be a customer. Don't go run to the government complaining that you don't like what they are doing. Don't blame the president because a US corporation decided to reduce costs to compete.

I will say it again, it should not be a government function to telll companies who and where they can hire and fire employees and it is not the fault of the president, any president when companies decide to use employees in other countries.
[post="197090"][/post]​


Fine Fred....let's do that. And how about throwing a bone for those that "took one for the team" in the form of abolishing the corporate tax breaks? They could use the money that would have gone to the CEO's bonus to pay those taxes.
 
FredF said:
If that company didn't move that job offshore and lay off 10% of it workforce and was still having to deal with the labor costs, then they could lay off about 20% of their work force or better yet go out of business and lay off 100% of their work force.

Gee, which one is better to you.

Keep 80% of the employess or none?
[post="197090"][/post]​

But that wasn't the choice Sprint faced in Kansas City, Fred. They did it to increase their profits, and the value of their executive stock, not to "save" any jobs anywhere.

In reality it has cost them business. My wife worked in corporate accounts there at Sprint, handling issues for some of their largest corporate customers. After her job was moved to India, two of the larger accounts dropped Sprint because the people they were dealing with never resolved any of the issues they were brought.
 
AA-MCI said:
But that wasn't the choice Sprint faced in Kansas City, Fred. They did it to increase their profits, and the value of their executive stock, not to "save" any jobs anywhere.

In reality it has cost them business. My wife worked in corporate accounts there at Sprint, handling issues for some of their largest corporate customers. After her job was moved to India, two of the larger accounts dropped Sprint because the people they were dealing with never resolved any of the issues they were brought.
[post="197118"][/post]​


Ok. So Sprint had different motives. My point still remains that if you don't like the way a company does business, don't use them. Don't go complain that the president should have done something to stop them from making that business descision.

What they did ended up costing them business. Hopefully, other companies will lear from that and not do the same thing. But I still say that is it not the government's place to step into that situation in any way shape or form.


I had one of the worst experiences on an airline. I have since refused to fly that airline. My choice. I would rather pay more to another air line than fly that one again. I didn't go complain to the FAA about it. I blamed the airline for their behaviour, not somebody in government.