<p>Ok many people are so worried about outsourceing, but did you notice that neither of the canadates went into it too much. That is because they have econimist working for them, who know that outsourceing is not a negitive thing. In fact it can be positive. When you outsource people in other countries are makeing more money, and what do you think they do with this money? They spend it, often on cars, electronics, food, and other products manufactured by america. Also don't forget american corporations are outsourceing, which means it is still managed by americans, just they are in foreinghn countries. Another thing most people forget about outsourceing is that it is not a new thing and it is not just american jobs being outsourced. Toyota is a japanese company, yet there are car plants in america because it is cheeper to make them here. Also people are complaing about people from other countries takeing jobs sutch as being coustomer service phone representitves. Frankly as far as im concerned they can take their jobs. They are not quality. These jobs will most likely be replaced by better jobs. For many of you who have taken economics you know that the more the government interfears with the econimy the more it will be screwed up. Dont be afraid of outsourceing, its a natural occurence in the econimy. Sorry if i butchered some spelling, i kno its bad.</p>
<p>A lot of that manufacturing process (of US companies) is being outsourced. Most people that settle for customer service/telephone jobs lack the skillset to get "better" jobs. More often than not, that customer service/telephone job is Plan Z on their list of job opportunities and when that falls through, so do they. I will concede to the fact that outsourcing supports the economy (it does increase the GNP, just not the GDP) but that's beside the point. The average Joe Worker in America doesn't give a hoot if the Gross National Product is increasing-- he cares about putting food on the table for his family and when his job is being taken/outsourced to a cheaper worker in a foreign country, you better believe and understand why he's not happy.</p>
<p>" Dont be afraid of outsourceing, its a natural occurence in the econimy.:</p>
<p>Nothing natural about it in the least. Political choices make outsourcing viable. Other political choices could make it equally unviable. Was Keynesian economics a "natural outgrowth" of the depression? Or Soviet economics a natural outgrowth of peasant feudalism? Why be such a Marxist?</p>
<p>no outsourceing happens because companys can hire people at a cheeper price overseas (a substitue to american workers) causing the quanity demandes for them to go up. this caues a change in the demand for american workers. its the same thing that happens when you decide to buy X brand when the price of coke and pepsi are too high.</p>
<p>If laws, practices, traditions, more, and economic exchanges for raw materials were such that hiring people overseas wasn't cheaper (or couldn't be done), there wouldn't be outsourcing. </p>
<p>I'm not trying to be glib. Lest you think I'm talking through my hat, consider the British cloth industry in the 19th century. It could never have sustained itself if the British hadn't gone through India, made the use of the spinning wheel illegal, and destroyed every wheel in the country. When Gandhi returned from South Africa (1916?), he couldn't find a spinning wheel in the entire country. The "natural consequence" (ho-hum) is that workers in Lancaster were exploited, but villagers in India were impoverished.</p>
<p>Im not shure what your trying to say, but outsourceing is a byproduct of compeating markets without government interference.</p>
<p>In the case with japan and importing rice, rice i think is illeagal to import in japan or it is not without very high tarrifs. This is to prevent outsourceing of rice growing to other countries (mainly the US). As a result the cost of rice in japan is very high. If foreighn country rice was allowed to be imported the cost of rice would go down passing saveings along to the people, which gives them more buying power.</p>
<p>Excuse me? Military protection of the oceans and all shipping lanes for over 150 years (and wars related to same) are not government interference? Government support of ports and roads and trains leading to and from is not government interference? Support of friendly governments, World Bank loans, and military intervention against governments that are "not preferred", and support of government represssion of labor organizations in other countries are not "government intervention?" (I could make the list much, much longer....)</p>
<p>As C. Wayne Andreas, former head of Archer, Daniels, Midland - the largest grain conglomerate in the world - once said, "Not a grain of wheat grown anywhere in the world is sold in a free market, and won't be if I have anything to say about it." </p>
<p>I don't think you have a clue as to what you are talking about, but that's okay - makes for interesting conversation.</p>
<p>i never said that there is no governmental interference, i know there is plenty of it every where. im saying without governmental interfearence this is how things would change. I have no clue where you got that i said there is no government interfearence. I may have hinted there should be less governmental interfearence, but in no way did i say there was none.</p>
<p>I understand where American workers are coming from, but I say good job to the companies who've found a cheaper/more efficient way at production.</p>
<p>ultimatly if the corporations are makeing more money they will likely hire more or pay more.</p>
<p>Outsourcing occurs because the cost of doing business in other countries is lower. The issue isn't exclusively wage and tariff-related. It also relates to other costs of doing business- liability issues, high costs of land and utilities, high costs associated with government regulations, providing health insurance and, yes, taxes.</p>
<p>Outsourcing goes where child labor is legal, or at least laws unenforced. Blinded six-year olds, sold as slaves for $150-$180 each, sewing soccer balls in Pakistan. 12-year-olds working the mills in Bangladesh, or sneaker factories in Indonesia. It's not the "free market", but laws and norms that result in outsourcing. Make child labor legal in the U.S., allow the buying and selling of child slaves, end occupational health and safety regulations, and labor would stream back to the United States.</p>
<p>Bush made outsourcing viable and encouraged it by providing lucrative tax cuts to corporations to do so. While telephone reps may not necessarily be "high" on the employment scale, it is an entry level job for some and provides an opportunity to join a large corporation such as "VErizon" or "Dell." What we have now are very few entry level positions....you need Masters Degrees+ to get any kind of employment that offers monetary rewards over the short term...and graduate degrees cost money...so again...if you have the money you can get employment that offers some opportunity for advancement..and those who are less fortunate have to work in McDonald's with a minimum wage that won't put much bread on the table. The alternative? You can make alot more money selling drugs!!!</p>
<p>mini what are you talking about. the kind of manufacturing (which, by the way, pays quite well) that is currently being outsourced is going to overseas workers who get paid in PPP 5/8ths or more than an American worker. the difference is that those workers are not unionized and are in countries with artificially weak currency. there is nothing you can do about this except 1) kill unions or 2) get other countries to alter their money supply or 3) crack down on outsourcers. the first two are impossible and the third elicits retaliatory protectionism. </p>
<p>it's sad that there are poor children in those places you mentioned, but that's irrelevant to the outsourcing that is happening today. no one is lobbying to bring back Nike; we instead want companies like Boeing back but the cost of keeping them here would be higher prices for every single consumer. </p>
<p>in terms of efficiency, it would be more economically efficient to send every outsourced worker to an aruba vacation for life than to subsidize and protect weakening industries and suffer inordinately high prices. as bush said, we need to invest in education and make the average American worker competitive in a world economy. </p>
<p>how did Bush make outsourcing viable? there was an unforeseen loophole in tax filing that enabled companies to gain even more money from outsourcing, but they would've done it anyways and Bush did not make the loophole. i hope Kerry's political rhetoric is not what led you to that misconception.</p>
<p>mini i feel like you simply don't understand what people are actually complaining about in America when they talk about outsourcing. there are two major types: 1) intellectual, and 2) manufacturing. we have no power to stop engineering/health outsourcing because other countries create superior employees that don't have the same demands and are just as, if not more, qualified. there will not be a single American radiologist in 10yrs, and i challenge you to find a way to stop that outsourcing. there is also no way to stop manufacturing outsourcing or else we would've done it already.</p>
<p>outsourcing is good because it cleans out inefficient markets. anyone who wants to stop outsourcing is ignorant of economics history in the past 50yrs.</p>
<p>Whether you like it or not, outsourcing isn't going to stop soon nor will it ever stop. American corporations are taxed 25%. Let me repeat: 25%. If you are a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, do you want to lose a quarter of your hundreds of millions of dollars every year? I doubt it. </p>
<p>The tax loopholes that Bush provides eases the taxes on the corporations, thus allowing the company to reinvest that money in themselves. With more money invested, the more revenue is created. Whether a company is in the United States or The People's Republic of Ching-Jong-Jin, the money from the company will eventually get back to the United States through trade and the like.</p>
<p>Uc_benz, are you related to Mom101?</p>
<p>No, I don't even know who that is?</p>
<p>It's kind of an in-story for us old-timers here. If you want me to send you a private message, I will. All the best if not. It's just that some of your points were reminiscent, e.g., outsourcing, corporate taxes, Fortune 500 companies, etc.</p>
<p>Go for it. I am just stating the simple facts though.</p>
<p>Can't if you don't activate your private message function in your control panel.</p>