<p>Unless they continue to cut costs another company can start new–say in India, and undercut their pricing. So you are pretty much forced to compete in that way unless they lack the skills in India to do the job or the costs of shipping is too high.</p>
<p>barrons - Of course, what you say is true, but that is exactly what rankles me – That profit (to the extreme) is the final arbiter and that loyalty to a people, to a state and to a country whose very economic structure ENABLED such success in the first place is cast asside. I believe loyalty is far more precious for survival than cheap profit.</p>
<p>Profit is unarguably necessary if a business is to keep its “ongoing” status, but it should NOT BE the SOLE END of staying in business. Rather, it should happen almost naturally as the RESULT of ETHICAL business practises. If a business is valued by those in its community for the GOOD it does, then it is fairly certain that the community will not allow it to flounder. But the business must have vital interaction with the community. “Business ethics” is only an oxymoron if we ignore its implementation.</p>
<p>Today the community for a large business is the entire US or the World. I like Boeing as much as the next guy but I am not hurt that they are building parts of planes all over the world because without that we’d all be flying Airbus.</p>
<p>Now here’s an example of what happens when politicians think they are economists. If they wait for old school industrial plants to come they will be waiting a long time. Milwaukee is full of empty manufacturing plants you can have for a song. To quote Red Foreman–dumba$$</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=409567[/url]”>http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=409567</a></p>