IT Employment

American IT workers file suit for jobs lost due to outsourcing

IT workers laid off when their jobs were outsourced have filed a class action suit against Molina Healthcare Inc.

Eighteen IT workers have filed a class action suit Molina Healthcare Inc., claiming that the company laid them off in order to hire H-1B workers from India. The lawsuit was filed in April in Los Angeles Superior Court against Molina, Amir Desai (its CIO at the time), and Molina's outsourcer, Cognizant Technology Solutions. The suit contends that over a period of several years the U.S. workers were marginalized as the IT department became dominated by Indian nationals.

Although the problems expressed by the IT workers had been going on for a while (the plaintiffs claim pre-existing favoritism on the behalf of IT managers toward the nationals), the layoffs came one day last year when they were called into a so-called planning meeting while someone was rounding up their laptops. They were instead told about layoffs in the meeting.

Attorneys for Desai maintain that their clients was merely trying to keep costs down at the direction of his superiors. Doing this required looking at process and projects that could be outsourced at a lower cost.

But Laura Onufrock, Molina's former IT department budget manager, who will testify on behalf of the plaintiffs, maintains that even after the mass layoff last year, the IT department exceeded its annual budget by over $5.5 million three months into 2010.

The lawsuit also maintains that even before the layoffs, the culture of the company had changed and became exclusionary toward American workers. For the complete story, see Outsourced and fired, IT workers fight back.

For one company's differing take on outsourcing, look at Jason Hiner's piece GE thumbs its nose at outsourcing, builds world-class data center.

About

Toni Bowers is Managing Editor of TechRepublic and is the award-winning blogger of the Career Management blog. She has edited newsletters, books, and web sites pertaining to software, IT career, and IT management issues.

271 comments
drleos
drleos

The existing problems of the all economies are natural. Too many substantial changes happened within last ~6 decades that the existing public finance paradigm cannot absorb them. Fortunately, there was a new paradigm discovered, which can resolve those problems completely, but it is so revolutionary that nearly none can understand it (including economy experts). But it can be proved mathematically that it is correct. I am sure that its authors (I am not one of them) get Nobel Prize one day. I have written the top players (US politicians, authorities and economy leaders), but none was courageous enough to get involved in it. If USA started the transformation among the first, it would be able to pay its high public debt within several single years, companies would return in the country, many jobs would be created, living standard would increase and US public sector would have money enough for its next development... I know, that it sounds as a dream, but iot is really so. Let me add that I am not a fool, but a successful international consultant, Erdos #2 holder (#1 is best, #2 is also Einstein, Bill Gates is #4 etc.).

ningi007
ningi007

This has been happening for quite some time. It really started in the Tech industry with the H1 visa. While great for some, and some countries, it ended up being a very bad deal for America, and American IT workers. Millions of good paying tech jobs went overseas, and as a result, the country significantly reduced its tax base, and fought a few wars and ooh lala, there you go. A mess! There was a time when larger consulting firms would not talk with you unless you were from the subcontinent. Their margins on foreign workers were criminal. American workers, don't bother applying.

Briton-1
Briton-1

I frequently hear Americans complain about taxation and being afraid of higher taxation. In the UK for example, basic rate is 20%, add in council tax (another 1000 pounds or so depending where you live), national insurance (equivalent to social security) - 12.8%, add in sales tax (VAT) - 20%, the British are taxed over 52% of their income, not to mention TV licenses, MOT, etc, etc. Some other European countries are even higher - Norway/Sweden spring to mind. Compared to the US - 13% income tax, approximately 9% on Social security and a sales tax from 0% to 16%, totaling 22%-38% for the unfortunates. So let me hear an American saying you pay too much in taxes. You have it good. The wealthy do need to be taxed more and you can bitch away, but from my side of the coin, there was a reason I immigrated America is/was a great country, and something needs to be done to address the burdens of the economy and social problems of this country and not to point a finger and say "he said, she said" Really, grow up! If you value your country and what it represents then do something about it and stop leveraging it to line your own pockets America! I know this is off topic, but it ties in to the general theme of this thread so pardon me.

Uncle Stoat
Uncle Stoat

Companies are required BY LAW to maximise revenue for the shareholders. Shareholders can (of course) direct otherwise, but seldom do. This results in companies operating in a mode which in a human would be described as sociopathic - and sometimes sociopaths end up at the top (Ken Lay, etc etc) The problem is, if it's cheaper to outsource and the management chooses not to, they run the risk of being fired. Patriotism has no place in a capitalist environment (unless ordered by shareholders) and comes with its own pitfalls. (Eg: Do you buy the Toyota made in Kentucky from 75% american parts or the Dodge made in Korea from 100% korean parts?) "Buy local" is usually a path to pork barrel - look at british, french and american military procurement for glaring examples - and pork barrel is a way of becoming so uncompetitive that the company goes out of business. The fact of life is that IT workers are no longer the white-coated priesthood and pay expectations have to scale accordingly. Take advantage of your strengths and work smarter.

zampaz
zampaz

My experience with this issue is as follows: In 2000-2001 I watched as 100's of my fellow American Oracle co-workers systematically trained H visa holders and were subsequently laid off after the training was completed. I worked for a different prime on the same contract. The Americans were on Gov't IT projects rating a skill level 1 or higher with billable rates sometimes exceeding $200.00/hr. My fellow Americans were true Experts, most of us long in tooth with grey hair and caffeine stained lips. We were at the top of the Oracle food chain in the San Diego market. 200.00/hr might seem like a lot. But if I can do a job in ten minutes with my long years of experience, and personal libraries of scripts that might take a noob days or longer to accomplish, there is a good ROI for the Gov???t that justifies that kind of expenditure. We were all making good solid salaries. The prime contractor usually paid employees 80 -120k per year. If you were making more that 50% of what the prime was being paid you were a God. Then the ???H??? gates were opened. Replacements were "Trained" over a period of weeks. The replacements typically had fair English skills but sub-par experience/skills, most (all?) having had no real world experience working on a Navy IT project. They were still presented by the prime as having the required skill level. Of course after the lay-offs, these Gov't projects were delayed or poorly executed... This was good for the prime. In the meantime according to the San Diego regional unemployment center 80% of workers unemployed over 6 months in San Diego County were IT workers. It took me almost a year to find a job at a 60% pay cut. I had to move to a very scaled down Apt. My neighbor on the right was a programmer from Russia. My neighbor on the left was a programmer from Spain. In a way, that was cool. They were happy to be making 30 - 50k on contracts that the prime was still getting the same skill level 1 rates for and that was very good for the prime???s profits. I contacted Senator Barbara Boxer after seeing a Lou Dobbs report on the H visa flood. The standard reply was that there were not enough qualified Americans to fill the positions. All a company has to do to hire an H employee is to advertise a position and reject any incoming application or resume as being unqualified. They can keep the resume's as proof they tried to recruit Americans, and of course every resume' is deficient in one way or another if you're creative. "Resume did not mention specific experience with qwerty keyboard. Specification not stated but implied." And it is merely a coincidence that Oracle/Larry Ellison was a huge contributor to Senator Boxer. And let me see, how many constituents per senator are there? A lot, fortunately there are more representatives in the house. The average Congressman has 790,000 constituents or so and so is a lot less busy than your senator. Your Congressman is waiting eagerly for e-mails from every one of his constituents and if he never sleeps he has a little less than a generous 40 milliseconds a year to devote to each one of his constituents. So please be very brief or make a very big impression. Who can my representative hear? Me, a thousand of my buddies (40 seconds), or Mr. Ellison? Well with 10 thousand friends we could get 400 seconds. It's not about taxes or regulation or equal representation though. We all seem to forget that money has absolutely no intrinsic value whatsoever. Before you talk deficit you need to truly understand how the Federal monetary system works. We've been off the gold standard for a long time, and deficits and the Federal Reserve System and our system of taxation is a an interesting method for creating and taking back something that has no real value. The more you make the less you have to pay if you know how to play the game properly; hire the best and most expensive accountant. Then you can play a game similar to the Fed with 3 of your own corporations, one making money and two losing money year in and year out. And if you happen to live in a state where there???s a natural disaster and a Federal Disaster Area is declared you can obtain low interest loans to help you out. A stellar tax accountant is surely worth the investment if you can afford it, but I wouldn???t go with a large firm because they may be replacing their grey beards with H accountants. It's true that Gov regs and taxes make it very difficult for small and medium sized business to survive. A lot of big businesses grow by devouring smaller businesses. More, such as Wal-Mart, grow because they have the power to dominate the marketplace, and that is what every stockholder wants. Who can get a better rate on workmen???s comp and insurance? Yellow Cab or Taxi USA? (eight cabs). In the real world the big fish eat the little fish, and though we can say; ???This is not fair!???-what has fair got to do with it? Corporate business practices rightly ignore such factors as "patriotism" if that factor will impact profits. If I???m an investor in a company I want a CEO with all of the feelings of a great white shark because that is the man or woman who will grow my investment. If I vote for a candidate for senator of my state, who do I want to vote for? The candidate who has the most power and influence potential for my state or the one that suffers from severe and debilitating bouts of depression because I can identify with that? You are powerless. You are a pawn. You will continue to get less and less until the global labor market averages out or you die because you cannot afford to heat your house or pay for your meds. The weak of every species should die. This is the natural order of things. Get over it and train your next replacement well so you can get a good reference and perhaps make a friend from a faraway place. He???s a pawn too. The bottom line is the bottom line.

ragrx
ragrx

First of all let's agree about a few things - 1. In our society which is based upon competition, everyone would like to buy the same thing and pay less for it. 2. The relationships in our society are based upon a balance that has evolved over our history as a country. 3. Because of the technical and communication developments that have made it possible to substitute the work of 3rd world workers for that of our fellow citizens, we here are losing out and will continue to do so. 4. Only a tiny portion of our society reaps the rewards of these basic changes we are experiencing. Those are the multi-national corporations who make the widgets overseas and bring them back here and sell them to us at prices which make them enormous profits. Corporations are now sitting on more that $2 trillion, that's 2,000 billion in their bank accounts. 5. We make very few things of value to ship back to those foreign workers that would equal the value of what they send to us. This is called our negative "balance of payments" which is huge and getting bigger. 6. Now how do we pay for all this stuff? We don't! Since they need us to consume and buy what they make (we consume 25% of the world's production and have 6% of the world's population), we pay for these goods with the money the same countries lend us. This is called our $14 trillion dollar national debt. How long can this go on? Not forever. Obviously, this is a very bleak picture. Continuing this same way of operating, it can only keep getting worse. There are 2 possible solutions I can think of short of a social revolution that will take place if things get bad enough for enough people. 1. We could go back to the 18th and 19th century protectionism and tariiffs that are so high that we seal ourselves off from the rest of the world and conduct our affairs only with each other. 2. Without major changes in the very structure of our government which we should try to avoid, we could pass laws that tax the huge windfall of profits the few are making so that they share a part of it with all the rest of us. Think of it! We the many, would then be better able to afford what we need to live on. The few wouldn't be so happy at first but they would still live very well and after a while the less greedy ones wouldn't miss the excess profits that make now. We would have a more contented country and much less hostility. So what would be so bad?

KingAuthur
KingAuthur

I have now lived through a complete pendulum arc. In-house IT teams develop specialised local knowledge and if they are good become highly skilled with the particular characteristics of their organization (yes, they are all different!)-Some 'management guru' is brought in at the behest of the Board-of-directors and decides to maximise returns by outsourcing support & development work to -usually-India. What follows is a massive reduction in efficiency, customers are routed to indifferent workers with engimatic accents and scripted responses-the development work is pedantically capable, but lacking in insight and it all costs a lot more-eventually the kid notices the Emperor indeed has no clothes and an in-house team is once again assembled and painstakingly developed, profits return to previous levels over the next 5 years. It is lunacy, and it is very painful for all concerned.

fhrivers
fhrivers

I swear, MBAs are probably the least creative people on the planet. It takes creativity to find ways to raise revenue or find new revenue streams. All they know how to do is outsource and cuts.

d_baron
d_baron

Outsourcing has destroyed the profession. OK, the bottom line. For short term, one time projects or temporary increased resource requirements, outsourcing is a godsend. However, for the long term, regular, routine and R&D needs of a corporation, please, take responsibility, hire, train, employ, pay and benefit and respect EMPLOYEES!

Professor8
Professor8

Yes, there have been a lot of changes. The Fed was created in 1913, income extortion in 1912, direct election of senators (together with income extortion undermined US states in the balance of power), FDR's bad deal of unconstitutional prodigal spending (enabled by the aforementioned), excessive and increasing immigration since at least 1965, abandonment of both gold and silver coin and the sham of the "gold standard", tax changes which encouraged domestic bodyshopping, rule 1706 which discouraged free-lancers and encouraged bodyshopping, hatching of the H-1B with intent (per NSF) of driving down compensation in particular fields, expansion of H-1B, more expansion of H-1B, abuse of L-1 as adjunct/substitute to H-1B, abuse of J as work visa (instead of for cultural exchange), more back-door expansion of H-1B through non-observance of so-called caps and lax minimal requirements with addition of exemptions. The natural factors were the roll-out of micro-miniaturized circuits and increasing precision of manufacturing which changed economies of scale and under-mined investments in computer personnel, documentation, training courses. You could no longer bundle a couple $60K hardware engineers and several $62K software engineers in with a $4M system (hardware and software), and you could no longer afford to employ hundreds of software developers to work on one or two software products for market. At the same time, we essentially gave away the technology, teaching those outside the USA what we'd learned at great expense, selling them the capital equipment on the cheap that can be used by people who aren't quite so tech savvy, or by people as a leg up on the ladder by learning how it works (with such opportunities more and more rare in the USA). Of course, US employers also invested less and less in their STEM employees and in recruiting them (all things adjusted), increased demands before even considering hiring, and became much more willing with the flood of available labor to toss aside talent more lightly than ever before. So, we have lots of bodyshops, and lots of one- and two-man shops making dinky "apps" that are better in some ways and much worse in others, but all of these changes together have made it very rare for even the top 1% to be able to make a profession out of developing and supporting hardware and software products.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

Then you mention you hold an Erdös number of 2 (which is entirely possible). You might as well have said you were only two degrees from Kevin Bacon.

adornoe
adornoe

Your post was even worse. It was about absolutely nothing. So, really, how does one to get to be a "successful international consultant" by using your "nothing paradigm"? Did Einstein and Gates become successful by using your "nothing paradigm"? Basically, I'm chastising you because you made no sense and whatever idea you wanted to tell people about was nowhere in your post, not even a hint. So, let me guess, the new "paradigm" that you're talking about is "nothing", and if everybody would the adopt the concept of "nothing", all of the financial problems of the world would be solved, magically. Is that about it? A newborn could've suggested your "nothing paradigm", even without saying anything. Every hear the song: "Nothing from nothing leaves nothing"? You gotta have something, if you're going to be with us.

Con_123456
Con_123456

FED is the private institution that has monopoly on the production of US $'s, and it is lends to the government at interest. So since they borrowed first $'s, even then next day was impossible to repay the debt, as they would need to pay little bit more (loan and interest) but so many $'s actually don't yet exist, they have not yet been produced. So the government need to borrow from FED again to pay the interest (for another interest) etc. Government debt must grow exponentially even if the they have spent nothing, it is a mathematical rule. This mechanism is one of the ways in which banks gain power over the government, the country and the world. You also mentioned Albert Einstein. Be aware has not discovered anything of what he attributed, he is the world greatest plagiarist (check Google for "Albert Einstein plagiarist"). The reason why everyone treats him as a genius is, that media constantly produce artificial reality for ordinary people (like you and me), with the help of a hundred times repeated lie.

Professor8
Professor8

We had this discussion, already, back between 1775 and 1781, after England tried to increase their extortion rates by 3%. What did you not understand? How many ways do we need to say it?

jck
jck

US state income taxes in most states. And, some large cities even have taxes. US employees tend to make less per position than EU employees. This is partially because employers here (for now) offer health benefits which are paid for, in part or whole (again for now) by the employer. In Britain, you have NHS which is funded with your tax dollars. Base tax here is 10%. However, that's on people only making up to $708 per month gross taxable wage, which is unlivable in most places. Council taxes I think, if I remember right, are local housing taxation like property tax here. I know people who lived in normal, modest homes in Florida who were paying $5k in property tax. So, we pay that too. It isn't that the wealthy and business aren't "taxed" enough. The biggest problem here that I see is that business and the wealthy have far too many exemptions and deductions. They may be in a 35% tax bracket, but often than not pay only 1/3 or less than that in net. You're right though. America needs to stop allowing people to work toward only their own benefit while causing the demise of others. The greed is what's ruining this country.

adornoe
adornoe

The differences in taxes paid are not the problem. The problem is, what can the economy bear. If Europeans are content to be paying a high tax burden, then so be it, but sooner or later, the insanity catches up with the economy and the people will be left to wonder, "how the eff did this happen?". And in fact, that is exactly what is happening in Europe right now, where businesses and people can't cope with the overburdening taxes and regulations, and now, the results of the burdens are being felt in most countries in Europe and in the whole continent. It's the same in the U.S. and even if the overall tax and regulations burdens are slightly less, the result is still an economy in which the burdens worked their way into rendering us weak and uncompetitive and heading towards a depression. There is no way to excuse tax burdens and costly regulations. A heavy price is usually the result, and those in charge continue being in denial of how we got there and what real solutions should be.

Professor8
Professor8

"My experience with this issue is as follows: In 2000-2001 I watched as 100's of my fellow American Oracle co-workers systematically trained H visa holders and were subsequently laid off after the training was completed..." And why did they do this training? Because they were ignorant that the same scam had been being systematically carried out over a period of years, and the cumulative effects on US job markets by that time. They thought that the severance package would bridge them over the few weeks until they were able to get an equivalent job. But equivalent jobs had already been wiped out, and the executives, HR managers, and immigration lawyers had become expert at techniques for declaring, first, every US applicant over 35, and then EVERY US applicant to be "unqualified" or "unwilling".

adornoe
adornoe

and both have a lot to do with government regulations and/or government policy. H1Bs, are about government policy, whereby the government is convinced by businesses that they need to hire foreign workers because, we are somehow deficient in our skills set, or don't have enough people to fill the available positions. But, again, we have government people making decisions for areas in which they have no direct experience or they're just simply making decisions based on who has the best lobbying effort. Nevertheless, it's still government decisions which have made many people become unemployed or underemployed or having to take different directions in their careers and life. Offshoring is, for the most part, the result of many stupid government policies and government regulations. High taxation is a killer to an economy when that economy has to compete with a country that has no taxation or has a lot lower tax rate. Government regulations, like environmental and employee regulations ( the minimum wage, for example), do also make us a lot more expensive as a place to do business. And then there are the unions which are virtually non-existent in the places that are taking our jobs and our production facilities. We also have to consider the high-cost of employee benefits, which again, are virtually non-existent in places that want our jobs and production. Businesses will look for advantages when it comes to lowering their costs, and H1B hiring does offer that advantage. But, hiring our own people could become a lot less expensive and the problems with H1Bs would be minimized and offshoring of jobs and production facilities won't be as attractive. To become less expensive, we have to lower taxes, drastically! To become even less expensive, we need to remove the burdensome and arbitrary regulations. To become less expensive, we need to reduce the influence of unions. We also need to get government off our backs and we need less intrusion into the free-market system, like for example, stop government healthcare which makes the cost benefits almost intolerable for businesses. Yeah, it would be nice to be taken care from birth to death by government, but then, we'd need to stop complaining when we see so many people losing their jobs, and businesses having to ship operations overseas, and having to hire less costly H1Bs. Those problems were virtually nonexistent in the past, and the country was enjoying close to full employment, and goods and services were affordable, and complaints about government spending weren't making the news as often as they are today. With the growth of government and with the many new regulations which business have had to endure, we made ourselves a lot less capable of competing, and thus, we ended up with the problems we have now. The worse part is that, far too many people believe that, more government regulations and higher taxation are the solutions needed. But, those are the solutions which got us into the mess we're in, and repeating the same mistakes will only make the hole we're in deeper.

Con_123456
Con_123456

I have edited my posting as per the following adornoe@... and NickNielsen comments. There are many useful ideas how to cope with the current issues in the discussion. My point is, it might happen that those who can decide, won't respect it. There can be many reasons why they won't listen to you, even though you bring them solutions on a silver platter. For example laziness, ignorance, incompetence or stupidity. Or they just don't read techrepublic.com. :) Another reason why to ignore your ideas, could be the possibility, that some people benefit from the crisis so they won't want to stop it. As an example, I have used the following David Rockefeller's famous quote: "All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order." Perhaps I expressed clearly what I wanted to say. However I could be completely wrong, of course, like everyone else.

adornoe
adornoe

Outsourcing - A possible solution! With your knowledge, and your "solution", you should have titled your post, as "A recipe to finish destroying the country". First of all let's agree about a few things - First off, let's agree that, for the most part, you don't know what you're talking about. 1. In our society which is based upon competition, That's not entirely true in a country where it seems okay to set up a many government approved monopolies. So, you are partly right. everyone would like to buy the same thing and pay less for it. Not everybody wants to buy the "same thing", but, if the same thing were to be purchased by all that wanted it, then I'm pretty sure that, paying less for it would be preferable. 2. The relationships in our society are based upon a balance that has evolved over our history as a country. What has that got to do with anything in the discussion? And,relationhips are not developed through a balance or evolution in a society or in a country. The biggest relationship that one is supposed to count on is the government that is supposed to serve all equally, but that's not the case, is it? 3. Because of the technical and communication developments that have made it possible to substitute the work of 3rd world workers for that of our fellow citizens, we here are losing out and will continue to do so. Mostly wrong, and only partly right. Communications has been important to modern age developments, where people don't have to be physically present to oversee projects that might be getting done by foreign labor. But, that's only a small piece of the puzzle or problem. The biggest development that has occurred in the last 100 years, is the ease of transporation, where the goods manufactured in one country, are fairly quickly transported to a client country in a matter of hours or days. But, even bigger is the development where, high taxation, and government regulations, and government intervention ,and high labor costs, have made it a lot more attractive for corporations to get their production and labor from more friendly business environments and from cheaper labor markets. The real bottom-line is that, without so much government intrusion into the economy and into our lives, a lot of what has happened in the last 60 years or so, would likely not have happened, and most of our production and manufacturing would still get done in America, and most of those offshored jobs would still be employing Americans. 4. Only a tiny portion of our society reaps the rewards of these basic changes we are experiencing. Completely wrong! Companies that need to watch their bottom lines and wish to survive, have done so by keeping their costs of doing business low or adequate enough to stay in business. Without foreign manufacturers and without foreign labor, many of those businesses would have closed shop a long time ago, and with so many businesses having to shut down, there would also have been millinos more jobs lost. Furthermore, with foreign manufacturing and with foreign labor, many of the costs of goods that American buy, were kept at reasonable and affordable prices, and thus, life was kept more affordable for everybody. Those are the multi-national corporations who make the widgets overseas and bring them back here and sell them to us at prices which make them enormous profits. Wrong again! (You must be the champion of "wrong"). Any company can take advantage of foreign manufacturing and foreign labor, which would make all corporations, "multi-national". But, as we al know, not every company takes advantage of those benefits, although they could. When it comes to enormous profits, WRONG again, except for some, like Apple that charges obscene prices for their products. However, most companies are into offshoring operations and jobs, in order to stay competitive and to simply stay in business. If most corporations were to be charging enormous prices the earned them enormous profits, most people wouldn't be able to afford those products, and so, the enormus profits would never materialize. There are still many corporations going out of business and many jobs being lost. HP, for example, would not have shut down their PC division and would not have sold their mobile division, if their had earned even a simple profit from their products. Even with foreign labor, they couldn't turn a decent enough profit. Corporations are now sitting on more that $2 trillion, that's 2,000 billion in their bank accounts. That again is the fault of government that creates uncertainty in the economy. It's the government again, which is playing with the idea of raising taxes, which would destroy investments into the economy if those corporations were to release those trillions of dollars. BTW, those trillions belong to the shareholders, and the money in the bank is being kept as a hedge against a bigger turn for the worse in the economy. But, that money could easily be used to grow businesses and to create jobs, but, the problem, again, is government threats to raise taxes and take away those investments. 5. We make very few things of value to ship back to those foreign workers that would equal the value of what they send to us. We do make many things, and we do ship many things to foreign markets. But the biggest value we get from those foreign workers is "affordable goods". Those goods would probably cost 2 or 3 times as much, if they weren't made overseas, because, the cost of labor and taxation and regulations, would make any products that we were to produce, very prohibitively priced. and unaffordable, and unaffordable products would mean less purchases and fewer companies because of the weak purchasing power, and with fewer companies, a lot fewer jobs. This is called our negative "balance of payments" which is huge and getting bigger. Yeah, we do import more than we export, but. stating the problem is not the same as understanding the problem or coming up with good solutions. You don't understand how the problem was created, and if you can't understand the problem, then you'll never be able to come up with solutions. 6. Now how do we pay for all this stuff? We don't! Wrong again! We do pay for the "stuff", and that stuff is paid for every time a consumer makes a purchase, even if the form of payment is through a personal credit card. Since they need us to consume and buy what they make (we consume 25% of the world's production and have 6% of the world's population), Go back to school! You're not equipped with the facts. We represent 25% of consumption, and we might represent around 5-6% of the population, but not all the consumption that we do, is all made from foreign production. We still produce most of what we consume, and we are still the leading manufacturer in the world. we pay for these goods with the money the same countries lend us. ABSOLUTELY WRONG! 100% wrong! Other countries do not lend our consumers the money with which those consumers will make their purchases. Our consumers still work for the money they use to make their purchases. And, if our consumers use credit to make purchases, they're going to get credit from our banks and other lending instutions, not from foreing banks or foreign corporations or other nations. . This is called our $14 trillion dollar national debt. How long can this go on? Not forever. 100% wrong! Again! You must be making all that stuff up, because, nobody can be so ignorant. The $14 trillion dollar debt is what the federal government owes to it lenders. That's not the debt that Americans "personally" owe collectively. The $14 trilliion dollars just adds to the debt that Americans owe collectively, but it's still not the personal debt that Americans owe. Americans do end up having to pay for any government debt, because to pay that debt, the government has to take that monye from taxpayers and corporations. The collective "personal" debt that Americans owe will be much larger than the $14 trilliion dollars that the government owes. The only part of your statement that is right, is that, having such a huge "government debt" can't go on forever, and that's been the topic of discussions the last few years, and the main topic for all budget negotiations amongst all government officials, including the president and congress and economists. Obviously, this is a very bleak picture. Continuing this same way of operating, it can only keep getting worse. You got that right, but not for the reasons that you mentioned above, which were all completely wrong. There are 2 possible solutions I can think of short of a social revolution that will take place if things get bad enough for enough people. That social revolution has already started, and part of it was the birth of the "tea party", which has made all branches of government start paying attention to the desires of the people. And, no doubt, you would probably think that the "tea party" is a bunch of fools and a threat, like all democrats like to categorize them. 1. We could go back to the 18th and 19th century protectionism and tariiffs that are so high that we seal ourselves off from the rest of the world and conduct our affairs only with each other. I doubt that any right-thinking individual would even contemplate that solutions, but apparently you have. The world is not as "small" as it was 100 or 200 years ago, and there is no going back to protectionism, because, we've all become interdependent. We can't produce everything we want, and the rest of the world needs much of what we have. 2. Without major changes in the very structure of our government which we should try to avoid, We could go back to the structure which our founding fathers created for us, but, that wouldn't sit too well with the socialists and progressives who have virtually changed the country that the founding fathers visualized. we could pass laws that tax the huge windfall of profits the few are making so that they share a part of it with all the rest of us. Windfall profits? Where are those lately in our economy? Taxing the most productive, even if they make obscene profits, always has a negative effect in the economy. Why would anybody or any one company, try hard to become successful or even more successful, if at he end of their success, the wealth they produced was going to be confiscated through high-taxation. The effect of that would be annihilation of motivation to create success, and without motivation, nothing gets done, and if people stop trying to create success, and unemployment rises to very high levels, then the the whole economy eventually crumbles. Without the rich and without profits and without the rich and super-rich, the U.S economy would just become a third-rate economy, and the country would become a banana republic. Keep the socialist and progressive ideas out of the economy, and allow the wealth creators to rescue the country. That is the only solution that will elevate the economy and the people. We could easily have "full employment" again, if government would stop punishing success and would stay the hell out of the free-enterprise system. Think of it! No thanks! We already have a big disaster on our hands, and making that disaster many times bigger, is not something that anyone should have to think about. We the many, would then be better able to afford what we need to live on. On the contrary. Neither you nor anybody else would be able to afford even the most basic necessities of life. We've already had that scenario with the great depression of the 1930s, where far too many people were reduced to begging for food, and many had to resort to selling their belongings and selling apples on street corners. You might think that's a good way to level the playing field, but, I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of people don't want to even envision the future that would result from your naive idealism. The few wouldn't be so happy at first but they would still live very well and after a while the less greedy ones wouldn't miss the excess profits that make now. It that's what you want and believe, then why don't you go and live that kind of lifestyle, which is already available and a reality in Venezuela and in Cuba and in North Korea and Somalia. There are no rich people in those countries, and everybody is just as miserable. would have a more contented country and much less hostility. Within poor countries, there is a lot more hostility within the population, than within rich and/or well-off countries. Misery always creates hostility and anger and hopelessness. Poverty is not something that anybody should appreciate, and that's exactly the route that this country would take if your nuttiness were to even be contemplated. So what would be so bad? If you think that a total disaster, and total poverty, and total misery, and total helplessness aren't bad, then you would be right! Look, do yourself a favor, and move to a country that would be much more suited to your beliefs: try Cuba or Venezuela or North Korea. I'm pretty sure that you'd be welcome with open arms. Otherwise, If you don't want to do that and would prefer to stay in the U.S., at least get an education, preferably about common sense, and about a little bit of economics.

adornoe
adornoe

where, the loyalty factor is missing with "employees" who don't really have a commitment to a company or to his fellow workers or to the country. That employee in a foreign shore, or who carries a work visa, is not in it for the long-term, and is in it just for the check. Not much loyalty there and not much desire to make sure that the company is successful. However, one other way that success comes to a lot of companies is by looking at the bottom line, and oftentimes, the bottom line is helped by hiring lower cost employees, loyalty be dammed.

adornoe
adornoe

So, we understand the many problems that we have as a result of businesses making certain decisions, like looking for less expensive labor. But, why would corporations need to do that? Certainly, there are corporations that will always be looking for higher profits by cutting down on the expense side of their businesses, but, there are many things in the corporate world that occurred to make them seek the less expensive directions, and H-1B and outsourcing and offshoring became tools which allowed many corporations to remain competitive or to even stay in business. So, what were the causes? Why did so many companies need to get help, and, rather than keep people employed within our shores, opted to send operations and jobs overseas, and hired foreign help even within our shores? Oftentimes, we complain about the conditions in society, but, many of those conditions are merely "symptoms" of the real problems, and the real problems are not identified or mentioned. The solution is to find and identify the real problems, solve them, and the symptoms will go away.

Con_123456
Con_123456

You have nicely summarized some basic shams of the history, which are causing problems today.

adornoe
adornoe

over the government, with government serving the people's needs, and not the other way around. Government is there to support the people, and the people are supposed to be the rulers in a democracy. Government can set policy and regulations, but even there, it's supposed to be with the approval of the people and businesses, through representatives who are supposed to be informed about the needs and wants of the people. Government is in deep debt because it has taken on too much in social and other services, and the debt wasn't forced on them by banks. The debt was created by the idiotic socialists (aka: democrats), who believed that there was never-ending wealth to be had, but those socialists aren't smart enough to realize that, eventually, the wealth pool dries up when businesses and individuals can't continue being sucked dry by government. Hope I cleared up a lot of your misconceptions. The U.S. is still a democracy, although too many people, like you, continue to fail to understand that fact.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

Americans are going to whine about high taxes and push for lower taxes until their country's infrastructure falls apart around them. Then the same idiots that railed against the tax increases that would have made the repairs possible will complain that nobody fixed anything. When it comes to paying for what they get from government, the most vocal Americans haven't got the good sense God gave road apples.

Professor8
Professor8

Well, it's more complicated than that. The increase in bodyshopping in the early 1980s set us up for the hatching of cross-border bodyshopping, which is used to facilitate off-shoring. At each step, congress-critters were lobbied, then they or the bureaubums changed regulations, and drastically altered incentives, i.e. distorted markets, advantages for some and disadvantages for many. Yes, we need less government distortion of markets, lower taxes, no subsidies, no foreign aid, reciprocity in trade for a change. The US government should hammer WTO over VAT kick-backs for domestic manufacturers, and the WTO's efforts to encourage fraud through condemnation of country of origin labeling (COOL), reduction of tariffs from an average 48% to the USA's average 2% level or a mutual aim toward, e.g. average 9% tariffs all around... Instead, the US trade representatives and ambassadors have immediately and abjectly surrendered at every turn.

adornoe
adornoe

you didn't express yourself clearly, and most of what you said is... well... what did you say?!? BTW, you changed the whole direction of this sub-discussion by changing/editing your original comments to become completely irrelevant to the responses that others made before your editing. Not cool!

adornoe
adornoe

Most people, if any, won't bother to go to those links. Why not give us a summary of the contents of those links, so that we could determine if it's worth our time to read whatever you think is worthwhile there. For all intents and purposes, you haven't really contributed to the conversation if people don't know about the contents of your links.

jck
jck

TL;DR :^0

Con_123456
Con_123456

THIS HATRED WILL BE STILL FURTHER MAGNIFIED BY THE EFFECTS of an ECONOMIC CRISES, which will stop dealing on the exchanges and bring industry to a standstill. We shall create by all the secret subterranean methods open to us and with the aid of gold, which is all in our hands, A UNIVERSAL ECONOMIC CRISES WHEREBY WE SHALL THROW UPON THE STREETS WHOLE MOBS OF WORKERS SIMULTANEOUSLY IN ALL THE COUNTRIES OF EUROPE. These mobs will rush delightedly to shed the blood of those whom, in the simplicity of their ignorance, they have envied from their cradles, and whose property they will then be able to loot. http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/przion2.htm#PROTOCOL No. 2

Con_123456
Con_123456

The truth is not relative. I have written that you could choose between the truth and the "official truth". The "official truth" is nothing but a sophisticated and closed system of manipulation, which forms an artificial reality (also called "public opinion") that is presented to us every day. (See the false cult of the largest forger in history, Albert Einstein.) By using its arguments, you are staying inside that system - and the "proofs" work there of course. For instance, saying that Protocols were published 40 years after Dialogues is fact, but using it as proof that it plagiarized Dialogues is incorrect. In fact, the secret Protocols are much older than date of their leaking/publishing and they are also older than Dialogues. (Protocols actually are minutes of a meeting and not an anti-semic manifesto.) Maurice Joly (whose real name was Joseph Levy) had access to them before writing Dialogues. If you read Protocols, you will realize that some parts are obsolete so I am sure that a few newer more current versions exists. Unfortunately we have not access to them as they are guarded better than previously. So we have to study the old version; anyway most of its content is still valid so they still can help understand the past and present, and predict the future.. My goal is not to win you over in the discussion. I wish you were right and I was wrong but I'm afraid it is not. I only wanted to give you a chance to open your eyes and see it too, if you want.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

A book that was published in 1864 was plagiarized from an anti-semitic manifesto that was first published 40 years later. And it is not a matter of choice. You can choose what facts you use, but you cannot choose what is fact and what is not.

Con_123456
Con_123456

On the other pages you can read that on the contrary `Maurice Joly Plagiarized "Protocols of Zion" (not vice-versa)'. http://www.henrymakow.com/maurice_joly_plagiarized_proto.html And also at http://www.helpfreetheearth.com/articles_3.html `We are told that The Protocols of Zion is a hoax, a "proven forgery" ... It was easy to make this claim while Joly's book was unavailable...' To paraphrase your statement, I am seeking the truth what it is and not the one artificially created, which they are presenting to us. BTW Enjoy the Olympic logo for London 2012, anyway :) (z ... i ... o ... n - they laugh at us also by exposing their symbols at each corner, every 1$ bank note etc.)

Con_123456
Con_123456

To Adornoe: Of course it was not necessary to copy and link from an external source. I have chosen this form of response as the source, by by opinion, says very pointedly about some of the problems which you have mentioned. I also wanted inform a few people that such document exists. To NickNielsen: Maybe that document is a fraud, maybe it is not. What about considering the content instead, whether it corresponds to the real situation in the world? You cannot rely on media at all in these questions. Anyway the true information is still available on Internet and in the old books, if you are interested.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

on a document that was shown to be a fraud and a plagiarism over 90 years ago?

adornoe
adornoe

of just copying and pasting and linking?

Con_123456
Con_123456

What form of administrative rule can be given to communities in which corruption has penetrated everywhere, communities where riches are attained only by the clever surprise tactics of semi-swindling tricks; where loseness reigns: where morality is maintained by penal measures and harsh laws but not by voluntarily accepted principles: where the feelings towards faith and country are obligated by cosmopolitan convictions? What form of rule is to be given to these communities if not that despotism which I shall describe to you later? We shall create an intensified centralization of government in order to grip in our hands all the forces of the community. We shall regulate mechanically all the actions of the political life of our subjects by new laws. These laws will withdraw one by one all the indulgences and liberties which have been permitted by the GOYIM, and our kingdom will be distinguished by a despotism of such magnificent proportions as to be at any moment and in every place in a position to wipe out any GOYIM who oppose us by deed or word. http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/przion3.htm#PROTOCOL No. 8

Con_123456
Con_123456

Political freedom is an idea but not a fact. This idea one must know how to apply whenever it appears necessary with this bait of an idea to attract the masses of the people to one's party for the purpose of crushing another who is in authority. This task is rendered easier if the opponent has himself been infected with the idea of freedom, SO-CALLED LIBERALISM, and, for the sake of an idea, is willing to yield some of his power. It is precisely here that the triumph of our theory appears; the slackened reins of government are immediately, by the law of life, caught up and gathered together by a new hand, because the blind might of the nation cannot for one single day exist without guidance, and the new authority merely fits into the place of the old already weakened by liberalism. http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/przion2.htm#PROTOCOL No. 1

Professor8
Professor8

"The individual states are democracies." Not even them. The US constitution guarantees that they will have republican governments, so they're constitutionally limited democratic republics, too.

adornoe
adornoe

So, allow me to correct you in your misunderstandings... First off, the word by itself is not indicative of a form of government structure, which "democratic republic" denotes. So, your confusion rests on your misconception of "democracy" vs "form of government structure". When I say the U.S. is a democracy, I'm not indicating that it's a "direct democracy". But democracy means that the power rests in the hands of the people, where the people make the decisions, even if indirectly through representative government. Our freedoms and rights are what makes us a democracy, and the technicality of being a "democratic republic" does not change the main point that, the power belongs in the hands of the people. The actual form of government that a democracy takes doesn't change the fact that, we are, more than anything else, a country based on the principles of democracy. Here's the simple, but accurate definition of "democracy": a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections See?!? Democracy can come in the form of "direct" or "indirect" representation. But, the power is still in the hands of the people. Clear enough?!? Secondly, a business entity is not a person nor people, not directly. But, there are people who start and own and manage those "entities", and whatever occurs inside and outside those businesses, affects the people inside and outside the businesses. It's people in that business making the decisions, as such, they are part of the process that determines the direction of a country. Corporations are a bigger determining factor in the direction of a country than government, and that's the way it should be. If corporations are made up of people, then they have as big a role in government as those same people would have as members of the general population. If a corporation were to be an inanimate object, not involving people, then it would have no rights in society. However, businesses are people, and not exactly an inanimate object, and thus, whatever government does, with normal everyday policy and regulations, will affect people and businesses. Thus, it's the right of people in general, and people within the corporate world, to make sure that, whatever government produces in policy and regulations, doesn't affect them in a detrimental fashion. However, when it comes to business, they do tend to have a bigger voice in government with lobbyists and funding influences. That's not how a "democracy" is supposed to work, but it's what has evolved because of the bigger role that government has assumed over the people and businesses and the country in general. But, if we were to be as originally intended under the constitution, the "buying" of special favor and of politicians wouldn't happen or even be allowed.

adornoe
adornoe

process. The way the constitution and the bill of rights read, the U.S. government is supposed to serve the people, and not the other way around. The power is supposed to rest in the people's hands, and not in government.

Con_123456
Con_123456

but I am afraid you are not. Too many signs show it.

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

1. The United States is a not a democracy, it is a democratic republic. The individual states are democracies. 2. Businesses are created by people, and are made up of people, but they are NOT, in and of themselves, people. Were businesses people, they would have the right to vote for their representatives and wouldn't have to gouge their customers to get enough money to buy representatives. (Hey, wait a minute! That's a good idea. How to get corporate money out of politics: make corporations people and give them a vote, then they become subject them to the individual donor limits...)

adornoe
adornoe

Most of what government collects in taxes does not go for building or maintenance of infrastructure. Most taxes go towards social program spending. That's not the infrastructure that those paying taxes believe that they should be paying for. If government were to spend strictly for infrastructure, then taxation would have to come down to perhaps 1/5th of what we pay today in taxes. I don't begrudge building of roads or bridges or paying for police and fire departments. But, those are local and state responsibilities. All other spending done by the federal government, is actually unconstitutional and wasteful. .

NickNielsen
NickNielsen

In my experience, any link that includes certain words or phrases can be safely ignored, as the linked page will be hyperbolic in adding nothing rational or factual to the current discussion. One of those phrases is "new world order".

adornoe
adornoe

anything. Why don't you go and play with your toy cars, and leave the discussion to the adults.

Editor's Picks