Which planet do you live on ...?
Udo
Sydney via Amsterdam
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
FYI, the US hasn't been the most productive country for years. The highest it ranked in the tables that are usually referenced is 4 (IMF, World Bank, OECD, CIA Factbook, etc.). However, those tables are rough indicators. When more related relevant factors are included in the research, the US drops further.
with the added bonus of which planet we are on and the fact that classical physics defines work as a factor of energy and distance traveled...
How many countries have working robots on the surface of mars?
http://marsrover.nasa.gov/home/index.html
How many countries have working robots on the surface of mars?
http://marsrover.nasa.gov/home/index.html
Although the martian front seems to be quite costly, due to lack of native workers. 
That I'm heading to mars as soon as the seats become available. Lots of job opportunity on the frontier! 
You can find it over on bigheadpress . com
I think you might like it
I think you might like it
per year, with fewer holidays, and fewer benefits.
Whether this makes for a more efficient and productive workforce, especially in top-end jobs, is arguable.
Whether this makes for a more efficient and productive workforce, especially in top-end jobs, is arguable.
Those long hours might not be done at peak efficiency, or they might not be done pulling in the optimal direction.
Heck if I know, though.
Heck if I know, though.
"The U.S. has by far the best and most productive workforce in the world"
LOL. I love it when people come out with patronising jingoistic statements.
I respect the pride in one's country but please dont try to fool yourself and others; the USA is currently an unsustainable economy, deeply in debt and living beyond its means. Where is the productivity and efficiency here?
LOL. I love it when people come out with patronising jingoistic statements.
I respect the pride in one's country but please dont try to fool yourself and others; the USA is currently an unsustainable economy, deeply in debt and living beyond its means. Where is the productivity and efficiency here?
That's what former cross-border bodyshopper Vivek Wadhwa had to admit after he researched the issue.
Show us the documentation that the US "has by far the best and most productive workforce in the world" - NOT that some off-shorer found out that (gasp) US-based work is performed most efficiently by local workforce - which is so incredibly obvious that it hardly qualifies as proof of the claim above.
Don't let them fool you into accepting flattery; the claim, if disproven, can be a trojan horse to reintroduce offshoring at a later date, when the present fiasco has been forgotten. They're out to get you, and will use your pride against you: pride so easily feeds into vanity, you know - and vanity and complacency go hand in hand.
Basically, if the idiotic claim above were true, then you should expect European countries to off-shore to the US, shouldn't you? After all, you're cheaper, so if you're also hands down better, they'd want to use you, right?
If that doesn't seem plausible, then you're being fed your own innards and wondering why they taste so sweet...
Just about all our serious manufacturing has left so it's hard to defend the type of workforce of our parents' generation when not many Americans of the blue collar persuasion have jobs in manufacturing. As someone from a country that takes health care and retirement benefits for granted, you should appreciate the fact that as hard working as Americans are, it's not reflected in the economy because corporations have dismantled the economy through mergers and outsourcing. Of the roughly 90% workers who are employed, many have multiple part time jobs to make ends meet. Part time jobs, by the way, have no benefits attached in most places over here. So, let's just agree to disagree whether we work harder than other nations. We do know we are working harder with less to show for it. Here's to a brighter future and more onshoring of jobs.
... it's cost per dollar of MPL. You are if you are a businessman concerned with maximizing this ratio. Businessmen are just now finding that programmers are not fungible (i.e. they're not a commodity), and also the overhead cost of managing some groups 12 time-zones away in India or China is not trivial (since programming is a high communications overhead activity), so the cost/$ of MPL is higher when you offshore oftentimes than when you do everything in more or less one place. This is a sign of an inability to think things through and a desire to ape everything one company does and is really to be discouraged in managers -- managers require solid mathematical, economics, interpersonal communication and critical thinking skills, and they should be selected on this basis, not because they graduated with an MBA. I'm not living on another planet, I'm just living on a planet where the variables that matter are used (which is often enough, not earth when management is involved).
or time-zone management.
Look, if the management did have to hire overseas and the management were to be located many time zones away, then your points would be very valid.
But, a lot of management is located where the shops or employees are situated. Most, if not all, of that foreign labor is being managed locally, and oftentimes, the hiring of management is from local talent, or the talent is from home and has either moved to where the shops are or make frequent visits to supervise operations.
The ideal situation is to always have operations and management located together, but, with offshoring, it's not going to be possible. The best that can be done is to hire local management, or to hire management at home and then have them relocated to where the shops are, or to have management do frequent "supervisory" visits. Those are all happening, and, where it doesn't work, management will pull the plug, and in fact, that's already happened with a lot of companies.
The bottom line is that, most corporations have already determined that, it's more fruitful to send shops and jobs overseas, than to have production done at home, even with the time-zone problems.
Look, if the management did have to hire overseas and the management were to be located many time zones away, then your points would be very valid.
But, a lot of management is located where the shops or employees are situated. Most, if not all, of that foreign labor is being managed locally, and oftentimes, the hiring of management is from local talent, or the talent is from home and has either moved to where the shops are or make frequent visits to supervise operations.
The ideal situation is to always have operations and management located together, but, with offshoring, it's not going to be possible. The best that can be done is to hire local management, or to hire management at home and then have them relocated to where the shops are, or to have management do frequent "supervisory" visits. Those are all happening, and, where it doesn't work, management will pull the plug, and in fact, that's already happened with a lot of companies.
The bottom line is that, most corporations have already determined that, it's more fruitful to send shops and jobs overseas, than to have production done at home, even with the time-zone problems.
Customers hate with a passion foreign call-centers/help desks.
Why?
Because most of the staff have little basic competancy in conversational english, and the whole experience because enforced torture.
Why?
Because most of the staff have little basic competancy in conversational english, and the whole experience because enforced torture.
Customers are already stressed out by the time they call the help-desk.
About the last thing they want or need is having to struggle with a thick and unfamiliar accent.
Of course, some of these customers will just give up and seek another vendor.
About the last thing they want or need is having to struggle with a thick and unfamiliar accent.
Of course, some of these customers will just give up and seek another vendor.
It's also the colloquialisms and tech-speak. They just do not understand the language.
And customers also always hated those "press 1 for blah" and voice response systems, too; only B-school bozos love such abominations.
They're calling because they want access to human expertise.
"If you buy plastic spoons and forks, you can't get too upset when they break."
Right. Don't expect over-priced, low-quality garbage made in Red China or India, or stuff from MSFT, or stuff bought at WM to be suitable for the purpose or to last. That's one of those "once bitten, twice shy", "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me" kinds of things.
And customers also always hated those "press 1 for blah" and voice response systems, too; only B-school bozos love such abominations.
They're calling because they want access to human expertise.
"If you buy plastic spoons and forks, you can't get too upset when they break."
Right. Don't expect over-priced, low-quality garbage made in Red China or India, or stuff from MSFT, or stuff bought at WM to be suitable for the purpose or to last. That's one of those "once bitten, twice shy", "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me" kinds of things.
If you buy plastic spoons and forks, you can't get too upset when they break.
This is the biggest frustration guys in our general line of work have. Many of them want to do excellent jobs, but find the customers want cheap prices. Most of us know we can do good or cheap, but not both.
Customers want to buy cheap, and then gripe when they don't get good.
Hence the disconnect.
I'll believe the jobs are coming back when I see it. Definitely not going to hold my breath.
This is the biggest frustration guys in our general line of work have. Many of them want to do excellent jobs, but find the customers want cheap prices. Most of us know we can do good or cheap, but not both.
Customers want to buy cheap, and then gripe when they don't get good.
Hence the disconnect.
I'll believe the jobs are coming back when I see it. Definitely not going to hold my breath.
There is another cost associated with offshoring Level 1 "help desk" services that is missing from the article's chart: The cost of waiting.
I worked on several helpdesks / service desks over a period of 13 years. When company management looks at the cost of the service desk, they ask about cost/call. They DON'T ask about the after-call cost when figuring the overall cost of the "butt in seat".
On the desks where I worked, we were expected to maintain (individually and as a group) a 65% first-call resolution (FCR) rate - ie, 65/100 of all calls solved during the call to "me". The offshore desk was expected to maintain a 40% FCR. Additionally, calls that were not resolved on the first call averaged 4 hours to get to Level 2 technical support (vs "less than 10" minute average when onshore took the call).
The question the business never asks is: What is the additional cost of having an onshore resource waiting an additional 3.75 hours (average) for support? Factor that into your $/call equation and suddenly that offshore helpdesk is not so attractively priced.
I worked on several helpdesks / service desks over a period of 13 years. When company management looks at the cost of the service desk, they ask about cost/call. They DON'T ask about the after-call cost when figuring the overall cost of the "butt in seat".
On the desks where I worked, we were expected to maintain (individually and as a group) a 65% first-call resolution (FCR) rate - ie, 65/100 of all calls solved during the call to "me". The offshore desk was expected to maintain a 40% FCR. Additionally, calls that were not resolved on the first call averaged 4 hours to get to Level 2 technical support (vs "less than 10" minute average when onshore took the call).
The question the business never asks is: What is the additional cost of having an onshore resource waiting an additional 3.75 hours (average) for support? Factor that into your $/call equation and suddenly that offshore helpdesk is not so attractively priced.
It's not the country that matters most, but the company and people you interact with.
There are first class vendors everywhere, and there are many companies in US that delver crap, too.
There are first class vendors everywhere, and there are many companies in US that delver crap, too.
damagingly to any domestic ecomomy, I have to say some of your 'reasoning' is well iffy.
"The U.S. has by far the best and most productive workforce in the world."
Most productive? What measure of productivity are you using? It's not profit per employee is it?
Best, please! What's that based on? Manifest destiny or divine right?
"The U.S. has by far the best and most productive workforce in the world."
Most productive? What measure of productivity are you using? It's not profit per employee is it?
Best, please! What's that based on? Manifest destiny or divine right?
Perhaps he should have said something like "The U.S. has a highly productive workforce" and left it at that. I don't think anyone could argue that.
I have to agree with the basic premise though. Shipping customer-facing jobs overseas is not the same as manufacturing jobs. My office is a good example. We operate out of a small southern city with managers in the big city with the customer. We're able to attract a quality workforce because we pay good salaries for this area, but are much cheaper than the big city. It has helped us win a couple of Government contracts and hire even more people. It's a "win" all around.
I have to agree with the basic premise though. Shipping customer-facing jobs overseas is not the same as manufacturing jobs. My office is a good example. We operate out of a small southern city with managers in the big city with the customer. We're able to attract a quality workforce because we pay good salaries for this area, but are much cheaper than the big city. It has helped us win a couple of Government contracts and hire even more people. It's a "win" all around.
says a lot ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
Now divide by population and you get dollars per person (CIA Factbook & wikipedia 2011 estimates)
US 15060000000000/313847465 = $47985
CA 1577040000000/34300083 = $45977
UK 2481000000000/63047162 = $39351
EU 17720000000000/500000000 = $35440
This is a back of the napkin calculation but the numbers say the US leads by about 30% compared to the EU. Canada comes close, but I wonder if that comes from proximity to the US (trade/service).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
Now divide by population and you get dollars per person (CIA Factbook & wikipedia 2011 estimates)
US 15060000000000/313847465 = $47985
CA 1577040000000/34300083 = $45977
UK 2481000000000/63047162 = $39351
EU 17720000000000/500000000 = $35440
This is a back of the napkin calculation but the numbers say the US leads by about 30% compared to the EU. Canada comes close, but I wonder if that comes from proximity to the US (trade/service).
Canada is always getting slated for low productivity, it is lower than the US. GDP isn't just a factor of productivity. Canada exports a lot of oil and natural gas and other high value resources. Trade between the US and Canada is estimated at $1.6 billion a day, which by far the highest between two countries anywhere in the world.
A GDP comparison also doesn't take into account differences in specific sectors.
A GDP comparison also doesn't take into account differences in specific sectors.
has a lot of wiggle room. But as Tony pointed out we needed some analytical basis to justify the author's statement. Below is an interesting link in that it underlines your point about high per capita GDP not telling the whole story especially wrt cost of living.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity
The US hasn't been the most productive country for years. The highest it ranked in the tables that are usually referenced is 4 (IMF, World Bank, OECD, CIA Factbook, etc.). However, those tables are rough indicators. When more related relevant factors are included in the research, the US drops further.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_ove_pro_ppp-economy-overall-productivity-ppp
Shows America #2 behind Luxembourg which fits with the GDP back of the napkin I proffered.
https://members.weforum.org/pdf/GCR09/GCR20092010fullreport.pdf
Is an analysis on world global competiveness.
There is a difference between the dislike and refutation of a statement.
Shows America #2 behind Luxembourg which fits with the GDP back of the napkin I proffered.
https://members.weforum.org/pdf/GCR09/GCR20092010fullreport.pdf
Is an analysis on world global competiveness.
There is a difference between the dislike and refutation of a statement.
And since posting links of TR is sort of unpredictable, we can't blame him:
http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx
OECD is one of the more trustworthy organizations to measure these things, and as he said, the US is presently at fourth place in a measure of GDP/work-hour.
Bear in mind that GDP also factors in the profitability of the industries involved, which in this world of exploitation is more a question of historical fortune than with skill.
In terms of average hours worked per person, we see ourselves quite a bit of way down the list. Of course, that has a gotcha too, it takes in the employment level - which means it isn't a straightforward measure of average personal workload.
The Blog post introduced a terrible fallacy; that these national statistics somehow relate to how good an idea it is to off-shore services.
Off-shoring services is a terrible idea. But not on account of differences in GDP.
For instance, Customer Service is about empathy. It is very hard to be empathetic of residents of a far off country on behalf of a services buying company that provides horrible wages and worse working conditions. Anyone providing top notch service under those conditions is an idiot - it will not be rewarded.
http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx
OECD is one of the more trustworthy organizations to measure these things, and as he said, the US is presently at fourth place in a measure of GDP/work-hour.
Bear in mind that GDP also factors in the profitability of the industries involved, which in this world of exploitation is more a question of historical fortune than with skill.
In terms of average hours worked per person, we see ourselves quite a bit of way down the list. Of course, that has a gotcha too, it takes in the employment level - which means it isn't a straightforward measure of average personal workload.
The Blog post introduced a terrible fallacy; that these national statistics somehow relate to how good an idea it is to off-shore services.
Off-shoring services is a terrible idea. But not on account of differences in GDP.
For instance, Customer Service is about empathy. It is very hard to be empathetic of residents of a far off country on behalf of a services buying company that provides horrible wages and worse working conditions. Anyone providing top notch service under those conditions is an idiot - it will not be rewarded.
Productivity is a measure of efficiency not volume.
GDP is an internal index and it is unrealistic to use for overall national productivity because it includes internal service industries. They do not produce value; they just move the money around.
just remember, "internal service industries do not produce value."
Your words.
And have fun talking to a support rep who doesn't speak english after going through the IVR maze.
Your words.
And have fun talking to a support rep who doesn't speak english after going through the IVR maze.
If services were not of value, people would not pay for them. We'd all be mining our own coal and iron ore, chopping down trees, grinding our own flour and corn-meal, making our own Twinkies and pizzas, laying bricks, making our own soap, pouring concrete, trimming our own hair, pumping our own water, generating our own electricity, doing all our own programming in machine language instead of buying software products and services.
But GDP is balderdash, claptrap, because too many negatives are counted as positives and positives counted as negatives. By the time you're taking x as a percentage of GDP or GDP per capita or per household, you've drifted off to fantasyland.
But GDP is balderdash, claptrap, because too many negatives are counted as positives and positives counted as negatives. By the time you're taking x as a percentage of GDP or GDP per capita or per household, you've drifted off to fantasyland.
The article is very informative and analytical. I fully agree with the fact that the cost advantage is diminishing rapidly because of the high inflation rates. This might reverse the equation sooner or later. There will be a day soon when companies can get the work done either onshore or offshore. Then it is just like survival of the fittest.
How ever I differ on one point raised in article, which is quality. I feel that quality is subjective. Higher quality comes with higher costs. So I feel it is client who decided what quality is acceptable for him/her. I have come across the projects where the quality is poor, but accepted by client.
How ever I differ on one point raised in article, which is quality. I feel that quality is subjective. Higher quality comes with higher costs. So I feel it is client who decided what quality is acceptable for him/her. I have come across the projects where the quality is poor, but accepted by client.
Good paying IT jobs go overseas. The cost is higher than expected. Now do these same jobs come back at the same rate?
Probably not.
Gotta love those "hidden" costs. You get what you pay for.
Probably not.
Gotta love those "hidden" costs. You get what you pay for.
I always said this would happen eventually. Welcome back to our jobs! Until the next paper-mill MBA has a bright-idea and they find someplace else to outsource to.
The author merely mentioned that, perhaps the advantages are not as great as they used to be for that foreign labor, but, the numbers don't prove it.
The fact is that, before those other countries start losing "our" jobs because we've become better at competing, those countries will, again, do what it takes to keep themselves as the lower cost alternative.
Once we lose something as precious as jobs, it's going to take miracles to get them back, and when our own country makes us uncompetitive, we are going to continue losing those jobs. Some jobs may come back, but, the net outcome is that, we'll be sending more jobs out of the country.
The fact is that, before those other countries start losing "our" jobs because we've become better at competing, those countries will, again, do what it takes to keep themselves as the lower cost alternative.
Once we lose something as precious as jobs, it's going to take miracles to get them back, and when our own country makes us uncompetitive, we are going to continue losing those jobs. Some jobs may come back, but, the net outcome is that, we'll be sending more jobs out of the country.
Two words - Cheap Bastards! Now it will cost them 3 times as much to fix it. Short-sighted crap.
The execs involved in domestic bodyshopping to drive down total compensation,
cross-border bodyshopping to drive down total compensation and facilitate off-shoring, and
off-shoring to drive down compensation...
have already taken the money and run, or have set up their golden parachutes so that they can take the skimmings and run the instant the tide turns, leaving many millions of Americans, and several millions of US STEM workers considerably worse off.
cross-border bodyshopping to drive down total compensation and facilitate off-shoring, and
off-shoring to drive down compensation...
have already taken the money and run, or have set up their golden parachutes so that they can take the skimmings and run the instant the tide turns, leaving many millions of Americans, and several millions of US STEM workers considerably worse off.
Big Business knew all along the financial gains would not outway the service loss, but BB didn't care, they fired hundreds of thousands of people in order to off-shore. Now many of those people have found new career paths and have warned the up and coming to stay out of the field because of the 'weasel-like' activity of these CIO's. Now they want to bring these jobs back and I'm sure at a lower rate of pay too-I say to heck with 'em. Avoid these companies like the plague, it will just be a matter of time before they fire another round of hundreds of thousands for some financial saving manuever and right back here again...
A lot of Americans were hurt in order for US companies to save what amounted to only a few cents on the dollar. The cost of bringing it home at this point is almost rediculous. This is yet another... screw up from American businesses, trying to punish their own countrymen for charging too much.
No, two of your three criteria are insulting!!
It does not have to be a "low cost" workforce. C level execs and those managers in the corporate suite... maybe you should lower your quality of life and standards.
There is an available workforce. The falsified and misleading controversy started by big businesses over the last six to eight years is a lie. There are plenty of talented people right here at home!!
I agree with your third point. "The U.S. has by far the best and most productive workforce in the world. Cost factors drove companies offshore to find cheaper labor at the expense of efficiency and quality. In the past these tradeoffs seemed necessary to advance as a business."
Someone, some group, some powerful lobby in Washington, DC were the engines behind driving businesses to think "cheap, cheap, cheap!" These groups hurt Americans very, very deeply!
No, two of your three criteria are insulting!!
It does not have to be a "low cost" workforce. C level execs and those managers in the corporate suite... maybe you should lower your quality of life and standards.
There is an available workforce. The falsified and misleading controversy started by big businesses over the last six to eight years is a lie. There are plenty of talented people right here at home!!
I agree with your third point. "The U.S. has by far the best and most productive workforce in the world. Cost factors drove companies offshore to find cheaper labor at the expense of efficiency and quality. In the past these tradeoffs seemed necessary to advance as a business."
Someone, some group, some powerful lobby in Washington, DC were the engines behind driving businesses to think "cheap, cheap, cheap!" These groups hurt Americans very, very deeply!
'It does not have to be a "low cost" workforce. C level execs and those managers in the corporate suite... maybe you should lower your quality of life and standards.'
It looks like the IT outsourcing trend was incompetent decision making (or at least shortsighted). Maybe we'd have been better off outsourcing the higher ups. Seriously, I do have huge problems with the disparity of income that's been growing over the last 40 years in the U.S. I believe it to be the basis of many of this countries problems. If outsourcing 'saves' a million dollars a year for a company, where does that money go? I'm sure not seeing it.
It looks like the IT outsourcing trend was incompetent decision making (or at least shortsighted). Maybe we'd have been better off outsourcing the higher ups. Seriously, I do have huge problems with the disparity of income that's been growing over the last 40 years in the U.S. I believe it to be the basis of many of this countries problems. If outsourcing 'saves' a million dollars a year for a company, where does that money go? I'm sure not seeing it.
....because, quite frankly, people can't be free if there's not a free market. So confiscating someone else's wealth to redistribute it is completely against everything I believe in. This is not my kissing up to the rich, it's just simply an issue of applying the same standard to others I want applied to myself.
The problem with a free market, though, is it's never been tried. Government's prop up "too big to fails" with money they confiscate from me (and you).
We have such a ridiculous level of "unfree" market it's not even funny. And it's too much a part of our lives to think we can suddenly change it. Heck, in my neck of the woods, if the government didn't provide jobs, there would be darn near no jobs. I don't suppose I have to tell anyone the government can't support itself, and bureaucrats primarily work on increasing their own power and wealth. Horrible combination of realities.
The disparity of income is not the problem. The problem is too many people are sliding down, and not enough are climbing up. It really doesn't matter to me, and I suspect, to you either, how rich Bill Gates is if we're happy where we are.
Politicians and execs shake hands on deals like NAFTA, that allows companies to use child labor overseas (illegal here...and should be), and sell the products back in the States. Manufacturing....making stuff....that allowed average Americans to make an honest living with livable wages, has moved out, along with many technical jobs. I could rant for a long time, but you get my drift.
The problem with a free market, though, is it's never been tried. Government's prop up "too big to fails" with money they confiscate from me (and you).
We have such a ridiculous level of "unfree" market it's not even funny. And it's too much a part of our lives to think we can suddenly change it. Heck, in my neck of the woods, if the government didn't provide jobs, there would be darn near no jobs. I don't suppose I have to tell anyone the government can't support itself, and bureaucrats primarily work on increasing their own power and wealth. Horrible combination of realities.
The disparity of income is not the problem. The problem is too many people are sliding down, and not enough are climbing up. It really doesn't matter to me, and I suspect, to you either, how rich Bill Gates is if we're happy where we are.
Politicians and execs shake hands on deals like NAFTA, that allows companies to use child labor overseas (illegal here...and should be), and sell the products back in the States. Manufacturing....making stuff....that allowed average Americans to make an honest living with livable wages, has moved out, along with many technical jobs. I could rant for a long time, but you get my drift.
I agree that we've never had free, open, honest markets, and that such markets would be a huge improvement over the current set-up. Between the force and fraud initiated by people in and out of government, the markets are quit distorted and more and more dysfunctional.
It wouldn't matter to me if Bill Gates became wealthy on his own merits, with no inside deals, if his mommy hadn't used other people's money to give him access to computing and hadn't been on the IBM board, if he hadn't taken over firms with great products and ruined those products. Ditto Zuckermand and Ellison and Schmidt and McNealy: if they hadn't gotten their money by violating other people's privacy I'd have no problem with them, either.
It would be really great if we had more honest, praise-worthy execs (in business and academia) and politicians.
It wouldn't matter to me if Bill Gates became wealthy on his own merits, with no inside deals, if his mommy hadn't used other people's money to give him access to computing and hadn't been on the IBM board, if he hadn't taken over firms with great products and ruined those products. Ditto Zuckermand and Ellison and Schmidt and McNealy: if they hadn't gotten their money by violating other people's privacy I'd have no problem with them, either.
It would be really great if we had more honest, praise-worthy execs (in business and academia) and politicians.
Not to turn this into too much of a political debate, but I think the role of the government is to ensure our society is prosperous for ALL people and not just those at the top. The U.S. is the richest country, but we have startling numbers of uninsured, hungry, and poor. Redistribution of wealth currently has a negative connotation when we talk about raising taxes on the already wealthy, but it doesn't at all when we talk about putting 50% of our taxes into the military thereby lining defense industry companies pockets. Another example is giving huge tax breaks to oil companies who are already making record profits.
No point denying it.
Both parties are arguing antiquated positions. Fiddling with the tax code is completely inadequate for fixing our problem. We are at a point where goofy little 1/1000th measures won't help.
Now...30% surcharge in imports from countries who don't share our values.....that starts making a dent.
Both parties are arguing antiquated positions. Fiddling with the tax code is completely inadequate for fixing our problem. We are at a point where goofy little 1/1000th measures won't help.
Now...30% surcharge in imports from countries who don't share our values.....that starts making a dent.
charging huge surcharges?
Since I know you wouldn't know the answer to the question, I'll answer it for you...
Those countries would turn right around and also charge us huge surcharges for the products we ship to them. And then, you'd end up with less of a market for our products, and, if we have fewer international clients, then, we'd end up with companies having to cut back or having to shut down completely. Guess what happens when companies cut back or shut down? The economy gets a lot smaller and millions of people lose their jobs, and the government will end up with a lot less revenue to provide services, and the millions who depend upon government services, will be sheer out of luck.
Be careful what you wish for. It never ends well when people don't think about repercussions.
Since I know you wouldn't know the answer to the question, I'll answer it for you...
Those countries would turn right around and also charge us huge surcharges for the products we ship to them. And then, you'd end up with less of a market for our products, and, if we have fewer international clients, then, we'd end up with companies having to cut back or having to shut down completely. Guess what happens when companies cut back or shut down? The economy gets a lot smaller and millions of people lose their jobs, and the government will end up with a lot less revenue to provide services, and the millions who depend upon government services, will be sheer out of luck.
Be careful what you wish for. It never ends well when people don't think about repercussions.
I'm even schooled in it.
...but realistically how much would we lose if Mexico decided to stop trading with us.
You CANNOT have free trade without a level playing field. Until we're willing to re-institute child labor and slave wages, we lose.
...but realistically how much would we lose if Mexico decided to stop trading with us.
You CANNOT have free trade without a level playing field. Until we're willing to re-institute child labor and slave wages, we lose.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
