Discussion on:

Offshoring to end, as businesses run out of jobs to outsource

Buck up, chaps! You only have to put up with 10 more years of offshoring!

...they just need to look in the boardroom and the mirror.

Where outsourcing is driven by actual business need, I get it. Where it is driven by greed and profit margin, in macroeconomic terms they were robbing Peter to pay Paul. The trouble is that eventually Peter, Paul, and Mary come knocking at the same time. Oh look, here we are now.

...

Well said, for sure.
American "corporate" greed... looks like it came back to bite us in the A**, just as it should have!

because, they're the consumers who ALWAYS choose to purchase the cheaper products and services we get from overseas labor. Give people a choice between a $2500 ultrabook (higher cost of labor, and benefits, and other taxes and other costs would make it that high or more) made in the U.S.A. and one made in China for $700, and the great majority of the time, Peter and Paul and Mary, will opt for the cheaper PC made in China. So, by demand, Peter, Paul, and Mary, have made the decision for the executives to send the production of those PCs overseas. If they can't compete with the lower priced products, then the executives are left with no choice, and to get Peter and Paul and Mary to buy their brand, those executives have been "forced" to send their production overseas.

It's okay to bash the executive and the greedy SOBs, but, they're just making sure that, Peter, Paul, and Mary, get what they wanted. Then, there is that other very important person in the equation, that being the owners and investors of a company. If they don't get a return on their investments, then the company and all of the jobs will go bye-bye, and Peter and Paul and Mary will end up purchasing their wants and needs from strictly overseas providers. However, the investors would rather have the company become competitive by having their production done in a less expensive environment, and thus, saving many jobs at home and allowing Peter and Paul and Mary to have their goods and services produced by an "American brand", even if it has foreign labor doing the work.

Peter and Paul and Mary would not even have the option of "knocking at door" if all of the goods and services were to come from overseas, with no American involvement at all. Right now, for many companies to remain competitive, they have to offshore/outsource their production facilities and many of their jobs. Thanks to Peter and Paul and Mary, and many other factors, such as the heavy hand of big government.

The one-sided, simple-minded, argument about the "big, bad, greedy executives" always fails to consider the total environment in which businesses have to compete.

so danged involved in regulating and taxing companies to death, you'd see:

1. cheaper production costs here, leading to:

2. less reliance on funding from stock sales and so

3. Less reliance on insane stockholders who want to double their money every three months, which would lead to

4. Less reliance on bean counters, whose presence has contributed greatly to the destruction of the traditional American corporate culture.

All of which would lead to much more sanity in the economy.

Getting big gov. out of business would help businesses, but it would not be a magic bullet. It would not automatically change everything you state completely, but it would to some extent. Greed, shortsightedness, and costs would still exist.

The other side of that argument is that deregulating everything would also allow greed, corruption, and devastation in the USA.

1. Businesses WILL dump pollutants into the air, water, and ground if allowed. They did it before and will do it again.

2. Businesses will still pay their employees as little as possible, treat them as badly as they can get away with, bully them whenever they want, (some would even use child labor and slavery if they could get away with it. Some people just don't have morals, and they tend to be seen as good managers. So sad...) and make life here as miserable for the average worker as it is in third world countries.

3. and would still outsource as much as possible, just because it is still cheaper, unless #2 actually gets so bad that the cost of insourcing is as low as outsourcing. After all, a penny pinched is a ... well, you get the idea.

Foreign labor is cheaper because the workers are getting paid pennies instead of our dollars, there is no labor dept. to protect them from harm, no safety regulations to prevent them being injured or sickened on the job, and no environmental standards to protect the community and workers from toxic byproducts. Deregulating businesses would allow all these abuses that have been outlawed here to happen again.

!!!The goal should be to get standards up in other countries so we are again a competitive option instead of bringing us down to third world standards.!!!

you sound just like the typical liberal and big government advocate out there.

Look, nobody is claiming that, people in business won't still have greed or profits in mind after government gets out of the way. But, going with what we have now, and that we've had for many decades, is just destroying the whole economy. So, which would you prefer, a heavy government influence with many thousands of expensive regulations that is driving the economy into the toilet, or a free-market system which for certain will lead to a lot more growth and many more millions of jobs right here in America which won't have to be shipped overseas?

The issues are fairly clear, and the current road we're in is leading to destruction of the economy and the country. Either get the government off the backs of the businesses and the people and watch them thrive, or watch the country self-destruct with so much government regulations and taxation.

Nothing else matters. The regulations and the heavy taxation is precisely the reasons for so many jobs and production facilities being shipped overseas. Regulations are important, but, the vast majority of them aren't needed. We might need regulations for clean air and water and for employee protections, but, those aren't the majority of regulations which are stifling growth, and sending jobs and shops to foreign lands. Make the cost of doing business here at home very expensive, and what our jobs and shops leave in droves, which many have already left with no hope of coming back. But, the trend can be reversed, and your "solutions" would just make things worse.

...and thank you for acknowledging them. I agree that if we could cut the waste and pork, we could lower taxes across the board. But I have to go with the evidence I have seen. What I have seen is that conservatives don't conserve anything, except for conserving the wealthy few's ability to make a fast buck at the expense of everyone else. Then they blame the waste on the liberals.

Even Reagan, the conservative poster child, admitted that his business minded "Trickle Down Economics" didn't work as it was intended and was a mistake. (You don't hear the conservatives talk about that much, do you?) Things turned around for the better under liberal Clinton, (although he did push the foreign trade agreement, {NAFTA? I hate anachronisms.}, which I think opened the floodgates to our trade deficit and outsourcing.) Still, things were good here at the end of his 2 terms.

Then ol' Dubbya and Cheney came in pretending to be conservatives, saying all the things conservatives wanted to hear, and did the exact opposite of conserving anything! The conservative tax cuts didn't provide any new jobs, in fact, big businesses pocketed the tax cuts and continued to outsource and lay off workers. The conservatives in the White House spent and borrowed while the conservatives on Capitol Hill cheered them on. A few defense contractors profited like mad while the rest of the country is dying. That is not conservative!

Also, you mention liberals and big government. It was Bush and Cheney, conservatives, that created the TSA monster we have now, the Patriot Act, the DHS, and FEMA. ("You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie!") How was that making Gov't smaller? Oh yeah, it wasn't. It made big government bigger, MUCH BIGGER! Very conservative! By the way, as a liberal, I approve the idea of FEMA, but Bush used it as a sweetheart deal to set up some of his cronies for life instead of using it as a way to help US citizens in an emergency. They couldn't tell their @$$ from a hole in the levee. Good use of taxpayer money! Very conservative!

The bills have been rung up and there is no other way out but to pay them off, and the Gov't cannot pay anything off without tax money. I expect the wealthy to pay their share, and I expect large businesses to pay their share. (I would like to see small businesses get a break, but the conservatives have everything stacked against small business in favor of the large businesses that can make large campaign contributions.)

My point here is that I have seen liberals push their liberal agendas and things got better, and i have seen conservatives push their conservative agendas and things got worse. I am going by what I have seen with my own eyes.

Thanks for replying.

Michael

if you actually believe any of that nonsense.

Look, the fact is that, trickle down economics does work, and it's worked as long as the country has existed, and as long as the free-market has been allowed to function without government intrusion.

If you would bother to look around you and think for a minute, what we have now is a trickle down economy, with the affluent and the businesspeople, running the economy, and the working class reaping the benefits of those jobs creators. Furthermore, the more spending and growth that those corporations and affluent people do, the more the whole economy will benefit, including the working class. On the other side, the more government spending that there is, the more harm that comes to the economy, and the fewer jobs there will be, because, government spending requires the removal of funds from corporations, and the less money that corporations have to conduct business or to grow or to simply remain in business, the more they'll have to let people go, or the less hiring that they'll do. Government does not create wealth nor jobs, and the bigger government gets, the smaller the economy will get. It happens every time.


Nowhere will you see a poor person creating a job for anybody, and nowhere will you see a working person creating a second job for another person. Investing and risking of wealth, is what brings prosperity, and while growth depends upon the citizenry partaking to continue that growth, the fact remains that, no economy will ever be fruitful without the wealth earners and wealth creators being involved.

Clinton was the beneficiary of a strong economy which started under Reagan and continued, partly, under the first Bush. The first Bush was more of a liberal in republican pinstripes, but, the economy grew despite his negative influence. In fact, Clinton inherited an economy which was growing at about 4.2% before the election brought him to office. So, Clinton inherited a growing economy, but, in the end, he finished by destroying that growth, and left with the economy in recession, and that Clinton recession is what the second Bush had to battle against, and he did bring the country out of recession and into the longest period of growth in American economic history, with something like 52 straight months of a growing economy. The only thing that put a stop to that growth, was the bursting of the housing bubble, which was, another dastardly creation of the liberals in congress and in the executive branch, starting with Carter and made worse by Clinton with the CRA act, which forced banks to lend to unqualified people. So, your whole telling of events is a complete lie.

Nowhere in history and nowhere in the world, have liberal and socialist policies ever worked, and we are witnessing that first hand, all over the world, and especially in Europe and in the U.S., where the economy is actually in recession, but, government spending has distorted the numbers that would show the truth of how badly we're doing. $16 trillion dollars of debt is a very good indication that, big government doesn't work and that it destroys economies and lives. The real unemployment rate is closer to 20% than the official lying number of 8.3%, which doesn't count the number of people who had to give up looking for jobs because they became so discouraged.

The fact is that, the lesser that government is involved in our lives and in our economy, the better the country does as a whole. That's been proven before, and that's the only rescue package that the country needs, for government to get the "f" out of our lives and out of the economy.

FEMA was created by Carter in 1979.

Other than that, you've pretty much got the history correct.

WRONG.

I've already rebutted @Michael's points, and his interpretations, and you are just as wrong as he is if you believe as he does.

Other than that, you are correct about Carter. But, you didn't even mention Carter's socialism via the CRA act, and the continuation of that madness by Clinton, both of which created the housing bubble which destroyed the economy.

Here are the facts, from the Library of Congress, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and Treasury Department.

Fact - The Patriot Act was signed into law by GWB in October 2001.

Fact - The TSA was established in November 2001.

Fact - The Department of Homeland Security was created in November 2002.

Fact - DHS is the third-largest cabinet-level department, behind Defense and VA.

====

Fact - The average annual increase in jobs during Clinton's first term was 2.52%. During his second term it was 2.24%. (BLS)

Fact - The average annual unemployment rate in 1992 was 7.5%; in 1993, it was 6.9%. For 2000, it was 4.0%.

Fact - The average annual increase in jobs during GW Bush's first term was 0.00%; during his second term, 0.21%

Fact - The average annual unemployment rate in 2001 was 4.7%; in 2008, it was 5.8%.

Logical conclusion, based on the facts: Clinton policies created jobs and reduced unemployment. GW Bush policies hindered job creation and increased unemployment.

====

Fact - The only time gross national debt as a percentage of GDP has decreased since 1980 is in the Clinton administration. (Treasury)

Fact - The dollar value of the national debt shrank in fiscal year 2000, the only time it has done so since the Carter administration.

Fact - The gross national debt at the end of FY 2001 (last Clinton budget) was $5.807 trillion.

Fact - The gross national debt at the end of FY 2009 (last GWB budget) was $11.909 trillion.

====

Rebut away...

Did you ever hear of context? Points without context are meaningless, and just end up being a bunch of words with nothing useful.

Or, do you just like posting facts without context?

What's to interpret?

Nothing should ever be taken/accepted without a grain of salt. No facts come without context and background. And, facts dont always explain circumstances or the reasoning behind decisions.

Here are the facts, from the Library of Congress, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and Treasury Department.

It seems to me that, you desperately went around the internet looking for material to try to counter my last few posts, which destroyed all of your arguments. So, the best you could do is to try to post a set of facts without context or explaining the relevance of them? Loser!!!

???Fact - The Patriot Act was signed into law by GWB in October 2001.???

Context: That act was passed with bi-partisan support from both parties of congress, and Bush only signed it. If your suggestion is that, the act was purely a Bush evil, then you???d be completely wrong. Also, the senate was controlled by democrats in 2001, and the act was unanimously voted on by the whole senate, except for one ???no vote??? and one abstention. IOW, 98 senators voted ???FOR??? the act, and the senate was controlled by democrats. So, who is the villain? Is that what you were trying to get at???

???Fact - The TSA was established in November 2001.???

Again, a congressional act, and with bi-partisan support, and with a senate controlled by democrats. Was there evil involved in creating the TSA? Sometimes, ideas can be used for wrong-headed actions, and the TSA???s undesirable actions, as of late, are being committed under democrat control. It???s like anything else. A good idea can be used equally for bad, depending upon the people in control. Splitting the atom didn???t have to be used to create WMDs, but it was.

???Fact - The Department of Homeland Security was created in November 2002.???

Again, under a democrat controlled senate. So, what has that ???fact??? got to do with anything. Did you know that, the sky isn???t really blue? That???s a fact, but, it???s not really relevant to anything here.

BTW, did you know that, a president doesn???t get to sign any bill if it hasn???t been passed by congress first? That???s a fact, and one that too many people conveniently forget when trying to place blame.

"Fact - DHS is the third-largest cabinet-level department, behind Defense and VA."

Did you know that, the Airbus A380 is the largest passenger airplane flying right now? Irrelevant? Well, that what your facts are so far.

(Something wrong where I can't add material for longer posts; I'll try again tomorrow).

Fact - The average annual increase in jobs during Clinton's first term was 2.52%. During his second term it was 2.24%. (BLS)

Context: Clintons first term was highlighted with an economy which was already growing at a 4.2% rate before he even took office. So, should Clinton be given credit for an economy which was growing before he took office? That fact I just mentioned is pertinent to your fact, because, your fact would not have occurred unless the economy was growing, which growth occurred despite Clintons damage to the economy with the largest tax increase in American history.

(Apparently, the system is not allowing me to post the other parts of my comments, and they're being deleted or disallowed immediately. I'll keep trying.)

First, the only place your posts have destroyed my arguments is in your mind.

Second, reply != rebut.

You made assertions, I provided facts that contradicted those assertions. Now, you're claiming "context". Lame.

And as for your question—"...should Clinton be given credit for an economy which was growing before he took office?"—why not? After all, you're blaming Obama for an economy which was collapsing before HE took office. If you're going to deny the credit to the one, you can't assign the blame to the other.

Can't you discuss this without stupid name calling?

I could call a rose a dandelion, but, it's still going to be a rose.

Trickle down economics. Bush gave out the tax cuts, and the economy tanked. We got to see your plan in action, and we saw the results. I don't understand how you can continue to say giving the rich tax breaks helps the economy.

Here is a scenario for you to chew on. (I work for this company, and I am not knocking it, or the owners, or their policies. It is a decent place to work and I like it here.)

A company makes stuff and has employees working 3 shifts. Over the last few years, the management has trimmed the workforce by not replacing people who retired or moved to other jobs. The company is running lean! The work is getting done, but there is no slack anywhere.

Now the government gives the company, (I will make up a number here for easy math,) $150,000 back on its taxes. (That is equal to 3 employees with benefits.) !!!Why would the management go and hire 3 people it does not need?!!! (And in fact, they didn't. We are still running as lean as ever, in spite of the tax breaks the company got under Bush and Cheney.) That money didn't stimulate the economy or create any jobs. It went right into the 'ol retirement fund, (and not any of the employees' retirement funds!)

Now, if that $150,000 was given to 150 middle class working people, well we have bills to pay, families to feed and cloth and put through college, our car needs fixing, our house needs new gutters, etc... That money is immediately spent and returned into circulation at stores in the community, paid to local mechanics and craftspersons, and used to get our kids a college education, making a better educated nation.

That, my friend, is how money really works, (that is, when it isn't being hoarded by a rich 1%!) Trickle Sideways Economics! That is how it is supposed to work.

Oh, and Reganomics? My ex was in college at the time. She had financial aid for the first 3 years, then my old buddy RR cut financial aid, so she had to borrow more money to complete college with her teaching degree. But RR also cut funds going to schools, so public schools had to stop hiring and even lay off some workers. She graduated with a degree in education, but there were no jobs in education for new graduates and she had to start paying off her student loans, even though she couldn't get a job at a school. The existing classrooms got bigger, and the decline in education accelerated! That is some good policies for the future of the country!

The health of the country lies in how well the people are, not how well the corporations are!

Nice chatting with you.

Michael L.

???Trickle down economics.???

Yep, the dirty phrase to liberals, ???trickle down???, which is the opposite of ???wealth distribution???, which is the preferred economic principle of the socialists and communists.

???Bush gave out the tax cuts,???

Check your facts. Congress gave us tax cuts, and Bush signed the bill to enact them.
???and the economy tanked.???

Nope!! Wrong again!!!

The economy under Bush, after ???his??? tax cuts, boomed, and brought the country back from the economic recession that Clinton left. Let???s face it. Every time taxes are cut, the economy sees a recovery or an upswing. Never fails. On the opposite side, every time taxes are raised, like happens with liberals, the economy takes a downturn, and often goes into recession.

??? We got to see your plan in action, and we saw the results. I don't understand how you can continue to say giving the rich tax breaks helps the economy.???

You saw something completely different from the facts, which are that, the country saw the longest economic recovery in American history under Bush, with periods of up to 8% growth, and the longest economic expansion in history of up to 52 weeks of growth. And, under Bush, the economy created up to 10 million jobs, and he unemployment rate even went down to 4.5%, which is something that, we???ll never see again under any democrat.

???Here is a scenario for you to chew on. (I work for this company, and I am not knocking it, or the owners, or their policies. It is a decent place to work and I like it here.)???

Nice to hear you have a job. But, there are approximately 20 million people out here who don???t have a job or full-time employment, simply because there is a Marxist in the White House.

And, there is congress, which is being prevented from doing what???s necessary to grow the economy, and the part of the congress blocking the needed bills and actions, is the senate, which is controlled by democrats.

???A company makes stuff and has employees working 3 shifts. Over the last few years, the management has trimmed the workforce by not replacing people who retired or moved to other jobs. The company is running lean! The work is getting done, but there is no slack anywhere.???

So, to you that???s a good thing? Your company downsizing by not replacing people who leave or retire? They???re doing what they have to do to survive in a rotten economy. Why can???t you see the downside of what you describe? So, is the glass half-full because, they???re not laying-off people? What about the people who felt pressured to leave, or the people who left because they saw no future in a company such as you describe? Which is better?: A company that sees a good future ahead, or one that???s doing whatever it can just to be able to survive? A company that loses hope, is one that reacts the way yours is doing. Get a hint.

???Now the government gives the company, (I will make up a number here for easy math,) $150,000 back on its taxes. (That is equal to 3 employees with benefits.) !!!Why would the management go and hire 3 people it does not need?!!! (And in fact, they didn't. We are still running as lean as ever, in spite of the tax breaks the company got under Bush and Cheney.) That money didn't stimulate the economy or create any jobs. It went right into the 'ol retirement fund, (and not any of the employees' retirement funds!)???

When people are used to living in liberal bubbles, or are uneducated on economics, they???ll think like you just did.

People who run businesses don???t just stash whatever earnings they have, and they also don???t bank whatever they can get in tax savings. Earnings and savings are used to grow a business, and to hire people when the need arises, like, when the business is growing. And, that is precisely what happened under the Bush economy, where companies that received the tax breaks, used that money for expansion and for hiring. The economy would have continued into a longer recession if the ???Bush tax cuts??? hadn???t been implemented. All economists agree on that, except, of course, the economists from the socialist side of the economic and political spectrum, those being the liberals.

???Now, if that $150,000 was given to 150 middle class working people, well we have bills to pay, families to feed and cloth and put through college, our car needs fixing, our house needs new gutters, etc... That money is immediately spent and returned into circulation at stores in the community, paid to local mechanics and craftspersons, and used to get our kids a college education, making a better educated nation.???

Actually, that???s been tried, and with very miserable results. It happens every time government doles out money, like in the mindlessly crafted porkulus of Obama and the democrats. They gave away money to their preferred projects and preferred friends, and there is nothing to show that was good with the whole debacle, anywhere. In fact, the country ended up far worse, with the spending just simply getting added to the national debt. So, what the heck is a measly billion dollars? It???s just taxpayer money, or Chinese money being lent to us that we???ll never be able to pay back.

When government makes economic decisions, it normally ends badly, and the greater free-market suffers because of it. If money is to be ???given back???, it would be preferable to just leave it where it was to begin with.

Government just tries to decide between winners and losers, and the general loser is always the economy and the country, and the people. That???s crony capitalism that government practices, and it???s never a winner. The people know best how to spend their own money, and so do businesses. That stuff about ???redistribution??? of the wealth, that you seem to be advocating, is for economies and countries that wish to commit suicide, like in the old USSR and in Venezuela and in Cuba and many others.

So, instead of the government taking people???s money, and then redistributing it as the politicians see fit, why not just let the people keep that money in the form of tax cuts? That always ends up stimulating the economy to much greater prosperity.

When government is the one handing out money, it???s not distributed the way that the free-market would, and the free-market ???knows??? best how and where that money should be spent. That free market is the people, and not the dependent class of people. People who depend on government will, in fact, go and spend whatever they get, and that is stimulative in a way, but, it???s a disincentive at the same time, and what suffers most is the productivity that those people won???t be putting forth to make the economy grow. Spending is not a stimulant by itself if that spending is not accompanied with an equal amount of productivity to replace that wealth that was spent. People who just spend and not produce, are always a negative to any economy, and that???s why the economy is in free-fall, with a huge percentage of people just consuming and not paying taxes or being productive. About half the people in the country pay no taxes, and about 1/3 of the people are also completely dependent upon government for all their needs. That???s unsustainable in any economy, and that???s why the country is failing.
???That, my friend, is how money really works, (that is, when it isn't being hoarded by a rich 1%!) Trickle Sideways Economics! That is how it is supposed to work.???

Your recipe is a recipe for disaster. You have absolutely no idea how economics works or how the free-market works. Your recipe is one that???s being tried in Venezuela right now, and they???re utter failures. Go there. They need your silly and na??ve ideas. We don???t need your kind of destructive ideas in this country. We already have a president who is doing what you and liberals want, and with very destructive results.

???Oh, and Reganomics? My ex was in college at the time. She had financial aid for the first 3 years, then my old buddy RR cut financial aid, so she had to borrow more money to complete college with her teaching degree.???

So, you, like all liberals, want to blame government or government officials for personal problems that people meet in their daily lives? You and your ex, like the dependent society, have become accustomed to the government giving you anything that you need. I never depended upon government to give me anything, and I survived quite nicely. I???m not rich, and I???m not anybody of importance in the general scheme of things, but, I don???t go around complaining or blaming others for what occurs in my life.

??? But RR also cut funds going to schools, so public schools had to stop hiring and even lay off some workers.???

When the schools are being used to simply hire teachers that become union members and very reliable democratic party voters, and they don???t give a damn about the student???s education, then by all means, Reagan did the right thing.

As it stands now, our education system is failing very badly, even with the huger amounts of money being spent and wasted on the system.

??? She graduated with a degree in education, but there were no jobs in education for new graduates and she had to start paying off her student loans, even though she couldn't get a job at a school. The existing classrooms got bigger, and the decline in education accelerated! That is some good policies for the future of the country!???

So, is she unique and the problem didn???t occur with other graduates in her field? Look, a degree is just a permission slip to get into a career, and getting a job or a career is something that should not just be handed to people because they???ve earned a piece of paper that says they spent four years in college learning a profession. If she was proficient at anything, she could have landed a good job or career anywhere without you or her whining about it.

???The health of the country lies in how well the people are, not how well the corporations are!???
That is such an ignorant and na??ve statement.
Without corporations to provide the work that people need to live on, there would be no country and no ???health??? or life worth living.

People don???t just create jobs. Corporations create jobs. But, those corporations are created by people with initiative and skills and desires to succeed, and they invest a lot of time and money to create businesses and jobs. Without the wealth creators, all that would exist in the world would be just a bunch of Somalias.
You need to rethink your ideas, because, you???re starting off very badly misinformed and very na??ve.

???Nice chatting with you.???

Yeah, nice chatting with you. Now, go get an education on economics and the free market system. Mostly, get one on common sense, because, common sense is most of what the free-market system is about. Socialism is not a system for wealth creation, nor for jobs creation, nor for sustaining a country. It ALWAYS fails.

From November 2001 through December 2007.

The longest economic expansion in American history took place between March 1991 and March 2001, a full ten years. To point out the obvious, that was the last couple years of the Bush I administration and all of the Clinton administration.

If you discount the mild recession from late 1990-early 1991, the 18-year period between December 1982 and March 2001 takes the bill.

In either case your claim is wrong.

If you google "products made in the USA", you'll see quite a few companies. If you listen to your local radio station, you'll hear consumers complain about not being able to buy or afford quality products made here. If business owners and investors think that they will make profits on cheap products made in China or getting customer service/tech support/product assistance used by Americans, they will be sorely disappointed. I no longer purchase products made anywhere but in the USA nor do I patronize organizations who off-shore any services whatsoever. There is an entire economy here of people just like me who are sick and tired of their good jobs being shipped off-shore or are paid a pittance to only be able to purchase what's available at the local dollar store and discount supermarket where they sell dented canned food products and out-of-date meat, dairy products, and produce.

Probably South America

Puerto Rico?

The U.S. remains the number one producer of goods and services in the world. But, we're losing our edge, and there are many foreign markets that are very eager to take our "work" and jobs and facilities. We are being rendered uncompetitive, and, we will stop being the number one producer of goods and services if the current trend continues.

While you might wish to make a stand and a statement about "purchasing American", the fact remains that, the vast majority of those Americans, when given a choice, will almost always, opt to purchase the "cheaper" product or service. You can go and make your stand and your statement, but, you're just swimming against the current.

So now, tell me, if you had a choice between a $2500 American made PC, and a foreign made one, with comparable specs, and that foreign made one only costs $700 or $800, would you really fork over the $2500 instead of just paying the $800? Then, what about all of the other products and services which, if made in the U.S.A. would cost you 3 or 4 times as much. How much purchasing power would you have with those kind of "ridiculous" "American made" products? Most people want to maximize their purchasing power, and, that always leads us to purchasing the less expensive products and services. You may be the exception, but the majority of the people don't give a rats ass about "buying American" if they have to may a lot more.

Where is this American made PC? I've been looking and never found one. American brands but not American hardware.

Almost anything of quality is at least designed and prototyped in America. Only for mass production are they typically farmed out to China.

they can't be manufactured in the U.S.A, precisely for the reason I mentioned, that reason being that, if it were to be built in the USA, it would cost 3 or 4 times as much as a foreign made PC. And, if it were to be built in the USA, at $2500 to $3000, and a foreign built PC were to cost "just" $800, which one would you buy? Would you spend the $3000 for a product which is exactly equal to the $800 one? I'll bet you wouldn't.

But, did you understand the "hypothetical"? In fact, the hypothetical is not really hypothetical, because, you can find many products that are manufactured in the U.S. which do cost more than a foreign brand. So, it would be the same with the "hypothetical" PC. Understand now???

with your hypothesis. I just happen to believe the balance is ready to tip. There are still chip manufactures here in the US. There are also custom circuit manufactures here, but they bent over backwards to remain competitive; if the factory process is designed correctly we can easily compete with any country, no matter what the dollar exchange rate is, or labor costs.

My theory, which I have formulated from 30 years on the factory floor, is that if you design the entire process correctly, you will only need highly skilled labor, which you can easily afford, because they will result in nothing but high productivity, which makes it a win win situation for everyone. The manufacturer, the worker on the floor, and the customer at the end of the retail chain.

and, any executive will try to get the most out of his company, and oftentimes, the cost of labor makes it an unprofitable proposition.

So, while there may be a few companies and executives which might make your "miracle" come true, the real facts don't support the issues confronting the many companies that would like to remain in business and making profits.

If not, I feel you are being naive. I've already seen this evolution happening on the factory floor from many corporations in the REAL world. So I feel my "theories" are rock solid. If we hadn't let the unions retard this progress way back in the late '50s; we wouldn't be so far behind.

At every corporation where I worked, where innovation came to the floor, the skilled workers and technicians, got a raise, and the unskilled workers tried to strike, and had their jobs sent to Arkansas, or Mexico. I've seen it happen over and over again.

Education, and a serious promotion of our technical colleges and institutions is badly needed if we are to save the middle class and keep jobs in the US.

where there are a myriad of problems hampering big and small corporations alike. The simplicity of the past, be it 30 or 50 or 100 years, is no longer with us, and we have to deal with a lot more government intervention than we've ever had, with a massive number of regulations which are very costly, and with a tax system which renders the U.S. very uncompetitive against every other country out there. And then, there is the unions, which you mentioned in passing, but, which are a very big reason for so many wanting to take their businesses where they retain control and can keep the wages and benefits to a desirable level. All of those problems are things that any executive at any level has to deal with. And yes, I've been involved in many of those decisions in some companies.

Furthermore, I'm one of those who's been very hesitant to start a business in the kind of environment we have now, with so much government intervention and with Obama and democrats threatening to raise taxes at every speech and interview they can be found at. That's not a pro-business agenda, and it's hurting many corporations and we're still losing jobs and not adding any new ones. If I do go ahead and start my business, it would be in a very low tax environment, either a state with no corporate taxes, or a state with big breaks on initial taxation, or a country where taxes would be minimal or non-existent and where government is in dire need of getting the jobs that my business could create. Right now, the U.S. is under a very anti-business and anti-growth administration, even if they have people believing otherwise.

Education and hard work should be rewarded, but, the businesses and the hard-working people, especially the investment class, have to be rewarded first. In summary, your views are a bit outdated and unrealistic, and you're not considering the hostile business environment which the U.S. and many other countries are under.

And there's no government to interfere with business.

Your chance to prove your points...

I've lived the reality. I don't know how more real you can get. Thanks for your input. This ends the discussion for me.

and you are all doing a nice and effective job towards that end.

Somalia is what results when people give up and become dependent upon whatever government gives them. With more and more people depending upon government goods and services, more and more people are leaving the workforce, and more and more people decide that, it's just not worth it to try, and thus, we end up with a dead or dying country. Somalia is not the only country where the people have given up and live in desperation. We have other countries in our own hemisphere where the people are lost and government has killed the incentive for people to do better with their lives.

Cuba and Venezuela are not exactly Somalia, but, the only reason they continue doing relatively better, is because they still have ties to Europeans and Americans and the other countries around them. But, if Cuba and Venezuela had been geographically located in Africa, with the same type of idiotic governments, then Cuba and Venezuela would be more Somalias. Haiti is very close to being Somalia, and the only thing propping them up is the U.S. But, if we continue in the same path we're in with the liberal policies we've adopted for so long, then it shouldn't be much more than a couple of decades before we're no better off than Russia or some of the lesser European countries, and then, sometime after that, we would get close to being a Somalia.

So, the Somalia analogy fits in a lot closer to your ideology than to mine. No doubt that, if Somalia had a conservative government with little government intrusion and a decent constitution, that it would be a lot better off than most other countries in Africa and South America.

So, again, you're not using your head.

conditions found in the European countries, which are quickly heading to hell, and, they continue to be in denial about what's happening all around them, just like you and so many who believe in liberalism and socialism, the ideologies which have destroyed those economies and countries.

Here's something to ponder, and absorb, and not be dismissive or in denial about:

"27 Statistics About The European Economic Crisis That Are Almost Too Crazy To Believe"

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/27-statistics-about-the-european-economic-crisis-that-are-almost-too-crazy-to-believe

"The economic crisis in Europe continues to get worse and eventually it is going to unravel into a complete economic nightmare. All over Europe, national governments have piled up debts that are completely unsustainable. But whenever they start significantly cutting government spending it results in an economic slowdown. So politicians in Europe are really caught between a rock and a hard place. They can't keep racking up these unsustainable debts, but if they continue to cut government spending it is going to push their economies into deep recession and their populations will riot. Greece is a perfect example of this. Greece has been going down the austerity road for several years now and they are experiencing a full-blown economic depression, riots have become a way of life in that country and their national budget is still not anywhere close to balanced. Americans should pay close attention to what is going on in Europe, because this is what it looks like when a debt party ends."

Somalia is what results when people give up and become dependent upon whatever government gives them.



OMFG, that's just too funny!



.
.
.

It's responses like these that keep me coming back for more.

The "Real World" that Adornoe refers to is actually the MTV reality show from the nineties.

.

Not for everybody, though.

A fair bit of offshoring will end sooner rather than later. Too many of the IT/NOC type ones sent elsewhere are met with false certifications, poor training, and worse English. The so-called 'savings' of offshoring such things only ends up costing more. Of course, if the government weren't quite so in the corps' pockets, it would be an easy way to help the defecit. Tax the he11 out of any offshored jobs. Make them cost as much as hiring people in the US.

completely wrong with your "solutions".

I'll give you one hint: Government is the biggest problem, and not necessarily because they're in the "corps' pockets".

However, the solutions are quite simple, and the biggest part towards a solution is, making it less expensive for our corporations to produce and to grow. It can be done, and it has worked in the past. Right now, we're going in the opposite direction from what we really need to do. As an example, Apple has the vast majority of its cash stored overseas, and they won't bring it back until government does something Apple wants. What do you think that is?

I consider the fact that the government is utterly beholden to the wealthiest individuals and most powerful corporations as pretty much 100% of the problem, because most of the things you're complaining about are the consequences of crony-capitalism, not a result of "over-regulation" or "over-taxation."

of the evil, bad, greedy corporate executives"

It's the argument of the simple minded.

Get out of that brainwashed mentality you got from the liberal education system, and learn to be an educated thinker instead.

The one sure fact remains that, as government became bigger and more intrusive, the economy has become more problematic and sick and sinking.

Crony capitalism is part of the problem, where government is involved and is trying to determine who the winners and losers are going to be. Again, it's big government intrusion which is not allowing the free market system function to maximum effectiveness.

Over-regulation is one factor which most businesses will cite as one of their biggest problems, and those problems get bigger as government issues more and more regulations.

And, who in their right minds would ever deny that, high taxation is a problem? Only a socialist or a communist would believe that high taxes are good for the country and economy and the people.

Grow a brain!

1. "Grow a brain! " How rude!

2. "The one sure fact remains that, as government became bigger and more intrusive, the economy has become more problematic and sick and sinking."

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Really? After telling people "learn to be an educated thinker."

and you might be another one of those.

So, what's wrong with point number one, where I tell unthinking people to think or grow a brain? Perhaps you need to heed that advice?

Also, what's wrong with point number 2, where I attack government intrusion for being the biggest problem with the sinking and sick economy?

You really didn't have a good argument did you. You contributed nothing to the discussion, other than to try to chastise me for "rudeness". Look, it's okay to try to correct me, or to even attack me, but, do try to contribute. Otherwise, your comments and you become irrelevant.

Or perhaps you do and, as is your usual fashion, resorted to ad hominem.

Besides, there wasn't any real logic to "tear up", because, what I said were simple statements which even you could understand. Yet, he didn't really rip apart any of my comments, and all he had to contribute was a bit of chastising of me. That's no rebuke and not "tearing up".

Perhaps my argument was way above his head? For sure, they're above yours.

...there wasn't any real logic to "tear up",

Truer words have never been spoken...

common sense.

Common sense is not something that requires deep logical thinking, and I could easily destroy your comments and thinking by using simple common sense. When it comes to using deeper logic, well, I don't have to do so when it comes to your thinking and comments. Logic would be way over your head, and so, I like to stick with simple common sense to destroy your arguments.

Thus, since there was no need for using anything more than common sense, going with deeper logic would be overkill.

Are. You. Understanding. Me. Now???

So, when it comes to my prior arguments, there wasn't anything that I wrote that needed to be destroyed, because, common sense can't be argued against.

Is. That. Still. Over. Your. Head???

You have, more than once, accused me of being incapable of understanding your logic, and now you admit there's no logic to it. Again, thank you for the confirmation.

Common sense that doesn't require logical thinking is quite common, but not very sensible. It's the kind of thinking that tells us the President has direct control over gas prices, that people choose to be poor, or that the earth is flat. True common sense, the kind that comes from "deep logical thinking" is extremely rare.

understanding simple common sense.

When things are in the realm of simple common sense, there is no need to put on your thinking cap to delve deeply into the subject. So, in the aforementioned case of common sense, you weren't required to use any real logic, but, the real problem is that, you still can't understand the common sense in what I said. So, why don't you go and recruit that kindergartener I suggested before, who might be able to explain it to you in simpler terms.

BTW, you continue losing the argument about common sense when you bring up the president and gas prices, and the poor, and the "flat earth" argument.

Common sense can be used to explain how the president has a lot to do with the high price of gas prices. I'll give you a hint: if the government, through the president's power, prevents the drilling for more oil, and by doing so, the production of oil is less, then the price for oil will be higher, and, remember that part of the economic equation that talks about "supply and demand"? With the production of a commodity being less, the price will be higher. So, take away the president's stupid decisions to prevent the search and drilling for oil, and we will, automatically, be producing a lot more oil, which will, common sense tells us, bring down the price of oil. In fact, when Bush opened up more land and and offshore areas for drilling, the price of oil did start coming down, and what Obama is currently taking credit for, is something that was started under Bush, but, Obama did go and close a lot of those drilling places after Bush left office, and, we're stuck again depending upon foreign oil producers and less oil production here at home. To boot, Obama blocked the Canadian oil pipeline to the U.S, which would have gone a long way towards reducing our dependence on middle-east oil, and would've helped to lower the oil prices. So, why can't you understand even that simple common sense about the president's power? The president can't produce the oil and he can't dictate that gasoline prices must be lowered, but, he is preventing the search and drilling for oil, which is highly idiotic.

And, people don't choose to be poor, but they do make decisions which tends to keep them poor. Like, voting for democrats, who would like nothing more than to keep those people dependent upon government giveaways in order so that, the party continues getting their votes through that dependence. When people vote for liberals, many of them are doing so because of the expected things that government will do for them, and it's not because of government trying to make them independent or taking them out of poverty. That too is common sense, but, most of the voters who do vote for liberals don't care about common sense, and they just want to take whatever government gives them without them having to work for it.

BTW, the flat earth argument is old and stupid, and, only the unthinking would use it anymore when trying to win an argument. So, even that argument is out of the realm of common sense, where most people with a brain do know that, the earth is not flat. But, knowing that, the flat earth argument is an attempt at analogy, it's also true that, most of the analogies used don't fit the accepted and common sense arguments, and the analogies are mostly attempts are diminishing the arguments from one side or another. But, true common sense is oftentimes not used in real debates, and a bit deeper logic might be better used for certain discussions. For example, the oil debates might require that people follow the logic about how high prices are "indirectly" related to what a president does.

Hope you were able to follow. If not, find a book that explains common sense and logic, and perhaps there is something along the lines of "Common Sense for Dummies".

your eagerness to ignore fact if it disagrees with your preconceptions. Or your ignorance of economics.

If gas prices today are the President's fault, why weren't they the President's fault four years ago?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ssp5EhTecOQ

the history of what actually transpired during the Bush years.

A president's actions can have a very negative effect on gas prices, and Obama has actually made it his goal to make gas prices very high, and so high that, people would have to get onto alternate energy sources. He has stated that goal very clearly, four years ago, and still now as president, and even with prices skyrocketing, he's still at it, trying to make those prices go even higher.

Now, when Bush was president, people were, indeed, blaming him for the high gas prices, but, unlike Obama, he DID TRY to get those prices down, and they actually did go down as a result of some of his actions to allow drilling in Anwar and off the coastal areas of the east and west coasts of the U.S. Then, when Obama took over as president, he went and closed Anwar and the coastal areas to drilling again. What the heck do you think that would do to gas prices??? Look, the law of supply and demand applies to oil and gas prices too. If the supply is not there, prices will go higher. If the supply is prevented by a president, then, by all means, the president is to blame. Nobody can question that, Obama is very responsible for higher prices, especially when he stated quite clearly that, his intentions were to make gas prices skyrocket, and his concentration would be on "green energy sources", and he proved that, once again, two months ago by vetoing the Keystone oil pipeline which would have brought in much needed oil to the U.S, thereby reducing our dependence on oil from our enemies/frenemies in the middle-east.

So, anybody that questions the differences in actions, has not studied the history, even as recent as it's been.

Then, when it comes to the historical background as to why oil prices are so high, one only needs to go as far as 30-40 years ago, when the democrats, in order to please their environmental constituencies, decided that, government would do as much as possible to move away from fossil fuels, and thus, we ended up with massive regulations to prevent drilling for oil and coal and even natural gas. So, when a president like Bush encounters so many roadblocks that prevent him from taking action to drill for coal and oil and natural gas, of course, he's going to get blamed, but, the blame rightfully belongs with the liberals and the environmental wackos who have forced the U.S. to close its oil businesses and to purchase so much of it overseas. Nevertheless, a president is to blame for anything that transpires during his presidency, especially when he DOES HAVE SOME POWER to remedy those problems. But, Bush did try to get us less dependent on foreign oil, and he did try to get the U.S. to drill for oil and coal and natural gas. Look it up, because, he did all those things. Whereas, Obama actually went in the opposite direction with trying to get oil and coal and natural gas to go higher. It's on the record, and you can find hundreds of thousands of hits on the interned showing you that Obama did try to get prices to skyrocket. So, he is, without a question, highly blamable for the skyrocketing gas prices. If he had left Bush's policies in place, we would be a lot further on the road towards energy independence. That nonsense about "green energy" ain't gonna help a bit, and even if it does help, it's going to be decades into the future, which means, gas prices will continue to stay high or go higher.

Now, go and look up the history and learn the real facts, because, you still sound very, very ignorant. Arguing with you is like arguing with a 5 year old who hasn't even the slightest clue about the issues. Either learn the facts, or go argue with a five year old.

My previous post.

And, if you pay attention, you are bound to learn something.

Adornoe will serve up any kind of navel-lint assumption he has, to serve as either "argument", "common sense" or "the simple facts".
They are none of the above, merely the fevered, incoherent ramblings of a person who strongly wishes to be right, even though he is entirely wrong.

Adornoe also prefers to shovel poo over bothering to find out if there is any real support for his unfounded crazy claims.

* Everybody who disagrees with adornoe is wrong
* Everybody who disagrees with adornoe is an idiot
* Nobody who disagrees with adornoe has a clue
* Nobody who disagrees with adornoe has common sense
* Nobody's experiences are valid except adornoe's
* Nobody knows anything about the real world except adornoe
* There are no facts except adornoe's facts

Put that all together with the abusive rants and incoherent ramblings in almost all of those posts and the only possible conclusion is adornoe is the BOFH...after a frontal lobotomy.

of you guys.

First of all, Nick, you haven't learned anything, and it seems that, the longer you live, the more in denial you want to remain or the more ignorant you get.

Then, Ansu, there is nothing that I've stated that can be proved wrong, and the facts out there in the real world, continue to back me up. That you want to continue denying reality is not going to undo the facts I present. You can't take anything I said and disprove it.

So, what the heck are you guys? The twin peaks of denial? The fact is that, both of you exhibit symptoms of the same ignorance that has people voting in the likes of Obama and Nancy Pelosi, who are nothing more than destructive forces against the western way of life. That kind of destructive force already has Europe on the ropes and ready to go down for the count. And, blindingly, you want the same for the U.S.

If any of you guys do have a brain, then it's time you started using it. Otherwise, even you guys will start feeling the effects of the radical policies which have caused so much damage to the world already. It's just a matter of time before the whole world starts down the path of desperation, and you won't be able to do anything about it. Wake up!!!

FTW.

you still end up with "no points made".

But, no problem. If you have no real points to make, and you had no real ammunition in your arguments to begin with, then, I'll excuse you from trying further, and I'll allow you to pretend that, you actually made some sense. You know, like kids in a t-ball league, who all "earn" a trophy just for trying.

The point of my last post was that adornoe does not let others make points that adornoe does not like because adornoe can not accept that he might be wrong...about anything. Adornoe then told me I was wrong, making my point for me.

The point of this post is to let the troll poke its head out from under the bridge and roar a final time, so it will feel good about itself.

but, that kid still sounds very much like you, and no doubt, you dictated what he should enter into his post. No matter, you still made no sense.

You and Ansu are nothing but dopes following an idiotic agenda, but, you'll be the losers, even if your agenda is implemented in any way. Your ideas are a lose/win proposition. You lose if your ways become the norm, and you win if your agenda doesn't get implemented, because, the world and you will be better off. You two are like kids who don't know what's best for you, and you need the grown-ups in society to keep you out of trouble.

.

You mean by not having them comply to EPA regulations? Allow them to spew toxins into the air, water, and soil instead of incurring the expense of not polluting? Or how about allowing them not to have safety standards? That would reduce costs. How about abolishing the minimum wage? Sure, we'll have jobs here, but who can support a family for $1.59 an hour?

The goal is to bring the third world countries up to our standards so we are once again competing on an even playing field, not us down to their non-existing standards.

Nobody is arguing against regulations to help the environment. That's always the lie that liberals use to try and get more regulations passed. Water and air and general environment regulations, are not the ones that people complain about when it comes to the massive number of expensive regulations that government has implemented and that have hurt businesses. At most, only a few regulations are needed to control what corporations and individuals do to the environment. The many thousands of other regulations are not related to the environment, and the majority of them are not needed.

When it comes to minimum wage, HECK NO!, the government has no right to tell a company what kind of salary they have to pay an employee. The free-market system takes care of that without government involvement, and no company would be able to survive by paying a wage which is unreasonable and much lower than the standard wages for whatever the line of work is that one is talking about.

Third world countries will never be brought up to our standards, and if anything, we are being brought down to their standards. No one can "force" foreign governments, with dictatorial government influences, to change their way of government, and to allow people the freedom to seek a better way of life on their own. It's been tried for thousands of years, and always with failed results. Most of what we call the third world has been that, not because of our doing, but because of their doings.

adornoe@...

If you do not think businesses should be forced to pay a minimum wage and provide minimum working environment standards, then you should go stock shelves at Walmart. Heck, tell them that they don't need to pay you as much as minimum wage, don't need to pay you for all the hours you actually worked, and that they don't need to give you breaks for meals or to use the bathroom. Walmart and other employers have done exactly that, and the only thing keeping it at a minimum, (I won't say stopping it, because it is still going on,) is Government Regulations!

"When it comes to minimum wage, HECK NO!, the government has no right to tell a company what kind of salary they have to pay an employee. The free-market system takes care of that without government involvement, and no company would be able to survive by paying a wage which is unreasonable and much lower than the standard wages for whatever the line of work is that one is talking about. "

All these regulations are in place because employers were abusing and cheating employees! If there are only three big employers in a town,(Or only one, which happens,) and all three of them are cheating their employees, then your phrase "much lower than the standard wages" becomes meaningless. When the employers are the ones making that very wage that they are measuring wages against, it doesn't mean anything.

I read an interview with a business owner about 10 -15 years ago, (I would link it if I had it. You will have to take my word for it. I cannot save every link to every story I ever read. Indexing them would be a full time job!) that opened a new manufacturing facility in a small town that he felt would appreciate the jobs. He started out paying about $7 - $8 an hour, which he felt was fair to start at for the work at the time, and the couple of other business owners in town told him he couldn't pay that much because then they would have to match it to keep employees. They were paying in the $5 an hour range. He ended up compromising and paying $6 - $6.50 an hour so he wouldn't have the other business owners fighting him in the local municipality at every opportunity trying to drive him out of town.

When it comes to minimum wage, HECK YES! Businesses do unfairly collude to keep wages low. That is not a free market for employees. Someone has to stick up for people. Someone like, maybe... The Government, by the people, for the people!

Taxation for offshored jobs was done in the past and should be done again.

and there's a big difference, even though, the end result will be the same, that being, that those jobs that were outsourced/offshored, won't be coming back anyway, no matter how much taxes are raised or how much those companies are penalized.

In fact, what's most likely to happen, is that, those corporations will stop being based on American soil, and they'll just become foreign based.

Think deeper, and be careful what you wish for, because, the effects will always be more damaging than the hoped for results.

Think deeper, and be careful what you wish for, because, the effects will always be more damaging than the hoped for results.

Pity you don't follow your own advice...

Furthermore, none of my comments can be refuted by you or anyone else.

I repeat, what some people would call taxation, are just penalties to punish corporations for taking jobs and operations overseas. Taxation should be fair across the board, and punishing certain companies at rates that are nothing but punishment for not playing the game that certain people want, is unfair in anybody's mind. That should be clear for even a third grader.

Even when the beholder is blind...

There??? is nothing like planting your seed corn in someone else???s field.

As the 'goldman sachs crime family' continues to help the Feds keep giving away all our money and printing even more (97% of it) on their pcs (imaginary dollars).. Our $100 bill be able to buy one plastic beed made in China. In other words the US dollar will be what our penny is today making the US the lowest paid work force and thus the work will all come back to US.. Then we can work a 14 hr day for a loaf of bread.

Except - as long as the family farm is still alive we will never have a food situation like that!

are being replaced by factory farms.

Farm policy, over regulation, and draconian death taxes, make traditional family farming impossible. Corpration farms have the lawyers, lobbyists, and tax loopholes to defeat the little guy every time.

Grains lend themselves to economies of scale and the smaller farms can not compete on price. Fruit & produce are more labor-intensive, and the economic advantages of the larger farms are not as great. The family farms that raise those crops are thriving, at least here in SC.

Transportation improvements also had an impact. When it became as inexpensive to ship something across the country as it was to grow it locally, the family farm was doomed.

My cousins in Germany were facing the same situation in the Fatherland; but they switched gears and with great success. Instead of interfering with family farms, the Government helps by giving tax breaks and loans for new equipment. This enabled them to go to truck crops which are unfortunately labor intensive. However, with the tax breaks, and loan guarantees the government gave, they were able to buy more automated equipment that literally process the crop in the field, toward value added condition, so the produce can be shipped directly to local markets. One of my relatives, started a farmer's market chain similar to McDonalds, except it sold only fresh produce at much lower prices, because it came directly from the family farm. This gave the customers a great value in cheaper prices, and a higher quality product. The equipment changes reduced the dependence on manual labor, and also made it possible to pay the labor pool better wages. Shipping costs were also lower because they were closer to the actual food outlet.

I wished our government would end subsidies for farmers and go more toward this less invasive model - it would help the farmer, more and make them less dependent on government welfare. Germany also helps a great deal by actually promoting German farm products outside their borders, which is more in line with what our president should be doing - brokering treaties with foreign powers for a better market for the farmer.

I worked for several CIOs when I was a regular employee. I also worked with several CIOs when I was a consultant. Most didn't have a very good understanding of IT. However, they all knew about outsourcing which was evident by their relentless use of it to decrease costs.

I think that putting your company in the hands of people in other countires is a huge mistake (have for more than 12 years) and will eventually hurt your business as well as you economy in the long run. I think that this is also evident in what has happened to our economy in the last decade.

Are the people in say India any better than we are.... absolutely not..... This I see everyday. Are they more cost effective? That depends on whether you think the end result is worth less that the price of the project. Is there a 1 to 1 ratio when replacing us with them? Not from what I see. I have seen as many as 3-4 people taking the place of one American developer. So, let's take all of our higher paying jobs and send them overseas? Hmmm, that's smart?

I once had a conversation with a CEO that I met at a conference. I said to him "What will happen when we outsource everything and only a few in this country can afford you product?". He said "We sell our product Globally, so the other countries will buy from us.". Then I said "Well, what happens when those other countries have economies stronger than ours and become your competition and don't buy from you?". He then walked away without a word. I guess he will still retired by then and have his huge payout to live on, so why should he care.

MNCs have assets-stripped their companies, to the bone, already - even below that threshhold. Any further cutting away, and there simply won't even be a skeleton workforce, to do the essentials. The whole idea of outsourcing was an idiotism, from the very outset. Either they need capable people, to service their precious commitments with care and concern for continuity and system stability - or these get bodged, by others, who, being half a world away, don't really give a monkey's uncle .. as it doesn't affect them directly ( sub-contracted out = not answerable for messes made, like normal employees would be ). In which case, they can merrily look forward to indemnities, loss of business, and a sinking reputation, for their breaches of agreement, as clients fail to renew. This is how the Money-Bags ruin a perfectly good profession, until only desperation, overwork, stress, and systemic failure characterize IT SysAdmin morale in the once-called First World ( fast approaching Third-Worlder devastation - which was always the overall game plan, in any case ). Clever, eh ?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/08/17/why-amazon-cant-make-a-kindle-in-the-usa/

ASUSTeK started out making the simple circuit boards within a Dell computer. Then ASUSTeK came to Dell with an interesting value proposition: Weve been doing a good job making these little boards. Why dont you let us make the motherboard for you? Circuit manufacturing isnt your core competence anyway and we could do it for 20% less.

Dell accepted the proposal because from a perspective of making money, it made sense: Dells revenues were unaffected and its profits improved significantly. On successive occasions, ASUSTeK came back and took over the motherboard, the assembly of the computer, the management of the supply chain and the design of the computer. In each case Dell accepted the proposal because from a perspective of making money, it made sense: Dells revenues were unaffected and its profits improved significantly. However, the next time ASUSTeK came back, it wasnt to talk to Dell. It was to talk to Best Buy and other retailers to tell them that they could offer them their own brand or any brand PC for 20% lower cost.

As The Innovators Prescription concludes:

Bingo. One company gone, another has taken its place. Theres no stupidity in the story. The managers in both companies did exactly what business school professors and the best management consultants would tell them to doimprove profitability by focus on on those activities that are profitable and by getting out of activities that are less profitable.


And, yes, it IS too late. It's like erosion. Once the soil is washed away someplace else, nothing will grow back.

so, go figure.

Which one was the bigger fool? Which one will survive?

No matter, because, if both Dell and Best Buy die, there will still be the need to sell computers and tablets and smartphones, and somebody or some other company, will take their place. It's a cycle which continues, as long as there are consumers with needs and wants. Offshoring/outsourcing notwithstanding.

My heart bleeds for them. *boo hoo*

Disregarding technological know how is very profitable short term. Eventually, of course, the piper must be paid, but in a world, where average stock holding period is measured in seconds, a couple of years is, for all intents and purposes, an eternity.

Yes, the alleged gains are offset by poor communication skills, trust me, I deal with offshore IT support all the time. The language issues (not just India, but Indonesia, Mexico etc) are major issues - not to the bean counters or upper management who benefit from the alleged lower cost, but to anyone who has to communicate with them. And overall, the performance to the purchasing company is less. I have worked with midwest clients who would NOT work with the Indians because they just couldn't understand them.

First, most of these analysts don't know their a?s from their elbow.
Second, if they are right, all the jobs will be elsewhere and the uneployment rate will be 15% in the US, 12% in Canada and higher in western Europe.
ow bad can you get when it's now getting cheaper to oursource to El Salvador than India to save money! Bell Canada is doing that. [And it's funny that this is a phone company, yet you can barely hear them.]

The US manufacturing went from outsourcing simple components to entire bridges. Look for shifts in competence that will paint the correct picture, not just job functions.
Just saying ...

It makes no sense hiding from the realities of the world. I compare outsourcing to not using your CIO for fixing the secretary's keyboard. It is not cost effective to use the smartest part of your workforce to do the the most junior of jobs. Balance the jobs to the intelligence and cost. That does not mean that the expensive part of the workforce in USA or Europe can sit on their backside and not work for a living because if they do they will be out competed in everything by the Chinese and Indians. It is a tough global economic economy, we need to work hard AND smart to win.

To fix that secretary's computer/keyboard. And by the way that secretary has been layed-off. Who has secretaries anymore - beside MadMen.

Later that middle skill person becomes the expert your company grows because of.

Our teenagers and college grads need jobs to earn experience in.

I used to be a CIO, then a consultant (who sold and did outsourcing deals). My take is that today I am a Director of IT, and working hard to develop our staff, their skills, capabilities, attitude, and as they earn it, their compensation. I really have little interest in outsourcing today. Instead my focus is on developing a continually developing skill set of capable people to help drive support for the business. Today the hard part is finding people who will roll up their sleeves and make the effort. Outsourcing has sapped the American spirit. If America is ever going to be great again, we will have to do it ourselves, and outsourcing does not get it done. Investing in ourselves and then being accountable for delivering results at a reasonable cost that helps the business grow is a path back to greatness. I sometimes think I may the only one out here with this attitude. The CFO and President have our back, because we have earned it. It can work, it is not easy, but it is the only way to go for me.

I've always said the American worker was easily capable of providing value to the company, as long as they don't let anything get in that way, that is still true. Innovation has been a big driver on the factory floor. We redesigned the work space and make it more and more efficient; this lends the company to stick to our home, where we can easily compete against the world. We need to work smarter, not necessarily harder. Also - when you like your job, you don't notice it is hard work at all!

the only sensible comment so far .. no attitude .. just to the point

the executive management that they stop offshoring/outsourcing, and see where it takes you. But, before you go to them, make sure you have a plan that can make the company profitable, or that can keep it profitable. Running a business is a different responsibility, and the goals are a lot different from the responsibilities of middle management, who often have a more limited role in getting the company to operate efficiently and cost-effectively. You might be correct in many of your points, but, from your perspective or area of responsibility, you cannot run the bigger responsibility of keeping the company economically viable. You can contribute towards the health of the company, but, you might not be seeing the whole picture that upper management is charged with.

is generally just how much they will be walking away with year after year and making sure that nothing stops that number from increasing each year. An economically viable company does not matter much since they will find their way into another company after they drive their current one into the ground.

when it comes to what upper management's responsibility is to the owners of the company.

No company will ever survive if their prime concern is to provide jobs and benefits to their employees. If a company doesn't produce results to make the owners/investors of a company happy, then you can kiss all the labor and the whole company good-bye.

Simple thinking is not what solves complicated problems.

Is it the same at privately- or employee-owned companies as it is in publicly-traded companies? If not, why not?

Should management balance the desire for profits with the need for a stable corporate work force? Can a company survive if it doesn't take care of its employees?

but, the company had better be producing enough to make a living for its employees and the ownership, otherwise, it would be suicidal to continue operating.

When it comes to investor-owned corporations, the management had better be producing for those investors, or, it will not be operating for long. Now, if a company is being successful and producing for the investors, it had better be trying to take care of the employees that have made or kept the company producing for those investors. Notice that, the bottom line is about the investors, and the management is working for, (guess who?), well, the investors. The investors are the owners, and if the owners are not happy, then the company won't be around for long. Unfortunately for the management and for the labor in that company, the real bosses are the owners/investors.

So, why can't you figure that out by yourself???

The investors are the owners, and if the owners are not happy, then the company won't be around for long.

Does this apply even if the company is profitable? After all, if the investors aren't happy, even with a profitable investment, they can sell their investment. That's why we have stock markets or private equity sales.

And which obligation should be more important to management: short-term profit or the long-term viability of the company? Should management maximize profit today at the possible expense of the company's survival or sacrifice some profit now to ensure the company will continue to operate profitably for the foreseeable future?

I've already figured it out by myself. I'm trying to understand your assertion that profits are more important than employees; after all, without employees, there is no product and thus, no profit. Seems to me that management's responsibility is to balance the need for short-term profit with the continued survival of the company and the need for a stable workforce.

If this is the best news on the horizon, I suggest future computer science grads consider apprenticeships as plumbers. Yes, it's still crap, but politicians and greed mongers will continue to provide an inexhaustible domestic supply - no outsourcing!

I'll b just about early retirement age.

Is the reason that the outsourcing will stop. It is more sad that so many of the jobs won't come back.

Too many executives outsourced jobs they *should not* have - like their Level 1 help/service desks. Too many executives looked at ONLY the initial cost of a call to determine whether to outsource. None of them looked at the back-end cost of the call: An insourced L1 is expected to resolve 60+% of all calls. An outsourced L1 is expected to solve 40%. That means 20% more callers (who "cost more" than the insourced L1 call taker) who are slowed or stopped in their work for longer. If the insourced L1 can't solve the call, it goes directly to L2 (or to a more knowledgeable L1.5) and gets resolved relatively quickly - typically less than a day. The outsourced L1 connections to the (outsourced) L1.5 and (insourced) L2 typically result in downtimes of 2.5-4 days. So what is the OVERALL cost, executives? ( saw a recent tech article that mentioned the same thing - executives only look at the initial expense when making this calculation and not the end-to-end expense.)

This is an example from personal experience (this type of outsource affected me), but my wife has similar stories from the ACCOUNTING world - executives hiring 5 overseas workers to get rid of one on-site worker... and then the remaining on-site workers have to redo everything the off-shore attempted and do for them those things that are "outside the box" and require creative thinking. The overall cost is actually cost prohibitive... but NOT outsourcing doesn't get the executives a fat bonus.

The companies who don't have dunderheads at the top, like that; will bury the competition! Your logic is just another nail in the reason outsourcing will have to stop. The bottom line will chew them up, and the stock holders will be revolting and throw the chairpersons out, not just the CIO/CEO! Wait'll they get a load of the stock holder revolt movement - they will make the Occupy Wall Street movement look pale! After all - even the "little" people own stock now days.

on their investments. Besides, a lot of the small investors are doing so through company retirement plans, and they don't really know what their money is being used for.

Now, when it comes to "OWS", that's the most phony movement ever invented, because, it was led by politicians, and not really "the people".

The banks have been blocking education efforts in the post secondary schools every since 1911. It is high time we give our children the tools to know what is going on, and how to take control of their own destiny! Thanks for the post! Very interesting!

are with education.

The problem with the education system is that, it's controlled by liberals, from K to 12 and even through the college years. The education system has been destroyed by the liberals who wanted to use it to indoctrinate students on the liberal agenda. Real education came second, and the teacher's unions are wholly owned subsidiaries of the democratic party.

When trying to identify a problem, do try to get at the real problem and not what seems appropriate for your agenda, or the agenda of the democrats.

to an certain extent. In conservative school districts, they have tried to deal with the Federal Dept. of Education mandates, but it has been an uphill battle. Some folks gave up and went to the ancient home schooled method; this not being quite the failure liberals advocate. In my area, home schooled students are required to take the same tests that are required by "leave no child behind" mandates, and they score WAY ahead of district school system students!!

The sad thing is, the parents who sacrifice to stay at home and teach, are still paying taxes to educate other people's students poorly. Some have developed private home schooling similar to the old country school method where several families pool resources to educate a small group of children - these are the most successful. The "school marm" is just as likely to be a former retired industrial worker, who knows REAL world stuff!! The education these kids receive is priceless!!

. . . universities and industry still shout labour shortage.

First, the manufacturing was offshored, then knowledge, and now, there is nothing left to offshore. That's the real reason why the offshoring will stop, and that's also the reason why the offshoring jobs won't come back: They have nothing to come back to.

Where "metal banging" jobs go, everything else goes, and then follows the decline. This pattern repeats itself throughout history, and it never changes. British textile industry in the 19th century, US automobile and electronics industry in the 20th century, and now IT.


> The large-scale movement of IT service jobs and supply chains from western countries to offshore locations could see offshore destinations become global hubs for activities like application development.

> Finally, the IT industry (hardware, software and telecommunication) itself continues to grow, creating additional demand for IT workers,??? the report said.

Growth will hapen in beforementioned "global hubs for activities", not in the western countries. Demand for IT workers in the west can only get lower.

The growth will decrease that's all. All the companies that have offshored their processes will be doing so.

What I've read and heard for years is that business is off-shoring to avoid high Federal taxation. Recently learned the US rate is higher than China. Its not about wages as commonly reported on the nightly news. The effective rate is 39%, and one of the highest in the world. The current tax reduction plan would add 250 billion to gov't coffers. Sounds like a reduction to me. [/sarcasm] While most all other nations have lowered their rates the US has held steady to where we're about 10 percentage points higher than the rest.

As a Technical Resume Writer and Job Search Coach, I've been watching this trend over the past 10-15 years. The discussion that most people avoid is the one concerning talent. Our academic institutions today are not equipping students properly for the market. Unless a student goes to a hardcore technical institute or has the motivation to learn it on their own, most do not have a grasp on the foundational elements of computing, networking, telecommunications, programming, etc. As a result, they are of little or no value to an employer. Of course, those that do learn this can be highly sought after, which is why so many US companies are willing to sponsor work visas for foreign candidates (particularly India, China, and Eastern Europe).

I expect the trend of offshore outsourcing to balance out, although I'm not willing to say that any industry will "have no more jobs to outsource" by a certain date. As one comment mentioned, governments are unable to stay out of things, so eventually the government in India will raise taxes on non-domestic or outsourced operations (they already have in many industry segments), which will eliminate the cost savings for US and European firms. http://www.ittechexec.com

While I wouldn't go as far as to say it's "all" about talent, it definitely plays a role. I'm in the middle of standing up a new enterprise program. Finding qualified personnel is a challenge. I seriously doubt that fed into the decisions to outsource though. The execs only cared about the talent/skills where they were going, not what they were leaving. If the talent/skills are there and are cheaper, it's a no-brainer decision. Sux to be on the losing end, but pardon the cliche, that's business. The only thing that can reverse something like this is customer feedback. Voting with your wallet is something companies pay attention to.

You can not expect academic institutions to train people according to any employer's current specific needs.They can only give them understanding of the basics, which enables them to learn further. The specific details must be learned on the job. There is no other way.

Employer, who is not willing to build long term relationship with employees, who considers employees like expandable, interchangeable parts, like assembly line workers of old, will not want to invest anything into them. Consequently, he will not have talent of his own. He will either hire talent dowsized by competitors, poach it from the competitors, or make do without it, constantly griping about talent shortage.

Employers and countries, where talent shortage shouting is the loudest, should therefore be avoided like plague. Great Britain is by far the worst in this regard, with Canada, Australia, New Zaeland, and South Africa not far behind it.

Irreversible? I don't think so. Technically, there is no reason the jobs can't be brought back. Financially, they probably can't or won't be brought back. It always boils down to money.

IT does not exist in isolation, it needs a sort of "ecosystem" to survive. Offshoring is like erosion of a hillside slope. If the conscious effort is made, it can be prevented in its early stages, but in IT (and hight tech in general), that opportunity has been missed a couple of decades ago. Manufacturing is a sort of substrate, a topsoil upon which everything else grows. Once it has been washed downhill, there's no way to stop the erosion. It can only accelerate.

More here:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/08/17/why-amazon-cant-make-a-kindle-in-the-usa/

The thing all the outsourcers and even worse offshorers ignored, is how much inhouse / cultural investment they were throwing away.
We are all much more than our transferrable skills. Imagine how much it would cost to set up an entire IT department, how nervous a business would be, how little of that cost, could be proven by ROI and such like to investors / owners, how much of anathema having to do it would be to those who believe in standard corporate practice?

After you jump that hurdle, who's going to recreate your department? The clueless morons who understood so little about it, they got rid of it in the first place?

structure in a company, specifically, the IT department(s), but...

Those are all things that, come secondary to survival of a company, and sometimes, offshoring/outsourcing, are the only or best options left to companies. Don't you think that, managers and executives and shareholders/company owners already know about those issues you mentioned? If they didn't, then they had no business being in supervisory/management positions to begin with.

When people are quick to castigate, verbally or economically, a company and its executives, they're not thinking about the decision-making process that does go on in the boardrooms, and tough decisions have to be made every day. But, I understand that, people will be angry about losing jobs, and they need to let off steam, whether warranted or not. But, worse than losing jobs, would be losing more of the economic sector, namely, the companies themselves, who are the source of the products and services we consume, and the actual creators of those jobs, even if many of them are lost to foreign competition or to offshoring/outsourcing.

Worse still now you've given all that talent away, and effectively devalued it, growing it back is going to take serious time and money.

Do they know about the issues? I'm far from sure that they do. Certainly I've seen absolutely no evidence that they do. Best way to get buy in for an unpopular decision, is to make the why of it very clear.
I've seen that twice in a thirty + year career...

I agree with both of you and your points, it is just that the technical field is changing so rapidly, that knowledge and experience can go out the window. So by the time kids get out of college, their knowledge is already obsolete.

I experienced this myself after graduating my computer courses, in CCNA ,MCSE, and the usual; just to find out I was already several orders and steps behind the software and hardware. I had to rapidly catch-up. I was spending all my idle time researching the changes online and educating myself to the new reality. I might as well not gone to school at all.

I wonder if we need a paradigm shift, where we teach more theory and principal, and dispense with nuts and bolts learning, This way the student doesn't waste time learning obsolete skills. Because if this, we may be able to recover a labor force more rapidly than the 'naysayers' say.

which means that, a person can start out at the bottom of the corporate ladder or at the bottom of a career, and move up as one learns the skills necessary. So, after high-school, a person might already have an idea about which career path to pursue, and then, all that's needed is for the corporate world to step up and take on those "trainees", with a clear career path designated, even if many don't wish to progress from the lower ranks. Then, once a person attains a certain skill-level with good and actual experience, he/she can apply to get a certificate or degree which acknowledges that person's experience and training. As it stands now, we train too many college people who, after their college days, will go and become "trainees" in the "real world". Many of those college trained people are not really better than a person that might have worked his way up the ranks and up the skill-set ladder.

I agree with the trend discussed in this article. Nature has a way of equalizing things, however people can't adapt as fast to the changes in the world economy. In the end the IT jobs will be almost equally distributed around the world. It's a shame it has ruined many a career in the United States in the name of profit. In addition it has discouraged college students from getting into an IT career in the U.S. This leads to the continued brain drain in the United States. If only the U.S. government could see past the end of the corporate nose the government could have protected some of our U.S. talent from disappearing.

> In addition it has discouraged college students from getting into an IT career in the U.S.

It's a natural way of equalizing things. Students are behaving reasonably. Too bad for university profits.


> If only the U.S. government could see past the end of the corporate nose the government could have protected some of our U.S. talent from disappearing.

Corporations are multinational. They don't care about the U.S, and they don't need to, and are not even supposed to. Yet, U.S. government seems to care quite a bit about corporations. Why?

Campaign contributions.

and many of them would actually love less government involvement in the economy.

What too many people fail to realize or understand, is that, government is the cause of many of the problems, which have caused many corporations to move their shops and jobs overseas. So, the "campaign contributions" aren't helping a bit when those same companies are having to outsource and offshore their operations and jobs.

who gets power in our countries.

Mine and your vote, or the big boys choosing the candidates we can sensibly vote for....

We may differ somewhat in our political beliefs , but I bet you and I have more in common, than either of us do with almost any of the self serving gits the big boys sponsored into our legislatures.

Never seen a corporate ask for less government. Less regulation, or at least friendlier, if they wanted that, they'd already have it. W|e get bigger and bigger goverment ( no matter the strip of the politiocal party in power), because that's a price the corporates are prepared for US to pay, in return for "friends" in high places.

but, the executives in those corporations also understand that, government is not going to just slither away and so, they have to be dealt with, and in many cases, compromises have to be made. But, like I said, it would be much more preferred if the government would just stay away from trying to intrude into the free-market system. Reality is that, government has become too big and too intrusive, and the people and corporations have been handed a very uncomfortable position as regards dealing with government.

However, even if executives in government or in politics or the corporate boardrooms pick our candidates, the people, aka: the citizens, still have to do the ultimate selection via the polls. And, that's where the system has gone awry too, with so much lying and corruption that, the people are bewildered into making bad and uninformed decisions. But, the common thread into any form of government that no longer works as the people intended or want, is that, when government gets too big, the people lose, and we are witnessing that all over the globe. The people make the decisions, but, they are being deceived by too many people in high places.

Because that's exactly not what they are getting, when was the last time broken / ineffective legislation was taken off the books instead of being added to, by any of them?

Pretty sure the last time was around being a witch or warlock, and that was a serious fight...

The logical assumption from that is the lying and corruption are favored by the same big money interests that choose and fund the candidates. It is, after all, in their interest to not have the general voting population agreeing en mass with an idea or policy that might make their money less big...

or the appearance of doing something.

Most legislators won't worry about outdated or unneeded regulations or legislation. They only care about the perception of doing something about the "current and urgent" problems, and their always upcoming re-election.

is being "bought", the voters are always the ultimate "deciders" in elections.

The problem is that, far too many people are uneducated on the issues and the candidates and government. Far too many buy into the "I care" mantra spewed by their favorite politicians, and thus, that public is not going to be doing enough thinking before voting. It's about who will "give" them what they want or need, and the future consequences be damned.

It is in the large contributors' interest to distract the voter from what is going on, lest the voters agree on something that reduces the money available to the large contributors. Thus, we get Fox News, MSNBC, talk radio, and us/them rhetoric from those who would benefit most from the distraction.

Unfortunately, too many Americans are easily distracted.

where, the art of doing business is full of dirty tactics and tricks, and it's never going to change, because, the people are ignorant and they'll vote for the ones who promise them the biggest slice of the pie. Greed is everywhere, and it can be found at the highest level and the lowest as well. It's the lowest level that have the power, but that lower level can't be bothered with paying attention to how the world works or how they're being had.

Worse still the biggest they can get now, no matter what the long term consequence.
There might be few of us who can plan past next Monday, but we kept getting outvoted, can't beat 'em so we end up joining them.

Rich vote for less tax on them, Poor vote for less tax. Middle income earners who are the true power house in any viable ecomomy get shafted which ever one wins...

You blame the poor, I blame the rich, we are both right if you sqint.
You keep saying we should change the weighting in the system to favour what you want, I think we should execute the lot of 'em and start again.