Firms Defend Moving Tech Jobs Overseas

[Khephra]

WASHINGTON (AP)--Worried about possible government reaction to the movement of U.S. technology jobs overseas, leading American computer companies are defending recent shifts in employment to Asia and elsewhere as necessary for future profits and warning policy makers against restrictions.

``There is no job that is America's God-given right anymore,'' said Carly Fiorina, chief executive for Hewlett-Packard Co. ``We have to compete for jobs.''

In a report released Wednesday, the companies said government efforts to preserve American jobs through limits on overseas trade would backfire and ``could lead to retaliation from our trading partners and even an all-out trade war.''

``Countries that resort to protectionism end up hampering innovation and crippling their industries, which leads to lower economic growth and ultimately higher unemployment,'' said the Washington-based Computer Systems Policy Project, whose member companies include Intel Corp., IBM, Dell Inc. and Hewlett-Packard.

MORE....................

http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/ap/ap_story.html/Financial/AP.V7430.AP-Technology-Jobs.html

[The Backlash Cometh]

1. breath-taking development.

``There is no job that is America's God-given right anymore,'' said Carly Fiorina, chief executive for Hewlett-Packard Co.

God, I hope she's Republican.

[cthrumatrix]

33. this is where a President would "step -in"....we have a corp. "puppet"

[NashVegas]

36. You Asked For It, You Got It - Open Secrets Info

FIORINA, CARLETON S MR
PALO ALTO,CA 94304


HEWLETT-PACKARD/CHAIRMAN & C.E.O.
7/14/2003 -- $2,000 -- Bush, George W

FIORINA, FRANK MR
PALO ALTO,CA 94304


RETIRED


7/14/2003 -- $2,000 -- Bush, George W

http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?txtName=Fiorina&NumOfThou=0&txt2004=Y&submit=Go%21

FYI - a further search on HP people reveals a very spread out bunch. A few Emily's list & Dean donations, and even to Kucinich.

[The Backlash Cometh]

55. Thank you. Good information.

What perturbs me is that a source I consider objective tells me that there are Democrats in management positions who thought free market and outsourcing was a good idea. The option was better than bankruptcy. From what I can tell, however, they're only putting off the inevitable if they lose their local consumer base.

[NashVegas]

114. Your Source is Correct

Just because someone is a Democrat doesn't mean they're committed to swimming upstream.

We had a president who thought NAFTA & GATT were perfectly groovy.

The difference between pro-Globalism conservatives and their liberal counterparts is that the liberals take the attitude "well it's going to happen anyway, so we'd better make the best of it and try to control it." Always the big mistake, 'cause liberals just aren't good enough at being controlling, by their nature.

[Sub Atomic]

64. "...we have to compete for jobs."

That is what's truly scary about this.

As more and more companies utilize countries other than the United States for any part of their operations, Americans will be looking for work more and more.

Add that to Bush's cheap-labor-for-all program, and we're potentially looking at a reduction in wages on a massive scale that our economic structure as it stands now will completely collapse.

:tinfoilhat:

[The Backlash Cometh]

65. This is what happens when you convince a country that short-term goals

and quick results are the only solution. The concept of differed gratification is lost on this generation because Republicans don't believe in it.

[joeunderdog]

110. Sure, without outsourcing, unemployment will skyrocket.

I think that's what the message of this story is, right?

[NashVegas]

127. It's Not Even About That

It's about quarterly goals - as in stockholder dividends.

[0rganism]

73. Do you suppose the CEO has to compete in the overseas wage market?

That's what truly blows me away about these hypocrites. For all the savings of outsourcing 100 $30k/year manufacturing jobs to a $5k/yr worker in China, they could probably outsource one CEO job.

Of course, that would be "unAmerican"...

[grannylib]

97. CEOs in this country earn on average 400 times what the lowest-paid

worker is paid (this is up from about 35-40 times in the 80s).
Many countries have limits on executive pay just to avoid such abuses (I think Japan's is 7 times).
I'd really like to hear what all the candidates have to say about what they would do to limit obscene and excessive CEO/executive pay/perks/stock options/bonuses, particularly while Joe-Bag-O'Donuts is applying for unemployment...

[ellie]

80. Why does she hate America? n/t

[papau]

99. Can the workers in the US open up management positions to overseas folks?

Outsourcing US management would save millions.

I think it is way past time to consider moving those jobs overseas.

[michaelwb]

111. Outsource the Govt!

Outsourcing US management would save millions.

Doesn't go far enough! Most members of Congress, the Senate and the President & Vice-President draw 6 figure salaries with generous benefits. Don't work full weeks. Take months of vacation each year.

I say outsource them! I'm sure some folks in India, South American or Asian. Would work much harder for only $1 a day!

[Liberal Veteran]

2. I bet Microsoft would have gone bankrupt if they hadn't...

...moved most of their support overseas. I mean, just look at how much they were struggling to raise money....

:eyes:

[Rex]

43. Isn't that the truth!

Why, I heard Bill Gates is ONLY worth 40 BILLION! Imagine being that poor!

[Buns_of_Fire]

3. Wait until a board or two decides

that CEOs and the like can ALSO be outsourced! :evilgrin:

[The Backlash Cometh]

29. LOL! But I'm only half joking when I say that when it's all over, India

will be the next superpower.

[baldguy]

58. CEOs 'R' Us?

[Chico Man]

4. Haha, protectionism..

I thought we had the god given right to defend ourself? A-La Iraq war? Would that not include the defense of our jobs?

There is NO basis for competition between the USA and foreign third world countries when it comes to employment.

I guess we have to wait until overseas workers are being paid more than american workers so we can then compete and bring the jobs back home?

[BadGimp]

5. There no God Given Obligation for Americans to support companies

There no God Given Obligation for Americans to support companies that export jobs that American created and developed.

These people know NO shame.

I am gonna stop writing here because I get so F%^K()G outraged at thse selfish bastards.....AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[davekriss]

24. I was just going to say the same thing...

There is no God-given rights to protect property and capital either. Oh, but wait, we can legislate the rules of the game in such a way that labor's interests are protected too -- all we have to do is decide, as citizens, what we want them to be. Cede the right to define our rights and, well, watch the new trans-national feudalism continue to dominate global commerce...

Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there government ends; the law of the strongest takes its place, and life and property are his who can take them.
---Thomas Jefferson to Annapolis Citizens, 1809

I suggest that each of us write a well crafted letter to both Ms. Fiona and to our local papers' editorial pages.

[Muddleoftheroad]

32. Would you prefer

That the firms simply went out of business, falling to cheaper foreign competition?

[arcane1]

34. if the CEO's are the only Americans in the company

then fuck yes!

[Muddleoftheroad]

37. Huh?

So, even if Americans invest in the company, you want it to go out of business or be beaten by competition rather than see it react to a changing marketplace and ship jobs overseas?

[arcane1]

38. changing marketplace = cheap foreign labor

when jobs are our #1 export, I think it is treasonous for American companies to shift their work overseas, yes. Most AMericans can't afford to invest in anything, they just want a job that pays a decent wage.

These assholes are all about their own profits, stock options, and salaries. There is nothing good for America to come out of this

if the marketplace is changing so much, that only sweat-shop level labor is available, then the problem is in the market. These bastards can carry their own asses overseas for pennies if they are so worried about it. But they don't.

Why?

[Muddleoftheroad]

44. Investments

First off, virtually everybody I know has something in the market, mutual funds, stocks or 401(k)s. So, if companies all go out of business because they can compete with other firms that use cheap labor, we all suffer.

Next, what is an "American" company? Does it have to be solely operated in America? Solely owned by Americans? Many public companies have both American and other shareholders.

There may be nothing good for America out of this, but what do you propose. If we mandate that American firms can't do this, we are automatically raising their costs and their prices.

That is a recipe for going bankrupt.

[Occulus]

75. It should be abolished because it's economic treason.

An American company is one whose charter is granted within US borders. We, the people, ought to have to right to treat that charter as an at-will document, meaning, as soooo many employees are treated by the affecvted companies, so too could the affected companies be affected by the public.

Yes, I am speaking of a corporate death penalty- the revocation of the corporation, the (if necessary, forcible) removal of the CEO and board, and an even division of corporate assets among all employees.

Corporations aren't people. Don't treat them like people.

It ought to be ensconced in Federal law that any company which employs any person overseas, that is, outside US borders, must first be posting a consistent profit. Then, and only then, should any business be allowed to operate outside our country.

Nor should US corporations be allowed to own property according to US law outside US borders; instead, any property constructed on foreign soil should be required by law to immediately become property of the host country upon opening of operations. Furthermore, no member of the board of directors, nor the CEO or any management personnel, should be allowed to enjoy the profits of such an endeavor. Rather, any profits filtering back to the US corporation as a direct result of commencement of operations on foreign soil should be evenly divided among all US employees of that corporation.

In other words:

corporate personhod and all ancillary 'rights' or priveleges should be summarily revoked.

Period.

[Muddleoftheroad]

79. It appears you advocate

Not just the corporate death penalty, but an economic one as well -- one that would take all of us with it.

First a couple questions, then a scenario.

* Why can't an American company have workers in both the U.S. and elsewhere? It is a common concept in all modern nations.
* How do you propose American firms would then compete against firms in nations where they CAN hire inexpensive production labor?
* Companies are chartered in states, not by the federal government. Are you advocating overturning that concept?
* Speaking a person who does own some small amount of investments, why would your corporate death penalty result in the division of corporate assets to employees. Assets belong to the owners of a company, not the workers.
* How is all this treating a company like a person?
* Why do you have to post a profit to employ someone overseas? That's bass ackwards. You post someone overseas to MAKE money.
* I really don't get your last part about owning property. What is that designed to prevent?

Now a scenario. I launch a business, find investors, etc. I run the business as an American concern for years, building it to the size of 250 employees. Now, suddenly, I have foreign competition doing exactly what I do, only cheaper because they manufacture in the third world. How am I to compete on price (essential for Western consumers) if I can lower my production costs by emulating my competitors.

Would you force me to go under, costing 250 jobs? Or can I outsource and only lose 50?

[Chico Man]

83. We should be able to produce better quality goods and services in the USA

That should be how we compete. Keep your work in the USA, and the final outcome will inherently be better. Right? If other countries can produce better quality and and much lower prices, isn't this just simply the basis of competition?

CEO's are making the statement that living in the United States has no impact on the quality of the work we produce when the send jobs overseas.

We should use our clout as the worlds superpower to market the quality of American made goods and services and make it seem worth the price.

Unfortunately, most Americans just want to be comfortable, and as such, if they don't want to push the limits of ingenuity, American jobs will naturally succumb to outside competition.

On top of this, CEO's have the same mind-set as slave owners, and are looking for the biggest bang for the buck. Until they realize they are dealing with humans and not cogs in a wheel this will continue to happen into infinity.

[Muddleoftheroad]

86. Again, why?

Do we have a magical recipe in America that makes all products better? And, besides, better doesn't often win. If you think it does, go home and use your Betamax machine to watch a movie tonight.

OK, I do take offense at your last statement. CEOs bear no relation to slave owners. As a descendant of slaves, I think I can make THAT distinction.

Yes, CEOs worry about profits. Lacking profits, companies go under and ALL employees lose their jobs. CEOs also have developed this wonderful system where they not only pay people, but people can leave if they so wish.

[Chico Man]

89. Well we did invent the telephone and the automobile (And the Airplane)

What is preventing us from continuing this basis of ingenuity?

Corporate CEO greed and laziness.

Biggest bang for the lowest effort = make jobs "robotic" and then move them over -seas.

[Muddleoftheroad]

107. Ingenuity is great

But with a more level technological field, innovation can happen anywhere.

[Chico Man]

112. As US citizens (and I presume you are)

We have to say that we are able to innovate better than anyone else regardless of the levelness of the technological playing field.

If foreign competitors being manufacturing your products and performing your services at a large discounted rate, well, frankly, it is time to move on to bigger and better things. And if your company fails to innovate, IMHO, they deserve to go bankrupt.

This is the attitute I would expect CEO's to take in the country. Otherwise they are failing the people they are supposed to be representing. And if they do not take this approach, well they do not deserve to be living in this country. For CEO's to completely disregard the great history of US innovation in the name of quick profits is disastrous and will, IMHO, lead to the downfall of this country.

Poloroid might still be around and shareholders may still be profitting with their stock if their CEO decided to put more money into employees and research here in the Unites States rather than taking the quick hit approach of moving jobs overseas.

[Muddleoftheroad]

118. Sorry, but that's ivory tower thinking

EVERY nation wants to say that they are able to innovate better than anyone else regardless of the levelness of the technological playing field.

There are some things we can do longterm to accomplish this, but only some.

Not all companies need to innovate to compete. Some companies continue to manufacture a good product year in and year out and that is fine.

No matter what, you can order innovation, you can merely support it. A desperate drive for innovation will produce a lot of silly ideas and few profits. Innovation without some possible use doesn't work for most firms.

Now, in the midst of your rant, you basically give the "my way or the highway" response. Any CEO who does not take YOUR approach does "not deserve to be living in this country." Who made you God? Or at least the president and Congress combined?

As for Polaroid, you might be right. Or it might have gone under much faster.

[Chico Man]

122. Some companies continue to manufacture a good product year in and year....

Out and that is fine...

OBVIOUSLY this is not the case!!! Isn't that what the thread is about? Companies CANNOT continue to manufacture a good product year in and year out. How could they expect to survive when foreign companies can then just manufacture the same product at lower cost?

What is the solution? Move manufacturing overseas or come up with a new product?

Sometimes it is as simple as adding a 4th blade to the razor and then marketing it well.

I, for one, would feel very depressed to be lead by someone who lumps excitement and innovation into silly ideas and few profits. Attitudes like that send a shiver up my spine. Have you never read anything about American History? Thomas Edison? Benjamin Franklin?

And as far as my way or the highway, let the CEO's who take the easy way out by sending work overseas rather than making their american designed, manufactured, and supported products and services better than the rest of the world move shop overseas and no longer gain the benefits we have here in the USA. They do not deserve it. They are filled with greed and laziness, and contribute nothing to society.

[Muddleoftheroad]

125. Some products are specialty items and can't be easily duplicated

I still buy certain products -- food, clothing, etc. -- that I prefer above all others out of my choice. Some of them are U.S., others are imports. So, like most folks, I do make a FEW quality choices, but on most things cost drives me.

You clearly misunderstand my point about innovation. If I innovate on my own time like Franklin or Edison or George Washington Carver, then it is my own time I risk. When I do so as a company, I must make sure there is a practical application to my new product or the R&D time and money are both wasted.

You certainly sound like you hate CEOs, but I think it is unjustified. Few could fill the roles they have. Their ultimate job, to ensure the survival of the firm, is a hard one indeed.

[Chico Man]

131. I dislike CEO greed

I could make the statement that it sounds like you worship the CEO..

But the CEO would be nowehere without the piddly workers at the bottom. And, often times, the job of the piddly worker is much harder than the job of the CEO. Especially the CEO's that make millions of dollars playing golf making decisions purely of profit.

The job of the CEO has the potential to be much harder, challenging, and rewarding if they decided to do what was best for the people, and not the firm.

If you are going to sit here and tell me that all (or a vast majority) of CEO's are doing their job for the benefit of the firm (and that means everyone, from the CEO to the janitor), with no special interests and profiteering for others at the top, I'd tell you to go smoke another one.

And every purchase I make is based on a combination of quality and price. I will always buy the best quality I can possibly afford. It ends up saving money in the long term.

[Muddleoftheroad]

133. I only worship one

That's God. I don't worship anything else, not even football.

The "piddly workers at the bottom," you describe are more easily replaced. The skill set to be a CEO is immense. To be a factory worker, it is far easier.

At no time is "the job of the piddly worker" much harder than the job of the CEO. That statement underlines your lack of understanding of the CEO position and what businesses do in general.

Yes, of course, there are CEOs who do a poor job of putting the company interests ahead of their own. If you look throughout EVEVY firm, you will find many who get a paycheck and take that attitude.

[Chico Man]

135. I guess the "life" of the CEO is much easier than the life of the factory

worker.

Would that make sense, oh mighty muddle?

PS, from the "tone" of your writings it also makes me feel like there is something else that you worship, and you can take a guess at that.

Obviously, that is my opinion, but, man, would I ever hate to work for you.

[Muddleoftheroad]

136. Sure, they earn lots of cash

They also work lots of hours and the future of the company of company turns on every move they make. But hey, no pressure.

I don't worship cash either, despite your useless jibe. I just have worked enough to know that there are two sides to this debate and one is getting underrepresented in this thread.

[Chico Man]

137. I wasn't talking about cash

Athough you were correct in that it was a worthless jibe and pretty stupid. But it is funny to hear people talk about how they are so high and mighty and better than everyone else because others "obviously" don't know this or that.. Instantly that is quite the turn off as far as Im concerned.

I never once bragged through this debate about how much better I was at knowing these answers.

Perhaps the debate is so one sided for a valid reason? Because the olther side doesn't make any sense to most people?

Anyways this is turning into a flame war (something I presume you are all too familiar with) so I'm signing off.

[Muddleoftheroad]

143. One-sded

You forget where you are. I daresay that DU is not the most representative sample of pro-business attitudes.

I do have a business background and have worked with several CEOs and met a bunch more. The are undoubtedly bad ones out there. Enron is a great example. But I haven't met ANY in my years of work. Sure, some were lots better than others, but none met the profile herein described.

[grannylib]

100. Quality does count as well; I have found many many many times that it

does not pay to buy cheap, and I think that goes for labor as well.
I will willingly pay more when I know I am getting superior service, quality, attention from someone local who knows me/the product or service being provided.
I think companies are shooting themselves in the foot anyhow, long term...with the economy in the toilet here at home, consumer spending will decline.
And this is just my two cents' worth, but I am sick to death of hearing about what is good for the shareholders; it is gambling, pure and simple, to make investments; I don't think shareholders/stockholders are entitled to anything any more than a Vegas regular at the tables.

[Occulus]

124. Thank you.

I have zero investments because I very firmly believe the market is being gamed bigtime; I feel as you do- investing in anything is simply gambling with one's hard-earned cash.

Of course, the people we're talking about in this context are rich enough that their money makes money, enough to live on in some cases.

I guess the Thug mantra of having a 'good work ethic' doesn't apply when one has the kind of cash that their money does all the work.

Greed. Gotta love it.

[NashVegas]

128. If Your Investment Depends on Putting Your Countrymen Out of ...

.. well paying jobs, commensurate with their education and experience, FUCK YES.

Any investor who would willingly hang onto stock whose profit depends on keeping the wealth-creators in comparative poverty is an immoral SOB who deserves the shaft they're giving, back in spades.

[w4rma]

62. I agree. If management are the only Americans profiting within the corp

then I would like very much for them to go bankrupt. Less competition for American companies.

[Muddleoftheroad]

68. As long as the company lives

Everyone involved profits.

[Chico Man]

85. Tell that to the miners in West Virginia back in the day

Company Stores, etc..

We are returning to those days is seems, but on a global scale.

[Muddleoftheroad]

108. This is not Matewan

[Chico Man]

113. It may not be, but I can certainly draw parallels between the two

[Muddleoftheroad]

120. Draw away

I don't see them.

[Chico Man]

123. Corporate greed = corporate greed

Whether it is 1800 or 2004.

[Muddleoftheroad]

126. Profits are not necessarily greed

A company that doesn't make a profit loses out to its competitors and everybody loses their job.

[Chico Man]

132. You are saying that greed is not the motivator in this decision?

You are acting as though moving jobs overseas in the last thing that poor little ol' HP can do to survive in this horrible global enconomy.

The fact that there are other ways to make profits, that may actually be more difficult to manage from the CEO level, exposes greed in these decisions.

It exposes the fact that these CEO's want profits with the least amount of effort. And, that, my friend, is greed.

[Muddleoftheroad]

138. Not greed, not even close

Moving jobs overseas is a simple decision. It takes very little analysis and anybody can see the benefits of the move. CEOs or anyone else managing a budget likes a sure thing. I do too. If I know who would win the Super Bowl, I'd be betting the farm.

The other ways to make profits entail more risk. Risk means it might not happen. No wonder businesses choose a sure thing.

[Chico Man]

142. Sounds like Ebineezer Scrooge to me

Isn't there a moral to that story?

[Muddleoftheroad]

146. Why?

Aren't people in other nations also entitled to get a job? Or just in the U.S.?

[Chico Man]

149. Not my job. I I wouldn't want them to take yours either.

Although I feel as though I would not have a problem finding another job, and I would even feel comfortable changing careers.

National borders and patriotism still have some meaning. At least if we are paying taxes I would rather have more of it go to infrastructure and other worthwhile projects than unemployment.

I know, your argument is that by not sending jobs overseas american companies would then go bankrupt and create even more unemployment. I find that hard to buy.

Shall we travel this circle once again?

[Muddleoftheroad]

151. Patriotism is voluntary

You are more than welcome to try and take my job. It's happened before and it will happen again most likely. As has the reverse.

The big point here is YOU don't own the company and unless you do, you don't have a right to tell them how to make a profit.

[Chico Man]

153. I do have a right to help make laws dictating what a corporation is..

Allowed to do and how to make a profit.

And that is what we need more of in this country.

[Muddleoftheroad]

156. That is an illegal taking of private property

IMHO

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Occulus]

140. Making huge profits while some employees can't

pay their bills? That's greed, friend. Simple, unadulterated, vile, disgusting greed, especially if the top level corporate managers make hundreds of percent more than the guy answering the phones and talking to the actual customers- you know, the Guy Getting the Work Done v. the Guy Getting the Benefits of the Work song and dance.

These companies aren't moving because they're not posting a profit, they're moving because they want to post a higher profit.

That's greed, pure and simple. They refuse to be satisfied with what they have, instead harming other employees from their own country in favor of potential employees in another country.

Not just greed, but treason, at least in my view.

[Muddleoftheroad]

145. Paying bills

I know this sounds callous, but it isn't a business's responsibility whether you can pay your bills or not.

If you don't like the job you have, you have the same option they do, to either leave and get a better job or try to improve your lot where you are. Among those strategies is becoming indispensible or forming a union, or even both.

You seem shocked by profits. Profit is why people start companies and, in many cases, why many people still come to America.

[Occulus]

147. I'm not shocked by profits,

I'm shocked by obscene profits while some people working for the company can't even keep a roof over their heads at the same time the company in question is raising the CEO and corporate boards pay while outsourcing jobs overseas in order to post a yet higher profit.

That's soooo sick and wrong and unAmerican it's not funny. I don't understand why some people don't get it.

The only people who don't get it seem to be people who, by their prior statements, have a vested stake in keeping the situation at the status quo. Of course, leveling the playing field threatens the income of those CEOs and board members (I'd rob them of their golden parachutes, personally), as well as that of the stockholders in favor of increased income for the ordinary, factory-floor level employees and their fellow countrymen.

Corporate charters, first ad foremost, ought to be granted for the public good. Profits must come second or third from the point of view of the public; otherwise, corporate abuse will run rampant. Outsourcing is one such abuse.

[Occulus]

106. Tell that to the employees of

Graphics Packaging, here in SW MI. I'm sure they'd love to enlighten you.

Granting corporations the rights of personhood was one of the single biggest mistakes our country has ever made. These things are not people, and they should not have rights. At all. Period.

Corporations should exist solely at the please and will of the people in the state that holds the charter. The constant spectre of dissolution for acts against the public good should be grounds for immediate revocation of the corporate charter and the jailings of the CEO and board.

Were this the case, Enron, Tyco, etc would never have happened. The threat of corporate death would have stopped it.

I invite you to look into Wisconsin's laws regarding corporate charters- the laws that were on the book as recently as twenty or twenty-five years ago, I believe. You'll find a framework there for what I'm talking about. Or read Hartmann's book Unequal Protection- an entire book based on this issue.

My biggest beef is that corporations are considered persons but can do a whole slew of things real people can't:

- A corporation can tear off one of its arms and grow a child. That arm can then be grown back.

- Two corporations can 'merge'- that is, literally become one- and the sum power (money, political contributions, etc) of the resulting corporation is greater than the two alone were.

- Corporations can sell their children.

- A Corporation can remove part of its soul and open an address in another country, thereby evading US taxes.

- Corporations speak with a billion dollar bullhorn, and money is speech. Need I say more?

but most of all....

Corporations are never held to a standard of existing first for the public good, second for its employees, and third for the bottom line; charters are abused and extended in ways that act against those goals. Corporate charters should be revoked for misordering those priorities.

Yes, I'm a corporate extremist and damn proud of it. These things ought to be held by the tightest of leashes, and that leash ought to rest firmly in the hands of the public. Podunk, IA ought to be able to dictate to Ford, GM, etc where and for how long those companies may operate in the area.

Or take WalMart. How many towns have unsuccessfully fought WalMart opening a supercenter in town? Every single one of those failures should never have happened; all those communities ought to have been able to say to WalMart, "We don't want you here. Go away and don't come back." And WalMart ought to have been required by law to obey. Since corporations are persons, that infringes upon its Constitutionally "protected" right to travel freely.

How'd this all happen? Among other things, corporations argued at the turn of the last century that the 13th also "freed" them as well. There was a tax case, too- Santa Clara Cty. v. Southern Pacific Railroad, I believe. That was pivotal as well.

The truth is that it once was the way I'm speaking of, and corporations argued it their way in court and won. We have to try to turn that clock back; it was a huge mistake to grant corporations personhood under the law. Corporate personhood, more than any other single issue, is responsible for the rise of corporate abuses.

Revoking corporate personhood would allow the public to place a non-negotiable salary cap on managers, for example (iow, people who don't actually "do the work"), prohibit the "golden parachute" under any and all circumstances, impose dissolution if the corporation is found to harm the public... there are tons of benefits to the people if this is done.

And who would be harmed? A very, very small percentage of the people At The Top. Hey- if all you do at work is sit around a table and decide things, maybe play golf a bit too, while I'm literally breaking my back for you on the factory floor, and you're getting paid 550%-600% or even higher than what I am, and you're trying to take away my health benefits or reduce my pension plan or God knows what else to make a higher number yet, you're simply not worth my consideration.

Sorry. It's gotten out of hand. Corporations are abusing the American public at a truly fantastic rate- the inability for authorities in Washington to tell the public to what restaurants and businesses the tainted meat was shipped is a perfect example. The state ought to have been able to say to those companies "test each and every head. Stop feeding rendered meat products to herbivores. Do it or die." Instead, someone somewhere up there almost certainly consumed it and cannot be told.

That's what I'm talking about. It can't be done on a corp-by-corp basis; it must be ended across the board, and all at once. So the fsck what if a few people at the top are threatened. By caving to them, you're saying they're better than the people who consume their products, the people who work for them, and the overall public at large.

I don't have any remorse for taking this stance; my stand is with the public as a whole, not a few small members of it.

We must regulate corporations better than ever before, but further we must put them in their collective place. We are humans, living, breathing people, and we're allowing businesses that mock us by saying they're people too to run roughshod right over our faces. We need to wrest the power back from these thuggish businesses- all of them- and hold doom over their heads until they behave. We must revoke their property 'rights' so our police and regulators can police and regulate. Corporate files, board meeting, and all negatiations should be public- end the closed-door scheming.

An end to corporate personhood would mean all that and more, much more. For the first time, the public would be able to demand that X CEO and board reduce their pay or lose their job. We would be able to tell X company, "you're profits are too hig. Reduce your profits, pay your employees at the factory level more, or we will shut your doors."

We, the People, ought to be able to do those things. These are not people- they should be under the control of the public. As things now stand, they are outside our influence. That's a very dangerous thing to allow, and we're all being pulled down this happy little path, beingtold property is king and businesses are people, too.

Laughable, yet some still swallow it whole.

[davekriss]

39. I agree with Arcane's comment but would like to add...

First, if I'm proposing that we "set the rules" to advantage a greater proportion of our citizenry, then I'd include rules that impose a "cost of living differential" tarriff on the goods and services from countries that choose not to maintain labor, workplace, environmental, and "quality of life" standards similar to our own. If this sparks a trade war, may the better nation win. I'm not willing to sacrifice the quality of life of the many for the privilege of the few. And note: Our return to Guilded Age distributions of national wealth and income proves to me that neo-liberalism is not the boon the beneficiaries would have us believe.

Second, labor should be able to flow as "freely" as capital, or you've got a skewed game. Both our borders and the nations to which our jobs are exported should be open to enable labor to go "where the jobs are". If for other sound reasons this is not practical (such as different social welfare standards enacted in the various nations), then capital should be proportionally restricted too. It needs to be a fair game. Since I (in fact) believe wholly open borders are not practical, I believe regulations on capital are necessary to render the game fair.

Third, there are two votes in America: The Dollar Vote followed by the Democratic Vote. Almost nothing gets on the agenda of the democratic vote that doesn't first pass the dollar vote. The problem with this is that those with more dollars get to vote more often (have greater weight) than those without. As a result, money sets the agenda -- those with more money more often get their needs met by the power of the state than those without. I'd endeavor to regulate campaign financing in the interests of the public good; and I'd promote unions and other forms of collective action that equalize the relative power of aggregated capital and (otherwise isolated) labor.

But these are just a few thoughts before dinner... And, like Arcane, if a U.S. corporation consists of an executive shell while the source of value-creation lies outside our borders, I really don't give a f**k if that shell disintegrates. I am neither better nor worse off (maybe better off since one source of tyranical privilege would be gone).

Let the uber-rich have their gated communities and jet-set around the world to eachothers encampments, I don't care. Meanwhile the rest of us have to make our own world for eachother.

[arcane1]

41. exactly, the "shell" is doing NOTHING for us

but making a very very small number of rich people richer

that extra money is not going anywhere but bank accounts


too many in this country seem to think the Corporation is more important than the people

[Muddleoftheroad]

45. If

Your plan would indeed spark a worldwide trade war. I think all nations would lose out on it.

Next, your comment about borders is silly. Every nation sets its own immigration rules. Just because we ship jobs overseas, doesn't give us a right to change the structure of other nations by citizenship. Nor do the citizens of other nations have a right to citizenship here.

Thid, I think the campaign finance laws already violate freedom of speech. The only way to fix the system is to truly publicly fund campaigns for all major offices.

[davekriss]

47. Your "next" comment

Perhaps poorly worded because I too think my notion of wholly open borders is silly. My point is, because it isn't practical, we are forced -- to make it a fair game -- to regulate capital as well (to regulate in a fashion that optimizes the common good, not sacrifice the common at the altar of "efficiency").

On your other point: The expenditure of massive amounts of money to drown out the speech of others with different interests is not "speech", it's repression. I would outlaw repression, not speech.

[Muddleoftheroad]

48. Open capital

How do you propose to regulate capital?

On your other point, so that we can avoid the whole campaign finance sub-debate, let's just agree to disagree.

[davekriss]

52. See my previous post, M.

Note above where I speak of equalizing tariffs. That's one example. I would write the rules of the game so that any corporation (aggregate of capital) that wishes to exploit the U.S. market would have to behave in ways that maximize the greatest good for the greatest number. That might mean GDP grows more slowly; that product innovation slows; that the DOW moves below 10,000; that capital formation for new investment speeds along at 55 mph rather than 70 -- but I would ensure the mass of our public moves forward together, equitably. No one gets left behind.

I'll say it again: If (I assume here) your neo-liberal position yielded more equitable results, I might be inclined to jump on board. But instead, I say again, we've seen a return to Guilded Age distributions of wealth and income. Is this what the non-advantaged amongst us (I include myself here) want for our nation? Or can we democratically decide otherwise?

[Occulus]

109. An upper profit cap.

Notice I said 'profit' and not 'income'.

I'll leave the details to you; I tried to write it out and it ended badly-formed. The overall gist of what I'm getting at is a need for strict control of CEO and board pay and compensation, and tying those things to the welfare first of the employees and public, then the goals of the charter, then the profit to the corporation.

Basically, I think we need to make it harder for a business to post a profit without taking care of their employees generously as well as remaining 'good' for the public.

Since upper management compensation and it's attendant excesses appears to be a major part of the problem, well, maybe we need to make it harder for CEOs and boards to grab that brass ring without sawing off a big chunk of it and handing it to us. We're people, they're not (the businesses themselves). I'd say it's high time we started dictating to them.

[davekriss]

117. Excellent ideas! (n/t)

[Muddleoftheroad]

119. Compensation is only a small part of the problem

Worldwide competition is the problem. How do you compete is a newly global marketplace where ideas are free?

As for your ideas, I pretty much disagree across the board. No, the profit cap you put on CEOs is one of ownership. If the OWNERS of the company don't want to pay that high, then they don't. No one made the Texas Rangers pay Alex Rodrigues $252 million. And no one makes any company pay their CEO millions either.

AS for your order of the obligation of the company, I also disagree. The order should be: owners, the future (that means customers and employees), then the public at large.

Why should a company pay "generously?" Are you reading this debate? Companies are trying to remain competitive on the world stage and you want to pay more?

[davekriss]

134. To paraphrase Fiorina ...

"There is no privilege of ownership that is America's God-given right anymore". It's all negotiable, intermediated by the democratic process. At least it should be!

[Occulus]

139. You still, for some reason,

don't understand the core of my argument. Corporate personhood granted businesses 'rights' across teh board, the same right as you or I. Those rights are based on a legal fiction, and should not be considered rights.

Businesses ought to run under privelege only. No business 'rights' of any kind, including the 'right' to hire the thirty or so white guys in that all-black town.

I want companies to be forbidden from moving overseas unless they are willing to declare that branch and all its operations a foreign company, the profits of which are completely out of reach for the company in question. I want to forbid any company from moving any job overseas unless and until each and every single employee working for that company is able to raise a family of four on the wages paid.

I want the owner to not be able to make more than X% of the value of the company and all assets. Something like that.

Read your history, Muddle. Our country once had a great service to the public of revoking the charters of corporations which harmed the public in any way. It was only after corporations, across the board, won their legal victories around the turn of the last century that corporations were able to argue in court against a city or township and, as a point of law, expect to win.

Take the current mad cow scare. Agribusinesses have entrenched their 'right' to profits and income so far that the state agencies investigating this potential public health disaster are actually unable to inform the public as to where the tainted meat went. By your logic, they shouldn't have to tell the public anything, since that would cut into their Hol Bottom Line.

It's rather sick when you relate the issue in question directly to a currect event, isn't it? Yet the larger issue at work in outsourcing is the same, that of corporate personhood. Businesses have the right to do what they can to protect their profits (profits, mind you, not income, which is different), even to the point of removing, perhaps permenantly, jobs from the American employment pool.

I view that as treason. Any true patriot would. Shipping jobs overseas is, in the long run, harmful to our nation's economy. Corporations, however, have the right to do so at will.

We need to revoke corporate rights in general, and start making some fscking demands. Threaten Corp X that, if they outsource even one job to another country, their charter dissolved, their assest seized and sold, and the proceeds to be divided among the employees; the shareholders get nothing.

I bet that would keep the jobs here.

[Muddleoftheroad]

148. You advocate a totalitarian state

And one I would certainly oppose.

You are also one of the few who seem dogmatic about this corporate personhood business. Businesses have rights because they are proxies for the owners who also have rights.

Business do NOT have the "right to hire the thirty or so white guys in that all-black town." That is defacto discrimination and the EEOC takes more than just a dim view of it.

Why do they have to declare an overseas operation another company? That adds immediate layers of bureaucracy that the move should NOT create. It is unnecessary and inefficient.

I love this fantasy: "I want to forbid any company from moving any job overseas unless and until each and every single employee working for that company is able to raise a family of four on the wages paid." So what standard do you use? Do they have to be raised to 18 or does that have to include college?

Yes, I know you and others "want the owner to not be able to make more than X% of the value of the company and all assets." I do not. The owners are ALL the people who own stock. If I own stock, I want to make my money based on the risks I take for investing my capital. If you don't own stock in the company, then it is none of your damn business.

I oppose revoking company charters. That is an illegal taking of private property, one for which the Constitution was designed to prevent.

That does NOT prevent the government from enforcing health and safety laws. Our government is often inefficient because neither party wants to offend needed votes.

You can view moving jobs as treason all you want. It doesn't make it so. America is part of a worldwide economy. Is it treason to move any job anywhere in the world from anywhere else?

Come on.

[Bandit]

46. If they won't support the country that founded them then Yes

They are moving out of the US not only for cheap labor but to evade paying taxes which support the country that protects them and provides for their ability to flurish. Yes I think they should be put out of business and we can buy from a company that is loyal to their country whatever that country may be. I would buy a Japanese vehicle before I would buy from a company that moved it's headquarters overseas to avoid their civic responsibility.

[Muddleoftheroad]

50. That is silly and self-destructive

Why shut down American industry and destroy American investments?

[arcane1]

54. if all the work is done overseas, only the CEO profits are "American"

Why would you approve of Americans losing their jobs? Haven't we seen enough of that?

[Muddleoftheroad]

56. All the profits belong to investors

Whoever and wherever those investors own. Not just the CEOs, but mutual funds, 401(k)s, pension funds, etc.

[arcane1]

60. so, I guess when a corp sends 1000 jobs overseas

those 1000 Americans can just get jobs as CEO's?

[Muddleoftheroad]

67. What option do you suggest?

[Chico Man]

88. How about the CEO's using their "brilliant minds" to come up...

With products and services that CANNOT be performed and or manufactured overseas.

Since we are so technologically advanced here in the USA this should not be that difficult of a task, right?

Where did American Ingenuity go? This should be the main concern on American CEO's. Profits through American ingenuity, not outsourcing.

[Muddleoftheroad]

90. There are brilliant minds all over the world

Not just in the U.S.

In an information-based economy, goods and services CAN be performed and or manufactured overseas.

Alas, America is not the only technologically advanced nation in the world. Many nations have technology and they know how to use it.

[Chico Man]

92. I am basing this on history

America has defined itself by its middle class and the ability of that middle class to do extraordinary things.

Telephones, electrical systems, mass transit, air transportation, etc etc etc. We started all of this.

Now that meme that America is no better than anyone else seems to have invaded the conscience of the CEO and yourself it seems. History will tell us we have a tradition on ingenuity here in the US. Are you denying this?

I know we have yet to discover every last thing on this planet. Give our middle class the next big "thing" to work on (and I don't mean war production). That spark has left the CEO. They don't care about ingenuity, although their marketing campaigns may tell you otherwise. All they care about is producing cheap consumer goods that have been manufactured overseas and profits at the top.

[Muddleoftheroad]

93. Technology has leveled the field

Perhaps it is not 100% level, but it's a lot closer than it ever was. With a home computer, an Internet connection and a roof over your head, you could be based anywhere in the world and have a universe of information at your fingertips.

That growth of technology has spread the benefits of the middle class around the globe. Though it's an imperfect distribution around the world, it is still widespread.

Yes, America has a TRADITION of ingenuity. But business always asks what have you done for me lately, not last year.

Many American companies still innovate. But so do foreign firms. If we are totally reliant on innovation and we cede the ground of less-expensive products, ALL of our companies will go out of business.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

96. So what do you suggest that average Americans do, Muddle?

Just accept lower living standards and reduced opportunities for upward mobility? Because that's what your coddling of the fat cat executives and their holy and sacred investments and bonuses above all else will lead to.

You just repeat the neoliberal creed (which is suspiciously close to the economic creed of the libertarians) without answering that fundamental question.

That God-damned (and I use the term literally) laissez-faire approach to life lacks ethics and compassion, and if a few hundred billionaires have to reduce their assets to just a couple of million in order to ensure greater prosperity for the masses, then I say, fine!

[Muddleoftheroad]

105. I don't claim to have the answer

If I did, I imagine I might make a tidy fortune as a consultant.

I just know I haven't seen one that want start a worldwide trade war either.

I don't lack compassion. I have worked for companies that don't exist any more. It sucks. But it sucks a lot more than having a 20% workforce cut due to outsourcing. That's still 80% of the jobs available.

[davekriss]

116. Neither do I ...

(think I have the "answers")

But while we are working it out, I propose the equalizing tariffs that I mentioned earlier, acknowledging that the rest of the world would tariff our exports as quickly as we would theirs.

(And why shouldn't a France, for example, who chose to provide universal healthcare for themselves, create an equalizing tariff on our products when we choose to avoid the expense of providing healthcare to over 15% of our population? "Bring it on", to quote Gee Dumbya*, and may the better nation win ... but by evolving into a better nation!)

I am of mixed feelings on the matter of protectionism (but not on changing the "rules of the game" so that businesses that choose to operate in the U.S. do so on a level playing field that includes optimization of the public good). The U.S., approximately 6% of the world's population, consumes about 35% of the world's resources. My sense of social justice suggests it should be closer to 6% and 6%. Globalization purportedly "levels the playing field" in such a manner that Indians and Russians and Chinese et alia have an opportunity to improve their position. But what I see under the guise of "Globalization" is a rapacious exploitation of the world's labor to the benefit of the owning class. In aggregate, a higher proportion of the value created by industry flows to the few rather than to the many.

In the U.S., observe that GDP grew by over 8% last quarter yet wages were stagnant. Where, pretell, do you think that 8% increased value flowed? To the bottom line -- to be distributed as dividends to the top 1% which own 42.1% of all stocks and which is now (and to add further injury) taxed favorably compared to salaries and hourly wages. Would this ownership coup be possible if the U.S. public wasn't frightened into refraining from claiming their proportional share by the prospect of offshoring and unemployment? It's pitting the workers of one nation against those of other nations -- to the benefit of the few, not the many.

A worldwide class war was declared quite a number of decades ago. As a result, here in the U.S., the real wages of the bottom 90% have fallen by 7% over the last 20 years while the top 1% have risen by nearly 400%. Why should the vast 90% accept this arrangement? What do we have to lose by claiming our fair share? We should claim our share, our own prosperity. We have the right and the means to make it so, just not the will.

I believe this will change if we continue (as a nation) on the current trajectory, we will have the will to change. But that's what the USA Patriot Act and stealth-passed components of Patriot II are all about: Quelling internal dissent. Just be happy! We've always been at war with Eurasia. Have you had your choco ration today? ...

(I can annotate the stats above if asked, but right now I'm going to lunch...)

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

129. I don't have an answer either

But I do have a first step. Close all of those stupid loop holes that allow American companies to stop paying taxes simply by relocating part of their business to another country.

An issue that should be taken into consideration is that most small businesses don't have the option of moving part of their operation overseas. By allowing larger corporations to do so allows them to put small business competitors here in the US out of business.

I don't have a problem with Ford opening a manufacturing plant in India to make cars to sell in India. However I do have a problem with them opening a plant in some other country and then shipping them here. It makes our already large trade deficit even larger.

I think it should be regulated, not stopped. In many of the situations, the large corporations aren't going to go out of business, they are doing it simply to make more profit.

[Chico Man]

103. Well this is where American pride comes in

If we expect to compete, we have to be better. And we have to innovate. And as CEO's are the LEADER of everyone working for the company, the buck stops with them when it comes to the focus of the company and the companies employees.

Polaroid is a perfect metaphor for the current situation. Innovation and the scientists in and around Boston defined that company for many years. They were the best. They were creative, innovative, and on top. When the competition started to catch up, what did they do? continue to innovate? No. Some brilliant CEO decided it would be good to move all of the manufacturing out of Boston and to Taiwan. That would certainly help profits. What happened then? Well then Polaroid had to hire people like me to fix $15,000 scanners manufactured by MicroTek in Taiwan and slapped with a Polaroid label that had THE WRONG LENSES installed. Now where is polaroid? At the bottom of the barrel. Because they did not take the advice of their founder, and stopped innovating, in the process making a lot of very smart boston area engineers unemployed.

[Occulus]

144. Wow.

Simply, wow.

"Perhaps it is not 100% level, but it's a lot closer than it ever was. With a home computer, an Internet connection and a roof over your head, you could be based anywhere in the world and have a universe of information at your fingertips."

Uh, Mud, that don't put the food on the table. If we're talking about lost jobs, well, having a computer might not be your biggest problem. Oh, someone on food stamps can go to the library and get online, sure. They can read all about how many more jobs went overseas this month.

But does that get them their jobs back?

I know people who are big technobuffs but had to sell all that just to pay rent for a month or two. Why? Their jobs went to India.

But I guess it's ok, because their middle-class quality of life is so much higher now than it was.....

right...

[davekriss]

101. Fine

But "investors" are not America, just a small portion of Americans. Policies that benefit this small portion at the cost of the rest are anti-democratic. The rest would have no interest in supporting this arrangement except for the indoctrinating propaganda spewed forth daily by the near-monopolized major media, schools, and other institutions supportive of the status quo.

Old statistics (1998), but 78.7% of all stocks are owned by only 10% of our population (42.1% are owned by the top 1%). The bottom 90% own a mere 21%. Policies (or a laissez-faire policy) that enable profit improvement over the share of wealth creation that goes to labor are anti-democratic and do not deserve support from the majority of us. These policies disproportionately benefit the few over the many.

(Source: www.inequality.org\factshr.html )

[Occulus]

141. Force them to stay here or force them to shut down.

Period.

We're the public. We don't need a why, nor should we need to justify ourselves to piddly businesses. They're not above us; it's time we started pushing back.

Maybe we also need a law that stock offerings must be made first to the employees in a close buying session, after which the remains get to go public. Tie the employees to the company and the company to the employees, and make certain the employees have, collectively, the majority stake- including that of the 'owner'.

And, when you're talking about potentially multinational corporations, well, where is a single 'owner' there?

[Nobody]

53. It doesn't help anyone anywhere in the world

when businesses go out of business because their customers can't make enough money to afford their products.

Either way, it's an ugly situation.

[Occulus]

115. In a word- yes.

We ought to be able to tell them, "keep the jobs here or die."

Threaten them with corporate dissolution if they do it.

[Fish-Slapping_Dance]

6. F*cking bastards!

Time to institute some serious "you better put American people over profits or we're gonna regulate the hell out of you" regulations in place.

:grr:

[Sugarbleus]

35. You took the words outta my mouth FSD.... lol n/t

[arcane1]

7. if a corporation wants to send jobs overseas, let 'em

but they have to carry their corporate CEO's asses over there too, and be dealt with like a foreign company, NOT a US company. Taxes, tarrifs, and all that good stuff.

The "industry profits" b.s. is just a buzz-word for "Excecutive Salary"

I must ask, if all the company's main jobs go overseas, then why should we give a shit if the company goes downhill?

And of course, the flip-side: What happens when those countries decide to adopt better labor standards, higher pay, etc? Do we invade them on behalf of our "economic security" and install a tyrant who cares not about the workers?

Sorry, I don't like the idea of living in a country that depends on the poverty of others for its very survival...

[Gin]

8. that god given right works both ways...you stupid woman....come on folks

lets use our spending "power" and fix these bastards.

[Barkley]

78. Let's use our buying power too ...

I like your ideas. Its really empowering!

I wonder if there's a way to get pension funds, mutual funds, universities etc to divest (a la South Africa apartheid) from corporations that send jobs overseas.

[dawn]

9. How ridiculous

Ms. Fiorina states that we all need to compete for jobs with candidates in third world countries? Any job-seeker knows that companies seek the highest-qualified person who will work for the lowest wage. So she believes Americans should compete with candidates in Third World countries, who will command salaries at least 75% less than ours? What the...?

I guess corporations could just even out the playing field. They could reduce our salaries to competitive Third World rates. And of course, they'd also support retaining the high cost of living here in the USA. I mean, how will they make a profit if they don't charge top dollar for their products? What a wonderful plan!

Ha!

I sure hope she believes what she is saying. I am sure she'd love to compete with an Indian worker for her CEO spot.

[54anickel]

20. Heck, I'd take a 75% paycut, if ALL my living expenses were cut by 80%

That'd be a 5% raise!!! But where would all their profits go?
Who the hell do they think will be able to buy their stuff? :eyes:

[Neshanic]

10. Well gee Carly, there is no lock on me buying your stuff.

I sit here with Two HP printers, scanner, and a was possibly going to buy the new HP Large Format Desk Top Printer.

Carly, take a hike.

[The Backlash Cometh]

30. You know, you're absolutely right.

I was considering an HP desktop PC for video editing, but they've gone and joined the reject pile along with the Dell.

[no_arbusto]

66. Have you ever built a PC?

If not, it's something you can do very easily (and affordably) by buying solely from US suppliers. I've built about 7 computers now and all of the parts were bought from independent (American) computer stores either online or at computer shows. It is very easy to build a computer that is just as powerful as anything found in stores for at least one half the price. I'm not kidding.

Local computer shops can also build you a decent system for less than what you would pay for a similar model at Best Buy. When you buy a new PC, a lot of the cost comes from the pretty box with Dell, HP, etc... on it. The parts these companies use are the same you can get yourself. They actually use cheaper parts whenever possible.

For video editing you should also consider an Apple if you don't feel like building your own.

[trogdor]

82. You can even get your own pretty box.

They now come in all shapes, sizes, and colors.

[skippysmom]

11. what utter crap

I'm so sick of hearing CEOs with their huge salaries making excuses for sending jobs overseas. Don't they have any conscience?

[abelenkpe]

72. no

But don't worry! Those big executives get their just desserts in the end. I worked for a big studio that sent all its work overseas. Those self important executives just sat there all puffed up after letting all the artists go, saying encouraging things like: 'you'll have to re-train' and 'this is good for the economy', etc. etc. Every last one of those smug fat cats is unemployed right now. Every one. In the end executives and managers who send all their work overseas are essentially digging their own graves. Corporations, always looking for ways to cut costs and post profits for their stockholders, won't pay them their bloated salaries to manage no one. True they are the last to fall, but fall they will. In the meantime, I feel the real solution is for workers everywhere to organize. Perhaps what we need are global trade unions that demand decent standard of living wages, health care benefits, pension plans, etc. in every region of the world. We need to unite workers everywhere and start raising the standard of living globally rather than letting competition drive us all in this desperate race to the bottom. Whaddya think?

[leesa]

12. Then they need to be banned from selling in the US

They pay no taxes, they provide no jobs. Simply human bloodsuckers. This is all their plan to turn us into low paid slaves who will own no property.

[damnraddem]

13. How about this?

The U.S. should tell the companies that they have no god-given right to move the jobs overseas, taking them away from people who've worked hard to build the companies. Or, they have that right only if they are willing to pay for it -- rich severance packages.

Of course, the companies do think that they have the god-given right to rip off communities anywhere in the world and ship the jobs off anywhere else -- the god in question is obviously: the Almighty Dollar.

[54anickel]

14. Ah, Carly....

CEO of the company with the most layoffs in 2001 (25,700) and the highest CEO compensation gain from 2001 to 2002.
From 1,242,000 to 4,114,000 for a 231% increase.
Gotta love her.
:puke:

[Gin]

15. what penalties should companies who move jobs offshore but sell here

be charged?

Let's discuss this and make a list. Maybe we could get a movement going to punish these greedy bastards for ripping off the USA Inc.

[Frangible]

17. Penalties? They are REWARDED

Companies who outsource are given tax benefits. They are rewarded by the government for hiring 3rd world labor over Americans to line their corporate pockets! And no one, in any political party, is standing up to this.

[Frangible]

16. Fuck Carly

She destroyed HP and turned it from an innvoating, engineering based company to the next Packard Bell; cheap marketing based crap made in China.

I hate outsourcing, but god it kills me to see what happened to HP in the last 10 or so years.

[Fish-Slapping_Dance]

19. How disappointing

Carly certainly seems to put the lie to the notion, when she first got the job, that if more women became CEOs, corporations would be more sensitive to people.

It's not the gender, it's the position. Become a CEO, you are immediately assimilated.

[reprobate]

28. Only way to get to BE a CEO is to already have bee assimilated

[Fish-Slapping_Dance]

51. Touche (n/t)

[fjc]

18. There may be only one way to deal with this...unions..

strong unions for tech workers.

[Frangible]

22. Have a friend in a union

But his job still got moved to Mexico. The problem is most Americans just don't care enough, and our politicians sell us out for special interest dollars.

[abelenkpe]

74. tis true

Our trade union is pretty much powerless too. Many of our jobs are going overseas. They used to be shipped to Canada but now they are going to China and India. I asked our union president why we didn't contact the studios overseas to bring those artists into our union as well. I can't say I ever got a satisfactory explanation from him. Our parent union isn't interested in changing the way it functions to meet this new crisis. Which may turn out to be their undoing. They are alienating their members by appearing complicit along with the corporations in job losses. And for those who are familiar with history, unions were the most effective in their infancy. Nothing stops workers from forming new unions. If workers everywhere supported one another and formed new alliances we would be more frightening than any existing coalition. We should use the technology of the internet to organize workers and consumers globally. Our numbers united are the only real bargaining tool we possess.

[moondust]

21. Carly's job can be done in India for a fraction of the cost.

When shareholders finally wake up it's........buh-bye Carly.

[4dsc]

23. I have a brother thats going to China soon

to look for labor.. He's in the manfacturing sector and its just getting to hard to compete(of so he says)..

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

25. Carly's God is green and fits nicely in a billfold

No surprises here. This is the real terrorism, not some guy sitting in a cave with his finger in the air. "Efforts to preserve American jobs...could lead to retaliation?" Looks like efforts to soft-pedal outsourcing in the name of "political corectness" (such as Microsoft removing its name from minibuses in India that are used to shuttle programmers back and forth, per a recent Reuters report) have now shifted to an all-out CEO Jihad. My question is this: if President Bush does attempt to step in and deal with this, and the CEOs threaten him, will his response be "BRING IT ON?"
Microsoft's Encarta Dictionary defines "baboon" as "a large ground-dwelling monkey native to Africa and Asia with a prominent snout resembling a dog’s muzzle, large teeth, and bare pink patches on the buttocks." You can put a CEO in a business suit, but nothing can cover those bare pink patches.

:evilgrin: :spank: :evilgrin:

[Zero Gravitas]

26. "...necessary for future profits "

and just why should Americans give a crap about their profits any more? Obvioulsy "whats good for Wall Street is good for Main Street" is no longer true (if it ever was) if whats good for Wall Street is selling Main Street out for short term gain.

[54anickel]

27. Amen! n/t

[reprobate]

31. Why are we surprised?

It's the function of unregulated capitalism to seek higher profits by finding the cheapest labor pool. The eventual outcome of this will be a universally poor world population and a small but VERY wealthy corporate class.

In fact, this is the entire purpose behind Globalism. To pit each nation against all others to provide the lowest labor costs. But then of course, americans don't know enough about world events to even form an educated opinion on globalism. We did it to ourselves. Clinton helped.

[davekriss]

49. I'm not surprised

Robert Heilbroner wrote a slimbook in 1976, "The Decline of Business Civilization", in which he proposed that, unfettered, the rise of the transnational corporation would result in a return to feudalism, where this time the State becomes a tool for corporate power. No truth to that, no... move along here, nothing to see... !

[Lydia Leftcoast]

40. If I were Economic Czarina

only companies with more than 50% of their employees in all sectors (manufacturing, management, marketing, etc.) based in the U.S. would be allowed to bid on U.S. government contracts. Any company that shipped jobs overseas would be required to pay the displaced workers two years' salary if the displaced workers' jobs were replaced by overseas labor any time within five years after dismissal.

If these companies are anything like Nike, which sells shoes for $100+, even though Payless Shoe Source sells identical shoes (probably from the same sweatshops) for $30, then somebody is price gouging. If the Phil Knights of this world were content with simply being unimaginably wealthy, instead of always wanting more, they could make shoes in the U.S. for say, a total cost of $75, sell them at $100+, and still make a profit.

[davekriss]

42. You've got my vote, Czarina!

Though I would up that U.S. content threshold to 80%+ from your low of 50%. If as in years past we then have a "skilled labor" shortage, I'd vote for politicians who promise to put U.S. labor "investing" (in education, training, and R&D) on the agenda.

[Zero Gravitas]

84. As Pope-Emperor of the World

I would tie free trade to free movement of people. Free trade only between countries that have unrestricted borders (e.g the EU). If it acceptable to move plants to Mexico and white collar jobs to India it should also be acceptable for Mexicans and Indians to live and work in the US without any restriction.

[trogdor]

87. New Balance shoes are made in the USA

or at least they are to the extent that it is possible. Got a pair on my feet right now.

[baldguy]

57. If huge corporations want the PRIVILEGE of selling their stuff here . . .

. . . they should be willing to employ people here. After all, we always hear about how much more productive the American worker is than your average coolie. Why don't these smart, efficient, penny-pinching MBAs take advantage of these smart, efficient American workers (in a GOOD way, of course) so they both can make a ton of money?

[peacetalksforall]

59. The country that right wing hotheads are always saying is so superior

has mostly been superior in technology and our geographical location - good neighbors on the north and the south and a lot of water between us and our enemies.

PLUS, we had people very willing to work hard and creatively for the American dream of basics, fulfillment, and being able to move up. PLUS, they/we paid taxes.

Now, we have a very narrow base of tax-payers, job-holders outside our country don't pay U.S. taxes - and the corporations who shipped the jobs have a million and one ways to avoid paying - some of the largest pay nothing, and large accounting firms tell them how to do it, so it's said.

How does the country remain superior?

[Kascade Kat]

61. Moving CEO Jobs Overseas

In their arrogance, the CEOs of this country believe that they can outsource the people but keep the profits through the power of their brand.

But the companies aren't even hiring employees overseas to do their work - in many cases, it's being done by companies like Wipro or Flextronics - contractors who have no reason to be loyal to the American brands (and that's really all they are) that they serve.

Yes, they try to put nondisclosures and intellectual property agreements in place, but the truth is that as the knowledge worker jobs move overseas, so does America's ability to produce the kinds of innovative products that can win in the global marketplace.

As the markets shift overseas with the newly minted middle class jobs in these countries, why aren't Indian and Chinese companies better suited to develop products that are tailored for their growing marketplaces? What role will IBM, HP, etc. play then, except as the places where the founders of these new companies got their experience?

People have joked a lot about offshoring the CEO's job - don't think it can't happen!

[The_Casual_Observer]

76. Welcome to DU

Cool post, good thoughts!

[The_Casual_Observer]

77. HP - purveyor of $80 printers that need $80 worth of print

cartridges every month or so. I wonder what caused that bitch to lift her veil of civility in public?

I will never buy another one of their junk disposable products.

[leesa]

63. Does it not occur to these "brilliant" idiots that if everybody is making

pitiful wages, no one can afford to buy their products? To compete, we will be making wages that are a 75% reduction from current wages and they still think we are going to buy $100.00 sneakers, or computers?
Or will it only be those "communist" countries that have preserved their nations jobs and earning power that will be able to buy. Greedy corporatists and Republicans are always so short-sighted.

[are_we_united_yet]

69. You are right on the mark leesa!

[grannylib]

104. Exactly: short term profits at the expense of long-term gains.

Gather as much fithly lucre for yourself as quickly as possible; lie cheat steal; then you got yours and fuck everybody else, move it offshore to avoid taxes and abandon the very system that allowed you to "have it all...."
Fuckers.

[are_we_united_yet]

70. ``There is no job that is America's ....

God-given right anymore,'' said Carly Fiorina, chief executive for Hewlett-Packard Co. ``We have to compete for jobs.'' Oh Carly, you left off "at a fraction of nominal American wages as to maximize our Corporate profit margins, shareholders ROI and hence, my absurdly large bonus."

[Furity]

71. Welcome to corporate America

I have 5 really, really close friends that I've known forever. All hardworking folks. Out of those 5 very close friends, 3 have last their job in the last year. I'm talking people that have 18+ years on the job. I'm disgusted and scared.

~Furity

[jaydw11]

94. CEO's who export jobs should be requied to live in the

same country and work in the same conditions.

[grannylib]

98. Yup and get their own pay slashed accordingly. Greedy money-grubbing

bastards, the fucking lot of them.

[papau]

102. Nah - just give the workers the right to outsource management overseas!

It would save millions -

and we know the easiest job is to be boss where you add value by attending meetings and keeping track of other folks work.

[Muddleoftheroad]

121. Workers don't run the company

They don't get to make those decisions.

[hatrack]

130. Workers don't run the company, they are the company

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Abraham Lincoln

[Muddleoftheroad]

150. Good theory, not reality however

Lincoln remains my favorite president. It doesn't mean he was always right.

[hatrack]

152. What, then do you suggest?

As you correctly point out, technology transfer and the expansion of foreign industrial bases are inevitable. Just because we were among the first to figure out modern industrial economies (along with the British, Germans and French) doesn't mean that we (or our predecessors, for that matter) would remain at the top of the technological heap. As Richard Feynman said, "We are not all that much smarter than each other". Once the knowledge genie is out of the bottle, it will get around, and the math and science are the same for everybody.

In addition, the substitution of machine for human labor has been underway since the invention of the Newcomen engine and the spinning jenny. Many of the industrial jobs we've lost have been lost to third-world cheap labor, and many have been lost simply to automation and robotics. Industrial jobs in the second category aren't coming back, either here or there.

But here's the essence of the problem - global capitalism demands - DEMANDS - that capital seek the lowest possible labor costs. That works well for shareholders and executives at HP or other tech companies, since there are capable work forces offshore willing to fulfill these companies' needs for tiny fractions of American labor costs. What stands in the way of the complete evisceration of salaries, wages and benefits for the American tech labor force? Nothing - the logic of markets in fact demands it. What stands in the way of racing to the labor-force bottom not only in tech, but in all fields of industry and production? Nothing. Again, global capital markets press relentlessly towards just such an outcome.

And when the seamless global market is finally realized, when a shriveled husk of the American middle class answers the phones and enters the data for a tiny elite of shareholders and executives, and when what used to be the rest of the American middle class mops floors, wipes butts in nursing homes and mans the local food banks, who will buy the wondrous products of HP and all the other American high-tech companies? I'd be willing to bet that it won't be blue-collar Americans, and I'd bet even more that it won't be the industrial slum-dwellers of Guangzhou or Bangalore.

[Muddleoftheroad]

157. I only have questions

I also know what I think will cause major chaos.

[Atlant]

81. Here's the SF Chronicle's own story on this...

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/01/08/MNGDI45PV01.DTL&type=tech

Tech bosses defend overseas hiring
Intel, HP chiefs warn that U.S. needs
to improve education system

Carolyn Lochhead
Chronicle Washington Bureau
Thursday, January 8,

Washington -- Two leading Silicon Valley chief executives, reacting Wednesday to criticism they've shipped too many high-tech jobs overseas, defended hiring workers in India and China and warned that the United States and particularly California were in danger of losing their competitive edge to the Far East.

"There is no job that is America's God-given right anymore," said Carly Fiorina, chairman of Palo Alto information technology giant Hewlett Packard.

The comments came as part of the tech industry's counteroffensive against intensifying criticism about the export of high-tech jobs.

Fiorina warned against the growing protectionist backlash, saying the only alternative to losing jobs overseas was to make a national decision to stay ahead of foreign competitors by improving grade-school education, doubling federal spending on basic research and forming a national broadband policy, as Japan and Korea have done.

<more>

[trogdor]

91. Uh, yeah.

"Fiorina warned against the growing protectionist backlash, saying the only alternative to losing jobs overseas was to make a national decision to stay ahead of foreign competitors by improving grade-school education, doubling federal spending on basic research and forming a national broadband policy, as Japan and Korea have done."

Right. So we get the No Child Left Behind Act and refuse to fund it, spend big $$$ on R&D, then let corporations gouge us on the result (see Big Pharma), and wire the country for broadband that nobody can afford to pay $50/mo. for. That'll bring our jobs back, yessir! As if.

[jpgray]

95. Frims to Consumers--"We're Getting Ours, Wha'cha Gonna Do?"

The short term is going to be really fun if this continues, and the long term is really, really going to suck.

[David Zephyr]

155. Republicans and Democrats Share the Blame On This Issue.

I give Dick Gephardt and Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders a hand few of other Democrats a lot of credit on this issue, but the hard truth here folks is that this "race to the bottom" for low labor costs and to break unions in the U.S. truly began under Reagan's administration in the 1980's, but President Bill Clinton and Senate Majority "Leader" Tom Daschle did nothing of substance to reverse the trend in the 1990's.

And the DLC, Al From, Joe Lieberman and all the corporate whores within our Party in Washington are surprized as the "anger" within the Democratic Party?