I think outsourcing is a red herring.

[wickerwoman]

I'll admit up front that I have a limited understanding of economics, et al. but I'd say my level is about average for most Americans.

I think it's a mistake to go after outsourcing as the root of the economic woes in America today. I'd say that nobody seriously expects manufacturing jobs to come back to the U.S. including the people who used to work them. When we promise average Americans that we will protect their jobs, or create more manufacturing jobs it rings hollow.

What, really, can the government do about the fact that people in China will work for .50 an hour, there're no environmental regulations and even with rising pricing of fuels, it's cheaper to import than manufacture in America? When Democrats promise to stop or limit outsourcing (especially when they don't explain specifically how they can do this) it sounds like pandering. Nobody is buying it.

I think what we need to do is make sure the jobs we do have, the ones that can't be outsourced, are well-paid and respect the dignity of the workers. We'll always need people to stock shelves and flip burgers. Objectively, there's nothing worse about working at Walmart vs. working on an assembly line (I've done both and I'd actually take retail over folding cardboard boxes any time.) The only difference is pay and benefits.

If Walmart and McDonalds paid a living wage, had benefits, didn't screw their employees on overtime, etc., etc., etc. would people still miss manufacturing jobs?

I think the problem isn't the jobs that have gone (and let's face it, aren't coming back in time to help anyone.) The problem is the jobs we have now. And there are many, many things we _can_ do about them starting with a major crackdown on union busting by the large corporations, raising the minimum wage to something people have a hope of surviving on, insisting that these companies pick up the tab for health care, pay overtime, etc.

I'm prepared to be flayed alive by people who know a lot more about politics and economics than I do, but it seems to me that promising to stop a problem percieved as hopeless and inevitable just reflects badly on us. Either we explain to people in minute, intuitive details how we can actually stop outsourcing, or we show them that it's not the end of the world because there will be lots of decent jobs left and we're going to make sure average workers don't have to kill themselves to put food on the table.

[Bluebear]

1. Northwest Airlines to outsource thousands of flight attendant jobs

NEW YORK, NY- A published report says Northwest Airlines, in bankruptcy protection, is outsourcing some positions held by senior flight attendants on coveted international routes.

That's according to the Wall Street Journal.

The airline recently told a bankruptcy judge that it would seek to cancel labor agreements if unions don't agree to new cost-savings demands.


http://www.wreg.com/Global/story.asp?S=4037451&nav=3HvE

===

They are replacing U.S. flight attendants with freshly-trained and hired, inexperienced, unscreened foreign nationals from India and China. It's not just manufacturing jobs at stake.

[wickerwoman]

4. It's terrible, I know,

but what can the US government do about it?

Individuals could boycott the airlines, as they've been boycotting Walmart, but people (like my parents) will still fly Northwest because it's the cheapest.

I'm not being a smartass... I'd really like to know what specifically the US government could do to prevent outsourcing and whether or not it would be effective.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Treaties

when the US negotiates a treaty it can do so with side agreeemnts that guarantee labor and environmental standards abroad, or it can do these free trade agreements that encourage cheap labor policies.

With NAFTA they at least pretended, as the side agreements are there (though never enforced) but with CAFTA they were absent.

[Bluebear]

7. In this instance, they could insist the foreign nationals...

go through the same stringent background checks that US flight attendants have had to go through for years. They could stipulate that CRAF flights (transporting troops) be awarded to airlines that hire American workers.

And Northwest is not the cheapest, although they are cheapskates!

[expatriot]

6. and this is a great example of where it is a matter of policy, not

"uncontrolled macroeconomic forces." But those macroeconomic forces are controllable through government policy. Unfortunately, corporate interests control global trade policy that is not being reversed any time soon.

[dogday]

35. They are squeezing the US worker at both ends

by insourcing and outsourcing. Outsourcing forces workers to find less paying jobs while insourcing forces workers to take a lot less money for those jobs. Both work hand in hand to force the American worker into a poverty they will never be able to get out of....

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. The problem is not outsourcing as you pointed out

it is the cheap labor policies that they have. They want YOU to work for fifty cents a day... that is the final goal, no benefits, no living wage, a new feudal system..outsourcing is a symtom of this cheap labor policy

[applegrove]

3. It is complicated. But all those industrial jobs - they all produced

"civil goods" that you might consume. And when oil reaches $200 a barrel do you want the US or the Chinese to have to buy the oil for that factory or perhaps replace machinery with people if they are cheaper (their incomes will be rising in china at the time). Because it will be more prudent for the USA government to specialize in computers and nanotechnology and intellectual property and pharma - cause those things are not expensive to transport.

Plus - with outsourcing some items like "civil goods" come down in price and so as your wages & mine are going down as workers.. we get to buy cheaper shit. Hopefully the cost of food will come down if they ever do away with agricultural subsidies. And Africans will have lots of work then.

So it is inevitable, sad, but there are good things to come out of it - we just don't see it much.

What gets me is that the AMerican worker is paying the price for all this change and the rich seem to not think they have to sacrifice and darn dog thing. That is pretty scary to me.

[julianer]

14. There is nothing inevitable

about 'globalisation'. It is deliberate policy to dismantle trade 'restrictions'.

There is no reason why a different policy couldn't be applied.

All this talk about 'inevitability' is propaganda.

Do you seriously think we have a future if we increase the mad consumption of the world's resources? The future is small and local, if there is a future.

[applegrove]

19. No but do you seriously think we have a future if people continue to

live in poverty in the world and have inadequate security and job opportunity and choice and health care? So they have 10 children and maybe 5 live?

What do you think that will look like if the markets are not opened to these people so they can get a small loan, grow an extra patch of cabbage and use their cell phone to call into the 5 local markets to find out who will pay the most for their cabbage?

Have you paid any attention to france this week? That is what people ignored look like. Um - mercains were once ignored people and threw tea into the harbour.

To say global trade is propaganda is ridiculous. There will be no oil in 50 years and therefore our lives will all change and if you don't want to be in a collapsed industry you better specialize in techonology and pills and computers. Those things are not dependant on huge amounts of oil.

And these big box stores - when the oil goes - they will go too. And the local mom & pop shop will reopen. Cause we will all walk to the grocery store. And incomes will be very much lower. But if we are all in it together and the birth rate in Africa is 1.7 kids because people are 1) immune from aids 2)can find steady work their whole lives... then we will all be better off and so will the planet.

3 Million kids starved this year. And we are all upset about 20thousand iraqis in 3 years. Or 2000 Americans.

All less developed nation intellectuals and economists are for global trade.

We just don't have to do it the neocon way with hegemoney and crazy corporations. It can be done with regulations and national health care programs and anything. We can put strict laws in place so that co-ops are rocking and corporations cannot attack them and try and drive them out. We can make the laws on trade whatever norms we decide. But we cannot cut out Asia and Africa & Latin America from having a chance at winning in the trade game. They will all be much, much, much bigger than the West in terms of numbers of middle class people in 40 years. They will be 15 times bigger than the west. So what will they do to the USA if the USA cuts them out of opportunity now? Forty years is not a long time. The people who will be managers in Asia in 40 years are 10 years old right now.

You gonna cut em out? or you gonna let em in. Cause that manager in China? She gonna have a long memory and if you decided to cut them out - why the hell would they bother with a little country like the USA that has only 5% of the world's population?

There are a whole myriad of reasons why we need to get on the train - the first one being so we can help design where the **** the train stops rather than letting the neocons make it all up. And they will. That is what they want - you and me out of the discussion talking "like about the environment" when the thing that is going to slow down the destruction the fastest will be tiny incremental changes in opportunities for the poorest of the poor so they invest in their kids and only have a few because with that liitle bit of opportunity - they actually could save.

This is way too early in the morning for this conversaion..

[julianer]

27. You've got the wrong end of the stick

I'm against 'globalisation' because it exacerbates poverty. I don't think that 'opening' markets will in any way help poor farmers or producers wherever they are - only the corporations.

If you think that we can avoid ecological disaster and, at the same time deal with world poverty, within the framework of capitalism, you are wrong, IMO.

So, I can't agree that we need to encourage the ease with which the world's resources can be exploited in the vain hope of influencing the final destination. If we allow the market to carry on stripping resources and spawning worldwide poverty we are truly finished, if we try and regulate it, the regulations will be ignored, broken, subverted and finally bought away via complicit parties, like now.

[applegrove]

29. That is why we have to make regulations across the board. Trade does

spread wealth. And by wealth I mean enough money to feed & house & send your kids to school & have a little bit more. Trade will push people who are not a this point yet - to this point. That is why it is important.

None of the poor countries economists or great thinkers want anything less than trade. Cause they know - that for once in their histories - they have a chance to participate and that they have advantages in some areas.

I agree the neocon way is scary. Look at the science project those Utopians tried in Iraq. And then when it goes wrong wolfowitz and Rummy quit (or try to quit) to move onto to other life - never having changed their basic views on Utopia. Very scary and upsetting. We need to fight so that corporations cannot bully. Yes. But we do that from a position of being for trade. If we are against trade entirely - then we get left out of the discussion completely - and believe me - the creepy neocons know and love that. That so much of the left is left out of the debate.

There is no way to save the world completely for ourselves. But capitalism alone will not kill us all. Only capitalism with no mix of policies and regulations will kill us. Up to us to insist the regulations on child labour and the like are part of the world to come. Because the old world - where all golden roads lead to the USA... that world is dead already. There is no alternative.

[julianer]

30. Firstly, regulation doesn't work

It is a hollow joke - look around you now, we are living in regulated capitalism.

Trade does not spread wealth, it concentrates it if the markets are rigged and unequal protectionism is allowed, as it presently is.

Of course 'poor' (read exploited) countries want fair trade to alleviate poverty - which is precisely why they will never get it - if they can alleviate poverty someone's profits are cut - an intolerable situation.

It is foolish to 'be against trade' and no one is, I'm sure. But under capitalism trade cannot be fair or free - the evidence is all around you. In terms of economic justice the world has been moving backwards for thirty years and the impetus of 'globalisation' is to dramatically speed and extend poverty throughout the working class of the world.

[applegrove]

31. Regulations are simply laws. That is all they are. Are you saying "rule

of law" does not work? Have you ever lived anywhere other than the West where laws are no so efficient? Where if you have money you can get around silly laws but otherwise you cannot even get the deed to a piece of land your family has been farming for 10,000 years because their laws don't quite work?

I cannot go on with this discussion. Sorry - but I just don't feel we are anywhere near seeing eye to eye.


We cannot even agree on the vocab or the basics of reality. Regulations are laws that apply to business. They are laws. Laws work. The only people who think laws should not work and should never be in place are neocons. You have strange company indeed.

[julianer]

34. What I am saying is not so difficult to understand

The political thrust of our time is to de-regulate business via globalisation - anyone can trade anywhere without the need to observe 'anti-competitive' labour laws, etc.

I'm against it. So are many millions of others. I'm amazed you haven't noticed this and think that my position is somehow extreme. Astonishing really.

The point I am trying to make about regulation is that the situation we are in at the moment is a regulated capitalist economy - one that is becoming less regulated - thus we can expect to see a sharpening of the present situation. Regulations and laws are bent, broken or scrapped if possible. The constant urge is to de-regulate.

That doesn't mean I am against laws. I don't understand where you got that from.

[applegrove]

44. You say they do not work. They work if they are enforced. If campaign

finance laws work & have teeth. If companies should be regulated so that when they attack regulations.. they get slapped down. Charters need to be taken away.

The regulations are what we have. And to say that we cannot say what the regulations should be as world trade opens up - implies we are powerless and we should just and the whole thing over to the corporations. We have a say in how trade deals come about. We have a say that less developed countries have a right to certain things like nationalization of industries and perhaps barriers & tariffs to protect baby industry or credit (in a way us rich bitch Western nations should not).

Don't tell me the corporations have taken over and it is over. It is so not over. We are in democracies and we can regulate according to the public good. And the public good will always be there - I know neocons claim it should be erased completely from existence - but it exists and it always will.

[julianer]

53. Yes, we are powerless

within the present structures. If we establish regulation in one generation it will be undermined in the next.

But we are not even in that position at the moment. We are losing the protections our parents and grandparents won. That is what 'globalisation' is for - to undermine existing social arrangement and to make people 'compete' against each other for the greater benefit of the elites.

It is an illusion that we can achieve what most of humanity wants through things like the WTO, or, given the corruptability inherent in our representative systems, through elections and governments. Most of the world has always been against poverty, but poverty still blights the world despite decades of WTO and governmental attempts to 'deal' with poverty. Hot air, tricks and illusions.

I am in favour of root and branch reform - but if that doesn't work we need to be much more prescriptive about business and trade rules. Personally I would prefer a socialist system - sharing and cooperating rather than denying and competing, with a much greater democracy in all aspects of life, including business.

[rman]

60. I'll tell you the corporations have taken over.

Or at least they have come a long way (and we have lost much) ever since it started some 30~40 years ago.
It isn't over though - it's never over unless humanity becomes extinct.

You want an example of the kind of power that corporations have, power that does in fact supersede the power of nation-states? Yes it's that bad.


NAFTA's chapter 11

"...gives corporations rights to sue governments in special tribunals, for unlimited compensation for profits lost due to normal governments activities."

"...there have been cases, like "Metalclad".
An American company called "Metalclad" went down to Mexico to build a toxic waste dump on an aquafer; the local supply of water. The government said "no, this goes against our environmental laws".
The people are getting poisoned from the water - what corporation has a right to poison our water? The government passed a law that said "no, you can't operate this thing".
They said "that's to bad, we have rights as a corporation that outweigh your human rights". They sued them for 17.5 million dollars saying it was a barrier to fee trade.
This US corporation takes the Mexican government to a NAFTA court, sues under this chapter eleven, and the ruling is - the Mexican government has to pay millions of dollars in "penalties", for "lost profits" of this corporation."

from the documentary "Trading Freedom" (Indymedia)
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/01/284511.html

also documented at

Berkeley University
http://are.berkeley.edu/courses/EEP131/classpresentatio... (PDF)
(turns out the amount in penalties to be payed by the Mexican government was reduced, but "...the judge agreed with the NAFTA panel on the merits that the actions of the Governor constituted expropriation".

New York Law Journal
http://www.clm.com/pubs/pub-990359_1.html

Stop FTAA
http://www.stopftaa.org/article.php?id=37

"NAFTA Chapter 11 Investor-to-State Cases: Bankrupting Democracy"
http://are.berkeley.edu/courses/EEP131/Nafta_Chapter11.... (PDF)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

41. Those Third World countries would be much better off in trading blocs

of countries of similar economic status, with each one learning to make goods to sell to the others.

They're not going to build up an industrial base doing cheap labor for foreign firms, when most of the profits get sent back to the corporate fat cats in the West.

The only Third World-to-First-World success stories have been in East Asia, where the governments were strictly protectionist, spent heavily on education and infrastructure, and insisted that Western companies transfer technology and train host country nationals for management and research positions as a precondition for allowing them to set up manufacturing plants.

This is the path that Korea, Taiwan, and Malaysia have followed. In 1965, South Korea and the Philippines were both impoverished countries that were eligible for the Peace Corps, Korea followed the East Asian model for success, pioneered by Japan in the late nineteenth century. The Philippines let in the sweatshops and exported pineapples and sugar cane for Western companies to process, besides having a corrupt government that sent the national wealth into Swiss banks. Guess which country still needs foreign aid.

The World Bank/IMF policies that urge countries to let in the sweatshops, sell raw materials and agricultural products to Western corporations at low prices, become heavily indebted for money that they themselves never see (the "loaned" money goes straight to Western corporations for work on showpiece construction projects) and slash government spending are a recipe for continued poverty.

I'm opposed to CAFTA, but a trading bloc AMONG the Central American and Caribbean countries and Mexico EXCLUDING the United States could be highly beneficial, as the various countries learned to process and make things out of the raw materials and agricultural products that they now sell to the West at rock bottom prices.

Just a small example. Before the U.S. invasion of 1983, the government of Grenada was setting up cooperatives to process the island's orange crop into juice, jam, and candied orange peel, so that people in the Caribbean would not have to buy all their orange products from U.S. processors and so that Grenadans could have much-needed jobs. Under U.S. military occupation, the cooperatives were shut down. We can't have those Third World people making value-added products out of their raw materials, after all.

[applegrove]

45. I agree with much of what you say.

[wickerwoman]

15. Thanks for this. It's very interesting.

[aquart]

8. I completely agree with you

About your understanding of economics.

You want McDonald's workers paid $40 an hour with benefits. Got it.

A service society is a society of servants. And nobody pays that for servants. Unless inflation is completely out of control.

By offshoring our steel and tool and die industries, we seriously crippled our NATIONAL DEFENSE. Outsourcing is NOT just a matter of local jobs.

The reason nobody saw our factories gearing up for war this time is we CAN'T. We don't have the machinery to MAKE machinery. That happened under Reagan.

BTW, Howard Dean had a VERY good idea how to stymie outsourcing: give the breaks to small local businesses, which do NOT hire in India.

[foreigncorrespondent]

10. ROFLMAO

This one has to be the post of the year. :)

[wickerwoman]

16. Well, I put it up front for a reason.

:-)

I agree 100%- offshoring bad. I just think most people don't understand it well enough (myself included) to see how the Democrats can deliver on their promise to protect American jobs. Even if it's not false (and thanks to the great posts above, I'm starting to understand why it's not false)it sounds that way. We can give tax breaks to small businesses but to most Americans they seem like a dying breed anyway. Having grown up in the suburbs in the capital of big box cookie cutter stores, I don't see how small businesses are going to compete and generate enough jobs to counteract outsourcing (as much as I'd love to see them do it.)

I think a message that America can understand better is we're going to protect your unions, raise your wages, make sure you have health benefits, pensions, etc. at the jobs we already have here that aren't going anywhere rather than "We'll protect those jobs in ways you don't really understand, just trust us."

That's my point.

[Sapphocrat]

9. I won't flay you alive because I "know a lot more about politics..."

...and economics than you do -- but I will attempt to restrain myself from screaming "YOU DON'T GET IT" because I'm living the cost of off-shoring (or outsourcing, as you put it).

Dig this: Going on my five-year anniversary of unemployment because my Silicon Valley company shut down on (literally) a moment's notice. Not a dot-com with nothing to offer, but a good organization with a well-thought-out, WORKABLE business plan.

OK, so that died. What next? Rely on my fall-back job? Sure, I don't have that much pride -- I was MORE than willing to take a 50% cut in pay to work the phones on a help/customer-service desk.

But, wait! Where did those help-desk jobs go? Funny, but I don't see them anywhere here in California anymore... or anywhere in the United Bloody States, for that matter...

And this, my friend:

Objectively, there's nothing worse about working at Walmart vs. working on an assembly line (I've done both and I'd actually take retail over folding cardboard boxes any time.) The only difference is pay and benefits.

...is utter bullshit, at least for those of us who slaved to get to where we were, only to be told that our knowledge, skills, and experience in high-tech weren't worth a fart in a jar anymore.

As much respect as I have for hamburger flippers (you're talking to a former cab driver, movie-theatre concessionist, newspaper-delivery person, etc., etc.), do you have ANY idea how devastating it is to be relegated to hamburger flipping after 20 years of trying to sweat your way up the ladder just so you won't have to plan on Kraft Mac & Cheese for dinner six nights a week?

There's nothing objective about it. Call me subjective. Call me bitter. The fact of the matter is that I can't even go back to a respectable low-level job in my chosen field -- a field in which I worked my bloody ass off, took great pride in what I did... and which doesn't need or want this forty-something-year-old anymore because somebody in India will do what I used to for nine dollars a day.

Red herring, my ass.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. He \she will once the salary goes down to 50 cents

a day, and has to eat mac and cheese if he is lucky every night

[Bluebear]

12. S/he lives in Shanghai according to the profile

Probably sent there to train their replacement.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. Did not check it

should have

Damn

[wickerwoman]

18. She.

:-)

And I live in China because I couldn't get a job in the U.S. that paid a salary commenserate with my education. When I lived in the U.S. my rent was 80% of my salary and I went through the last three years of grad school on rice (never could stand mac and cheese). Here I'm practically upper middle class.

[wickerwoman]

17. You're taking that quote out of context.

I never said there's objectively no difference between working at Walmart and a white collar tech job. I said there's no difference between working at Walmart and working in a factory. And there isn't. I worked in a factory folding boxes. I came home at the end of the day with paper-cuts down to the bone on some fingers and my hands so stiff I could hardly eat. I'd rather clean puke and have customers shout at me. They're both shit jobs, but the real difference now is you can scrape out a living at the unionized box factory and you can't at Walmart.

I think it's totally unfair that you can't find a job that pays a decent salary for your education and experience. Perhaps I didn't explain clearly what I meant by red herring. I don't think that outsourcing isn't real or that it isn't a serious problem. I just think that making promises to stop it without clearly explaining how that can be done plays into the Republicans' hands- making us look like complainers rather than real leaders (hence a red herring).

I think what we need to say to blue-collar workers is not "Your life sucks because some guy in China got your job". We need to say "Your life sucks because the Walmart down the street won't pay you a fair wage, kick in for your medical benefits, pay you a real pension, etc."

My point was about the message we're sending focusing on a problem that is *perceived* to be hopeless and inevitable instead of telling people what we're going to do for them in concrete terms.

[Sapphocrat]

28. You're right...

I did take that quote out of context, and I apologize for doing that. Offshoring is a huge hot-button issue for me (it's among the top three things that have virtually ruined my life since the * installation), and I reacted.

However, your box-folding job depends on my ability to buy boxes, and my ability to buy boxes depends on whether or not your box company stays in business.

I think you're minimizing the impact of offshoring, and veering away from the very real message that "Your life sucks because some guy in China got your job" is counterproductive.

Yes, it's true "Your life sucks because the Walmart down the street won't pay you a fair wage, kick in for your medical benefits, pay you a real pension, etc." -- but why is that? One reason: Because some guy in China got the job manufacturing the cheap plastic crap you're selling at Wal-Mart. In other words, "Your life sucks because some guy in China got somebody else's job."

You might think that if Wal-Mart can get its cheap plastic crap for less overseas, they'd be able to pay fair wages, kick in for bennies, etc.

In theory, they could -- but they won't, simply because they don't have to.

We (the People) don't make them.

And that's thanks to unregulated globalization -- which is just a bad system that hides behind the relatively benign-sounding phrase "free trade."

"Free trade" is not fair trade. It is insidious -- and infectious. It is the flesh-eating bacteria of capitalism.

There's not a single aspect of American industry that isn't affected by it. That includes the presumably "safe" fields, in the service sector; about the only "safe" job is plumbing, since there's no way to get your toilet in Nebraska unclogged by somebody in India.

But what if Wal-Mart doesn't pay you enough to hire a plumber, and you end up learning to DIY (or just stop using that toilet)? What happens to the pumber's business? And what happens when the plumber can't afford to get his van fixed? And when the plumber's usual mechanic can't afford to buy his kid a new computer, what happens to the computer company? Draw this out exponentially, and now you see why my fall-back job (I.T. help desk) is now in Germany (it actually did go to Germany -- thank you, and F.U., Siemens).

Eventually, you run into a bottleneck -- too many workers, not enough jobs -- and then you've got 70-year-old Wal-Mart greeters who can't afford to retire, and displaced 40-somethings like me competing for entry-level jobs with kids half my age.

The problem is hopeless without concrete solutions. The real solution is very simple: Stop unfettered globalization, and the mega-corporations will be forced to re-invest their resources in the workers again.

(Note that I'm not advocating economic isolationism, either; one extreme is as bad as the other. I believe in sane regulatory controls -- and penalties.)

But rather than tell people "what we're going to do for them" (that's real Nanny-State stuff), we need to empower them to change the situation. By that, I don't mean it's every man for himself; I mean 1) show them how to wrest control back from the people who dole out the paychecks -- the Wal-Marts and all the rest who send jobs overseas, because they can -- and 2) get Joe Blue-Collar involved in the democratic process.

Why? Because Joe can't do anything about his own situation until he realizes his own contribution to it: his action, or inaction, through the power of his vote.

Sometimes the only help Joe needs is a start in connecting the dots between his sucky situation and those ultimately responsible for it: the Republicans.

If you can boil it down to "Wal-Mart won't pay you a fair wage because the current government says corporate profit is more important than you are," then a lightbulb might go on -- and Joe will think twice about pulling the lever for the Dark Side.

Shanghai, huh? Are you an American working in China? What do you do?

[wickerwoman]

32. I agree with almost everything you've said.

I think we're just coming at the same solution from different angles.

I think we the people should make corporations behave more responsibly. But the problem is that the American corporations whine that they can't compete with the German, French, etc. corporations. So what we would need would be international standards for labor,etc.

But I think the problem with this as a message is that's it's quite remote. I don't think it empowers Joe Sixpack because it doesn't let him get involved in the process. Saying "Sit back and keep your fingers crossed while we negotiate some treaties" doesn't resonate with ordinary workers. They need to see results now- not four or five years down the line and they want to be involved in the process.

So, like you said, I think we need some heavy public awareness campaigns leveled against the mega-corporations to undo some of the "union is a dirty word" propaganda that the Repubs have been spreading. There's no reason in hell why McDonalds and WalMart should be allowed to get away with union busting. And boycotting these companies, or organizing unions allows displaced workers to channel their anger into concrete, constructive action.

Repubs are masters at channeling anger against "the Other". They take all the unemployed and tell them "your life sucks because of the Mexicans and the Chinese". But they're vulnerable in this strategy because they don't give their followers anything to do except hate. They remain impotent. What we Dems could do is make some of these corporations "the Other" except it would work even better for us because there's something people can actually do today about these companies.

Meanwhile, we can work on stopping unfettered globalization and bringing jobs back to America. I just see one message as more compelling and concrete to average politically apathetic Americans.

(I'm an American working in China as an ESL teacher. Not great money, but enough to pay back my student loans which would never have happened in the U.S. I really wanted to work for the State Dept. but I figured it would be a bad idea under this administration so I'm biding my time and learning Mandarin until Bush is out of office.)

[area51]

20. What Sapphocrat said.

Ironic, isn't it, how nazis are pro-offshoring, which means they are pro-weakening America by forcing us to rely on other countries for items, & nazis are weakening our tax base, which means roads & bridges will go w/o repair. But, then, republinazis are the most stupid people on Earth.

[Skidmore]

21. Due to outsourcing industry, this nation is screwed if there

is a major disruptive event of any kind on an international scale. We no longer produce anything substantial beyond food services, information, and computer software now. If there is a catastrophic event, we will have to begin again from scratch.

[applegrove]

22. What they have gotten rid of is "civil goods". Not the nanotechnology,

computers, pills, intellectual property, high tech. All that stuff the USA is hiding from China. Why would they want to specialize in these industries that will grow in the next 100 years? Instead of having factories that make clothes or party hats or purses with your favorite star embossed on them? Cause when the oil stops bumping (or goes up to $200 a gallon) those industries are going to be the first thing cut from our lives. The next thing cut - big box stores... back to mom & pop because we will all be walking to the market.

It is painful. There is some help for workers in that the shit they buy be in air freshener or a bathingsuit, a latter or a T.V. are all much cheaper than they would cost if they had to buy that stuff from American factories. So as Americans loose jobs in mid sized corporations.. and start small businesses or work for less money than they expected - the cost of shit will go down. The cost of food will go down if they every undo the agricultural subsidies. And it means that people can maintain a kinda standard of living for the time being - if they are big buyers of shit.

If they want to buy a home, or get health care - they are in trouble. They'll have to vote the repukes out of office to get help in that department.

What bugs me is how the wealthy are sacrificing NOTHING while the workers adjust and then adjust again. That is what is really scary.

[rman]

23. The government could prohibit corporations

to employ labor under what amounts to medieval labor conditions, anywhere.
Why should our "civilized" values and our living standards apply only to us, why is these don't apply to where we export our so called free market system and the western/American way of life? Why do we allow exploitation of foreign laborers by our corporations? Is -that- our way of life, our civilization?

Outsourcing is a symptom, not a root cause, but quite a telling symptom.
Why is it that corporations do not come right out and say they do outsource because the labor there is cheap so that they can make (still more) profits? Why do they come up with bogus arguments along the lines of "the Chinese work harder the Americans", and "they're more productive" (you bet they are - more product per dollar spent on labor - but only because of the lower wages and the longer hours).
Why is it that according to the government we didn't really lose any manufacturing jobs, pointing out statistics that result from a re-definition of jobs in food service as manufacturing jobs (manufacturing hamburgers).

With so much deception regarding outsourcing, i think it's more then just a red herring. It's really really bad, and apparently it's very important to these corporations that they get away with it.

[applegrove]

25. Seeing as how 95% of the middle class will live outside the USA

in 40 years.. don't you want to be selling to them? Corporations are the best at doing that. They just need to be regulated.

[rman]

33. Is that an argument in support of allowing corporations to exploit

laborers in foreign nations?

If it isn't, then what is it?

[applegrove]

47. no - I am saying that if we do not trade and open up our markets to

these people - why the hell would they bother with us in 40 years. I said nothing about what regulations and national credit building excercises these people will have in their own countries.

[rman]

56. It's not about not trading - it's about not exploiting people.

This exploitation is called "free trade" but that's only to make it sound like it's a good thing.

[applegrove]

63. You assume everyone in a trading relationship is being exploited.

That is not true. And there are laws in place to stop child labour and the like.

The fact is - we were all exploited for a time - as some industries got big and rich - and then presto there was money to start banks and people started to be able to do things like go to school or own a house even if they had no money. And that created a middle class.

They say it is the generation that leave the farm that get exploited the most. But, important to keep in mind, that when leaving a subsistance farm (we all did when we moved to cities) you are leaving a pretty tough existance. Not that growing your own food or having some land did not help mitigate such harsh lives. But it is universal that you have to move off the land and into the cities and tough jobs before the middle class exists. The issue for many in the South is that unlike us - they did not have farms. They don't own the land like our parents did. They are more like the feudal cerfs in Europe who just got shoved off land their families had farmed for centuries and had nowhere to go (except they could get on boats and head to North America). Well - there is no north america for the people with no land and in need of cents to eat and cloth kids and maybe spend on books & school uniforms. It looks to exploitation to you but you nor I have ever been hungry. But our great, great, great grandparents do know what that was like and how awful those times were. When they got on a boat or moved to a city.

Is it better for generations to stay at that insecure landless & jobless level for many more generations? Or is it better than the parents of today have at least the chance to feed their kids and send them to school? And then their kids can be that first middle class generation in their families.

[rman]

66. I assume nothing - i am informed.

Are we not talking specifically about "Free Trade" as in "Free Trade Agreements" such as NAFTA, CAFTA etc - which are a major factor in the implementation of Globalization.

The promise is that it will help the economies of those nations, but what happens is that the economy is wrecked, and that labor rights and environmental protection are weakened (after all those are viewed by proponents of so-called "free-trade" as trade barriers that have to be removed - the corporations can make more profit the weaker environmental protection and labor rights are).

Exploitation of developping nations by large transnational corporations is routine - it is the modus operandi for globalization. I have provided you with some examples and sources - can you provide me with even one example where so-called free trade is actually the success that it is claimed to be?

[applegrove]

68. Now how did Japan industrialize? They had access to the USA market

and made junk. Then they made good stuff. Now they protect much of their economy and sell high tech.

You are assuming that to work in a factory for a few pennies a day is not a step up for someone who has hungry kids and cannot afford school fees.

If you were poor, would you work your ass of over the course of your own life so that your kids could have something better?

Don't answer that. Because all your great-great grandparents, all 16 of them, already made that choice. Each and every one of them. Do you have any idea what it was like to cut farmland out of forest? That you spend 20 years doing nothing all day but removing rocks from the land. And then you had to farm on top of it - and make everything single thing that you would ever need out of the woods or farm. Would be like living at Levenworth ... so many stones to life and carry. And that is what (at least my) people did. That was the choice they made. To take a chance, and work their butts off so their kids could have it a little better (not so many rocks to move - just farming to do).

The people of many Less Developed Nations have not had that choice. There was no work or no sense in working an extra field or they had not field. It was not there that ownership of land or a job. Some have a choice they never had before. Ask the people of China & India if they want to go back 40 years. Ask them. Don't ask me.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

42. The other bogus argument they use is that they're doing it for the good of

Third World workers. Riiiight.

[applegrove]

48. Why do all less developed nation's economists and thinkers back

trade? They want the power of regulations to be in the hands of local governments. And they want open borders so they can finally get a kick at the can.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

51. They want advantages for their exports, but unfortunately, that tends to

come with a flood of imports from the West, which swamp local industries.

Besides, the less developed nations' economists and thinkers are the power elites, educated in American and European universities, for the most part, which means that they've drunk the free trade Kool Aid. They live in luxury compared to the other people in their countries, and if planting non-edible cash crops like tobacco or cotton displaces farmers who used to produce food, they won't feel the effects. If a foreign company establishes harsh, unsafe sweatshops where displaced peasants earn pennies per hour working 72 hours a week, it's not they or their relatives experiencing virtual slave labor. If foreign financial instituations come in and demand that they slash government spending on education and health care to pay off their foreign debt, they'll just send their kids to private schools and go to Europe or the U.S. for medical treatment. They may even stand to profit from bribes offered by foreign companies eager to do business.

No country has EVER achieved prosperity by following the "free" trade religion or the dictates of the IMF and World Bank. Every success story got where it is today through protectionism, cultivation of local industries, government spending on infrastructure, education, and health care, and insistence that foreign investors transfer technology and train locals for management and research jobs.

Even The Economist, in its more honest moments, admits that "free" trade causes a hell of a lot of problems in both the Third World and the First World. In their view, however, the cure is more "free" trade. This is sort of like saying that the cure for cirrhosis of the liver is more booze.

[applegrove]

52. It is the protected industries of the West that should come down.

Our Agriculture is the most heavily protected thing. And then people would be able to grow locally and sell on international markets. There is no way a nanotechnology industry is going to develop in Zaire. There is just not the scientific expertise. So if we can agree to undo the crap at the extremes and then leave room for the countries who haven't industrialized or ever been credit filled nations - if we leave them with the right to nationalize or protect - to foster the structural improvements they need - that would work. I think they were even talking about that as something next on the agenda at G8 conferences. That the poorest of the poor would have to have the opportunity to protect and nurture some industries.

As to healt care - it should be all across the world national health care. Because it keeps costs down and is fair. And is cheaper.

The danger is the neocons and other Utopians. Liberalism has only worked around the world because of the very mixed markets (some socialistm). And hell - the pharmaceuticals & intellectual property owners do have monopolies on their shit - so I mean - there is lots of room to negotiate what trade looks like. The big danger is that with so many on the left "anti-free trade" the stuff is being negotiated and pushed by a stronger right that supports trade and a weaker group of third wayers.

I'm sure the MIComplex in the USA is thrilled at how often the people in Western Countries are so against trade. They get cut out completely from the discussion. Don't ya think?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

54. I wouldn't count Africa out in the long term

Its brightest and most ambitious people have emigrated to the West to escape the violence and poverty and are now going to school, mostly in scientific and technical fields. If conditions ever settle down there, we may see amazing things from returned emigres.

In the 1960s, no one would have picked South Korea or China as high tech success stories.

As far as agriculture is concerned, I would remove protections from agribusiness, but we need a domestic agricultural sector. It is extremely dangerous for any nation to be too dependent on imports for its food supply.

Crops that we can't grow ourselves should of course be tariff-free, but NAFTA and the like are merely encouraging agribusiness to go down to Mexico and practice industrial farming more cheaply while driving traditional Mexican farmers out of business.

[Armstead]

58. Everybody except the elites get cut out of the discussion

You are putting things in false terms of "pro-trade" vs. "anti-trade."

The real issues is not "trade" supporters vs. "trade opponents." It's really about BIG CORPORATE ELITES vs. grassroots economic benefits and national sovergnty and control and diversity throughout the world.

It is perfectlky possible to support the concept of international trade, while also balancing that with domestic concerns.

As the example of agriculture you used. The neo-liberal/ultra conservative "free trade" model is NOT encouraging domestic agriculture in poorer nations. It is promoting colonial agriculture, in which corporate farms produce goods to swamp global markets -- WITHOUT actually supporting truly domestic agriculture.

Is some poor farmer better off working as a serf on a corporate plantation? Would those agricultural economies perhaps be better off growing growing a more balanced mix of products for domestic products, his own food and export crops?

[rman]

59. They don't

Just look at Venezuela.

(on edit - i should clarify: they don't support neo-liberalism/globalization style "free-trade" - nobody does oppose trade as such. But as should be clear by now: this isn't just any kind of trade.)

Even some people in the World Bank don't - though they don't usually work for there much longer after they've made their opinion known.

"...look we tried to help Bolivia, it went under. We tried to help Brazil, it exploded. We tried to help Indonesia, it was burning in riots. Maybe there's a pattern here."
- Stiglitz, to his bosses at the World Bank (he was fired shorty after)

This while even according to the 2000 IMF "World Outlook" report, results have been less then encouraging; "in recent decades nearly one-fifth of the world population has regressed. This is arguably one of the greatest economic failures of the 20th century."

Can you name even one example of a developing nation where globalization has not been a disaster?

"The only economies that seemed to be doing well were China, Vietnam, Botswana, Venezuela and the United States. What did all five of those economies have in common? All five told the IMF to go to hell and that includes the United States who does not listen to the IMF dictates at all."
http://www.zmag.org/content/GlobalEconomics/hart_palast_globalization.cfm


Also see Greg Palast's "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452283914/103-9453554-4635857?v=glance&n=283155&v=glance
http://www.gregpalast.com

[applegrove]

62. I'm not for strict IMF following. And I think that yes - countries need to

have the option of protection of some industries for a bit. The big issue to me is ownership of land and land rights and property deeds and such. DeSoto talks about how the lack of clear and present laws in most of the less developed nations makes it so that credit or accumulating wealth is impossible unless you are already rich and can bribe your way out of bad laws.

Personally - I would like to see more improvement of laws in many nations and distribution of land fixed to be more balanced. Those are the big issues that separate the poor from the newly industrialized - and they result in middle class.

[rman]

67. Which is why big corporation like to do business in those nations

(because of weak laws for the poor)
The only western value they export is greed.

There are extensive negotiations between representatives of the West and the governments of those 3rd world nations before they actually "open" their economy to "free global trade" - yet the laws you mention apparently remain mostly undiscussed - they remain unchanged, or if they are changed it is for the worse so that the corporations can make more profit.

And just look what happens to nations who do not want to enter such trade agreements; they are vilified by the west (with the US up front) as communists and/or supporters of terrorism. All of a sudden they are enemies of the West, which is a plausible cause for military intervention, and makes is more likely for the Western population to accept a coup or assassination to remove the unwilling leader of such a nation.

[applegrove]

69. The Clintons & other third wayers are big fans of De Soto. Microbanking

is a 20 year old trend in development ideas and there are lots of micro banks giving loans to people all over the world so they can get into small business for themselves or get together as a village and buy their own 300 foot deep water pump.

And yes - it does not make sense for all the profit in a country to be sucked back out and sent to West Palm Beach. That is an issue that needs to be discussed. As long as we on the left refuse to discuss trade - issues such as these will never make it onto the agenda because the neofucks will control the content & direction of the debate. That is why we have to become more involved and be supportive of Third Wayers who are fighting for realistic and fair trade laws. And we need to know the difference.

We got lucky with the issue of debt. A few rock stars got on it and pushed it along even as Bush was tipping "third world debt" off the agenda of G8 Meeting after meeting. The creeps of the world will be ready to shut up the next rock star. This time they perhaps underestimated the ability of Bono to get the message out and be really pragmatic about who he talked to.

Bono! A ROCK STAR! Leading the agenda for the left & fairness? That is pretty sad. It should be all of us out there talking trade and discussing the norms (health care, protection of industry for emerging industrial nations, building up of land & law transparency, etc.). But instead we are in a "yes" "no" discussion with each other. Trade? Is is good? Yes or no.

[xchrom]

24. very broadly -- 2 things.

globalization narrows the scope of a countries economic diversity IF they are a post industrialised, post modern country.
in a country as large as ours -- that is a dangerous proposition.

second the mistake of all the trade treaties was in focusing on trade between the first and third world economies -- and not between third to third world countries so that economies could develop more equitably and that would more closely mimc some of the more positve developments of the first world.

[Loonman]

26. Outsourcing is as bad for the American worker as illegals are

Both undercut wages and shrink or disappear the local labor pool.

[NNN0LHI]

36. Are illegals bad for the American worker or are the...

...American corporations who hire illegals bad for the American worker?

Don

[Loonman]

37. Both

Both are short changing American workers. Unskilled labor has been decimated from greedy companies hiring illegals for a pittance.

[dcfirefighter]

38. YOU ARE RIGHT!!!!

The problem isn't that they are so cheap, but rather that we are so expensive!

Say my salary is $50,000, no benefits. My employer pays 7.65% as payroll tax. I pay another 7.65%. I pay another 25% or so in income taxes. Plus, given that I spend most of what I earn, another few percent in sales taxes. In the end I wind up with $32,500 while it costs my employer 54,000 to employ me. For those keeping track, that's roughly a 67% sales tax on labor!!!!!

How much lemonade can you sell with a 67% tax? How many cars would sell if there were a 67% tax on them? Not too fuckin' many, I believe. Do you think that this 67% tax adversely affects how much labor the American labor pool sells to American employers?

What's the alternative? How can we possibly generate public revenue if we can't tax wages that highly?

Tax land. Tax license. Tax titles, patents, and privelege. Tax pollution. In each of these cases, we either want these things to go away, or they can't go away. And, guess what? If we taxed them for all they were worth, we'd have a surplus.

[Deja Q]

65. I think the situation isn't as narrow or cozy as you make it out to be.

Are you angry at the government for all the taxing? Other countries' peoples get taxed a hell of a lot more than us Americans... of course, they get better healthcare, roadways, and lots of other things too...

Also, we get paid $50,000 because gas is $2 per gallon, milk $4 gallon, TV $500... A Doctor visit $150.

To make it simple: Our standard of living - WHICH THESE CORPORATE AND GOVERNMENT FOLKS MADE FOR US - is the problem. Not us. There's a big difference here. They made the problem, without a thought put into it because, as they say, "time is money".

Also, do you know that employers get tax breaks on lots of things? Some don't pay taxes and still get money back!

And do you know that they often buy life insurance so they can collect big-time on your corpse! Lots of big companies do that. A few pennies today could reward them with tens of thousands tomorrow... Volume discounts probably fit into that somewhere too...

Remember, we working class people are seen as liabilities and costs. NOT assets. Nothing of value. Just excess cost; they'd have robots do it all and leave us to die on the streets if they could. We are not people to these fuckers. And don't forget that. When's the last time your employer put anything of value into you? NEVER. That's when.

That's also why full time jobs worth a damn are hard to get; most jobs even remotely available are part time with pissy hours and horrendous working conditions and NO BENEFITS. How the frig can you live on a job that's not even twice that of minimum wage and afford decent benefits, and the other basic necessities of life (never mind breeding and raising offspring...)? You cannot.

The situation is too complex for both of us to discuss on one day. But there's far more to what's going on than we workers "costing too much". That's just a load of bunk, and a cheap excuse.

Wanna hear my rant about the vicious circlular nature of the health industry? I'll make it simple: You go in for a condition or ailment. Doctors are encouraged to prescribe drugs (most of which don't cure but temporarily alleviate). You are then branded a risk and your rates go up. Meanwhile you have to get back for more drugs because there's far more profit in keeping you on them than to really cure the problem, as that nixes their "revenue". And some problems are made solely because our society is as flexible as a concrete ironing board. It wants to dope you up so you conform to their warped way of living, rather than allowing you to be you within society and use you to as much potential as you can, without drugs fucking up your body for life until death. And trust me, strattera has fucked me up royally... x(

[CornField]

39. We could close the loophole

that allows corporations to outsource *and* get a tax benefit for doing so.

We can become a nation which offers tax benefits to corporations who keep the work here in the states. We can refuse to trade stocks for corporations who outsource more than a certain percentage of their work force.

We can be and should be a nation that takes care of its own.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

43. We could use a carrot and a stick approach

Give preference under government contracts to products that are made entirely in the U.S. If there aren't any, give the contract to the product with the most U.S. content.

Insist when purchasing hardware or machinery that the help desk for the products be located in the U.S. (A call center takes little time or money to set up.)

Have the president award "Economic Hero" awards for entrepreneurs who develop and maintain successful businesses entirely with U.S. employees.

[mnmoderatedem]

40. It's not just factory jobs

high tech, engineering, accounting, even legal positions. Higher paying jobs. Virtually everything in offshorable these days, with workers forced into lower paying service sector jobs, and executives lining their pockets with cost cutting bonuses.

It's utter bullshit.

[entanglement]

46. I'd like to add that most jobs are lost because

of increased automation, productivity improvements, restructuring, failed businesses (tech bust in 2000) and poor management / structural factors;

[Cleita]

49. I do have a suggestion about stores like Wal-Mart.

I think laws can be passed that demand that retailers carry at least sixty percent American made goods. This might create manufacturing jobs. Then we need better labor laws.

[JCMach1]

50. No, outsourcing is VERY real...

If most of the jobs are selling cheap crap from China what does that do for the economy?

If most of the jobs are providing services for baby boomers and above who now require such services because of age, where goes the economy?

Until governments boycott products from places that do not pay a LIVING WAGE FOR THAT REGION, no one can be competitive with China? Ask Bangladeshi and Cambodian textile workers? They unionized for higher wages. Now, guess what there jobs are going slowly but surely to China.

It isn't just a U.S. problem.

[Armstead]

55. Such Fatalism is the result of corporate brainwashing

I won't do any flaying, becaue you are simply reflecting the view that has been pushed on the US since the 1970's to justify turning everything over to the corporate oligarchs and right wing politicians.

You're not at fault, but you have been brainwashed.

The subject is complicated -- but ultimately the answer is simple. The United States CAN CONTROL our economic policies and behavior such as outsourcing in any way we want to.

The whole mantra of "The global economy has changed everything. We can't control it" is pure unadulterated bunk. That message is merely a sales pitch by neo-liberal/ultra conservative elites, to CONvince people that national sovergnty and democratic (small d) laws and policies should be abolished in favor of phony so-called "free market" policies.

It's a lie, and it doesn't deliver what it promises. Poverty has gotten worse -- not better -- on a global level as a result of so-called "free trade" policies that allow and encourage a "race to the bottom."

That is not to say that international trade is bad. We do live in a global economy, and that has many benefits. HOWEVER, there are good ways to do it, and there are bad ways to do it. To be truly free, all trade must be based on each nation being able to set policies that balance their domestic and national interests with global trade.

That is NOT what neo-liberal/ultra conservative globalization is about. The form that we have allowed to dominate for 30 years is the opposite of truly free trade. It is based on removing national sovergnty of all nations, and putting trade and national governments in a straightjacket imposed by the elites.

Although the Corporate CONservatives and neo-liberals have tried to make protectionism seem to be a bad thing, it isn't. Protectionism is not a dirty word. At various points in their history, most countries use "protectionist" policies to bolster and protect their domestic economies. The US has done it in the past, and many developing countries still do it.

There is nothing inherently wrong with protectionism, although it has to be used carefully and wisely (and not corruptly).

One alternative is to deal individually with other nations on a more individual basis to develop trade agreements that reflect the actual situations in both countries, and find cpompromises that have the maximum benefit and protections for both. Trade policies with a nation like Britain should be different than with some poor developing nation. The needs and impacts are very different.

Besides regultions there are also different models that would enable poorer nations to grow by developing strionger domestically oriented economies. The present form of globalizatiojn based on outsourcing is merely turning those nations into corporate colonies, not healthy amnd well-rounded national economies.

[Jim__]

57. Yes, the government can do something about it!

What, really, can the government do about the fact that people in China will work for .50 an hour, there're no environmental regulations and even with rising pricing of fuels, it's cheaper to import than manufacture in America?

The government can charge tariffs that make up the difference between the wage currently paid in a country and a living wage in that country. As for environmental regulation, we should just refuse to import any product that is made in an environmentally destructive way. These restrictions are to our overall benefit; they are not economically self-destructive - that's just the current corporate lie.

[ProfessorGAC]

61. There Are Things That Can Be Done

First and foremost let me preface by saying:

Companies that outsource manufacturing jobs are doing so because they are essentially mismanaged. Have any of you looked at the financial statements of the large maquilladora or Chinese impex firms? Moving to Mexico or China has not made them into profit monsters! They are operating like "decently" successful firms despite the fact that they took 11 to 15% off their bottom line expenses in one fell swoop.

This is indicative of mismanagement at the highest levels. It's one thing for a firm to open an overseas location in order to have a presence in the region and access to that market. But, we all know the companies that moved Mfg. jobs there with the intention of re-importing 90% of output to the U.S. That should have made them market titans, but instead had almost a negligible effect on cash flow and net income.

Now, there are things to be done: First, a company should not be able to declare expenses assigned to the direct or indirect costs of any overseas facility from taxable income, if the output of the facility is reimported to the United States at anything over, (just tossing a number out) 1/6th of total output. That gives the truly globalizing firms a fair opportunity to grow but reduce the incentive to move mfg. jobs.

Secondly, any firm that shows improvement in cash flow or profitability that can be shown to be 40% or more due to workforce reductions in U.S. facilities should be forbidden by law from providing bonuses to corporate officers. The decision to enhance profitability by getting rid of people is not a strategic thought. It's purely tactical, and big execs don't get paid to think tactically. If that's the best they can come up with, they should go without any bonus plan.

Thirdly, incentivize firms to accept lower net income by making the corporate tax structure more progressive. Some companies will avoid lay-offs just because it will push net income into the next tax bracket. The net gain will be too small to make it worthwhile.

All of these would be disincentives to move mfg. jobs offshore when the productivity v. direct cost equation still favors american workers in a large majority of manufacturing sectors.

So, it's not just a red herring. There are things that can be done.
The Professor

[Deja Q]

64. Here's a thought, or many:

1. Company X offshores 780 jobs because it's cheaper to send the work to India, who can e-mail it back.

2. 780 Americans lose their jobs. They are looking for viable fields but find little, apart from retail. Those who go for retail pray they can pass the personality profile computer test because ain't no manager gonna look at their actual work history.

3. Word spreads about those 780 jobs. As a result, more companies offshore...

4. Interest in the field now being offshored rapidly declines for several obvious reasons (do I really have to state what these are?!)

5. The executives who offshore now claim Americans are stupid, uneducated, and don't deserve the jobs. Biggest. Lie. Ever.

6. Noting the increase in unemployment at home and knowing what keeps our economy going (consumer spending - the middle class), executives are also now "diversifying" and moving their 'wealth' into an alternate medium such as gold or the Euro. They are ditching the dollar; Bill Gates did so in January 2005 and even said "The dollar; it's gonna go down." (want a link? Or do you prefer doing some research? I've posted it enough times already anyway.)

The answers are simple: Tax, tarriff, put the incentive back in America's infrastructure rather than allowing the microcephalic apostates who can't see past their own fuckin' quarterly balance sheet yet desire more tax cuts and benefits that the American government has no qualms giving them...

In short: "Show us the money". See point #4 above.

Would YOU spend $20,000 on education whose chances of landing a job are minute at best? Of course you wouldn't! I sure as frig wouldn't.

Offshoring is bad because Americans cannot live on $4 a day (or whatever) like how the Indians can, and they make $2~3 per HOUR. (and no doubt there are execs who complain about having to shell out that much too...) America's highway and haphazardly designed zoning systems make this an impossibility.

It's about executive greed, first and foremost.

George W Bush can piss and moan all he wants about "Men and women who are allowed to control their own wealth will eventually insist on controlling their own lives and their own future...". but he seems to conveniently forget that a democracy is no democracy whatsoever when only those WITH money make any decisions. Because their monetary clout allows them to pass decisions that helps them take more money (and freedom) from those of us who do the actual work to make them even more wealthier. This is called a "plutocratic oligarchy" and that is exactly what the US of A is today. Period. We are no democracy. Particularly when there's nary an elected official who doesn't get bought out by the highest corporate bidder to pass laws in their favor.