Why would someone not outsource?

#76
#76
golfballs said:
Now that the "felony" accusation blew up in the Dems faces. Their argument now is that Romney outsourced jobs.

If you're going to demonize people who outsource jobs, what about consumers who buy outsourced goods? You can't find a person in America who hasn't purchased a good that hasn't been outsourced. But If people refuse to purchase outsourced goods you wouldn't see so many jobs that are outsourced.

Democrats are such tools, they clamor for higher minimum wages, and then they are outraged when jobs get shipped overseas?? They know this, but are just completely disingenuous with the American people.

One last note... are these menial manufacturing jobs really what Americans should strive for?
Click to expand...

I agree that we are all guilty in the outsourcing of jobs, although I don't know how viable the alternatives are for many of us outside of a return to agrarianism or communitarian self-sufficiency, or something like that.

I found your last statement interesting. I'm not quite sure what you're claiming there, but I'll just provide this tidbit. I posted on another thread that I found it intriguing that the loss of our manufacturing jobs over the last 20-30 years coincides temporally with the growing welfare/entitlement system we have. It used to be that a non-college graduate could get a manufacturing job and comfortably gain access to the middle class. We've lost many of these jobs as we've shifted towards a primarily service economy, and now the middle class is shrinking in this country. We might also wonder what the motivation to work is now, with govt. the way it is and with many jobs available to the uneducated being low-paying ones that would just keep them in the lower class.

I'm also not certain what you mean by "menial" manufacturing jobs. As I said above, these jobs allowed people access to the middle class at one time. They may seem menial now in other countries, but that's the reason why they were outsourced in the first place: so large corporations could pay lower wages to people who were willing to work for lower wages simply because those lower wages go further in parts of the world where people are accustomed to living off of a dollar or two a day, if not less. Now, we rely either upon the govt. or the service industry to provide us with much of our job growth. It's no wonder then that the middle class is shrinking when a good deal of new jobs are just crappy minimum wage jobs in the food industry or other service sectors.

I've also stated on this forum that such factors complicate the notion that we simply lower the corporate tax rate...and walla: jobs! It might be the case that that approach would work; however, the fact that we've moved to a service economy might also complicate this approach. Reagan's policies worked very well, but we were also still largely a manufacturing society at that time. Those policies might still work today, but it's not a given that they will.
 
#77
#77
?

The Dems don't care if it works to label him an outsourcer or anything like that. They just want to keep reminding people that he's worth at least $250 million and doesn't actually work.
 
#78
#78
volprof said:
I agree that we are all guilty in the outsourcing of jobs, although I don't know how viable the alternatives are for many of us outside of a return to agrarianism or communitarian self-sufficiency, or something like that.

I found your last statement interesting. I'm not quite sure what you're claiming there, but I'll just provide this tidbit. I posted on another thread that I found it intriguing that the loss of our manufacturing jobs over the last 20-30 years coincides temporally with the growing welfare/entitlement system we have. It used to be that a non-college graduate could get a manufacturing job and comfortably gain access to the middle class. We've lost many of these jobs as we've shifted towards a primarily service economy, and now the middle class is shrinking in this country. We might also wonder what the motivation to work is now, with govt. the way it is and with many jobs available to the uneducated being low-paying ones that would just keep them in the lower class.

I'm also not certain what you mean by "menial" manufacturing jobs. As I said above, these jobs allowed people access to the middle class at one time. They may seem menial now in other countries, but that's the reason why they were outsourced in the first place: so large corporations could pay lower wages to people who were willing to work for lower wages simply because those lower wages go further in parts of the world where people are accustomed to living off of a dollar or two a day, if not less. Now, we rely either upon the govt. or the service industry to provide us with much of our job growth. It's no wonder then that the middle class is shrinking when a good deal of new jobs are just crappy minimum wage jobs in the food industry or other service sectors.

I've also stated on this forum that such factors complicate the notion that we simply lower the corporate tax rate...and walla: jobs! It might be the case that that approach would work; however, the fact that we've moved to a service economy might also complicate this approach. Reagan's policies worked very well, but we were also still largely a manufacturing society at that time. Those policies might still work today, but it's not a given that they will.
Click to expand...

See the rust belt. People there just sit and wait for their manufacturing jobs to come back. In the meantime, many of them recieve government benefits, and Dems pander to them by claiming to fight for their jobs back.

The truth is, those jobs aren't coming back. People need to adapt and change in this global economy or else get left behind.
 
#79
#79
golfballs said:
See the rust belt. People there just sit and wait for their manufacturing jobs to come back. In the meantime, many of them recieve government benefits, and Dems pander to them by claiming to fight for their jobs back.

The truth is, those jobs aren't coming back. People need to adapt and change in this global economy or else get left behind.
Click to expand...

The GOP pander to them, too, trying to get them to blame the Chinese and illegal immigrants for their plight.
 
#80
#80
The manufacturing jobs america should strive for are high-tech ones. Most of the rest are very menial.
 
#84
#84
volprof said:
I posted on another thread that I found it intriguing that the loss of our manufacturing jobs over the last 20-30 years coincides temporally with the growing welfare/entitlement system we have. It used to be that a non-college graduate could get a manufacturing job and comfortably gain access to the middle class. We've lost many of these jobs as we've shifted towards a primarily service economy, and now the middle class is shrinking in this country. We might also wonder what the motivation to work is now, with govt. the way it is and with many jobs available to the uneducated being low-paying ones that would just keep them in the lower class.

I'm also not certain what you mean by "menial" manufacturing jobs. As I said above, these jobs allowed people access to the middle class at one time. They may seem menial now in other countries, but that's the reason why they were outsourced in the first place: so large corporations could pay lower wages to people who were willing to work for lower wages simply because those lower wages go further in parts of the world where people are accustomed to living off of a dollar or two a day, if not less. Now, we rely either upon the govt. or the service industry to provide us with much of our job growth. It's no wonder then that the middle class is shrinking when a good deal of new jobs are just crappy minimum wage jobs in the food industry or other service sectors.

I've also stated on this forum that such factors complicate the notion that we simply lower the corporate tax rate...and walla: jobs! It might be the case that that approach would work; however, the fact that we've moved to a service economy might also complicate this approach. Reagan's policies worked very well, but we were also still largely a manufacturing society at that time. Those policies might still work today, but it's not a given that they will.
Click to expand...

golfballs said:
See the rust belt. People there just sit and wait for their manufacturing jobs to come back. In the meantime, many of them recieve government benefits, and Dems pander to them by claiming to fight for their jobs back.

The truth is, those jobs aren't coming back. People need to adapt and change in this global economy or else get left behind.
Click to expand...

The relationship between government benefits and loss of manufacturing jobs is not clear. For example, prior to Johnson's Great Society, the available social programs were virtually nil compared to what we have. Poverty rates were near 20% in the 50s even though we were dominated by manufacturing jobs.

So we have bit of chicken and egg. Economies invariably evolve. When were highly manufacturing dominated the poverty class was considerably larger than it is now. Likewise, it is arguable that government programs tend to keep people in poverty rather than lift them out. Coupled together it could be argued that the welfare state works against a transitioning workforce or at best has a neutral effect.

Ironically, we may see a bit of a manufacturing revival as the world economy moves more towards parity - we've already seen upward wage growth in both China and India that is making onshoring look more economically viable - particularly in lower cost areas such as the southeast.
 
#85
#85
volinbham said:
The relationship between government benefits and loss of manufacturing jobs is not clear. For example, prior to Johnson's Great Society, the available social programs were virtually nil compared to what we have. Poverty rates were near 20% in the 50s even though we were dominated by manufacturing jobs.

So we have bit of chicken and egg. Economies invariably evolve. When were highly manufacturing dominated the poverty class was considerably larger than it is now. Likewise, it is arguable that government programs tend to keep people in poverty rather than lift them out. Coupled together it could be argued that the welfare state works against a transitioning workforce or at best has a neutral effect.

Ironically, we may see a bit of a manufacturing revival as the world economy moves more towards parity - we've already seen upward wage growth in both China and India that is making onshoring look more economically viable - particularly in lower cost areas such as the southeast.
Click to expand...


Excellent post.

We are going.through a big change now. and sadly some will be left behind.

Someone that is in their 50's that has worked at the same mfg plant for 20 years is going to have a very difficult time adapting to another career. The younger person not so much.
 
#86
#86
Gramps said:
Excellent post.

We are going.through a big change now. and sadly some will be left behind.

Someone that is in their 50's that has worked at the same mfg plant for 20 years is going to have a very difficult time adapting to another career. The younger person not so much.
Click to expand...


Yep and it is sad and painful on an individual level - and unfortunately that sells politically so if we don't "help" this individual we are cold, unfeeling, etc. It's a terrible way to set national policy but it is human nature.
 
#87
#87
volinbham said:
The relationship between government benefits and loss of manufacturing jobs is not clear. For example, prior to Johnson's Great Society, the available social programs were virtually nil compared to what we have. Poverty rates were near 20% in the 50s even though we were dominated by manufacturing jobs.

So we have bit of chicken and egg. Economies invariably evolve. When were highly manufacturing dominated the poverty class was considerably larger than it is now. Likewise, it is arguable that government programs tend to keep people in poverty rather than lift them out. Coupled together it could be argued that the welfare state works against a transitioning workforce or at best has a neutral effect.

Ironically, we may see a bit of a manufacturing revival as the world economy moves more towards parity - we've already seen upward wage growth in both China and India that is making onshoring look more economically viable - particularly in lower cost areas such as the southeast.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that was a good post. I agree with everything you say. I would offer, though, that maybe the poverty rates were higher then because much of the US, especially the South, was more agrarian than it is now. Although the US as a whole has not really been "agrarian" since the 1800s. Perhaps we also need to factor in things like women not really being a part of the workforce like they are now as well as minorities serving limited roles in higher-paying jobs. I don't claim to know; just offering possible explanations.

And you're right on your last point, onshoring is indeed becoming more viable. That seems to be a good development right now. We'll see what the repercussions are though. This all just goes to what I was saying in my previous post about it being difficult to assess if certain economic recovery paradigms work in every instance due to the fact that the economy and historical conditions related to the economy change over time.
 
#88
#88
volprof said:
This all just goes to what I was saying in my previous post about it being difficult to assess if certain economic recovery paradigms work in every instance due to the fact that the economy and historical conditions related to the economy change over time.
Click to expand...

There is definitely no one size fits all approach however I do believe that the market will do a better and more democratic job of picking appropriate winners and losers (industry-wise) than will elected and appointed bureaucrats. I believe that is a fundamentally different choice facing us currently (at least according to what the candidates claim to believe).
 
#89
#89
volinbham said:
There is definitely no one size fits all approach however I do believe that the market will do a better and more democratic job of picking appropriate winners and losers (industry-wise) than will elected and appointed bureaucrats. I believe that is a fundamentally different choice facing us currently (at least according to what the candidates claim to believe).
Click to expand...

+1
 
#90
#90
Outsourcing takes away American jobs just to save a few bucks in cheap labor so the fat cats can have extra money in their pocket so they can take vacations to Fiji. JMO JMO JMO. I may be wrong but JMO
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#91
#91
volprof said:
I agree that we are all guilty in the outsourcing of jobs, although I don't know how viable the alternatives are for many of us outside of a return to agrarianism or communitarian self-sufficiency, or something like that.

I found your last statement interesting. I'm not quite sure what you're claiming there, but I'll just provide this tidbit. I posted on another thread that I found it intriguing that the loss of our manufacturing jobs over the last 20-30 years coincides temporally with the growing welfare/entitlement system we have. It used to be that a non-college graduate could get a manufacturing job and comfortably gain access to the middle class. We've lost many of these jobs as we've shifted towards a primarily service economy, and now the middle class is shrinking in this country. We might also wonder what the motivation to work is now, with govt. the way it is and with many jobs available to the uneducated being low-paying ones that would just keep them in the lower class.

I'm also not certain what you mean by "menial" manufacturing jobs. As I said above, these jobs allowed people access to the middle class at one time. They may seem menial now in other countries, but that's the reason why they were outsourced in the first place: so large corporations could pay lower wages to people who were willing to work for lower wages simply because those lower wages go further in parts of the world where people are accustomed to living off of a dollar or two a day, if not less. Now, we rely either upon the govt. or the service industry to provide us with much of our job growth. It's no wonder then that the middle class is shrinking when a good deal of new jobs are just crappy minimum wage jobs in the food industry or other service sectors.

I've also stated on this forum that such factors complicate the notion that we simply lower the corporate tax rate...and walla: jobs! It might be the case that that approach would work; however, the fact that we've moved to a service economy might also complicate this approach. Reagan's policies worked very well, but we were also still largely a manufacturing society at that time. Those policies might still work today, but it's not a given that they will.
Click to expand...

Your posts are all fairly lengthy. Keep it simple. KISS.

You could have said that our economic woes have a lot to with our country (and frankly, the world) experiencing an economic paradigm shift.
 
#92
#92
Coach Grizz said:
Outsourcing takes away American jobs just to save a few bucks in cheap labor so the fat cats can have extra money in their pocket so they can take vacations to Fiji. JMO JMO JMO. I may be wrong but JMO
Click to expand...

It wouldn't matter if American consumers were willing to pay higher prices for American made products to help their neighbors. They won't. If you want to place blame, lay it where it belongs, the American consumer.
 
#93
#93
PKT_VOL said:
It wouldn't matter if American consumers were willing to pay higher prices for American made products to help their neighbors. They won't. If you want to place blame, lay it where it belongs, the American consumer.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, back at the Bat Cave, corporate execs salaries increase exponentially over those of their lower and middle-class counterparts during the same period of time.

On a side note, I now think Batman is the solution to our economic problems.
 
#94
#94
volprof said:
Meanwhile, back at the Bat Cave, corporate execs salaries increase exponentially over those of their lower and middle-class counterparts during the same period of time.

On a side note, I now think Batman is the solution to our economic problems.
Click to expand...

I dunno what that has to do with anything. They are paid market price.
 
#95
#95
PKT_VOL said:
I dunno what that has to do with anything. They are paid market price.
Click to expand...

My point was this: I agree with you that it's not completely fair to blame all of our ails on the corporation, outsourcing, what-have-you. Certainly the consumer has a role in this as well. However, it's unfair, in my opinion, to claim that the responsibility lays solely with the consumer (or at least that's what it sounds like you said). The salaries of corporate execs have been increasing exponentially, even during the recession. Regular working folks...not so much. I think it's unfair to say that they should just spend more and be willing to pay more for their goods. Sure, that would work, on paper, but it's still unfair. People have families and other interests they need to look after; it's only natural that they want what's cheapest. We shouldn't hold that against them. Perhaps the execs should take some pay cuts first, before the rest of us should pay higher prices for our goods.
 
#96
#96
volprof said:
My point was this: I agree with you that it's not completely fair to blame all of our ails on the corporation, outsourcing, what-have-you. Certainly the consumer has a role in this as well. However, it's unfair, in my opinion, to claim that the responsibility lays solely with the consumer (or at least that's what it sounds like you said). The salaries of corporate execs have been increasing exponentially, even during the recession. Regular working folks...not so much. I think it's unfair to say that they should just spend more and be willing to pay more for their goods. Sure, that would work, on paper, but it's still unfair. People have families and other interests they need to look after; it's only natural that they want what's cheapest. We shouldn't hold that against them. Perhaps the execs should take some pay cuts first, before the rest of us should pay higher prices for our goods.
Click to expand...

1) With respect to executives, they are paid market price by investors. If you think it's unfair, talk to investors.

2) You can't have your cake and eat it too. People are either willing to pay higher prices on goods to support their neighbors' above market-price union wages or they will act in their own best interest. The English enlightenment philosophers told us that it will always be the latter. What I find ironic, is that union workers of one company or sect tend to not practice voting with their purchases (buy other USA products). Everyone acts in their own self-interests then b*tch when the hammer comes back around on them.
 
#97
#97
PKT_VOL said:
1) With respect to executives, they are paid market price by investors. If you think it's unfair, talk to investors.

2) You can't have your cake and eat it too. People are either willing to pay higher prices on goods to support their neighbors' above market-price union wages or they will act in their own best interest. The English enlightenment philosophers told us that it will always be the latter. What I find ironic, is that union workers of one company or sect tend to not practice voting with their purchases (buy other USA products). Everyone acts in their own self-interests then b*tch when the hammer comes back around on them.
Click to expand...

Adam Smith also thought that the free market could be a moral market. We see where that got us. Anyhow, you have your view, and that's fine with me. I have a different view. You may very well be right though.
 
#98
#98
Say PKT VOL, why are you over in Seoul? Are you in the military, Korean, or doing something else? I'm not trying to set you up for an attack; I'm just curious. Thanks!
 
#99
#99
Coach Grizz said:
Outsourcing takes away American jobs just to save a few bucks in cheap labor so the fat cats can have extra money in their pocket so they can take vacations to Fiji. JMO JMO JMO. I may be wrong but JMO
Click to expand...

It saves a few bucks so that products are cheaper for the consumer
 
#100
#100
volprof said:
Adam Smith also thought that the free market could be a moral market. We see where that got us. Anyhow, you have your view, and that's fine with me. I have a different view. You may very well be right though.
Click to expand...

the problem is that there has never been a truly free market
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top