Why would someone not outsource?

[PKT_VOL]

I hope you enjoyed things while you were traveling. Glad you made it back safe and sound. I know we disagree on this matter (although I share some of your opinions), but we're both humans and fellow Vol fans at the end of the day. I appreciate your insights.

Thank you. I share in your sentiments :hi:

 

[volinbham]

Yeah, I suppose the notion of a "free market" can sometimes be complicated and subjective in some cases. And I will admit that I neglected to say in my previous post that sometimes the market itself becomes immoral and not necessarily any one employer, employee, or consumer.

Markets are neither moral nor immoral. Markets are a system of exchange - they have no agenda, no intent.



If that example doesn't work, there's also something like the 2007-2008 subprime mortgage crisis, which was spurred by an increasingly deregulated market. Some of these lenders were giving loans even though they knew better in some cases. It's difficult for me to see moral behavior in such actions, although, like I said before, maybe it's a matter of the market becoming immoral.

More deregulated? Yes and no. Regulations definitely have a role to play particularly in financial markets and I know of no one personally and few in published advocacy that call for complete deregulation.

So what is the role of regulation? Risk transparency, fraud prevention, etc. Did we have that in the financial crisis? Yes and no. Some actions certainly obscured risk. However, concurrently we had regulation that asked the financial market to IGNORE risk in favor of chosen constituencies. These regulations distorted the market mechanism because elected officials and bureaucrats decided (or were "persuaded") that certain groups should have different rules. So we weren't less regulated - we were differently regulated.

A major problem with Dodd-Frank and other financial regs making the rounds is that they seek to REMOVE risk from the market (which cannot occur) rather than make risk VISIBLE.

Anyhow, I'll just reiterate that there are pros and cons to a free market, just like anything else. Maybe more pros, maybe less. I don't claim that a free market is a completely bad thing by any means. It certainly has some benefits.

The last paragraph sounds like you are primarily against free markets but recognize they can do some good at times. Not sure if that was your intent or not.

Finally, I think the "free marketers" out there are simply asking for a more free market not complete laissez faire. I hear from the left that cons want no regulations which is of course a complete strawman argument.

It is inescapable that the market has become increasingly regulated by the vast expansion of agencies and bureaucracies at the federal and state level. The call to deregulate is really a call to move the pendulum back a bit rather than to completely remove all regs.

 

[volprof]

The last paragraph sounds like you are primarily against free markets but recognize they can do some good at times. Not sure if that was your intent or not.

Finally, I think the "free marketers" out there are simply asking for a more free market not complete laissez faire. I hear from the left that cons want no regulations which is of course a complete strawman argument.

It is inescapable that the market has become increasingly regulated by the vast expansion of agencies and bureaucracies at the federal and state level. The call to deregulate is really a call to move the pendulum back a bit rather than to completely remove all regs.

Yeah, I agree with you that the market is a cipher when it comes time to morality: it does what it does, but that does not necessarily defer responsibility of individual agents in all cases. I didn't necessarily mean to imply that the market was cognizant to this whole question of morality. I guess "amoral" would have been a better term.

In any case, I think your post is pretty fair. I still don't know that it settles the dilemma of the American middle-class (due to the history of deregulation), but perhaps it's one of those hair of the dog things. Could be what got us into the hole could also get us out (and yes, there were other factors as well). And I mean that in all honesty. I don't necessarily claim to have answers, as I've said before.

 

[Weezer]

The question is whether it is immoral.



Having lived in a third-world country, the poor in this country are not "barely scraping by". They might be struggling compared to what they are accustom to living, but they far from my definition of "barely scraping by".

Secondly, we are talking about present day. The outsourcing business has be taking place for decades. The American consumer has been greedy, buying the cheaper products made with cheap labor for decades; even when times were good. Consumers drive the market. Companies merely respond to the market demands.

Morality is subjective to the believer.

My definition of barely scraping by, is making just enough to pay for housing, food, and basic necessities. What you speak of is abject poverty. Are you suggesting citizens should live in such conditions to protest?

You can't change the past, you have to deal with the present. The present is that corporations are devastating the American workforce by sending jobs overseas. If that is acceptable, then the formation of a welfare class is inevitable. Ultimately, you can pay people to work or pay people to sit on their butts. Personally, I would rather see them earn their pay.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Morality is subjective to the believer.

I am well aware. What I am perplexed about is how you are tying morality into economic decisions. You have failed to elaborate upon my question to your conjecture.

My definition of barely scraping by, is making just enough to pay for housing, food, and basic necessities. What you speak of is abject poverty. Are you suggesting citizens should live in such conditions to protest?

You call it abject poverty (true to a cetain extent); I call it true poverty. American poverty is just not being rich by American standards. Big difference.

Yes, citizens should protest their feelings. Protesting almost always requires self-sacrificing of some kind whether it be energy, time, money, etc.

You can't change the past, you have to deal with the present. The present is that corporations are devastating the American workforce by sending jobs overseas. If that is acceptable, then the formation of a welfare class is inevitable. Ultimately, you can pay people to work or pay people to sit on their butts. Personally, I would rather see them earn their pay.

I dunno where you have developed your great disdain for big corporations (btw, small businesses also outsource) but it has warped your view of economics (btw, I'm interested in you sharing your personal experience for which your disdain is fueled).

You seem to have a top-down approach to this particular problem of economics; meaning that corporate executives drive this out of their sheer greed to make a buck at the expense of common man. In actuality, it is a bottom-up effect. The common people were (past decades) / are (now) greedy. They want common everyday products for real cheap to maximize their discretionary spending. Don't get me wrong, I find nothing wrong with this. In fact, I believe self-interest is only natural. However, the common man's desire to purchase the cheapest products possible drives the market. Hence, the bottom-up effect. If the common man truly gave a damn about his/her neighbor, cared about keeping jobs in the US, they would have forgone the cheaper products made overseas in lieu of more expensive American made products. They didn't. Those evil corporate executives knew this about Americans and moved to satisfy the market; thus making their own companies competitive within the market. The common American consumer who is now struggling has nobody to blame but their own greed and ignorance about economics and globalization.

 

[UTRavens]

I am well aware. What I am perplexed about is how you are tying morality into economic decisions. You have failed to elaborate upon my question to your conjecture.

I feel like morality ties into everything. Every decision affects certain people some way and other people in other ways. As long as a decision makes a difference to society, there's a moral aspect to it. That doesn't mean it's clear - everyone has different views about morality, myself included. But it's always a part of the story, even if it's not what people focus on.

You call it abject poverty (true to a cetain extent); I call it true poverty. American poverty is just not being rich by American standards. Big difference.

This I agree with completely. I'm of the view that things are just about always much better off than we make them out to be when living in the moment. American poverty is a different thing altogether, though it's obviously still a major issue. The two types need to be approached differently.

 

[Weezer]

I am well aware. What I am perplexed about is how you are tying morality into economic decisions. You have failed to elaborate upon my question to your conjecture.

I guess you're perplexed because I didn't tie economic decisions into morality. You suggested that I did in a response, but perhaps that was aimed at another poster you also had quoted. I addressed the issue as if a response to my post.

You call it abject poverty (true to a cetain extent); I call it true poverty. American poverty is just not being rich by American standards. Big difference.

Abject poverty is having nothing. I feel that accurately describes many in third world countries. But as with most things, there are other levels of poverty. If you believe American poverty is just not being rich by American standards, then you haven't taken a look around the country. I'm sorry, but that's just a foolish statement. Have you ever met people who live on the streets? Have you talked to people who hope to get to a shelter before it fills up so they don't have to sleep outside? I have, and what they are going through is far more than "not being rich by American standards.

Yes, citizens should protest their feelings. Protesting almost always requires self-sacrificing of some kind whether it be energy, time, money, etc.

This in response to my question if Americans should subject themselves to abject poverty as protest? That would be taking it extremely far. As to protesting in general, I'm all for it if you can do so without causing great harm to yourself or your family. If protesting means not putting food on the table or subjecting your family to homelessness, then I'm not for it. Consumers could sacrifice time and write letters, but let's not fool ourselves, that wouldn't bring about change.



I dunno where you have developed your great disdain for big corporations (btw, small businesses also outsource) but it has warped your view of economics (btw, I'm interested in you sharing your personal experience for which your disdain is fueled).

I pay attention. I watch as jobs are sent out of country and factories full of employees are left jobless. I listen to them wonder how they're going to survive when everything they knew has been taken away. I was taught hard work would get you far, but when jobs leave the country, where does it get you? Not everyone is cutout for college so they can't become doctors or lawyers or professionals in that sense. Not everyone can successfully run a business. Some people are just blue-collar people. There's nothing wrong with that. This country was built on the backs of the blue-collar workers and now we toss them aside to improve profit margin.

You seem to have a top-down approach to this particular problem of economics; meaning that corporate executives drive this out of their sheer greed to make a buck at the expense of common man. In actuality, it is a bottom-up effect. The common people were (past decades) / are (now) greedy. They want common everyday products for real cheap to maximize their discretionary spending. Don't get me wrong, I find nothing wrong with this. In fact, I believe self-interest is only natural. However, the common man's desire to purchase the cheapest products possible drives the market. Hence, the bottom-up effect. If the common man truly gave a damn about his/her neighbor, cared about keeping jobs in the US, they would have forgone the cheaper products made overseas in lieu of more expensive American made products. They didn't. Those evil corporate executives knew this about Americans and moved to satisfy the market; thus making their own companies competitive within the market. The common American consumer who is now struggling has nobody to blame but their own greed and ignorance about economics and globalization.

Reality is all a matter of perspective. You speak in absolutes but I disagree with your "facts". Most American consumers have always been frugal. There is a difference between being frugal and being greedy. When you have a limited budget, you spend thriftly to allow for little luxuries. But for more and more people, it isn't about saving for little luxuries, it's become saving out of necessity. It's about saving to scrimp by and keep the bills paid.

I'm curious, are you okay with a welfare class? Do you feel that is acceptable? If businnesses keep taking jobs out of this country, that is absolutely where we are headed. IMO, better for big business to sacrifice a little profit and keep Americans employed rather than them pay for a welfare class through taxes.

 

[NEO]

Weezer let's play a game...

You are a business owner.

You can hire some here at 12.00 which ends up being 16.00 factoring in unemployement workers comp before we even get to what benefits cost.


Or you can hire someone offshore to do the same job, if not better, and have no fear of strike or inhouse revolt for 2.50 per hour.


Which do you choose?

 

[trevols81]

Is greed immoral?

Yes. It absolutely is.

greed : a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed

 

[PKT_VOL]

I guess you're perplexed because I didn't tie economic decisions into morality. You suggested that I did in a response, but perhaps that was aimed at another poster you also had quoted. I addressed the issue as if a response to my post.

That may be true. He was tying the two together and you talked about greed. I guess I figured you were trying to do the same but being more specific. My apologies if I was incorrect in my assumption.

Abject poverty is having nothing. I feel that accurately describes many in third world countries. But as with most things, there are other levels of poverty. If you believe American poverty is just not being rich by American standards, then you haven't taken a look around the country. I'm sorry, but that's just a foolish statement. Have you ever met people who live on the streets? Have you talked to people who hope to get to a shelter before it fills up so they don't have to sleep outside? I have, and what they are going through is far more than "not being rich by American standards.

1) I know many people overseas whose poverty and life story don't even begin to touch those in "poverty" in America.

2) Yes, I do know people (friends) that live in poverty. I have volunteered at homeless shelters and food banks. Not to mention my family (not my life though) who grew up incredibly poor compared to how the poor live now. None of them have/had it as bad as those overseas.

This in response to my question if Americans should subject themselves to abject poverty as protest? That would be taking it extremely far. As to protesting in general, I'm all for it if you can do so without causing great harm to yourself or your family. If protesting means not putting food on the table or subjecting your family to homelessness, then I'm not for it. Consumers could sacrifice time and write letters, but let's not fool ourselves, that wouldn't bring about change.

1) People can protest many different ways.

2) You are only protecting those who are mightily struggling at the present time and can't protest economically. Everybody has the ability to protest. This is not a sudden phenomenon. This has been in the works for quite a few years now. Those who are struggling now most likely weren't a few years ago. They did not care about globalization then. They were greedy and ignorant. Actions have consequences, they are now reaping the consequence of their actions.

I pay attention. I watch as jobs are sent out of country and factories full of employees are left jobless. I listen to them wonder how they're going to survive when everything they knew has been taken away. I was taught hard work would get you far, but when jobs leave the country, where does it get you? Not everyone is cutout for college so they can't become doctors or lawyers or professionals in that sense. Not everyone can successfully run a business. Some people are just blue-collar people. There's nothing wrong with that. This country was built on the backs of the blue-collar workers and now we toss them aside to improve profit margin.

1) I read not too long ago where there is going to be a major shortage of blue-collar jobs in the coming years because so many kids are trying and failing at the college model. There will be a desperate need for plumbers, repairmen, etc. This is an educational problem.

2) Most of those blue-collar people were part of unions. They believed in the purpose of the union. Unions were fine when they were the only game in town. Once the world started to catch up, those blue-collar people were not wise enough to realize that union was driving them out of business. They had artificially inflated the price of manual labor. That in conjunction with consumers' ignorance and self-preservation (without thinking about the consequences) led to a market which drove those manufacturing jobs overseas.

Reality is all a matter of perspective.

I couldn't agree more.

You speak in absolutes but I disagree with your "facts".

I hate absolutes.

Most American consumers have always been frugal. There is a difference between being frugal and being greedy. When you have a limited budget, you spend thriftly to allow for little luxuries. But for more and more people, it isn't about saving for little luxuries, it's become saving out of necessity. It's about saving to scrimp by and keep the bills paid.

You can call it what you want. Being "frugal" or "greedy" are both self-interest traits. People acted in their own self-interest which collectively screwed the whole. Its that simple. You can try to spin it whichever way you like but it is what it is.

If you want an analogy, you look no further than nature. There are many species which act as a pack or community. They will have a lookout at all times to protect the rest. Normally this lookout is in harm's way. Their chance of being picked off by a predator drastically increases during their shift. However, because of their actions, the overall survival of the group is increased. They trade short-term self-interest for collective long-term benefit.

Blue-collar workers are no different.

I'm curious, are you okay with a welfare class? Do you feel that is acceptable? If businnesses keep taking jobs out of this country, that is absolutely where we are headed. IMO, better for big business to sacrifice a little profit and keep Americans employed rather than them pay for a welfare class through taxes.

I have no problem with a safety net. However, I believe if one ought to work for their benefits. Ideally, we would have a system similar to Singapore.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I feel like morality ties into everything. Every decision affects certain people some way and other people in other ways. As long as a decision makes a difference to society, there's a moral aspect to it. That doesn't mean it's clear - everyone has different views about morality, myself included. But it's always a part of the story, even if it's not what people focus on.

I agree that everyone has a different moral code; morality is relative.

Your response is very general. It doesn't explain, at all, what moral decisions are made during the exchange of goods from one person to the next. Aside from a person deliberately harming another in the market place, stealing or fraud for example, I don't see how buying product X over product Y plays into morality. I certainly don't find acting in self-interest which does not deliberately harm another person as immoral.

This I agree with completely. I'm of the view that things are just about always much better off than we make them out to be when living in the moment. American poverty is a different thing altogether, though it's obviously still a major issue. The two types need to be approached differently.

:hi:

 

[PKT_VOL]

Yes. It absolutely is.

greed : a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed

Explain.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Yes. It absolutely is.

greed : a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed

Absurd

 

[Gramps]

Yes. It absolutely is.

greed : a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed

The world's major faiths have no such illusions about greed. Greed, say many of them, is not only unambiguous, it is the Mother of All Sins.

To those who think greed is not immoral,
take a look at Ken Lay and Enron or
Bernard Madoff.

 

[volved]

The world's major faiths have no such illusions about greed. Greed, say many of them, is not only unambiguous, it is the Mother of All Sins.

To those who think greed is not immoral,
take a look at Ken Lay and Enron or
Bernard Madoff.

Lay and Madoff were thieves.

How about Bill Gates and Warren Buffett? Are they immoral?

They definitely have more than they need.

 

[hog88]

The world's major faiths have no such illusions about greed. Greed, say many of them, is not only unambiguous, it is the Mother of All Sins.

To those who think greed is not immoral,
take a look at Ken Lay and Enron or
Bernard Madoff.

Without greed we would still be living in the stone age! What makes people invent, start new buisneses, ext. GREED! We want more.

If in the basic human makeup the desire for more wasn't there we would still be living in caves!

 

[utvolpj]

Without greed we would still be living in the stone age! What makes people invent, start new buisneses, ext. GREED! We want more.

If in the basic human makeup the desire for more wasn't there we would still be living in caves!

disagree. The desire to make more money doesn't not always come from greed. Really a bad practice to label anyone who wants to be successful as greedy

 

[hog88]

disagree. The desire to make more money doesn't not always come from greed. Really a bad practice to label anyone who wants to be successful as greedy

Just taking it straight from the definition "wanting more than you need". So just about everyone is greedy since all you truly need is food, clothing and shelter to live.

 

[Gramps]

Lay and Madoff were thieves.

How about Bill Gates and Warren Buffett? Are they immoral?

They definitely have more than they need.

Lay and Madoff let greed turn them into thiefs as many other have.
Do you consider their actions moral?

There are many people with lots of money that are good moral people that are not greedy. Bill Gates is a good example, imo.

My point is greed is bad, it does drive people do immoral things.

 

[Volst53]

How much money must one have till they're immoral?

 

[utvolpj]

How much money must one have till they're immoral?

why would you use money to define someone's morality?

 

[hog88]

Lay and Madoff let greed turn them into thiefs as many other have.
Do you consider their actions moral?

There are many people with lots of money that are good moral people that are not greedy. Bill Gates is a good example, imo.

My point is greed is bad, it does drive people do immoral things.

IMO greed is not a bad thing in itself. As you have said there are many wealthy good people, it's the desire for wealth without the willingness to for it sacrifice that is bad.

 

[Gramps]

How much money must one have till they're immoral?

The amount of money one has does not make them immoral.

It is the things that people do to achieve money that makes them immoral.

Bill Gates brought us a computer operating system that changed the world. He became very rich and made others rich. He is not greedy.

Madoff and Lay let greed drive them to do terrible things to people to achieve their riches, that is greed.

 

[utvolpj]

IMO greed is not a bad thing in itself. As you have said there are many wealthy good people, it's the desire for wealth without the willingness to for it sacrifice that is bad.

sacrifice what?

The amount of money one has does not make them immoral.

It is the things that people do to achieve money that makes them immoral.

Bill Gates brought us a computer operating system that changed the world. He became very rich and made others rich. He is not greedy.

Madoff and Lay let greed drive them to do terrible things to people to achieve their riches, that is greed.

Madoff and Lay were thieves and liars. The money was simply their item of choice

 

[Volst53]

why would you use money to define someone's morality?

Envy over another person's wealth, so they had to be evil to acquire it over them.