Why would someone not outsource?

[Gramps]

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

What caused them to be thiefs and liars?

IMO, the greed for money and power. They were immoral people to begin with, they let their greed control them.

There are immoral people that don't have a thousand dollars. Greed is just one form of being immoral.

 

[utvolpj]

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

so envy is the sin, not greed. The act of acquiring something does not seem to me to be particularly immoral. The methods might be

 

[volved]

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.

Lay and Madoff are thieves. I believe thievery is immoral.

I see Gates, Buffet, Lay, and Madoff as all having the same drive for success. I don't consider that drive to be immoral.
According to the above definition that drive to have more than you need is labelled greed.

Does your definition of greed involve the willingness to steal?

I cannot come up with a definition of greed that would exclude Bill Gates.

 

[BigPapaVol]

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.

no. you said greed is immoral, which is light years from bad.

 

[Volst53]

so envy is the sin, not greed. The act of acquiring something does not seem to me to be particularly immoral. The methods might be

I don't think either is really a sin, but I also try not to get involved in others life.

 

[Gramps]

no. you said greed is immoral, which is light years from bad.

Being immoral is not bad?

 

[BigPapaVol]

Being immoral is not bad?

clearly calling something bad is as broad as you can make it. Calling something immoral is an entirely different standard.

This thread is idiotically trying to vilify the profit motive, which is fine. Calling it immoral is retarded.

 

[Gramps]

clearly calling something bad is as broad as you can make it. Calling something immoral is an entirely different standard.

This thread is idiotically trying to vilify the profit motive, which is fine. Calling it immoral is retarded.

It depends on what the profit motive is. I love profit.
Profit can be obtained morally or immorally.

I ask again is being immoral bad ?

Being wealthy is not being immoral.
There are many good moral people that are/were very wealthy, example Bill Gates and Steve Jobs.

Unfortunately, some people let their greed drive them to do immoral things to become wealthy, example Bernard Madoff and Ken Lay.

Anyone not being able to see the difference is beyond retarded, since you choose to use name calling as part of your argument.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Anyone not being able to see the difference is beyond retarded, since you choose to use name calling as part of your argument.

I presume you're calling yourself beyond retarded since you're the one who can't seem to separate bad and immoral? If you are, you'll find little argument.

 

[MG1968]

The Atheist Conservative: » Greed is a virtue, envy is a vice

What human motivation gets the most wonderful things done? It’s really a silly question, because the answer is so simple. It turns out that it’s human greed that gets the most wonderful things done. When I say greed, I am not talking about fraud, theft, dishonesty, lobbying for special privileges from government or other forms of despicable behavior. I’m talking about people trying to get as much as they can for themselves.

Thank you, Walter Williams

 

[volprof]

It depends on what the profit motive is. I love profit.
Profit can be obtained morally or immorally.

I ask again is being immoral bad ?

Being wealthy is not being immoral.
There are many good moral people that are/were very wealthy, example Bill Gates and Steve Jobs.

Unfortunately, some people let their greed drive them to do immoral things to become wealthy, example Bernard Madoff and Ken Lay.

Anyone not being able to see the difference is beyond retarded, since you choose to use name calling as part of your argument.

Gramps, I am with you on this one. You make a convincing case, all the while not having to resort to name-calling and amateurish debate tactics that only serve to turn people away instead of compelling them with your message.

 

[Gramps]

I presume you're calling yourself beyond retarded since you're the one who can't seem to separate bad and immoral? If you are, you'll find little argument.

You can't answer the question
for the third time,

Is immoral bad?

I have noticed in several of your responses today in various threads you have reverted to calling people names.
That shows your lack of intelligence when you can not back up your garbage, you like to TRY to talk down to people and call them names.

I have never in my life liked condescending people that act like they know everything about everything and use their stupidity to try to belittle others. It has been my experience that people like that in fact don't know squat.

 

[volved]

Gramps, I am with you on this one. You make a convincing case, all the while not having to resort to name-calling and amateurish debate tactics that only serve to turn people away instead of compelling them with your message.

I never did get a definition of greed that would exclude, say, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, but would include others who have not broken any laws.
Care to take a stab at it?

 

[volprof]

I never did get a definition of greed that would exclude, say, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, but would include others who have not broken any laws.
Care to take a stab at it?

As for Bill and Warren, I really don't know. I can't speak for them personally, so I don't know what motivates them. I do, however, agree with Gramps that there is a big difference between having money and being greedy. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having money and making as much of it as you possibly can within certain legal/moral limits. Once you start costing people their jobs, etc. (and not just at the expense of your business surviving, which is a completely different story, but at the expense of an extra reward or two for yourself), you have crossed a line. I call this greedy. Others might call it otherwise, and that is fine. We don't all have to agree on the matter. It's obvious to me from the short time that I've been on this politics forum that we all don't share similar moral agendas/beliefs.

 

[volved]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having money and making as much of it as you possibly can within certain legal/moral limits. Once you start costing people their jobs, etc. (and not just at the expense of your business surviving, which is a completely different story, but at the expense of an extra reward or two for yourself), you have crossed a line. I call this greedy.

I am having trouble figuring out where the line is that one crosses and becomes greedy.

Microsoft was sitting on billions of dollars of cash last time I checked. They just had their second layoff of the year.

MICROSOFT ADVERTISING LAYOFFS: A Look At The Damage

This layoff is not to save the company. They are ridding themselves of an under performing section of the company along with the employees who worked in that section. This is done to improve profit margins. Is this greedy and immoral? Bill Gates is greedy and immoral?

 

[volprof]

I am having trouble figuring out where the line is that one crosses and becomes greedy.

Microsoft was sitting on billions of dollars of cash last time I checked. They just had their second layoff of the year.

MICROSOFT ADVERTISING LAYOFFS: A Look At The Damage

This layoff is not to save the company. They are ridding themselves of an under performing section of the company along with the employees who worked in that section. This is done to improve profit margins. Is this greedy and immoral? Bill Gates is greedy and immoral?

I don't know why exactly you didn't also quote my full statement. As I said there, I don't know what motivates Bill Gates. He could be greedy; he might not be greedy. If what you say is true just in order to improve profits then it is at least questionable. Such a situation would be different than a company cutting jobs that were simply hurting it accounting for all expenses and fair salaries - in other words, accounting for it to survive rather than expand.

I really don't know why the issue of greed is so debatable in this thread. I thought it was a fairly self-explanatory term. It's not necessarily taking more than you need; it's taking more at the expense of others, in my definition.

 

[volved]

I don't know why exactly you didn't also quote my full statement. As I said there, I don't know what motivates Bill Gates. He could be greedy; he might not be greedy. If what you say is true just in order to improve profits then it is at least questionable. Such a situation would be different than a company cutting jobs that were simply hurting it accounting for all expenses and fair salaries - in other words, accounting for it to survive rather than expand.

I really don't know why the issue of greed is so debatable in this thread. I thought it was a fairly self-explanatory term. It's not necessarily taking more than you need; it's taking more at the expense of others, in my definition.

Saving space on the edit ... sorry. Also sorry about the name calling that is going on which makes it harder to have a real discussion.

You said you do not know what motivates Bill Gates. I do not either. But then you gave a scenario of greedy behavior and I gave you an example of Microsoft laying people off which fits that scenario. Do we have know how Bill Gates feels when he is laying off 200 people to know whether he is greedy or not?

Using Gates follows up on some earlier posts where some were saying that Gates was not greedy.

All business success comes at the expense of others. Bill Gates has put a lot of people out of business and the employees of those people out of work. That is how business works.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I don't know why exactly you didn't also quote my full statement. As I said there, I don't know what motivates Bill Gates. He could be greedy; he might not be greedy. If what you say is true just in order to improve profits then it is at least questionable. Such a situation would be different than a company cutting jobs that were simply hurting it accounting for all expenses and fair salaries - in other words, accounting for it to survive rather than expand.

I really don't know why the issue of greed is so debatable in this thread. I thought it was a fairly self-explanatory term. It's not necessarily taking more than you need; it's taking more at the expense of others, in my definition.

1) I believe Microsoft reported its first quarterly loss in 26 years due to the ad department; the same department in which the layoffs are occurring. Is Microsoft suppose to sit-back and watch an obvious cancer within the company grow to possibly fatally wound the whole company; thus risking the not only all the Microsoft jobs but entire substructure in which it supports?

2) To the bold: that is not greed, that is theft. Big difference.

 

[volprof]

Saving space on the edit ... sorry. Also sorry about the name calling that is going on which makes it harder to have a real discussion.

You said you do not know what motivates Bill Gates. I do not either. But then you gave a scenario of greedy behavior and I gave you an example of Microsoft laying people off which fits that scenario. Do we have know how Bill Gates feels when he is laying off 200 people to know whether he is greedy or not?

Using Gates follows up on some earlier posts where some were saying that Gates was not greedy.

All business success comes at the expense of others. Bill Gates has put a lot of people out of business and the employees of those people out of work. That is how business works.

Volved, you have not been name-calling, so you have nothing to apologize about. I've already stated, however, that I have no clue how Bill Gates feels about this matter. Most likely, he's just like any other human being: he breathes, eats, craps, loves, hates, and ogles good-looking women. And I can't blame him for that. I'm reminded of the Judge in Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian, who ruminates that everything that is not him is against him. Point being, we not only fear everything that is not us but are also intent on trying to appropriate everything that is not us - in other words, make everything else into something concrete and suitable to us. In a sense, then, we're all greedy - we can't stand anything not us. I know this sounds like crazy-talk, but I think there's some truth in it. Even so, this still doesn't mean it's right for any one of us to feel this way. Even if it's human nature, it still doesn't mean it's morally right. Things happen and things work certain ways, but just because this is the case does not make it right. I do not defer my own guilt; I've readily admitted on here to another poster that we (the common man; myself included) share some blame in outsourcing, because we're not willing to pay higher prices to keep jobs here. This, though, is a circuitous argument: how can we all afford even lower prices/cost of living when we don't all necessarily have a job, or at least a decent-paying job? sort of thing.

Anyhow, I'll give this argument a break for a while.

 

[Weezer]

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?

It's not a simple question with a simple answer. Choice two benefits the individual. Choice one benefits the group (nation). If you can accomplish choice one and still turn a profit, that's the choice I would make. In that scenario, both individual and group benefit.

 

[Weezer]

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.



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.



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.



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.



I couldn't agree more.



I hate absolutes.



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 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.

I am not familiar with the system in Singapore so I can't speak to it. Perhaps you could elaborate?

Perhaps the fact we don't act like a pack is our problem. The lookout is normally the most capable of self-survival. Corporations would fit that description. The lookout takes the risks to protect the pack, American corporations care nothing about protecting America. Yes, you can micromanage down to CEOs protecting their investors, but the corporation itself exists in the pack that is America. Too me, it becomes a matter of risk/reward. Paying more on labor may eat some profit, but in the long term it allows the pack(America) to survive. If the country falls, what happens to the corporations? Rhetorical question because there is no sure answer, but I believe in preparing for the worst. Making sure America stays strong would take away uncertainty and the need to hope for the best.

I won't argue that their are individuals who care solely for themselves. Those people will only look out for themselves. There are other people who would join in protest, but not start it. I'll admit into falling into that category. I'm not a follower, but I'm not a leader either. If someone out there can find an effective way to protest, I'm willing to join the cause.

Unions are a double-edged sword IMO. They have their purpose but they also have their evils. I will say I'm not against them arguing for pay increases. Inflation needs to be addressed in wages. Companies need to pay liveable wages. But ultimately the strong-arm tactics of unions do as much harm as good.

Perhaps you are mistaking barely scraping by for barely surviving. Barely scraping by means making just enough for monthly bills so you don't go homeless or hungry. Barely surving is just that. People living in poverty overseas are barely surviving. I haven't argued against that. In America, poverty is being homeless, not being able to afford food etc. Charities address those situations to some degree, but they do not reach everyone. And the numbers are growing, which will only make it tougher.

Ultimately, I look around and I see my nation dying. Politically, economically, globally; we're slowly falling to pieces. And the people in charge are more interested in pointing fingers and not upsetting "influential" people than they are in finding solutions to the problems we face. At some point someone needs to start making some tough, probably unpopular with some, decisions. Otherwise this country will eventually fail. Probably not in our lifetime, but do we want to leave that uncertainty on our children?

 

[NEO]

It's not a simple question with a simple answer. Choice two benefits the individual. Choice one benefits the group (nation). If you can accomplish choice one and still turn a profit, that's the choice I would make. In that scenario, both individual and group benefit.

It is a simple question.

Businesses are ran on numbers and numbers alone. They are not ran on emotion. Emotional decisions are what get businesses in hot water all the time.

The research needs to be done. Then whatever the research says is best for the company needs to be enforced.

Any other answer is wrong. It is why the companies (LLC's) that have two partners with 50 50 control have the highest failure rates. Emotions will get involved and numbers are not the drive.


Numbers are always the drive.

 

[OrangeYankee]

Sadly there is no reason to NOT outsource.

Now before I begin I don't believe it's a business person's obligation to provide means for those around him (through employment), but the economy is an ecosystem for sure. You have to have consumers that can actually buy your crap, and if you keep taking it all away, your well will run dry. Do you think the little kids who make nikes actually wear anything other than burlap bags for shoes? Or the people who jump out of buildings at foxcomm used any iphones they slave to produce in horrid conditions to text their friends their suicide note?

Yes, business is much cheaper to conduct in third world countries and can greatly affect the bottom line. Part of the problem is the fact that our Government has been allowed to bloat itself beyond reasonable levels at home. The raw costs for labor is almost doubled after you factor in all the taxes and fees an employer has to pay on each employee. Then the actual cost of production is through the roof with all the regulations (environmental, labor, and taxation to name a few). I do think we need to pretty much scrap all departments and administrations and start over basically.

However, the other side of the coin is flat out the playing field is hardly level. Are wages on this side of the pond too high? Possibly but if you think it's perfectly ok to employ slave labor in sweatshops while they do honest to god actual pollution as they destroy the environment then I have nothing for you. While it's legal it's definitely jacked up. I mean it's also legal to con an old lady out of her life savings by convincing her you are God's holy servant who needs her donations to continue his work, but it's hardly ethical either.

And someone keeps saying the work is just as good? Really? I could be too young still, but I could swear the number of recalls, and most are for very dangerous defects in products seems to have gone up significantly since the floodgates have been opened.

As far as the service industry goes, the first company that figures out that we do not want to speak to Abu "John Smith" Ghandi who baths in his own feces in the river before coming to work but to Jim Jones from DeMoines Iowa will see a huge jump in market share it'll make their head spin.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I am not familiar with the system in Singapore so I can't speak to it. Perhaps you could elaborate?

Perhaps the fact we don't act like a pack is our problem. The lookout is normally the most capable of self-survival. Corporations would fit that description. The lookout takes the risks to protect the pack, American corporations care nothing about protecting America. Yes, you can micromanage down to CEOs protecting their investors, but the corporation itself exists in the pack that is America. Too me, it becomes a matter of risk/reward. Paying more on labor may eat some profit, but in the long term it allows the pack(America) to survive. If the country falls, what happens to the corporations? Rhetorical question because there is no sure answer, but I believe in preparing for the worst. Making sure America stays strong would take away uncertainty and the need to hope for the best.

This is hogwash.

I won't argue that their are individuals who care solely for themselves. Those people will only look out for themselves. There are other people who would join in protest, but not start it. I'll admit into falling into that category. I'm not a follower, but I'm not a leader either. If someone out there can find an effective way to protest, I'm willing to join the cause.

Unions are a double-edged sword IMO. They have their purpose but they also have their evils. I will say I'm not against them arguing for pay increases. Inflation needs to be addressed in wages. Companies need to pay liveable wages. But ultimately the strong-arm tactics of unions do as much harm as good.

Unions are apart of the reason for the fall of the dollar. The good of the union has passed.

Perhaps you are mistaking barely scraping by for barely surviving. Barely scraping by means making just enough for monthly bills so you don't go homeless or hungry. Barely surving is just that. People living in poverty overseas are barely surviving. I haven't argued against that. In America, poverty is being homeless, not being able to afford food etc. Charities address those situations to some degree, but they do not reach everyone. And the numbers are growing, which will only make it tougher.

If you make sound decisions and are willing to work hard, you are not going to go hungry in this country (barring some crazy circumstance)

Ultimately, I look around and I see my nation dying. Politically, economically, globally; we're slowly falling to pieces. And the people in charge are more interested in pointing fingers and not upsetting "influential" people than they are in finding solutions to the problems we face. At some point someone needs to start making some tough, probably unpopular with some, decisions. Otherwise this country will eventually fail. Probably not in our lifetime, but do we want to leave that uncertainty on our children?

This is really the heart of where you have been coming from. Pretty much the post I was fishing for from the beginning. Most Americans share in your sentiment. Your sentiment is valid and founded in the reality we find ourselves.

The problem is everyone wants to blame someone. Nobody wants to blame themselves. Their criticisms are emotional an not based on reason. The fact is there are a multitude of reasons for the predicament we find ourselves in. We are in the middle of an economic and social paradigm shift which is slowly leading to dawning political paradigm shift. Additionally, there is no easy solution.

I honestly don't see a solution in the foreseeable future. I don't believe anything substantially positive can happen until the average American gets their head on straight, quits dreaming, and is committed to getting back to ideals which built this country. History has shown is that Americans are slow learners and must have the sh*t hit the fan before we wake up. The good news historically, is that once we wake up, we can turn things around very quickly. That gives me hope still.

 

[BigPapaVol]

You can't answer the question
for the third time,

Is immoral bad?

I have noticed in several of your responses today in various threads you have reverted to calling people names.
That shows your lack of intelligence when you can not back up your garbage, you like to TRY to talk down to people and call them names.

I have never in my life liked condescending people that act like they know everything about everything and use their stupidity to try to belittle others. It has been my experience that people like that in fact don't know squat.

I don't give a crap who you like or whether you think I'm stupid. You've made a ridiculous point calling greed immoral and then backtracked to bad. The idiotic question trying to somehow justify your point by making israel a subset of bad doesn't change that you massively overreached.

Pretend you're brighter because of my method, but it won't change that you were dead wrong.