Why would someone not outsource?

[Gramps]

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
you dead wrong.

I do not think you are stupid BPV.

You think my posting that greed is immoral
was wrong. That is fine. We do not gave to agree.I have not backtracked on that.
IMO, greed is bad and immoral.
I believe that 100%.
There will be some that agree with me, some will not.

I do not know what you are referring to about Israel. I have not mentioned Israel in this thread.

We all should be able to enjoy VN, debate issues without calling names. There is no point to be made by doing so. After being called retarded by you Friday, it did. upset me and I lowered myself your level and throwed back a few to you. That was wrong on my part and will try to never name call again on this board.

I don't pretend I am brighter than anyone on this board. There are some very brilliant posters on this board that I highly respect.

You do have a habit of trying to belittle people you do not agree with. That is unnecessary to make your point. You are too smart to have to use those tactics.

People that revert to cursing and name calling in any argument are looked at by most in a very bad way

 

[Weezer]

This is hogwash.

This is me taking your original analogy and expanding it further. Possibly hogwash but no moreso than the original analogy.

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

Maybe, maybe not. It depends on whether the common worker's rights are protected. Wages need to increase with inflation.



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)

This statement is wrong while containing a nugget of truth. It is hard to go hungry in this country. It has nothing to do with sound decisions and hard work and everything to do with the welfare and charities. Plenty of people worked hard and got laid off from their jobs with little notice. Savings can only go so far and the job market isn't rife with opportunities. It's not as hard to go homeless.

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.

There is plenty of blame to spread around, but when the ship sinks, the captain is held reponsible. What I see, what scares me as to whether the country can rebound from this, is a lack of patriotism that existed in the past generations. This is truly a "me" generation. Love of country seems to be vanishing. Loyalty has turned toward money. Once upon a time, we cared about our neighbors, now we say let them fend for themselves. We've lost touch with the cornerstones this country was founded upon, and I'm no longer confident we as a nation can find our way back. I'm not sure if I'm being pessimistic or realistic.

.

 

[Weezer]

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.

I still disagree. It's not a simple question. What may be best in the short term doesn't mean it's best for the long term. People without jobs cannot afford to be consumers. No consumers leads to the failure of business. Are you only concerned for the now, or are you building something your children will one day continue? And honestly, there are many other roads you can go down with that question. It's open ended and deceptive. There's nothing simple about it.

 

[Weezer]

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.

I like this post. It brings up some valid points IMO. But you should've went with Joe Smith or some other generic name. Nobody needs the poison kool-aid. Wiki Jim Jones if you're too young to know the reference.

 

[NEO]

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.

The only way one is immoral in business is if they break the US laws. No matter what choice they decide, even if it means laying off thousand, it is still not immoral as long as it is legal and in the best interest of the business.

People who complain about pack and best for American dont realize that they are arguing for corps without even knowing it.

The corp is an entity. It is all that matters. It must prevail. The wheels and cogs that make it up, whether it is people or machines, must work for the best of the entity. When the part no longer helps the entity, or needs replaced, it must be replaced for the best of the entity.

A business that is actually making profit is no longer about the people who work in it or won it. Pepsi is no longer about the owner who started it. It is Pepsi. Decisions are now made for the best of Pepsi. The cogs change, the parts are replaced. But Pepsi goes on long after the employees are dead.

 

[UTRavens]

The only way one is immoral in business is if they break the US laws. No matter what choice they decide, even if it means laying off thousand, it is still not immoral as long as it is legal and in the best interest of the business.

People who complain about pack and best for American dont realize that they are arguing for corps without even knowing it.

The corp is an entity. It is all that matters. It must prevail. The wheels and cogs that make it up, whether it is people or machines, must work for the best of the entity. When the part no longer helps the entity, or needs replaced, it must be replaced for the best of the entity.

A business that is actually making profit is no longer about the people who work in it or won it. Pepsi is no longer about the owner who started it. It is Pepsi. Decisions are now made for the best of Pepsi. The cogs change, the parts are replaced. But Pepsi goes on long after the employees are dead.

That's great for the entity. What we're talking about is the wellbeing of people. Sometimes the motive for profit gets in the way of that, no?

 

[OrangeYankee]

I like this post. It brings up some valid points IMO. But you should've went with Joe Smith or some other generic name. Nobody needs the poison kool-aid. Wiki Jim Jones if you're too young to know the reference.

Haha no I get it. He happened right before my time but by the time I was old enough to study it, that was the thing of legends.

 

[PKT_VOL]

This is me taking your original analogy and expanding it further. Possibly hogwash but no moreso than the original analogy.

Your expansion of the analogy is just plain wrong.

Maybe, maybe not. It depends on whether the common worker's rights are protected. Wages need to increase with inflation.

That doesn't fix the problem. The dollar needs to rise.

This statement is wrong while containing a nugget of truth. It is hard to go hungry in this country. It has nothing to do with sound decisions and hard work and everything to do with the welfare and charities. Plenty of people worked hard and got laid off from their jobs with little notice. Savings can only go so far and the job market isn't rife with opportunities. It's not as hard to go homeless.

Again, if your willing to work hard and make sound decisions, you will be fine. I see help wanted signs all the time. Problem is, they are for jobs most people feel is "beneath" them.

There is plenty of blame to spread around, but when the ship sinks, the captain is held reponsible. What I see, what scares me as to whether the country can rebound from this, is a lack of patriotism that existed in the past generations. This is truly a "me" generation. Love of country seems to be vanishing. Loyalty has turned toward money. Once upon a time, we cared about our neighbors, now we say let them fend for themselves. We've lost touch with the cornerstones this country was founded upon, and I'm no longer confident we as a nation can find our way back. I'm not sure if I'm being pessimistic or realistic.

I disagree with the bold. The "me" generation is the baby boomers. They suck.

Btw...the way you quote things make it a b*tch to re-quote. Just a fyi.

 

[NEO]

That's great for the entity. What we're talking about is the wellbeing of people. Sometimes the motive for profit gets in the way of that, no?

That is not the role of business.

If a business is not run the way people believe it should be then they should a) boycott it b) stop investing or pull their investments from it c) get the word out about what the company is doing wrong.


The business will then have to decide whether or not the bad exposure out weighs the profits and if it is their best interest to conform.

The is known as conforming to the market. And businesses do it all the time. The scene in fight club is a realistic picture at how profit and losses are looked at.

It is not the job of the business to run itself for the wellbeing of society.


I also hate to point out that many large companies (even whole domiciled here) are not tied to America. They are global companies and not based upon a government. They must abide by each governments rules that they operate in but if that government fell they would simply abide by the new governments rules.