Outsourcing jobs empowers China.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by El_Guero, Jan 19, 2007.

  1. El_Guero

    El_Guero
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    As I have mentioned many times, outsourcing more than 300 billion dollars a year in tax money and intellectual jobs to china and India have not been in our best interest.

    Now china can knock out our communications satellites.

    They are now producing significantly advanced fighters.

    They have nukes.

    And they threaten to invade Taiwan all the time.

    NAFTA was supposed to keep jobs here in the Americas. What Clinton and his liberal leaders did was wrong.

    Allowing the theft of our jobs to continue is wrong. And that with abortion will lead to a much bigger problem in America.
     
  2. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Chinese are the least of our worries. Better a Chinese world than Bush world.
     
  3. hillclimber1

    hillclimber1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2006
    Messages:
    2,447
    Likes Received:
    0
    If/when we get into it with China, where are we going to order spare parts? China?
     
  4. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    Just think: more and more jobs are headed that way, and to India as well.

    You are right, but you can't let the GOP off the hook for voting on this.
    http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00395

    http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1993/roll575.xml

    Regards to you and yours, Wayne,
    BiR
     
  5. DeeJay

    DeeJay
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,916
    Likes Received:
    0
    Who is to blame for the outsourcing?

    Maybe the goverments over-reulation and over-taxation of companies.

    Or the unions who will not allow workers to work for wages that are reasonable, allowing companies to be competative in the market.
     
  6. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    One word: money.

    In the United States, unions do not have very much power, and they do not represent a majority of the US labor force.

    Hope you are well,
    BiR
     
  7. DeeJay

    DeeJay
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,916
    Likes Received:
    0

    I am from coal mine country. You cant tell me the Unions do not have much power.

    Look at what the unions are doing to the US auto companys.
     
  8. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    http://economics.about.com/od/laborinamerica/a/union_decline.htm

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11958-2005Mar6.html

    http://www.azstarnet.com/business/147039

    The day of the union as a power is gone.

    Regards,
    BiR
     
  9. LadyEagle

    LadyEagle
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b> <img src =/israel.gif>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2002
    Messages:
    22,028
    Likes Received:
    1
    That's right, BIR. That's right. I saw that happening thanks to Ronald Reagan and the Air Traffic Controllers strike. I know there are Republicans who will argue that point, but I remember when it happened and knew then the days of union strength and collective bargaining were doomed. Reagan was the One Person most responsible for busting the unions because they have gone downhill since then in loss of power. If the unions had still been powerful, NAFTA, CAFTA, and FTAA would never have happened.

    Furthermore, when I saw Rush Limbaugh (back in the days when he had the TV show) singing the praises of NAFTA, that's when I lost respect for him as a conservative. Yep, he was for it, as were nearly all elected Democrats and Republicans in Congress. It wasn't just because of Clinton. Thank all the people we have voted for in both parties for selling American jobs down the river of a "global economy" of corporate greed.
     
    #9 LadyEagle, Jan 19, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 19, 2007
  10. El_Guero

    El_Guero
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Clinton and his administration pushed through NAFTA and promised American Jobs would stay in the America's and build a better stronger America much like the EU.

    The outsourcing of jobs to india and china was almost immediate . . . ironically, Japanese companies began sending jobs BACK to mexico because of the problems inherent with off shoring jobs to india and china (lack of quality).

    Then the Republicans continued to allow the theft of American jobs.

    And we complain about mexicans coming here illegally, but we cow tow and give the prize for the first child born this year to an ILLEGAL chinese alien . . .

    I don't here much alarm at the illegal chinese, indians, or muslims.


     
  11. DeeJay

    DeeJay
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,916
    Likes Received:
    0

    Explain what you mean by "theft" of American jobs.

    All NAFTA did was reduce or eliminate tarrifs from imported goods. It did not directly send jobs out of country. It did remove the penalty for companies who wish to send THEIR jobs out of country. The US did not say Chevy you must move you factory to another country.

    NAFTA is a conservative principal. We live in a free country with a free market and if Chevy can make more $$$ by moving the factory then the free market says that they have the right to run THEIR company as it sees fit.

    Tarrifs are a tax on the consumer. YOU pay tarrifs when you purchase goods. The goverment forces you to pay tax on foren goods so so they can compete in the market, when without artificaly leveling the playing field the US companys could not compete.

    Here is what a tarrif is for. Say you start a widget company in the US. You can make widgets for $10 each. Then the gov taxes you so the widget is $15. Then they have enviromental concerns so you have to jump thru the hoops, widgets $20. Then your workers get 12 hollidays, and you can not fire the poor workers because it is a union widget factory, widgets $25.

    Other countries are making widgets for $11. So the goverment adds $14 widget tax so the US company can artificaly compete. Now you the widget consumer can not buy a widget in the US for under $25.

    It is unfair to the consumer, unfair to the companies and anybody who buys widgets in bulk buys them from other countries. Plus the other countries add tarrif in retaliation to US widgets making them $40 when their widgets are still $11 that means US widgets will not be sold anywhere but in the US.

    The jobs that you say were stolen, belong to the companies. It is their jobs, they created them, they pay the wages they put money forward to start the company. How do they belong to anybody but the company. They can not be stolen. If anything forcing the companies to keep THEIR jobs anywhere but where they want them is theft.

    Now instead of placing blame where it belongs, with the goverment for over taxing and over regulating. We blame the company for doing what is best for their buisness. How does that make sense.
     
  12. DeeJay

    DeeJay
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,916
    Likes Received:
    0
    One more thing, If tariffs are such a good idea. Why does not the individual states use them. Why does not California say that anything not made in California will be taxed at a rate that makes the product unsellable. That would force companies to move factories into California so they can sell the product to Californians.

    The California State goverment can then tax companies in California as high as they wish. Because no matter how expensive the California product gets, they can just increas the tariff to non-Calli products so the consumer will still have to buy Calli products and the Calli company will not be hurt.

    Then the state can make 10 times the tax money on companies and companies will still have to move into Calli. The buisness will not be hurt and the citizens of Callifornia will have to pay whatever the price is.

    Win for the state, Win for the company, loose for the consumers of Calli.

    Good idea, right.
     
  13. Terry_Herrington

    Terry_Herrington
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    4,455
    Likes Received:
    1
    LadyEagle, this is a great post. I agree 100% with your analysis. :thumbsup:
     
  14. Baptist in Richmond

    Baptist in Richmond
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    5,075
    Likes Received:
    4
    It did more than that.
    http://www.citizen.org/documents/NAFTA_10_ag.pdf
    http://www.prospect.org/print/V14/7/faux-j.html

    So, if it is cheaper to move all of you production to China, where the government controls virtually every aspect of the economy, wages, etc., or to India, where the caste system prevents anyone from moving up in terms of socioeconomic class, how are we going to compete?

    This is true, but bear in mind that all costs of production factor into the price of the good. In other words, the same could be said about increases in the prices of the raw materials used in production of the good.

    How do environmental concerns or unions have anything to do with a tarriff? You lost me on this point.

    If we are going to go head to head against China, then we are going to have to lower our standard of living to that of China. Are you willing to do that?

    Yes, and no. Think about the tarriffs that were imposed on foreign automobiles. During the 1970's and 1980's, you saw a surge in the number of automobile imports. The tarriffs did not prevent competition in this industry, and the US actually lost market share despite the tarriffs.

    I would strongly disagree with you on this, but you have stated your opinion well, and I can respect your opinion.

    Regards, hope you and yours have a great weekend,
    BiR
     
  15. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    read your constitution

    States may not control interstate traffic.
     
  16. El_Guero

    El_Guero
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yep that little funny paper that deejay (and the eastern seaboard states) forgot to read . . .

     
  17. DeeJay

    DeeJay
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,916
    Likes Received:
    0
    NAFTA could be reworked. But I am not against the principal behind it. We would compete the same way we always have, American inginuity (sp?). We create new product and new technologies and do not focus on producing them in the long run. That is what we have always done best.



    Overbearing regulation (most often enviromental) add to the cost to produce products in America that other countries dont have. DONT get me wrong, there should be some regulation. But it is overbearing.

    In alot of cases yes. The union janitor is not worth $30 an hour because he is union and American. Wages should be at a price that allowes the company to be competative.


    Good point. Quality plays a role in this. I have to look again at the unions that will not allow a company to fire a poor worker.

    Thanks and to you also.
     
  18. DeeJay

    DeeJay
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,916
    Likes Received:
    0
    I realize that but if tariffs are such a good idea then why has nobody tried or even suggested changing that.
     
  19. El_Guero

    El_Guero
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because of that funny little paper you forgot to read . . .

    We can place tarrifs (and should) on foreign trade . . .

     
  20. DeeJay

    DeeJay
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,916
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ok, so you dont want to play along. It was a hypothetical question. That funny little paper has been amended before. Explain to me why interstate tariffs are not a good idea but Foreign tariffs are.
     

Share This Page

Loading...