Why would anyone be supporting a candidate who supports outsourcing our jobs? And has no

[saracat]

heath care program ? Why does anyone support Hillary after she defends sending our jobs away for the benefit of corporations?It is just "reality" she calls it? I would love to see Hillary deal with the "reality " of no income and no health care! She has never suffered an instant of deprivation.It is no wonder she has little interest in the average worker. The following quote just sent me over the edge.Why would anyone be supporting such a candidate?We should be against ALL outsourcing of American jobs!


"There is no way to legislate against reality. Outsourcing will continue... We are not against all outsourcing; we are not in favor of putting up fences," Clinton told Indian business leaders in New Delhi in 2005"

[Double T]

1. And WHO ENABLED and helped create this 'reality' of corporate outsourcing?

If 'WE' want history to STOP repeating itself, then 'WE' have got to get some different people with different names other than the 'old standards' than have been occupying the WH and congress for decades. Change will never occur if 'WE' keep running the same debilitating 'stuff'.

[saracat]

2. But she says she has the "experience"to create "change" .I don't buy it.

I am very concerned by the casual attitude she is displaying toward our jobs.My husband was "outsourced" as a result of her kind of philosophy and let me tell you , the "reality bites"!

[Double T]

3. HER actions speak much louder than her words.

HER pressing for MANY MORE H1B visas for HER corporate cronies says it ALL!

[saracat]

5. Well it looks like many of our people signed on to that one.It had to have something else attached

if you are thinking of the Bill I am but her just dismissing outsourcing as "reality" and effectively saying "deal with it" to American workers really frosts me. I hope whatever Unions are left unite against her for those words.

[robinlynne]

156. The unions already have. They are supporting Edwards.

[hisownpetard]

216. Yes, her position on outsourcing is one of the things that will keep me from voting for her. eom

[Tellurian]

34. Hillary's Health Care plan will be out next week...

No one is depending on you to figure out how to rework the finer points of NAFTA..saracat. Hillary is well away Nafta has run amuck and is planning to legislate a plan that will create the necessary balance between outsourcing and American jobs protection. This Global Economy is never going to go away, so get used to it.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HughBeaumont]

99. "Empathy" ain't in the "adapt or die" crowd's dictionary.

But phrases like these are their bread and butter. I can't believe people who call themselves Democrats use them, though:

"Economics 101".

"It's xenophobic to not want prosperity in other countries, even if it means you'll be getting a new career. Oh well, that's life."

"Everything will work itself out. It has in the past and it will again. You just have to have FAITH and Hope".

Bills don't get paid on HOPE. Economies cannot recover on HOPE. People who aren't meant to go to diploma mill colleges can't just HOPE they'll qualify for a job that pays at least a liveable wage. 47 million people shouldn't have to go to sleep at night HOPING they'll not have a debilitating illness that bankrupts their entire family.

I WANT a candidate that doesn't support corporate rights over human rights. I DON'T think that's too damned much to ask or expect from a DEMOCRATIC candidate. Hillary has not at ALL proven to me through her actions and statements that she can stand up to corporations or the MIC. I don't want someone who'll work with them, because in the end, it will be about them and their needs, not ours. AS USUAL.

It's a furious issue with me. I know someone who had to close his consulting business because he simply could not compete with the low wages of inshored/offshored consultants and their mills.

[Tellurian]

233. For Exactly the reason you mention, I will not vote for Obama in the Primary..

[Tellurian]

114. Try self-employment..

Thats the alternatives if you can't find gainful employment in the workforce.

===Try walking a bit in the outsourced workers shoes.And your candidate should try to learn a bit about empathy.===

I have and I've done something about it... rather than cry about 'poor me' to my friends and on virtual political boards!

[arikara]

117. Brrr...

How much colder can it get?

If that's how Hillary's followers empathize, her campaign better crash and burn for the sake of your country.

[Tellurian]

119. If I can live through it..

anyone can.. If they chose survival.

Actually no..

In my state RI:

Hillary is at 36%

Obama is at 16%

Edwards is at 7%

Our local political analyst, Darryl West just said, she seems to be the choice as the Dem Nominee.

[arikara]

167. I see...

you got yours, so everyone who doesn't can pound sand. Nice. Real neighborly.

[Tellurian]

237. Please that choose to help themselves, find a way..

people that think whining about a problem get them somewhere might get hungry.

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tellurian]

138. Calling me a Republican is against DU Rules...you know that don't you?

With the position Bush has put most Americans in this country employment wise; you would think you were alone and singled out for some foul reason. Many of my co-workers jobs has been outsourced as well as my own job downsized. Am I crying about it...

If a light bulb burns out in my house, do I sit in the dark and cry about it or blame the manufacturer? I replace the job as I am doing now and move on.

Sorry if you think self-pity is an excuse for outrage. I happen to think it's all part of the blame game people play.

[saracat]

130. I have saved your post and am forwarding it to every union member I know as an example

of why not to vote for Hillary.I am also sending it to every outsourced worker I know as an example of how Hillary and her supporters 'care" about the "workers.". Thank you for the ammunition.

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[saracat]

155. Thank you.I will! Why spiteful? Aren't you proud of your words?

Don't they support your candidate? I would think you would be grateful that I disseminate the Hillary viewpoint to as many Union Workers as possible considering she won't discuss those views with them.Now she can be viewed through your words.I have sent the entire exchange!

[Name removed]

184. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[elizm]

187. Great idea! nt

[Lydia Leftcoast]

212. I'm self-employed, and it ain't easy

Some of my friends considered self-employment after the U.S. economy dumped them, but they didn't have the kinds of skills that transfer well to free-lancing. They couldn't find more than part-time work.

I'm lucky in that I have a skill that foreign companies will pay for. U.S. companies are mostly uninterested.

[Tellurian]

232. Community colleges offer classes for teaching skills

for people who are free lance challenged. Also, on-line venues such as E-Bay offer FREE classes to get you started in self-entrepreneurship.

[HughBeaumont]

244. Gaaaaa . . . Entrepreneurship, while noble and right for some, is a crapshoot.

9 out of 10 start-ups fail within their first year. Very few of that small number make it to five years. You need a marketable product or service (preferrably not one that a corporation can already undercut you in and outperform you on), you need an audience for that product or service, you need return business for that product or service, you need start-up capital, and you need to be able to accommodate your finances for fluctuating monthly income (often times half to one quarter of what you used to make).

Bills cannot be paid on a long-odds gamble. America cannot be a nation of 140 million small businesspeople, lawyers, janitors and hairdressers. WE NEED JOBS! WE NEED CAREERS! Not just the heavily degreed and privileged, EVERYONE of all smarts and regions.

Oh yeah . . . who was that high ranking official who also used the "eBay" reference a few years ago when talking about the American economy pertaining to job creation?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

249. The only reason I survived my startup was that

I worked as a long-term independent contractor in a different field for a major publishing company while I was fumbling around getting started as a translator.

I don't know what I would have done if a friend hadn't gotten me that contract. Yes, I had those kinds of connections, another essential ingredient for making one's way in business.

[HughBeaumont]

259. You had a great post before detailing the travails of owning a business.

I can't find it anywhere, weird as it is.

You know it's no hop, skip and a jump that some people make it out to be. The truth is, entrepreneurship would be great if it worked for everyone, but it isn't for everyone. Sometimes family, health and income situations can't allow for such a drastic life change.

[sce56]

176. Now Now remember the golden rule!

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you!
But I love your argument, and no more dynasty families running country especially the likes of the Bush and Clintons JFK & RFK were truly great leaders not like Shrub..


http://web.archive.org/web/20030402135135/

[dugggy]

4. Cuz there is no way to stop outsourcing

If outsourcing is made illegal, then you must also make
all imported goods illegal otherwise domestic corporations
will all go broke trying to compete against foreign corporations.

Also, when you buy a car made in Japan or Korea, in effect you have
outsourced American labor inauto industry. Ditto for all other
imported goods. Look around your house. You will find a zillion
imported goods. Every one of them in effect outsourced American
jobs.

SInce you can't make imports illegal, you can't make outsourcing
of jobs illegal. It will doom American corporations and the
remaining jobs these corporations have in US.

I laud HRC's position on outsourcing. It is a realistic and
practical position instead of the demogogic positions of her
opponents.

[saracat]

6. You can control it. It isn't necessary for all our engineering jobs and tech jobs to be outsourced .

They have even outsourced insurance jobs, accounting and Law firms. They have outsourced all their "middle management"'.There is NO excuse for that .None.We are not just talking manufacturing jobs now.And this candidate thinks this is a good thing? This cannot be justified.

[dugggy]

7. Like I said, American outfits will go broke trying to compete

against foreign outfits making the same product.
Lets take refrigerators as an example. If whirlpool
is forced to employ American engineers, but we allow
Chinese manufactured refrigerators to be imported,
how does Whirlpool stay in business? And when
Whirlpool goes out of business, all remaining jobs
Whirlpool still has in US go down the drain, and the
pensions of retirees go down the drain and the
Americans who own stock in Whirlpool lose, and that
includes pension funds who hold Whirlpool stock.

A better solution is to improve our education system
so that we can produce superior engineering skills
which will be hard to replace by foreigners.

[OnionPatch]

22. So why do we need Chinese refrigerators?

When we are perfectly capable of making them right here? :shrug: I think we should start taxing imports more than we do now.

Also, improving educational opportunities is only going to help a percentage of those workers affected. What about those people who aren't engineer-material? Or should those people just be doomed to a life of McJobs?

[General Lee]

57. So Why Do We Need Chinese Refrigerators You Ask?

Answer: To store the tainted Chinese food we are importing!!!!

[dugggy]

161. Haha...very funny but ludicrous n/t

[dugggy]

142. Because Chinese refrigeraors cost half of US made and

poor people can not afford American made products.
The standard of living of the lower class will
nose dive if they can not shop at Wal-Mart for
Chinese products.

[OnionPatch]

153. Maybe they could afford American refrigerators

If there were some decent paying jobs for them. :shrug:

[dugggy]

160. Wishful thinking...corporations are not in philanthropy

business. They survive by out-competing the
competetion and making a return on investment
for those who risk their own hard earned money.

[OnionPatch]

162. Corporations aren't, but our government "by the people"

is supposed to be there to work for the good of the people. I don't exactly expect philanthropy, but I feel we have a right to expect our government to legislate in a way that will protect American worker's jobs if that's what the majority of us want them to do. In short, I believe the economy should work for us, not the other way around.

[Virginian]

178. And one way to help them compete is

To have a national healthcare program, so they don't have to pay for American employees' healthcare. They wouldn't have to provide employee health insurance in other countries.

[dugggy]

217. Someone has to pay for it...nothing in life is "free"

The burden of healthcare bills will just shift
to some other group. Don't get me wrong, I think
healthcare is a basic necessity for all people
living in a civilized country. We just have to be
careful on how the reforms are achieved. Medicare,
the current single payer system already in law, is
not looking great for solvency in the future.

[cascadiance]

228. It's really very simple! Tariffs! That's what we used before NAFTA and GATT!

The sooner we can get out of those trade agreements, the sooner we can charge tariffs to sell here so that local manufacturers can compete. Now, if that makes products too expensive for us to buy here, THEN we need to raise salaries. Well, there's one way companies can raise salaries here and that would be to LOWER the CEO's and execs salaries, back to the times when there was a 40-1 ratio instead of 400-1 ratio of exec to average workers that we have today, and the wealth gap growing to the point of where it was before the last Republican depression at the beginning of the last century.

If we still have a lot of the world's money, etc. then other countries are going to continue to want to sell into our markets, even if they have to sacrifice some of their profit to tariffs, so there still will be money to be made.

It would also be arguable that having tariffs actually might be GOOD for the global warming equation, encouraging more "local" economies instead of the cash and carry one we have now that ships stuff all over the world. What we have now externalizes the heavier environmental costs of shipping things into this country rather than having them made here locally at a lot less cost, both financially and environmentally.

[lyonn]

270. How would we know the price different since

I'm not sure if any are made here. I am interested in finding out. Kitchenaid, Frigidare, GE, etc. probably won't tell you where the product is made. I looked up American made toys and there basicly are not any to speak of. How did we manage to get along not too many years ago with those "expensive" products. I just bought a washer/dryer and most are not made here. We don't have a choice anymore.

Edit: The crap we get from China is barely worth what we pay for it, to say nothing of how dangerous their crap is. My husband will buy a tool or item for the farm and is impressed with how cheap it was. Then a few weeks later he tells me he needs to run to the store and get another one of those cheapies because the other broke. I just laugh and tell him its a hell of a deal.

[FredStembottom]

27. Nonsense! Again!

Chinese refrigerators simply get tariffs applied to them if they enter the US. See my post below.

Retraining for engineering????????????

I work in a freight warehouse - we are almost completely manned now by college educated engineers and IT workers who were outsourced.

I recently took a friend to dinner (who seemed to need cheering up). He told me of being outsourced 5 TIMES!

He was an aero-space engineer. Downsized 5 TIMES!

Now he throws freight with me - the C average high school grad.

Please come up to date, at least. This isn't 1986 anymore.

[Romulox]

33. "We are not just talking manufacturing jobs now"...LOL

"But you don't understand, it's my job that is being threatened! It was OK when we were just talking about gutting manufacturing!"

:rofl:

PS John Edwards supports NAFTA, WTO, and "free trade" with China.

[Tellurian]

235. Provide a link to your accusation Hillary thinks outsourcing is a good thing without changes.. nm

[Double T]

8. Wouldn't want to doom corporate america, now would 'WE'?

Instead let's sacrifice America and the American workers so the corporate and investor class can remain filthy rich at the expense of their country and their fellow countrymen. I'm sure china will want to continue to bank roll this self destructive economy till they're forced to foreclose on our nation. china will have defeated America and never had to fire one shot. Brilliant!!

[dugggy]

9. There will be no jobs left if American corporations are wiped out

You can't run a country with only government jobs.
Government employees don't produce even a pencil.
Corporations create almost all the wealth in the
country. WHy would anyone want to kill the golden
goose?

[Double T]

12. The golden goose is laying her golden eggs in asia, NOT the US.

It is time to STOP making outsourcing so damn attractive to corporations; 'WE' don't see china reciprocating in anything but a minuscule token way. It makes absolutely NO SENSE for the US to be building up communist china so they can crush 'US' later. We might as well stop worrying about national security and economic/financial stability because we're more than willing to just give it ALL away. You can't sustain our economy when 50% of ALL the manufactured goods in the world are being made in china. The ever increasing trade deficits and national debt says it all; this absolute insanity is NOT sustainable.

[dugggy]

146. Correct solution is "balanced trade", not artificial barriers

to individual corporations such as restricting
outsourcing.

[Double T]

174. balanced trade is NOT possible in THIS reality............

we're short about a half a billion slave wage workers.

[lyonn]

273. In other words, our corporations only have their offices here

Then they do their banking in the Caribbean and get great tax breaks for sending the manufacturing business to another country. Mind boggling. American corporations in name only.

[General Lee]

63. duggy you've got a lot to learn it seems

Maybe government employees don't in your words "even produce a pencil" but they make this country work, not the corporations. Demolish the jobs of these workers and then let's see how long corporation last. Corporations use the infrastructure of this country that all of us pay for. Without this infrastructure there are no corporations or no country for that matter.

Corporations do create much wealth but the greatest beneficiaries are the mega-rich or haven't you been reading about the virtual stagnation of wages over the last 30 years?? The fact is that corporations have become get-rich-quick gimmicks - Ponzi schemes - for the financial elite in America.

[dugggy]

143. And if I am as smart as the rich, I too have a chance of

getting rich. That is also known as freedom to
succeed and freedom to fail. Socialist countries
can only guarantee abject mediocrity. Take a good
look at N. Korea, Cuba, pre-2000 India etc. India
now has a burgeoning midle class since they got
away from goverment owned industries & control.

I have no problem with any one smart emough to get
rich. That does not hurt me one iota.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

213. If you think wealth has ANYTHING to do with intelligence

you're lacking in life experience.

[pampango]

240. Wealth has SOMETHING to do with intelligence, just not EVERYTHING.

Don't tell Bill Gates, Warren Buffett or any number of others who were not born into wealth but enjoy it now that intelligence has nothing to do with wealth. Are there an inordinate number of stupid people with inherited wealth or people with good looks or athletic ability who are rich without regard to the small size of their brains? There sure are.

[dugggy]

256. Good post and good points

Yours truly is another example of how a immigrant from
a 3rd world country arriving in the US with no money
is living the American dream by using my ability
to learn & to apply what I learned.

[amandabeech]

223. Either you are very young in years or have had a very sheltered life.

Unhindered trade between developed and third world countries is something really new.

Did you ever take a history course in your life?

Or are you a member of the economist priesthood that never saw an empirical study in his or her life.

And you think that your smarts will protect you? I have a lovely English bridge to sell you.

Read some history, see a lot more life, then get back to the rest of us.

[dugggy]

257. Wrong on both your premises

I am medicare age, and arrived in the US at age 20 with
$100 as my total capital. Through working my butt off
to put myself through graduate school and then outworking
my fellow American workers, I am now living the American
dream. And I came from a 3rd world country!

To provide a little history, 500 years ago China and India
had the largest economies in the world. So you can say that
Europe was essentially a 3rd world country of that era.
America was still populated by nomadic Indians.
Hungry Europeans sailed the high seas to discover better
lands to make a better living.

As as happened to every civilization in history, they rise
and they fall. US is now past its peak. China & India are
in ascendancy. Perfectly normal order of events. Now that
we no longer have the monoploy on manufacturing knowhow
and infrastructure, the BRIC's (Brazil, Russia, India, China)
are growing their economies at double digit rates.

There is no way to stop the slow deterioration of standard
of living in the US. The sooner we all get used to that reality,
the less whinning will be necessary.

[lyonn]

275. Creativity created this great country that you immigrated to

About the time you came here my husband was struggling to get a law degree. It was hard but we made it happen. Now days a college education is more difficult mostly due to the cost. Those that graduate with a bachelors degree are having a hard time finding jobs that pays enough for rent without a room mate.

We are not doomed to fail. We just need to get creative again. Don't ship America off somewhere else.

[dugggy]

277. We are not failing, just adjusting to the evolving world out there

When 75% of manufacturing was done in the USA,
we had a huge advantage. Now, the rest of the world,
especially the old & populous civilizations such as
China & India are catching up fast in technology.

Surely we can build a wall around us and restrict
trade. But I am sure you know what happens then.
Our costs of making goods with American wages are
so high that our standard of living will drop even
faster than it is now. Yes you will have a high
paying job, but a pair of shoes will cost $200.

I am not happy about all these imports. Everytime I
buy a foreign manufactured product, I am outsourcing
some potential jobs in the United States.

So overall, the foreign trade benefits all so long as
it is fair trade. I think US can force some changes
in fair trade practices by others.

[redqueen]

262. I can't stand fucking horatio alger bullshit.

And no, it doesn't hurt YOU, so FUCK anyone it does hurt, right?

:puke:

[bread_and_roses]

189. CORPORATIONS create wealth? I guess the workers who

create the goods the CORPORATIONS trade have no part in it? So why pay them anything at all? And why even think about "Fair" rather than "Free" trade? We don't need all those silly human and labor rights laws, now do we? After all, the lower the wages, the more "wealth" the CORPORATIONS can "create" for the upper 1% - the only people who really matter! All hail our CORPORATE MASTERS!

[dugggy]

258. Simple & undisputable fact is that the wealthiest countries all have

the wealthiest corporations. US, Japan, Germany, UK,
Scandinavia, etc. all have highly prosperous corporations.
I learned in engineering practice that always believe actual
results and always be suspicious of theory.

[redqueen]

263. I see you're still pretty new here.

Enjoy your stay.

[dugggy]

276. are you hinting one has to be anti-corporations to survive here?

I am guessing you do not like Hillary, Bill Clinton,
Al Gore, Kerry etc. They all have been pro-corporations.
Kerry is actually part owner through marriage in a $600
Million corporate stock ownership.

[Skittles]

10. no one is f***ing saying it should be ILLEGAL

we want it to be FAIR

[dugggy]

11. I am all for "fair", the problem is how do you do it

in the real world.

I think a better approach is to pass a law which requires
BALANCED TRADE with all our trading partners. Then they
will be required to buy American made products & services
of the same dollar amount as we import.

[Skittles]

13. now you're talking

read "TAKE THIS JOB AND SHIP IT" to find out just how unfair and sleazy and disgusting it is right now

[Hippo_Tron]

16. Balanced trade would screw over our developing trading partners

Which we already do with our subsidized agriculture. American subsidized agriculture floods third world markets and screws over their producers. If we hadn't been allowed to protect our infant industries back in the 1700's we would definitely not be the economic giant that we are today.

Of course, I do think that we need to stop treating China like a developing nation and start balancing our trade with them.

[cascadiance]

52. Subsidizing agriculture is a TARGETED way to create low cost labor in other countries...

... to outsource jobs to!

Just look at the equation in South America! SO many farmers that used to grow corn are put out of business by our "corn dumping" in their markets with NAFTA and CAFTA in place. This forces them to sell their farms to their countries' elites cheaply (or to multinationals directly in some cases) who turn it over to multinationals to set up "maquilas" on that land to provide cheap outsourced labor in those countries comprised of those very farmers that were put out of work and forced to sell their land. Then if these multinationals find someplace else with even cheaper labor, they pack up and go elsewhere and that economy is left with no jobs and you have unemployed workers looking to come here as illegal immigrants instead to get work. It's a vicious cycle.

When you have the WTO siding with our multinationals to force Mexico to drop their tariff on any soft drinks not made with cane sugar (that was an earlier attempt to protect their sugar marketplace), and allow dirt cheap HFCS-infested soft drinks instad, not only are you destroying their own marketplace with subsidized "corn dumping" in that case (that we the U.S. taxpayer pay for!) but it is also replacing a healthier food source with one that is strongly shown to cause diabetes, etc. (HFCS).

We need to stop our NAFTA, CAFTA, and GATT trade agreements and renegotiate them so that they are FAIR trade agreements and take into account labor standards, environmental standards, etc. of those countries we have so-called "free trade" with.

[Hippo_Tron]

83. I certainly wish we could re-negotiate NAFTA, CAFTA, and the WTO

But at the moment I don't think that is practical because other countries are going to have to want to do that as well. And while most people in developing nations would benefit from re-negotiating, many of those developing nations are controlled by the elites who would not benefit. IMO, it's going to take a major international financial crisis before all players are willing to re-negotiate.

[cascadiance]

95. If the U.S. pulls out of those treaties they might think otherwise...

The U.S. is still the big target market for most of these countries to sell their goods and services too, until our dollar collapses, etc.

Even places like Mexico and their elites can be screwed if the fickle corporations that first pay them for leases on land they got cheaply to do business on suddenly pack up their bags and move someplace cheaper. They're left with more land, but what do they have after that?

[FredStembottom]

28. Otherwise known as _tariffs_.

They can be in place within a single congressional session - no flights all around the world for "negotiations".

[Nederland]

62. That's not fair at all

Why should a country with 1/10th or even 1/100th the wealth be required to buy as much from us as we buy from them?

[dugggy]

139. Because we are not the bank for the world's welfare states

This country was poor once, and many times again as in depression
era. We became rich by using out brains and brawn. Let other
countries follow our example. India is doing it now after 4 decades
of socialism and prospering. We don't owe the world welfare. We have
needy right here in the US.

[Nederland]

288. Oh but we are

We loan more money to third world countries than all other countries combined...

[Kelly Rupert]

50. Then you don't disagree with Hillary's quote.

All she's saying that she doesn't believe that *all* outsourcing should not exist. She makes no other claims here.

[The Backlash Cometh]

19. Oh, go suck on a Mattel toy.

[FredStembottom]

26. Nonsense! You apply tariffs to imported goods.

Just as we did for the first 200 or so years of our history.
If producing tennis-shoes costs 90 cents/pair of labor in China but $5.00/pair of labor in the US you apply $4.10 of tariffs to Chinese tennis shoes entering the US.

Viola! Even playingfield for US shoemakers.

This Is what we did until Reagan came along and began making US workers naked to foreign slave-labor by pre-emptively dropping our tariffs. Bill Clinton finished what Reagan began. And outsourcing became a necessity for corps.

Stop with the straw-man of "make(ing) imports illegal"! We simply go back to what worked - and what almost all other countries (including China) still do. Tariffs.

:thumbsdown:

[pampango]

36. The tariffs you suggest would not do much for promoting development

and prosperity in the Third World. If we apply tariffs to imports coming from Kenya or the Philippines (or pick your favorite Third World country), we will effectively eliminate those imports and the local jobs that they create. That would not help poor countries develop.

If your response is that you don't care about Kenyans or Filipinos, fair enough. Americans may be your only concern. In that case, I think you are on the right track with respect to tariffs. The US would probably survive a world economy with very restricted trade much better than any other country. We are a large country that can produce most of what we need, in terms of food, resources and manufacturing. Most other countries are not so fortunate.

You are also right that the rules of international trade do allow poor countries to protect their domestic industries to a greater extent than the developed (richer) countries are allowed to do. The developing countries can't protect their own industries as much as they used to be able to do, but it is still not the same as for the Western countries. If you believe that rich and poor countries should be treated the same in this regard, you are entitled to your opinion.

[FredStembottom]

42. I suggest 2 things:

1) There would be needed a much larger effort toward defeating the awful political barriers within third world countries so that each can be it's own economy. Empowerment of the lower classes (and creation of middle classes) as opposed to further empowerment of tiny local elites. Big job. Would really challenge us to mean what we say about helping because:

2) Globalization clearly isn't helping the little guy. It seems to benefit just a few elites in each country who compile riches beyond anything history has ever seen. - just like we are experiencing here.

But starting by protecting middle-class Americans is not a no-no for me. An emaciated, crippled, captive-to-an-oligarchy America (with no idealistic middle class)helps no one.

[Mythsaje]

208. What if we just impose tariffs on goods created by American companies

using out-sourced labor? That would give an advantage to native companies who want to import.

We could also offer tax incentives to corporations willing to bring their manufacturing operations back into the country.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

215. Not ONE country has come to full prosperity using the standard

IMF/World Bank recipe for development.

China and India, the much ited "success stories," have a bunch of new millionaires and a few middle class people, but the lowest class people are just as badly off or worse.

Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the other East Asian tigers prospered through strict regulation of foreign investors, requirements for technology transfers and training of locals, high tariffs to protect their own industries, and investments in education, health care, and infrastructure.

There should be free trade but only among countries with similar standards of living.

[pampango]

230. If you want to restrict Third World countries to exporting only to

other poor countries, I cannot agree. I you want to protect our companies and markets from imports from Kenya, the Philippines and other poor countries, imagine how the people in those countries (full of poor people) feel about accepting imports. Every country loves exports (creates lots of jobs and wealth) and hate imports, so there is a natural tendency to want to put up tariffs on imports and complain when other countries do the same to your own country's exports.

We would be telling those countries, "We wish you the best in bringing some prosperity to your people, but you are not getting any of our markets or money. Solve your own problems. Pull yourselves up by your own bootstraps." If that is a liberal approach, then the definition has changed.

Would Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the other East Asian tigers qualify as "countries with similar standards of living", and have open access to our markets, or are we only talking about Canada, Australia and Western Europe? Would the Gulf countries qualify given their high standard of living due to oil wealth?

If we made our own society fairer with a much more equitable distribution of income and opportunities, I doubt that we would spend as much of our time fighting with illegal immigrants and Third World workers for the crumbs left at the table of the rich and powerful.

Finally, there is no "free trade". I am talking about "fair" and open trade which would be better for us and the Third World.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

267. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear

The current World Bank/IMF recipe for development requires countries to concentrate on cash crops, even if it means driving peasants off their land or reducing food production. It also requires governments to remove food subsidies and cut spending on health and education. They are supposed to privatize as much as possible.

Foreign companies come in and use the local people as cheap labor, taking advantage of lax regulations and low living standards. Sometimes they don't even pay a living wage. If wages start to rise, the foreign companies leave or even bring in workers from still lower wage countries.

In many cases, the country never sees the "foreign aid" it will be required to pay back, because the money goes straight from Washington or London or Tokyo to a multinational corporation based in the U.S., the U.K., or Japan, which builds a dam or an airport.

How would I change this?

Food stability would be the first concern. (This is something that China did right.) Land reform would give working farmers title to their land and access to credit. The country could place tariffs on foreign agricultural goods that are also grown there. For example, Ghana would be allowed to put a tariff on foreign peanuts, which are grown there as a staple of the diet, or cocoa, which is one of its few export crops, but not on apples, which can't be grown there. Mexico would be allowed to put tariffs on foreign corn.

Foreign aid would be directed at teaching the countries to process their own natural resources in-country. Foreign companies could come in, but only with promises of technology transfers and training for local nationals to assume full responsibility.

Eligibility for further aid would be measured by the number of children completing primary education, the availability of clean drinking water, and other improvements in the provision of public services. Evidence that the elites were pocketing the money or using it on vanity projects would result in cessation of direct aid to the government and funneling of grants to NGOs and indigenous non-profits and grassroots organizations vetted for honesty.

Shanty dwellers would be given title to the land they live on, and "slum clearance" projects could occur only if the residents were compensated for the loss of their homes.

Totally free trade would exist only among countries in the same region and of approximately the same economic status. This would allow each one to build on its strengths without one becoming a source of cheap labor for the others. Thus Mexico and the Central American countries would be a logical free trade bloc in a way that Mexico, the U.S., and Canada are not. Within each bloc, there would be free movement of people as well as goods, so that it would be in a country's interest to offer a decent standard of living.

Indigenous entrepreneurs would get startup loans with the ultimate goal of replacing as many imports as possible.

Those are just a few of my ideas.

[CTLawGuy]

248. poor countries aren't going to develop

by being cheap labor for American companies. If they did, then the companies would leave and go to a worse off country.

The key to development is promoting entrepreneurship in underdeveloped countries. Let them create their own jobs.

[pampango]

250. I agree with the idea of developing entrepreneurship in developing countries,

as has been happening in China and India in recent years. They both have evolved from socialist economies that did not reward entrepreneurship into ones that do. That is what is causing so much of the discussion here. If Mao still ruled China, the people would probably still be abjectly poor (though equitably so) and would still not make anything that would be a threat to our markets. Perhaps some here wish that were still the case.

The development of our economy and the creation of a solid middle class here was aided, particularly after WWII when the rest of the industrialized world was in shambles, by exporting our goods all over the world. (Heck, in some parts of the world refrigerators are called "Frigidares" even now, regardless of their actual brand, because for years that's the only kind people saw.) I agree that didn't happen because our wages were low, quite the contrary, but because we had essentially the only functioning industrial country for a while, but those exports did help us, just like exports are now helping China and India.

Would we have developed a prosperous middle class economy without that help? I like to think so, but I am an American and believe that our people would have achieved the same result, if perhaps over a longer period of time. I can understand, however, the viewpoint of someone from another country who sees a certain amount of hypocrisy on our part. They would say that the US benefited immensely from exports and trade in general for a long time and, now that the tables have turned to some extent, we want to restrict trade with many of these same countries.

[HughBeaumont]

31. It's grounded in predatory DLC Free-Trade theory, derived from Republitarian "econ 101".

It's practical to say there's a "positive" side to destroying one middle class in order to lift another? In which world?

I want a candidate to work AGAINST wholesale greed and wealth inequity, not one who's going to open the floodgates for making it WORSE.

[Mythsaje]

207. We could simply impose tariffs

on goods manufactured by American companies overseas.

It wouldn't make it illegal, but it WOULD level the playing field somewhat. They wouldn't even have to be HIGH tariffs. Just enough to pitch things the other direction. We could give tax breaks to companies that pursue manufacturing options here in the U.S.

There are a lot of things we could do. Clinton just won't consider doing any of them.

[Hippo_Tron]

14. Because there's no clear solution yet

Ever since the 1934, US economic policy has been consistently moving in the direction of freer trade. In the past, certain industries were hurt by trade and thus they would lobby for protection at the peril of the rest of the nation. Before World War II and to a certain extent afterwards, the Republicans were the party of protectionism because they represented business and agriculture that didn't want to deal with foreign competition. Labor was pretty much neutral on tariffs until the late 1960's.

The problem that we're seeing now is that every industry is vulnerable to foreign competition. Outsourcing is just another form of foreign competition, because corporations aren't "American" anymore they are multinational corporations.

Hillary (and all of the other candidates) won't support throwing up a fence to protect American jobs because none of their economic advisers can make a convincing argument that it's a good idea. We could pull out of NAFTA and the WTO but we have less than 5% of the world's population and we're going to have a hell of a time finding export markets for all of those new American goods that we'll be making if we pull out of those trade deals.

Another problem (among others) is the fact that if we cut off our markets to China they will cash in on all of the debt that we owe them and interest rates will go through the roof.

In short, there are quite a few things that we should have thought about before we dug ourselves into the hole that we're in now. But there's no clear solution how to get us out of the hole. The only consolation is that the Democrats at least aren't going to keep digging (see CAFTA). The Republicans, on the other hand, don't acknowledge that there is a problem because they are just concerned with gaining wealth, not how the wealth is distributed.

This issue, like most issues in international relations, isn't black and white. On health care, though, I agree with you 100%.

[treestar]

24. Why not concentrate on creating as many jobs as possible, world over

rather than "protecting American jobs?"

Why waste time worrying about where prosperity occurs? Wherever it occurs, it is a good thing.

This is the corporate media helping with the divide and conquer strategy. The workers of the world could be banding together to demand fair treatment. Instead, we allow the media to get us to create and us v. them mentality where we have to "win" merely because of where we were born. All of this "controversy" is to the benefit of the big corporations.

They all want us to compete for the "jobs" they so graciously hand out, country vs. country.

As though no one could band together to compete with them.

With the internet and easy international communication, we should be banding together with those workers to make it irrelevant where the current corporate bigshots go. And they will be the first to point out, these aren't "our" jobs. They are "their jobs" - meaning the corporation's.

Governors of the state I'm in, and I'm sure it's not unusual, travel abroad to beg companies to locate in our state. They give big corporations breaks to locate in our state. All to provide "jobs" as if we are helpless without the big corporations. We can't make a living without them - that's what they want us to believe. If we need them we will do as they wish.

[Summer93]

30. How true - your last sentence!

If we need them we will do as they wish.

[FredStembottom]

46. Don't forget that corporations are a legal construct granted...

...by our government! We already dictate what form that construct takes. We can revise it at any time.

And any particular corporation that doesn't like it should just dissolve. Others will rise to take it's place. That's capitalism.

[Romulox]

40. You seem to misunderstand "representative democracy"...

"Why waste time worrying about where prosperity occurs?"

Because our representatives are elected to represent the interests of the American people, not multinational corporations and their globalist enablers, that's why. :think:

Furthermore, the "I care about ALL the workers of the world as much as my neighbor," is just smarmy shorthand for "I don't really care that much about my neighbors." :eyes:

[FredStembottom]

45. LOL!

That's a great way to say it, Romulox!

As I say elsewhere in this thread: a sick America helps no one.

Fixing America is something we Americans can do. Once well (with a large idealistic middle class available again) we can think about helping all other countries end the political barriers (within their countries) that prevent internal "fair trade" amongst their own peoples.

[pampango]

54. Every country's governing elite, whether elected or not, has a vested

interest in promoting the interests of their own constituents not those of outsiders. Their perception of who their constituents are - representatives of money vs. military vs. people - varies from country to country and from time to time, but those who govern have a self interest (getting reelected, avoiding coups, etc.) in representing their domestic constituents.

Of course, our government should be dedicated to maximizing the prosperity of the American people. On that we probably agree. (Our current administration is a horrible example of that.) Where we may disagree is that I would also put an emphasis on promoting prosperity for people who may live outside of our borders. As Americans, we are richer than most of the people in the world, so I am in favor of promoting the prosperity of others, while we work to make ourselves better off and our country fairer and more equitable. (I don't know you, but I am always leery of people who suggest that we "take care of my (our) problems first, and when they are solved, we will worry about your (their) problems.)

Having been in the Peace Corps and lived in the Third World, I could not disagree with your last statement more. We should all care about people regardless of any accident of birth, whether that is gender, race, sexual orientation, language, nationality, etc. There are plenty of people I don't care about based on their behavior or other choices they have made, but I try hard not to value people based on these other characteristics. It's not that hard to like your neighbor, someone in the next state, in the next country and on the other side of the world.

[Romulox]

85. The problem with your ideology

Is that it is naive and impracticable idealism deployed as a pretextual justification for the de-industrialization of the United States and a sharp and marked increase in poverty, inequality, political and social repression and the concentration of power in the hands of the few. It's the most insidious form of double-speak.

[pampango]

96. Ok. Am I naive and impractical? Proudly so.

And the older I get the harder I try to stay naive and retain an impractical idealism. So, thank you.

You are obviously more sophisticated and practical than I, so I yield to your superior wisdom. Any attempt to narrow the wealth gap between the rich and poor countries is, I now realize, a very reactionary idea. I will now campaign on behalf of American exceptionality so that we may maintain forever our inherently superior standard of living versus the Third World. (I am trusting you that by maintaining our superiority I am not promoting a increase in poverty, inequality, political and social repression and the concentration of power in the hands of the few.)

[Romulox]

120. Impracticable is a different word from impractical...

Your mistake seems to have distorted your understanding of what I wrote...

[pampango]

124. Undoubtedly.

But I am not as good at the big words as you are, so I yield to your superior intellect. ;)

I think you get where I'm coming from, even I am unable to return the favor.

[Romulox]

133. Ummm, dictionary.com would have been a lot quicker...nt

[treestar]

91. Not true. Would you extend that to your state, then?

Suppose a company wants to move from another state to yours?

My state lost many jobs to North Carolina. So that's OK, so long as "our" jobs are only being "stolen" by other Americans?

You can't decree the economy to take place only within certain defined borders any more. This is the 21st century. Nobody on any other part of this planet defers to Americans as being inherently more valuable people. So trying to contain the economy within our borders won't work any more than it did for the Soviet Union.

[Romulox]

122. Your post doesn't make sense

Of course the states are in economic competition with one another, and of course it is my state's representatives job to advocate for the resident of my state (rather than yours,) when the two are in conflict.

Again, you may want to google "representative democracy"...:think:

[treestar]

254. My post makes perfect sense

You just don't want to acknowledge it.

Again, it appears you believe in a government run economy. How is that going to work and why is it going to work in the 21st century?

And how do you plan on surviving without international trade?

You really think it's your state's duty to provide you with a job? Suppose it can't? You don't have a right to move to another state, do you?

Should your neighbor have the right to start a business that competes with your employer's? Apparently not.

So you give in with good grace so long as its only other Americans stealing "your" job, but not if it is another country. Pray tell, why should that country not have the same right to beg the big corporations to relocate there, as well as any other state?

[HughBeaumont]

29. Here's a few . . .

First of all, the indignity of training your replacement as a requirement for severance should be made illegal. This isn't "knowledge transfer", it's corporate nose-rubbing, demoralizing and pointless frat-boy-esque hazing.

Secondly, it isn't as black and white as simply passing a law to stop it. Several measures need to take place not only in government, but in education and the business world as well.

First, American companies have to concede that outsourcing indeed represents a problem for the worker. Simply brushing aside the argument as "you're either free-trade or protectionist. It's THAT SIMPLE" is foolish: offshoring has clear winners and losers that need to be defined not based on hypothetics and theory (which is how everyone is doing it now), but reality.

Next, the US government needs to begin to measure the magnitude of the problem. Currently, no one really knows how many jobs have actually been offshored because corporations either refuse to report it, period, or announce proposed offshoring at a later date after the cuts happen, which means either more or less jobs will be leaving.

US visa policies should also be reviewed with an eye toward protecting America’s labor market. Too many corporations exercise loopholes to get around the current Visa restrictions, particularly regarding L-1s. Visa abuse is rampant within many corporations in the race for cheaper labor here and abroad.

Meanwhile, the US should put more effort into helping and retraining workers displaced by offshoring. Our country has an atrocious record when it comes to redeployment of US workers at a comparable salary and skill set. We don't give near enough help that is needed for the cruelly downsized, and this especially holds true for blue collar workers. The worker has to completely fend for his or herself once fired, and this usually means developing a skill set for which they aren't fit or able to afford training for. Unemployment insurance is painfully inadequate. We spend billions on pork, corporate welfare and oil wars yet we shit on the very people and resources that makes the nation work.

What I'm saying is that there should be far less emphasis by business leaders to adopt the destructive and short-term way of thought. Just because it's "good business" doesn't make it "right".

More:

Ideally, one thing that should happen would be for US CEO's to . . . and I'm just spitballing here, stop being so damned GREEDY, but since that's never going to happen -

* Stop giving tax incentives to corporations to move jobs/companies abroad.

* Make it illegal for venture capitalists to be allowed to dictate to start-ups who they're required to hire.

* Push forward legislation that technologies developed by taxpayer-funded research (as virtually everything is) can be licensed only to American companies using local labor for, say, 10 years.

* Organize. Why there are so few labor unions for white collar workers is beyond me completely. I know there's WashTech or AEA, but there needs to be more.

* Keep the caps on H1-b/L1 visas.

* I know this is fantasy, but Universal Health Care could possibly help. That is, if you can get past Big Pharma and Big Insurance.

* Bring manufacturing back to the US in lower-cost areas. A weak nation is one that has no solid manufacturing base.

* Decide that companies with a large percentage of their workforce located overseas no longer qualify for lucrative "American-only" federal contracts.

* You start more pro-worker legislation and curb offshoring sharply, it will encourage more collegiate entries into the science and math fields. Common Sense 101: You can't expect kids to take up a career field when you're not giving them a single incentive (i.e. offshoring tech jobs, R&D, etc) to do so. No ROI, no inclination to learn. Simple.

The Bush administration, however, isn't doing a damned thing to stop this practice. To add insult to injury, it is pushing to expand trade treaties under terms that will make it even easier for CEOs to get even richer by shipping more jobs overseas.

I also don't buy the canard of "retraining" since it doesn't often work in the real world. Increased globalization has reduced the lag time between the initial development of new technologies and the offshoring of most related jobs. It took more than 50 years between the invention of the automobile and the outsourcing of car production to low-wage countries. But even if American labs produce breakthroughs in new fields such as nano- and biotech, the vast majority of work -- both technical and production -- will likely be sent abroad quickly. No amount of training will help us when those jobs leave the country.

If politicians know that retraining can't work, why do they continue to promote it? Easy: It gets the public off their backs. Instead of blaming the government, or the corporations that have eliminated so many jobs, the logic of "retraining" is to blame the victim. If you're out of work, don't complain. Just buck up and take responsibility for getting the skills you need. Ownership society truly does mean "You're on your own". If economists, industry pundits and financial analysts cannot point to a single industry that's creating a great deal of jobs and is sustainable for the time being, how is the average American worker expected to know?

I mean, what's left? Are we all going to have to become genome researchers or some other elaborate uber-career that takes over half a decade to train for? What do you tell the people who only have the mental capacity for blue-collar work? College isn't for everyone, you know.

From Outsourcing America's authors:

"As for the offshoring of government work, while falling short of calling for a prohibition, the writers point out that public agencies need to be more judicious in striving to keep taxpayer-supported jobs in the states. "We should recognize the enormous value of keeping certain types of government procurement onshore, especially in a time when we are far from full employment. In terms of high technology, creating strong preferences for American workers not only is in the national interest but is in the interests of national security."

In the long term, the writers feel that tomorrow’s workers need to be trained to have lifelong marketable skills. "If, indeed, our young people are facing a future in which they will have five careers rather than five jobs within one career, then adaptability is the desirable attribute for students." That means developing transferable skills that can be applicable to a new career, whatever it might be. "

One Free-Trade apologist lamented "People, we HAVE BRAINS." Doesn't mean a hill of beans if you ain't got the capital or resources in which to use them.

[Hippo_Tron]

80. I agree with most of your proposals, particularly unionizing white collar jobs

But I don't think they are going to stop outsourcing as much as people want it to.

[HughBeaumont]

88. You gotta at least put the brakes on it somehow.

As it is, there are very few equal-wage industries and fields a displaced blue-collar worker can go to. Ditto for white-collar fields that aren't location-mandatory. An influx of 10 to 13-dollar/hr jobs isn't prosperity, it's regression. You can't get anything less than a hovel for that wage.

You let corporations continue to run amok with no regulation, and all you're going to end up with is a two-class society possessing a ton of worthless university paper and serving each other, making the same wages as the people they shipped in or sent the formerly high-paying career to. What a great outlook. We're all doomed, and there isn't a single thing we can do to stop it (well, we can, but that would involve storming houses, blood in the streets, the subsequent tossing of the world's economy in the abyss and re-starting everything from scratch).

America doesn't need 140 million janitors, shelf-stockers, cosmetologists and lawyers. Can't be either-or. I'm not optimistic that "this too, shall pass" this time out.

[lligrd]

15. Hillary Would Have Made A Great President

Four terms ago. Now? Not so much!

[JTFrog]

17. Because you would be surprised at the number of people

who don't think they are affected by outsourcing. I don't know anyone who lost their job with me back in 2000 that would even consider voting for a Clinton. Thousands and thousands of people ended up like me. Losing their job, their homes, having to travel around the country with kids trying to pick up contract jobs where available. Living without insurance because contractor's usually don't get insurance. So much for the retirement plan you started working on. So much for college for the kids. Yeah thousands upon thousands went through this. But millions didn't, so they just don't care. This country has been consumed by greed. What's in it for me? That big black box in the front room tells them what they want and what they need and when they should get it.

The same with a bogus universal health INSURANCE plan. The refusal to say GLBT's have the right to get married. Refusing to immediately bring all the troops home. Refusal to stop taking corporate bribes.

And the amazing thing is those who's own ideals conflict with what she has to say have convinced themselves that she doesn't really mean what she says. They believe in taking baby steps, instead of trying to fix these issues aggressively. Apparently they have been living their lives quite comfortably while tens of thousands of families are being torn apart by poverty and war and suffering. And I post this at the risk of being taunted about pity parties by her adoring fans.

The Clinton appeal is almost as bizzare to me as the Bush appeal was in 2004. With all the evidence of what could go wrong, people choose to bury their heads in the sand.

[The Backlash Cometh]

18. That is my probem with Hillary.

She doesn't have the reference point to understand what's she's fucking doing to people in the middle class and lower class who don't come from money. She thinks it's easy for everyone to make the kinds of connections that help you get ahead through predatory tactics. And it's time that people realize, that here in the United States of America, nobody is getting ahead by being a nice guy. Everybody who makes it to the next level forward at a fast pace, had to do it by fucking someone over. Who stole my Cheese? That's why America has lost its charm, and why we have lost, for at least the next two generations, the ability to really give a damn about each other as a nation.

[Vinca]

20. I agree entirely with your post, saracat.

If our jobs continue to be outsourced, we'll turn into a third world country led by a small percentage of the megawealthy. A previous poster mentioned that we cannot stop outsourcing and we need to educate our citizens for high tech jobs, etc. What about the "not-college-material" people? Seriously - this isn't cracking wise. There's a percentage of the population that isn't bright enough or motivated enough to consider neurosurgery as a career option. Those are the people stuck flipping burgers for minimum wage. They used to run printing presses at book binderies and sewing machines at shoe manufacturing plants. They used to make a good living with good benefits. They made our communities and now they're sent off to school to become massage therapists and nurses aides. I'm worried Hillary will perpetuate this bad policy. How many toys with lead paint does it take for Mattel to become a toy manufacturer again rather than a toy distributor?

[FredStembottom]

32. Thank you, Vinca!

Excellent post!

And if you saw my post above.... we now have the new phenomenon of It workers and aerospace engineers having to scramble for the freight jobs (and burger-flipping jobs) that the trad. blue-collar worker needs.

Vast numbers of Americans are not Nero-surgeon material - and never will be.
But employers have huge numbers of engineers applying for the janitor position. They used to resist "over-qualified" people because they would soon leave. That isn't true anymore. Employers take these folks now - knowing that they are trapped in these low-skill jobs (but desperate to try to maintain some of their former 'high-skills" life-style).

That kind of worker is ultra dependable.
Sheer bloody fear keeps them on the job swishing toilets for the foreseeable future!

[Vinca]

55. This whole issue breaks my heart.

An entire way of life for many families has been wiped off the map. Within 10 miles of where I'm sitting people used to bind books, make shoes, make handbags, make paper products and a few other things. Now, within the same 10 miles, those jobs are gone and have been replaced by McDonald's, Wendy's, Dunkin Donuts, Home Depot, Pizza Hut and a couple of other fast food joints that pay low wages. While wages have gone down in the community, property taxes have gone up because the businesses that used to support the community are gone. It's a lose-lose situation for the average, middle class worker.

[hisownpetard]

268. Terrific post. I'd just like to add that, under the category of "Not College Material" also falls

those who are not necessarily 'unmotivated' nor "not bright" but are forced,
for financial reasons, to forego further education and get a job - any job -
so they can bring home some money for food.

[LWolf]

21. Why would any Democrat vote for a NAFTA supporter?

I guess those are the people who support the transition of the Democratic Party from the party of labor, of social and economic justice, to the party of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation.

The transition is all but complete, with transitional people in key positions of power, and the die-hard liberal reps relegated to the "loony left fringe" wing of the party.

LABOR is now too "fringe" to get support.

If the Democratic Party is to have any relevance to the non-corporate people in the U.S., the voters will have to make the change. It won't happen in Washington. Tptb there have already shifted.

If voters want to make that change, they will stop electing candidates who will complete that transition, and start electing candidates who will fight for us. Not those who SAY they will; those with a strong record of doing just that during their time in office.

If Democratic voters don't have the courage to stand on principle, to stand and fight for the party, then the majority deserve what they get.

Why the hell would we expect our reps to stand and fight and work for change, if we won't?

[Romulox]

43. Isn't DK the only Dem presidential nominee against NAFTA?

DK will be off the ballot by the time most of us get a chance to vote...

[LWolf]

159. He'll get my vote if I have to write him in.

I wouldn't count him out. He stuck it out to the convention in '04, and I expect he'll do the same this time. Otherwise, I'll have to write him in. Who's going to be left by the time my primary rolls around May 20th?

I don't plan to allow other states to narrow my choices.

[Kelly Rupert]

51. Because the other option is to not vote. n/t

[LWolf]

157. Bullshit. The other option is to vote for a candidate

that opposes NAFTA. I will be doing so.

[Nederland]

71. Because they work for an importer/exporter?

The bottom line is that 14% of US economic activity is derived from trade. If you pull out of NAFTA and the WTO, those jobs are going away. So yes, there are lots of people that see more trade as a good thing, and many of them are Democrats.

[LWolf]

158. Of course, putting a stop to "outsourcing"

jobs to places that don't have to comply with labor laws would bring jobs back home, too.

[Nederland]

193. Ah, the old "new jobs will be created" ploy (nt)

[LWolf]

226. Not at all.

It's not a "ploy" at all. A "ploy" is a tactic used to gain an advantage over an opponent.

First of all, I'm not referring to "creating new jobs." I'm suggesting that we RETURN the jobs that have moved overseas.

Second of all, I don't consider that a piece of propaganda designed to help me argue with you; it's not a "ploy." I consider it a valid, vital goal.

[treestar]

23. Are you equally against insourcing?

We should not be stealing other people's jobs, should we?

This concept is silly. Economic activity takes place all over the world.

You are letting the MSM distract you. And your underlying premise is that no American business should be allowed to expand, either. The same business moving jobs out could also be moving other jobs in or creating new ones.

Each country is not going to have a contained economy. That would be bad for everyone on the planet. The Soviets tried it and it didn't work.

[FredStembottom]

35. Nonsense! We had a "contained" economy for 204 years!

That is precisely what did work. See above.

The Soviets had a command economy. That really is a bad idea.

If we are arguing against the evil extreme we have now... it doesn't mean we support another evil extreme.

Regulated capitalism is what works. We have thrown away the regulations (increasingly since 1980). That is what was bad. That is why we suffer.

[Nederland]

64. We did not have a contained economy for 204 years

We've always traded with other countries. To suggest otherwise is to be ignorant of history.

It's true that in the past we had a trade surplus rather than a trade deficit, but that's because for much of our history we had less money than Europe. So what is it, now that we are the richest nation on the planet you want to change to rules of the game so no one else can do what we did?

[FredStembottom]

175. That's right we did trade....

...and it was all conducted through economy protecting tariffs. Tariffs on everybody's part - tailored to level the playing field in each country (ideally, if not fully in reality).

The rule changing happened in 1980 (and thereafter) when we began preemptively lowering our tariffs leaving us naked (to various degrees)to the Hobson's choice of competing with near-slave wages in other countries.

Other countries can still do what we did - but they need the barriers inside their own countries reduced. Crony-ism, totalitarianism, oligarchical strangle-holds are what the poor of other nations need removed. They don't need a crippled America.

Once our middle class is truly gone (and no longer able to pretend by replacing former wealth with new debt) who will buy any Third World country's anything?

[HughBeaumont]

39. Unbridled corporatism doesn't work either.

THAT concept is proving more disastrous for the welfare of workers worldwide than contained economies could ever have hoped to do.

The MSM isn't distracting ANYbody. We've known about this since 2005, when she first MADE that speech and way before anyone in the MSM picked up on it. This isn't NEW. Hillary's simply not aware of this little thing called the INTERNET, where you get more news than what's in the Big Corporate Media Six feedbag.

[General Lee]

69. teestar, I hope you won't be shocked by the facts but

most "insourced" jobs in America are due to foreign companies purchasing American companies. When these companies are purchased their employees are then classified as working for a foreign firm and their jobs are considered as "insourced" even though these jobs were created in this country. Don't let the term "insourced" fool you although the present junta in DC would love it if you were fooled.

[BlueJac]

25. Hillary is anti American worker......

Her husband was the great enabler and a Republican Light

[FredStembottom]

38. The Really Ugly Democrat Thing.

Is having to realize that Bill Clinton was the great enabler of all the economic suffering we now have in this country.

Will electing his wife fix this?

[HughBeaumont]

41. Everyone should watch "The Big One" . . .

. . . just in case there are those who wax eloquent about the great economic boom for everyone during Mr. NAFTA's years. Blue Collar suffered enormously under his presidency.

[FredStembottom]

44. A really important but kind of forgotten M. Moore film

It just gets more important each day!

[Forkboy]

56. That's still my favorite movie of his.

Only partly because it has Rick Neilson from Cheap Trick in it. :D

[illinoisprogressive]

48. I agree you will you 100%, both clintons care nothing about the people.

[flpoljunkie]

37. And then Hillary said this, two years later...

Unions Press Clinton on Outsourcing Of U.S. Jobs

By John Solomon and Matthew Mosk
Washington Post Staff Writers

Saturday, September 8, 2007; Page A01

When Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton flew to New Delhi to meet with Indian business leaders in 2005, she offered a blunt assessment of the loss of American jobs across the Pacific. "There is no way to legislate against reality," she declared. "Outsourcing will continue. . . . We are not against all outsourcing; we are not in favor of putting up fences."

Two years later, as a Democratic presidential hopeful, Clinton struck a different tone when she told students in New Hampshire that she hated "seeing U.S. telemarketing jobs done in remote locations far, far from our shores."

The two speeches delivered continents apart highlight the delicate balance the senator from New York, a dedicated free-trader, is seeking to maintain as she courts two competing constituencies: wealthy Indian immigrants who have pledged to donate and raise as much as $5 million for her 2008 campaign and powerful American labor unions that are crucial to any Democratic primary victory.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/07/AR2007090702780.html?wpisrc=newsletter

[illinoisprogressive]

47. She has no intention of doing any kind of health care reform.

[Tellurian]

239. Provide a link where she says she has no health care reform plan..

If you can. Otherwise, we'll assume this is just another bogus post of yours.

[redqueen]

264. So... you're saying she does?

Where is it?

[Kelly Rupert]

49. So how are you going to stop it?

There's a difference between supporting something and recognizing that it cannot be realistically stopped. How do you propose to illegalize Indian call centers? How will you ban Malaysian shoe factories? How will you prevent American businesses from consulting with Indian ones? How do you plan on erecting a wall around the American economy--and can you predict what the economic and geopolitical ramifications of that would be?

[Ethelk2044]

59. You have to push for congress to repeal the tax breaks. This is something

Obama believes in. You have to vote for someone who will go after fair trade. Hillary even wants to almost double H1B Visas. That means they will come into the country and work. Take good American jobs.

[Kelly Rupert]

60. Raising taxes on that won't stop outsourcing.

Really. It might slow it for a few years, but it won't change the fact that foreign labor is cheaper than American labor.

As for the second point--good. If a man can be a good doctor, lawyer, engineer, executive, writer, scientist, or professor, bring him in. America is not hurt by allowing the best talent in the world to work here.

[HughBeaumont]

68. "Good"???

Where's the American going to work?

Institutions, hospitals and industries can only hire and place so many people. Manufacturing, steel and other industries have been gutted by this practice for decades. Offshoring further weakens the value of our own workers and any degree they might get.

Or are you one of those "democrats" that are in favor of unbridled corporatism no matter WHAT the cost?

What about all of these complaints from business leaders wondering why incoming college freshmen aren't choosing math and science, completely ignoring the fact that so much of an investment in time and money by all rights should have some ROI attached to it. Such a job market, prevelant a decade or so ago, doesn't exist anymore.

Just because it's good for business DOES. NOT. MAKE. IT. RIGHT.

I listed methods to curb out- and in-sourcing. Like I said above, it's not at ALL as simple as saying "You're either FOR free trade or FOR protectionism. BLACK AND WHITE." Corporations don't even recognize that it IS a problem; or they do and they simply don't care.

Or maybe something needs to be done about the fact that corporations run America, and not people?

[Kelly Rupert]

103. The American is going to continue to work in America.

You believe that the American economy should focus only on job creation for American citizens? I'll tell you how to do that: destroy all machines. Why use a earth mover (employing one man) when you can use a thousand guys with shovels instead? Think of all the jobs we'd create!

There are only so many jobs in the world, yes. That is always the situation, and always will be. I do not see why a hospital should be forced to hire inferior doctors, thus giving worse care to patients, simply because those doctors were American. I do not see why a software firm should be forced to hire inferior engineers, thus placing themselves at an enormous competitive disadvantage, simply because those engineers were American.

Like it or not, American industry is, in every facet, in direct competition with European industry and Asian industry. You can't force people to contract with American businesses; there is no innate demand for American business in particular. As such, purposefully limiting the talent pool American business can draw on will in turn limit the level to which American business can compete with foreign firms.

And this is not a matter of "good for business." This is a matter of "good for everybody." Let's take a simplified model: two companies, Boeing and Airbus two engineers. One is American, one is Korean. Suppose the Korean one happens to have an idea that will make aircraft 15% more fuel-efficient. Suppose Boeing is not allowed to hire him, because there are not visas available to allow him to work in America. Airbus instead hires him. As a result, expanding airlines in Asia and the Middle East choose to purchase Airbus's A320, A350 and A380, instead of Boeing's 737, 787 and 747 lines. This forces Boeing to slow production, impacting thousands of American manufacturing jobs. We've given one engineering job to an American, yes. But we've hurt Boeing, its employees, and its investors in the process.

[HughBeaumont]

107. "inferior"?

Or "more expensive"?

Are you saying that Americans are incapable of being as knowledged as their Asian counterparts? That's pretty much what I'm gathering from your screed, as every one of your examples assumes the American is inferior in every way and form to the less-expensive offshore worker.

Reverse your example. What if the American has the 15% better idea, but since she's more expensive, the Korean who isn't as brilliant gets hired instead, and the hypothetic Boeing disaster still ensues. Is it still "good for everybody"? My scenario is what's more likely to happen, sorry to inform you.

Oh, I forgot, it's all about what the corporation wants over what's good for the country, apparently.

Nice hyperbole with the shovels example, BTW. :eyes:

[Kelly Rupert]

I didn't include the possibility of the American being better

because if that's the case, the American obviously has nothing to worry about. If the American is better, Boeing and Airbus compete over her, and whoever is willing to pay her more gets to reap the benefits. Sure, Boeing could still play it cheap and hire the inferior Korean for less money. However, Boeing has the option of hiring crap engineers for cheap under any scenario--they don't, because the extra $50k/yr for a better engineer is:

1. Minimal compared to the overhead that each engineer represents
2. Paid for if she results in the sale of just one more airplane over her entire career.

Businesses will hire the best-valued professionals. My examples assume the American is either worse or more expensive, because that is the only situation in which increasing the number of visas would cost an American his or her job.

[cascadiance]

229. Inferior? As a software engineer I find your comments here pretty damn insulting!

I've been in the trenches and see precisely how the H-1B Visa *GAME* is played, and the reason we're losing jobs isn't because Americans are *inferior*. If there's a shortage of supply of trained American workers in these professions that get outsourced or get populated with H-1B Visa workers, many of these kids not pursuing these careers here are SMART! They realize that the system is RIGGED against them to get cheaper labor to do what an expensive college degree here and life expenses here can't justify in today's market. They find another career here and train for that which isn't as likely to be outsourced. It's not about "getting trained in that career" that is the issue. It is about making it WORTHWHILE for Americans to pursue these careers to get them to WANT to pursue a college degree. Unless you solve that fundamental equation, no amount of college training "improvements", etc. is going to solve this problem.

Now the H-1B Visa program as originally goaled and conceptualized isn't necessarily a bad thing. If everyone followed the rules religiously about paying prevailing domestic wages for a foreign worker here and paying EXTRA to sponsor them, then it makes it an added cost to get this worker, which is only justified if you truly can't find an American worker with certain skill sets at prevailing American wages. Then such a program is only used in rare instances when such expertise doesn't exist here, and the caps we have had should have allowed plenty of room for companies to use this sort of program effectively for that purpose in mind.

The problem is that you had too many people that are SCAMMING this system. Instead of companies replacing their workers directly with H-1B Visa workers, they go to consulting agencies instead and hire a *service* from them (not a temporary worker). These contracting agencies hire ONLY H-1B Visa workers so that they can pay them whatever they want and not have a "prevailing wage" domestic worker in their employ to measure against to ensure they are paying adequate wages. Then big companies like HP and Sun, etc. can hire these low cost employees through these consulting agency "services" and pay wages that American workers can't compete with. Then these consulting agencies fill up the cap for H-1B Visa workers and demand that the cap be expanded, because EVERYONE wants cheap labor. This scam has been going on for well over a decade and a half. I've seen it happening myself and managers in my company joke about hiring this sort of worker.

Now then you ask, why do H-1B Visa workers work for a lot less money here than they would overseas. Well, first of all, they aren't on an even playing field. Those that want higher wages have to find a way of getting a green card, or they have to go home, as they can't go change jobs and work for someone else at a higher wage. There's that for starters. Then you have many who have families back in India who are living at a fraction of the cost of living that we have here, and who've had their Bachelor's degree subsidized for FREE by India instead of the prices most American students pay for theirs. They aren't going to be demanding as much if they are only coming here for a few years to build their "nest egg" for their family which as savings go will last a LOT longer than any savings that are made by domestic workers here where we have to pay tons more in terms of a cost of living.

If you want a true "global economy" that you say is unavoidable, what you are in effect saying is that a housing crash in this country is UNAVOIDABLE too. Because without the equation changing that is what WILL happen, and what many argue with the subprime lending market problems we are having now is ALREADY happening now! Do you want that? Do you want our housing market and just about every other big investment where we have a more expensive investment arena here than in other countries to collapse?

The problem you have is that you have elites here that want to have it both ways. They want to push the cost of the crash and all of the losses, etc. onto the rest of us and fatten themselves at our expense. We need to stop this!

[Nederland]

79. Doubling H1B Visas is a good idea

Better to have them come over here and work and pay taxes than take the jobs out of the country entirely.

BTW, they are not "American" jobs. They belong to anyone who is capable of doing the work. You language is reminiscent of white workers complaining about black workers taking "their" jobs for less money.

[Ethelk2044]

144. It is not a good idea, when someone is laid off for no reason at all.

I have seen it happen. Someone I know was laid off not because he was doing a bad job, but because it was cheaper to hire someone from India

[Nederland]

148. That's illegal

It is illegal for a company to fire an existing worker and then hire an H-1B visa holder to replace him/her. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, merely that the person you know should have sued the shit out of their employer...

[redqueen]

265. Sue? Are you fucking kidding?

:rofl:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

218. Hmm, if I take a certain bus to the gym on a weekday morning, it is

always full, front to back, with South Asians, all of whom live in a single apartment building a few blocks south of me.

One day I will stay on the bus to see where they are all going.

I find it hard to believe that NO American workers were qualified to take whatever jobs they are doing.

There is a difference between a small town in North Dakota hiring an Indian doctor, because American doctors don't want to live in a small town, and a high tech company in California firing its engineers and hiring foreigners on HB-1 visas simply because the foreign workers cost less.

[rinsd]

89. Hillary also believes in rescinding corporate tax breaks and Obama also supports more H1-Bs (nt)

[Ethelk2044]

145. Obama was not profiting from it with stocks

Hillary was profiting from it.

[rinsd]

149. Proftting from it?

Via her blind trust?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

53. Opposition to "outsourcing" without corresponding opposition to insourcing is hypocritical.

The hostility of the American left to companies employing non-American workers is not, I think, justifiable.

Western protectionism is a non-trivial contributing factor to poverty in the third world.

Outsourcing, i.e. employing non-Americans in preference to Americans - is certainly not in America's interest. America has the economic and political clout to force companies to employ Americans instead of others, bringing yet more wealth to America instead of other, poorer countries, if it chooses to, but doing so is not morally justifiable.

[General Lee]

58. Let's not forget

the president who got NAFTA passed. Hillary is a carbon copy of her husband in many ways. Her support of free-for-all-trade is a prime example.

[Nederland]

61. Opposing outsourcing is either racist or jingoistic

I am an IT professional, and my job is directly threatened by outsourcing. In spite of that, I cannot fathom why I should take the position that I should get paid four times what an Indian programmer with the same skills does. Am I entitled to a higher standard of living simply because I'm an American? No.

[General Lee]

65. You can make a choice!

Just tell your employer you want only a quarter of what you now make!!! He/she will be estatic!!!

[Nederland]

67. Very true

I wonder why those people opposed to outsourcing don't offer up that as a possibility? :eyes:

[Double T]

126. For the same reason YOU haven't gone to your boss and asked for a substantial pay cut............

it isn't rational!

[Nederland]

132. Not true, it is rational

Like I said, I make half of what I made in 2000. Why? Because half of what I made in 2000 is better than nothing.

[pampango]

70. Fair or not, you have succinctly stated what many here believe.

Because you are an American, you are entitled to make four times (or more) what non-Americans make for the same work. What's more we will keep out as many people and products from foreign lands as we must to make sure that we get what we deserve. (Sarcasm intended.)

We all know that the earth's environment cannot support the entire world's population living at our level of prosperity. If all of our efforts are directed at maintaining and restoring our own prosperity, of necessity much of the rest of the world will have to be kept in poverty or the environment will collapse.

[HughBeaumont]

73. You DO realize that . . .

. . . there are very few places in MIDDLE America (never mind big cities or their suburbs) where you can rent a 1-bedroom apartment if you made the yearly income equivalent of what an Indian white-collar worker makes. You DO know that, don't you?

If we're talking Chinese wages, forget about living on your own or a family; you wouldn't even make it out of your parent's basement. Or drive.

Is that the suggested "standard lowering" we should all aspire to?

Or should we just hand over all cash, assets and property to the ultra-wealthy and forget about ever getting ahead, all because you think Americans make WAY too much? Maybe we should live under bridges and eat bugs to experience REAL squalor to satisfy your definition of FAIRNESS?

Poverty is poverty. The world has different levels and there isn't any changing that. If you think it doesn't exist in America, then you're delusional.

[Nederland]

Poverty is not Poverty

There is what people in the US "call" poverty, then there is the poverty the most of the rest of the world has to deal with on a daily basis. You should watch the "30 Days" episode on outsourcing. It takes a US guy who has lost his job to outsourcing and sends him to India to work. He learns very quickly just how poor those people are and that he, as an American, has nothing to bitch about. There is one scene in particular where he goes to the "apartment" of a guy who manages over 60 people. It's literally a one room shack--about 12' by 12', and he lives in it with his whole family.

[pampango]

82. The world does indeed have different levels of poverty, but my hope is

that you are wrong that there is no changing that. I hope that there are no groups people who are destined for extreme levels of poverty with no hope of changing that.

I am not sure how you came to the conclusion that I believe there is no poverty in the US. Our domestic agenda should be to achieve a fairer society with a much better distribution of wealth and income. Not only is that a worthy goal in and of itself, once working Americans lived and worked in a fairer society they would be more willing to share their prosperity with those less fortunate in the world.

We spend a lot of our time here worrying about keeping Mexicans, Chinese, Indians and others from getting a bit of the working American's ever shrinking piece of the pie. I am only arguing that if we focused on increasing our share of the pie, so that it was fair and equitable, it would be large enough (certainly compared to that of most of the rest of the world's people) that we would be more open to sharing bits of our pie with them. At least, as a progressive I hope that would be our attitude.

With respect to your other point, I do not expect Americans to live on the wages that Indians and Chinese earn. Of course, in the long (hopefully not too long) run, I don't expect Indians and Chinese to live on what they make today. I hope that in a few generations they, like our ancestors here, will produce societies with productive economies that will generate new levels of wealth and generous people who will share that wealth within their societies. I see no reason why Chinese, Indians, Mexicans and others will not prove capable of achieving these things, at least to the same extent, and as imperfectly, as we have.

[Greyhound]

77. Spoken just like someone that is NOT subject to the destructive force of unregulated "outsourcing".

I'm sure you will deny it, but the facts are the facts. I hope you are able to maintain your blissful ignorance.

[Nederland]

78. Not true

And you'd know that, if you had bothered to read the first line of my post. Like I said, I work in IT.

Today I make 50% of what I made in 2000.

I don't bitch about it though, because I know I've got it much better than the people in India who are "stealing" my jobs. I love that phrase, "stealing jobs", BTW, as if only Americans are entitled to good jobs and anyone else in the world that somehow acquired a decent job must have "stolen" from some more worthy American... :eyes:

[Greyhound]

86. I did read your post and the fact that you are making half of what you made

in 2000 indicates that you have not felt the pain, good for you. But you also must know that you are the exception, either that or you are in management and were the guy that got to fire all of your co-workers.

How many years were you unemployed? How many fake "H-1(b)" interviews have you gone through?




ITAA is a creation of the corporations with only one purpose, to destroy the American IT worker.

[pampango]

87. Someone who is making half of what they made 7 years ago

is not feeling any pain from outsourcing? Is your contention that one only suffers from outsourcing if they have a 90% drop in income or lose their job altogether? You may find that many will complain about the effects of outsourcing long before the enduring the degree of loss of income that Nederland has endured.

I like the way you threw in the speculation that he might be in management, despite his statement that he is an IT professional. That kind of allegation makes him much more suspect to posters here. There are those of us here who view the people of the world as a whole. We try not to point at one person and say "You may compete for this job. You are from the right group", then point to another "You may not compete for this job. You are from the wrong group."

[Greyhound]

102. You don't know what the hell you're talking about, and that is typical for

the new "I'm OK, so everything is fine" American. Or are you one of the beneficiaries of the destruction?

Just like the manufacturing sector in the 80's, million have had their lives sacrificed to the corporations for no good reason, and too many that claim to care about people don't give a shit about anybody but themselves.

I hope you enjoy the world you're creating.

[pampango]

106. Is everyone who doesn't agree with you a member of this new group?

Can we have a difference of opinion without you accusing me of being a selfish "I'm OK, so everything is fine" American? I am trying to put in a good word or two for the poor of the world who do not happen to be Americans and you accuse me of not giving a shit about anybody but myself.

I hope you enjoy the world that you seem to be living in.

(Oh, I like your speculation that I somehow an a beneficiary of the destruction. There seems to be a pattern to your posts.)

[Greyhound]

116. What has happened to the workers of this country is not a matter of

opinion, nor some pseudo-academic cyber-debate, it is death and destruction and ruined lives, and your cavalier attitude about it is appalling.

I have disagreements and differences of opinion with all kinds of people and occasionally I have changed mine as a result of a reasoned, well-thought out argument, but you've simply interjected you unfounded opinion about a topic you clearly have no understanding of, attempting to frame the further destruction of millions American lives as some sort of theoretical exercise in global unification.

To wit; "There are those of us here who view the people of the world as a whole", as if this was just some inevitable evolution of the global community that just hasn't realized that it is better for all concerned, instead of the one-sided looting and suppression of the very workers you claim to care about.

This has nothing to do with Americans or Indians or Mexicans or Chinese, or IT or trucking or longshoremen or tradesmen or farmers, it is all about a downward spiral to world-wide corporate feudalism.

Perhaps you aspire to serfdom, but many of us are going to fight it with our last breath, and if we fail you will suffer too.

[pampango]

121. If my opinion is not "worthy" in your eyes, so be it.

Good luck on changing the "opinions" of others with your open approach.

Have a good one and may you meet many who share your beliefs. ;)

[Nederland]

129. Jingoistic Bullshit

Just like the manufacturing sector in the 80's, million have had their lives sacrificed to the corporations for no good reason, and too many that claim to care about people don't give a shit about anybody but themselves.

They didn't do it for no good reason. They did it so millions of people in real poverty (not the so called "poverty" American's experience) in the third world could have a chance for a better life. And yes, I believe those people do enjoy the world they have created. The problem is, you act as if the people outside this country's borders don't exist.

[Greyhound]

180. The problem is that if we don't take care of our own, we sure as hell can't

take care of anybody else.

Speaking of jingoistic, to paraphrase Cindy Sheehan, "just what was the good reason that our manufacturing sector was broken up and shipped to China for?"

BTW; Once you've experienced the "so-called American poverty" that people like Bobolink and thousands of your fellow citizens live with every day, I might give you verbal diarrhea some credence, but until then just hope we don't meet IRL.

[Nederland]

195. "Take care of our own"?

Why don't you understand that "our own" includes every human on the planet?

[Greyhound]

204. First, there are degrees of our own, my immediate family is the first degree

of my own, then come friends & neighbors, then my city, then state, and so on. America takes precedence over Mexico which takes precedence over India. But of course you can't possibly be so dim that you don't know this, so I have to wonder what your motivation for spouting what you obviously don't believe is?

I was born and raised in Denver so I know quite a bit about Nederland, and I also know that you are not going to impoverish yourself and go live off the land so that you can send all your worldly possessions to some kid dying of malnutrition in Darfur, so all of this "we are all brothers" bullshit is just so much blather to soothe your guilty conscience over having to eek out a living on $90K which puts you in the top 10% nationally and in the top 2% globally.

[Nederland]

210. Are you sure you like Kucinich? (nt)

[Greyhound]

211. Yes.

I don't have to agree with everything he believes, but the fact that he does have, and stands up for, those beliefs is another reason to support him.

I personally think that anybody that believes in some omnipotent, omniscient, being in the sky that watches over us is deluded, but everybody has a right to believe in whatever craziness they want to. I even think you have a right to believe that capitalism can be beneficial without severe restrictions and constant vigilance.

I also support American's unrestricted right to bear arms, and think health care, education, and justice are among our inalienable rights and therefore should not depend on a person's means. No matter that right now I am in the minority, eventually the rest of you will catch up, just like it has always happened in the past.

[JTFrog]

186. You are clueless.

I don't know if you are aware of the millions of homeless in our country. Do you think they have it fucking made? Do you think that maybe some of them used to have jobs before the people in India got them? I know from personal experience what happens. You lose your job, you can't pay your rent, you get thrown out on the street and once you're out there, trying to get back into the loop is almost impossible. Try going days without a shower or running water to clean your clothes. Then try getting information about where the jobs are, let alone trying to interview this way.

Ah but they can go to the shelter and get fed and have a clean place to sleep right? Wrong. The shelters are overflowing and your ass better get to the right place at the right time if you want to get bite to eat at the soup hall. Zero money poor here is just as bad as zero money poor in other countries. Only now the homeless and mentally ill can be made to disappear in our major cities like LA.

So many lucky suckers out there living under a bridge in cardboard boxes. But hey, it's the American way. Someone has to suffer so others can get to the top. Someone has to suffer here so they don't suffer over there.

Piss off. I've been there and I know damn well that starving here is the same as starving over there.

[Nederland]

196. You are the clueless one

I don't know if you are aware of the millions of homeless in our country. Do you think they have it fucking made?

Yes I am aware of the millions of homeless in our country, and no, I don't think they have it made. What you

Piss off. I've been there and I know damn well that starving here is the same as starving over there.

This is where you are dead wrong. The is absolutely no comparision between the poverty that exists here and the povery that exists over there. If you had been there like I have, you'd know that. Hell, if you just did a little research on global poverty you'd know that. If you insist that poverty be completely eradicated here before you even start helping anyone anywhere else on the globe you will never help anyone outside this country.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

219. Oh yes, Nederland, it was just total altruistic CHARITY that prompted

U.S. corporations to shut down their Stateside plants and outsource their manufacturing. :sarcasm:

[Nederland]

251. Not at all

US Corporations outsource because it is more profitable. The fact that outsourcing it is more profitable is not contradictory with my assertion that it also helps people in the Third World.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

261. And the corporations would do it even if they KNEW that it harmed

people in the Third World.

I recall seeing ad supplements in the New York Times in the 1970s in which countries such as Indonesia and Ecuador bragged about having lax environmental and labor laws and authoritarian governments.

[hisownpetard]

269. As in, "We want to hire them over there, so we don't have to hire them here." nt

[amandabeech]

224. They did it because they could pay people much, much, much

less while they sell the product for the same amount. Corporations are not altruistic.

I think that you really must like martyring yourself, or you simply lack the drive for self-preservation.

I hope to God no one but the most liberal dems are reading this thread, because if anyone took this seriously, the Dems would never win another election.

[pampango]

231. I probably do not agree with you about many things, but most of what you said is very true.

Corporations are not altruistic. Neither are football teams, my city council, or, apparently, liberal dems. Corporations are designed to make goods or provide services and make a profit (or they would never attract the money to hire the workers to make the goods or provide the services). Football teams are designed to win games, not provide social services. My city council is tasked with providing the maximum amount of services to city residents for the minimum amount of cost (and, of course, getting its members reelected). Liberal dems are, apparently, about winning elections.

None of them are altruistic by nature. They were not designed to be. You can either force them to be altruistic through legislation (my preference) or let them do what they do best and seek other ways of providing the social services (altruism) that we want or some combination of the two.

[Nederland]

252. I never said Corporations are altruistic.

All I ever said was that outsourcing helped lift people in the Third World out of poverty. Thise two statements are not contradictory.

[Nederland]

90. Not in Management

I'm just a lowly Senior Engineer. My company has been aggressively pursuing an outsourcing strategy for years now, and I've learned a few things.

First, almost all the decent IT people in India moved here on H-1B visas in the 1990s. They live here, mostly brought their families with them, and are paying taxes and raising their kids here. Given the choice of having talented people immigrate here and having the jobs exported over there, I'll take the people moving here every time. Shame Kucinich believes the right thing to do is eliminate or reduce H-1B visas.

Second, India is running out of talent. There education systems can't keep up with the demand. The net result is that IT salaries in India are out of control. Four years ago those guys made 25% of what I make, today they make 75% of what I make. The whole IT outsourcing boom is coming to a close as a result. When a company could slash their wages costs by 4 it made sense, now the time, distance and cultural differences doesn't cover the 25% savings. In other words, the market worked. Demand for their talent surged, salaries went up, equilibrium was restored.

Finally, the whole thing is our fault. IT professionals in this country were making way too much money. It would be one thing if you are talking about people making 40k-50k a year losing their jobs as it was in manufacturing, but that's not the case. In 2000 I was making 175k a year--a ridiculous amount of money. Nobody should have any sympathy for me or anyone else who lost their jobs as a result of the IT outsourcing boom. If you packed that money away during the boom years you did fine. It's the people who spent like there was no tomorrow that got in trouble when tomorrow showed up.

[Greyhound]

100. If by worked, you mean that the working person's wages have been slashed

to a subsistence level while owners earnings have skyrocketed, then yes it did. If it's OK with you that millions of lives, families, and futures, were destroyed, so that some company that was already making billions could make even more billions, then I feel sorry for you.

You are not the first person I've talked to that said you made too much money, it strikes me as ironic that most who hold that belief think it is just fine for an owner to extract 100's of millions out of their company and then accept billions in corporate welfare, while continuing to destroy the middle-class, and by extension, American Democracy. I think it is simply that most of us have been so brain-washed that we have no sense of our own worth. This is not a problem with the investor class. Did HRC feel guilty, or offer to give back the hundreds of thousands she made with her "lucky" commodity trade of $10K in the 90's?

The fact that we made OK money ($175K is hardly a huge sum by today's standards, I know several trades people and truck drivers that make that much) because we had the skill and the knowledge to make all of it work, is exactly how the magical "free market" is supposed to work, and all that spending "like there was no tomorrow" is what made the economy so strong.

Is it OK for a guy that can barely form a complete sentence to be paid millions every year because he can run fast, hit a ball into a hole, or beat the hell out of another guy? Shouldn't we force them in a more "reasonable lifestyle"?

[Nederland]

118. Answers

Is it OK for a guy that can barely form a complete sentence to be paid millions every year because he can run fast, hit a ball into a hole, or beat the hell out of another guy?

Yes.

Shouldn't we force them in a more "reasonable lifestyle"?

No, forcing on person to adopt a lifestyle that another believes is "more reasonable" is not a quality of a free society.

[Greyhound]

131. Then how can you say that your specialized talent that few can do with any

degree of competence (just look at the shit code that has come to dominate the IT world, not to mention the nightmare DB's and security measures) isn't worth a measly $175K?

[Nederland]

136. Answer

It isn't worth 175k because somebody else, who happens to live in India, is willing to do the same thing for less money.

That's how wages are set in the real world. You get paid what someone is willing to pay you. If someone thinks you're worth $200 an hour, you get paid $200 an hour. If someone thinks you're worth $25 an hour, you make $25 an hour. If you're making $85 an hour like I was, and then some guy in India (who worked hard to learn how to do what I do) says hey, I'll do that for $20 an hour, what do you expect to happen? Do you expect the corporation to say, sorry, but you're an Indian and we don't hire Indians? That's nothing but racist bullshit. People should compete for jobs and who gets the job should have nothing to do with the color of their skin or the country of their origin.

[Greyhound]

177. I can't believe that you really don't see the conundrum.

The guy in India didn't pay one dime out of his pocket for his education, and in his country a U.S. dollar is worth 45 Rupees and has even greater buying power. Further, all of the knowledge that he acquired in India was developed and established here, at our (the taxpayers) expense, and provided to his home government FOC. Add to that the fact that it is far from easy (nearly impossible) to go to his country and compete with him on an even playing field because his country is as "protectionist" as they come, and doesn't require a genius to see where this leads.

One other thing that we haven't addressed yet is the fact that we're not talking about immigration, we're talking about a concerted effort to flood the market and consciously force wages down. And what about the prices of what he produces reflecting the massive discount that he worked for? Did the price of Micro$hit software drop 80% after they started outsourcing all of their development? Can you but a pair of Nike's for $14.00?

You may not feel that you are a worthwhile human being with a right to earn a decent living, or maybe you think that because you came through the bloodbath, more or less intact, that it is just fine, but the millions that have been completely devastated don't share your view and they didn't just conveniently die to make way for the new global feudalism. There is still a great price to pay for this betrayal and, one way or another, it will be paid.

[Nederland]

192. I see exactly where it leads

The guy in India didn't pay one dime out of his pocket for his education, and in his country a U.S. dollar is worth 45 Rupees and has even greater buying power. Further, all of the knowledge that he acquired in India was developed and established here, at our (the taxpayers) expense, and provided to his home government FOC. Add to that the fact that it is far from easy (nearly impossible) to go to his country and compete with him on an even playing field because his country is as "protectionist" as they come, and doesn't require a genius to see where this leads.

It leads to a richer India and a poorer America. What's wrong with that? Aren't you in favor of redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor?

[pampango]

197. I can't believe you said, "What's wrong with that?

Aren't you in favor of redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor?"

The first response you are going to get (I'm sure you won't be surprised) is that "Americans matter more" than anyone else regardless of their standard of living compared to a citizen in a Third World country.

The coded phrasing for this will include:

1) Redistributing wealth to the poor is an great liberal policy if, and only if, the recipients of this redistribution are Americans.
2) We must take care of our own first (and we will get around to the poor in the rest of the world, when all of our problems are solved). We cannot multi task and do both at the same time.
3) The Indian and Chinese people are no better off today than they were 20 years ago. Therefore, it having been proven that trade does not help them, so they can effectively be walled off in order to prevent them having any effect on Americans.

The other response you will get (again not surprisingly) will include being labeled a corporate enabler, DLC shill, and perhaps even a spouter of RW talking points. I'll be surprised if you don't generate a few F-bomb responses as well.

[Nederland]

198. No better off?

The Indian and Chinese people are no better off today than they were 20 years ago.

The stunning ignorance of that statement leads me to conclude that this is a waste of my time. Goodbye.

[pampango]

200. You misunderstand.

I know that there has been a tremendous increase in the prosperity of the Indian and Chinese, though all of us will acknowledge that it will take them decades, as it did our country, to approach a standard of living comparable to ours.

My point in making those statements was to prepare you for the responses you will receive from the many here who oppose any trade with the Third World.

It is interesting that those who are great advocates of income redistribution domestically will fight it tooth-and-nail if you propose doing the same on an international scale.

[Nederland]

202. My bad

sorry...

[pampango]

203. No prob. n/t

[Greyhound]

205. Wrong again, it leads to a richer group of American billionaires and a richer

group of Indian billionaires.

You said it yourself, the Indians are starting to get all uppity and are demanding higher wages so now we send the work to the Chinese and eventually the Indians will be back where they were, with even less hope for their future as the prices in India are going up.

[Nederland]

214. Poverty is declining significantly

...in both India and China, so your claim that only billionaires are benefiting is simply not true.

[Greyhound]

227. Sure, in the same way our economy is just great.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.


Hope you enjoy the ride. Buh-bye.

[pampango]

241. For those who believe that Indians and Chinese are not better off now

than they were 20 years, I will give you credit for being intellectually honest. I would oppose open trade with the Third World if I thought that it was bad for their people. If you do not believe that the statistics from the UN regarding the improvement in their standards of living are accurate, you may choose to ignore their numbers and find some that you like better and make you more comfortable. Do those countries have tremendous problems, e.g. environmental, enduring poverty, inequitable distribution of benefits from their economies? You bet they do, but then so do we.

For those who believe that Indians and Chinese are better off than they were 20 years ago, and support open trade between the them and the developed (and relatively well-off) West, you are being intellectually honest as well. This group needs to work for the restructuring of our own society so that enduring poverty and the inequitable distribution of the benefits of our economy are eliminated. If we accomplished this, we probably wouldn't spend as much time arguing about who gets the spoils from the table of the rich and powerful. Illegal immigrants and poor workers in the Third World would not be viewed so scornfully as competition with our own working class for these table scraps. A fairer society would produce a more generous society.

[JTFrog]

234. You were not the norm.

If you want to feel guilty for making $85 bucks an hour feel free. But those of us that were making $10-$20/hour (which was the majority of us in the support field - techs, not engineers, not management) didn't deserve to lose our jobs. There were several thousand of us that worked for Dell. There were tens of thousand more like me that worked for other computer companies, technology companies, telephone and isp companies. The majority of that support work was sent overseas and people like me, with families to support, who were only making approx. $15/hr, were not socking away any cash. I do believe some of us were making less than those manufacturing jobs you can accept feeling sorry for.

Many are so blind to the separation of classes in this country. Sure, overall there is much more comfort in this country. But that comfort isn't equally shared. The CEO's get the comfort while many of the people he will fire to save a few bucks will become some of the invisible starving homeless people in this country. Nice balance, eh?

I'm all for helping the people of countries with suffering populations. Let's take all that money that we're using to kill some of those suffering people and use it to help them instead. It's my tax dollars, why can't I decide what to do with them? Use the war money to feed the poor and leave my job alone so I can feed my family.

Maybe someday you will realize that the damage done by outsourcing isn't always acceptable to those who are being damaged. And whatever good it's doing in another country isn't always acceptable to those who are being damaged. There are better ways of helping the poor in other countries.

[HughBeaumont]

255. Another good post, and truthful.

I never made 80 bucks an hour, that's for sure. Barely even made 20/hr back in the dot com boom.

Things could be better now, if the cost of living and inflation didn't outpace wage growth.

[saracat]

92. Why is the corporation entitled to pay less than a 4th of a living wage to

employees because they live in India.Why is the corporation entitled to 800% profit on the poverty of others? And yes you are entitled to more money because these companies were built with your effort in your country.

[Nederland]

123. They are not

All Corporations are entitled to is to enter into a discussion with a prospective employee regarding just compensation. If the person finds the compensation unjust, they are free to decline. If the person declines, the corporation is free to offer employment to someone else. There is no "entitlement" anywhere...

[bettyellen]

170. things in America cost 4X as much, but don't bother putting things in perspective

you might have guilt over being overcompensated- good for you. but lots of not great paying - but desperately needed jobs are gone too.

[Milo_Bloom]

66. Someone should watch the 30 days episode on outsourcing.

[Adelante]

74. Is that a TV series, Milo?

I'm a little out of the loop on American TV.

[Milo_Bloom]

75. Yes, by Morgan Spurlock.

Its based on the "Supersize Me" concept, where he takes someone against something and has them live their lives for 30 days.

In one episode he took a guy who lost his job to outsourcing and sent him to India to become a phone operator. The episode was quite enlightening and in the end, the person, who was totally against outsourcing, left for it. He saw that although we were losing jobs (at least in India) we were creating a middle class and opening up opportunities to people who had none before. He saw the amount of good that was being done for their country and realized that in the end, the amount of harm here was tiny compared to the amount of good over there.

Further the show talked about the opportunities of a middle class in another country creates for American's as well, as we wind up with a new group of consumers for American goods.

Obviously this doesn't apply in every situation, as some countries have the equivalent of slave labor and/or child labor and that shouldn't be acceptable. However, to demonize "outsourcing" as a concept isn't correct. It is a matter of how it is executed.

Howard Dean had some great ideas re: Outsourcing and attaching labor standards to the Free Trade agreements. Allowing workers in foreign countries to organize, etc... and demanding a liveable wage.

Outsourcing IS a reality of the global economy; however, it is only the current use of it that creates horrid inequities.

In the end, it can be sold to the American people as protectionism. Look what has happened with China recently. Having tough standards for Free Trade agreements allows for the benefits of outsourcing, while protecting both Americans and humans overseas.

[leftofthedial]

72. she's one of "Them"

she is not on our side in the class war

[rinsd]

76. Why would anyone support a candidate who campaigns as if his Senate voting record did not exist?

[Adelante]

84. Thank you

Dear (name withheld):

Thank you for contacting me regarding the H-1B visa program. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.

As you know, the H-1B visa program allows employers to hire temporary alien workers to fill positions that demand highly skilled employees. During the 106th Congress, I co-sponsored the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-first Century Act of 2000, which had bipartisan support and was signed into law on October 17, 2000. This legislation amends the Immigration and Nationality Act of 2000 to increase available nonimmigrant H-1B specialty occupation visas by 297,500 from FY2000-FY2002. In addition, the measure exempts from H1B numerical limits all nonimmigrants who work for universities and nonprofit research facilities, and eliminates the per-country ceilings for employment-based immigrants.

Currently, the largest category of workers who enter the United States with H-1B visas are those who will fill information technology (IT) jobs, such as computer engineers, system analysts and computer programmers. The U.S. Department of Commerce projects that employment in IT occupations will continue to expand rapidly.

Although Congress already has raised the caps over the next several years, debate about the number of available H-1B visas has continued. Some me employers in the high tech industries are urging Congress to eliminate the ceilings altogether. They argue that there has been a nationwide decline in bachelor’s degrees conferred in computer/information sciences, and that this dwindling supply of skilled American workers is forcing them to rely on foreign workers in increasing numbers.

http://www.zazona.com/ShameH1B/Library/Politicians/Edwards.htm

[saracat]

93. What matters is what they say TODAY.Hillary says this NOW!

[rinsd]

94. Saracat, you used a quote from 2005.

Fair is fair.

Hillary is singing a slightly different tune when it comes to H1-B's now that she is contending for the nomination.

Edwards voted for alot of the things (not just the war) that he now says he is a champion against.

[saracat]

109. I will look for a more recent quote! They do exist I know!

[saracat]

111. Apparently Hillary refuses to change her view on outsoucing Sept.8th CBS 2007

and she refuses to discuss her position! the following was part of her official response!

"But the Clinton camp has been pressed by labor leaders on her support for expanding temporary U.S. work visas that often go to Indians who get jobs in the United States, and it has been queried about the help she gave a major Indian company to gain a foothold in New York State. That company now outsources most of its work to India.

"They're obviously defensive about it," observed Lee, who has taken part in such meetings.

Clinton declined repeated requests for an interview about her views on outsourcing. Her campaign advisers, however, say she believes there are no inconsistencies in the comments she has made here and in India or in her actions as a senator.

They say she opposes legislative measures - such as trade barriers - to slow the loss of American jobs if they would restrain free trade. And they say she has supported the expansion of the temporary-worker visas because U.S. technology companies have repeatedly told her the visas are needed to maintain a ready workforce."

[Double T]

135. saracat, great thread and thank you for putting it up.

This will put the HRC position on H1B visas to rest. HRC is once again attempting to have it both ways. Please note date!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhLBSLLIhUs

[Double T]

137. NO, HRC is NOT singing a different tune.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhLBSLLIhUs

[rinsd]

141. Hence the word "slightly" as in singing a slightly different tune.

She is trying to emphasize other aspects of her technological plan as opposed to just more H1Bs.

[Adelante]

101. Edwards supports expanding H1B visas NOW, as does Clinton

August 1 2007

SAN FRANCISCO — Democrat John Edwards Wednesday became the latest presidential hopeful to use Silicon Valley as the backdrop to present a plan for the future of science and technology in the U.S.

Edwards, the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 2004, followed fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican John McCain in presenting a science and technology plan during an appearance before the Silicon Valley Leadership Group.

Edwards’ plan contains many similar elements to those of Clinton and McCain.

All three candidates favor expanding the H1B visa program to allow Valley companies to hire more foreign engineers and programmers.


http://www.nbc11.com/news/13802289/detail.html

[saracat]

104. I didn't post about the H1B visas! That was not the point of the OP!

[Adelante]

105. Are they American jobs going to foreigners?

Isn't that the basis of your complaint?

Look, I happen to think the globalized economy is here to stay and the best we can do is try to control things as best we can in our national interest. But if you're going to criticize one candidate, expect to get it back on your own.

[saracat]

108. Actually, my OP is about "outsourcing.Period, as for the other, Both Clinton and Edwardsalong with

Kerry Kennedy(I think) and a bunch other Dems were wrong in my opinion.

[Adelante]

112. Have you noticed all the H1B visa posts in this thread?

Have you pointed out they are inappropriate?

[Nederland]

125. Expanding H-1B visas is a good thing

The bottom line is that there is a shortage of engineers and programmers in this country. In the end one of two things will happen as a result: you can bring the people here or send the jobs over there. I prefer the former.

[Adelante]

151. Fine

I only point out to the OP that it is a good thing for Edwards and not just for Clinton.

I'm actually not an isolationist or anti-immigration. I think the global economy is what we have to work with and we need to get it to work better for us. I think labor unions should be organizing internationally to protect workers, including organizing illegal immigrants, and engaged in training American workers instead of beating a dead horse, as I don't see any way of turning back at this stage.

[OhioChick]

172. Shortage, My Ass.

Study: There Is No Shortage of U.S. Engineers

April 4, 2007

A commonly heard defense in the arguments that surround U.S. companies that offshore high-tech and engineering jobs is that the U.S. math and science education system is not producing a sufficient number of engineers to fill a corporation's needs.

However, a new study from Duke University calls this argument bunk, stating that there is no shortage of engineers in the United States, and that offshoring is all about cost savings.

This report, entitled "Issues in Science and Technology" and published in the latest National Academy of Sciences magazine further explores the topic of engineering graduation rates of India, China and the United States, the subject of a 2005 Duke study.

In the report, concerns are raised that China is racing ahead of both the United States and India in its ability to perform basic research. It also asserts that the United States is risking losing its global edge by outsourcing critical R&D and India is falling behind by playing politics with education. Meanwhile, it considers China well-positioned for the future.

Duke's 2005 study corrected a long-heard myth about India and China graduating 12 times as many engineers as the United States, finding instead that the United States graduates a comparable number.

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2111347,00.asp

[Nederland]

194. You are confused

Giving a job to an H-1B visa holder is not called offshoring, its called legal immigration.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

113. BINGO !

[earth mom]

97. I SO agree. Don't forget that Hillary supported the war in Iraq too when it was politically

advantageous of her to do so. :thumbsdown:

[rinsd]

98. Cool avatar (nt)

[bread_and_roses]

110. Good questions, saracat. I can't fathom it either. (n/t)

[Imagevision]

115. Hillary is the ONLY reason I would hope Gore throws his hat in the ring...

I believe like the rest, Hillary would say or deny anything to win, like Obama said Hillary is Bushlite!!

[Joe Chi Minh]

128. Maybe we should all use the term, 'expatriating jobs', rather than

'outsourcing' them. "Expatriating" our countries' assets is so UNpatriotic.

[dugggy]

279. I bet atleast half people on DU drive foreign made cars

Every one of these foreign brand cars EXPATRIATES
several jobs from American auto industry. Any
feelings of guilt in you foreign car buyers?

In 47 years of driving, I have never owned a
single German, Japanese, Korean or any other
foreign brand. I made a living here, I practice
INSOURCING by practising loyalty instead of
whining about outsourcing of low skilled office
jobs.

[L0oniX]

134. I don't support rich people. I don't watch millionaire's play with a ball on Sundays either.

The vast majority of rich people do not care about the poor or the middle class.
They get all the tax breaks and they turn us all into slaves of capitalism and war.

[dugggy]

147. If you drive a Foreign car, YOU have ALREADY outsourced many jobs

from the US auto industry. Ditto for any other imported
products in your home. Start at your own home before
preaching to others.

[Adelante]

152. And computers

I didn't know until recently they are all made in China now.

[Clark2008]

150. I don't know. Why would anyone support someone who

changes their mind when polls tell them to - from warmongering to NCLB. :shrug:

[Inspired]

154. I find some Hillary supporters in this thread to be cold and rude.

IMHO of course.

I thought Democrats cared about people. At least that is what my bumper sticker says.

[Colobo]

163. Some of them are rude indeed.

[saracat]

165. And they don't have a defense.

[saracat]

164. Me too! Sad , isn't it?

[ElizabethDC]

166. I find some non-Hillary supporters in this thread to be cold and rude.

IMHO of course.

[Colobo]

168. Hopefully I'm not one of them!

[ElizabethDC]

169. No, Katz, don't worry. I think you conduct yourself very admirably on DU

you show constant enthusiasm for your own candidate, which is a lovely thing to see.

[HughBeaumont]

185. That exchange above . . .

The whole "I don't feel sorry for you, pull yourself up by your bootstraps and quit complaining" bullshit . . . DAMN.

Far be it from me to call someone on what smacks of Repuke talking points, but talk about "your slip is showing".

Democrats are supposed to CARE about their fellow man and woman. That kind of says it all about where they're coming from.

Bad luck DOES happen. Sometimes you simply can't control things. Sometimes you do the right thing and it just doesn't happen for you . . . CONTINUALLY.

[OhioChick]

171. Hear, Hear!

:toast:

K&R

:kick:

[Rene]

173. Hillary will NOT get my vote. I've had my job outsourced 5 years ago

and today, in my new job(which I commute 3 hrs a day to).....I had to train an H1b Visa person from India. My company is getting more and more of them in....not hiring Americans....not willing to train Americans to do this job; I'm supposed to train these foreigners instead. I hate it.

[dugggy]

179. Is it because they just love the foreigners or is it because

the H1B visa foreigners work cheaper and work harder?
I bet it is the latter.

[Greyhound]

183. You would lose. It is because they are, for all intents and purposes, slaves.

They cannot complain, no matter how they are treated, if they lose their job/sponsor they are shipped back to where they came from but they will still owe whatever fee the "agency" charged to get them here. There are mountains of testimony from H-1(b) workers having to work 20 - 40 hours a week without pay, being housed in tiny studio apartments with as many as 20 other people, having up to half of the wages they are paid stolen from them by their "sponsors" or "agents", etc. This was the whole reason for the H-1(b)/L-1 visa programs to be implemented. Thanks Bill.

Nothing new really, you can look at what has been done in similar cases going back all the way back to the "gilded age". The same families, the same companies, the same game, over and over and over...

All so that billionaires can steal more billions.

[dugggy]

260. I think we all should JOIN these billionaires in their H1B racket

instead of whining. Just import a whole bunch of hard working
slave labor for cheap prices and we can make a bundle. Like
they say if you can't beat them, join them.

[Greyhound]

182. You really want to get pissed? Your company has to comply with a list of requirements

in order to bring in a H-1(b), among them is they have to show that they've tried to hire an American but there are none available. There are several companies now that do seminars to show HR people how and where to place ads where they will not be seen, and how to write job requirements and descriptions so that they cannot be met, so that they can qualify for their own H-1(b) slaves.

Don't even start on how these poor people get reamed by the companies that bring them over, all so that billionaires can be bigger billionaires.

Is this America?:puke:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

220. Yes, I've seen this done, not for HB-1 visas but when HR wants to make sure

that a favored INTERNAL candidate gets the job over any possibly better qualified outsider.

They write the job description so that only the person they want to hire matches it.

[Adelante]

199. Who is getting your vote?

If you don't mind my asking and if you've decided already.

[Greyhound]

181. 29th recomendation for an astute observation.

Some of the replies are really depressing though.
:kick:

[HughBeaumont]

188. A lot of it sounds like it comes from the Tom Friedman/Marc Andreesen neo-lib playbook.

It almost makes you wonder if this sort of electoral indoctrination between the right-wing nutjob vs the right-leaning "democrat" is going to become ingrained from now on.

Year after year after year, it seems like we're not being left with much of a choice. Iran on the table, withdrawl (once we have the votes and the White House), capitulating to corporate needs, friendships with Reaganite bastards like Rupert Murdoch, not apologizing for believing the serial liar and war corporatist Failure Fuhrer, and now defense of job offshoring.

And to hear working people, people who aren't benefitting from offshoring or tax cuts actually becoming apologists for the practice and it's guillotine intentions, I gotta tell you all, it's REALLY fucking disheartening and despicable.

I'd like a logical explanation from Hillary how destroying one nation's working class to lift another helps working classes from both countries involved. Does she take in account unemployment and closed plants and businesses means less tax money going into the local and state communities, less income going into the economy, more secondary businesses such as bars, local stores, etc, closing because of all the lost revenue they once had when people are gainfully employed? Does she take into account the cost of retraining and the greater cost to the overall economy of likely underemployment (i.e. going from $25 to $13 dollars an hour)? Does she take into account the toll on the physical and mental health of the worker and the stress placed on families and relationships due to displacement? These are only some of the many reasons why offshoring and layoffs are unnecessary and economically detrimental.

Book after book after book provides more than enough real life examples of how this predatory and zero-sum practice is killing the livelihoods of everyday people, dismantling their hard work through no choice of their own. The Government and Corporate America does absolutely NOTHING to research, quell or cure this issue except brush off concerns and stunningly blame the WORKERS for their bad fortune.

It's sadder still to see the workers become big-business apologists.

Guess if it's going to happen, you might as well sit back and accept it, right?

[Greyhound]

206. Looking up-thread, it is apparent that these assholes think that they are

going to be on top someday so why not stick their heads in the sand (or up the owners ass) 'cause they'll be taken care of. It always happens this way and they're always so shocked when the owner throws their asses over the gates to the mob while he makes his getaway.

Then the crying starts.

"Come the revolution...":rofl:

[HughBeaumont]

222. All I know is . . .

. . . my Red-X Toilet is a-gettin' CLOGGED!

It's like they're just showing up out of NOWHERE!

[antigop]

190. A conversation with Sen. Dorgan about outsourcing...listen and learn

Sen. Dorgan is the author of "Take This Job and Ship It".
http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2006/07/27/2/a-conversation-with-senator-byron-dorgan-about-outsourcing

Dorgan should send a copy of this to Hillary.

[antigop]

191. Thanks for the thread, saracat. n/t

[L0oniX]

201. Who needs health care when we have plenty of cheap Chinese prisoner body parts?

:sarcasm:

[democratsin08]

209. whats wrong with outsourcing?

should every american who has an "insourced" job from a foreign company be fired? im amazed at the stupidity of the ignorance of a global economy.

[HughBeaumont]

221. SIIIIIIIIIIIGHHHH . .. I'll take this one, folks.

I wrote this letter to the editor of the Plain Dealer in March of 2004. Long story short, this Bewshbot reporter from their paper wrote an article about "The Flip-side of Outsourcing", detailing what we call Direct Foreign Investment (DFI for short), which is where say Toyota opens a plant here and employs Americans for the purpose of selling their product here to avoid shipping costs. This practice is generally a win-win for both economies, but at the same time, it's not the same as offshoring.

http://www.ofii.org/newsroom/news/040503cpd.cfm

In context, Steve Koff is a Bushbot reporter of the utmost shamelessness. Since outsourcing was the hot-button topic of the moment (remember N Greg Mankiw's comments stating offshoring "is good for the economy", pissing off just about every worker in America), he decided to equate offshoring with DFI to show that offshoring is not that bad . . . but that's totally apples-to-oranges. You know, like Republicans do with just about every damned thing. Anyway, this letter should explain things, and also give figures on both sides of the fence as of 2004 (I imagine the numbers are greater on both sides of the fence since the letter . . . naturally, it didn't get published). Note: OFII means Organization for International Investment, which tracks insourcing numbers.

Informative article about "insourcing", yet there's a few exceptions I have to take on it, particularly based on the opinions given by the Honda workers interviewed.

There seems to be a confusion of issues here between the agenda relating to the curbing of offshoring that John Kerry is trying to bring to the American people and what is happening with companies such as Honda and Nissan building plants here.

INsourcing is the result of a foreign company seeking to EXPAND it's market. In other words, these companies are creating work here to market their product IN AMERICA. Yes, they're creating jobs for Americans, but at the same time, these companies are not taking away jobs from Japan, Germany, England, etc. In turn, they're probably creating more jobs for their home countries since they have capital to expand and reinvest in their businesses. It's money that's going into TWO economies. Unlike American CEOs, who just pocket the cash and not expand or create new jobs/products to replace the outgoing ones (studies show that the new jobs being created lately pay 21 percent LESS than those of ten years ago); these foreign companies know that, labor costs be damned, expansion will only HELP their businesses in the long run. Small wonder why they're gaining the lion's share of the automotive market here.

When an American company OUTsources or OFFshores, what results is a displacement, not an expansion; solely for short-term, quarterly-profit gain. American jobs are TAKEN AWAY and given to cheaper overseas labor. When core competencies are shifted by already profitable "US-based" corporations like Microsoft, HP, Cisco, Lehman Brothers, Intel, etc; when manufacturing work by Ford, GE, Marconi, Pillowtex, Dow, DuPont, etc is shifted offshore; these companies aren't looking to create a market for their products in foreign countries. I seriously doubt that Indians, who make about $5000 a year on average, and Chinese, who make even less, could afford $10,000 Oracle software, HP copiers, SUVs and such. Multi-National corporations would have to sell their product at Indian-level wages - hardly an economic gain compared to the way they soak Americans with their inflated prices. In reality, American MNCs are offshoring to escape paying liveable wages to Americans, to escape paying health care costs, to escape paying benefits, to escape complying to American workplace safety standards and to generally escape paying taxes (incorporating in Bermuda also helps in that regard, but that's another story). While foreign corporations INVEST, American companies and their executives EXPLOIT for their own personal gain. They remain crooked and callous, only looking out for themselves and their lottery-esque pay in today's dollars rather than the long-term health of the American infrastructure.

Are you going to tell these people that offshoring is good for the economy?
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/81/offshore_profiles.html

And are jobs being created HERE as a result of this offshoring? Are new products being made? Are new killer apps/industries evolving to replace those technologies leaving? March notwithstanding, we're still down 2 million jobs not counting people who have given up completely. The unemployment rate ROSE last month. The number of part-time workers also increased. The growth of the labor force has surpassed the economy's ability to accomodate it through jobs. Without anything to move to and with no net jobs being created, the overpriced American worker remains the loser in a ZERO SUM GAME. What I find disgusting about it all is that the same people who decry how "expensive" American labor is see NO problem with CEOs earning three lotteries a year, sealed and approved by board members (who are, not coincidentally, OTHER CEOs and execs).

http://proliberty.com/observer/20031110.htm

http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/Norma_Sherry/out_sourcing_america-job%20loss%20and%20unemployment.htm

According to those two articles, since 1986, we've LOST over 15 million manufacturing/steel/automotive/textile jobs to offshore plants. I think that kind of absorbs the OFII's little 6.4 million number more than two-fold. Also, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, manufacturing overall hasn't hired a single new worker IN 44 STRAIGHT MONTHS.

(Incidentally, if I were Mr. Spangler, Mr. Gilliland and the other several million employed in these auto/mfg plants, I wouldn't be laying false praises on GWB just yet. Automation is going to be hitting these places in the next decade, something good-ol pro-corporate OFII doesn't tell you, and the possible reason why these places have no retiree benefits or pension plans (according to the union representative quoted in your article).)

Let's not jump to the conclusion that just because foreign companies invest here, that means it's the same thing as an American MNC offshoring manufacturing, or even worse, core competency IT jobs. These American businesses aren't using cost savings for the purpose of penetrating foreign markets and jobs here are lost as a result. Yes, offshoring has only cost America 5% of our tech jobs today, but offshoring is estimated by its proponents to be growing at around 25% or so a year. A UC Berkeley study estimates it will take 14 million or more jobs by 2015*. (The New Wave of Outsourcing, Fisher Center for Real Estate and Urban Economics.) Is going to college for four to eight years only to come out to a career that followed it's predecessor offshore an ideal society to live in?

Let's not confuse INsourcing and OFFshoring. Just because one happens doesn't make the other right or any less deadly to progress of the middle class.

Just wanted to clear up a few things - thank you for reading.

You get the picture now?

Seen the latest employment numbers?

We LOST jobs this month.

The economy hasn't hit the break-even point in job creation in many months. I should know because I have to track this every month as part of my JOB.

You're looking for something that's amazing, try working-class Big Business apologists calling themselves "Democrats". Just sayin' . . .

[JTFrog]

236. Thank you for that post. n/t

[amandabeech]

225. Gimme some of that cool-aid!!!!

That must be dy-no-mite happy stuff.

All I ask is that you wake me when all the unemployed Americans decide that they have nothing to lose and revolt. It should be a really good show and watching a country go down sometimes is a one-in-a-lifetime opportunity, don't you think?

I am being very serious when I say that I think that a civil war, general revolt or some other national convulsion is coming. The amount of anger I have seen in the last year over jobs and immigration, here and everywhere, leads me to believe that our body politic is in serious danger.

The callous and the martyred here seem unwilling to do anything to save the country from tragedy. Perhaps these citizens of the world can travel elsewhere to live and work. I, for one, cannot. I'm too old and my family has been here for too long for me to be able to retreat to some ancestral homeland, not that I'd really want to.

I want to stand and fight (no, not with guns) for a decent life and a decent country for everyone here who identifies with the United States. Anyone with me?

[pampango]

238. The problem that many here have with the "insourcing-outsourcing"

controversy is that we are not "winning" at it. If more jobs were being insourced than outsourced, there would probably be a lot less controversy here about it. Germany somehow manages to "win" at this, in spite of their high wage, high social service economy. If we do not "win", though, the competition must be inherently unfair and we need to be protected from all of those poor Third World workers out there.

[HughBeaumont]

242. There is no "must be" about it. The competition IS inherently unfair.

You're dealing with a currency gap, not a knowledge gap.

It's not competition when Indian workers are always going to be cheaper because their cost of living allows for their salaries and ours doesn't. Surely you can even attest to that.

It's not competition when you're giving them the R&D and future "killer apps" that we should be getting our hands on.

It's not competition because we don't MAKE anything HERE anymore.

It's not competition because they're already getting the jump on sciences such as nano- and Bio-technology while were trying to destroy science to believe a story and appease a bunch of toupeed wackjobs with crosses.

It's not competition when you enable corporations to displace thousands of American workers either by offshoring or inshoring via tax breaks and loopholes.

It's not competition when you have nothing sustainable or sizeable on the near or far horizon to replace the outgoing jobs.

What it IS, however, is the destruction of the American middle class, exactly as the well-monied Robber Baron Republican'ts want it. Offshoring helps NO one but the rich and drives down wages in every job they can ship over or bring here. "Everyone in their station and have the good sense to STAY there." A fearful, low paid, divided and powerless middle class is an OBEDIENT middle class.

[pampango]

245. Competition.

You're dealing with a currency gap, not a knowledge gap.

It's not competition when Indian workers are always going to be cheaper because their cost of living allows for their salaries and ours doesn't. Surely you can even attest to that. - Indian workers are not "always" going to be cheaper (unless you think that Indians are incapable of producing a prosperous middle class society). The workers in Japan and Europe were cheaper after WWII, but they have produced prosperous middle class societies and are not cheap anymore. If you think that India do this, or cannot be allowed to do so (let's say for global environmental reasons), then I understand you rationale for restricting their opportunities.

It's not competition when you're giving them the R&D and future "killer apps" that we should be getting our hands on. - Agreed.

It's not competition because we don't MAKE anything HERE anymore. - We are still rank #2 in terms of the world's leading exporters, so we must be making something. (Germany, not China or India is #1.)

It's not competition because they're already getting the jump on sciences such as nano- and Bio-technology while were trying to destroy science to believe a story and appease a bunch of toupeed wackjobs with crosses. - Agreed. This administration's religiously-based restrictions on science and research are a self-inflicted wound on our future.

It's not competition when you enable corporations to displace thousands of American workers either by offshoring or inshoring via tax breaks and loopholes. - Agreed. Tax loopholes for outsourcing are ridiculous.

It's not competition when you have nothing sustainable or sizeable on the near or far horizon to replace the outgoing jobs. - I am always subject to competition in my job, whether I have a viable alternative or not. It behooves me to try to have alternative options, but I cannot call off competition until I accomplish this.

What it IS, however, is the destruction of the American middle class, exactly as the well-monied Robber Baron Republican'ts want it. Offshoring helps NO one but the rich and drives down wages in every job they can ship over or bring here. "Everyone in their station and have the good sense to STAY there." A fearful, low paid, divided and powerless middle class is an OBEDIENT middle class.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

243. There's A Great Interview With Paul Krugman In The Latest Issue Of GQ

He said if the U S put up protectionist barriers the results would be neglible here but devestating to Third World nations...

Make out of it what you will...

[pampango]

246. I don't know what Krugman's reputation is around here up until now,

but Wikipedia has him as "an outspoken critic of the George W. Bush administration and its foreign and domestic policy. Unlike many economic pundits, he is also regarded as an important scholarly contributor by his peers."

Regardless of his DU rep before, I suspect he will now be a "corporate enabler", "DLC shill", and "spouter of RW talking points" for crossing the line.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

247. I Wish The Article Was Online

I'm a crappy typist and I'm not going to type entire paragraphs but here's some snippets:

"... but my trouble is that I've got a very strong sense about the advantages of free markets."

" I think that's (free trade) a good thing. It's not a good thing for the workers of Ohio, but it has real consequences like places for Bangladesh , which depend on open markets."


"If we stopped free trade and went protectionist tomorrow we'd reduce GDP by maybe a tenth of a percent . But it would be catastrophic for millions of people in poor countries..."

[redqueen]

266. False choice. No one is saying to STOP TRADE.

They are trying to make it FAIR.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

271. If You Think The World Hates Us Now

Try telling a Filipino farmer he can't sell his bananas here...

[redqueen]

280. What did I just now say? About not stopping trade? n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

282. The Problem Is Sometimes Folks Sell You Things But Can't Afford Yours

My hypothetical Filipino banana farmer isn't goiung to be able buy much stuff from the U.S.

[redqueen]

285. So?

What are they buying from us now?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

290. They Can't Buy Much Because They Can't Afford Much...

eom

[redqueen]

291. And?

Do you think their status would change if we pulled out of NAFTA and the WTO?

[pampango]

278. While I agree with you that fair trade is the way to go, there are many

here that want no trade with the Third World. Their rationale seems to be that, even with fair trade, workers in the Third World are paid much less than American workers thus, in their view, giving their products and services an unfair advantage over our own. These folks want to trade only with countries with similar levels of development and wages to our own.

[redqueen]

281. Who says no trade with the third world? n/t

[pampango]

283. There are some here who define "fair trade" in a way that would stop

trade with the Third World.

You and I (at least me for sure) define fair trade as requiring the inclusion of labor, environmental and human rights provisions in our trade agreements with Third World countries. With those provisions in force trade will benefit the people of the Third World, not just the ruling elites.

There are many posters here, though, who seem to believe that poor countries have an unfair advantage over us precisely because their people are poor and are paid low wages. To these posters, in spite of any of the provisions included in our definition of fair trade, these Third World countries would retain an unfair advantage that would have to be dealt with through tariffs or some other means in order to make it "fair", thereby limiting, if not eliminating, trade with those poor countries.

A poster in one thread was proposing that true fair trade could only occur between countries with similar standards of living, so that wage differentials would not be a significant factor in the competition.

[redqueen]

286. Have you ever heard 'fair trade' used that way before?

As something that can only happen between countries with similar standards of living?

I've never heard that usage.

Effin ridiculous.

[Armstead]

253. Bingosky

Despite her "liberal" label, and pseudo-populist rhetoric, Clinton has bought into the anti-worker, pro-corproate agenda.

[antigop]

272. Law Firm Teaches how to avoid hiring Americans

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Fx--jNQYNgA

[DemocratSinceBirth]

274. I Wonder How People Here Feel About Liberal Immigration Policies...

For the record I favor liberal immigration policies...

[mrgorth]

284. F NAFTA

and NAFTA enablers.

[Bullet1987]

287. It IS weird how NO ONE is bringing up the fact that Clinton has yet to

release a Healthcare plan.

[waiting for hope]

289. And she probably won't -

I heard three weeks ago it was a week out...... crickets ...... That's the strategy, don't put anything out there that can be criticized or attacked.