Hillary Promises India "Outsourcing Will Continue"!!

[PoliticalAmazon]

Hillary claims she is now, and has always been, against NAFTA and outsourcing American jobs to other countries. This is outrageously untrue, and her lying about her role in outsourcing Amerian jobs to other countries adds insult to the original injury of impoverishing American workers who lost their jobs. Her lies are a slap in the face to American workers who, by the quality and loyalty of their work, had built up successful companies and developed popular products and industries, only to see the Clintons and other NAFTA politicians send their jobs to other countries.

This article from Asia Times dated March 1, 2005 indicates, shows that, even then it was clear she was running for president (even though she said she was not), and that Hillary and Bill Clinton were India outsourcing companies' best American friends.

Part of the reason was that Bill Clinton had brought India-Americans into his support base, especially WEALTHY India-Americans (translate: campaign contributors) for his election, and the Clintons wanted to keep India warm for Hillary's run for the presidency in 2008:
"It may be recalled that former president Bill Clinton enjoyed close ties to the Indian American community during his presidency. It was he who first actively sought to build bridges as well as cultivate the Indian community in the US, recognizing their numbers - more than 2 million - as well as their immense money-power (read potential campaign fund contributors) as global information technology pioneers."

Despite what Hillary has claimed, she was very straight-forward about her support of outsourcing American jobs to India, and dismissed American workers' anger over losing their jobs as being nothing more than it being "...because they do not understand the economic benefits of outsourcing."

She was said to have a "strict adherence" to outsourcing that affects India: "She was followed around by the media, not to cut a decent picture of her for the glossies, but for her views on India-US relations, including burgeoning economic ties, as well as her strict adherence to the principles of free trade and outsourcing that affect India directly."

And Hillary's loyalty to sending American jobs to India drove her to continue to support outsourcing to India even when there was considerable backlash: "Hillary has been at the forefront in defending free trade and outsourcing. During the height of the anti-outsourcing backlash in the US last year, she faced considerable flak for defending Indian software giant Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) for opening a center in Buffalo, New York. 'We are not against all outsourcing; we are not in favor of putting up fences,' Hillary said firmly, despite inevitably invoking the ire of the anti-free trade brigade."

During her 2005 visit, Hillary "clears outsourcing air" by indicating that outsourcing will continue, and people attacking outsourcing of American jobs fell they were "'...left behind and are trying to attack the modern world in the hope of turning the clock back on globalization.'":
"Hillary clears outsourcing air
Hillary Clinton made it apparent where she stood on outsourcing during her India visit, in an attempt perhaps to clear the Indian misgivings received during the Kerry campaign. 'There is no way to legislate against reality. Outsourcing will continue,' she told an audience of Indian big-wigs. She pointed out that there were 3 billion people who feel left behind and are trying to attack the modern world in the hope of turning the clock back on globalization."

And talk about being out of touch! She portrayed American worker outrage over seeing their jobs outsourced to India as being because of a "trade imbalance"! "She ruled out that the anti-India feeling was a reflexive reaction, and explained that the feeling was more because of the imbalance in trade between the two countries, which in turn caused anguish among Americans about the nature of the economic relationship."

Hillary Clinton is clearly out of touch with the American worker. Her eager outsourcing of our jobs has not only impoverished American workers, but created a trade imbalance between India and the U.S., and this approach to the economy is NOT going to help stabilizing America's economy, nor help Americans who suffered huge economic losses by seeing their jobs sent overseas.

THIS is Hillary Clinton's "experience." I say that it is "experience" that we dare not allow to be repeated.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/GC01Df03.html
March 1, 2005

Hillary Clinton woos India

By Siddharth Srivastava

NEW DELHI - For all those who think that Hillary Clinton isn't gearing up for the US presidential elections circa 2008, they would do well to take a peep at her recent visit to India. She wasn't here as the wife of ex-president Bill Clinton, well known for enjoying India having visited the country several times as president, meanwhile charming a whole lot of Indians.

Hillary was in New Delhi last week in her own right as New York senator and as a person whom India sees as playing an important role in global politics and economics in the near future. She may deny that she aspires to be the Democratic nominee for president and says she is looking forward to standing for re-election to New York in 2006, but the rest of the world (including India) certainly does not perceive her in this light.

Despite busy schedules, including elections to three states and a natural disaster in Jammu & Kashmir to manage, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the all-powerful Congress Party president Sonia Gandhi marked out time for Hillary, who was accompanied by US ambassador to India David Mulford to a number of meetings. An official reception was hosted for her by the Indian government, while she also addressed a conclave of world leaders organized by a leading national magazine. She was followed around by the media, not to cut a decent picture of her for the glossies, but for her views on India-US relations, including burgeoning economic ties, as well as her strict adherence to the principles of free trade and outsourcing that affect India directly. Undoubtedly, the highlight of her visit was the hour-long meeting with Gandhi. The two women placed third (Gandhi) and fifth on the list of the most powerful women in the world prepared by Forbes last year. Everybody, at least in India, expects Hillary to make the dash in 2008 that would surely pitchfork her onto the top position of any list.

During her meeting with Gandhi, Hillary discussed at length the socio-economic issues of both countries. "Both the leaders assessed the growth of India-US ties from Clinton's time and how far it progressed. They have also reviewed the socio-economic situation prevailing in the country," a statement said. "It was a nice meeting and both enjoyed it," said an aide to the Indian prime minister following her discussions with Manmohan. "They talked about healthcare, education, India-US relations and South Asia. It was a wide-ranging discussion," the aide said. Manmohan told the New York senator that the Indian people fondly remembered the visit by her husband in March 2000. This marked a "turning point in India-US relations", the prime minister said, and recalled the "warm welcome your husband received" when he addressed the Indian parliament. Clinton said her husband "greatly enjoyed" visiting India and was deeply committed to the HIV/AIDS program the Clinton Foundation had undertaken in this country.

Even as Hillary left India, Democratic Senator Joseph Biden issued the clarion call that any Democrat who wants to run for president in 2008 should keep in mind these three words: Hillary Rodham Clinton. "I think she'd be incredibly difficult to beat," Biden said on US television. "I think she is the most difficult obstacle for anyone being the nominee. She'd be the toughest person and I think Hillary Clinton is able to be elected president of the United States."

It may be recalled that former president Bill Clinton enjoyed close ties to the Indian American community during his presidency. It was he who first actively sought to build bridges as well as cultivate the Indian community in the US, recognizing their numbers - more than 2 million - as well as their immense money-power (read potential campaign fund contributors) as global information technology pioneers.

India's relations with the US were by and large on the ascent under Clinton. Post presidency, Clinton has been closely associated with the American India Foundation and visited India in 2001, as head of an Indian delegation to collect funds for victims of the Gujarat earthquake. There was considerable talk at that time as well that the Clinton visit was a well-orchestrated plan to cultivate the Indian American community to keep them warm for Hillary if the need arose. The 2004 US elections also witnessed Indian-Americans reaching out to Republican George W Bush as a reaction to the virulent anti-outsourcing campaign being orchestrated by former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.

Further, given the strides that Indo-US relations have taken under Bush, politically, economically and militarily, the Indian community felt much more comfortable in maintaining this continuity. Bush has himself indicated his pro-India proclivities by promising that he will visit the country this year. Hillary surely does not want to lose the momentum built by her husband and wants to arrest any decisive turn by Indian Americans towards the Republicans.

Hillary clears outsourcing air

Hillary Clinton made it apparent where she stood on outsourcing during her India visit, in an attempt perhaps to clear the Indian misgivings received during the Kerry campaign. "There is no way to legislate against reality. Outsourcing will continue," she told an audience of Indian big-wigs. She pointed out that there were 3 billion people who feel left behind and are trying to attack the modern world in the hope of turning the clock back on globalization. "It is not far-fetched to imagine ... if the Indian miracle would be the one of choice of those who feel left behind," said Hillary.

Hillary has been at the forefront in defending free trade and outsourcing. During the height of the anti-outsourcing backlash in the US last year, she faced considerable flak for defending Indian software giant Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) for opening a center in Buffalo, New York. "We are not against all outsourcing; we are not in favor of putting up fences," Hillary said firmly, despite inevitably invoking the ire of the anti-free trade brigade.

Hillary further clarified her position during her recent visit as well as solutions that could be beneficial to both countries. She urged Indian industries to invest more in the US to allay negative outpourings over outsourcing of American jobs to India. "I have to be frank. People in my country are losing their jobs and the US policymakers need to address this issue," she said. She ruled out that the anti-India feeling was a reflexive reaction, and explained that the feeling was more because of the imbalance in trade between the two countries, which in turn caused anguish among Americans about the nature of the economic relationship.

"In 2003, US merchandise exports to India was $5 billion, while India exports to the US was $13.8 billion. Though the US understood that the economic vibrancy of India was in its own interest, there are people who feel left behind and might stir up negative feelings against India because they do not understand the economic benefits of outsourcing," Clinton remarked.

"If the feeling was to be arrested, Indian companies should invest more in the US to create a balance in trade relations," she said. Hillary added that she had personally wooed Indian companies to establish partnerships with American counterparts. "In June 2002, TCS partnered with the University of Buffalo to bring patented research to the market place. I would like to see more of such partnerships," she said.

Siddharth Srivastava is a New Delhi-based journalist.

[Liberal Veteran]

1. Yep. She basks in the great American tradition that the native Americans remember.

She speaks with a fork-tongue.

Anyone who trusts her is a fool in my book.

[anonymous171]

2. Obama should print this on a mailer.

[PoliticalAmazon]

9. Indians Buy Influence in Clinton Campaign; Hillary makes then "Top of the Agenda"

"Deepening and strengthening of US relations with India would be
top of the agenda if I am elected."
---Hillary Clinton in a 15-minute speech given in a New York campaign
fundraiser organized by Indian hotelier Sant Singh Chatwal where a
reported $2.5 million was raised for Clinton's campaign.

-----------

Hillary Clinton, as co-chair of the Senate India Caucus, has aggressively worked to send American jobs to India and increase the number of Indian guest-workers here in the U.S.

Yet she claims she is now against NAFTA and outsourcing, and has always been against NAFTA and outsourcing.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

This is how blatant it is: Asia Times says she is "pandering to political expediency." “Hillary Clinton has also been at the forefront in defending free trade and outsourcing, and that goes down well with Indians, though lately she has been tempering her speeches with the need to protect US jobs. This could be just pandering to political exigency, as her real stand is apparent.”

Indians can see through Hillary Clinton’s new-found concern over protection of U.S. jobs, and term it as “pandering”! Why can’t Hillary’s supporters see the truth?

It’s not just loss of jobs to India and other countries that are harming America. It’s the impact of India’s workers here in the U.S., especially their diligent efforts to control U.S. policy by contributions to political campaigns, that will convince American politicians like Hillary Clinton to promote India’s best interests over America’s best interests.

How do Indian workers get jobs in the U.S.? Through the tireless efforts of Hillary Clinton: “She addressed via live video an alumni meet of the vaunted Indian Institutes of Technology, and reiterated her call for more H-1-B visas for highly skilled immigrants. Recently, she told a gathering of Indian-Americans: 'We have so many friends here ... It's certainly for me a great honor to be the co-chair of the India Caucus in the Senate and to work with so many of you on matters of mutual interest.'"

Where is all of this money Indian migrants working here going? Quite a bit of it is going right back home to India, to the benefit of the Indian economy. Connection of Indian-Americans to their home country, India, remains strong, and is “pouring money to their alma maters or villages or towns of origin.” Of all of the money sent home to India, by far the largest amount comes from Indian migrant workers in America: 45% of all money sent home.

How much of their U.S. earnings are being sent home? In 2005-2006 it increased 25%, to US$25 billion; $13.5billion was used by Indian migrants’ families for food, health and education, and $5billion was saved in local bank accounts.

I wonder how many Americans who lost their jobs to India were able to put money in their savings accounts?

According to the US Censun Bureau, the median Indian-American 2005 annual income was $74,000. That’s 60% more than the national average.

There was $16million in direct foreign investment in India in 2006-2007 by Indians living in America. Indians working in other countries purchased 25% of the $10million worth of properties in India. In 2004-2005, shares of property by non-resident Indians was $930million; in 2005-2006 it was $2.2billion; in 2006-2007 it was $6.3billion.

Non-resident Indians (NRIs) also like to buy Indian bank stocks. From September to December 2006, NRIs purchased $3billion in bank shares (it was $362million in 2001-2001).

Here in America, Indian-Americans are said to “make up one of the richest ethnic communities in the U.S.” They are contributing money to political parties to increase their future power in America. They also increase their influence by being campaign managers. It is estimated that Indian-Americans could contribute up to $20million for the Democrats and Republicans in the 2008 campaign.

It is said that Hillary is the “favorite” to receive maximum campaign benefit from Indian-Americans.

What kind of benefits does Hillary Clinton get for selling out America to India? She gets “fundraising galas” thrown by her Indian benefactors (raising $2.5million for her campaign), millions raised by Chatwal’s Indian-Americans for Hillary 2008 campaign, and Telugu Indian-Americans (originating from an Indian state) are arising $1million for her.: “Indian hotelier Sant Singh Chatwal organized a fundraising gala in New York that is reported to have raised $2.5 million for Clinton's campaign. 'Deepening and strengthening of US relations with India would be top of the agenda if I am elected,' she is quoted as saying in her 15-minute speech.
Business baron S P Hinduja, Jet Airways' Naresh Goyal, new-age guru Deepak Chopra, and interestingly Indian Civil Aviation Minister Praful Patel are reported as among the well-heeled people who packed the Sheraton ballroom. Chatwal's Indian-Americans for Hillary 2008 campaign is aiming to raise $5 million.
Telugu Indian-Americans originating from the southern Indian state of Andhra Pradesh are also looking to raise $1 million for Clinton.”

Should Hillary be worried that her new-found concern over protecting U.S. jobs will have a negative impact on Indian money flowing into her campaign? Not hardly. Note that Indians can see right through Hillary’s recent concern about protecting U.S. jobs: “Hillary Clinton has also been at the forefront in defending free trade and outsourcing, and that goes down well with Indians, though lately she has been tempering her speeches with the need to protect US jobs. This could be just pandering to political exigency, as her real stand is apparent.”

Bill Clinton continues to be a driving force in India. It is noted that one of the charitable foundations he represents is the American India Foundation.

(The complete reference article follows.)

Asia Times
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/II14Df03.html

Indian-Americans stake their political claim
By Siddharth Srivastava

September 14, 2007

NEW DELHI - Recently L K Advani, leader of India's opposition Bharatiya Janata Party, made a near-turnaround in his and the party's virulent criticism of the India-US nuclear deal. Some reports suggested that the US-based non-resident Indians (NRI) lobby, which has been active in pushing for the pact, was instrumental in bringing about the change.

Though the nuclear pact faces a bigger challenge because of the opposition of India's left-wing parties, the recent episode once again brought into focus the persuasive power of India's diaspora, especially in the United States.

As the US is a democracy, has a vibrant political system and promotes individual enterprise, Indians continue to be one population most positively inclined toward that country. This is in contrast to the repeated negative polls of people in other parts of the world who resent the United States' hegemony as a military and economic power.

India, known for overbearing policies toward its immediate neighbors in South Asia, has never found itself closer to the US for strategic and business reasons. Indeed, the economic connection of Indian-Americans to their home country too remains strong.

The 2-million-strong Indian-American community, already known to exercise its economic muscle in US politics, has been known not to forget its roots easily, its members pumping in money to their alma maters or villages or towns of origin.

Remittances from Indians abroad continue to create a big demand pool in the Indian economy. According to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), remittance inflows to India rose 25% to US$25 billion in 2005-06, the highest globally, from $20 billion the previous year.
Of this, $13.5 billion was used by the migrants' families to meet immediate needs of food, education and health, $5 billion was stashed in local bank accounts, and $3.25 billion was invested in shares and property.

About 45% of the inflows came from North America, followed by the Persian Gulf region and East Asia, which contributed more than 30% of the funds received. "The higher share from North America could be attributed to the growing strength of professionals in software and other technology-related areas," said the RBI.

Remittances of $1,100 and above made up more than 52% of the total.

India received close to $16 billion in foreign direct investment in 2006-07. According to the RBI, the figure on acquisition of shares and property by NRIs has risen quickly from $930 million in 2004-05 to $2.2 billion in 2005-06, to $6.3 billion in 2006-07. Almost a quarter of the more than $10 million worth of properties being purchased in India is by NRIs. According to provisional figures released by the RBI, this April alone, acquisition of shares by NRIs was $868 million.

Bank stocks are one favorite; in September-December 2006, NRIs bought $3 billion in bank shares, including hot picks such as private banks ICICI and HDFC. In 2000-01, such investments stood at $362 million.

Indian-Americans, who make up one of the richest ethnic communities in the US, are doling out the money to be counted in the future power stakes of that country. It is estimated that Indian-Americans could raise up to a total of $20 million for both main parties in the current US presidential campaign.

Though Bobby Jindal and Kumar Barve have played a direct role in US politics, Indian-Americans traditionally have exercised the most political influence as campaign managers and contributors. The US Census Bureau has pegged the Indian-American median family annual income in 2005 at $74,000, almost 60% higher than the national average.

Democratic Party presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton remains the favorite to win maximum favors from Indian-Americans, though the current Republican president, George W Bush, is perceived in very good light because of his pro-India stance. Indians reached out to Bush as a reaction to the virulent anti-outsourcing campaign by his Democratic opponent John Kerry in the run-up to the previous presidential election in 2004.

Clinton, looking to maintain the momentum built earlier by her husband Bill, would like to arrest any decisive turn by Indian-Americans toward the Republicans. The Indian connection to Bill Clinton goes back a long way.

It was he who, as president, first actively sought to build bridges with and cultivate the Indian community in the US, recognizing their numbers as US citizens as well as their immense money power as global information-technology pioneers and sources for campaign funds.

Thus India's relations with the US were by and large on the ascent under Bill Clinton, who visited India as president in 2000. Such strategic aspects as backing India as a counterweight to China in the region have, however, only been fully formalized under Bush.

Since leaving office, Bill Clinton has been closely associated with the American India Foundation, and he visited the country in 2001 to head a delegation to collect funds for victims of the Gujarat earthquake. He has been to India on various philanthropic trips related to the 2004 tsunami and AIDS. Some say he has kept his Indian network warm all these year for his wife as he makes her own bid for the White House.

New York Senator Hillary Clinton visited India in February 2005, meeting Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and the all-powerful Congress party president Sonia Gandhi. New Delhi hosted an official reception in Hillary Clinton's honor.

Hillary Clinton has also been at the forefront in defending free trade and outsourcing, and that goes down well with Indians, though lately she has been tempering her speeches with the need to protect US jobs. This could be just pandering to political exigency, as her real stand is apparent.

During the height of the anti-outsourcing backlash in the US in 2004, she defended Indian software giant Tata Consultancy Services' bid to open a center in Buffalo, New York. "We are not against all outsourcing; we are not in favor of putting up fences," she said firmly, invoking the ire of the anti-free-trade brigade.

She addressed via live video an alumni meet of the vaunted Indian Institutes of Technology, and reiterated her call for more H-1-B visas for highly skilled immigrants. Recently, she told a gathering of Indian-Americans: "We have so many friends here ... It's certainly for me a great honor to be the co-chair of the India Caucus in the Senate and to work with so many of you on matters of mutual interest."

Indian hotelier Sant Singh Chatwal organized a fundraising gala in New York that is reported to have raised $2.5 million for Clinton's campaign. "Deepening and strengthening of US relations with India would be top of the agenda if I am elected," she is quoted as saying in her 15-minute speech.

Business baron S P Hinduja, Jet Airways' Naresh Goyal, new-age guru Deepak Chopra, and interestingly Indian Civil Aviation Minister Praful Patel are reported as among the well-heeled people who packed the Sheraton ballroom. Chatwal's Indian-Americans for Hillary 2008 campaign is aiming to raise $5 million.

Telugu Indian-Americans originating from the southern Indian state of Andhra Pradesh are also looking to raise $1 million for Clinton.

Siddharth Srivastava is a New Delhi-based journalist.

(Copyright 2007 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

[AzDar]

3. Kick ...

:kick:

[PoliticalAmazon]

4. American corporations' profit soars while American workers are impoverished by outsourcing. n/t

Because of Hillary and her ilk eagerly working to send our jobs overseas, American workers have suffered. At the same time, American corporations have experience an explosion in profit.

Outsourcing is bad for our country, and especially bad to American workers. Not only do some Americans lose their jobs, but others lose pensions, health care, and other benefits, as well as being denied pay raises, by these outsourcing corporations using the threat of outsourcing to keep the remaining American workers meek.

I don't think rural Pennsylvanians know this, and know of Hillary's large role in Americans losing their jobs because, otherwise, there would not be a Democratic Party voter in that pro-union state that would give her the time of day, let alone work for her.

http://www.latimes.com/business/printedition/la-fi-profits18dec18,1,6935632.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-business

As earnings sizzle, a chill for workers

Firms and investors, not the rank and file, reap gains from globalization and labor productivity.

By Tom Petruno
Times Staff Writer/Business Section

December 18, 2006

American companies are about to wrap up their fourth straight year of spectacular profit growth, which has filled corporate coffers with cash and kept the bull market alive on Wall Street.

Operating earnings of the blue-chip Standard & Poor's 500 companies have risen at double-digit percentage rates for 18 straight quarters, an unprecedented streak.

But to many rank-and-file workers, the booming bottom line may only serve as a reminder of what has been missing from their own paychecks.

Wages of average workers have just begun to improve in recent months after badly lagging behind inflation for much of this decade. Amid the surge in corporate profit, many workers have faced terminated pension plans, reduced healthcare benefits and rising outsourcing of jobs overseas.

The swelling earnings of business — and of many top executives — have become part of the debate about widening U.S. income disparities. When they take control of Congress next month, Democratic Party leaders will focus intently on those disparities, they say, and on trade agreements that some contend enrich multinational firms while destroying American jobs.

"I'm very passionate about this, and I'm going to be joined by some people who are equally passionate," said Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.). "Some reinforcements are coming."

Corporate leaders say they shouldn't be forced to defend the profitability of their businesses.

"It is a competitive world, and companies want to innovate and compete and win," said Larry Burton, executive director of the Business Roundtable, an association of 160 chief executives of major companies.

What's more, "a lot of us who are workers also are capitalists," said Barry Bosworth, an economist at the Brookings Institution in Washington. Small investors gain as rising corporate earnings boost the value of stocks held in retirement savings plans and other investment accounts.

The Dow Jones industrial average has rocketed 16% this year, to a record high of 12,445.52 on Friday.

Among the biggest U.S. firms, Bank of America Corp. earned $15.9 billion in the first nine months of this year, up 23% from a year earlier. Technology giant IBM Corp. posted a 25% jump in profit in the period, to nearly $6 billion. McDonald's Corp.'s results rose 15% to $2.3 billion.

By one government measure of profit margins, U.S. businesses overall were more profitable in the third quarter than in any three-month period since 1951, according to David Rosenberg, an economist at brokerage Merrill Lynch & Co.

In part, corporations simply have benefited from the strength of the domestic and global economies since 2001. As demand for their products and services has risen worldwide, so have their sales and profits.

But many companies' tight controls over spending also have helped earnings to balloon. And because labor is the largest expense for business overall, the damping of growth in wages and benefits has been a key contributor to corporate America's profit success in this decade, analysts say.

"Companies are saying, 'We can't afford anything' " when it comes to providing for U.S. workers, said Larry Mishel, president of the liberal Economic Policy Institute in Washington.

In the context of soaring earnings, "that's not irony, it's hypocrisy," he said.

One measure of the split between what employees get and what business retains shows up in national income accounts calculated by the Commerce Department.

Corporate earnings generated in the U.S. totaled $1.42 trillion at an annualized rate in the third quarter, or 10.7% of the economy's gross domestic income, government data show. That was the highest share of national income that companies claimed since the 1960s and was up from 6.2% at the end of 2000.

By contrast, total labor compensation accounted for 56.4% of gross domestic income in the period. That percentage has fallen from 58.4% in the fourth quarter of 2000 and has been in general decline since the early 1980s.

(The rest of national income includes rental and interest income and proprietors' profits.)

What's striking to many experts is that labor's share of the economic pie has failed to grow over the last decade even as American workers have become more productive. In essence, those productivity gains have flowed to companies and their shareholders, not to the rank and file.

"We've had nine years of great productivity growth, and most workers see no gain for it," said Dean Baker, co-director of the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington.

In recent months, however, some measures of worker incomes have begun to improve. In the 12 months ended in November, average hourly wages rose 4.1%, the biggest pickup since the late 1990s, Labor Department data show.

On Wall Street, many analysts believe that the profit locomotive will slow sharply in 2007, in part as companies pay more to lure workers in a tight labor market. They also note that the corporate bottom line is inherently prone to boom-and-bust cycles. In 2001, earnings collapsed with that year's recession.

"I think we're pretty close to the top" in profitability, said Jim Floyd, a senior analyst at investment research firm Leuthold Group in Minneapolis.

But some analysts worry that wage gains will slow again if the U.S. economy continues to decelerate.

Stephen Roach, an economist at brokerage Morgan Stanley in New York, believes that the persistent threat of outsourcing helps keep a lid on worker pay demands, particularly at the lower end of the income scale.

That also has been the view of some in Congress — Democrats and Republicans — who have railed against trade agreements that they say encourage U.S. companies to move jobs overseas or to use outsourcing as a lever against domestic workers.

"All these companies say the same thing: 'We have to to compete,' " Dorgan said. "It's not about competing — it's about fattening their profits."

Yet few analysts believe that Democrats or Republicans would try to roll back the forces of business globalization.

"You can't protect jobs by stopping cheap underwear coming from China. It'll just come from Bangladesh," said James Glassman, an economist at J.P. Morgan Securities in New York.

The shift to low-cost manufacturing overseas has bolstered earnings of many U.S. multinational companies, but it also has provided American consumers with a torrent of inexpensive imported goods.

Some corporate critics say they aren't against rising business earnings but take issue with how that money has been spent — or not spent — in recent years.

The record streak of double-digit profit growth expanded the cash on the balance sheets of the nonfinancial companies in the S&P 500 index to $611 billion as of Sept. 30, from $260 billion at the start of the decade, according to S&P.

Many blue-chip firms have been using their cash hoards to buy record amounts of their own shares on the open market — hoping to push their stocks up — rather than fund more business expansion or hiring.

"We don't view profits as being excessive. We view them as not being put to the most productive use," said Richard Ferlauto, director of pension investment policy at the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

Mishel, of the Economic Policy Institute, said that although companies are free to do as they please with their profits, their decisions help determine the long-term viability of the U.S. economy.

"If we have high profits and it's not translating into domestic investment and higher wages," he said, "the system isn't working."

*


[e-mail]

[hfojvt]

5. "small investors gain"

Ha! In the long run, that is, if they don't get wiped out by a huge downturn.

[AzDar]

6. And another....

:kick:

(Important stuff, IMNSHO)

[DerekJ]

7. KICK

[quantass]

8. Thank You

[PoliticalAmazon]

11. Please, share the word. n/t

[newmajority]

10. Something just isn't right with this whole India thing

Beyond the outsourcing itself......

Isn't it odd that the two countries who aided the Bush Crime Family the most in tampering with the WTC crime scene, China and India (where much of the debris from the imploded towers ended up) are the two countries who have benefitted the most at our expense this entire decade?

Coincidence? Yeah, right.

[AZ Criminal JD]

12. Get inspector Obama right on that. And loosen the tinfoil just a bit.

[PoliticalAmazon]

13. If you disagree with the information, why? Don't you have any reasons? n/t

[AZ Criminal JD]

14. Yes, I disagree with the "information".

No one, including Obama, is going to stop outsourcing. Trade has created far more jobs than it has cost. In Alabama there are all sorts of new auto and steel plants here which are owned by foreign companies. Those companies are creating sold middle class jobs. The WTC stuff is too silly to comment on, but to be expected by those who know nothing about structural engineering.