Outsourcing: Good or Bad in the long term?

[NoCalMike 0]

Catfights aside, I'm rather tired of watching all the jobs around here get shipped off to me-he-co. Sure, there's always a "job" out there, but not everyone is a bachelor, or a couple with a kid. Say my plant were to go under, or get shipped off, there's families of five and six who are hit. Now, either they could draw from the tax dollars that they paid fair and square until they move or find something different, or they flip burgers and survive on cold french fries.

 

Call me lazy, but I'm collecting unemployment given that decision. I'm all for limiting its resources, and discouraging the career baby factories, but I don't see how it's the least bit "leechish" or what have you when it's utilized properly.

Because, far too often, it ISN'T used "properly". It is MEANT to be used as the stopgap while you look for another job. And whilr I wouldn't ever do that (again, I can return to waiting tables, or delivering pizza, or any of a number of things I did in my youth), if somebody else decides to and only does it briefly, fine.

 

However, WAY too often, it is used IN PLACE of having a job (there is a reason the GOP backed time limits on drawing it). Many would stay on it INDEFINITELY, if given the chance.

 

NO policy works perfectly for all people at all times. To try and do it would be fool-hardy and a waste of your time.

 

And, again, I've had to take jobs I hated to make ends meet. I can't cook to save my life, but managed to get jobs in kitchens for years whenever I needed it. I loathe yard work, but have done plenty of landscaping in my life. Occasionally, you have to do the crap work.

-=Mike

well then this begs the question: What is your social status? I'd imagine kitchen work/landscaping is rather horrible pay, but for a single guy with a small amount of bills(assumption) of course this is a viable option for YOU, but you are not looking or just outright ignoring the fact that washing dishes and mowing lawns is just in no way a reality for a lot of people. Even if they were willing to do it, both at once, it still wouldn't pay for 1/2 their bills. Hell Unemployment in itself would barely pay the bills, so it would be hardly desirable to replace a good paying job. Also, the higher the wage you leave behind at a job, the harder it will be to find the same pay somewhere else. This has nothing to do with "refusing to do a job I don't like" it is more the simple fact that these jobs, that they don't happen to like, would in no way pay the bills.

[Ripper 0]

Well the Mike trap is cleverly hidden amoung trees and shrubs and uses Hot Cocoa for bait. of course you keep falling into it.

 

 

 

Ripper- Not taking the forum that serious since...well... forever.

[Vyce 0]

I think this entire discussion boils down to how one perceives human nature.

 

Some here believe that people will ultimately do what's right for the common good, and thus will only use services such as unemployment pay to help themselves and their families (if they have them) temporarily until they obtain other, gainful employment (which presumably they've been actively looking for ever since their previous employment terminated). Presumably this is Rant.

 

Then there are others who think that people ultimately will act in their own best interests, and thus if given the opportunity will selfishly and greedily abuse programs such as unemployment assistance or welfare regardless of the fact that doing so causes everyone, in the end, to suffer the ramifications of that greed. This would be Mike.

 

I personally follow the latter ideology, but then again, it has less to do with my own socio-political philosophy, but rather everything to do with the fact that I've always been a pessimistic, cynical soul who thinks that most people are assholes.....it's just a matter of how well-mannered an asshole they are.

 

Unlike Mike, though, I'd definitely be taking that unemployment check. Woo hoo! Free money!!!!

[Ripper 0]

I think this entire discussion boils down to how one perceives human nature.

 

Some here believe that people will ultimately do what's right for the common good, and thus will only use services such as unemployment pay to help themselves and their families (if they have them) temporarily until they obtain other, gainful employment (which presumably they've been actively looking for ever since their previous employment terminated). Presumably this is Rant.

 

Then there are others who think that people ultimately will act in their own best interests, and thus if given the opportunity will selfishly and greedily abuse programs such as unemployment assistance or welfare regardless of the fact that doing so causes everyone, in the end, to suffer the ramifications of that greed. This would be Mike.

 

I personally follow the latter ideology, but then again, it has less to do with my own socio-political philosophy, but rather everything to do with the fact that I've always been a pessimistic, cynical soul who thinks that most people are assholes.....it's just a matter of how well-mannered an asshole they are.

 

Unlike Mike, though, I'd definitely be taking that unemployment check. Woo hoo! Free money!!!!

His theory acts like Unemployment checks are a endless supply to a person. You only have so much money coming to you for so much time. Noone is out there living off unemployment checks for the past few years.

 

I personally would have been homeless had I not taken the unemployment and went with McDonalds, and to say that unemployment is NEVER the answer is just plain stupid that not even Mike could possibly defend. And this is the guy that said everyone that ever has anal sex with a woman is really gay.

[NoCalMike 0]

I think this entire discussion boils down to how one perceives human nature.

 

Some here believe that people will ultimately do what's right for the common good, and thus will only use services such as unemployment pay to help themselves and their families (if they have them) temporarily until they obtain other, gainful employment (which presumably they've been actively looking for ever since their previous employment terminated). Presumably this is Rant.

 

Then there are others who think that people ultimately will act in their own best interests, and thus if given the opportunity will selfishly and greedily abuse programs such as unemployment assistance or welfare regardless of the fact that doing so causes everyone, in the end, to suffer the ramifications of that greed. This would be Mike.

 

I personally follow the latter ideology, but then again, it has less to do with my own socio-political philosophy, but rather everything to do with the fact that I've always been a pessimistic, cynical soul who thinks that most people are assholes.....it's just a matter of how well-mannered an asshole they are.

 

Unlike Mike, though, I'd definitely be taking that unemployment check. Woo hoo! Free money!!!!

Well I think this world is full of both types of people you mentioned, however abusers should not be able to dictate the policy for users.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Free Trade = good

Protectionism = bad

 

Haven't we learned anything in 200 years of studying economics?

We stopped being an agri nation...

workers were displaced

we made cars

stopped being a manu nation

workers were displaced

we made computers

shipped that to japan

we invented the internet

used that to ship stuff out

workers were displaced...

 

and yet at EVERY step this country has gotten wealthier and much better off. We're all so freaking spoiled and now we whine about high prices and the plight of the american farmer (who doesn't exist!)

 

200 years of economics says free trade is a good thing. Unless you feel like arguing about 15 guys who got a Nobel and pissing on the grave of David Ricardo...there is no way this is a bad thing.

 

Trump the economic argument with anything. It can't be done. No matter how much you put into the hardships and emotional trauma placed on those displaced, the entire society is getting better off at every single level. Our poor are rich compared to other nation's rich.

 

I hate the election year with catchphrases and mindless rhetoric

[Ripper 0]

Free Trade = good

Protectionism = bad

 

Haven't we learned anything in 200 years of studying economics?

We stopped being an agri nation...

workers were displaced

we made cars

stopped being a manu nation

workers were displaced

we made computers

shipped that to japan

we invented the internet

used that to ship stuff out

workers were displaced...

 

and yet at EVERY step this country has gotten wealthier and much better off. We're all so freaking spoiled and now we whine about high prices and the plight of the american farmer (who doesn't exist!)

 

200 years of economics says free trade is a good thing. Unless you feel like arguing about 15 guys who got a Nobel and pissing on the grave of David Ricardo...there is no way this is a bad thing.

 

Trump the economic argument with anything. It can't be done. No matter how much you put into the hardships and emotional trauma placed on those displaced, the entire society is getting better off at every single level. Our poor are rich compared to other nation's rich.

 

I hate the election year with catchphrases and mindless rhetoric

Would you like to share with me the next gradual step in customer service, and help desk jobs?

 

The one thing that all those thing you mentioned was that advancement occured, THEN outsourcing went. Now we have NO job creation and a government openly saying "Yay, send more jobs away."

 

If outsourcing is part of the machine, we are missing an important part to make it run.

[Guest Cerebus]

Ripper,

 

I refer you to the articles I posted earlier, they give a more indepth look at it outsourcing. You might not conisder yourself convinced but you'll get a better explination of what outsourcing is all about.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

What did Mike say that was so bad? Job outsourcing like it or not is the risk you take in a free market society. Truthfully businesses would be foolish not to take advantage of lower wages in overseas markets. That may not seem fair to people, but life isn't always fair.

Perhaps I'm looking at this the wrong way, but ethically, don't you see something wrong with not only taking advantage of people in other countries' shitty status? Is there nothing wrong with the sweatshops that Nike runs?

[Guest Cerebus]

What did Mike say that was so bad? Job outsourcing like it or not is the risk you take in a free market society. Truthfully businesses would be foolish not to take advantage of lower wages in overseas markets. That may not seem fair to people, but life isn't always fair.

Perhaps I'm looking at this the wrong way, but ethically, don't you see something wrong with not only taking advantage of people in other countries' shitty status? Is there nothing wrong with the sweatshops that Nike runs?

That's not with what this "new" wave of outourcing (with white-collar programming jobs among those supposedly being lost). For example, Hungarian computer programmers start at $4,800 a year; American programmers start at $60,000 yet in Hungary, that $4,800 would buy a comfy middle-class lifestyle.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I think this entire discussion boils down to how one perceives human nature.

Ooh, a Locke vs Hobbes discussion. Neat-o.

 

I know that my Dad right now, who's been working all my life, wound up with his company moving out to another country. This company is the largest employer and biggest moneymaker for this city & county, so it's going to hurt everyone slightly. To make things worse, there's guys all over with his skills trying to find work right now, so there's no job available where he's marketable.

 

So what are we doing? We're getting this house ready to sell, effectively cashing in to move to an area with less absurd housing rates (you know you're in Northern California when you make several hundred thousand dollars a year [we don't] and can't afford a place to live.) He's seen openings for places where he can work over there, but you be a local.

 

If it wasn't for unemployment, which is something I don't ever remember us having to depend on before, we would be so busy trying to afford food that it would take even longer to fix this house up to sell, longer to move, and longer to get another job.

 

So yeah, if people aren't being stupid with unemployment money, it serves a good cause.

 

Stephen Joseph:

Free Trade = good

Protectionism = bad

 

And yet, in Bush's America, offshoring is good and conductive to free trade, but medicine from Canada? Whoops.

 

This is the problem. We're not going to get truly free trade no matter what we do.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

What did Mike say that was so bad? Job outsourcing like it or not is the risk you take in a free market society. Truthfully businesses would be foolish not to take advantage of lower wages in overseas markets. That may not seem fair to people, but life isn't always fair.

Perhaps I'm looking at this the wrong way, but ethically, don't you see something wrong with not only taking advantage of people in other countries' shitty status? Is there nothing wrong with the sweatshops that Nike runs?

That's not with what this "new" wave of outourcing (with white-collar programming jobs among those supposedly being lost). For example, Hungarian computer programmers start at $4,800 a year; American programmers start at $60,000 yet in Hungary, that $4,800 would buy a comfy middle-class lifestyle.

Maybe some of the laid off programmers here in the US should move to Hungary?

[Firestarter 0]

And yet, in Bush's America, offshoring is good and conductive to free trade, but medicine from Canada? Whoops

Your position is based on ignorance or dishonest demagoguery, plain and simple. Foreign governments indirectly subsidise medicine in their countries at the expense of the American taxpayer. Drug companies are forced to sell their products at a loss abroad, at state-fixed prices, and must recoup their development costs by charging higher prices in the United States. As a result many large drug companies have moved the entirety of their operations to the United States, and fewer and fewer are willing to sell their products overseas. Thus, in this case, what you're attacking actually creates jobs here, and benefits us immensely by providing access to more advanced health care than is available anywhere else in the world. And, in case you're against Americans receiving more and better medicines than anyone else, consider this: there isn't a thing President Bush or any other President of the United States can do about it. There never has been. We don't force anyone else to create or adhere to inane socialistic welfare policies. They choose to do that themselves.

[NoCalMike 0]

What did Mike say that was so bad? Job outsourcing like it or not is the risk you take in a free market society. Truthfully businesses would be foolish not to take advantage of lower wages in overseas markets. That may not seem fair to people, but life isn't always fair.

Perhaps I'm looking at this the wrong way, but ethically, don't you see something wrong with not only taking advantage of people in other countries' shitty status? Is there nothing wrong with the sweatshops that Nike runs?

That's not with what this "new" wave of outourcing (with white-collar programming jobs among those supposedly being lost). For example, Hungarian computer programmers start at $4,800 a year; American programmers start at $60,000 yet in Hungary, that $4,800 would buy a comfy middle-class lifestyle.

That is nice for hungary, but still how does this answer the question of what type of equal or HIGHER quality jobs are being gained here in America because Hungary is getting the programming jobs? Getting a Bachelors or Masters degree and then losing your programming job only to become an overnight stocker at Wal-Mart is hardly the "american dream" that certain economists and pro free trade advocates promise or elude to when they claim, "oh don't worry, this will make better jobs come here!!!"

[Vyce 0]

And this is the guy that said everyone that ever has anal sex with a woman is really gay.

Well, a) I've tried it before with a woman and, yes, b) sometimes I do have tendencies. They mainly revolve around Elijah Wood, for some reason.

[Guest Cerebus]

What did Mike say that was so bad? Job outsourcing like it or not is the risk you take in a free market society. Truthfully businesses would be foolish not to take advantage of lower wages in overseas markets. That may not seem fair to people, but life isn't always fair.

Perhaps I'm looking at this the wrong way, but ethically, don't you see something wrong with not only taking advantage of people in other countries' shitty status? Is there nothing wrong with the sweatshops that Nike runs?

That's not with what this "new" wave of outourcing (with white-collar programming jobs among those supposedly being lost). For example, Hungarian computer programmers start at $4,800 a year; American programmers start at $60,000 yet in Hungary, that $4,800 would buy a comfy middle-class lifestyle.

That is nice for hungary, but still how does this answer the question of what type of equal or HIGHER quality jobs are being gained here in America because Hungary is getting the programming jobs? Getting a Bachelors or Masters degree and then losing your programming job only to become an overnight stocker at Wal-Mart is hardly the "american dream" that certain economists and pro free trade advocates promise or elude to when they claim, "oh don't worry, this will make better jobs come here!!!"

Christ, i guess I post this shit for my health. Allow me to quote:

 

Should Americans be concerned about the economic effects of outsourcing? Not particularly. Most of the numbers thrown around are vague, overhyped estimates. What hard data exist suggest that gross job losses due to offshore outsourcing have been minimal when compared to the size of the entire U.S. economy. The outsourcing phenomenon has shown that globalization can affect white-collar professions, heretofore immune to foreign competition, in the same way that it has affected manufacturing jobs for years. But Mankiw's statements on outsourcing are absolutely correct; the law of comparative advantage does not stop working just because 401(k) plans are involved. The creation of new jobs overseas will eventually lead to more jobs and higher incomes in the United States. Because the economy -- and especially job growth -- is sluggish at the moment, commentators are attempting to draw a connection between offshore outsourcing and high unemployment. But believing that offshore outsourcing causes unemployment is the economic equivalent of believing that the sun revolves around the earth: intuitively compelling but clearly wrong.

 

Should Americans be concerned about the political backlash to outsourcing? Absolutely. Anecdotes of workers affected by outsourcing are politically powerful, and demands for government protection always increase during economic slowdowns. The short-term political appeal of protectionism is undeniable. Scapegoating foreigners for domestic business cycles is smart politics, and protecting domestic markets gives leaders the appearance of taking direct, decisive action on the economy.

 

Protectionism would not solve the U.S. economy's employment problems, although it would succeed in providing massive subsidies to well-organized interest groups. In open markets, greater competition spurs the reallocation of labor and capital to more profitable sectors of the economy. The benefits of such free trade -- to both consumers and producers -- are significant. Cushioning this process for displaced workers makes sense. Resorting to protectionism to halt the process, however, is a recipe for decline. An open economy leads to concentrated costs (and diffuse benefits) in the short term and significant benefits in the long term. Protectionism generates pain in both the short term and the long term.

 

That last statement chills the blood of most Americans. Few support the cause of free trade for its own sake, out of pure principle. The logic underlying an open economy is that if the economy sheds jobs in uncompetitive sectors, employment in competitive sectors will grow. If hi-tech industries are no longer competitive, where will new jobs be created?

 

...

 

The current trend of outsourcing business processes overseas is comparative advantage at work. The main driver of productivity gains over the past decade has been the spread of information technology across the economy. The commodification of simple business services allows those benefits to spread further, making growth even greater.

 

....

 

McKinsey Global Institute has estimated that for every dollar spent on outsourcing to India, the United States reaps between $1.12 and $1.14 in benefits. Thanks to outsourcing, U.S. firms save money and become more profitable, benefitting shareholders and increasing returns on investment. Foreign facilities boost demand for U.S. products, such as computers and telecommunications equipment, necessary for their outsourced function. And U.S. labor can be reallocated to more competitive, better-paying jobs; for example, although 70,000 computer programmers lost their jobs between 1999 and 2003, more than 115,000 computer software engineers found higher-paying jobs during that same period. Outsourcing thus enhances the competitiveness of the U.S. service sector (which accounts for 30 percent of the total value of U.S. exports). Contrary to the belief that the United States is importing massive amounts of services from low-wage countries, in 2002 it ran a $64.8 billion surplus in services.

 

Outsourcing also has considerable noneconomic benefits. It is clearly in the interest of the United States to reward other countries for reducing their barriers to trade and investment. Some of the countries where U.S. firms have set up outsourcing operations -- including India, Poland, and the Philippines -- are vital allies in the war on terrorism. Just as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) helped Mexico deepen its democratic transition and strengthen its rule of law, the United States gains considerably from the political reorientation spurred by economic growth and interdependence.

 

Finally, the benefits of "insourcing" should not be overlooked. Just as U.S. firms outsource positions to developing countries, firms in other countries outsource positions to the United States. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of outsourced jobs increased from 6.5 million in 1983 to 10 million in 2000. The number of insourced jobs increased even more in the same period, from 2.5 million to 6.5 million.

[Guest MikeSC]

When was the last time he ever acted so sure of himself while displaying so much ignorance?

Pot, kettle.

He might think Rant's a leech, I disagree because at least he has work, but Mike himself has ignored what a bonehead he is, certainly the most eager person I've ever seen to resort to partisan bickering so quickly: Dragging baggage from one thread into another, making more threads responding to a subject already contained in one large discussion. That's an issue I was hoping for moderation on a while ago, but since I've brought it up, he's calmed it down at least.

As I said, OaO threads are lame and asinine and I don't feel any great need to keep any one topic in any one thread.

Throw in the way he looks down at people for various traits that in all equals to all but a fifth of the country's popuation,

Such as?

and his steadfast belief that 100% of his opinions are 100% correct 100% of the time

You DON'T believe what you're saying is correct? I feel for you.

and it's no suprise how futile it is to debate with him. With kkk, PowerPlay, and Rant (when he tries to enter a serious discussion instead of trying to elect a breakfast sausage for President or what have you), things can be argued on their merits instead of whether they're right/left.

 

I have no idea why I keep falling for the Mike trap, but somehow I still do.

Heck, I personally love that I'm cold and heartless, but I didn't wish anybody would lose their job or would have a loved one assault them.

-=Mike

...Flamed more than anybody else here

[Guest MikeSC]

well then this begs the question: What is your social status?

To be generous, none of YOUR damned business.

I'd imagine kitchen work/landscaping is rather horrible pay, but for a single guy with a small amount of bills(assumption) of course this is a viable option for YOU, but you are not looking or just outright ignoring the fact that washing dishes and mowing lawns is just in no way a reality for a lot of people.

You assume I'd do just one job. You assumed I didn't hold several jobs at a time.

 

I'm SORRY that self-sufficiency scares so many here.

Even if they were willing to do it, both at once, it still wouldn't pay for 1/2 their bills.  Hell Unemployment in itself would barely pay the bills, so it would be hardly desirable to replace a good paying job.  Also, the higher the wage you leave behind at a job, the harder it will be to find the same pay somewhere else.  This has nothing to do with "refusing to do a job I don't like" it is more the simple fact that these jobs, that they don't happen to like, would in no way pay the bills.

Then cut expenses.

Move if you have to.

Hold multiple jobs if you have to.

 

Don't snivel and whine about how "tough" it is.

-=Mike

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

What did Mike say that was so bad? Job outsourcing like it or not is the risk you take in a free market society. Truthfully businesses would be foolish not to take advantage of lower wages in overseas markets. That may not seem fair to people, but life isn't always fair.

Perhaps I'm looking at this the wrong way, but ethically, don't you see something wrong with not only taking advantage of people in other countries' shitty status? Is there nothing wrong with the sweatshops that Nike runs?

That's not with what this "new" wave of outourcing (with white-collar programming jobs among those supposedly being lost). For example, Hungarian computer programmers start at $4,800 a year; American programmers start at $60,000 yet in Hungary, that $4,800 would buy a comfy middle-class lifestyle.

Oh I know what this is about, but he pointed out that businesses would be foolish to not take advantage of lower wages in other countries for the same work. Of course, considering that that sweatshops run by Nike falls under this criteria, I thought it was a little harsh to put it lightly.

 

Normally I'd think he doesn't believe that, but I'm not so sure.

[Guest MikeSC]

Well I think this world is full of both types of people you mentioned, however abusers should not be able to dictate the policy for users.

Any why not?

 

Why should MY tax dollars go to ANYBODY besides me, to be perfectly honest?

 

What claim does ANYBODY have to MY money?

 

"Abusers shouldn't control the system". Hey, it's unfortunate, but that's how it is. If you can think of a way for abuse to be impossible, then do so. Until then, prevention of abuse is a key problem.

I know that my Dad right now, who's been working all my life, wound up with his company moving out to another country. This company is the largest employer and biggest moneymaker for this city & county, so it's going to hurt everyone slightly. To make things worse, there's guys all over with his skills trying to find work right now, so there's no job available where he's marketable.

And that is what is called a problem. He'll either have to accept less pay or find a way to change his skills. He's surely developed new skills in all these years that he can market.

So what are we doing? We're getting this house ready to sell, effectively cashing in to move to an area with less absurd housing rates (you know you're in Northern California when you make several hundred thousand dollars a year [we don't] and can't afford a place to live.) He's seen openings for places where he can work over there, but you be a local.

 

If it wasn't for unemployment, which is something I don't ever remember us having to depend on before, we would be so busy trying to afford food that it would take even longer to fix this house up to sell, longer to move, and longer to get another job.

You could pull it off if you put your mind to it. Would it be easy? No --- but life isn't easy.

So yeah, if people aren't being stupid with unemployment money, it serves a good cause.

And those people who ARE being stupid with unemployment money?

 

As they say, one rotten apple spoils the bunch.

And yet, in Bush's America, offshoring is good and conductive to free trade, but medicine from Canada? Whoops.

And you're confusing this issue with free trade. What you want is --- and let's be totally honest here --- price fixing.

 

I'll tell you now --- you eliminate the ability for these companies to turn a profit and these "miracule" cures that appear every so often will stop appearing as it's not worth the financial risk.

This is the problem. We're not going to get truly free trade no matter what we do.

We Americans are pathetic in this regard. We want "free trade", bitch and moan that places like Japan won't accept our goods --- and then demand that our gov't PUT UP THE SAME BARRIERS.

 

You want to know what protectionism leads to?

 

Study the world, circa 1930. THAT is what protectionism leads to.

Perhaps I'm looking at this the wrong way, but ethically, don't you see something wrong with not only taking advantage of people in other countries' shitty status? Is there nothing wrong with the sweatshops that Nike runs?

No, because in those countries, that IS a good wage. Why is it unfair? That's like saying moving a plant from NY to, say, SC is unfair because we have a far lower tax burden and a far less expensive work force.

 

You want to keep the plant? Then you have to make yourself competitive. CLEARLY, $60,000/year is horribly over-valued for that job, as they don't seem to have a problem with quality when paying somebody a fraction of that.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Your position is based on ignorance or dishonest demagoguery, plain and simple.

 

 

Thus, in this case, what you're attacking actually creates jobs here

But itsn't it still protectionism anyway?

[Guest MikeSC]

Your position is based on ignorance or dishonest demagoguery, plain and simple.

 

 

Thus, in this case, what you're attacking actually creates jobs here

But itsn't it still protectionism anyway?

So, hurting American companies is fine and dandy --- as long as you feel like it?

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

So, hurting American companies is fine and dandy --- as long as you feel like it?

          -=Mike

I just want to know: Is protectionism a bad thing, or is there exceptions?

 

Is free trade a good thing, or is there exceptions?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

As I said, OaO threads are lame and asinine and I don't feel any great need to keep any one topic in any one thread.

It's called organization, look into it. Again, if we didn't have it, every thread, no matter how removed in basis, would become about gay marriage, war in Iraq, Kerry messups, Clarke credibility, or whatever the front page story is each week.

 

You DON'T believe what you're saying is correct? I feel for you.

 

I believe what I say is better than the alternative, but I'm open to change that with enough provocation. On all sorts of issues I've actually decided to change my opinion after talking with people on subjects like taxes, guns, abortion, marriage, etc.

 

That's the reason why debate is so stimulating for the mind. It's not meant to be some sort of pissing contest, where you scream and shout about how your positions are better than everyone else's and they're all slime unless they agree with you.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Perhaps I'm looking at this the wrong way, but ethically, don't you see something wrong with not only taking advantage of people in other countries' shitty status? Is there nothing wrong with the sweatshops that Nike runs?

No, because in those countries, that IS a good wage. Why is it unfair? That's like saying moving a plant from NY to, say, SC is unfair because we have a far lower tax burden and a far less expensive work force.

 

You want to keep the plant? Then you have to make yourself competitive. CLEARLY, $60,000/year is horribly over-valued for that job, as they don't seem to have a problem with quality when paying somebody a fraction of that.

-=Mike

Well, what's talked about in the article seems like a good use, but I'm referring to the places where they get paid in pennies a day. That's not a good wage, not to mention the fact that the conditions are terrible. But his comment about taking advantge of other countries is okay opened doors for that. Of course, if he doesn't take it that far, then by all means disregard.

[Guest MikeSC]

So, hurting American companies is fine and dandy --- as long as you feel like it?

          -=Mike

I just want to know: Is protectionism a bad thing, or is there exceptions?

 

Is free trade a good thing, or is there exceptions?

Free trade isn't allowing US citizens to take advantage of protectionism in other countries.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

(TheMikeSC @ Mar 29 2004, 08:14 PM)

As I said, OaO threads are lame and asinine and I don't feel any great need to keep any one topic in any one thread. 

It's called organization, look into it. Again, if we didn't have it, every thread, no matter how removed in basis, would become about gay marriage, war in Iraq, Kerry messups, Clarke credibility, or whatever the front page story is each week.

And that's bad why? Better than having to scroll through pages of posts to get to one you find interesting.

I believe what I say is better than the alternative, but I'm open to change that with enough provocation. On all sorts of issues I've actually decided to change my opinion after talking with people on subjects like taxes, guns, abortion, marriage, etc.

You see, if I say something, I mean it. I'm not going to waffle on a heck of a lot.

That's the reason why debate is so stimulating for the mind. It's not meant to be some sort of pissing contest, where you scream and shout about how your positions are better than everyone else's and they're all slime unless they agree with you.

I view debate as intellectual exercise and nothing more. You're not going to convince anybody of anything.

Well, what's talked about in the article seems like a good use, but I'm referring to the places where they get paid in pennies a day. That's not a good wage, not to mention the fact that the conditions are terrible.

Look at industrialization as if it were a timeline.

 

Right now, those countries are where WE were 100 years ago. If we don't permit them to do these jobs and grow beyond them, they will never be able to DO better jobs.

But his comment about taking advantge of other countries is okay opened doors for that. Of course, if he doesn't take it that far, then by all means disregard.

Again, we want free trade. I don't think anybody feels that protectionism REALLY works. Well, this is part of the deal. And we'll be better off in the long run.

 

I hate exercising with a passion. Loathe it more than words can express. But, all of the pain it causes is worth it due to the benefits it brings.

-=Mike

[Guest Brian]

The problem I tend to have with the argument of industrialization is that the economic factors have totally changed beyond a simple supply and demand, where workers were able to improve their position because companies were forced into paying them a com,parable fee for their services, even if the conditions are similar. Unions and organizations, at both points in time, were strongly opposed especially by government. Workers worked in horrible conditions for little pay. It's pretty much out of The Jungle. But the market forces have changed due to globalization. At one point, capital was fairly stable and immobile. But since then, companies have the ability to move their means of production very simply, pulling up stakes if the threat ever comes. So workers in a thrid world country are in a distinct disadvantage in that sense, and countries are willing to concede what's needed to let them do their job; if it means letting them make fifty cents a day for fourteen hours of work, locking the doors at times to get twenty hours, and using armed guards to intimidate, the governments are willing to give way to corporations.

 

Protectionism cannot go through, because were pretty much too far into this. But standards need to be put in place, and local governments have to have some kind of authority within the terms of the treaties, and protections to help them carry it out.

 

The other problems that goes along with free trade is just a general decaying of standards. NAFTA has a section, chapter eleven, that allows companies to sue foreign countries for rights if their profits (ability to compete) is being negatively affected. Environmental standards are down the drain in places, like dumping in Mexico, or MMT additives in feul in Canada, or MTBE in South Lake Tahoe.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Free trade isn't allowing US citizens to take advantage of protectionism in other countries.

                        -=Mike

It's free trade. The key word is free.

 

How is it NOT protectionist? You yourself said:

I'll tell you now --- you eliminate the ability for these companies to turn a profit and these "miracule"[sp] cures that appear every so often will stop appearing as it's not worth the financial risk.

 

So, basically, it's just industry-favored protectionism.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

You see, if I say something, I mean it. I'm not going to waffle on a heck of a lot.

The problem is that you're so sure of yourself that you rarely even treat a different viewpoint with anything but "I'm right, so you're wrong." If you refuse to bend any of your positions at all, what are you here for? At the worst, we'll annoy you, and at best we'll just reaffirm what you already believe. So go out there and, uh, go run for office or something.

 

I view debate as intellectual exercise and nothing more. You're not going to convince anybody of anything.

 

Well, remind me not to take your bait next time. It's pretty unpleasant to talk to someone who thinks you're flat-out wrong simply because you don't totally agree with him.