Re: I love it

I started the reply below, and ultimately quit, and wrote the Blog Post about not wanting to rile...

The free trade benefit shake down is a slow process Everyone is
always more focused on now than tomorrow What if all those out sourced
jobs create markets for things they cannot make there and the US can
export them and all of a sudden we can afford the social security melt
down when all these rust belt workers start retiring? As a person
that hs been both fired and laid off I understand how much it sucks
but no company will move where labor skills are not in line with what
they pay If now the wages are TOO LOW by our standards other companies
will arrive
---
as a reply to
> Yes, so the problem in the US is not the corporate tax rate. It is the fact
> that there are no penalties and plenty incentives in the US for corporations
> to outsource. That's my only point--taxes are not the primary reason
> outsourcing occurs in the US. Corporate America isn't really complaining
> about taxes right now. They've had it really good under George Bush. I
> don't like outsourcing either, but I don't blame the tax rate.
>
> On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Miller <l@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The reason outsourcing occurs less in EU countries is because they incent
>> against it. Plain and simple.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 11:00 PM, miss x <
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm sorry, but corporations pay very low taxes in the US--lower than in
>>> EU
>>> countries where outsourcing occurs less. The tax argument might make you
>>> feel good (i.e. there's someone to blame), but it is not US corporate
>>> taxes
>>> that are the problem. When you open borders and allow capital to move
>>> around to search for the biggest profit, this sort of thing will
>>> naturally
>>> happen in a rich country.
>>>
>>> Opposing NAFTA in my book is fine (those policies did, after all, make it
>>> easier for US companies to move to Mex in the first place), but blaming
>>> the
>>> tax rate is a form of denial. You'd be better to question why the CEOs
>>> of
>>> these 'poor' overtaxed companies make millions of dollars to decide to
>>> move
>>> offshore in the first place. If you want to cut down on your cost of
>>> operations, why not try scaling back the salaries of your upper
>>> management
>>> and CEOs by 20%?
>>>
>>> As a side note, I'm sick to death of people going on about taxes like it
>>> is some sort of robbery. I've spent a lot of time in southern Mexico
>>> where
>>> there is minimal tax collection, and even fewer roads. Southern Mexico
>>> has
>>> a disproportionate share of the country's resources and only one major
>>> highway to speak of. If you want to pay no taxes, then be prepared to go
>>> out and buy your four wheel vehicle and pay 8$ for gas while you're at
>>> it.
>>> There are things that constitute the collective good that only taxes can
>>> pay.
>>>
>>> belva
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Miss z <wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't know where you got your data on Infosys, but I have never EVER
>>>> heard of them hiring anybody from the US, yet we've been doing business
>>>> with
>>>> them for 14 years. That is my point however on the taxes. We are our
>>>> own
>>>> worst enemies. We tax the businesses here in teh US so that we make it
>>>> so
>>>> that it is more expensive for them to do business on their own homeland
>>>> than
>>>> it is from a third world country. Other governments don't easily sell
>>>> out
>>>> on their top commodities. We are our own worse enemy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Mr x <wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Both parties were responsible for NAFTA.
>>>>> RE: outsourcing, I'm not so sure I agree with you on this one. You
>>>>> can't prevent industry from moving around to the most convenient place
>>>>> to do
>>>>> business --- outsourcing happens everywhere nowadays, including many
>>>>> protectionist countries in Europe. I remember people in the midwest
>>>>> being
>>>>> in an uproar when auto parts and car manufacturing started to shift to
>>>>> Mexico. In the end, many of those shifts reversed as companies learned
>>>>> which manufacturing activities were cheaper in the US with higher labor
>>>>> costs vs. Mexico with the cheap labor and quality issues. I think it
>>>>> is all
>>>>> relative and I'm actually in John McCain's camp on most of these
>>>>> issues.
>>>>> Those manufacturing jobs will never return to the US. We should be
>>>>> focusing on education and retraining opportunities to push people into
>>>>> advanced industries. Michigan has very regressive tax policies which
>>>>> made
>>>>> many of the core companies move out of state. It also has some of the
>>>>> worst management of any state in the US (except for their new Democrat
>>>>> Governor who is doing all she can to stop the job erosion).
>>>>> The US is well into a late economic development cycle which requires
>>>>> strong R&D to keep growing. The economic hegemony we've enjoyed Post
>>>>> WWII
>>>>> is finished. The only problem is that young people today are
>>>>> graduating
>>>>> high school at lower rates than in the past and we're seeing the first
>>>>> generation of lesser educated individuals than has ever occurred in the
>>>>> history of the US. The only growth mechanism we have is to continue
>>>>> importing graduates from overseas that specialize in Science and
>>>>> Engineering
>>>>> - but now we're competing against high salaries overseas. Pilots in
>>>>> India
>>>>> now make more than in the United States. An IT professional makes on
>>>>> par
>>>>> with a similar individual in the US. Our fresh graduate middle
>>>>> management
>>>>> staff in India all make between $45-$55,000 USD per year. It's just
>>>>> below
>>>>> what we start grads out in the US -- but not by much and it also goes a
>>>>> lot
>>>>> further in terms of purchasing power parity.
>>>>>
>>>>> Infosys (a $4B USD in annual revenue and market capitalization of more
>>>>> than $30B USD) in Bangalore India hires IT grads from the US and they
>>>>> start
>>>>> out at more than $70K with furnished apartments, a built in movie
>>>>> theater
>>>>> and golf course. In 2001 they had less than 10,000 employees --- now
>>>>> they
>>>>> have more than 88,000. Countries around the world are competing for a
>>>>> very
>>>>> limited labor pool because they all want the jobs of the future....
>>>>>
>>>>> dnb
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 1, 2008, at 12:19 PM, Miss Y wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regardless, both the dems and the repubs pushed NAFTA through. The
>>>>> dems
>>>>> also opened up trade without as many restrictions as other countries
>>>>> and
>>>>> that is why we're seeing such a big push for offshoring of all our
>>>>> technical
>>>>> work. These countries are by far no better, they are just so much more
>>>>> cheaper. It's sad, because the US doesn't really have a strong hold in
>>>>> any
>>>>> other industry like they do the technical field, and now we're loosing
>>>>> our
>>>>> position in that.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Mr x wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> NAFTA was negotiated by Bush prior to Clinton being elected. Bill
>>>>>> Clinton just helped it get approved by Congress because there was so
>>>>>> much
>>>>>> opposition to the agreement. I think NAFTA is a net positive for all
>>>>>> countries although there are negative effects occurring in each place.
>>>>>> The
>>>>>> kinds of jobs lost in the US because of NAFTA (textiles and
>>>>>> manufacturing)
>>>>>> probably would have been lost anyway by the free flow of capital.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think healthcare is the biggest issue facing the US in the next 10
>>>>>> years. It is the one area that will probably distinguish the haves /
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> nots going forward and really tear at the social fabric of the US.
>>>>>> People
>>>>>> cannot afford to get sick in the US - even if they have insurance. I
>>>>>> can't
>>>>>> believe how much I pay now for insurance through the Wash Post vs.
>>>>>> what I
>>>>>> had to pay back in 2001 when I started. I can't imagine not having
>>>>>> health
>>>>>> insurance --- because I would be paranoid that any illness would be a
>>>>>> potential for financial ruin.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> dnb
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On May 31, 2008, at 11:56 AM, Mr Y wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> NAFTA was mostly passed because of a combo of Bill Clinton and
>>>>>>> Republicans.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

--
[Kevin]
sent via PuppyLinux.com OS

Sometimes I don't want to rile people up

Sometimes, I am up for a heated discussion. Others, I will let it go, because I know the other side is so deeply entrenched in their opinions, it is like arguing with a drunk person. Not unlike debating the bible with a fundamentalist, that may have read it, but could not comprehend the TV Guide.

Today I started a reply to a listerve that had people complaining about NAFTA. I am a long time free trade advocate. I am also, apparently heartless. People cannot seem to understand how they should be able to make $20 an hour sewing Lee Denims, yet, only want to pay $10 for them at Wal-Mart. In the long run, people can only get paid what they are contributing to the enterprise. If their costs, push up the product cost, so the company cannot make a decent return on their investment, they will shut down. With Nafta a solution to shutting down, is moving production elsewhere. The effect to the local Jeans worker is exactly the same. No Job in Jeans. But its Nafta's fault. They then point out that the "Ferners" don't make as much, and they are exploiting them etc. Perhaps at first. But as other manufacturers see the windfall of profits, they follow suit and eventually drive up the wages in the "low area". Eventually, those new jeans laborers are going to be affluent enough to travel, or buy some American goods than cannot be outsourced to wherever. Not every item is suited for production everywhere in the world.

If the low wage workers, are not of the quality of the ones they replaced, more will be required to produce the same amount of goods. This in turn increases the cost of production so after all the adjustments. things level out. Imagine if the USA did not have a Nafta between the states. We do, we just call it the interstate commerce commission. Imagine without it, Alabama decided they wanted to protect their native Orange groves, and put a huge tax on importing Florida Oranges. Maybe not much would happen. Alabama is close to the range, so maybe the southern beach coast could be converted to orange groves, and there would be enough OJ for Birmingham and Mobile and beyond. Maybe one Florida Grove would go under. Anyway. Now suppose Maine did the same thing. But to grow oranges in main, require hot houses, These hot houses drive the cost of local oranges 500% of the cost of Floridia Oranges, even with the high cost of fuel. Maybe Mainers would stop buying OJ. Maybe they would all get skurvy. Maybe they would pay the higher prices, but stop using Real Maple syrup on their pancakes. This costs a syrup maker a loss, and he decides to sell off some of his maple acreage to the loggers to pay his taxes. The loggers can no longer sell their logs to New Hampshire and beyond because of an overland transport tax. The only outlet for Main Loggers is the paper mill and book industry. The book industry is happy for the cut rate paper, since their profits have been squeezed for years too. They can finally print all the paperback romance novels wanted by the homemakers of America. But the poor ladies of Alabama cannot buy the books and put orange juice on the tables for their kids. Its titaliation or scurvy.

I am not denying the heartbreak of losing a long time job. I have been fired and laid off both, and it sucks the big egg. But if we can just suffer through this adjustment period. Allow the shakedown to work its way around North America. We should all be richer. This idea is something we have known since Elizabethan times. We need to be forward thinking. American industry is floundering largely because they are so concerned with next quarters reports to the market. The Market punishes companies for taking a long term view. We have got to find a way to create a way to pay for our future social security retiree explosion when the baby boomers retire. New industries should evolve and people may have to move or come up with a way to make their living where they are. Our immigrant ancestors, left the old country with very little. They cleared land, and created a living for themselves, which was not rich at first, but over time created value and wealth. Our current state of affluence has a lot to do with the rest of the world's production capacity being destroyed. Prior to WW2, we were not a rich and prosperous nation. We made do. I cannot think of a current analogy - maybe The Ukraine. Lots of bread, but not the juggernaut most Americans feel is our birth-rite today.

Its very possible the fabulous 50s which created the suburbs, the 2nd car, Color TV was just an anomaly in history. And we are adjusting back to our long term equilibrium. Japan had a similar expansion and retraction. In the long run, the economy does not allow windfalls to perpetuate. Of course, in the long run we are all dead.

In the long run there are no trees on Easter Island. There used to be trees. Thats is how they rolled the big Moai from the quarries to their spots on the shore watching over the sea. Did the natives understand once they used up all the trees, there would be no more? Some may have. But in the short term urgency of needing the trees to roll the heads to the ocean, and the seeming never ending supply of the trees, no one bothered conserving, or recycling the things. The last tree was probably just a scrubby sapling no one thought twice about, cutting down to make a fishing pole. Whoops.

-a Mind concious of what is right.

This is the motto on the Phillips coat of arms.

PLEASE STAND BY...

###