Kerry won't stop outsourcing?

[Andy_Stephenson]

OMFG!!!

Stop outsourcing now it is killing us.

[kikiek]

1. He said he can't stop all of it. That is being truthful.

[WLKjr]

29. and he's right

you can't stop all of it. They way you get around it though is through technology and education. You make a new industry and a new demand.......enter the Hydrogen Economy.

[TexasSissy]

39. Yes, it's been going on for ages. Cos. have right to outsource, if

they want. We don't live in a dictatorship where our leaders can tell companies what to do. But what is harming us is this tax credit given to companies that ENCOURAGES and REWARDS them for outsourcing. It then forces other companies to do the same. It snowballs, and then way too many jobs are being outsourced. That is what is hurting our economy, and that is what Kerry says needs to stop. So that the companies are REWARDED for keeping jobs here, and there is a level playing field among the companies.

[Selwynn]

49. Umm.. no, on several points.

"We don't live in a dictatorship where our leaders can tell companies what to do."

Umm... we live in a well-regulated economy and our leaders frequently and rightfully tell companies what to do. They're called corporate laws, amoung other things.

"But what is harming us is this tax credit given to companies that ENCOURAGES and REWARDS them for outsourcing."

What specific tax credit is that? No, the biggest thing harming us is cheap overseas labor for pennies on the dollar, and no tax credit will compensate for that disparity.

"It snowballs, and then way too many jobs are being outsourced."

That's not why many jobs are being outsourced - its not a snow ball effect due to a tax credit. It is due the fact that the technology industry, which I work in, is a very young industry, compared to manufaturing. This is the first time it's really tried to outsourcing approach and they're just happens to be a booming market for cheap tech jobs overseas. This outsourcing craz isn't exactly new to other industries, but it is new to the tech industry.

There is no tax credit that will stop companies from outsourcing - in fact, you're mistaken that this is even the motivation for outsourcing. As long as companines can get a guy in india to do the same job for 700% less pay, there will always be outsourcing, if or until companies see that there are actually a lot of hidden costs associated with outsourcing that make even the more highly paid american workers more desirable.

This is the "beauty" of the global economy. We're not lifting anyone up to higher standards of living, we're keeping third world countries right where they are -- we NEED the rest of the world to suck and be poor so we can keep milking cheap and unfairly paid labor to reap our zillons of dollars. And we tell the american worker, "hey get used to making less, or get used to not working at all!"

Personally I'm not for any more tax credits for corporations. Kerry wants to give a tax break to corporations who don't outsource. I would prefer that taxes stayed the same but that taxes and penalties for outsources would be increased - making it more afforable to keep jobs stateside without giving corporations even more chances not to pay the taxes they should be paying.

[TexasSissy]

65. Ummm...no....you're wrong.

Yes, we pass laws telling some companies what to do and telling people what to do. We do not pass laws telling companies who they cannot hire, as yet. We do not pass laws telling people who they cannot work for. That would be a type of totalitarian government, if we were to do that. Or a communistic government, maybe? Not a captitalistic democratic government, which is what we have.

And yes, there IS a tax credit given to companies who outsource jobs. Read about it on www.johnkerry.com. Kerry also mentioned it last night. I also saw a documentary on outsourcing that discussed it. A business owner, who does not outsource as yet, said that the larger companies are outsourcing, which in turn makes it harder for him to compete. He said he doesn't want to outsource, and he's hanging on with his same employees, who have taken pay cuts. But if something isn't done, he said he'd either go out of business or have to outsource eventually. Ross Perot also discussed this when he ran for Prez. When some companies in an industry start to do something that makes them more competitive, then the others in that industry must ALSO do that....or go out of business. It's that simple. It snowballs.

But taking away the tax incentives to outsource, which in effect creates an incentive to KEEP jobs here, would make the playing field more level. That is what Kerry proposes. And yes, that would help us compete with overseas employees. Take the case of the company I mentioned above that does not want to outsource. He WANTS to use American workers. He thinks they are better. If he gets a tax incentive that helps him stay competitive, he will not outsource.

You speak as if you thin I was talking about a tax credit for companies to outsource. Not so. There exists ALREADY tax credits and other incentives for companies to outsource. Kerry wants to REMOVE those to create a level playing field.

[Selwynn]

74. umm.... no.

"Yes, we pass laws telling some companies what to do and telling people what to do. We do not pass laws telling companies who they cannot hire, as yet."

Actually we do - there are laws for example, requiring you to be a U.S. citizen and legally authorized to work in the U.S. So the Government does tell companies who they can and can't hire.

"And yes, there IS a tax credit given to companies who outsource jobs."

The so-called "tax credit" is not the reason jobs are outsourced. I am a project manager for a fortune 100 company in the tech industry. The number one motivation for MY COMPANY to outsource is pay. NOT - I repeat - not the so-called tax credit which does not about to a significant motivator or deterrent to outsource. The number one single reason is CHEAPER LABOR. Period.

"But taking away the tax incentives to outsource, which in effect creates an incentive to KEEP jobs here, would make the playing field more level."

Once AGAIN - for the five thousandth time - until you fix the problem of cheaper labor overseas, they it doesn't matter how level the "tax" playing field is, there is still no reason to keep jobs here. The reason my company considers so much outsourcing is because they can play Indian engineers 30% of what they pay American engineers. Removing a tax break isn't going to change that disparity.

"Take the case of the company I mentioned above that does not want to outsource. He WANTS to use American workers. He thinks they are better. If he gets a tax incentive that helps him stay competitive, he will not outsource."

That is the exception to the rule. Most business owners don't base decisions on "thinking" that American workers are better. They base their decisions on what ever costs the least and keeps their profit margins the highest. It's not about "staying competitive." And in thinking this, you fail to understand the forces that really drive most large business. It is about the absolute maximization of profit. If it is more expensive and gives me less profit to our source, I won't do it. But if it does, then I will. Right now all of your happy fuzzy talk about tax credits and breaks don't erase the disparity in pay between American and foreign workforces. I can still pay an engineer in India three times less than what I pay to hire here, and what's more, if I go through a separate contractor, I can pay even less beyond that, because I negotiate a contract with a separate company and am not responsible for providing benefits or other expenses to the individuals.

Simply getting rid of a tax break isn't going to change that. We know. We've already looked at it.

"You speak as if you thin I was talking about a tax credit for companies to outsource. Not so. There exists ALREADY tax credits and other incentives for companies to outsource. Kerry wants to REMOVE those to create a level playing field."

Number one, Kerry not only wants to remove these so-called tax breaks for outsourcing, he wants to CREATE tax break incentives for companies that keep jobs here. I don't think giving corporations even MORE tax breaks is a good idea. Number two, NONE OF THIS IS ENOUGH TO OVERCOME THE DISPARITY IN WAGE COMPENSATION WHICH IS THE NUMBER ONE REASON FOR OUTSOURCING. Even with new tax incentives and the removal of other tax breaks it is STILL CHEAPER for me to pay an engineer in India to do the job than it is to pay an American. Period.

[TexasSissy]

77. I knew you would say that.

You say...Actually we do - there are laws for example, requiring you to be a U.S. citizen and legally authorized to work in the U.S. So the Government does tell companies who they can and can't hire.

Of course I didn't mention that you cannot hire ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS and people such as that. Of course not. I didn't think I had to state the obvious. So let me rephrase....there are no laws that tell companies who they cannot hire (of the people who are legally allowed to work in the U.S. already), or what companies people cannot work for (of the companies that are legally operating in the global network and America).

You say....The so-called "tax credit" is not the reason jobs are outsourced. I am a project manager for a fortune 100 company in the tech industry. The number one motivation for MY COMPANY to outsource is pay. NOT - I repeat - not the so-called tax credit which does not about to a significant motivator or deterrent to outsource. The number one single reason is CHEAPER LABOR. Period.

I disagree. It's as simple as that. If you don't believe me, here is a list of why companies outsource, according to a columnist for Lou Dobbs (maybe your company doesn't sit down and tell you all the reasons it does everything).

Cost reductions and other benefits provide a strong incentive to outsource jobs. A company that decides to move its production overseas cuts its costs in many ways, including the following:


1. Extremely low wage rates

2. The circumvention or avoidance of organized labor

3. No Social Security or Medicare benefit payments

4. No federal or state unemployment tax

5. No health benefits for workers

6. No child labor laws

7. No OSHA or EPA costs or restrictions

8. No worker retirement benefits or pension costs

Besides cutting costs, there are other benefits to exporting jobs, including the following:


1. Tax incentives provided by our government

2. Incentives from foreign governments

3. The creation of new international markets for the company's products (which ultimately empowers the company to turn a deaf ear to this country's problems and influence)

4. The continued benefits of our legal system and the freedoms that we provide

The net effect of all of this is lower costs, higher revenue, higher profits, higher stock prices, bonuses for management, and the creation of wealth for a subclass that benefits from low taxes at the expense of the rest of us.

As you can see, our government, in various ways, provides tax incentives to companies that outsource in the way of direct tax incentives, allowing foreign government tax incentives, allowing them to forego FICA and other taxes for those employees. Additionally, as I said in my original post, the trade agreements we have don't directly require the companies to pay more competitive wages, participate in environmental regs or rules (or pay for them). By taking away the tax incentives and redoing the trade agreements, our government can take away almost all of the above advantages to outsourcing.

Low wages is just a part of the equation. Passing a law forbidding hiring legal persons overseas will never pass. It's too restrictive and goes against the philosophy of a free society that is based in democratic captitalism in an increasingly global world. We need to learn to compete globally, while still protecting our workers. In so doing, we cannot stop all outsourcing. And I don't think we'd like the repercussions from the other countries, if we did do that.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/03/11/commentary/dobbs/dobbs/
Answers on Outsourcing

A finance professor argues against placing blind faith in outsourcing. His views follow.
March 12, 2004: 8:18 AM EST
By Rory L. Terry

(edited to add the credit to the quote)

[Selwynn]

78. Thank you for illustrating my point so effectively

Points 1-8 are so significant that simply undoing tax incentives provided by our government will not fix the problem. It is naive to believe that it will.

Nothing will solve the problem until the underlying problem is address: labor is cheaper overseas than it is here, in a myriad of ways described well in points 1-8. You can push tax credits for keeping jobs here and/or removing tax incentives for moving jobs away but unless those add up to more than the net benefits of cheaper labor, it will not matter to any company. And in order for them to add up to a net gain, the tax adjustments would have to be far more substantial than anything that has been proposed and would likely be unfeasible.

It is not my argument that the government should pass a law making it illegal to hire the various people you are referring to. But it is my argument that acting as though tax changes will miraculously fix the problem is ridiculous.

"Low wages is just a part of the equation."

This is the heart of where your thinking fails on this matter. You fail to appreciate that low wages is not just a part of the equation, it is the lynch pin in the equation. It is the number one driving motivating behind outsourcing business (low wages, in this case includes every factor that makes the cost of employing someone overseas cheaper than the cost of employing someone here, which includes more than just salary, though it certainly includes that)

Where do you work, and what is your position? Do you work in management, do you make decisions for your company in terms of staffing? Do you have any other expertise besides what you've read other people say? I do. Cheaper labor is the number one factor in outsourcing, and it is not just a part of the equation, it is the predominant factor. Tax changes to fix outsourcing is like giving someone a decongestant to stop pneumonia. It will help with the congestion, but not cure the pneumonia alone. Tax changes is arguably a start, but it is not the solution, nor will it solve the problem of outsourcing alone because it fails to address the most significant factor in outsourcing decisions: cheaper labor abroad.

[Zhade]

79. You knew she'd say that, because you know she's right.

Until you realize that the reason companies send jobs overseas is to exploit lower wages, you will NEVER understand the root of this problem.

If a company can choose between paying a qualified American employee $35,000 a year, or a qualified Indian employee $3500, who do you think they'll go with?

If you don't think the latter, then you're just kidding yourself.

As far as tax breaks and incentives go, corporations already don't pay jack in the way of taxes - or haven't you heard of companies like Enron that "offshore" their headquarters to the Cayman Islands?

[The Traveler]

2. Impossible to stop

but we can reduce it, and Kerry has talked about that.

[lovuian]

3. That was STUPID

:argh:

[bowens43]

4. He can't.

What's he going to do ? Get congress to pass a law against it?

[Andy_Stephenson]

7. Uh...that is what Presidents do

Proposes laws

then Congress votes.

Seems fair

[The Backlash Cometh]

10. Taxes? Impact fees?

Or just tax credits for companies that are pro-American.

[donco6]

47. He said he would provide tax incentives for corps that . . .

. . . created and/or maintained jobs in the US.

He can't stop it - that would make Smoot-Hawley look like expansionism.

[FarLeftRage]

5. Did not Kerry say something

about closing corpoRATe loopholes and proving tax incentives???

[Xithras]

Kerry has always been a pro-Nafta free trader

He never hid that fact.

[Selwynn]

75. Well we can't all not suck all the time. :)

Kerry's position on that sucks.

[movonne]

6. You cannot stop all outsourcing!!!

[lovuian]

8. You can NOT SUPPORT IT

Kerry should have been firmer on it

this is his Position

[lovuian]

9. Kerry blew it on outsourcing...He could have really cleaned

Bush out on that one and he blows it

[bleedingheart]

11. leveling the playing field is all he can do since the spigots are open

sorry but that is just the facts...

[Andy_Stephenson]

12. He needs to shut the spigots

Defending America means defending American jobs as well.

[lovuian]

13. This is a HUGE ISSUE with Americans

I know Kerry is better than Bush but he could have done much better on that issue

[blueknight]

14. dont you fucking people listen?

he said HE WOULD GIVE TAX BREAKS TO THE COMPANIES THAT STAY HERE! NOT THE ONES THAT LEAVE!

[Andy_Stephenson]

15. Kerry Voted for NAFTA...

he is not going to cut his nose of to spite his face...now is he. His corporate sponsors would not take kindly to a tax hike.

[yvr girl]

32. Kerry proudly does not take corporate money

You would never be able to pass a law that banns outsourcing. It would be impossible to enforce and everyone would scream about big government.

What you can do, is discourage outsourcing. You can take away the incentives to send jobs overseas. You can reward companies for not outsourcing.

[The Backlash Cometh]

34. Well, let's hope he flip-flops. (tongue in cheek)

I think even Clinton regrets that vote and is many others. Things didn't turn out as expected. It's what I've been saying for a long time. There's the implied sciences and the applied sciences, and the more people, and/or countries, it takes to get from one to the other, the less likely a chance of success.

[Kanary]

73. No, Clinton doesn't "regret that vote". It's DLC approved.

And not only doesn't he "regret many others", he has since publicly and proudly said he should have gone for his welfare deform bill FIRST.

To hell with poor people, to hell with working people.

As long as the corporations are pleased with him, and stand behind him.

Kanary

[lovuian]

16. Yes we heard but couldn't have Kerry come on stronger

Like Bush believes Your American jobs belong in INDIA

and then they fly through a Issue which is a major achilles heal of Bush's

[Andy_Stephenson]

17. Amen

flew past it like it was nothing.

[lovuian]

18. I know one of the Biggest Issues and they talked 4 seconds

On it... I would say that was a weak moment

[The Straight Story]

19. How much though?

And how much does that translate to for companies? I have seen people decrying that companies already pay little taxes because of current tax laws so how much will it all change?

5%, 10, 20? If he gave them 1% he would keep his word but they would outsource anyway as they would save more than that.

When Kerry wins, and I believe he will, then we need to start hammering him as hard as we hammer * to get the job done right. Praise where it is due, and some shouting when he lets us down.

My only problem with Kerry (well, to be honest, just about most politicians) is that during an election cycle they give general ideas without a lot of meat attached to them. He will give them a tax break (a step in the right direction, not complaining that he did not address the issue) but how much? Details seem to be lacking and I think many would like to see a little more information.

I applaud his idea and getting it out, and obviously I am voting for him - but personally I would like more information on his plans and numbers to crunch. If he is off on them then we can get out the message that we think he needs to change it.

I was listening to the broad message, but I hope he will get out some more data on the finer points of it. Perhaps I missed it somewhere, and if I did please correct me and point me in the right direction. I really would like to know his plans on this issue.

[camero]

27. As if those companies pay any now.

Corporate taxes are only 10% of tax receipts now. Better to ban it outright or pass an outsourcing tax on multinationals.

[Andy_Stephenson]

30. I like this idea very much

"pass an outsourcing tax on multinationals.

[Strelnikov_]

48. On Lou Dobbs Last Week I Thought I Heard 6% (Corporate Tax Receipts)

[camero]

72. You are probably right

I was making a guess. At any rate, it's abysmally low.

[meow2u3]

61. I think we should have tax penalties for companies that outsourcing

Q: If severe tax penalties, in the 70-80% range won't at least slow down the outsourcing deluge, then what will?

A: A provision which criminalizes passing on the added cost of a higher tax rate onto consumers.

[bleedingheart]

20. I agree as my job is on the line as well but I don't know that all corps

will come back given that Indian engineers will work for a quarter of what i do...

[Skittles]

35. they call it a "global economy"

yet we cannot compete for jobs with people who are able to accept much less money than we need to support ourselves

[KAZ]

21. He made proposals for this. Your purpose here?

Unknown.

[Andy_Stephenson]

22. My purpose?

to get an answer from the man I plan on voting for...

And your purpose here?

[KAZ]

24. You must have missed the "tax break" answer.

Why?

[Andy_Stephenson]

26. See 19 above n/t

n/t

[KAZ]

28. OK. That was a good message.

If your saying we should keep pushing, then fine, I agree.

[greatauntoftriplets]

23. Have you tried dealing with a help desk in India lately????

Two weeks ago tonight, I had a computer problem. Spent HOURS on the phone with hapless HP tech support. They were clueless!!!!! And I found them as difficult to understand as they found me difficult to understand.

Fortunately, I ran to a neighbor's house to send a message to someone. The neighbor's computer genius nephew was there and he spent 2 1/2 hours the next day fixing my computer.

People in this country need jobs! My computer genius brother-in-law is driving an over-the-road truck because he cannot get a job in his field. And he is 64 years old and has prostate cancer to boot. He'd be a hell of a lot better off staying at home instead of spending 12 days crossing country in an 18-wheeler. Did I mention he has been driving with pneumonia for the last three weeks????

[AP]

25. He's going to remove the economic incentives. He's not going to outlaw it.

[Mister K]

31. The Truth about outsourcing

I have been a software developer for the last 15 years and an independent consultant for the last 5.

Right now, I have to compete for jobs against outsourcing in India and other countries as well as workers here on H-2 (work) visas.

Workers in India have can be billed out at about 1/3 - 1/4 my current rate. It makes it very difficult for me to find work at a competitive rate and still be able to pay my bills. I can compete better against the H-2 visa holders because their rates are higher however they are willing to work at much lower rates then me because most do not support a family that resides in the US.

A recent report published stated that about 240 Billion dollars will be spent on outsourcing in 2005. That is about 2% of our Gross Domestic Product.

George Bush has ignored these facts and has not done anything about it or even addressed it. The only statements that came out of his staff is that outsourcing is good for the economy.

The problem I and many people in the US are faced with, is that outsourcing is cheaper and not cheaper by a small margin either. Companies can save at least 50% on a project by outsourcing and all companies always look at the bottom line. In addition, bonuses are determined by profitability of a company. If a CEO or CIO of a company can save a boatload of cash with little or no cost they will.

The unfortunate fact is that this trend has already started in the US and I do not believe that it can be stopped. We live in a Global Economy. Many US companies need to compete with companies around the world. If companies in other countries are using outsourcing, and US companies do not, the US Companies will lose their competitive edge.

What Kerry is proposing is leveling the playing field by taking away the incentives for outsourcing. The main incentive is that fact the employers do not have to pay taxes on outsourced wages. This is one of the loopholes he mentioned. He also mentioned giving tax breaks on companies that do not outsource. With these programs, it can help the US become more competitive without outsourcing by saving them money. Will the incentives be enough? Only time will tell.

I am voting for John Kerry because he has at least addressed the fact that this is a problem. I cannot say as much for Mr. Bush.

[jayctravis]

33. What he can do...

is make it not as attractive for companies that outsource.

With the age of telecommunications we are in, it is possible for people who work answering phones and writing code (for example) to connect to a global server. Companies therefore have the choice to pay someone $12 an hour to answer phones, or $2.

Companies are always looking at the bottom line; they are outsourcing, and Bush gives them tax breaks to "stimulate" our economy.

Kerry has talked repeatedly of eliminating tax breaks for companies who outsource.

[sadiesworld]

36. We have to be ready to move on this issue 11/3.

There will be a huge wave of outsourcing following the election and people will be FURIOUS! We should be prepared to take advantage of that fury and hammer Kerry. Yes, hammer Kerry.

[toddaa]

37. Outsourcing and Free Trade

Outsourcing is fact of life. We are going to have to deal with it. Unfortunately, it's hard to explain to someone who has lost their job that outsourcing is not the root problem. Indian, Asian, and Russian software developers have just as much right to work as American programmers. The real issue is that multinational corporations can exploit foreign government policies with minimal or nonexistant labor laws at the expense of the "offshore" workers they hire. Instead of fighting outsourcing, let's all band together and demand stronger worker rights in all countries. If everyone plays by the same rules, we all benefit.

[Orangepeel]

38. It's a free country. He can't stop business from hiring overseas

what he CAN do, is stop rewarding them for doing it, and start rewarding them for NOT doing it.

He can also, of course, stop the outsourcing of government jobs (which may or may not happen at the federal level; I know that happens at the state level).

[gpandas]

40. a little reality on outsourcing

the american lifestyle depends on outsourcing. only through cheap labor can the american public's desire for material goods be satiated. i chuckle when people suggest ways of limiting outsourcing because their job is on the line, and then put on their nikes. i actually laugh when someone says we gotta' stop outsourcing, and then drives away in their japenese auto, made from japanese steel, korean plastic, and instruments from indonesia. i guess it's okay to outsource the jobs of steelworkers, shoemakers, garment makers, and autoworkers. where was the anger then? that's right, you were not concerned when millions of other workers were getting pink slips while you bought toyotas and sonys by the millions. you blamed the unions for the prices and went merrily on your way, because you were white collar and never imagined your job would be outsourced. what goes around comes around. ah, the hypocracy, the hypocracy, the hyporacy.

[toddaa]

41. The subtle racism of it all

In addition to the hypocrisy, there's a subtle racist element to people who complain about outsourcing. It's always couched in terms of "those third world" people taking our jobs. Why are American workers more deserving of employment than Indians or Asians?

The simple solution (no really, it is simple) is to fight for a global agreement on workers' rights. Once the playing field is level, outsourcings impact on wages and employment will be minimized.

[gpandas]

42. you are right about expanding...

workers rights, but i got to believe that the exploitation of workers will continue. the near-slave wages paid have no meaning to the national conscience, assuming there is one.

[sandnsea]

43. yep

My son said last night, it feels like the 70's. I don't remember what he was talking about, but I immediately thought of the loss of factory jobs. It was a horrible time. In fact, I worked for Keds shoes who was competing with the upstart, Nike, at the time. I lost my job to downsizing. I learned about outsourcing very early. And it's true, everybody blamed the unions and that's where it all started. Look where we're at today as a result. Still, you can't stop a company from opening a plant wherever they want. But you can have a President who will get these other countries to implement the same kinds of environmental, human rights and labor laws that we have. Who will tell the truth about outsourcing and I do think Kerry does that and will do that. As well as create some incentives for job creation here and do something about our health care which is one of the reasons companies leave too.

[gpandas]

45. also, direct labor...

in the u.s. accounts for around 8% of a product's cost, and recieves around 95% of cost cutting efforts by the unthinking managers of u.s. manufacturing.

[Joanne98]

52. You don't think outsourcing can be stopped? You just watch what's

going to happen. Picture this. The majority of people in the G8 countries MOVE their money out of AMERICAN BANKS and buy and sell only in the EURO. Do you know what that's called? It's called "DESTROY THE DOLLAR" which is only worth three cents right now anyway. This plan starts in earnest next year 2005, especially if the bastards put though the 2005 GATTS agreement.

[Strelnikov_]

57. Yep. Considering That The Off-Shoring Net Savings Is Only 20%

on average, a 20% devaluation of the dollar, relative to other currencies, will eliminate any offshoring advantage.

Why do you think China has their currency keyed to the Dollar?

[Joanne98]

62. I hate the communist/capitialist Chinese. I think we should BOMB them.

Have you noticed how Alan Traitorspan is fighting to keep the Chinese currency pegged to the dollar? I think we should devalue the dollar by at least 50%. We'll see if the Chinese can hang on thru that.

[Andy_Stephenson]

63. Don't worry...a devaluation of the dollar

is inevitable. Look at commodity prices...the process has already started.

[Strelnikov_]

66. Your JDAM's Of Freedom(tm) Should Be Directed At The Corporate Oligarchs

both domestic and foreign.

The Chinese and Indian people are as much victims as the downsized American. What do think is going to happen to them when their individual lot rises a bit above the surrounding masses? They will be cast aside for someone who will work cheaper. Look at what is happening to those workers in Mexico and Central America. Their jobs are being offshored to China because their lot has risen above the average Chinese.

Countries need to concentrate on sustainable, not quick buck, economies.

[Joanne98]

71. I'm not talking about the people. I know everybody getting screwed

But the Chinese goverment has turned into an oligarchy. they're just total gansters at this point. Which is exactly what the GOP wanted. Do you think the corporations want the Chinese to have democracy. HELL NO. They want China exactly the way it is. A corporate slave labor camp. To me there is only two countries in this world. The Master Nation and the Slave Nation. It's already borderless, for the masters anyway. Almost every leader on earth is corrupted now. We need a global class warfare plan of action. The Chinese people need democracy so they can FORM WORKER UNIONS.

[Andy_Stephenson]

53. Well lets see.

I dont drive nor have I ever owned a toyota. I would never buy Nikes because of the slave labor involved in making them. When I was in the market for cookware...I would not buy it until I found a set made in the USA. Since there is very little cloting made in the USA anymore I am forced to buy overseas items...but I shop carefully and look for things made in countries with a modicum of worker safety laws. I am not hypocritical...as a matter of fact...I changed my insurance to a company that was not outsourcing. When I find out a service provider is outsourcing...II leave them for another vendor that does not outsource. I want my hard earned money to stay in the US...because not only are we outsourcing jobs...we are exporting wealth as well.

[Joanne98]

64. Ben Cohen is selling sweat-free clothes........

http://www.sweatx.net/

[Andy_Stephenson]

67. Cool!

Thanks for the link!

[Politicub]

44. As much as I dislike outsourcing

It is reality now, and I agree with Kerry that you can't stop all of it.

What we have to do is make American workers more competitive. Doing something to reduce insurance costs is one thing, but I think Kerry's plan to eliminate the tax loopholes for companies that outsource are a good first step.

Plus, Kerry is going to end tax loopholes for companies that set up shop in Burmuda or some other offshore tax haven.

Some limited, smart outsourcing may even be beneficial. I think the U.S.'s relationship with India, a billion-strong democracy, is fundamentally important to world peace.

[Andy_Stephenson]

54. Repeal NAFTA , WTO etc etc and outsourcing would stop

damned quick too. Our politicians (Democrat and Republican) have made it too damned easy to outsource.

[Bo]

46. TAX the companies 5000 a head per year thats lost....

to outsoursing

[KG]

50. 'free trade' agreements/outsoucing is a bipartisan effort

he 'free trade' agreements that allowed the explosion of outsouring in the '90s had much bi-partisan support. dont expect dem. leadership to make a u-turn this issue.

[Joanne98]

51. It's called, "The Washington Concensus." It's been decided for decades

Another term is neo-liberalism and it SUCKS. It's called globalization, the WTO, the World Bank, the IMF and they almost ALL support it. it's a grand sceme to PRIVATIZE THE WORLD. This is why the anti-globalization protestors are the most important resistance group on earth. ALL SUFFERING comes from this plan. If you want to see real evil, look up the bastards plan to PRIVATIZE THE WORLD'S WATER! Every year they have a meeting called the World Water Forum, where they sit there and divy up the worlds water which they call "blue gold." Notice that WATER is now a commodity on the MERC. Sorry if this sounds like a rant but i can't even think about this subject without going off. I still stand by my theory that the whole BBV issue will end up in the WTO. Even if Kerry wins we can't stop fighting because the only way to make life better is to do what DK said and pull out of the trade agreements and the WTO. Until then life is just a different degree of suffering.

http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cidtrade/issues/washington.html


Washington Consensus
The phrase “Washington Consensus” is today a very popular and often pilloried term in debates about trade and development. It is often seen as synonymous with “neoliberalism” and “globalization.” As the phrase’s originator, John Williamson, says: “Audiences the world over seem to believe that this signifies a set of neoliberal policies that have been imposed on hapless countries by the Washington-based international financial institutions and have led them to crisis and misery. There are people who cannot utter the term without foaming at the mouth.” <1>

Williamson originally coined the phrase in 1990 “to refer to the lowest common denominator of policy advice being addressed by the Washington-based institutions to Latin American countries as of 1989.” <2> These policies were:

Fiscal discipline
A redirection of public expenditure priorities toward fields offering both high economic returns and the potential to improve income distribution, such as primary health care, primary education, and infrastructure
Tax reform (to lower marginal rates and broaden the tax base)
Interest rate liberalization
A competitive exchange rate
Trade liberalization
Liberalization of inflows of foreign direct investment
Privatization
Deregulation (to abolish barriers to entry and exit)
Secure property rights
Since then, the phrase “Washington Consensus” has become a lightning rod for dissatisfaction amongst anti-globalization protestors, developing country politicians and officials, trade negotiators, and numerous others. It is often used interchangeably with the phrase “neoliberal policies.” But, as Williamson also states:

I'm one of those people who can't say the term without foaming at the mouth.

[Joanne98]

58. I love these guys........ Go Canada Go...........

Hamilton water back in public hands
A decade-long fight against water privatization has ended in a major victory for the citizens of Hamilton. City council has voted to take back operation and maintenance of the city’s water and wastewater treatment plants, ending an era of secrecy, spilled sewage, malfunctioning equipment and a revolving door of corporate owners.
A community campaign was key in the push to bring water back in house and CUPE was on the front line. The city workers, members of CUPE 5167, joined with local Council of Canadians activists to set up a Water Watch coalition that united the power of faith, environmental and labour activists. The timing was critical – the city was in the process of considering whether to renew the disastrous private contract for another decade.

The big losers are corporate water giant American Water Services. The corporation’s efforts to renew their contract included a failed attempt to get a court injunction to stop city council’s vote. American Water was the fourth in a string of private contractors that included scandal-plagued Enron’s water division, Azurix.

In Ontario, we have to hold Premier Dalton McGuinty especially accountable because he was elected on a platform of stopping privatization in health care - yet, he has not even uttered the word "privatization" during the three days of talks.

American Water was eager to tap into a decade’s worth of risk-free profits, reportedly spending $600,000 on their pitch to renew the contract. Their initial bid, which would have cost the city $39 million a year, was disqualified. The company then submitted a much lower bid that exposed the extent of their greed. Their new bid was only $13 million – a figure American Water said would meet the same technical requirements, but would leave the corporation with less of the risk involved in running the plants.

Now that governments have admitted that private financing costs more, they try and justify P3s and contracting out by arguing that the private sector is assuming the risks of operation. But the hefty premium corporations levy doesn’t mean they actually do the heavy lifting when it comes time to shoulder those responsibilities. Over the last 10 years, the private operators found various ways to avoid the risk of running the water plants, leaving the city to pick up the tab.

Responsibility for cleaning up a major sewage spill in the mid-1990s (the largest spill ever in Lake Ontario) fell entirely on the city, even though the plant was in the hands of private operators. The full cost of the cleanup, and details of the city’s attempts to hold the corporation responsible, have never been made public.

Another contract loophole meant the corporation was only responsible for maintenance and repairs that cost less than $10,000 – creating an incentive for the corporation to let things slide until major repairs were needed. Earlier this year, a city councilor had to file a freedom of information request to try and uncover how much the city was paying for maintenance and repair under the privatized scheme.

Hamilton citizens can now look forward to a community water system that’s stronger and more accountable. The city takes control of the plants on January 1, 2005.

http://www.cupe.on.ca/

[Strelnikov_]

60. This Is The Standard Pattern Of Public Infrastructure Outsourcing

The hidden agenda is to open up the public funds to looting by corporate oligarchs in lieu of public managers letting smaller, directed and well-managed contracts for O&M of the system.

There is not much profit to be made off of well managed, competitively bid, public infrastructure contracts.

[Joanne98]

70. The PPPs Increase cost, reduce services, lower wages and tax revenue

AND INCREASE long-term goverment debt.........

Exposing PPPs
· The term “public private partnerships” is disarming. “Partner” suggests a mutually beneficial relationship, bringing together the best of the public sector with that of the private sector. Government and corporations claim that this combination will limit public debt and create more efficient and cheaper services.

· PPPs are often another way of contracting out public services. Instead of the usual short-term contracting out arrangements, these longer-term financing, leasing and ownership agreements move public services much closer to outright privatization. PPPs are privatization by stealth.

· CUPE does not oppose the private sector doing business with the government and public agencies. Corporations have often designed and constructed public infrastructure including roads, bridges, schools, and hospitals, and will continue to do so.

· Governments and corporations want to expand the role of the private sector to include the financing, operation and ownership of virtually all public services. Corporations want to build, operate and own our schools, provide our food and medical services in hospitals, treat and supply our water, provide our recreational services, process our taxes and administer our social welfare system. In short, the public sector has become a new “profit centre” for the private sector.

http://www.cupe.ca/www/p3sgeneral/5321

[Strelnikov_]

55. Looks Like People Have Been Sampling The Corporatist Kool-Aid Again

Just because our candidate says something does not mean we have to agree with it. After all, we are liberals, not GOP reich-bots.

Offshoring is by no means inevitable and necessary, as some would have you believe, for a healthy economy. If it was, how did we get to where we were in the late 90’s?.

If the country the jobs are being offshored to have comparable, and enforced, environmental/workplace safety/labor laws, and distribution of wealth, as the United States, then Ricardo’s principles of comparative advantage are applicable. If not, I view the offending company as being in violation of U.S. laws, since they are moving work to skirt the laws of the U.S.

What we are seeing today is a wholesale race to the bottom. India and China will never grow the majority middle class needed to provide the touted market for trade equalization due to the sheer size of their population and limited energy resources.

The comparative advantage a company received from offshoring disappears when all of their competitors have done likewise. Once our (US) debt hits a critical mass, the dollar will fall precipitously in value, and the US will no longer be able to afford importation of anything than critical resources (re: oil). Since a viable consumer class has not developed in the offshored countries, the companies will no longer have a market, and will fail.

I feel that we could throw up a tariff barrier around the US, Canada and Mexico and have a vibrant, sustainable economy. The trading block would simply have to develop enough trade to pay for any necessary resource imports (oil, etc.).

Why Mexico? Because the trading block needs to have a wide variety of climate, resources and labor. Also, they are here anyway, so we need to eliminate the labor black market that exploits illegal and legal immigrants.

As for the rest of the world, the tariffs would be based on comparable, and enforced, environmental/workplace safety/labor laws, and distribution of wealth, as the North American trade block.

Considering the cumulative trade deficit, national debt, and coming peak oil economic transients, the current economic dynamic is about end anyway. As for what replaces it following the crash, who knows? But my bet it will depend on a hell of a lot more on ‘local’ self-sustainability and a hell of a lot less on non-essential imports.

[Joanne98]

59. Yeah loindelrio..........Your right on the money.......

I agree with this.....


Considering the cumulative trade deficit, national debt, and coming peak oil economic transients, the current economic dynamic is about end anyway. As for what replaces it following the crash, who knows? But my bet it will depend on a hell of a lot more on ‘local’ self-sustainability and a hell of a lot less on non-essential imports.

AFTER THE CRASH which is coming because the greedy fuckers won't stop any other way.

[Joanne98]

56. The FTAA.... Remember the protest in Miami?

Bradenton Herald--A truly scary free-trade treaty




A truly scary free-trade treaty

No trade agreement has sounded more laudable than the Free Trade Area of the

Americas with its stated goal to provide "free market access to goods and

services for the entire continent." Even the North American Free Trade

Agreement doesn't quite match its clarion call.

Perhaps you've never heard of the FTAA, but surely you've heard of NAFTA.

That includes Canada, the U.S. and Mexico and was enacted in 1993. Shortly

after NAFTA became reality, secret deliberations for the establishment of

the FTAA commenced. It is targeted for completion by 2005.

Indeed, some refer to FTAA as NAFTA on steroids or NAFTA on Viagra,

ostensibly because it would extend this so-called "free" trade fiasco from

the Arctic to the Antarctic, from Alaska to the tip of Chile and Argentina,

but even more to be feared is the projected expansion of trade in services

as well as trade in goods. "Services" include everything that "you can't

drop on your foot," including health care, education, water, electric

utilities, telecommunications, construction, mail delivery, banking, food

safety, transportation, prisons, environmental protections and much, much

more.

FTAA is scary, very scary.

Many of us might use the terms "free trade" and "fair trade"

interchangeably, not aware of their vast difference in meanings. "Fair

trade" denotes the attempt to be just to all who are affected in any way by

the transaction. "Free trade" refers to procedures or rules that allow

transnational corporations to make the process of trade in goods and

services easier and more profitable for themselves.

Groups that are agitating against FTAA in its current form, such as the

Florida Fair Trade Coalition, the Citizens Trade Campaign and the Alliance

for Sustainable Jobs and the Environment, are doing so precisely because

they have followed NAFTA's effects on the U.S. and Mexican economies and

have found them to be detrimental. Small farmers on both sides of the Rio

Grande are losing their farms. Mexican peasants are still risking their

lives to come to the U.S. Many thousands of the jobs have been lost in the

U.S. and Canada. The viability of U.S. wheat, winter fruit, and vegetable

and tomato production has been undermined. There are even tomato growers in

Manatee County who say that NAFTA has been harmful for them.

The aforementioned groups monitoring the FTAA negotiations are not against

trade per se. They believe there are helpful alternatives to the rules that,

presently, appear to be similar, not only to NAFTA's but also to the GATTS,

one of many separate agreements included in the World Trade Organization.

The complex agreements will contain extensive constraints and obligations

for governments, while they create only privileges and protections for

multinational corporations.

Perhaps you also remember the hue and cry from labor, human rights and

environmental groups when no negotiating teams were set up to deal with

their concerns as NAFTA was being negotiated. Because of the persistent

outrage from these rejected groups, "side agreements" attempting to deal

with their concerns were negotiated eventually. Criticism that the side

agreements had no teeth has lingered and some cite the continuing

deterioration in the maquiladoras as evidence. Wouldn't one think that the

FTAA negotiators would have learned by the intensity of the fight from labor

and environmental groups when NAFTA was being planned that it might be smart

to add groups on labor, the environment and safety and human rights to its

nine negotiating teams? It might have been smart, but they didn't do it.

They were too busy negotiating provisions like NAFTA's Chapter 11 that

allows corporations to sue governments when environmental or public health

laws negatively impact expected corporate profits.

Believe it or not, the rules being negotiated would allow investors to

demand compensation for any government's acts, including public interest

laws, that might not only diminish the corporation's potential profits but

also might be "more burdensome than necessary to ensure the quality of the

service." Under these rules, governments could lose the ability to limit

such activities as oil drilling, hotel and resort development, golf courses,

waste incineration, concessions in national parks, etc. Conceivably, a

phosphate company or a power company might be able to sue a county for

threatening its profits if the county insisted on environmental standards

that the company thinks are too onerous. Particularly appalling is the

"national treatment" rule that would entitle private foreign corporations to

equal rights to compete against local public service providers for funds to

perform public services. For instance, if a community subsidized public

transit, the community would have to subsidize equally all companies seeking

to provide that service. Privatization of water collection and water

delivery are real possibilities under such a system. Water privatization has

already been tried unsuccessfully in several cities in this country under

NAFTA's Chapter 11.

About 100 years ago when Theodore Roosevelt was president, this country

believed that regulation of corporations was necessary to protect the common

good. Let us not forget corporations like Enron too soon. Regulation of

corporations is still necessary to protect the common good. Checks and

balances are important, not only for a democratic governmental system but

also equally for the private sector. The adage, "Power corrupts; absolute

power corrupts absolutely," applies not only to a lone dictator or to a

governmental system, but it also applies to transnational corporations that

have been successful in forging all rules of business to their own

advantage.

Jo Williams

Commentary

Jo Williams of Bradenton is active in the Stewardship of Public Life Network

of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.).

http://www.stopftaa.org/article.php?id=104

[Joanne98]

68. The REAL reason Saddam Hussein was removed..........

And the REAL reason "Old Europe" supported him....PETRO DOLLARS...

In 2000 Saddam hussein stopped selling Iraq oil in Dollars and changed to EUROS...(UN oil for food program)

The greatest financial weapon against the United States is the EURO. It is the first currency to present a threat against the dollar. The EURO is a shared currency of 15 European nations centered upon Germany and France. The economies and populations of the euro countries are as large as that of the United States, and more tightly bound to the Middle East, said Ebron. As large as the European Union appears today, it continues to grow. The United States is landlocked. The world is suddenly too small for the dollar to grow.

Since 1945 the dollar has been the global oil transaction currency. These dollars are recycled from oil production to the US as Treasury Bills and assets in US stocks and real estate, which is a substantial portion of the financial market. The EURO becomes the alternative currency to nations wishing to switch.

Now for the difficult part... although the Asian Times writes a fairly "idiot-proof" description. In 2002, the US debt was $6 trillion against a gross domestic product of $9 trillion. Global economies have, since WWII, captured dollars to service foreign debts, and accumulated dollar reserves sustain the exchange value of their own currency. The world's central banks hold dollar reserves equal to their currency in circulation. The more pressure to devalue a currency, the more dollar reserves are required. This makes each economy dependent upon the US dollar, or known as dollar hegemony, constructed mainly by oil -- in other words, oil producing nations historically only accepted dollars, until the EURO. But with this currency game, the US essentially owns the world oil trading market for free, and allows the US to build its debt based upon credit assets they don't physically own. With The United States in control of Iraq, oil trade reverts to dollars.

With a strong dependency upon oil, and petrodollars secure, the White House hopes the EURO will slide. The EURO economy is currently $9.6 trillion. As more countries jump on to use EURO, their economy grows. The US either takes over the assets they trade, like Iraq, or convince the rest of the world to exchange their currency for dollars. The US is urging Tony Blair not to adopt the EURO for this purpose. The EURO is new, has little debt. The US dollar has a substantial debt, but is heavily used. The European Union itself is a larger consumer of oil than the US.

These are White House games you won't read about in the US media. This one you should pay attention to.

http://www.thinkandask.com/news/thedollar.html

[Joanne98]

69. The GOP didn't think of "Health Savings Accounts" The World Bank did

Alright America, listen up. Are you worried about health care? If you vote for Bush your getting the "SINGAPORE MODEL".

Archived Discussion:

Is Singapore a Model for Health Financing?
Moderated by Rob Taylor

Singapore is unique among developed countries in achieving high quality health care and outcomes at low cost. Life expectancy and infant mortality rates are about the best in the world while spending is around 3% of GDP - the lowest cost among developed countries - compared with around 6% in the UK and 14% in the US.

Singapore's financing system combines universal savings accounts with supplementary programs to protect the poor and address potential market failures in health financing. The interplay of individual incentives, targeted subsides, and other cost containers is an important factor in the success. The system differs significantly from national health insurance. Employees are required to contribute 6-8% of their salary to individual savings accounts. These accounts belong to the individual, accumulate over a lifetime, and can be used at the individual's discretion. To address the risk of catastrophic illness Singapore complements these accounts with catastrophic insurance. The government also provides targeted subsides for the poor, the elderly and the unemployed. Both the public and private sector provide health care in Singapore and patients can choose their provider at all levels of care.

A similar model could be applied in other countries, regardless of income levels. Critical and/or politically difficult decisions include whether to make savings accounts mandatory and universal or private and voluntary, whether to fund the savings accounts through payroll contributions or general tax revenue, the size of co-payments, and how to structure and fund targeted subsides. But with political will, these decisions are do-able - thus helping to contain the crisis of escalating costs of health care facing many governments.

http://rru.worldbank.org/Discussions/Topics/Topic23.aspx

If you know anything about Singapore it's a facist's wet dream. I once saw Newt Gingrich on TV and tears welled up in his eyes when he talked about Singapore. he said it was the most perfect economy on earth. Singapore is a corporate "slave state". This should be pointed out to the STUPID Americans who think "health savings accounts" are a good idea. Of course, this is the WB SPIN on this. Sounds kinda rosy doesn't it? For every SPIN there's a counter-spin. It's really just a frigging nightmare for all except those who live on MT Olympias.

[lovuian]

76. When MY TAXDOLLARS pay salary for Indians and I have

Americans unemployed thats not right

and thats WRONG

and Republicans are doing that
OutSourcing is WRONG