When will DU offer WHITE POWER icons?

[Trek234]

Apparently DU has recently had the klan members/neo-nazis come out of the wood work.

One thing klan members and neo-nazis LOVE to do is blame foreigners/non-whites for all work problems they may have. In fact, a lot of people at DU sound like the skin head with a giant swastika on his chest from the movie American History X talking about how the damn foreigners take all the jobs. These DUers have been presenting the same damn argument and have a band wagon of people hoping on in support who obviously filled with racism deep down that is now starting to show through.

Let's take a look at some of the racist comments I have collected demonstrating this point from all the "It's all the Indians fault I don't have a job!" people. (I have left out racial slur posts as they are not even worth the time, and of course no names will be posted)

"If we don't stand up for ourselves, nobody else will and nobody will stand up for the millions of workers around the world who keep getting shit on by these corporations. Those workers come and kill US when they're pissed. Maybe it's time people start speaking up about the real lesson of 9/11. " From a thread about Indians taking jobs.

WOW! This klansmen reminds me of the racist bigots beating up Mexicans because they think 'brown = arab'.

Ok Mr. Racist. Yes, the Indians come to the US and kill us when "they're pissed". Yea, that happens ALL the time. They are brown, therefore they simply MUST be Islamic terrorists.

This is the kind of bull shit hate groups spout all the time, and I fail to see why it is allowed at here. Maybe these people are just attracted to the white color scheme of DU.

"Yeah, but what's the fucking point of learning the latest technologies if the jobs are not in the US where they damn well belong?!"

WHITE POWER! All jobs belong to the US where they damn well belong. God damn Indians!

"<I bet> most of the 1 billion that live in India will be lining up around the block to buy the latest IBM computers, and the 1.5 billion that live in Africa, I bet they're clamoring for Windows 2029 or whatever. Face it, yes there are 6 billion people in the world. But of that 6 billion, about 750 million are 'consumers' that actually buy the shit. The rest are breeders and serfs according to the anything goes if it serves the market philosophy."

Yea! FACE IT! 6 billion of those damn breeders. The 750 million WHITES (oh I'm sorry "consumers") are the only ones on this planet that buy the latest IBM computers! Everyone else is below us.

"And...if you think America will just wallow in misery while it holds the largest, most sophisticated military in history, you are going to be sadly mistaken."

Kill em all!

Reminds me of the Jews are taking ALL German white european jobs. Our Military MUST put a stop to it. We will not wallow in our economic misfortune caused by the Jews. Well hell, at least now it's the Indians right der fuhrer?

"The American government must think of Americans first. Can Americans tolerate anything less? If I wanted my kids to live in India, we would move."

This was a particularly amusing comment if not directly racist for a citizen of a country with so much blood on its hands recently. Kill those damn Iraqis and take the oil we so need. F*ck it if they die! AMERICANS FIRST! We can't tolerate anything less.

The list goes on.

I can NOT BELIEVE people at DU are so damn racist to buy in to the arguments of the GOD D*MN KLAN AND NAZIS blaming foreigners and foreign nations for any damn work problems they may have because you just know they are taking all your jobs. Go to a neo-nazi american web site and you will see the same trash people have been spouting here. These people don't have a problem with out sourcing - they have a problem with no whites. You don't have a problem with out sourcing when you equate Indians with "brown islamic terrorists" - you don't have a problem with out sourcing when you think of most of the worlds non-white people are breeders - you sir have a problem with racism.

This is the argument of fools who can't think beyond "foreign nation = taking job" despite the fact there are so many other countless reasons you may not have a job it is not even funny. Rove must be laughing his ass off right now. Blame the Indians! It's all their fault! Oh Clinton too by the way.

I'm tired of seeing racist bull sh*t injected in to Indian posts at DU. If you want to talk about out sourcing being a problem fine. (even though it is but a TINY piece of the other countless reasons jobs are short in this nation now) But leave your damn racist comments about non-white breeders and Indians coming to kill us like the 9/11 terrorists out of it. Alt.kill.jews.browns is where it belongs and will be much more appreciated.

[greyl]

1. hang on

"Yeah, but what's the fucking point of learning the latest technologies if the jobs are not in the US where they damn well belong?!"

There's truth in that statement. The unemployment situation and the financial gap between ceo's and workers is directly related to corporations having shadowy subsidiaries overseas.

[Trek234]

4. Er you can see it that way, yes

But this statement is holding foreign nations directly responsible for your lack of ability to get a job, and it just feeds the lie that they are mainly responsible.

Out sourcing is but a small part of the reason for a lack of jobs in this nation today. You have a lot more national causes than international.

[Blue_Chill]

9. I disagree

But this statement is holding foreign nations directly responsible for your lack of ability to get a job, and it just feeds the lie that they are mainly responsible.

I disagree. I think 'the statement' is showing anger towards a situation here in the Uinted States in which IT proffesionals are fingding themselves without jobs because they are being exported. The exporting itself is what is being blamed NOT the other country.

Out sourcing is but a small part of the reason for a lack of jobs in this nation today. You have a lot more national causes than international.

I take it you are not in IT? Exporting jobs to India, for instance, is a very large loss of available jobs in our field.

[sangha]

13. Missing the point

Why do these jobs "belong" to us?

(Disclosure: I've worked in IT for 25 years)

[Blue_Chill]

14. Because the Corp.'s

Make their money here and leach their GOP welfare here. If you want to take all the advantages of the US then you are best not to screw over the voters.

[sangha]

41. Wrong

Those corps make plenty of their money overseas, and enjoying the freedoms of America does not require anyone to sacrifice income in order to help people who vote.

[Brian Sweat]

23. Because they are American companies

They make their profits off of Americans and they benefit from the protections that the American government provides them, but they are hiring people in third world nations that cannot use their products.

If all american jobs are exported overseas, then we will end up being just as poor as the rest of the world.

[sangha]

43. So what?

American companies are allowed to hire foreigners. Those jobs do not "belong" to Americans. They belong to whomever the employer gives the job to, and the foriegners they are hiring certainly *DO* know how to use the products.

If all american jobs are exported overseas, then we will end up being just as poor as the rest of the world.

Not all jobs are being exported. The fact that you have to exagerrate so demonstrates that your argument (ie. "the jobs belong to Americans") is without foundation.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

30. Because the corporations are chartered by state governments

It's that simple. If the corporations don't want to follow US law, we'll revoke their charter.

[sangha]

44. So what?

The corporate charters do not require them to hire only Americans. They are following the law.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

47. Why not?

Maybe they should? As far as corporate crime goes, GE has been convicted of multiple felonies over the course of the last 25 years - if GE was a human being, it would have been executed or spending life in prison.

Let's not forget that corporations are the ones paying politicians, Republican and Democrat, for favorable legislation. Wasn't it Enron that wrote Bush's energy policy? Didn't they give all that money and support to Bush so he would pass their energy policy?

[sangha]

50. Are you confused?

I don't know why you are bringing up corporate crime. While I do believe that corporate crime should result in an elimination of a corp's charter (effectively putting it out of business), that has nothing to do with hiring only Americans, or campaign contributions.

You may find this shocking, but we could eliminate the corporate donations to politicians, and they'd still be shipping jobs overseas.

[thom1102]

2. The saddest part of this is...

one of the reasons many of the jobs are being outsourced to India, besides the lower labor costs in India, is that India has put a large emphasis on math and sciences education, because that is where the future lucrative jobs are. So jobs are moving to India, because the Indian workforce is more qualified. So this hatred people have been showing has been a result of their general lack of qualifications, rather than any lack on the part of Indians. Sad, so very sad that ordinarily intelligent, openminded progressives would allow themselves to be blinded like that.

[Blue_Chill]

10. Incorrect

We have a very able IT workforce in the US. The difference is only that we are much more expensive to employ.

I'm getting tired of that "they are better" nonsense. No they most certainly are not. Equal? You bet. Better? No. Cheaper? Yup.

[markses]

16. We have a very able manufacturing workforce

here in the US. Of course, it's cheaper to pay workers in other countries, ya?

Funny when the great shift from Fordism to post-Fordism, from manufacturing to symbolic analytic work turns out to be liable to the same structural conditions as everything else.

That's capitalism, boss (remember when all the techies just loooooved their inflated stock prices). Too bad for you.

[thom1102]

25. If this were 100% true...

then there wouldn't have been a push to change immigration rules by high tech companies seeking a broader workforce. At the height of tech bubble, we had a severe qualified, high tech worker shortage. These immigrant workers pay was on par with their native counterparts. I am attending college in a physics program. The people in my program, both my fellow students and my professors, are overwhelmingly of southern Asian decent. Young people in this country want to be lawyers, stock brokers, and popstars/actors/athletes, whereas the Indian government as a matter of policy has been encouraging their young people to concentrate on the math's and sciences. This is not so much a criticism as an observation.

[vision]

28. It has to do with numbers

If you compare the top 20% of students in the US to any other country the results are very comparable. Psychology tells us that only a small percentage of the population advance to critical thinking and for some jobs, like IT, abstract thought is necessary. The US does just not have the numbers.

Top 10% of 250,000,000 is 2.5 million.
top 10% of India's 1,027,015,247 is 10 million.

If the top percentage has the skill, India just has more numbers avilable it has nothing to do with one nation being "smarter" than another.

[vision]

48. "ack" math is wrong

That is what I get for not checking my math before I go to work :)

the correct numbers should be 25 million and 102 million respectivly.

[bhairava]

61. It's about even more than numbers

You have to start with the right numbers. India is in no way a rich social democracy which offers equality of opportunity to most of its citizens. India is a highly stratified society with a relatively small middle class (this is changing), a large population barely subsisting, and a tiny wealthy elite. A poverty rate of 27% (which is generous other estimates range to 35%) translates to about 270 million people. The literacy rate is between 55% and 62%. The number of people who are educated beyond the primary level is relatively quite small. There were only 20 Million in secondary school in the early 90's it is now estimated to be aound 30 million. The total university enrollment is only about 5.5 Million, or one-third of the estimated 15 Million in the US. The influence of more than a thousand years of Vedic culture is deep; who is educated and to what level and who can afford it still track closely with where in the caste strata one was born. Indeed, besides economic gains, social mobility and the freedom of self determination drive many educated youngsters to come here.

[devarsi]

21. Bullshit

The jobs are moving overseas because wages are cheaper for corporations. I worked a tech desk for Microsoft, through a contractor called Convergys. Our entire Windows 98 project was moved to India - despite constant criticism from our customers, specifically as to the quality of the service they received.

Our center stats were always on display, and between the Utah office, Arizona, Nova Scotia, and India, India ranked last in the ability to handle calls in a timely fashion, resolve issues quickly, and deliver customer satisfaction. The act of sending the jobs to India did zero for the customer, and everything for the company, who benefitted from the lower wages of the supposedly "better qualified" India call center.

[thom1102]

26. I wasn't refering to call center's.

I work for the phone company, and my experience with call centers is that companies view call centers as entry level positions that anyone with a script can handle a call center job. This may be different in the technical help desk type call centers, but my personal experience with these type of call centers is that they also have scripts of some kind as well (flow charts?). Whenever I have a problem that isn't covered by the flow chart, they are flomoxed and have to refer out to a second tier support.

[Woodstock]

54. WRONG! We have plenty of qualified Americans for the jobs

who are sitting home unemployed. Congratulations, you have just bought into the myth of Americans as lazy and stupid. It's quite insulting, actually.

http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/itaa.html

[acerbic]

3. I just want to say before this thread may be deleted in deference

to the Righteous Xenophobes' Union: thanks.

[redeye]

5. Great post!

I'd rate it 7 (out of 5), but DU's rating system is unfortuantely gone.

Oh, yeah, and as someone who knows quite a lot about German history between the wars, I can assure you that the "where the jobs damn well belong" is taken almost right out of Nazi propaganda. Hitler took pride of his taking control of a Germany with 40% unemployment in 1/1933 and creating a shortage of labor by 1938, but he owed much of his success to the removal of women and Jews from the workforce. I urge you to visit my "I don't want corporations taking my job" thread, which pretty much says the same thing but more shortly and without Nazi comparisons :D.

[iverglas]

6. agree with your sentiments, of course

I just think (and I can't tell without the context) that you may have been misreading a couple of the ones you quoted.

But of that 6 billion, about 750 million are 'consumers' that actually buy the shit. The rest are breeders and serfs according to the anything goes if it serves the market philosophy.

I think the author was quoting/paraphrasing someone else's views of "the rest", not stating his/her own. I'm not entirely clear on what the entire passage meant, but I do think that bit was misinterpreted.

And...if you think America will just wallow in misery while it holds the largest, most sophisticated military in history, you are going to be sadly mistaken.

Again, without a context ... but I still wonder whether it isn't a prediction rather than a policy advocated by the author.

In any event, the whole problem being discussed is accurately described as "the race to the bottom". Capital simply moves to where costs are cheaper. Reducing the price of labour to prevent capital from fleeing doesn't mean that jobs will be preserved; it means that the labour force will be impoverished and dumbed down, and the quality of the jobs created by capital will just get continually worse. Think: hamburger flippers and greeters.

The trick is not really to retain the lousy jobs that are being "taken" by all those foreigners (although yes, they are indeed the only jobs that the people losing them have). It is to stop the slide of the economy into oblivion; to create good jobs.

Allow me to offer one of my favourite little commentaries, again:

http://www.econ.usyd.edu.au/drawingboard/digest/0108/wilson.html

To begin, I consider a (crude) distinction between the ‘high’ and ‘low’ road options that policy makers face in accommodating changing domestic and international realities. The high wage, high skill option for most developed countries aims at ensuring both continuity of some kind of dynamic manufacturing core and strong growth in high skilled services.

The low wage, low skill route, by contrast, is premised on the argument that global economic realities create fewer options for successful public intervention and that the growth of low paid, low skill work — especially in services — is an unavoidable consequence of adjusting to the market-driven world.

The contrasting strategies of Sweden and the United States illustrate the logic of high and low road options in real economies. In the post-war period, the Swedish labour movement’s policy of ‘solidarity wages’ forced innovation on domestic business by imposing uniform wage costs, thereby reducing the viability of low wage, low skill industries. Although this wages model has been dealt some blows recently, powerful coalitions of interests continue to block the deregulation and retrenchment of Sweden’s employment and welfare systems (see Palan and Abbott, 1999, pp. 103–120). Relative wage compression and extensive decommodification in the labour market place clear limits on any downward adjustment type solutions. Swedish business thus continues to rely on high productivity, value-added industrial development. While commentators are right in stressing the breakdown of classical social democratic adjustment to global markets, at the very time that outside observers were proclaiming the ‘death’ of the Swedish model, domestic industry was remarkably well placed to enter new areas of economic growth, particularly in information technology. I believe that the institutional legacy of the Swedish model has been a decisive factor.

Developments in the American labour market since the end of the long boom stand in contrast to Sweden: the US provides archetype of the ‘low’ road, notwithstanding its high-tech sector. The United States allowed both the wage gap to increase and a huge growth in low skilled, low wage services to soak up the labour supply (see Mishel et al: 1999: 20). At the same time, average working hours have exploded, bucking OECD trends. The growth of low wage, low skilled services must be put in the bigger picture of institutional design: there are fewer macro limits on downward adjustment in the American model. Hence the growth in ‘low road’ industries, divergent productivity trends and a burgeoning current account deficit.

Without public intervention to regulate and manage ‘institutional design’, even strong economies default in part to the ‘low road’. This is clearly the case because the high road — as the Swedish experience demonstrates — is consciously premised on preventing the low wage, low-skill alternative taking hold.

Competing with the less developed world to retain low-wage, low-skill jobs is a losing proposition. US (and other) workers are being forced to engage in that competition, because so much of the US labour force is in that low-wage, low-skill pool. But the fact is that there is a bigger, lower-wage, if not lower-skill, pool outside the US.

I'm a little unslept right now to be putting this into words ... but I suppose I'd say (amateur econophile that I am) that the idea is that if the state creates the conditions for a higher-wage, higher-skill workforce -- high wage policies and an effective education/training program and incentives for creating secure, skilled, well-paid jobs -- there will be upward pressure to counteract that downward pressure. For instance, from that article:

While I stress here that preventing the low road option inevitably involves public intervention, government has also been an active ingredient in the new success stories of Finland and Ireland <i.e. supposedly market-driven economies> to which Australia and New Zealand are now turning in search of a way out of economic decline. The priority given to research in Finland, and the education and foreign investment strategies of Ireland are singled out as major factors in recent economic growth in these countries.

... a mix of offensive and defensive policies: labour market regulation that promotes innovation and weakens incentives for the low road; greater public investment and a combination of defensive protection for existing industries with intervention in developing new ones.

... A number of studies confirm that countries with high levels of social expenditures adjust more successfully to the world economy: those countries with the most ‘open’ economies (measured by the proportion of national product exported) are those with the most comprehensive welfare states ... . Social spending and social protections act as a buffer against the downside of adjustment to increased economic openness.

One could perhaps paraphrase by saying that solidarity -- the "welfare state", regulatory intervention in labour practices, public sector employment -- doesn't just help one's neighbour; it helps one's self by increasing the economic security of the entire society. It isn't just the neighbour's ability to put food on the table in the short term that's at stake, it's the survival of the economy, and everyone's ability to put food on the table in the long term. Without intervention, capital will just seek its lowest level, both domestically and abroad.

.

[redeye]

7. I think you made a fatal mistake...

...in attempting to solve the USA's problems. I agree with what you say about the USA, but it doesn't say anything bad about outsourcing, because it doesn't try to solve the problems in India, Indonesia, Mexico, or wherever American firms outsource to. Those countries don't have strong governments that can enforce economic regulations, and even if they did, they'd go bankrupt because the minimum wage, for example, might have to surpass the mean wage. Rather, the governments of the first world must develop the countries of the third world, by encouraging corporations to invest in them (or, in other words, by discouraging them from investing in their own people), and by monetary grants and giveaways (*not* the loans of the IMF). That's exactly outsourcing, which has nothing to do with high or low roads.

[iverglas]

11. have to beg off

I'm truly too unslept to type anything more with a semblance of intelligence.

Nonetheless ... I'd caution against falling for the "they'd go bankrupt because of the minimum wage" argument when applied to the developed countries as it often is by big capital and the foolish people who think their interests coincide with its. That was what I was really getting at, and I say this just by the bye because I know it's not precisely what you were saying.

And I guess I might hazard the comment that if everybody in the "rich" world weren't reduced to shopping at Wal-Mart and working for McDonalds, they'd be able to afford higher prices at Wal-Mart and even elsewhere, which would be a good thing in terms of pressure for higher wages and better working conditions in the non-rich world.

But truly, if I keep going I'll just get stupid.

[iverglas]

8. "the race to the bottom"

It's a popular phrase at Google.

This is an easy little read on some of the issues:
http://www.geocities.com/arthursank/race.html
(gives permission to copy, but I'll let you click)

Ask Google for "race to the bottom" globalization for loads more.

I don't think I'll recommend the book: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0813368170/002-5731485-5646428?vi=glance

In response to multinational corporations crowing that globalization has increased U.S. exports to emerging markets, Tonelson urges a closer examination of the patterns of trade. He points out that U.S. exports to Third World countries are dominated by manufacturing and intermediate goods that are used to build the industrial capacity that then produces goods for direct export to the United States. The net result - lost jobs, lost factories and a growing U.S. trade deficit - lead Tonelson to question whether the current U.S. policy is anything but de facto foreign aid at the expense of U.S. workers.

Well, if you define "foreign aid" as "making a bunch of transnational corporations really rich" ... .

The culprits/beneficiaries are not really all those little brown workers, and the people being ripped off are not just the north americans directly losing their jobs.

[Blue_Chill]

12. America First

"The American government must think of Americans first. Can Americans tolerate anything less? If I wanted my kids to live in India, we would move."

This was a particularly amusing comment if not directly racist for a citizen of a country with so much blood on its hands recently. Kill those damn Iraqis and take the oil we so need. F*ck it if they die! AMERICANS FIRST! We can't tolerate anything less.

The quote and your comment have nothing to do with eachother. The quote is stating a simple truth - My goverment should work for me. This is a statement I very much agree with. This has nothing at all to do with Bush's war.

I'm sorry but my elected officials should step in and do something about the exporting of high paying jobs. If you had lost one then you would agree. Being that you havne't it's very easy to sit back and call people racist.

[redeye]

15. Cut the ad hominem for a moment

And remember that your argument works in exactly the same way to argue that the government should not work for black people but only for whites.

[Blue_Chill]

19. Umm no

American goverment representing the american people is not the same as American goverment only representing White people. it is our goverment duty to represent us, it is not their duty to assist another nation.

Big difference.

BTW - If you are not willing to lose your job, you are this debates version of a chickenhawk. Sitting back preaching that our jobs should be sold off while holding on to your own. That is not an attack it is a valid and relevant observation of an arguements hypocrisy.

[markses]

17. Protectionism!

Market forces are always right! Cheaper workforce = more profits! All hail the shareholder!

(Where were the whining tech workers when the entire manufacturing base was being destroyed on the same principles? - Oh yeah, they were telling the steelworkers not to worry: new eceonomy, and all that....:eyes:)

[Brian Sweat]

24. Ever heard of underconsumption

Without decent jobs, Americans will not be able to buy the products and services. Without customers the corporations will go bankrupt.

[Robb]

58. So it's going to be a pig-pile on IT workers?

Well THAT's sensible.

You don't like the trend of people wanting the government to protect their jobs, because it's racist? Fine. I don't like the trend of I-told-you-so I see in people who didn't lose money or their job in the tech bubble implosion. Because it's annoying.

Disclosure: If you didn't know, I don't work in IT. I wait tables for $2.35/hr plus tips.

[Tigermoose]

18. My quote was taken TOTALLY out of context.

"And...if you think America will just wallow in misery while it holds the largest, most sophisticated military in history, you are going to be sadly mistaken."


I made sure to write after this comment that I disagreed with this sort of military reaction, but that I also understood that it would most likely happen. See IRAQ and the current situation for just one of the 1st examples of an empire using its military to secure dwindling resources.


And. You are a fool if you think criticizing foreigners taking American jobs is the same as racism. I have zero problems with African AMERICANS, Indian AMERICANS, German AMERICANS, Irish AMERICANS, Mexican AMERICANS, etc. And I don't really have a problem with foreigners either, but if I have to choose where a job goes, I pick the American.

What the hell is up with this global fantasy land bullshit? No wonder America is exporting its jobs. People like you don't give a shit about America or its citizens, because we should all be singing Kumbaya in our make-believe land of world peace and world government. Wake up. It ain't happenin. And when the oil starts running out you'll see just how much of a delusion you are living in.

To paint me as some sort of racist is pathetic. It seems that, to you, considering yourself an American means you have to be a white racist.

[ibegurpard]

20. Congratulations

You get the award for the wordiest ad hominem post I have ever seen.
:eyes:

[JackDragna]

22. Reap the Whirlwind,

You want to call those of us that don't like foreign outsourcing racist? Fine. Be prepare, then, to accept some pointed criticism from others.

You, friend, are ignorant nearly beyond human belief. When people talk about the rest of the world outside of the west being "serfs", I see no value-laded statements in there that the author thinks the people deserve that fate. If there was, you should have posted it. You're using the quote to generate hysteria and nothing more.

You also go into hysterics trying convince your audience with the old "these people are like Nazis!" argument. First, I resent any comparison to National Socialism based on my arguments. The Nazis treated workers like crap: I want workers to succeed and not lose their jobs to people willing to work under appaling conditions. Secondly, the comparison between the anti-outsourcing crowd and Nazis is utterly puerile and ill-informedl. I have never seen a serious article or discussion on outsourcing that based its theories on race. That some white supremacists would rather not see any non-whites get good jobs has nothing to do with arguments that outsourcing kills the middle class in developed nations and does little to substantially improve the economy in the nations that get the jobs. That you choose to turn everything into race is just chest-beating zealotry.

[rman]

27. i blame the politics/companies, not foreigners

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

29. Being concerned about jobs now makes you a racist?

Give me a break! Who said anything about "damned foreigners" except for you? I haven't read ANYONE on DU proposing that jobs only go to white people, nor has anyone suggested that race or ethnicity should be a requirement for any jobs. In fact, it seems to me that most people on DU, including myself, support Affirmative Action.

You rant about skinheads and white power ... what exactly are you talking about?

It's interesting that when concerns are brought up about US chartered corporations firing Americans and moving jobs to third world, unfree countries, and collaborating with regimes like the Chinese communists, people seriously suggest that this is a charity move on the part of multinational corporations who want to help the poor in other countries.

And if we demand that the corporations our state governments charter need to be loyal to America, this is somehow racist?

Surely you can't be serious. Can you post a single example of anti-Indian bias on a thread here at DU? Just one?

[_Jumper_]

31. They do support AA

I guess they have no problem with a less-qualified person taking their job if their skin is black(This isn't racist. On average, blacks are less qualified due to socioeconomic factors). The problem is only when brown people do it. So they aren't 100% racist. If you want jobs to go to the most qualified people and care about YOUR jobs as you claim you would want a meritocratic system.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

34. so are you against affirmative action?

I don't understand what point you are trying to make here. Also, I take issue with this "qualified" issue. Who makes the determination of qualification? During the H1-B visas heyday, a lot of us discovered that corporations were deliberatly being misleading about what sorts of qualifications they needed, stricly to lower wages. After seeing this for 10 years, most of us won't be fooled again.

In any case, I support affirmative action, as a band-aid remedy for the racism that still exists in American society. I look forward to a day when we won't need it, but that day is not now.

[Woodstock]

57. Overseas would be H1-B's talk about this frankly

They are in on the game. For instance, I came across a forum where people who clearly have very little real programming experience are studying to pass a certification test the companies don't advertise for, but at the interview use this as an excuse for not hiring American workers. Meanwhile, an American with 20 years solid experience (and once you can program this well, you can handle just about anything that comes your way) is told they don't qualify. This happens a lot in government contracts, where they essentially need a seat filler to bill the government for, and if the difference between the going rate the government pays the company and what the company is actually paying the worker is greater, the company makes more money. So they'd naturally rather "beef up" the experience of the foreign worker on the resume they submit, and pay them less, therefore make more profit. I've actually seen the lists where they make excuses for not hiring people, and seen the resumes of the people they turned down/accepted.

[Zephyrbird]

37. uhm sorry but I think you're wrong.

I worked in personnel in a very large corporation. Nothing in AA states that a company MUST hire unqualified persons of color over qualified white folks; likewise, it DOES NOT state that unqualified, unskilled folks of color MUST be promoted over whites. This is the biggest, damndest, lie of those who oppose AA.

Hell, I used to have to make reports on the racial makeup of the companies for the higher up muckety mucks. Two of the corporations I worked for HAD A MANAGEMENT POLICY of attempting to have company employees reflect the percentages of race in the community wherein said companies were located, but this IS NOT mandated by the government.

But that does not mean a director was forced to hire unqualified black folks, or even that he had to hire ANY black folks. My division was as lily-white as they come.

And this particular quote? "On average, blacks are less qualified due to socioeconomic factors." Well, my dear, that is particularly racist, doubly so when prefaced with "This isn't racist..". I will tell that to the black folks I know who have Masters and Phds. They'll get a good laugh out of it.


Snarf! :eyes:

[_Jumper_]

42. Your friends don't disprove what is the case ON AVERAGE

Look at SAT scores, GPA's, high school graduation rates, and college graduation rates. There is a significant gap which is due to socioeconomic factors. To attribute that gap due to "race" is racist but to pretend that it doesn't exist is blind and pointless.

[Zephyrbird]

52. huh uh. won't fly.

My African-American friend has a PhD in education. I've had this discussion with him many times, and asked him to particularly address AA and college admissions.

His answer was simple, but hard to implement although there is a group of people in the U.S. working on it. Take the top 10% scoring on SATs in each school district and admit them to college, whether on scholarship or not. Not only do you eliminate quotas, but you eliminate the free ride so many children of alumni get (sound familiar, Mr. Bush?), which at many colleges counts for more admission points than being black or another minority. Considering that for years and years colleges have had a predominantly white population, resulting in a predominantly white alumni, gee whiz, I wonder if that accounts for the lack of "black or brown" students?

I also want to point out that you are making a good case for affirmative action to continue, namely, that African Americans don't have equal access to higher education. You also make the case that inner schools are neglected, cannot attract good teachers because of huge budget cuts in education (Michigan is a prime example), and therefore bring down the "average" you are citing for African Americans. I bet you any Latino, Asian, or white "school" treated the same way as inner-city schools would produce the same results. You could then make the argument white people are dumber than a box of rocks "on average."

Also, just because somebody didn't go to college doesn't mean they are dumber than somebody who did. I also want to remind you that color of the skin has nothing to do with brain power. That's silly.

[Woodstock]

55. When people start flinging around "rascist" and "xenophobe"

labels so easily to presumably "win" an argument, I question several things about them, not the least of which is their sincerity.

[Liberal Veteran]

32. So let me see if I understand this?

I work hard and help make my company successful and then they show their appreciation by unecessarily moving my job overseas where they can pay someone a pittance to do my job, and I am a racist for being angry about this?

Let me be perfectly clear. I am not angry at the people overseas. I am angry at the corporations that are fucking over the very people who helped make their corporation successful.

[JasonBerry]

33. Absolutely!! Ridiculous thread.

This is a ridiculous argument. I never thought I would see the day when Democrats/Progressives/Liberals would think it is RACIST to protect the American job base.

We DO NOT live on a "one world, one people" planet. Maybe best if we did, but we don't. Because we do not, the United States should not unilaterally export jobs that provide a living for Americans, who make up the tax base, and send them anywhere!

Yes! Those jobs DO "belong" to us! In a different world your argument might make sense. But, we live on the planet EARTH. On Earth, we have nations with elected officials of sovereign governments that are elected to look out for the people who elected them. In the liberal tradition of America, we support aid to foreign governments in their time of need and support international efforts to relieve suffering. That does not mean to take the job of your neighbor and send it to India (or anywhere else) because it's cheaper. That's exploitation.

To make this a "racist" issue is incredible and shows the far reaches we will reach with the race card. Americans are Americans, white, black, red and brown. Nobody said those jobs taken away and shipped off were only jobs held by white skin. A progressive agenda means standing up for traditional progressive ideas like -- protecting jobs.

Incredible.

[_Jumper_]

35. Pat Buchanan

So why is Pat Buchanan a racist when he claims he's just trying to protect the white job base from AA and outsourcing?

[JasonBerry]

38. He doesn't

That's one thing that Buchanan, in my opinion, is right about.

And he DOES NOT say, "white" job base. He talks about the AMERICAN job base. Again, when protecting our nation's jobs - do you not think black, red, and brown Americans have jobs that need protecting too? Why all of a sudden do you think only whites have jobs in our country?

[_Jumper_]

45. I said AA too

Buchanan wants to end it to protect the "white" job base. He's called a racist for doing so. Why is he called a racist in that case but considered a hero when he rails against outsourcing and free trade?

[Liberal Veteran]

49. Wow....you must live in a very interesting world....

You seem to be under the impression that everything is all or nothing and that there are no shades of gray. I don't like Pat Buchanan. I thinks he's an ass. It doesn't necessarily follow however that I disagree with everything he says.

This idea that we have to toss out the baby with the bathwater is similar to the mindset I see in people who frequent a different website.

[Cheswick2.0]

36. what rot

people here are not racist. It makes perfect sense to object to corporations taking all this country has to offer, profit from it, sell their products and services to us and then take the jobs overseas. The government exists to do what is best for our citizens and it is not racist to protect our lives and wellbeing.

[Pallas180]

39. INSTEAD OF REPEATING THE BS,. WHY DONT U JUST HIT ALERT?

hmmmmm?

[_Jumper_]

46. .

.

[ieoeja]

40. What makes a business American?

The business which employees me, for instance, was founded in the United States and still has its headquarters in the United States. However, the vast majority of our business is conducted overseas. Most of our income comes from overseas. We have more overseas outlets. We have more overseas employees.

And the majority of those people who actually own the company are overseas.


A lot of "American" corporations have bought up a lot of foreign corps over the years. And a lot of foreign corps have bought a lot of American ones. Why should the British owners of an American business give a shit about us?


Protectionist policies are a lot like religion fundamentalism: they have both been responsible for a lot of wars.

[uhhuh]

51. Corporations

Corporations were originallly chartered to benefit the society they incorporated in. It's great that your company is doing so well overseas and providing more benefit to other nations than they do here. In that case, I think they should have their U.S. charter revoked and reincorporate in the country or countries that they are better serving. Good luck to them. Why is that a bad thing? I don't see why an entity that has practically divested from the U.S. should get the benefits of U.S. incorporation and protection.
I've got nothing against companies moving their operations elsewhere, but they should really move if it is to their benefit.

[sangha]

53. *BINGO*

We have a winner!!!

Finally, a DUer who realizes that the problem is the corps betrayal of their charter, which was awarded to them because it was in THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST to do so, and NOT because the jobs "belong to us"

[WilliamPitt]

56. It'd be good to see the linked sources for this n/t

[sandnsea]

59. Now I'm really pissed

If we don't stand up for ourselves, nobody else will and nobody will stand up for the millions of workers around the world who keep getting shit on by these corporations. Those workers come and kill US when they're pissed. Maybe it's time people start speaking up about the real lesson of 9/11. " That's my quote and you spun it in a fashion worthy of Karl Rove.

A. I'm standing up for all those 'brown skinned' people because I want them to have a better standard of living than our corporations give them. I don't know how that can be considered racist!!

B. Every liberal I know believes the poverty that is left behind because of the way our corporations and military treat people in third world countries is directly linked to terrorism. That does in fact affect us eventually. You'd think if nothing else, self preservation would get people to realize we have to have a change in global corporate and foreign policy.

I don't follow the principle that only Islamists will use terrorist attacks. I believe ANY group of people will eventually attack if we allow our corporations and foreign policy to continue keeping these people destitute. Look at Timothy McVeigh for chrissake.

Wake up call. The Islamists do not hate us for our freedoms. They hate us because we're assholes. It's only a matter of time before some other group of people agrees and a whole new generation of terrorists are bred.

[MaraJade]

60. You are absolutely missing the point--

and the POINT is EXPLOITATION. Period. And EVERYONE SUFFERS.

US Corporations do not operate offshore subsidiaries or take on
non-citizens as contractors or employees because they are feeling their obligation to provide jobs globally. Hell no. US Corporations do this simply to avoid paying living wages and benefits to workers. Period.

If these greedy-ass corporations hired US Citizens, they would have to
comply with US Environmental and Worker Safety Laws, may have to
deal with Union issues, might be pressured to provide some sort
of healthcare benefit, would definitely be pressured to
comply with Family Leave and ADA regulations and to provide some
sort of sick leave and vacation time, and worst of all to them,
they would have to pay reasonable living wages for the work.

But these idiots see nothing but their CEO pay and perks and
shareholder dividends. To this end, the goal is to make certain that
as little money as possible goes to the labor that produces their
product. Hell, if they could use slaves to get their product or
service produced for nothing, they would do it.

So they EXPLOIT people in other countries, especially those nations
where technically competent laborers can be had for a song. In some
sorry cases, these corporations even dangle "green cards" and visas
over the heads of people like some kinda stupid carrot, promising
them that they will be sponsored if they agree to work for rates
that they wouldn't have the nerve to offer a US Citizen. And, sad to
say, millions of desperate people "bite." And these unfortunate ones
then have that visa held over their head like a sword, often being
trapped in a lousy position.

Of course, this "outsourcing" creates unemployment here. But that is
not the worst. The worst is that it
also removes consumers from the universe of people who would even
be able to purchase the product that "Greed Inc." manufactures.
Unemployed Americans don't buy anthing...neither do underpaid foreign
workers.