Why jobs are sent overseas.

[Benvolio]

Several have suggested that companies send jobs overseas to pay lower wages, but wages are a tiny part of the problem. For decades Democrats have had the mindset that laws hurting employers would somehow help the workers and certainly please the labor bosses and trial lawyers supporting the party. Here is a partial list of the burdens we place upon employers who dare to hire. You will, of course think that each is wonderful, but the total burden is overwhelming. Some things are mandatory in places not others. As you go through the list, remember, the problem is solved by sending the job to India,etc.
Social Security tax
Medicare tax
Unemployment Insurance tax
Workers Compensation Insurance
liability insurance
Hostile labor unions
Mandatory family leave
OSHA
Whistle Blower Rewards
minimum wage, maximum hours
HEALTH CARE for families and
"partners"
Pension plan
Sexual harassment lawsuits
Inability to hire the best qualified
Suits for discrimination, race, gender,
ethnicity, orientation, national origin
Good cause required to fire
Mandatory termination pay
tort liability for acts of employee
punishment for hiring illegals, but
punishment for national origin discrimination
If the employer makes a profit after that it faces the highest corporate
tax in the world FEDERALLY, plus STATE INCOME TAX
REAL estate tax, sales tax, etc.

All those things cost the company money to administer or litigate.
Now you can see why sending the jobs elsewhere is the most rational decisions.It is hard for you to believe, but there actually are countries where they want jobs and employment. Where employers and corporations are considered good for hiring. Where the government
does not force employers and employees into and adversarial position.

 

[Telstra]

Phone calls and paperwork should not come from overseas.

 

[kevin23]

I don't have time to go through your entire list but "highest coporate tax rate in the world" has got to be wrong. Most of the huge coporations in the US pay little or no federal tax and many get millions in tax credits or cash. GE, auto industry and more. And I don't personally know of a company that pays "whistle blower" fees. Only the government.

And many companies are moving back to the US, workers are more productive, produce higher quality goods and save a ton on shipping and travel. GE, NCR, Catapillar, moving out of China, Ford moving parts suppliers from Japan, Mexico and India. source : Some manufacturing heads back to USA - USATODAY.com

Unions have become a "non issue" in this long stagnant economy, and there is a problem with coporate greed, CEO's getting salaries so large they are obscene and golden parachutes worth millions even when they bankrupt a company. But that is something stockholders need to address. But no one can compete and win against the American worker. mho

 

[Spiff]

Oh sure, lets play blame for Democrats for everything. Let's ignore that most Republicans seem to like playing along with the outsource game and profit from it. Especially our most famous Republican at the moment, Mitt.

My opinion is that it is not a political party thing. It is an American thing. For as long as Americans' primary goal for everything in life is to have as much as they can, and at the lowest prices possible, then jobs will likely always be going overseas.

 

[chrisrobin]

Several have suggested that companies send jobs overseas to pay lower wages, but wages are a tiny part of the problem. For decades Democrats have had the mindset that laws hurting employers would somehow help the workers and certainly please the labor bosses and trial lawyers supporting the party. Here is a partial list of the burdens we place upon employers who dare to hire. You will, of course think that each is wonderful, but the total burden is overwhelming. Some things are mandatory in places not others. As you go through the list, remember, the problem is solved by sending the job to India,etc.
Social Security tax
Medicare tax
Unemployment Insurance tax
Workers Compensation Insurance
liability insurance
Hostile labor unions
Mandatory family leave
OSHA
Whistle Blower Rewards
minimum wage, maximum hours
HEALTH CARE for families and
"partners"
Pension plan
Sexual harassment lawsuits
Inability to hire the best qualified
Suits for discrimination, race, gender,
ethnicity, orientation, national origin
Good cause required to fire
Mandatory termination pay
tort liability for acts of employee
punishment for hiring illegals, but
punishment for national origin discrimination
If the employer makes a profit after that it faces the highest corporate
tax in the world FEDERALLY, plus STATE INCOME TAX
REAL estate tax, sales tax, etc.

All those things cost the company money to administer or litigate.
Now you can see why sending the jobs elsewhere is the most rational decisions.It is hard for you to believe, but there actually are countries where they want jobs and employment. Where employers and corporations are considered good for hiring. Where the government
does not force employers and employees into and adversarial position.

Even if everthing said here is true, it loses its signifigance if its YOUR job!

 

[palemale]

Several have suggested that companies send jobs overseas to pay lower wages, but wages are a tiny part of the problem. For decades Democrats have had the mindset that laws hurting employers would somehow help the workers and certainly please the labor bosses and trial lawyers supporting the party. Here is a partial list of the burdens we place upon employers who dare to hire. You will, of course think that each is wonderful, but the total burden is overwhelming. Some things are mandatory in places not others. As you go through the list, remember, the problem is solved by sending the job to India,etc.
Social Security tax
Medicare tax
Unemployment Insurance tax
Workers Compensation Insurance
liability insurance
Hostile labor unions
Mandatory family leave
OSHA
Whistle Blower Rewards
minimum wage, maximum hours
HEALTH CARE for families and
"partners"
Pension plan
Sexual harassment lawsuits
Inability to hire the best qualified
Suits for discrimination, race, gender,
ethnicity, orientation, national origin
Good cause required to fire
Mandatory termination pay
tort liability for acts of employee
punishment for hiring illegals, but
punishment for national origin discrimination
If the employer makes a profit after that it faces the highest corporate
tax in the world FEDERALLY, plus STATE INCOME TAX
REAL estate tax, sales tax, etc.

All those things cost the company money to administer or litigate.
Now you can see why sending the jobs elsewhere is the most rational decisions.It is hard for you to believe, but there actually are countries where they want jobs and employment. Where employers and corporations are considered good for hiring. Where the government
does not force employers and employees into and adversarial position.

First of all, there is no legal requirement in any state that I am aware of that requires an employer to show good cause before firing a person or requires mandatory termination pay. Those are only obligations if they are contained in a union contract or personal employment contract. Otherwise, it's employment at will, an employer can discharge someone for any reason or no reason at all so long as it is not for a discriminatory purpose under the law (i.e. race, gender, age, disability, etc.). For example, if your employer wanted to fire you so he could give your job to his son-in-law who is an otherwise unemployable idiot, there would be nothing illegal about that.

But which of those items on your list would you eliminate or modify (and how would you modifying)?

 

[rareboy]

Gee.


I wish I could own me some slaves too.

If employers hadn't spent at least 2000 years being greedy, cruel and conciousless fucks....there would be no need for any of this would there?

A good employer would pay all of his workers a good wage, help educate them and their children, pay for any of their medical costs when they or their family members got sick, provide them with a safe and secure workplace....need I go on?

The problem is that the job creators are by their nature rapacious users....people who wouldn't think twice about exploiting and mistreating humans in order to maximize their profits and amass fortunes beyond belief or need. We still do it on a global just works better if you don't have to actually see or think about the grinding poverty and the exploitation of third world workers when you are in Walmart.

It is the failure of the employers to have lived up to their covenant that has led to protection of the workers. As a result, for 50 years, the US enjoyed a stable and burgeoning middle class who had the income to purchase quality goods that the workers of today and tomorrow will not.

The dystopian hellscape that Benvolio dreams about looks like Calcutta.

 

[T-Rexx]

But, if we eliminate the government, we won't have any way to keep out immigrants, prevent gay people from getting married, or guarantee incomes for the rich!

Benvolio forgets that all of the reforms about which he complains were enacted to make this country a better place - and they did. In fact, every first world nation has enacted these same reforms, for the same reasons. Benvolio is complaining that, over time, the world has become more civilized. That's a trend that makes Republicans uncomfortable.

Benvolio wants to return America to a land where people starve to death because their employers miscalculate, where people burn up in shirtwaist factories because their employers fear theft of tiny scraps of material, and where everyone works 84 hours a week to pay their share of a single tenement room where eleven other people live. Benvolio wants America to be like India or China or Vietnam. He idolizes those societies because mass poverty is good for the tiny number of people at the top, who leverage oppression as a means of ensuring permanent wealth for themselves.

In short, Benvolio does not want most people to be happy. He wants the land of opportunity to be the land of oppression for most. He seeks a feudal society where serfs can never become lords, and where lords remain priviledged regardless of circumstance. When you move as far to the right as Benvolio advocates, you curiously come round to the same point as the extreme left: oppression of the masses by a handful of overlords, who care only about themselves.

That is the world Benvolio (and the Republican Party generally) wants to bring about. It is not a very happy place.

 

[Benvolio]

Oh sure, lets play blame for Democrats for everything. Let's ignore that most Republicans seem to like playing along with the outsource game and profit from it. Especially our most famous Republican at the moment, Mitt.

My opinion is that it is not a political party thing. It is an American thing. For as long as Americans' primary goal for everything in life is to have as much as they can, and at the lowest prices possible, then jobs will likely always be going overseas.

Aren't workers, labor bosses, trial lawyers and politicians trying to have as much as they can?
Is that not a critical part pf human nature? The strength of capitalism is that it HARNESES SELF INTEREST to work for the common good in the long run. The fatal weakness of socialism/liberalism/communism is that they assume that other people will or can be fprced to be altruistic. The assumption is that if we just pass enough laws we can eliminate unfairness, greed, selfishness, rudeness, insecstivity, and have a perfect society.
More specifically the Democrat party is historically the anti- establishment party. Remember "rum, Romanism and rebellion". The party was a coalition of disgruntled minorities, opposing the majority. It still is. Anti-capitalism, anti wealth, anti employer, anti assimulated majority, anti-Christian. Ant-Republican, All with no substitute ecinomic system in mind.
No one is arguing that business should br

 

[Spiff]

More specifically the Democrat party is historically the anti- establishment party.

I don't know how you define anti-establishment, but I am sure your definition favors your beliefs. In my view, both major parties are part of the establishment. Although both parties have been claiming to be the anti-establishment. In the end, it is all just rhetoric.

 

[Benvolio]

Remember, outsourcing is not the only problem. Reluctance to hire more employees is another, and thousands of businesses go bankrupt each year. Right now the slow recovery is in part a reluctance to hire..
Whistleblower lawsuits against companies and governmental entities are so lucrative at least one
law firm specializes in them. Whistleblower Law Firm| Qui Tam Attorneys | FCA, CFTC, IRS, SEC Lawsuits. Also see Wikipedia " whistleblower ".
If you read the article cited by kevin23 above it says some jobs are being brought back, but they "are dwarfed by the many more still shuttering US plants and moving."
Wikipedia says 37 state courts have modified the at will employment rule. Firing is a legal morass for employers in the US.

 

[Benvolio]

Even if everthing said here is true, it loses its signifigance if its YOUR job!

Unless your job is sent to India.

 

[Benvolio]

I would have thought that you would've liked the lawsuits

..aren't you a lawyer?

Yes, but I have always been a business defense lawyer.

 

[palemale]

Aren't workers, labor bosses, trial lawyers and politicians trying to have as much as they can?
Is that not a critical part pf human nature? The strength of capitalism is that it HARNESES SELF INTEREST to work for the common good in the long run. The fatal weakness of socialism/liberalism/communism is that they assume that other people will or can be fprced to be altruistic. The assumption is that if we just pass enough laws we can eliminate unfairness, greed, selfishness, rudeness, insecstivity, and have a perfect society.
More specifically the Democrat party is historically the anti- establishment party. Remember "rum, Romanism and rebellion". The party was a coalition of disgruntled minorities, opposing the majority. It still is. Anti-capitalism, anti wealth, anti employer, anti assimulated majority, anti-Christian. Ant-Republican, All with no substitute ecinomic system in mind.
No one is arguing that business should br

As John Meynard Keynes said, in my favorite quote I again post here:

Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all.

Your assertion that the Democratic Party was, and still is, a coalition of disgruntled minorities opposing the majority is downright peculiar. You seem to buy into that strain of conservatism that believes the country should be ruled by well to do WASPs, and the votes of everyone else doesn't matter. Perhaps you ought to look up democracy on Wikepedia.

On the one hand, you assert that the Democratic Party was and is anti-Christian, but also the party of Roman Catholics. Do you not consider Catholics Christians?

For someone who is a lawyer, this post, like many of yours, seems very long on prejudice, and short on reasoned analysis.

 

[Benvolio]

It is not the theory of free enterprise/capitalism that people will work for the benefit of all. That is the theory of socialism, liberalism communism. The theory--the FACT-- of Capitalism is that given the freedom to do so, people will work to benefit themselves and their families and to get ahead. So motivated, they will work harder, longer and with more creativity. With people working hard and creatively for their own benefit, it benefits the society in the long run. People expected to work for the benefit of all do not work as hard or creatively. This is not a theory. Free enterprise, not socialism or charity, has raised much of mankind from the one room poverty which prevailed in 1800.
After the Civil War, the Catholics and disgruntled Southerners united to be the base of the Democrat party, hence, "rum, Romanism and Rebellion". Since then the Catholics and Southerners have become more assimilated and now, as Gov Rendell said in 2010, "blacks and hispanics are the heart and soul of the Democratic base", along with gays, and others. But the Democrat party is still a collection of disgruntled minorities. To increase their numbers, the Democrats resist all attempts to limit immigration. And to increase, unite and energize its base, the Democrats demonize the majority, the rich, the free enterprise economy and the Republican party.
Again, with no alternative economic system in mind.

 

[Kulindahr]

yes, slave labor is wonderful..isn't it?

Sure must be.

Aren't workers, labor bosses, trial lawyers and politicians trying to have as much as they can?
Is that not a critical part pf human nature? The strength of capitalism is that it HARNESES SELF INTEREST to work for the common good in the long run. The fatal weakness of socialism/liberalism/communism is that they assume that other people will or can be fprced to be altruistic. The assumption is that if we just pass enough laws we can eliminate unfairness, greed, selfishness, rudeness, insecstivity, and have a perfect society.

No, socialism assumes that people are selfish as all hell and aren't likely to change, so that the law is required to make them behave as if they were civilized to a certain extent.

More specifically the Democrat party is historically the anti- establishment party. . . . The party was a coalition of disgruntled minorities, opposing the majority.

You're talking about the Founding Fathers, right?

 

[Kulindahr]

It is not the theory of free enterprise/capitalism that people will work for the benefit of all. That is the theory of socialism, liberalism communism. The theory--the FACT-- of Capitalism is that given the freedom to do so, people will work to benefit themselves and their families and to get ahead. So motivated, they will work harder, longer and with more creativity. With people working hard and creatively for their own benefit, it benefits the society in the long run. People expected to work for the benefit of all do not work as hard or creatively. This is not a theory. Free enterprise, not socialism or charity, has raised much of mankind from the one room poverty which prevailed in 1800.
After the Civil War, the Catholics and disgruntled Southerners united to be the base of the Democrat party, hence, "rum, Romanism and Rebellion". Since then the Catholics and Southerners have become more assimilated and now, as Gov Rendell said in 2010, "blacks and hispanics are the heart and soul of the Democratic base", along with gays, and others. But the Democrat party is still a collection of disgruntled minorities. To increase their numbers, the Democrats resist all attempts to limit immigration. And to increase, unite and energize its base, the Democrats demonize the majority, the rich, the free enterprise economy and the Republican party.
Again, with no alternative economic system in mind.

You whine so much about immigration and complain without ever looking at the facts that you've just about convinced me to support open borders.

 

[Kulindahr]

Again, with no alternative economic system in mind.

You like to say that, huh?

Well, here's a libertarian alternative:

robotic manufacturing facilities owned by a corporation of the whole citizenry, turning out the basics for everyone without cost -- it would be their due as owners

anyone who wants more than the basics can go earn it

 

[Benvolio]

So, again, what's your solution, Benvolio?

It is a fair question, Patrick, but not easy to answer in a paragraph.
I am not optimistic the economy can be saved. We no longer have any national agreement on an economic system and the Dems do not among themselves have an agreement.
We should, of course, keep Soc Sec, Medicare, Unemployment Insurance, Workers Compensation. Most liability for acts of employees. Some of the programs are going broke but above my pay grade.
Beyond that we need to recognize that not legislating against something does not mean approving it. The government should not try to legislate away all unfairness. With that in mind we should do away with or substantially alter the rest of the stuff on my list. Most are counter productive if you try to look at them pragmatically.
Lets look at the lawsuits for discrimination. Yes, there was a time when blacks were virtually excluded from most employment, and the Civil Rights law was needed. But then, the laws were extended, so no they cover everyone or virtually everyone, with the possible exception of straight white males. So, while we are depriving the employer of the right to hire the best without regard to race, ethnicity, gender,etc. any benefit has been watered down to virtually nothing. If an employer wants to discriminate against blacks, for instance, he can simply hire another protected minority. An legal immigrant just off the boat is protected from discrimination just as is a black person. How is that fair? There is pressure to hire a cross-section of the country, but that involves a systematic discrimination against some qualified employees, often the best. If a highly qualified black person applies to a company with its full contingent of blacks, will it be sued for discriminating against a Muslim, or Hispanic, etc?
Then too, protected minority people have greater plausibility in suing for discrimination in promotion etc in employment. That means they are a more risky hire than someone with less protection. Minorities are more likely to file suit. Who wants that? All those problems go away when jobs are sent to another country.
Perhaps we should continue to protect blacks, based on prior history and present status, but the rest should go. This does no mean we approve of discrimination, but not every unfairness should be litigated, and the need for jobs and employment outweighs the desirability of lawsuits.
Harassment suits should go for the same reason.
Remember, from the companies point of view, everything on my list is a cost of employment. They reduce the amount that many companies have to spend for salaries without benefiting MOST of the employees.

 

[pat grimshaw]

The ONLY reason that employers outsource, is because it saves them money, increasing their profits. Wait until India advances to the same position and you'll see zero jobs going there, they'll go to Chad instead, or wherever else they can get things done cheap....

Yes China is starting to colonise in Africa already.