Why jobs are sent overseas.

[Benvolio]

Yes China is starting to colonise in Africa already.

The converse is that if we if we reduce the unnecessary expenses imposed upon them, more will keep jobs here.

 

[Just_Believe18]

Let's amuse the OP and say we get rid of everything we listed on his list. Well, Benvolio, the jobs still aren't coming back. Why? The labor markets are different in countries like China. Take FoxConn for example. First of all, their manufacturing facilities are highly subsidized by the communist government. Secondly, their labor force lives in-house. That means, they have built dormitories to house tens of thousands of workers within their factories. In a moment's notice, they can be roused to work 12-14 hour shifts. A famous example was when Apple wanted to redesign the entire glass screen to their iPhone at the last minute. FoxConn literally woke up all of their workers in the dormitories in the middle of the night, and made them work an all day shift to rebuild the glass screens to the iPhone. Now, explain to me how the American worker is going to go live in a factory for their job, Benvolio, and how that is not antithetical to the American Dream our forefathers lived and worked for.

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

I find this statement highly suspect.

 

[pat grimshaw]

people seem to be attacking the person rather than engaging with the ideas in the OP

 

[Benvolio]

Kevin23 at #6 above has given us evidence that employers will indeed, bring their jobs back when it makes economic sense to do so. We need to reduce the burdens and incentives upon employers to send and keep their jobs overseas.

 

[Kulindahr]

The converse is that if we if we reduce the unnecessary expenses imposed upon them, more will keep jobs here.

In terms of economics, none of those things impose "unnecessary expenses", because they're all part of what is actually needed to do business. Taking care of one's workers is a cost of doing business just as much as cleaning up the landscape and restoring it after mining. The problem is that for centuries -- no, millennia -- business has been allowed to push the cost off on someone else. Mud and silt from mining clogging streams, poisons leaking from operations killing watersheds, toxic smoke drifting and harming nature and humans downrange, work injuries crippling, and on and on; these are all costs of doing business, and they have to be paid by the people who cause them, not passed on to others.

A great part of the gap between the cost of production in the U.S. and in China has been that China has been passing those costs along to wherever. According to National Geographic, a major reason that production costs in China are rising (to the point that Mexico is cheaper in many areas!) is that they're recognizing that those costs have to be paid, and that means taking care of them and incorporating them into the price of the product, often as part of the cost of labor. As the rest of the world catches up with the realities of economics and all these things get incorporated into the cost of labor and/or product, what will matter are things such as productivity and -- as JB18 pointed out -- labor flexibility.

Regulation for the sake of regulation is idiocy. But regulation in order to be sure that all the actual costs of production are borne by the company is sanity, because it ends the tyranny of making other people pay for what a company is doing.

 

[Benvolio]

Nonsense. Most of the items on my list are a burden to employers with little or no benefit to employees. They add to total labor cost and depress wages, while benefitting lawyers more than employees. A woman who gets her butt patted by a fellow employee may get rich with her lawyer, but will other employees lose their bonus? Will the company escape to another country? It is no coincidence that plaintiffs trial lawyers are among the biggest donors to your party.
Go back and read the title to the thread. More reasons for driving employers way are not helpful.

 

[Telstra]

Don't know what the solution is but anything which are too big to fail is not good.

I wonder what would happened if they let the big banks fail ?

 

[Kulindahr]

Nonsense. Most of the items on my list are a burden to employers with little or no benefit to employees. They add to total labor cost and depress wages, while benefitting lawyers more than employees. A woman who gets her butt patted by a fellow employee may get rich with her lawyer, but will other employees lose their bonus? Will the company escape to another country? It is no coincidence that plaintiffs trial lawyers are among the biggest donors to your party.
Go back and read the title to the thread. More reasons for driving employers way are not helpful.

Sixteen of the twenty you listed are most certainly actual costs of doing business, that companies are being required to pay rathyer than shove off on someone else.

I'm not aware of any trial lawyers who've ever donated to my party. Care to name one? with documentation?
I'd be surprised if any trial lawyers belong to the party, actually.

 

[Benvolio]

Sixteen of the twenty you listed are most certainly actual costs of doing business, that companies are being required to pay rathyer than shove off on someone else.

I'm not aware of any trial lawyers who've ever donated to my party. Care to name one? with documentation?
I'd be surprised if any trial lawyers belong to the party, actually.

Government imposed costs of doing business==why jobs are sent overseas.
For you plaintiffs trial layers see. Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2012 | OpenSecrets The American Association for Justice was formerly the American Trial Lawyers Association.

 

[Kulindahr]

Government imposed costs of doing business==why jobs are sent overseas.
For you plaintiffs trial layers see. Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2012 | OpenSecrets The American Association for Justice was formerly the American Trial Lawyers Association.

It doesn't show any donations to my party.

They'd be more honest if they divided into two groups, and the bigwigs called themselves the "American Association for Plunder".

 

[Kulindahr]

Why do strawman threads like this one remain open? This guy has never included a source for his argument.

Um . . .

so we can run up our post counts?

 

[Benvolio]

Why do strawman threads like this one remain open? This guy has never included a source for his argument.

You are entitled to have opinions of your own, GC. You do not need a liberal "source" telling you what is politically correct and therefore permissible for liberals to think.

 

[rareboy]

Let's amuse the OP and say we get rid of everything we listed on his list. Well, Benvolio, the jobs still aren't coming back. Why? The labor markets are different in countries like China. Take FoxConn for example. First of all, their manufacturing facilities are highly subsidized by the communist government. Secondly, their labor force lives in-house. That means, they have built dormitories to house tens of thousands of workers within their factories. In a moment's notice, they can be roused to work 12-14 hour shifts. A famous example was when Apple wanted to redesign the entire glass screen to their iPhone at the last minute. FoxConn literally woke up all of their workers in the dormitories in the middle of the night, and made them work an all day shift to rebuild the glass screens to the iPhone. Now, explain to me how the American worker is going to go live in a factory for their job, Benvolio, and how that is not antithetical to the American Dream our forefathers lived and worked for.



I find this statement highly suspect.

But in the pre-20th century vision that the OP has for manufacturing in the US, this is exactly what he and the other industrialists dream of. A vast, poorly educated workforce, made up of people who would be housed in the company camps like they were back in the 19th century.

With no rules at all for the 'job creators'.

Repugnant.

The funny part of it is...it doesn't make for prosperity. The lack of a large consuming aspirational middle class means that the US would look like all the other second world countries.

 

[Benvolio]

My question earlier wasn't being rhetorical, Benvolio, and I'm not baiting. The Civil Rights Law still does not include sexual orientation, which means that we could be fired simply because of our status. As a gay man, wouldn't you concede that we need protection from discrimination which is a very present concern? Shouldn't the law be expanded even further to protect you and me?

I see no evidence that gay are excluded from work on a large scale. You may hear if individual cases, but almost all gays find work. Why would you want to force yourself into a job working for someone who does not like you and does not want to hire you? Giving gays the right to sue when they are unhappy actually make them less desirable employees. No one wants to hire some one whom he fears will sue him. Remember, the anti discrimination laws are more about lawsuits that jobs. Do you want to inform the boss up front that you are gay? If you want to sue for discrimination, you will need to prove that he actually knew you were gay. Some , perhaps most, discrimination against gays is actually against men who are effeminate acting. That, as far as I know is not protected anywhere, and may be considered by some to be a valid job disqualification in some cases.
A gay man may refuse or quit employment for a bad reason or no reason at all. Why should his rights be superior to those of the employer?
The employer works and invests to create the job and carries all the burdens listed above. He is obligated to pay the salaries etc even when he is losing money. We should not add the burden of law suits by gays.

 

[Benvolio]

Not "they": us. You aren't speaking about somewhere out there, you're speaking of us -- including yourself, or are you not gay? If you were fired from a current job after being hired once it was known you're gay, do you not agree that you have been unfairly treated? I'm asking your opinion as a gay man.[/

That is an extreme example, but of course I would know I had been treated unfairly. But, I would not want to work for them either, would you? Would I want a law suit? Probably not. Such lawsuits drag on for years before trial, involve multiple testifying by the plaintiff about his personal life, and are difficult to prove because there is usually no direct proof the firing was for a discriminatory purpose. The boss will give another reason and the jury may not be sympathetic to a gay man. In the balance employers should be encouraged to hire and not given more reasons not to hire gays

 

[Rolyo85]

Benvolio is a plant. He is about as gay as Sarah Palin.

No proof of gays being fired for their orientation? Sure - in closet land.

 

[EastMed]

The current crisis (now entering its 5th year and of which unemployment is but one feature) can NOT be blamed on:
*Over-bearing regulation
*Lack of capitalist self-interest
*Overabundance of altruism
*Immigration
*Increasing wages

 

[Benvolio]

The current crisis (now entering its 5th year and of which unemployment is but one feature) can NOT be blamed on:
*Over-bearing regulation
*Lack of capitalist self-interest
*Overabundance of altruism
*Immigration
*Increasing wages

Certainly the 5 million plus immigrants during that period have contributed to the unemployment.
Laws and regulations required banks to loan to poor people as a condition to making good loans. So the banks made variable interest loans and sold many in packages, then the Federal Reserve began to raise interest rates to prevent inflation. Rates in the variable mortgages went up. People defaulted. The FDIC panicked and required banks to mark down their loans, reducing capital. Banks became defensive, calling marginal loans and avoiding new ones. Home values went down, more defaults, and the.entire economy spiralled down.
The point is that illadvised laws and regulations played a central part in the meltdown.

 

[EastMed]

^The laws and regulations in this case were effectively written by Wall Street and its corporate friends.

 

[Kulindahr]

You are entitled to have opinions of your own, GC. You do not need a liberal "source" telling you what is politically correct and therefore permissible for liberals to think.

From the forum guidelines:

Members are strongly encouraged to document their sources when available.

If you don't give citations, especially when asked, people are going to start concluding you're nothing but a troll.