To U.S.A. People Who Can Vote

[PG]

Calico I was referring to companies taking the place of a shunned corperation, not more American workers replacing the fired ones. Surely common sense would've told you that's what I was talking about.
In 2002 an arms manufacturer for the British army went bankrupt after their contract renewals were rejected by parliament. The next day 4 applications for the new contract were handed in from different contracters all offering up their services. So, you have a company that wants to move their employment overseas, don't fine them, they can easily make that up in tax deductions. However having to build a new client base in Indea is a very difficult thing to recover from. Blackmail's not always a bad thing.

[nvseal]

Education - encouraged by lessening the cost of formal education and enhancing the idea of apprenticeships.

Company work programs to make room for U.S. citizens only.

I still like the idea of slapping the overzealous companies, who are more interested in their bottom line than their countrymen, with fines.  And there might be an actual need (if the above ideas are in place) for unionization of IT workers.

All right then, out of curiosity, how do you want to go about not letting us get screwed over?

So no doubt in your mind, if a company outsources it is because of corporate greed, period. No other factors at all; they're just greedy and unpatriotic. And since we cannot alter these corporate despots, we must fine them to curb there self-serving, uncaring carnality. Correct?

[PG]

So many big words, my brain might just putrefy into a state of nidorous tallow

[rcallicotte]

There might be other reasons given, but when a person shoots another person dead, motive plays little part in bringing that dead person back from the dead.  In the same way, shipping jobs overseas equates to cutting out countrymen from jobs.  How is that good?  Because it's "global thinking"?  If so, then we can guarantee the U.S. will be globalized until we have nothing left but ashes.

So no doubt in your mind, if a company outsources it is because of corporate greed, period. No other factors at all; they're just greedy and unpatriotic. And since we cannot alter these corporate despots, we must fine them to curb there self-serving, uncaring carnality. Correct?

[nvseal]

There might be other reasons given, but when a person shoots another person dead, motive plays little part in bringing that dead person back from the dead.  In the same way, shipping jobs overseas equates to cutting out a countrymen from jobs.  How is that good?  Because it's "global thinking"?  If so, then we can guarantee the U.S. will be globalized until we have nothing left but ashes.

I don't think anyone WANTS jobs to leave the US (except maybe policy writers). But as I have said again and again, government cannot artificially create employment. It is not efficient for a company to hire and keep employees that don't help the company. Before we can ask, how can we stop outsourcing? We first have to ask, why are companies sending jobs else were in the first place? And the reason is not greed (unless there has suddenly been a massive greed explosion in the hearts of management throughout the entire country). If it is cheaper to go elsewhere we ought to know why before we start costing companies even more money. If a company is regulated to the point of losses here and fined to point of losses elsewhere, what incentive is there to be in business at all (unless you want to fine companies from going out of business)? While it sounds nice to force a company to have X number of American workers, the problem of incoming and outgoing money is still there -- the actual problem. And if those American employees are – under government regulation – costing more than they are bringing in, the company is going to go down, in which case all of the employees lose their jobs anyway. An example of government regulation is forcing businesses with (I believe) over 50 employees to start to offer paid maternity leave (I think it was 3 weeks). Because of this, many businesses grow up to this point then stop creating new jobs because doing so would cost more than it would gain. So unless a company can hire enough new employees so as to offset the losses, this regulation is hurting the company itself, the consumers who would otherwise be able to get the product or service, and the potential employees who could be hired. Another example of government regulation which is costing comapnies millions would be accounting regulation. The automobile industry has its own problems like th CAFE standards. And the list goes on and on and on. Instead of acting like outsourcing itself is the problem, wouldn't it better to fix the problem causing outsourcing?

[PG]

I believe I have an answer to that. It's the same thing as new members of the EU flooding the UK. There are at least 5 countries between here and Poland that immigrants could stay but they come here because they know our businesses will just give them a job, because they are migrant workers they're not included in the minimum wage law, but they still get a better income than back in Poland. What they fail to realise is that the cost of living is also much greater here. So while they earn more, they also have to pay out more so most of them end up on the doll queues.
Move this into the business markets, businesses can still pay them sod all but now they're not on our welfare system and therefore can't be traced for payment of taxes, which the company would have to pay. Whereas, citizens of the country that the company resides will have to have their taxes paid (which is a tax that the company has to pay AS WELL AS the tax that comes out of your paycheck). They also have to pay us a minimum wage. The cost of living means we call for higher pay. It's not greed, it's economics. With inflation, it is very difficult for businesses to increase wages above the rate of inflation which is the only thing that would make any difference. I'm having a pay review this month and I doubt that I will get an above inflation payrise.

[rcallicotte]

@nvseal - I see regulation as a way of coordinating the same efforts of profit and compliance to the health of a nation; not as detriments.  Without government intervention we would all be living in shacks.  Or, visa versa, with nothing but government control, we would all be living in shacks.

@PG - We have the same problem in the U.S. with migratory (illegal) immigrants from Mexico and other countries.  Greedy businessmen take advantage of them and to hell with our economy. 

[nvseal]

Well, not seeing the ridiculous amount of government regulation as detrimental doesn't change the fact that it IS detrimental. You may think that regulation is good for the economy but there is no evidence to support it. The fastest growing economies in the world are those moving away from a regulated economy. I've never heard of an economic system that was so free that companies failed and people lived in huts; it just doesn't make any sense. There seems to be a widespread misconception that free markets aren't regulated when in fact they are very regulated, just not by government.  For example, a business which wants to make a profit and not waste money is not going to give money to customers who cannot afford it. However, when the government regulates companies to do so in the name of "home ownership," we get the kind of economic nightmares we have now – something that would never have happened in a market free of detrimental, government intervention.

[JimB]

For example, a business which wants to make a profit and not waste money is not going to give money to customers who cannot afford it. However, when the government regulates companies to do so in the name of "home ownership," we get the kind of economic nightmares we have now – something that would never have happened in a market free of detrimental, government intervention.

Didn't the banks give mortgages to people who, by anyone's measure of common sense, were high risk and probaby couldn't afford the repayments should things turn a bit for the worse, all based on the STOOOOPID belief that house prices would continue to rise at the ridiculous rates they were?

[nvseal]

....However, when the government regulates companies to do so in the name of "home ownership," we get the kind of economic nightmares we have now....

[PG]

Mortgages were sold to those who were believed "sub-prime", those who were rejected for mortgages and loans everywhere else. It was partly because they believed house prices would keep rising but what happened with these mortgages was they were bundled up with other subprime mortgages and then bundled up with normal fixed and tracker mortgages and loans and then sold on Wall Street under new names so no one knew what was in it, they just knew it was an appreciating asset (made money the longer it was held). So part of the stupidity was thinking that people would keep lending this thing as one package without asking how much it was worth and part of it was thinking the economy wouldn't slow down and people would be less willing to lend.

Also NVSeal, I believe that during these times we need a little regulation to get the markets back on their feet, the market "sentiment" is so frayed at the minute that the trade floor is unable to handle this mess, so for the time being I think it's logical that the governments get the economy back on track and then hand it back to the free market once we see a steady rate of growth again.

[rcallicotte]

Mexico.  Guatemala.

As far as regulation, deregulating is how we got into this housing mess.

I've never heard of an economic system that was so free that companies failed and people lived in huts; it just doesn't make any sense.

[PG]

Regulation isn't something to be feared as many Americans do, seeing it as a communist move, but nor is it an end-all solution, regulation during a strong economy leads to stagnation of the currency and yes this has happened in both Mexico and Guatemala. Both countries are struggling to find anything that matches the value of their currency, rather similar to the way that banks are finding it hard to find anything in their assets that match the value of the mortgages they've given out.

[nvseal]

Mortgages were sold to those who were believed "sub-prime", those who were rejected for mortgages and loans everywhere else. It was partly because they believed house prices would keep rising but what happened with these mortgages was they were bundled up with other subprime mortgages and then bundled up with normal fixed and tracker mortgages and loans and then sold on Wall Street under new names so no one knew what was in it, they just knew it was an appreciating asset (made money the longer it was held). So part of the stupidity was thinking that people would keep lending this thing as one package without asking how much it was worth and part of it was thinking the economy wouldn't slow down and people would be less willing to lend.

Also NVSeal, I believe that during these times we need a little regulation to get the markets back on their feet, the market "sentiment" is so frayed at the minute that the trade floor is unable to handle this mess, so for the time being I think it's logical that the governments get the economy back on track and then hand it back to the free market once we see a steady rate of growth again.

The housing bubble was most definitely part of the problem (and the people who took these mortgages are just as much to blame as the lenders who gave them away), but it is not the whole story.

Community Reinvestment Act of 1977:

This act – strengthened during the Clinton years – encourages lenders to make loans to riskier customers. Then we have Fanny Mae (started during the great depression) and Freddie Mac, government sponsored endeavors which created a government safety net for bad loans. These companies were justified on the basis of homeowners keeping their houses, attempts to circumvent the natural market currents. More and more companies are seeing that government will pay for large companies being riskier than they would in true laissez-faire capitalism. So to trying to save everything now only results in encouraging it to happen again in the future. If it wasn't for this kind of governmnet meddling in the economy this may have never happened in the first place, and if it would have, not to the same extent. The current housing crisis is not the end of the world; it is simply a market correction (or was until government intervention). We don't need to regulate companies to the point of millions of wasted dollars simply to curve the minority of companies that act irresponsibly.  The market WILL punish irresponsible behavior by itself, either in the form of losses or failure (aka natural market regulation). All government needs to do is stop trying to do the markets job.

Calico, are you saying that the reason for Mexico's and Guatemalas' poor economies is the lack of regulation?

[Will]

To bring some humor back into here (as is my self-imposed duty) I bring you some stumbleupon fun.

http://www.sjgames.com/illuminati/politics.html