Outsourcing Jobs

[onmyknees]

This is classic. If you were to drop off a space ship, or immigrate from another country ( legally) and knew nothing about US politics, this 3 minute clip would tell you all you need to know...not only about the complex subject of outsourcing jobs in a global economy, and the subsequent political charges, but about how the US press given special privileges in our first amendment, carries water for one candidate to the point where the guest is actually laughing in her face, as a supposed experienced, non bias straight news reporter just can't handle the facts. Andrea Mitchell is a disgraceful tool, and should be embarrassed, but trust me...she's not. She's a shameless shill.....Like Sununu, I laughed my ass off.



Andrea Mitchell Fumbles Over Obama Outsourced Jobs - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVt6khQ26z0)

[buttslinger]

You sure laugh your ass off alot.

[Stavros]

What is embarrassing is your lack of knowledge of the economy of your own country; you seem blissfully unaware of the outsourcing that took place when Ronald Reagan was President, even though it was part of the President's belief in free trade. If like him you believe in free trade in an international capitalist economy, it makes sense to re-locate an industry where the costs are cheaper and the profits higher -such a simple equation I am embarrassed on your behalf if you 'don't get it'. But your ignorance is so broad you seem blissfully unaware that it was US firms who took advantage of Mexico's liberalisation of its economic policy in the 1980s, enabling firms in the US paying US taxes and US $ in wages to workers in the US, to move across the border into Mexico -sometimes from a location barely 50 miles away in Texas, to start up the same factory at lower costs, producing higher profits.

For that matter, you might want to check the same source as your video -where the current trend to reverse outsourcing is discussed as part of the re-vitalisation of the jobs market in the US... for example:

Some jobs that were outsourced to China are returning to the United States. At Lincolnton Furniture (http://www.lincolntonfurnitureco.com/) in North Carolina, owner Bruce Cochrane has reopened a once-shuttered factory and is proud to announce that his company's wood furniture is, once again, made in America. His company has created more than 100 new jobs.
Harold Sirkin of the Boston Consulting Group projects that the shift from manufacturing in China back to the U.S., commonly referred to as 'reverse outsourcing' or 'insourcing,' will have a major impact on employment.
"Our projections are, when you take the manufacturing jobs and then the service jobs that get created alongside those, that we will add two to three million jobs to the U.S. workforce,” Sirkin told NBC's Harry Smith in an interview broadcast Monday night on Rock Center with Brian Williams.
The news provides hope for some Americans that jobs they thought were lost forever might be making the round trip back to the United States.
http://rockcenter.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/31/10278345-reverse-outsourcing-could-create-up-to-3-million-new-jobs-in-us?lite


Or here:



http://rockcenter.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/14/10156162-made-in-america-trend-against-outsourcing-brings-jobs-back-from-china?lite

If you enjoy reading, your Congressional Research Service has produced another of its outstanding pieces of research, this one on US-Mexico trade relations, the link is below, enjoy.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32934.pdf

[fred41]

What is embarrassing is your lack of knowledge of the economy of your own country; you seem blissfully unaware of the outsourcing that took place when Ronald Reagan was President, even though it was part of the President's belief in free trade. .......

I don't think he actually meant it to be a piece about the ethics of outsourcing or it's origins. I believe he meant to show existing bias in the media (in this particular case , using MSNBC and Andrea Mitchell as an example)...and the hypocrisy of the Obama camp trying to use outsourcing against the Romney camp in the upcoming presidential election.

...or perhaps, to simply illustrate that Andrea Mitchell is a boob.

Perhaps the thread's title should be slightly different.

[Stavros]

I don't think he actually meant it to be a piece about the ethics of outsourcing or it's origins. I believe he meant to show existing bias in the media (in this particular case , using MSNBC and Andrea Mitchell as an example)...and the hypocrisy of the Obama camp trying to use outsourcing against the Romney camp in the upcoming presidential election.

...or perhaps, to simply illustrate that Andrea Mitchell is a boob.

Perhaps the thread's title should be slightly different.

I understand the point you are making, but it does suggest that the issue of outsourcing is not as relevant as onmyknees scratching around for anything that can be used to criticise Obama and his supporters, like Andrea Mitchell (whom I had not heard of prior to the post) which seems to me to a cynical disregard for the hugely important issue of jobs in the US-where they went, where they are coming from. I don't think onmyknees has a real interest in policy, but is driven by personality -he doesn't like Obama, which is not a problem for me, but it doesn't make for an interesting discussion.

[Ben]

Note the difference between outsourcing and offshoring:

Andrea Mitchell Struggles To Defend Claim Obama Outsourced Jobs Via Stimulus - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVdYgU5bsDc)

This man sorta explicates the difference. (He mentions we live in a capitalistic system. Well, we don't. We live in a semi-market system. Or a state-capitalist system. Where the State plays a big role.
A capitalist system means absolutely no taxes, no government action. That's complete capitalism, explicit capitalism.
I mean, the Internet came out of places like the University of Chicago and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. It didn't come out of the private sector.
We live in a system that externalizes costs and internalizes profits.
And, too, capitalism means investing money to make money by those who have money.... Someone like Bill Gates didn't initially invest his money in the Internet. Nor in computers. Someone like Madonna didn't invest her money in television. But gained tremendously from TV. But she did not make the initial investment. Which, again, goes against capitalist orthodoxy.
Mitt could talk about having perfect capitalism. And say that we should have it. So, we should and NEED to do away with all public spending. No government. We'd live in a social Darwinist paradise or nightmare -- ha ha ha!)

Romney's Offshoring Vs. Outsourcing - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDsnaLrU3Ag)

[Stavros]

I mean, the Internet came out of places like the University of Chicago and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. It didn't come out of the private sector.

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't these two institutions privately owned? The point about the difference between outsourcing and offshoring is correct, I think we have got used to using one term for both.

[thombergeron]

I mean, the Internet came out of places like the University of Chicago and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. It didn't come out of the private sector.

Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't these two institutions privately owned?

While it is technically correct that University of Chicago and MIT are privately owned, there are no research universities in the United States that are not heavily subsidized with public funds. The degree of public funding varies greatly by discipline -- virtually all basic health science research is federally funded, whereas economics and political science depend more on private foundations -- but essentially, it's impossible to separate scientific research in the U.S. from public funding.

Case in point: the first packet-switching network, the fundamental basis of the Internet, connected UCLA, a public research university, to a nonprofit institute (SRI) in Menlo Park, CA. That was in 1969. It would be at least 15 years before network technology research started to attract private funding.

[Stavros]

Thanks for the clarification -public and private are so interdependent these days it makes you wonder what people really mean when they want government distanced from the economy...

[onmyknees]

Note the difference between outsourcing and offshoring:

Andrea Mitchell Struggles To Defend Claim Obama Outsourced Jobs Via Stimulus - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVdYgU5bsDc)

This man sorta explicates the difference. (He mentions we live in a capitalistic system. Well, we don't. We live in a semi-market system. Or a state-capitalist system. Where the State plays a big role.
A capitalist system means absolutely no taxes, no government action. That's complete capitalism, explicit capitalism.
I mean, the Internet came out of places like the University of Chicago and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. It didn't come out of the private sector.
We live in a system that externalizes costs and internalizes profits.
And, too, capitalism means investing money to make money by those who have money.... Someone like Bill Gates didn't initially invest his money in the Internet. Nor in computers. Someone like Madonna didn't invest her money in television. But gained tremendously from TV. But she did not make the initial investment. Which, again, goes against capitalist orthodoxy.
Mitt could talk about having perfect capitalism. And say that we should have it. So, we should and NEED to do away with all public spending. No government. We'd live in a social Darwinist paradise or nightmare -- ha ha ha!)

Romney's Offshoring Vs. Outsourcing - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDsnaLrU3Ag)



Wow..that's the most contorted view of capitalism I've ever heard. Where'd ya get that one Ben...your liberal college professor ? ( who would not be a capitalist...just a wild guess)

"We live in a system that externalizes costs and internalizes profits. " That's straight out of academia....I thought you were a Ron Paul disciple...? What you're espousing here sounds more like Paul Krugman.
What our system is Ben ( or should be) is a search for the right amount of regulation and taxation to allow businesses both large and small to operate, flourish, expand, and turn a profit while doing so in a safe and clean work environment. This thought that only the affluent can participate in this system is pure nonsense. All you need is a some common sense, and a few shares of common stock, and you're a player. I hear these people hand wringing all the time about the obscene profits of Exxon or Microsoft or Facebook or any number of companies. Forgive me but that's a liberal montra....The last I checked, they're publicly held companies and all paying a profit (dividend) and all would be more than happy to share those profits with even small investors. The free market, the manufacturing of goods and services and the ingenuity of the businessman will decide who succeeds and fails The government can certainly incentive certain companies and industries, but when we get into the Solyndra's....you're distorting the free market at the expense of those companies not fortunate enough or politically connected enough to get piles of cash....even though their product, or idea is superior. That's not the role the founders had envisioned for the role of our government in the marketplace.

The intent of the initial post was twofold....to show the
inherent dishonesty and bias of the media, and their inability to intelligently discuss what outsourcing is in the larger context of the US economy.... Let me ask you this......you obviously pay some sort of local taxes and as we know many municipalities are in desperate financial trouble and taxpayers stressed to the limit. Let's suppose a certain function could be more efficiently handled in India, thereby either saving taxpayers money or better allocating those resources to things like public works projects or education, but it would cost some local jobs. If that was put to a referendum...how would you vote?

[Stavros]

This thought that only the affluent can participate in this system is pure nonsense. All you need is a some common sense, and a few shares of common stock, and you're a player. I hear these people hand wringing all the time about the obscene profits of Exxon or Microsoft or Facebook or any number of companies. Forgive me but that's a liberal montra....The last I checked, they're publicly held companies and all paying a profit (dividend) and all would be more than happy to share those profits with even small investors.

The free market, the manufacturing of goods and services and the ingenuity of the businessman will decide who succeeds and fails


There you go Ben, with Exxon's stock a snip at $85.42 a share I don't know why you don't buy a few thousand...I mean, its there for every American to buy -aint it so?

And I am sure you would never believe that Barclay's Bank would ever tell lies about its liabilities and fix the London Interbank Borrowing Rate to protect is share price rather than service its customers when these things, without a shadow of a doubt are set by the market...oops!..should that be the ingenuity of businessmen...?

[onmyknees]

Barrack Obama.......




There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.


He may be the most woefully ignorant person to ever reach the highest office with respect to his lack of knowledge about capitol...what it takes to create it, earn it, keep it and grow it. He has never held a job in the private sector, never put his own capitol at risk, never created a job, never met a payroll, never brought a product to market, never had to make any business decision.. Not only is he ignorant about business, he is misleading and misrepresenting. This is his class warfare shtick in a new form. Fact check this.....even if the House passed his bill to negate the Bush Tax cuts for those who make over 200K ( he lies and says it's 250K ...that's for couples) it would provide only enough revenue to fund the government at current levels for 2 weeks. Fact check this also....the top 2% of earners pay close to 50% of revenues to the Treasury. So why is this the central theme of his campaign if the rewards are so meager and are financial woes so catastrophic ? Because he must divide to conquer. Pit the poor against the rich.....class envy. That's his only chance of winning re-election. He has to create a field of straw men to feed the foolish into believing that bussinesses are not contributing to the welfare of the society.
How can you even begin to dissect the idiocy of his statement? How can you possibly have a dialogue with someone who says " If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

[buttslinger]

This chart is why we do not need Romney to heal our economy.

[Prospero]

Let's hear what Obama actually said rather than the choice out of context nugget offered up t by your house Teaparty member...


http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Roano

[Stavros]

Barrack Obama.......


There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.


He may be the most woefully ignorant person to ever reach the highest office with respect to his lack of knowledge about capitol...what it takes to create it, earn it, keep it and grow it. He has never held a job in the private sector, never put his own capitol at risk, never created a job, never met a payroll, never brought a product to market, never had to make any business decision.. Not only is he ignorant about business, he is misleading and misrepresenting. This is his class warfare shtick in a new form. Fact check this.....even if the House passed his bill to negate the Bush Tax cuts for those who make over 200K ( he lies and says it's 250K ...that's for couples) it would provide only enough revenue to fund the government at current levels for 2 weeks. Fact check this also....the top 2% of earners pay close to 50% of revenues to the Treasury. So why is this the central theme of his campaign if the rewards are so meager and are financial woes so catastrophic ? Because he must divide to conquer. Pit the poor against the rich.....class envy. That's his only chance of winning re-election. He has to create a field of straw men to feed the foolish into believing that bussinesses are not contributing to the welfare of the society.
How can you even begin to dissect the idiocy of his statement? How can you possibly have a dialogue with someone who says " If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."



Well, there is capital, and then there is -or was- the Capitol; but as Julius Caesar been dead a long time, perhaps the issue is not a trope but a tryst. Capitalism does indeed need people to take risks with capital to start a business that creates products or services and employs people and pays taxes. And sometimes it is even their own, but more often than not it is borrowed -in days gone by when banks loaned money to new businesses, whose money was it? The depositors: the consumers of products were indirectly financing the business that made the products they bought: their money went into it twice over, with no return as few of them were shareholders in the business.

But I see no reference in this process to slavery, be it the old-fashioned cotton' pickin' slavery or the tobacco pickin' slavery that financed George Washington's family riches; or the wage slavery of modern capitalism where people who have no skills have nothing to sell but their ability to work.

Obama refers to inspiring teachers, and you can find any number of writers, musicians, politicians, and even business leaders who had that one teacher who encouraged rather than discouraged -and then you have the ones you don't mention, who were discouraging and made young people feel useless and unwanted. The argument that you cannot run the USA if you have never run a business is strange -how many Presidents ran their own business? How is it that taxes double or triple what they are now never previously inhibited Americans from investing in new businesses? Could it be that at the time there was nowhere else better to invest in? When China, for example, was isolated and the whole of the Soviet bloc inaccessible, and south-east Asia convulsed by wretched wars? If you support capitalism, don't complain when it takes its production to China or Vietnam because its cheaper to make things and still make a profit; don't complain if the Americans who used to make steel, and ships, and cars, and computers lose their jobs to Asia -that's the system you want, it doesn't understand international boundaries.

And when Bankers whose businesses have failed lose their jobs with golden goodbyes in more millions than most of your fellow Americans will ever earn, and when a financial system supposedly based on rationality lends and borrows itself into infinity courtesy of politicians terrified of Wall St or too keen to sup with its long greasy spoon -is it any wonder than people become disenchanted with what they thought was the bedrock of the economic system they live in? Has it never occurred to you that Obama is addressing a profound anxiety, or just simple resentment people have that the money men have had it all their way for so long, and now its time for the money to flow the other way? Never heard of Glass-Steagall? It can be done; not just in the US but here in the UK too.

Capital thoughts, eh?

[BluegrassCat]

Fact check this.....even if the House passed his bill to negate the Bush Tax cuts for those who make over 200K ( he lies and says it's 250K ...that's for couples) it would provide only enough revenue to fund the government at current levels for 2 weeks.


Whaddaya know, your facts were checked and they came up wanting...again. All the Tea-bagger deficit-fetishists need to get one very basic economic fact through their tri-cornered heads: tax cuts increase the deficit. You don't get to wail about the deficit while jacking off to W's tax cuts.

[Odelay]

OMK quote:
He may be the most woefully ignorant person to ever reach the highest office with respect to his lack of knowledge about capitol... How can you even begin to dissect the idiocy of his statement? How can you possibly have a dialogue with someone who says " If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

OMK, what does it say about you that you completely misinterpreted his remarks starting with the lack of the earlier sentence where he talks about the roads and infrastructure surround a business. When he uses the pronoun "that" he's referring to that infrastructure, not the entrepreneur's business, as you're interpreting it.

I'm guessing OMK is not interested in a retraction here based on his misinterpretation of Obama's remarks.