Outsourcing the economy

[Politics]

Recently, the pulp mill that my dad has been working in for 25 years was closed down, because weyerhauser wanted to move that production to some little shithole of a country where they pay their workers 30 cents an hour and can cut down all the trees they like without anyone complaining. so it got me thinking about how many other jobs have been outsourced to another country, so im wondering; who else has a family member or a friend that recently had there job outsourced?

[Wamzlee]

I had a an aunt and uncle who lost their job due to outsourcing.

Too bad we elected a President that didn't give a shit about the outsourcing...yet cared more about privatizing social security.

[SEXY-FETUS]

"Made in America" that used to mean you were getting a quality dependable item, now it just means your getting the same quality item as the 3rd world guys that happened to be produced in america. Once the quality of american goods goes back up people will be willing to pay the american wages for it.
Why pay for the american wages when you can get the exact same item and same quality from 3rd world countries so much cheaper.

[ReiperX]

I think NAFTA was a big mistake to be signed in by President Clinton, and CAFTA was just as bad recently signed by President Bush.

The job market right now in the US is already bad enough, and more outsourcing is only going to make it worse for the lower and middle classes, the classes that generally do more manual labor that is done so cheaply overseas now.

I think the US needs to start giving benefits to companies that stay in the states, its the only way any of these jobs are going to stay here.

[Flashfire]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't America and especially the Republican Party all about free trade?

[bcdemon]

I have 3 friends who have lost thier jobs due the US softwood lumber tarif. Had nothing to do with outsourcing.

[Politics]

Here's the kicker, both my dad and I are canadian, living in Canada. but weyerhauser is an american company. Outsourcing is hurting everyone.

[BeFell]

Outsourcing is just a new reality in our global economy. Domestic companies no longer have to compete with each other but with comapanies all over the world. If we try to enact protectionism and prohibit our American companies from outsourcing then we are going to send our economy striaght to the toilette.

Take BC's comment for example, tariffs the US imposed to protect American companies and workers means that wood from his country isn't selling in America because the government removed competition. This will lead to retalitory tarrifs to punish the US meaning no exports. This is a game that only produces loosers.

It may suck if your area of expertise is sent to another country but it's a big economy, find something else to do. If we try to stop that from happening we are going to stall trade and run our companies either out of business or out of the country. How would that help the employment situation?
\
Also in the next few years expect to see even more free trade agreements as more governments realize competition is better for their economies than hysterical protectionism.

[Duilen]

Outsourcing is a short term sacrifice for a long term economical benefit for the outsourcing company. Plus it immediately impacts the economy which is supplying the workers.

It is too bad people have to lose their jobs but the company has every right to hire employees from another country. We call ourselves capitalists then complain when the gov doesn't step in to protect our jobs...

[Papa-Smuff]

America isn't the only country that is outsourcing its jobs. My dad works for a french company.

[JoS]

I can't wait for the day when large companies outsource executives and top level management. I think that would be the day I would die.

[BeFell]

At 10/6/05 09:30 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: I can't wait for the day when large companies outsource executives and top level management. I think that would be the day I would die.

That happens all the time. Look at Chrysler. Now, about you dieing, is that something you can handle on your own or do you need help? I'd be happy to lend a hand.=)

[Elfer]

America should just do what they're best at with free trade:

Demand other countries hold up their end of the bargain, but then turn around and impose tariffs on their goods anyway.

[JoS]

At 10/6/05 11:05 PM, BeFell wrote:

At 10/6/05 09:30 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: I can't wait for the day when large companies outsource executives and top level management. I think that would be the day I would die.

That happens all the time. Look at Chrysler. Now, about you dieing, is that something you can handle on your own or do you need help? I'd be happy to lend a hand.=)

No, not as in as a result of mergers or contracting VPs and CEO for a few years, I mean like hiring someone in India to run the company for cheaper than highering an American. Or using temp workers with no benifits and 1 year contracts getting paid less than people doing the same amoutn of work.

Or the best would be laying off managers and VPs ratehr than front line workers. How much money would you save if you fired a VP?

[BeFell]

At 10/6/05 11:14 PM, Elfer wrote: America should just do what they're best at with free trade:

Demand other countries hold up their end of the bargain, but then turn around and impose tariffs on their goods anyway.

The fault for that lies with ignorant whiners like the idiot who made this topic. "My daddy lost his job because those God damn Canadians don't have the same stupid ass restrictions and unions driving up the price of thier lumber so it is the responsibility of the American government to impose tarriffs so everyone can pay way more than the real market price." Honest to God I don't understand how politicians can actually get votes by raising the prices of consumer goods. Tarriffs don't even work for their intended purpose because daddy is going to lose his job anyways when the US is slapped with retalitory tarriffs and his company can't compete on the world market.

[Jimsween]

I've not heard of a single economist that thinks outsourcing, and free trade, is bad. In the end we all benefit.

The jobs go to India, India makes things for cheaper, more people can afford the products and so more people buy them, market for higher quality parts of product goes up, America fills in with highly educated workforce.

The trick is getting them highly educated. If we cant do that, we don't deserve to have such a standard of living, and no amount of tarrifs would give us it anyways.

[JoS]

At 10/6/05 11:31 PM, Jimsween wrote: I've not heard of a single economist that thinks outsourcing, and free trade, is bad. In the end we all benefit.

Not true. I have heard economists that actually think while yes business wise they are good things, that overall its not socially benificial. I have seen some advocate for some restrictions on the market because they market cannot provide everything.

It just depends on what side of the spectrum the economist is on. I have an economics prof who is more of a right wing economist (money makes teh world go round) but is socially left. Its all about balance of trade and market with social progression.

[SEXY-FETUS]

Do good quality above par work and you'll have no worries about your job being outsourced.
All the time I'll bid on a job and theres a 1/3 chance some korean company will come and bid a grand lower and get the job, when that happens I just smile and laugh because they'll come back to me in 3-4 months to fix all the mistakes the koreans made and I can (I don't) charge em double my original bid. Besides there are thousands of other jobs that can't be outsourced, at least I've never had a guy in india fix a sink or frame a house.

[Jimsween]

At 10/7/05 12:27 AM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: Not true. I have heard economists that actually think while yes business wise they are good things, that overall its not socially benificial. I have seen some advocate for some restrictions on the market because they market cannot provide everything.

I've heard of them too, theyre called communists. They're the same 'economists' that talk about how corporations need to be more moral and that economic growth is bad because it just makes the poorer farther behind. They're very few in number and always seem to have taken economics after thier political science degree.

It just depends on what side of the spectrum the economist is on. I have an economics prof who is more of a right wing economist (money makes teh world go round) but is socially left. Its all about balance of trade and market with social progression.

I was under the mistaken impression that in order to be an economist you actually had to talk about the economical aspect of things. Economics in itself will always be right ring because its very nature goes against that of communism, an economy doesnt exist in a communist nation, the economy is something that only exists in a market system.

[lapis]

At 10/9/05 05:13 PM, Jimsween wrote: I've heard of them too, theyre called communists.

Rofl

They're the same 'economists' that talk about how corporations need to be more moral and that economic growth is bad because it just makes the poorer farther behind. They're very few in number and always seem to have taken economics after thier political science degree.

A course in corporate ethics is included in every economics major. I've seen plenty of utility curves for a society being drawn in macro economics classes, where the maximum utility is achieved when the society finds a balance between efficiency and equality - the difference between left and right here is that leftists value equality more and vice versa. Free trade is not a necessity; macro economics is about the impact of government regulations on the economy. If trade was completely free then there would be no need for the subject.
There was even a talk about corporate morality during marketing classes, and about how non-profit organisations can satisfy their customers. "Economics" doesn't mean making as much money as possible.

I was under the mistaken impression that in order to be an economist you actually had to talk about the economical aspect of things. Economics in itself will always be right ring because its very nature goes against that of communism, an economy doesnt exist in a communist nation, the economy is something that only exists in a market system.

Economics is about the production, distribution and exchange of goods, and this also happens in a communist society. Government restrictions are heavy though, and state companies can't be analysed the same way as 'normal' companies. But it's still economics. One can argue that a communist regime will have a devastating effect on economic growth and innovation, but communism and economics aren't each other's opposites by nature.

[fahrenheit]

At 10/5/05 04:35 AM, SEXY_FETUS wrote: Why pay for the american wages when you can get the exact same item and same quality from 3rd world countries so much cheaper.

Because most people dont want to travel and spend $300 just to save a couple bucks.

[SEXY-FETUS]

At 10/9/05 06:09 PM, Velocitom wrote:

At 10/5/05 04:35 AM, SEXY_FETUS wrote: Why pay for the american wages when you can get the exact same item and same quality from 3rd world countries so much cheaper.

Because most people dont want to travel and spend $300 just to save a couple bucks.

I tip my hat to you, for I have never met a person before with such understanding.

[fahrenheit]

At 10/9/05 07:23 PM, SEXY_FETUS wrote: I tip my hat to you, for I have never met a person before with such understanding.

Haha, very funny.

[Jimsween]

At 10/9/05 06:07 PM, lapis wrote: A course in corporate ethics is included in every economics major. I've seen plenty of utility curves for a society being drawn in macro economics classes, where the maximum utility is achieved when the society finds a balance between efficiency and equality - the difference between left and right here is that leftists value equality more and vice versa. Free trade is not a necessity; macro economics is about the impact of government regulations on the economy. If trade was completely free then there would be no need for the subject.

Right, what exactly did you just say? Equality and communism are two very different things, its almost universally accepted that free trade will in the end make the global economies more equal than any amount of tarrifs could.

There was even a talk about corporate morality during marketing classes, and about how non-profit organisations can satisfy their customers. "Economics" doesn't mean making as much money as possible.

Thats bullshit. Economics means exactly that, only when the government gets involved is it ever meant to be different. You would have to be retarded to call yourself an economist and then say that corporations need to think less about money and more about people. The corporation is a model for only making money, nothing else can really be done well using it.

Economics is about the production, distribution and exchange of goods, and this also happens in a communist society. Government restrictions are heavy though, and state companies can't be analysed the same way as 'normal' companies. But it's still economics. One can argue that a communist regime will have a devastating effect on economic growth and innovation, but communism and economics aren't each other's opposites by nature.

In a communist society, the economy is completely controlled, so there is no economics. All of the facets of economics, supply, demand, capital, all mean nothing, there is no economics because all of that is controlled by the government.

[lapis]

At 10/10/05 04:44 PM, Jimsween wrote: Right, what exactly did you just say? Equality and communism are two very different things, its almost universally accepted that free trade will in the end make the global economies more equal than any amount of tarrifs could.

Right, assuming that everything goes perfect and everybody gains from the trade. However not everyone is employed in a capitalist society because there isn't infinite demand, creating unemployment and thus social-economic differences. Another example could be when monopolies emerge or when companies make agreements to keep prices artificially high. If you assume that a random Nigerian company has enough chances of selling it's goods on the US market then they'll profit. But that's not realistic.
Arguing that free trade helps equality is a theory, but look at Russia where income disparity went through the roof when the state companies were privatised. Economists who still value the role of the government as the one who redistributes the nation's wealth among the people for the sake of equality are not by default communists.

Thats bullshit. Economics means exactly that, only when the government gets involved is it ever meant to be different. You would have to be retarded to call yourself an economist and then say that corporations need to think less about money and more about people. The corporation is a model for only making money, nothing else can really be done well using it.

Look it up.
It's not just about money, saying that corporations need to take social factors into account doesn't make you any less an economist. I'm pretty sure even MBAs have courses in ethics. You can say that slavery is a very efficient way to make money, and you can also say that it's inhumane and still be an economist (not seeing making money as the only goal of the science). Nobody will, because social factors count as well and it's up to everyone to which extent he wants to care about it.

Hmm, or maybe you're right, the entire economics faculty here is retarded. I'll be sure to bring that up.

In a communist society, the economy is completely controlled, so there is no economics. All of the facets of economics, supply, demand, capital, all mean nothing, there is no economics because all of that is controlled by the government.

What are you saying? That there are no supply and demand in a communist society? The only difference is that there's not a large number of corporations setting the prices but one state company. The theory goes that this is ineffective, people work less hard when there's no competition and especially when giving that extra bit doesn't reward directly.

But one can still argue that capitalism isn't the best system when it comes to fairness. It's the perfect system for a high GDP, maybe, but you're still an economists when you say that money isn't the only important thing on earth. After the nuclear bomb majors in physics included obligatory courses in ethics, economics is no different.