Outsourcing

Page 4 of 6  
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 18:14:30 +0000, Bruce wrote:
[snip]

I don't have to admit that wealth is a zero sum game! Are you trying to say that there will be no more wealth in the world in the future and that the current total wealth in the world today has always been the same in the past? This is the traditional argument used to justify punishing those nasty rich people. Wealth is not a constant and a win is possible for anyone willing to take a risk and work at what they believe in - and not necessarily at the expense of someone else unless that some else can't/won't adapt to the competition.
-Doug
--
"A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always
depend on the support of Paul." - George Bernard Shaw
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com says...

Note the phrase "remaining employees" :-).

That's assuming they have jobs so they can buy those goods/services. What if they're not "remaining employees"?

doesn't have to be. We can bar the doors and only participate in global trade for those things we can't produce (imports) and things other countries can't produce (exports).
That may or may not be a good way to go, but it IS possible.

Great. Now what level of unemployment/underemployment do you find acceptable? 10%? 25%? 75%? Everybody but you? There is a point where we're no longer a market that anyone cares about, just another bunch of starving peasants.
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Blanchard wrote:
<SNIP>

This has NEVER happened on any scale in this country. While indivdual people have financial difficulties, the aggregate of the nation has been a fairly consistent level of employment, notwithstanding economic strains and layoffs.

Not unless you want to destroy the entire US economy. If we lock the trade doors into the country, then foreign competitors will trade with each other at a noticeable advantage to our cost stucture.
Moreover, global trade IS a given. We cannot possibly maintain our current standard of living (never mind grow it) without imports. Our energy needs alone mandate this.
Failing to participate openly in a global market would essential destory generations of US economic growth, so, no, its not an option.

Absent some huge singularity like war on our soil, a nuclear holocaust, or a totalitarian regime' in power, you will never get this level of unemployment, at least not for very long. Market, left to their own devices, correct *as* *they* *go*. The individual corrections can be painful, but they are bearable. Contrast this with what happens when government meddles in economic matters. The markets still correct, they just do it *all at once* which is usually NOT bearable.
Take the Depression for example. The markets were correcting for way too much outstanding leverage (loans) in the financial markets. There is considerable evidence that this would have been over sooner had that raging socialist FDR stayed out of the discussion. Instead, he moved the country into becoming a welfare-state, slowed down the recovery that was already underway, and forever doomed us to a more inefficient economy than we could have.
Large scale unemployment and economic ruin are the hallmarks of economies managed by fraud and/or force, almost always at the hands of government. Prosperity and growth are the hallmarks of private sector voluntary cooperation with a strong profit motive.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:
[snip] | |Large scale unemployment and economic ruin are the hallmarks of economies |managed by fraud and/or force, almost always at the hands of government. |Prosperity and growth are the hallmarks of private sector voluntary |cooperation with a strong profit motive.
Tim, I have read your stuff with interest. You are clearly a smart guy and for the most part I agree, if only in principle, with almost all you have written.
But since you bring up fraud and government (redundant?), I would like your take on the massive economic fraud being perpetrated on the US worker by the tidal wave of illegal aliens, most specifically those from Latin America.
I happen to live in Tucson, which has the dubious distinction of now being the most crime-ridden city in the union, thanks in large part to the presence of wetbacks--err--illegal aliens, undocumented migrant workers, illegal entrants, border crossers or whatever term du jour they are called today.
Our national parks and wilderness areas are being ruined by wetbacks, our hospital trauma centers are closing because of the costs of treating wetbacks injured in car crashes while fleeing from the Border Patrol and we are at risk while driving down an interstate highway because wetback smugglers are now having running gun battles on the highway. (Four killed on I-10 a month or so ago) BTW, it is published Border Patrol policy to *not* arrest these people until *after* they have received their medical care. Thus the local taxpayers and legal patients are responsible for the costs, rather that the federal government. Free market in action, eh?
The Hispanic apologists and "activists" (how do you get to be an activist? Where do I apply?) say that the wetbacks are taking only those jobs that citizens will not take. Of course, that is completely wrong---they are taking jobs that citizens will not take at the depressed wage brought about by the illegal activity. We also hear that the wetbacks contribute more in taxes than they receive in benefits, which is also absurd, since much of their labor is paid for in cash and is definitely "off the books."
We have articles in our newspapers wherein building contractors admit to breaking the law by hiring wetbacks because, "Otherwise, we couldn't be competitive and the price of housing would go up." Sounds good huh, until you think about it. If none of the contractors used illegal labor, they would all be on the same level playing field. And so what it the initial price of the house goes up. The buyer only pays for the house once; he gets to pay the increased property taxes need to provide the medical care, education, and other welfare benefits for the wetbacks and their kids forever.
This "in sourcing" is going to be the ruination of our economy and way of life long before outsourcing does. And this is the fault of a corrupt government that turns a blind eye to enforcement of the law in a flagrant pandering for "Hispanic votes."
Wes
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Wes Stewart wrote:

<SNIP>
I have several responses to this:
1) Any nation has a responsibility to protect its borders and the citizens within them. It it precisely because the US Government is so busy doing what it should NOT (meddling with the internal social order and lives of its citizens) that it does not do what it SHOULD (controlling the borders and illegal immigration).
2) Immigration, is GOOD for our nation. It provides cheap labor, in most cases for work no other American actually wants to do. It is literally true that parts of US agribusiness could not survive without cheap Mexican labor. This internal competition is healthy for the same reason that outsourcing is - it drives the economy to be increasingly efficient. Yes, Mexican labor depresses wages. But for what jobs? Manual labor, entry-level blue collar jobs, and such are the usual targets because they require minimal skills. The fact that someone will come here and do them for half the price of an American tells me that the American worker expects too much for such work, not that the Mexicans are screwing us.
3) That said, *illegal* immigration is a disaster. Without some checks and balances to see who is coming and and making sure they leave when they are supposed to, we have at the very least an enormous national security problem. It is now reported that likely terrorists are infiltrating the US via the very same SW borders because of our stupid policies in this matter.
4) The primary reason you see what you do in your part of the country is because of all the Do Gooders in public life who think we owe everyone else something, whether they've earned it or not. These Do Gooders (they come from both the political Right and Left) believe that the government should mandate minimum wages, feed people, educate them, care for their health, and generally be everyone's mommy. They do this because they know that the bigger government gets, the more everyone will depend upon them, and thus the more power they will accrue for themselves. Their lax attitudes on illegal immigrants stems from the fact that they cynically want to prepare the way for the next generation of advocates for Big Government. Illegal immigrants have legal children in this country, and that's what the Professional Government Mooching Enforcers are counting on for votes in 20 years.
5) This is easy enough to fix, but the American people, as a group, are too dimwitted and badly educated (by those fine public schools we all pay for) to do what is needed here. Laws need to be changed in the following manner:
a) US law enforcement should have the unrestricted right to shoot anyone who attempts to cross our borders when challenged for ID. This is the same thing as you having the right to shoot someone invading your home. Reasonable warning should be required, but after that, the presumption should be that they are illegal and trying to sneak in. It would take only a few such incidents, and illegal crossings would vastly diminish.
b) Anyone here illegally who has a child should have that child's US citizenship denied and both should be expelled from the country without any appeals process once their illegality is definitely established.
c) NO immigrant, legal or otherwise, should ever be eligible for any US social services. You should have to be a citizen to participate in the system. I speak as an immigrant myself here. I proudly became a citizen the moment I was able to do so. Anyone who emmigrates here and then refuses to become a citizen should go home and stay there.
d) No civil laws should protect illegal immigrants. Only criminal laws (which deal with force and threat) should be brought to bear on their behalf. An illegal immigrant should never be able to sue a doctor for malpractice, a hospital for not granting service, and so on. They are **illegal** - they should have absolutely minimal civil rights, as they would, say, under the Geneva Convention for POWs.
e) The money wasted on our truly stupid drug laws should instead be retargeted at maintaining full and active border control. $30B a year or so buys a lot of border patrols, USCG water and air management and so on. It might even help the hardcore unemployed. Create a well-trained civil defense corp that works full- or part-time in the portions of the country where the border is found.
6) I live in a town with a huge Mexican population. I find these people largely hard working, well intended, and generally good neighbors. Well, the immigrant class is. Their children are spoiled brats, badly behaved, and obnoxiously indulged - i.e., They are like most other American kids who grew up with everything handed to them and therefore appreciate nothing.
In the final analysis we all get what we ask for. Politicians get blamed, but the truth is that they'll do what they have to in order to get/stay in office. We The Sheeple keep telling them we want "more" from government. We should instead tell them we want LESS - all we want them to do the real job of government: to keep *us* *free*. Until we as individuals understand that our government's job is not to be everyone's (domestic and foreign) Santa Claus, government will continue to abdicate its role as the institution that preserves freedom, and instead will be in everyone's shorts in matters personal, social, and behavioral.
Sadly, there is little hope that this will happen. The Sheeple have discovered how to vote themselves largesse' and they appear to be unwilling to turn back. This is not just a greasy-left-wing thing either. The right-wing is just as bad, and the people who vote for them, just a greasy. The only difference between left- and right-wing politics is who gets screwed and who gets the benefit.
My family comes from a part of the world that witnessed what happens when government is "in charge". God help us if we don't stop the slide in that direction we are currently undertaking. From 1930-1932, approximately 20 Million of my ethnic cousins were murdered by one man - Stalin - because he was "doing what is good for the country."
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@prodigy.net says...

Now THAT's funny! Last time I was tested, I had an IQ of over 165 - and 67 years of experience to go with it.
Perhaps you should investigate some sources other than Rush and Fox Spews :-).
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com says...

is, for the most part, quite sensible. Or, IOW, something I agree with :-).
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Blanchard wrote:

And here I thought I was being sensible all along ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Security wise yes, but following your earlier arguments, allowing unlimited numbers of immigrants would be a win-win.

Sounds more like religion than economics. I personally doubt that the occupations are in most cases work than no other American actually wants to do.
It is

Could not survive? Wouldn't they adjust to the market? Sounds like gloom and doom.

You constantly assume that outsourcing is purely market driven. Bad assumption.

Lots of immigrants involved in skilled labor.

Minimum wage is a massive non-issue. Its a good indicator that the criticism is religious rather than economic.

A long term plan for personal power?

The plot thickens...

I thought it was the constitution.

What about the rule of law? You sound like the mommy government types who want to "send a message." Doesn't sound like any classical liberal I have ever read, including Adam Smith. Since you've annointed him as the "Father of Economics," perhaps you'll reveal why he is wrong (along with dopey guys like T. Jefferson.

They said that about locking up pot smokers... actually they say that about near every damn thing when they want to shoot or cage someone who is viewed as an evildoer or part of a "problem."

Everyone, everywhere in America who has been alive long enough is an illegal. Immigrants are the same.
Besides, appeals are part of the process to determine more definitely that illegality exists.

There you go. You just outed yourself. Virtually all of the people who want to move here are prohibited from becoming citizens. Rather than deal with the issue, you foul the discussion with an attack that they "refuse" to become citizens.
Are you really an immigrant or is that added for effect?

Sounds like you don't know what civil laws are or their relationship to crime and criminal statutes or to the justice system as a whole.

Mmmmmm... good stuff, so someone like Bill Frist whose corporation operated on people when they didn't need it could use these people for medical experiments or perhaps just amusement and poor Jose's family would have no redress.
Not only is it completely impractical, but it would shove it up the ass of every citizen who travels overseas.

All right. Food, shelter, and medical treatment.

So immigrants and American parents generally are shitty parents. OK.

And you want to shoot immigrants for not providing their identity papers quickly and eliminate the rule of law. You sound a bit like an admirer of Stalin to me.
--
"Equal and exact justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion,
religious or political; freedom of religion; freedom of the press, and
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
p_j wrote:

No. Allowing market forces to operate while maintaining border security simultaneously would be a win-win.

Why? Because you said so? There is nothing religious about it. Cheap labor drives economic growth. This is not to say it has no other consquences. Clearly, it can. But it's not just some bit of theology I invented.

Yes. That is better said. Certain agribusiness sectors could not continue to exist in their current form. They might or might not cease to exist entirely.

Everything is (ultimately) market driven. The only exception - that is, when the market does NOT operate - is when systemic fraud and/or force are exercised to restrain market forces. Even then, the market eventually catches up, it just is considerably delayed. But fraudulent/forceful outsourcing was not really the scope of this thread as I understood it. Rather, the discussion is whether or not outsourcing, broadly defined, was good/bad and what consequences it brought.

Yes, my community bears witness to this, as does my own life. But I was responding specifically to contentions about _illegal_ Mexican immigration, which is overwhelmingly a labor force at the bottom of the food chain in most cases. Mexican doctors are not sneaking across the Rio Grande to practice medicine, as best I know.

Absent reason, attack with labels, eh? You intentionally ignore the context of the comment to try and trivialize it. Minimum wage is obviously introduced here as _an example_ of legistative intrusion by the people I call "Do Gooders", no more.

No, an implict plan to increasingly collectivize society and its sensibilities, thereby making the group more important than the individual. This has a long and studied tradition form most of recorded human history, regardless of the form of governance in use. People with power want to maintain it, grow it, and increasingly command everyone else. I merely cite what I did here to note that even in our free democracy, these instincts exist.

Brilliant riposte' ...

It is, but I suggest here that for people who obtain access to our system illegally, the law should be rewritten. The Constitution is written, you'll recall, with the ability to be amended.

By all means. Note that I stipulated that "fair warning" be required.

Why? Because you said so? I want to send no message. Do not presume what you cannot possible fathom - my intentions. I want the borders to be secure, much like I want the boundaries of my own property to be secure. I am simply applying a similar precept.

Adams is widely credited with being the father or the modern discipline of economics, though considerable meaningful work certainly followed him. The Englightenment thinkers had all manner of warts. They were not infallible. You may recall that Jefferson owned slaves, for example. Citing them is not a blanked endorsement of every position they held. They lived in times that did not have to consider illegal immigration on anywhere near the scale we do. New times bring new issues and require potentially new ideas.

Argument by misdirection. A pot smoker breaks a law as an otherwise legal member of society. Someone entering the country with the intention of subverting immigration control can legitimately be considered a "foreign invader". Big difference.

What an immensely irrelevant, incorrect, and obtuse side-stepping of the central point. Anyone old enough has likely broken some law large or small at some point. So what? Your conclusion, it would appear, is that this therefore means the rule of law is thus irrelevant to those who try to sneak in.

I did? What does that mean? You finally figured out what I was arguing all along? I embarrassed myself? My fly is open?

So what? Since when do we owe anyone who want to come here the right to become a citizen. Insofar as immigration and naturalization improve our country (and they do), this ought to be encouraged. To the extent they do not, they ought to be prohibited. The boundaries of what is good and what is not are certainly debatable, but there is not inherent obligation on our part to even care about the issue on behalf of those who would come here. We should care about it in our own enlightened self-interest?

Yes, I really am an immigrant. No, I am not a liar, nor am I ever as unpleasant personally in this medium as you appear to relish being. This is a debate of ideas. But, absent a coherent position of your own, you attack not my ideas, but my personal veracity. Its an old lawyer's courtroom trick: When the facts support your case, argue the facts. When they don't, attempt to undermind the character and veracity of the witness. Its a cheap shot.

One more time: I am proposing a _Change_ to our laws. I am reasonably familiar with what is now the case and it is not working well. (That is my _opinion_, BTW.)

"Poor Jose's Family" didn't come here in a legal manner (for the sake of example). They didn't *have* to do so. If they want the protection of our laws, come here legally, and participate in the system as a member of our political contract, not as a criminal.

Really. What a brilliant insight. The US cracks down on illegal foreign invaders and US citizens who *lawfully* visit other nations would therefore be at greater risk thereby? I hadn't considered that ramification. OK, you're right. We need to remove all restrictions on foreigners entering the country so that other nations will be nicer to us when we visit.

Right - *minmal* in each case to sustain life. No more. And you don't get to sue the agency delivering them because you don't like the food, want a bigger tent, or desire a face lift.

It was an attempt at irony and humor. Since this seems lost on you, let me explain: I was noting that real assimilation is taking place. The Mexican kids are very much the same as their other American counterparts.

You could not possibly be more offensive than with that last bit. You propose no new ideas of your own here. You write decontextualized responses intended to trivialize what it said, but you have nothing new to add. Worst of all, you attack personally (something I did not] do). You, sir or madam, are an ass.
PLONK
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk tucks tongue in cheek and replies:

Just bring money when traveling. IME, most people don't otherwise care about our government policies.
Charlie Self "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." Disraeli as quoted by Mark Twain
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Can we have dizum guy back and have this guy given the boot instead?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 01 May 2004 06:13:02 GMT, Paul Kierstead
| |> Our national parks and wilderness areas are being ruined by wetbacks, |> our hospital trauma centers are closing because of the costs of |> treating wetbacks injured in car crashes while fleeing from the Border| |Can we have dizum guy back and have this guy given the boot instead?
So what part troubles you? The facts maybe? Or that I don't speak of them as "border crossers," the title of the day in the local press.
Read the following story and you'll see that "wetback" is completely accurate.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyIDI92697
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Last I knew, the only requirement was to quit talkin' and start doin'.
Dan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

*but* talk.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter, send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com says...

workers becoming burger flippers. Who was it in the Bush administration that tried to get those fast food jobs redefined as manufacturing jobs? 'Nuff said.
But that won't convince you to lay aside your theoretical economics for the real world, so I've made my last responses on the subject. At least to you.
--
Where ARE those Iraqi WMDs?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In rec.woodworking

Exactly!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Blanchard wrote:

Really? Are you sure about this? I think you'd better go back and look at the per-capita personal income figures and how they have grown even in just the last 50 years (never mind the last 250). If laid-off factory workers are becoming burger flippers in such large numbers, then why does the average income of American family keep *rising*? Why is the percentage of Americans who are poor keep *declining*? You are the one grinding the theoretical axe here. The data of the past couple generations well supports my contention that free markets make the "average" family's wealth go up - not down. The fact that there are always some people at the bottom of the economic ladder who really struggle does not change the Big Picture...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Daneliuk responds:

Has it risen in the 5 years he was writing about? 1980 is not much help to the guy who got laid off this week.
Charlie Self "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich." Napoleon Bonaparte
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.