China 'worried' about US Treasury holdings

[JudyJudyJudy]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090313/ap_on_re_as/as_china_us_economy

China 'worried' about US Treasury holdings

By JOE McDONALD, AP Business Writer Joe Mcdonald, Ap Business Writer – 12 mins ago

BEIJING – China's premier didn't say it in so many words, but the implied warning to Washington was blunt: Don't devalue the dollar through reckless spending. Premier Wen Jiabao's message is unlikely to be misunderstood at the White House. It is counting on Beijing to help pay for its stimulus package by buying U.S. bonds. China already is Washington's biggest foreign creditor, with an estimated $1 trillion in U.S. government debt. A weaker dollar would erode the value of those assets.

"Of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets. To be honest, I'm a little bit worried," Wen said at a news conference Friday after the closing of China's annual legislative session. "I would like to call on the United States to honor its words, stay a credible nation and ensure the safety of Chinese assets."

The appeal suggested the outlines of Chinese President Hu Jintao's stance when he meets with President Barack Obama at an April 2 summit in London of the Group of 20 major economies on possible remedies for the global crisis.

Wen gave no indication whether Beijing wants changes in U.S. policy. But economists said his comments reflect fears that higher U.S. budget deficits from Washington's $787 billion stimulus package could drive down the dollar and the value of China's Treasury notes.

"China is telling the U.S. to be careful, not to overspend and keep an eye on the dollar," said Kelvin Lau, regional economist at Standard Chartered in Hong Kong. "There are risks that China cannot control, so they're depending on the U.S. to maintain fiscal prudence and keep the dollar reasonably stable."

In Washington, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs responded to Wen's concerns by saying the Chinese should rest assured because investments in the U.S. are the safest in the world.

Gibbs also said Congress can help by passing Obama's budget for next year, which promises to halve the deficit by the end of his term.

Analysts estimate China keeps nearly half of its $2 trillion in foreign currency reserves in U.S. Treasuries and notes issued by other government-affiliated agencies.

"Inside China there has been a lot of debate about whether they should continue to buy Treasuries," said Frank Gong, chief China economist for JP Morgan.

Beijing is trying to increase its leverage at the London G-20 meeting by reminding its partners of its role in financing U.S. spending, Gong said.

"Without China's buying (Treasuries) and continuing to fund U.S. deficit spending, interest rates could have been much higher. That could be very destabilizing in this very recessionary environment," he said. "By attracting a lot of attention to this issue, China is already increasing its influence ahead of the G-20 meeting."

Finance officials from the G-20 meet this weekend. U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is pressing for a new coordinated global stimulus. Japan is supportive but European governments are reluctant to make expensive commitments before they see how current plans are working.

Wen also offered an unqualified defense Friday of his government's policies in Tibet, ignoring questions about a massive security buildup in the Himalayan region.

Tensions have spiked ahead of two key anniversaries this week — the 50th anniversary of a failed Tibetan uprising that sent the Dalai Lama into exile and Saturday's one-year anniversary of violent anti-Chinese riots in Lhasa that sparked the largest protests in decades.

Asked whether the massive security presence pointed to failings in Beijing's policies, Wen said: "The situation in Tibet is on the whole peaceful and stable. The Tibetan people hope to work in peace and stability.

"Tibet's continuous progress (has) proven the policies we have adopted are right," he said.

Wen expressed confidence the world's third-largest economy can meet its official growth target of 8 percent this year and emerge from the crisis "at an early date." But he said Beijing is ready to expand its 4 trillion yuan ($586 billion) stimulus if needed.

"We already have our plans ready to tackle even more difficult times, and to do that we have reserved adequate ammunition," he said. "That means that at any time we can introduce new stimulus policies."

Communist leaders worry about rising job losses and possible unrest amid a trade slump that saw Chinese exports fall 25.7 percent in February from a year earlier. They have promised to spend heavily to create jobs and boost exports.

Chinese bank lending and power demand have risen, suggesting the stimulus is taking effect. But growth in retail sales is weakening, indicating it has yet to spur private sector spending and investment, which analysts say will be key to its success.

Private sector economists expect growth as low as 5 percent this year. That would be the strongest of any major country but could lead to more waves of job cuts.

"I really believe we will be able to walk out of the shadow of the financial crisis at an early date," Wen said. "After this trial, I believe the Chinese economy will show greater vitality."

Wen also said Beijing wants the G-20 summit in April focus on helping the poorest countries.

The premier said Beijing has met its own commitments to help developing countries by erasing a total of $40 billion in debt owed by 46 countries and giving out 200 billion yuan ($29 billion) of aid to developing countries."

"We must see to it that we show concern for developing countries," he said.

___

AP Business Writer Jeremiah Marquez in Hong Kong contributed to this report.

[bocarioja]

My husband just got back from China. He said that there are people there employed as "road guides." They are paid to stand outside, point at the road, and give directions.

He also said that there are entire towns designed and built to lure American manufacturing plants out of the US. There are already constructed, empty apartment complexes, houses, schools, grocery stores... complete with an empty factory just waiting for business. The Chinese recruiters are paid very well to meet with American businesses and show them, using their own annual reports, how much they can save if they manufacture in China. They get workers who live within a 2 minute walk of the factory and are willing to work 14-18 hour days. Their kids are educated in the same "modern" village free of charge and everyone exists for the purpose of the company. These empty factories can be tooled for production, of any US product, in less than 30 days.

They have special newspapers and TV channels for the American business man visiting China that broadcast nothing but brainwashing about how wonderful it is to manufacture and do business with China.

It is so fuckin scary.

[bocarioja]

China has a vested interested in making American investors panic and demand further cost cutting measures.

[JudyJudyJudy]

Since most big American corporations tend to be greedy and are willing to make an easy dollar in any way they can, whether ethical or unethical, I doubt it takes a lot to lure them out of the US. I don't think they have to be brainwashed.

[bocarioja]

Since most big American corporations tend to be greedy and are willing to make an easy dollar in any way they can, whether ethical or unethical, I doubt it takes a lot to lure them out of the US. I don't think they have to be brainwashed.

Partially true, Judy.

There are a lot of corps that are trying to maintain an American manufacturing presence, like my husband's company, for example. They are one of the oldest American companies and one of the original 10 companies to first list as a publically traded company. While they tout their Made in the USA label, it would be cheaper for them to make many of their products in China. It could change in a matter of seconds if the right person, in the right mood, made the trip to the orient.

[JudyJudyJudy]

If they aren't looking to "sell out" like most other companies have done, then why did he go to China?

I find it almost impossible to find products that are made in the US. Even if they are "made" here, chances are that the materials were made somewhere else.

[bocarioja]

It was a sales office, Judy.

His company is helping to tool those empty factories.

[JudyJudyJudy]

So ultimately, even this "made in the USA" company is still using China as a way to make money?

[bocarioja]

WHat is wrong with that?

Isn't China doing the same to the US?

[bocarioja]

And it isn't an all or nothing equasion.

Many companies use China to make compnents of their final product, but assemble the product in the US.

Many companies outsource paperwork like order entry or IT support to India, but the main sales offices and leadership is still in the US.

The global economy is scary, but but also necessary.

[JudyJudyJudy]

I'm certainly no defender of China. I'm not surprised that the big dogs there do whatever they do.

My point is that virtually all the "American" corporations are greedy enough that they take their business out of the US. If companies like your husband's weren't willing to be the suppliers, then what? Of course, the excuse is, "Well, if we don't do it, someone will," and that's simply an excuse and a vicious cycle.

[JudyJudyJudy]

And it isn't an all or nothing equasion.

Many companies use China to make compnents of their final product, but assemble the product in the US.

Many companies outsource paperwork like order entry or IT support to India, but the main sales offices and leadership is still in the US.

The global economy is scary, but but also necessary.
I disagree that outsourcing is necessary.

[bocarioja]

They have sales offices in Canada, South Africa, Austraila... staffed with American workers whose job it is to generate revenue and orders for mainly American workers. Following that logic, should those be closed, too?

American Manufacturers can benefit greatly from not adopting an isolationist view.

[JudyJudyJudy]

I don't know the particular company and, thus, can't research it to give an educated opinion. However, based on other companies that make such claims that it's for "mainly American workers," that hasn't been what I've observed. Many, many American workers have lost their jobs due to outsourcing to other countries.

[bocarioja]

Americans have lost jobs, Judy, and it because of greed as you have said.

My whole point is: China is making oursourcing manufacturing jobs as easy as shopping for a TV, even for companies that are trying to maintain and even expand their US presence.

[bocarioja]

There is a huge benefit to US companies in selling products globally, even if it means spending a few dollars in another country to set up a local dealer office. The Chinese government spends millions buying pruducts that my husband's company makes here in the US.

[CatSoup]

I think they need to be 'worried' about the poison they continuously pass off as merchandise.

[bocarioja]

China is scared shitless that all the money they have put into building a manufacturing infrastructre will be obliterated because of safety concerns.

Boo hoo.

Even more reason to produce here.

[JudyJudyJudy]

Americans have lost jobs, Judy, and it because of greed as you have said.

My whole point is: China is making oursourcing manufacturing jobs as easy as shopping for a TV, even for companies that are trying to maintain and even expand their US presence.
So it's all China's fault and not the responsibility of American companies? It's not as though the companies can't help themselves. That sounds like the argument of a first grader who stole $10 because the other kid made it easy.


There is a huge benefit to US companies in selling products globally, even if it means spending a few dollars in another country to set up a local dealer office. The Chinese government spends millions buying pruducts that my husband's company makes here in the US.
Selling products isn't the same as outsourcing.


I think they need to be 'worried' about the poison they continuously pass off as merchandise.
I agree.


China is scared shitless that all the money they have put into building a manufacturing infrastructre will be obliterated because of safety concerns.

Boo hoo.
In reality, China could screw the US. China could demand payment for what the US owes it and not accept US currency. What then?


Even more reason to produce here.
This is my argument. We should produce here. It angers me that I'm willing to pay more for American products, yet I have a difficult time finding any. If a company is "making" items here, yet the parts are coming from China, that's not good enough for me. That's not American-made.

[rock__]

American's are perfectly aware they are outsourcing to China to exploit workers who aren't being treated up to American standards and producing products that are likely not to hold up to them either, all for the sake of the biggest profit. I can't blame China for what we choose to do.

[bocarioja]

So it's all China's fault and not the responsibility of American companies? It's not as though the companies can't help themselves. That sounds like the argument of a first grader who stole $10 because the other kid made it easy.

Actually, one could argue that it is the stockholder demanding revenue and profit maximization and not necessarily the American company at all. China is playing into that and selling a 'product' if you will, being cheap labor and lower overall production costs.

And I don't understand what the fuck is so wrong about an American company making American produts, in the U.S. selling our goods to other countries? That is hardly "selling out" as you claimed. It is good business.

Selling products to other countres isn't the same as outsourcing.

But earlier in the thread, you said his company was "selling out."


In reality, China could screw the US. China could demand payment for what the US owes it and not accept US currency. What then?

They didn't buy securities high to sell them low. They made an investment. If they demand payment when they know there is no money, they are miserable investors. They are worried that the US dollar will lose value due to uncontrolled spending. Their warning served a selfish motive to consumers to further errode confidence in the US government and as a result, the economy and promote companies to seek further cost cutting measures.



This is my argument. We should produce here. It angers me that I'm willing to pay more for American products, yet I have a difficult time finding any. If a company is "making" items here, yet the parts are coming from China, that's not good enough for me. That's not American-made.

It is not the consumers fault that products are made in other countries to save costs. If simply buying American goods could save US jobs, we wouldn't be in this mess. The global economy is a lot more complicated than that. While microeconomic examples ie: everyone in town eating at a local restaurant to keep it from closing really worked on the global scale, this would be an ideal country. It doesn't work that way, Judy.

Many countries use 'unfair' underbidding to under cut american steel suppliers, forced labor and even slavery to keep their prices low to attract business, tax abatements, no healthcare requirements.... to be competitive with these horrible business practices, Americans would have to get used to a miserable standard of living.

[SingingMom]

One of the things I'm concerned about is that Chinese manufacturers are willing to dump toxic waste, hire untrained workers and force them to work really long shifts, and offer them no benefits. Of course we can't compete with that. Even their electricity is cheaper, because they can build dirt coal-fired generating plants.

Many countries do use unfair practices in all kinds of ways- and it's hard to decide where our responsibility lies with regard to that. We have to compete by having a better infrastructure, better education, and being really smart. That's my opinion.

[bocarioja]

Its amazing what you can save when you have no standards, lack human compassion and complete control over your people and all media.

China would fail without the US.

I hope U.S. investors become smart enough to realize that.

[hidesome]

The "greed" isn't so much on the part of American companies as American consumers and workers. While GM UAW employees are being sent home with fat severance packages because they've been overpaid for 20 years and their company cannot stay in business without massive US Government bailouts, the Chinese automobile companies are growing so fast they cannot tool up quickly enough. You want a big salary for doing nothing? Your children will be owned by China in 20 years. It is pretty simple really. They will outproduce us in every way in a couple of decades. We will reap what we sow.

[tata]

China scares the hell out of me.

[bocarioja]

China scares the hell out of me.

It should.

On a more positive note, there are U.S. companies that are trying to make what they can from the moral-less giant by playing them in their own game while paying more in wages, healthcare, taxes and insurance than their investors really want to dish out.

[JudyJudyJudy]

American's are perfectly aware they are outsourcing to China to exploit workers who aren't being treated up to American standards and producing products that are likely not to hold up to them either, all for the sake of the biggest profit. I can't blame China for what we choose to do.
Exactly.


Actually, one could argue that it is the stockholder demanding revenue and profit maximization and not necessarily the American company at all.
You can't leave the company out of the equation. Look how much the big dogs make. Do you think for a minute that they aren't looking after themselves?

And I don't understand what the fuck is so wrong about an American company making American produts, in the U.S. selling our goods to other countries? That is hardly "selling out" as you claimed. It is good business.
When you're speaking of simply selling products to other consumers in other countries who are willing to buy US products, then, yes, I'll agree that it's good business. However, when you are adding to the crappy business practices by supplying their crappy factories with which the US can't and shouldn't compete, I think that shows a lack of ethics and is indeed selling out.

It is not the consumers fault that products are made in other countries to save costs.
Huh? You lost me here. Where did I blame the consumer? As a consumer who is trying to find American products, I realize that consumers are limited. I blamed the companies, and I'll agree that the stockholders are at fault, too. Having said that, I don't think the consumer is innocent, either. If the consumer had refused to buy products made in other countries, especially China, from the beginning, perhaps we would never have gotten to this point. Also, in speaking to consumers, I see plenty who could afford to buy American products (what few are available), but they aren't willing to do so as long as cheaper crap is available.

If simply buying American goods could save US jobs, we wouldn't be in this mess. The global economy is a lot more complicated than that. While microeconomic examples ie: everyone in town eating at a local restaurant to keep it from closing really worked on the global scale, this would be an ideal country. It doesn't work that way, Judy.
Please explain it in detail. Do you understand what even started this "global economy"? Greed by many.


Many countries use 'unfair' underbidding to under cut american steel suppliers, forced labor and even slavery to keep their prices low to attract business, tax abatements, no healthcare requirements.... to be competitive with these horrible business practices, Americans would have to get used to a miserable standard of living.
Many Americans are already having to get used to a miserable standard of living.


One of the things I'm concerned about is that Chinese manufacturers are willing to dump toxic waste, hire untrained workers and force them to work really long shifts, and offer them no benefits. Of course we can't compete with that. Even their electricity is cheaper, because they can build dirt coal-fired generating plants.
I agree with this.

Many countries do use unfair practices in all kinds of ways- and it's hard to decide where our responsibility lies with regard to that. We have to compete by having a better infrastructure, better education, and being really smart. That's my opinion.
I'm not so sure it would help. Many of the most educated people in the US are unemployed or underemployed.


China would fail without the US.
That's what Americans like to think. They think that we are the almighty, all powerful, but you might be surprised where we could end up if this all continues.


The "greed" isn't so much on the part of American companies as American consumers and workers. While GM UAW employees are being sent home with fat severance packages because they've been overpaid for 20 years and their company cannot stay in business without massive US Government bailouts,
The companies could afford to pay workers well if the fat cats at the top of the companies didn't demand so much. However, I do agree with you that the union goes overboard at times.

I completely disagree that the greed isn't on the part of the companies, though. There are some greedy bastards in the big corporations. You might not believe it, but I'd love for you to read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins and give me your take on it.

Your children will be owned by China in 20 years. It is pretty simple really. They will outproduce us in every way in a couple of decades. We will reap what we sow.
I do agree that China will own us at the rate we're going.

[bocarioja]

The "greed" isn't so much on the part of American companies as American consumers and workers. While GM UAW employees are being sent home with fat severance packages because they've been overpaid for 20 years and their company cannot stay in business without massive US Government bailouts, the Chinese automobile companies are growing so fast they cannot tool up quickly enough. You want a big salary for doing nothing? Your children will be owned by China in 20 years. It is pretty simple really. They will outproduce us in every way in a couple of decades. We will reap what we sow.


The Chinese/Japaneese auto manufacturers are also in cost cutting mode right now. The foreign guys were supposed to be the reliable spenders for Dhs business. They thought that their advantage in labor costs was enough to get them through a recession. Its proving to not be enough. Honda in Ohio cut hours on a few shifts and Toyota posted its first quartly loss ever a few months back. http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/090206/as_japan_earns_toyota.html

If a non union shop can hurt financially, blaming unions for the majority of problems doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Side story: My dh told me that to convert an American Auto manufacturer to convert a passenger car production line for war production (building tanks and hummers) would take 30-60 days. The Chineese built their factories so they can be converted into military support facilities in less than 6 hours. That scares the shit out of me.

[JudyJudyJudy]

One thing I don't understand is this: If "foreign" auto manufacturers can afford to have factories in the US and pay the workers fair wages, then why can't US auto manufacturers do the same?


eta: Is this related to the union?

[JudyJudyJudy]

Side story: My dh told me that to convert an American Auto manufacturer to convert a passenger car production line for war production (building tanks and hummers) would take 30-60 days. The Chineese built their factories so they can be converted into military support facilities in less than 6 hours. That scares the shit out of me.
That doesn't surprise me, and we should be scared.

[bocarioja]

Exactly.
You can't leave the company out of the equation. Look how much the big dogs make. Do you think for a minute that they aren't looking after themselves?

And if they weren't, there would be no reason to have any investment accounts, like returement funds AT ALL. By looking out for themselves, they can ensure that there is a company to EMPLOY American people. You are making the American corporation out to be a monster when companies exist for the very purpose of making money. If the company isn;t making money, there is no reason to keep the doors open.

People aren't entitled to a paycheck just becaus they want one.

The bonuses, extravagant lifestyles, access to influence over government policy... THAT is that I believe to be bullshit.


When you're speaking of simply selling products to other consumers in other countries who are willing to buy US products, then, yes, I'll agree that it's good business. However, when you are adding to the crappy business practices by supplying their crappy factories with which the US can't and shouldn't compete, I think that shows a lack of ethics and is indeed selling out.

My husbands company has no control over what happens in foreign production lines. I am astonished that you could blame a US company for the atrocities committed in foreign/sovereign lands. This is so idealistically nieve, it's dellusional. If all businesses refused to complete a transaction because certain behaviors along the way didn't measure up to your standards... American or not, business wouldn't exist.

Huh? You lost me here. Where did I blame the consumer?

You made it seem that as a consumer, you were trying to help the American economy here:


This is my argument. We should produce here. It angers me that I'm willing to pay more for American products, yet I have a difficult time finding any. If a company is "making" items here, yet the parts are coming from China, that's not good enough for me. That's not American-made.

Perhaps the 'Made in the USA' item was actually produced by an illlegal Mexican?

In a global economy, one can not exist-- and profit-- to ensure survival without playing the global markets game.

As a consumer who is trying to find American products, I realize that consumers are limited. I blamed the companies, and I'll agree that the stockholders are at fault, too. Having said that, I don't think the consumer is innocent, either. If the consumer had refused to buy products made in other countries, especially China, from the beginning, perhaps we would never have gotten to this point. Also, in speaking to consumers, I see plenty who could afford to buy American products (what few are available), but they aren't willing to do so as long as cheaper crap is available.

You made it sound like it was possible for the consumer to make a meaningful impact. There are more powerful forces at work designed to undercut the American who want to be a patriot simply by looking at packaging or maybe even googling. You may think the item you're boycotting isn't American because of the sticker, but that item was marketed, transported, invested in, and used American IT support technology all to get it to the shelves. By boycotting foreign products, you are also hurting many satellite American companies.


Do you understand what even started this "global economy"? Greed by many.

By your logic logic, Greed always = bad, I would assume that you believe the best solution to build walls around our mutually agreed upon borders and discontinue trade all together? Again, this is assinine.

I thought the global economy was established based upon the mutual desire for resources not available within one's own borders.


Many Americans are already having to get used to a miserable standard of living.

I'm not so sure it would help. Many of the most educated people in the US are unemployed or underemployed.


We know this. Not that I expect you to acknowledge this, but there are companies that you claim are greedy that are trying their best to do the right thing for the American worker and the investor.









That's what Americans like to think. They think that we are the almighty, all powerful, but you might be surprised where we could end up if this all continues.

You may be surprised at the way the tables are turning, inspiring the very press repease you posted in the OP.


I completely disagree that the greed isn't on the part of the companies, though. There are some greedy bastards in the big corporations. You might not believe it, but I'd love for you to read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins and give me your take on it.

Of course there are execs that have over inflated their golden parachutes and felt a sense of entitlement in doing so. There are also those that don't make the headlines that are sacrificing their status in the business world to do the right thing when it comes to maintaining standards that made this country great. It pisses me off to no end when every corporation that does foreign business is made out to be run by a bunch of assholes that are responsible for everyone elses suffering. IT isn't true.


I do agree that China will own us at the rate we're going.

No way. The workers in China want to be employed by American Companies. That is our golden ticket.

[JudyJudyJudy]

And if they weren't, there would be no reason to have any investment accounts, like returement funds AT ALL. By looking out for themselves, they can ensure that there is a company to EMPLOY American people. You are making the American corporation out to be a monster when companies exist for the very purpose of making money. If the company isn;t making money, there is no reason to keep the doors open.
Of course, people have companies to make money. Likewise, people work to make money. Regardless, there are ethical ways of making money. Using slave labor isn't ethical. I'd also like to recommend the same book that I recommended to hidesome to you to read; it's quite an eye-opener about large corporations.


People aren't entitled to a paycheck just becaus they want one.
Where exactly have I said that people are entitled to a paycheck just because they want one? People are entitled to a paycheck because they work for one; you're being ridiculous if you try to claim that I've even implied otherwise.


The bonuses, extravagant lifestyles, access to influence over government policy... THAT is that I believe to be bullshit.
And that is the type of thing to which I'm referring.


My husbands company has no control over what happens in foreign production lines. I am astonished that you could blame a US company for the atrocities committed in foreign/sovereign lands. This is so idealistically nieve, it's dellusional. If all businesses refused to complete a transaction because certain behaviors along the way didn't measure up to your standards... American or not, business wouldn't exist.
No, it's delusional to pretend that one isn't unethical because he can close his eyes and pretend that he doesn't know to what he is contributing.


You made it seem that as a consumer, you were trying to help the American economy here:
This is my argument. We should produce here. It angers me that I'm willing to pay more for American products, yet I have a difficult time finding any. If a company is "making" items here, yet the parts are coming from China, that's not good enough for me. That's not American-made.
You lost me there. How in the world does saying that my being angry because I can't find American products to buy blame the consumer?


Perhaps the 'Made in the USA' item was actually produced by an illlegal Mexican?
Perhaps, and your point? If that's the case, then the corporation is still doing illegal activities by hiring illegals.


You made it sound like it was possible for the consumer to make a meaningful impact.
If enough consumers would try, we could make an impact.


There are more powerful forces at work designed to undercut the American who want to be a patriot simply by looking at packaging or maybe even googling. You may think the item you're boycotting isn't American because of the sticker, but that item was marketed, transported, invested in, and used American IT support technology all to get it to the shelves. By boycotting foreign products, you are also hurting many satellite American companies.
That's a chance I'll take. For many, many reasons, I'm opposed to production in Asia and other areas.


By your logic logic, Greed always = bad,
Greed is bad. People can make money without being unethical.


I would assume that you believe the best solution to build walls around our mutually agreed upon borders and discontinue trade all together? Again, this is assinine.
I'm only in favor of ethical trading. That doesn't include taking work out of the US where there are laws that govern wages so that a company can pay someone else desperate to do it for pennies.


I thought ithe global economy was established based upon the mutual desire for resources not available within one's own borders.
It's much more complicated than that. I don't pretend to be an expert on it, but I know that it goes far beyond this.


We know this. Not that I expect you to acknowledge this, but there are companies that you claim are greedy that are trying their best to do the right thing for the American worker and the investor.
Can you give examples?


You may be surprised at the way the tables are turning, inspiring the very press repease you posted in the OP.
Please explain.


Of course there are execs that have over inflated their golden parachutes and felt a sense of entitlement in doing so. There are also those that don't make the headlines that are sacrificing their status in the business world to do the right thing when it comes to maintaining standards that made this country great. It pisses me off to no end when every corporation that does foreign business is made out to be run by a bunch of assholes that are responsible for everyone elses suffering. IT isn't true.
Again, please give examples.


No way. The workers in China want to be employed by American Companies. That is our golden ticket.
Golden ticket to where? Working 14+ hours per day for pennies?

[JudyJudyJudy]

This looks like an interesting book:

China's Transition to a Global Economy (http://books.google.com/books?id=u16krI_rDOYC&dq=history+behind+global+economy+corporations&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=5h-7Sa6aEILhtgewrdn8Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=12&ct=result#PPP1,M1)

I've only read the first couple of pages so far, but already it has mentioned the IMF and the World Bank that screwed so many other developing countries in this global economy.

[bocarioja]

Of course, people have companies to make money. Likewise, people work to make money. Regardless, there are ethical ways of making money. Using slave labor isn't ethical. I'd also like to recommend the same book that I recommended to hidesome to you to read; it's quite an eye-opener about large corporations.


Where exactly have I said that people are entitled to a paycheck just because they want one? People are entitled to a paycheck because they work for one; you're being ridiculous if you try to claim that I've even implied otherwise.

I am quite familar with the book you recommended. It is an idealistic view of what morally similar people who choose to do if they were completely influenced by those that shared similar views of a perfect world. Open your eyes. Those that work for wal-mart don't care if a child died to make a spool of fabric, and that the local fabric store in business for 150 years in Poduk ID is now out of business. These asses care about maximizing revenue, not ethical business practices. Perhaps that is the only thing we might agree on...

Your posts have claimed that American corporations are immoral for taking jobs away from Americans. You asked why American Auto manufacturers weren't capable of producing cars in the US. There is a reason that those jobs left the US, and it wasn't because a bunch of execs decided it was time to be greedy. They were pressured by a Board of Directos, investors, and Wall Street evaluators to lower costs to produce a high number on an investment rating.



No, it's delusional to pretend that one isn't unethical because he can close his eyes and pretend that he doesn't know to what he is contributing.

Even if he scremed at the top of his lungs, it would take a bloody coup to over throw China's Government to improve working conditions. When you lead those front lines, Judy, then you can criticise my husband.


You lost me there. How in the world does saying that my being angry because I can't find American products to buy blame the consumer?

That isn't what I said. Nice try. I said Consumers could not have prevented what happened. I think it is amazing that so much of your arguement is resting on a "well, if we would have..." statement. Its irrelavent.


Perhaps, and your point? If that's the case, then the corporation is still doing illegal activities by hiring illegals.

THE POINT, Judy, is that in a global economy, simply buying American doesn't guarantee anything.



If enough consumers would try, we could make an impact.

Maybe on the local level, but depending on the amount of impact you want to see and the goals you're creating in your head, it is probably doubtful. There are too many necessities such as medical equipment, and Rx drugs that are made in foreign countries.



Greed is bad. People can make money without being unethical.

I think greed can be a positive motivator to making money. The US would never have been established if it wasn't for greed.


I'm only in favor of ethical trading. That doesn't include taking work out of the US where there are laws that govern wages so that a company can pay someone else desperate to do it for pennies.

We are all in favor of ethical trading, Judy. That isn't a unique opinion owned totally by YOU.

What good does it do to American workers when you said that you would boycott American companies doing the ethical thing here:

That's a chance I'll take. For many, many reasons, I'm opposed to production in Asia and other areas.


It's much more complicated than that. I don't pretend to be an expert on it, but I know that it goes far beyond this.

Of course, Judy. Really, Every sentence needs a semantics comment? That is just lame.

Can you give examples? Again, please give examples.

My husband's company. Plus local companies that I am familar with such as Sherwin Willliams, Coe, the Cleveland Clinic, Lubrizol, Avery Dennison, ABB... Not that you would know what these companies even do or who runs them, but you did ask.


Please explain.

China is worried that the manufacturing economy that they banked on for their very survival is in jeopardy because of the shift in priorities. Our stimulus plan focuses on American priorities such as American job creation. This worries China. See?


Golden ticket to where? Working 14+ hours per day for pennies?

Golden ticket to an American job with Benefits, 401K, and freedom.

[bocarioja]

My husband works with Chinese citizens, controlled by their government, who want nothing more than to be offered a job in the US.

I am personally friends with leaders of the companies that I have listed who do not make millions per year in bonuses, or own private jets. In fact, the C level execs of a few of these companies have helped me in many of my humble work related projects. They are not trying to destroy America, nor are they unethical people.

They make a difference where they can and help to plant the seeds of change for humanitarian causes that are beyond their control.

[bocarioja]

From this post on the first page:

If they aren't looking to "sell out" like most other companies have done, then why did he go to China?



His company has never wanted to "sell out" to anyone. I'm not sure why you put that in quotes. His company was trying to make a sale to Chinese manufacturers who may or may not be acting unethically-- hell-- may even be owned by the US and practicing common decency towards their employees in the workplace. Its a big country.

I blame China, and China alone for the unfair trade practices that result in human atrocities.

If any American company is to share in that blame, it is the retailers like Walmart who pressured manufacturers to reduce costs to a breaking point.

[bocarioja]

Wal-mart reaps the rewards of lower manufacturing costs, but doesn't always pass those saving on to the consumer. This is another example of the consumer voice not being an effective tool to influence the marketplace.

[JudyJudyJudy]

I am quite familar with the book you recommended. It is an idealistic view of what morally similar people who choose to do if they were completely influenced by those that shared similar views of a perfect world. Open your eyes.
My eyes are quite wide open as I type, but thanks for the suggestion anyway. What do you mean by an idealistic view? Of whom are you speaking there? Their plan has worked quite well. These huge corporations are making money out of the ass, and they have these developing countries right where they want them: in debt.


Those that work for wal-mart don't care if a child died to make a spool of fabric, and that the local fabric store in business for 150 years in Poduk ID is now out of business. These asses care about maximizing revenue, not ethical business practices. Perhaps that is the only thing we might agree on...
Actually I disagree. I'm sure there are lots of people who work for Wal-Mart who care about such things. However, many have no choice but to work for the company. Chances are that some of them owned or worked for Mom and Pop businesses in Podunk, USA, before they were put out of business. The fat cats on top, however, are a whole other story.


Your posts have claimed that American corporations are immoral for taking jobs away from Americans.
I stand by the claim that corporations are immoral for taking jobs out of America that could be done here, especially when they have taken jobs out to be done by those doing slave-type labor.


You asked why American Auto manufacturers weren't capable of producing cars in the US. There is a reason that those jobs left the US, and it wasn't because a bunch of execs decided it was time to be greedy. They were pressured by a Board of Directos, investors, and Wall Street evaluators to lower costs to produce a high number on an investment rating.
Yes, greed again.


Even if he scremed at the top of his lungs, it would take a bloody coup to over throw China's Government to improve working conditions. When you lead those front lines, Judy, then you can criticise my husband.
I wasn't speaking of your husband in particular. I was speaking of companies that do that. If that's on him, so be it. If it doesn't describe him, then don't make it that way.


That isn't what I said. Nice try. I said Consumers could not have prevented what happened.
You're still not making sense. This didn't even address what I said in terms of the consumer.


I think it is amazing that so much of your arguement is resting on a "well, if we would have..." statement. Its irrelavent.
Why is it irrelevant? Because it makes you feel better to think it's beyond your control to do anything? Let's just all sit back and not worry about being ethical since what one person does doesn't really matter.


THE POINT, Judy, is that in a global economy, simply buying American doesn't guarantee anything.
There are never guarantees in anything in life (except that ultimately we will die).


Maybe on the local level, but depending on the amount of impact you want to see and the goals you're creating in your head, it is probably doubtful. There are too many necessities such as medical equipment, and Rx drugs that are made in foreign countries.
I don't expect to see a huge impact on my end, but I do want to be able to live with myself.


I think greed can be a positive motivator to making money. The US would never have been established if it wasn't for greed.
And that's a good thing? Wow. Tell that to the people whose cultures and ancestors were lost due to this greed.


We are all in favor of ethical trading, Judy. That isn't a unique opinion owned totally by YOU.
Who is "we all"? Apparently not everyone is, or this wouldn't be an issue.


What good does it do to American workers when you said that you would boycott American companies doing the ethical thing here:
What good does it do? It puts my tiny amount of money into the companies that really do American business (which, sadly, isn't many) and pay American workers. It's quite obvious that I can't buy 100% American, but I certainly do when I can. Obviously, I can't boycott all companies, but I do research and try to buy from the ones who I feel are the most ethical. And, yes, if I have a choice between a product that's made in the US or in Asia, you can bet that I choose the former.


Of course, Judy. Really, Every sentence needs a semantics comment? That is just lame.
A semantics comment?


My husband's company. Plus local companies that I am familar with such as Sherwin Willliams, Coe, the Cleveland Clinic, Lubrizol, Aver Dennison, ABB... Not that you would know what these companies even do or who runs them, but you did ask.
I seriously doubt many people don't know what Sherwin Williams does. :rolleyes: However, I don't know the other companies, so I'll have to research them.


China is worried that the manufacturing economy that they banked on for their very survival is in jeopardy because of the shift in priorities. Our stimulus plan focuses on American priorities such as American job creation. This worries China. See?
I disagree. I agree with hidesome that they have us where they want us now.


Golden ticket to an American job with Benefits, 401K, and freedom.

My husband works with Chinese citizens, controlled by their government, who want nothing more than to be offered a job in the US.
Ahh, you mean they want to live and work in the US? Well, it's not like there's enough room here for all of them. I thought you meant that they wanted to work for American companies there doing slave labor. Regardless, what they want won't stop the government of China from doing what it wants.


I am personally friends with leaders of the companies that I have listed who do not make millions per year in bonuses, or own private jets. In fact, the C level execs of a few of these companies have helped me in many of my humble work related projects. They are not trying to destroy America, nor are they unethical people.

They make a difference where they can and help to plant the seeds of change for humanitarian causes that are beyond their control.
I've never said that any of the corporations want to "destroy America," so I don't even know where you're getting that. Most, in fact, think they are building America's economy while they screw those who are doing slave labor. Of course, they don't worry about the loss of American jobs in the process, either. It's just collateral damage.

What types of things do these companies need foreign workers for that can't be done by American workers?

[JudyJudyJudy]

His company has never wanted to "sell out" to anyone. I'm not sure why you put that in quotes. His company was trying to make a sale to Chinese manufacturers who may or may not be acting unethically-- hell-- may even be owned by the US and practicing common decency towards their employees in the workplace. Its a big country.

I blame China, and China alone for the unfair trade practices that result in human atrocities.

If any American company is to share in that blame, it is the retailers like Walmart who pressured manufacturers to reduce costs to a breaking point.
I put "sell out" in quotes because it's an expression. Do you truly think that American companies in China "practice common decency towards their employees in the workplace"? How well do they pay them? Do they make a living wage without having to work around the clock? Do they treat the environment with care so that the workers will be protected off the job? What benefits do they gain by having factories there instead in the many empty buildings we have here?

So it's only Wal-Mart, and no other corporations are responsible for following suit? I do blame Wal-Mart and some other huge corporations the most, but that doesn't mean that the others who followed in their lead are blameless.

[Tweet]

I'm shaking my head over the "greed can be good" comment. Ambition is good; greed leads to pretty shitty stuff,actually.

You can call me idealistic, too, I suppose. I do believe that consumers can make an impact.

[bocarioja]

My eyes are quite wide open as I type, but thanks for the suggestion anyway. What do you mean by an idealistic view? Of whom are you speaking there? Their plan has worked quite well. These huge corporations are making money out of the ass, and they have these developing countries right where they want them: in debt.

What corporations are making money now? I thought the stock market losing half its value is an idication that most companies are not making money, thus laying off workers and cutting costs... thus a recession? Seriously. Back this shit up. What MANUFACTURING company is making a profit?

Seriously, WTF?

Actually I disagree. I'm sure there are lots of people who work for Wal-Mart who care about such things. However, many have no choice but to work for the company. Chances are that some of them owned or worked for Mom and Pop businesses in Podunk, USA, before they were put out of business. The fat cats on top, however, are a whole other story.

Of course, if they were told the story when the box arrived, they might care, but that isn't reality, Judy. Does the buyer/cashier/stocker/consumer of the fabric research the spool they are buying to see if anyone died in the factory that the spool was produced? Are the statistics even reported? Hell no.

Again, Judy, you are disagreeing for the sake of being obsinent on a point that we should agree on! I am acknowledging unethical business practices as a motivator for responsible business practices. You are hell bent on forming any lame arguement you can rather than reading the point.


I stand by the claim that corporations are immoral for taking jobs out of America that could be done here, especially when they have taken jobs out to be done by those doing slave-type labor.

This is where we disagree. They are not immoral, they are trying to ensure business profitability and thus, survival.



Yes, greed again.

without it, you wouldn't be able to afford a car.

I wasn't speaking of your husband in particular. I was speaking of companies that do that. If that's on him, so be it. If it doesn't describe him, then don't make it that way.

Fucking lame. You said No, it's delusional to pretend that one isn't unethical because he can close his eyes and pretend that he doesn't know to what he is contributing.

This is you placing blame on him, then backpedaling.

You're still not making sense. This didn't even address what I said in terms of the consumer.

I am making perfect sense Judy. Your statement about "enough people buying American" is a delusional hope. You yourself said that there aren't enough goods made 100% in America.


Why is it irrelevant? Because it makes you feel better to think it's beyond your control to do anything? Let's just all sit back and not worry about being ethical since what one person does doesn't really matter.

That is the opposite of what I have been arguing. Again, I am not surprised you stooped to this red herring. I have been taking the logical approach of returning manufacturing jobs to the US while still remianing competitive with the global economy. Bring back jobs, bring back higher safety standards, find ways to keep costs low. American companies would rather build here, and many, LIKE MY DH'S COMPANY ARE PAYING DEARLY to do so.


There are never guarantees in anything in life (except that ultimately we will die).



I don't expect to see a huge impact on my end, but I do want to be able to live with myself.



And that's a good thing? Wow. Tell that to the people whose cultures and ancestors were lost due to this greed.



Who is "we all"? Apparently not everyone is, or this wouldn't be an issue.



What good does it do? It puts my tiny amount of money into the companies that really do American business (which, sadly, isn't many) and pay American workers. It's quite obvious that I can't buy 100% American, but I certainly do when I can. Obviously, I can't boycott all companies, but I do research and try to buy from the ones who I feel are the most ethical. And, yes, if I have a choice between a product that's made in the US or in Asia, you can bet that I choose the former.



A semantics comment?



I seriously doubt many people don't know what Sherwin Williams does. :rolleyes: However, I don't know the other companies, so I'll have to research them.



I disagree. I agree with hidesome that they have us where they want us now.





Ahh, you mean they want to live and work in the US? Well, it's not like there's enough room here for all of them. I thought you meant that they wanted to work for American companies there doing slave labor. Regardless, what they want won't stop the government of China from doing what it wants.



I've never said that any of the corporations want to "destroy America," so I don't even know where you're getting that. Most, in fact, think they are building America's economy while they screw those who are doing slave labor. Of course, they don't worry about the loss of American jobs in the process, either. It's just collateral damage.

What types of things do these companies need foreign workers for that can't be done by American workers?[/QUOTE]

[Tweet]

American's are perfectly aware they are outsourcing to China to exploit workers who aren't being treated up to American standards and producing products that are likely not to hold up to them either, all for the sake of the biggest profit. I can't blame China for what we choose to do.


This, too. We're just as culpable.

[bocarioja]

My eyes are quite wide open as I type, but thanks for the suggestion anyway. What do you mean by an idealistic view? Of whom are you speaking there? Their plan has worked quite well. These huge corporations are making money out of the ass, and they have these developing countries right where they want them: in debt.

What corporations are making money now? I thought the stock market losing half its value is an idication that most companies are not making money, thus laying off workers and cutting costs... thus a recession? Seriously. Back this shit up. What MANUFACTURING company is making a profit?

Seriously, WTF?

Actually I disagree. I'm sure there are lots of people who work for Wal-Mart who care about such things. However, many have no choice but to work for the company. Chances are that some of them owned or worked for Mom and Pop businesses in Podunk, USA, before they were put out of business. The fat cats on top, however, are a whole other story.

Of course, if they were told the story when the box arrived, they might care, but that isn't reality, Judy. Does the buyer/cashier/stocker/consumer of the fabric research the spool they are buying to see if anyone died in the factory that the spool was produced? Are the statistics even reported? Hell no.

Again, Judy, you are disagreeing for the sake of being obsinent on a point that we should agree on! I am acknowledging unethical business practices as a motivator for responsible business practices. You are hell bent on forming any lame arguement you can rather than reading the point.


I stand by the claim that corporations are immoral for taking jobs out of America that could be done here, especially when they have taken jobs out to be done by those doing slave-type labor.

This is where we disagree. They are not immoral, they are trying to ensure business profitability and thus, survival.



Yes, greed again.

without it, you wouldn't be able to afford a car.

I wasn't speaking of your husband in particular. I was speaking of companies that do that. If that's on him, so be it. If it doesn't describe him, then don't make it that way.

Fucking lame. You said No, it's delusional to pretend that one isn't unethical because he can close his eyes and pretend that he doesn't know to what he is contributing.

This is you placing blame on him, then backpedaling.

You're still not making sense. This didn't even address what I said in terms of the consumer.

I am making perfect sense Judy. Your statement about "enough people buying American" is a delusional hope. You yourself said that there aren't enough goods made 100% in America.


Why is it irrelevant? Because it makes you feel better to think it's beyond your control to do anything? Let's just all sit back and not worry about being ethical since what one person does doesn't really matter.

That is the opposite of what I have been arguing. Again, I am not surprised you stooped to this red herring. I have been taking the logical approach of returning manufacturing jobs to the US while still remianing competitive with the global economy. Bring back jobs, bring back higher safety standards, find ways to keep costs low. American companies would rather build here, and many, LIKE MY DH'S COMPANY ARE PAYING DEARLY to do so.


There are never guarantees in anything in life (except that ultimately we will die).

Your Point?



I don't expect to see a huge impact on my end, but I do want to be able to live with myself.

If your goal is to support the American Economy, please, don't let your disagreement with me prevent you from doing business with the unethical, partially using foreign resources companies I have listed.



And that's a good thing? Wow. Tell that to the people whose cultures and ancestors were lost due to this greed.

Native American culture is so complex, some like the Iroquois benefited and welcomed trade with the French. Others like the Lake Erie tribes were obliterated by disease before they even knew what was going on.

Still, most suffered greatly by forces that were out of their control.

That snowball of shit is the same force that is at work in this economy, Judy. There are forces of change in place such as the crash in the housing market causing lack of confidence on other areas like retail and services.

If the settlers could go back and save the Natives, I'm sure they would. There are many stories of settlers and explorers working side by side and helping their native friends.

It suits your mood to take the most extreme stance and form a laughable stance, not rooted in logic... go ahead.


Who is "we all"? Apparently not everyone is, or this wouldn't be an issue.

Logical, educated people. I really can't believe you are disagreeing with this point. Profits are made when goods and services can flow freely between borders. When the goods even being allowed to enter the marketplace are being artificially controlled because inhumane practices are taking place, simply buying American doesn't fix the problem. IT may not be an option.

What good does it do? It puts my tiny amount of money into the companies that really do American business (which, sadly, isn't many) and pay American workers. It's quite obvious that I can't buy 100% American, but I certainly do when I can. Obviously, I can't boycott all companies, but I do research and try to buy from the ones who I feel are the most ethical. And, yes, if I have a choice between a product that's made in the US or in Asia, you can bet that I choose the former.

Again, good for you. I do the same, but you will find a way to disagree with that as well, no doubt.

This is why companies like my husbands, that you claimed are "greedy" and "ignore atrocities" are trying to keep jobs in the US. They want to maintain an American presence because it is ethical, and what will keep this economy going through these difficult times.



A semantics comment?

What ever you think helps the lame argument.


I disagree. I agree with hidesome that they have us where they want us now.

Then what was the point of your OP?

Ahh, you mean they want to live and work in the US? Well, it's not like there's enough room here for all of them. I thought you meant that they wanted to work for American companies there doing slave labor. Regardless, what they want won't stop the government of China from doing what it wants.

They are eligable for American benefits if they work for American companies in foreign countries. No, they do not have to live here. :rolleyes

I've never said that any of the corporations want to "destroy America," so I don't even know where you're getting that. Most, in fact, think they are building America's economy while they screw those who are doing slave labor. Of course, they don't worry about the loss of American jobs in the process, either. It's just collateral damage.

If this statement doesn't illustrate what you think is destroying America, I have no idea what the hell you are trying to say.

What types of things do these companies need foreign workers for that can't be done by American workers?

An American worker wants $15-30 an hour to screw parts together, plus 401k matching, plus health insurance. A Chinese worker just wants a roof and a job. For companies that want to cut costs, moving to China is tempting if not appealing.

I am not arguing that greed isn't a component, I am disagreeing with the idea that
1. buying American will fix our problems
2. all companies keeping jobs in the US will make companies stronger

Outsourcing has its place, but it has been abused of late and doesn't always work as evidenced by unsafe products and lack of customer support.

[JudyJudyJudy]

What corporations are making money now? I thought the stock market losing half its value is an idication that most companies are not making money, thus laying off workers and cutting costs... thus a recession? Seriously. Back this shit up. What MANUFACTURING company is making a profit?

Seriously, WTF?
I didn't know we were speaking of only manufacturing companies. They aren't the only companies who make money off developing countries. The oil companies, which made huge profits last year, come to mind. As for manufacturing, though, for starters, Wal-Mart, who, as you said, started all this unethical manufacturing, made a profit, as did Nike. Also, even if a company isn't shown as making a profit (thus, benefiting shareholders), it doesn't mean that the big dogs aren't still earning out the ass from the company and the slave labor that is going on in other countries.


Of course, if they were told the story when the box arrived, they might care, but that isn't reality, Judy. Does the buyer/cashier/stocker/consumer of the fabric research the spool they are buying to see if anyone died in the factory that the spool was produced? Are the statistics even reported? Hell no.
Statistics or not, I disagree that if these workers were aware of the business practices in other countries and that people were dying (many aren't educated on any of this), they wouldn't care. Perhaps they'd feel like you do and feel like one person can't do anything, but I disagree that they wouldn't care.


Again, Judy, you are disagreeing for the sake of being obsinent on a point that we should agree on! I am acknowledging unethical business practices as a motivator for responsible business practices. You are hell bent on forming any lame arguement you can rather than reading the point.
Do you have another word that you could perhaps use besides constantly using "lame"? You've used it over and over, and, no, I'm not "hellbent on forming a lame argument." What would be the purpose of that?


This is where we disagree. They are not immoral, they are trying to ensure business profitability and thus, survival.
Businesses can survive without being unethical.


without it, you wouldn't be able to afford a car.
Without greed? Are you serious? You truly think one has to be greedy to be able to have a car? In these areas, you have to have a car in order to work and have food and a place to live. That doesn't make one greedy. FWIW, though, my car has over 200,000 miles on it and is currently not running; we are now a one-car family. Dh's car has 250,000 miles on it. He has to have it to work. Are you seriously calling that greed?


Fucking lame. You said
No, it's delusional to pretend that one isn't unethical because he can close his eyes and pretend that he doesn't know to what he is contributing.
This is you placing blame on him, then backpedaling.
That use of the word "lame" again. :nono:

No, that isn't my putting the blame on your husband. Do you not understand the structure of English grammar? I used the general pronoun "one" in that sentence, and that was the antecedent for the pronoun "he"; almost always I use "he" in general since that's what we were taught to use when I was in school. If I had meant your husband, I would have said "your husband" rather than "one." Only your husband knows whether or not any of this applies to him. I don't do his job, so I certainly don't know.


I am making perfect sense Judy. Your statement about "enough people buying American" is a delusional hope. You yourself said that there aren't enough goods made 100% in America.
Apparently Tweet it delusional, too. Bless her heart. I find it funny that I'm delusional because I feel that individuals can at least try to make a difference.


That is the opposite of what I have been arguing. Again, I am not surprised you stooped to this red herring. I have been taking the logical approach of returning manufacturing jobs to the US while still remianing competitive with the global economy. Bring back jobs, bring back higher safety standards, find ways to keep costs low. American companies would rather build here, and many, LIKE MY DH'S COMPANY ARE PAYING DEARLY to do so.
Okay, so now I stooped. "lol9" I can't say that I'm surprised by this comment, either.

I must have missed this logical approach of which you now speak. I kept seeing that one person can't make a difference.

[bocarioja]

I put "sell out" in quotes because it's an expression. Do you truly think that American companies in China "practice common decency towards their employees in the workplace"? How well do they pay them? Do they make a living wage without having to work around the clock? Do they treat the environment with care so that the workers will be protected off the job? What benefits do they gain by having factories there instead in the many empty buildings we have here?

So it's only Wal-Mart, and no other corporations are responsible for following suit? I do blame Wal-Mart and some other huge corporations the most, but that doesn't mean that the others who followed in their lead are blameless.

Speaking for Dh's company, yes, they do treat their employees ethically in China. More than half their employees relocated voluntarily from the US. Adjusted, they make more than what they would bring home in the US. The downfall is that their phone calls are monitored, they need permission to fly home to the US to see their family, they can't speak out against the government or else they risk jail...

You don't appreciate the American version of freedom until you don't have it, and they want to come home. There are those born in China who are baffled by the concept of writing a letter criticising the government that will be publiished ina newspaper. I made dinner for a few of them this week. all 4 of them said that they would take a lower paying job in the US just to feel what it might be like to work in an area other than computers. Their "life" was chosen for them when they were kids.

[JudyJudyJudy]

Your Point?
There was no point. I was addressing your pointless comment.


If your goal is to support the American Economy, please, don't let your disagreement with me prevent you from doing business with the unethical, partially using foreign resources companies I have listed.
I haven't had a need for paint, but if I do, if Sherwin-Williams paint is made in China, I won't be buying it.

(eta: This isn't entirely accurate. I do have a need for paint, but since the paints that qualify as "no VOC" are so expensive, I haven't researched the companies yet.)


Native American culture is so complex, some like the Iroquois benefited and welcomed trade with the French. Others like the Lake Erie tribes were obliterated by disease before they even knew what was going on.

Still, most suffered greatly by forces that were out of their control.

That snowball of shit is the same force that is at work in this economy, Judy. There are forces of change in place such as the crash in the housing market causing lack of confidence on other areas like retail and services.
I truly can't believe that you are comparing the current problems with our economy to what was done to Native Americans. I'm seriously sitting here with my mouth agape.


If the settlers could go back and save the Natives, I'm sure they would. There are many stories of settlers and explorers working side by side and helping their native friends.
And even more not so nice stories.


It suits your mood to take the most extreme stance and form a laughable stance, not rooted in logic... go ahead.
It's laughable because you don't agree. Now that's what is laughable.


Logical, educated people. I really can't believe you are disagreeing with this point. Profits are made when goods and services can flow freely between borders.
Of course, profits for the large corporations and their shareholders, but where does that put the people who lost their jobs when these companies outsourced to other countries? Corporations aren't the only ones that matter; the average worker does as well.


When the goods even being allowed to enter the marketplace are being artificially controlled because inhumane practices are taking place, simply buying American doesn't fix the problem. IT may not be an option.
It may not fix the problem, but as I said before, I do what allows me to sleep better at night. Also, when I can't buy American, if at all possible, I buy something other than "Made in China" because I don't trust the products that come from there. In reality, it's a damned shame that we've put ourselves in a position where there are sometimes no options to NOT buy something made in China.


What ever you think helps the lame argument.
And again.


Then what was the point of your OP?
For discussion. What else?


They are eligable for American benefits if they work for American companies in foreign countries. No, they do not have to live here. :rolleyes
Roll your eyes all you want. You are the one who said that they want jobs in the US:

Originally Posted by bocarioja
My husband works with Chinese citizens, controlled by their government, who want nothing more than to be offered a job in the US.
What exactly did you expect me to think it meant? :confused:


If this statement doesn't illustrate what you think is destroying America, I have no idea what the hell you are trying to say.
Which statement? The one you posted right after it? This one?
What types of things do these companies need foreign workers for that can't be done by American workers?
No, I don't see how that illustrates that I'm saying that. I'd appreciate your not putting words in my mouth.


An American worker wants $15-30 an hour to screw parts together, plus 401k matching, plus health insurance. A Chinese worker just wants a roof and a job. For companies that want to cut costs, moving to China is tempting if not appealing.

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner. We're back full circle now.

FWIW, people where I grew up screw parts together for $6 and change, yet their factories have closed and moved outside the borders of the US because just having to give a worker a roof and a job is tempting and appealing to greedy corporations that are only concerned about their own pockets.

[bocarioja]

I didn't know we were speaking of only manufacturing companies. They aren't the only companies who make money off developing countries. The oil companies, which made huge profits last year, come to mind. As for manufacturing, though, for starters, Wal-Mart, who, as you said, started all this unethical manufacturing, made a profit, as did Nike. Also, even if a company isn't shown as making a profit (thus, benefiting shareholders), it doesn't mean that the big dogs aren't still earning out the ass from the company and the slave labor that is going on in other countries.

Of course you struggle with this one. Never once has every other company that has existed come into this debate. Even the examples that I listed are manufacturing. Those are the ones most hurt by this whole situation.

Walmart is not a manufacturing company.

Its funny you mentioned Nike because I have a good friend that work for them. their profits are down: http://www.wwd.com/business-news/nike-profits-down-in-quarter-1799368?justin=1799368

Perhaps that is why you didn't post a link?




Statistics or not, I disagree that if these workers were aware of the business practices in other countries and that people were dying (many aren't educated on any of this), they wouldn't care. Perhaps they'd feel like you do and feel like one person can't do anything, but I disagree that they wouldn't care.

I didn't say they wouldn't care, Judy. I said they would never find out. BIG difference.



Do you have another word that you could perhaps use besides constantly using "lame"? You've used it over and over, and, no, I'm not "hellbent on forming a lame argument." What would be the purpose of that?

What can I say, I'm arguing with you? it's all that comes to mind.



Businesses can survive without being unethical.

THis is what I argued on the first page. You seem to think that doing foreign business automatically equalls unethical.

Without greed? Are you serious? You truly think one has to be greedy to be able to have a car? In these areas, you have to have a car in order to work and have food and a place to live. That doesn't make one greedy. FWIW, though, my car has over 200,000 miles on it and is currently not running; we are now a one-car family. Dh's car has 250,000 miles on it. He has to have it to work. Are you seriously calling that greed?

This isn't even close to what I was arguing. Nice try.


That use of the word "lame" again. :nono:

You insipre me


No, that isn't my putting the blame on your husband. Do you not understand the structure of English grammar? I used the general pronoun "one" in that sentence, and that was the antecedent for the pronoun "he"; almost always I use "he" in general since that's what we were taught to use when I was in school. If I had meant your husband, I would have said "your husband" rather than "one." Only your husband knows whether or not any of this applies to him. I don't do his job, so I certainly don't know.

Please, the "if he can sleep at night..." keep backpedaling. I understand the language enough to not have to resort to passive agressive attacks and red herring semantics.

Apparently Tweet it delusional, too. Bless her heart. I find it funny that I'm delusional because I feel that individuals can at least try to make a difference.

Again, his company is trying to make a differnce by keeping jobs in the US, even when it isn't the most profitable decision. "Greed," in this sense is , going after sales in foreign nations, while producing goods using American labor within an American owned company, making American products . I can see how you might disagree with that, so bless both yer hearts.

[bocarioja]

Perhaps I should have used the word ambition in regard to his company.

There is nothing greedy about forgoing cost cutting measures so American Families can eat.

Still, don't buy the tools because they sell to China. Boycott an American Company for factors out of their control.

That'll fix everything.

[JudyJudyJudy]

Of course you struggle with this one. Never once has every other company that has existed come into this debate. Even the examples that I listed are manufacturing. Those are the ones most hurt by this whole situation.

Walmart is not a manufacturing company.
As you yourself pointed out, Wal-Mart was the leader in all of this. They do indeed have their own manufacturing bases.


Its funny you mentioned Nike because I have a good friend that work for them. their profits are down: http://www.wwd.com/business-news/nike-profits-down-in-quarter-1799368?justin=1799368

Perhaps that is why you didn't post a link?
Perhaps you should look for a more current link, one from December instead of September:

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2008/dec/18/overseas-sales-drive-nike-profit/

Shoe and apparel company Nike Inc. said Wednesday that, despite weak domestic sales, its profit grew 9 percent in the second-quarter on strong sales overseas.

The Beaverton, Ore.-based company reported its net income rose to $391 million, or 80 cents per share, compared with net income of $359.4 million, or 71 cents per share, in the same quarter last year.

The company said its total revenue grew 6 percent to $4.6 billion, from $4.3 billion last year. Changes in currency exchange rates boosted revenue by 1 percentage point for the quarter.

Regardless, even if their profits were down, that wouldn't mean that they're not still making a profit. It simply would have meant that they were making less profit, which isn't the case anyway. You should know me well enough by now to know that I had already researched that before I posted Nike as an example.


I didn't say they wouldn't care, Judy. I said they would never find out. BIG difference.
Yes, you did say they don't care in your first post about it; you changed your wording the second time around. From post #34:
Those that work for wal-mart don't care if a child died to make a spool of fabric, and that the local fabric store in business for 150 years in Poduk ID is now out of business.


What can I say, I'm arguing with you? it's all that comes to mind.
Yay, such a champion debater.


This isn't even close to what I was arguing. Nice try.
Then please explain what you meant when you said, "Without greed, you wouldn't be able to afford a car"? I truly didn't understand.


Please, the "if he can sleep at night..." keep backpedaling. I understand the language enough to not have to resort to passive agressive attacks and red herring semantics.
Believe what you wish. I know grammar well enough that I don't need to resort to those. Since you keep wanting to say that I'm painting your husband with that brush, I'll say that if he is behind outsourcing, then, yes, I'm including him. If he's not, then I'm not.


Again, his company is trying to make a differnce by keeping jobs in the US, even when it isn't the most profitable decision. "Greed," in this sense is , going after sales in foreign nation keeping the American company, making American products in business. I can see how you might disagree with that, so bless both yer hearts.
He (and, yes, I'm referring to your husband this time) has to choose what he feels is ethical for himself. If I'm correctly understanding what he does, I would feel unethical doing it.

[bocarioja]

I truly can't believe that you are comparing the current problems with our economy to what was done to Native Americans. I'm seriously sitting here with my mouth agape.


You brought up the point here. If not this, when WTH were you talking about?
And that's a good thing? Wow. Tell that to the people whose cultures and ancestors were lost due to this greed.


It may not fix the problem, but as I said before, I do what allows me to sleep better at night. Also, when I can't buy American, if at all possible, I buy something other than "Made in China" because I don't trust the products that come from there. In reality, it's a damned shame that we've put ourselves in a position where there are sometimes no options to NOT buy something made in China. I have never disagreed with this point

Of course, profits for the large corporations and their shareholders, but where does that put the people who lost their jobs when these companies outsourced to other countries? Corporations aren't the only ones that matter; the average worker does as well.


But you want to boycott business that could help this worker simply because business is done in foreign countries. Does that help you sleep well, too?

[JudyJudyJudy]

Perhaps I should have used the word ambition in regard to his company.

There is nothing greedy about forgoing cost cutting measures so American Families can eat.

Still, don't buy the tools because they sell to China. Boycott an American Company for factors out of their control.

That'll fix everything.
Choosing to send jobs to people in China simply because they are happy with a "job and a roof" instead of paying workers livable wages is not beyond a company's control. Aiding and abetting isn't much better. In reality, though, when I'm looking to buy a product, I look at where it's assembled and where the parts are made. Unless I just happen across the information while researching a company's products, chances are I'd never know what else a company does if all of its products and parts are made in the US.

[JudyJudyJudy]

Originally posted by JudyJudyJudy:
You brought up the point here. If not this, when WTH were you talking about?
Originally posted by JudyJudyJudy:
And that's a good thing? Wow. Tell that to the people whose cultures and ancestors were lost due to this greed.

Wow, boca, have you forgotten what you posted? That comment was in response to this comment by you:

I think greed can be a positive motivator to making money. The US would never have been established if it wasn't for greed.

__________________________________________________ _______________


But you want to boycott business that could help this worker simply because business is done in foreign countries. Does that help you sleep well, too?
If I feel that what a company is doing is unethical, then absolutely.

[bocarioja]

As you yourself pointed out, Wal-Mart was the leader in all of this. They do indeed have their own manufacturing bases.



Perhaps you should look for a more current link, one from December instead of September:

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2008/dec/18/overseas-sales-drive-nike-profit/


Their stock tells a better story

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=nke


Regardless, even if their profits were down, that wouldn't mean that they're not still making a profit. It simply would have meant that they were making less profit, which isn't the case anyway. You should know me well enough by now to know that I had already researched that before I posted Nike as an example.

going back to the argument:

While they manufacture in foreign countries and have been reported to committ human atrocities in the past, they are working to correct those problems, educate the youth in the villages where their factories are located, runs an office in Portland OR that employs thousands of people, and had been instrumental in making improvements globally. Have the fucked up? Yes. Does closing the business due to lack of profit benefit anyone globally? NO.




Then please explain what you meant when you said, "Without greed, you wouldn't be able to afford a car"? I truly didn't understand.

Without auto companies moving operations to cheaper counties, cars would cost even more than they do now. It is cheaper to assemble them here due to transportation costs, but the parts can be made anywhere. Chevy Cobalts are made down the road from me. The parts are nearly 100% foreign, and they can offer that car on the lot for less than $9k.


Believe what you wish. I know grammar well enough that I don't need to resort to those. Since you keep wanting to say that I'm painting your husband with that brush, I'll say that if he is behind outsourcing, then, yes, I'm including him. If he's not, then I'm not.


He (and, yes, I'm referring to your husband this time) has to choose what he feels is ethical for himself. If I'm correctly understanding what he does, I would feel unethical doing it.

Please. I know you well enough to know personal attacks are your style when you're losing a debate. You attacked his character, now you are suggesting that he is somehow associated with job outsourcing....

Through this whole debate, I have said this his company is not outsourcing, but you have never acknowledged that.

Then, you backpeddled, even after I quoted you. Its funny to me because you made up this accusation of me attacking your character a while back when I never came close. Then you resport to attacking his character, associating him with outsourcing, as though it is a main support of your debate.

Seriously, I know you can't stand me, but this is fucked up. Even for you.

I was commenting that China is a country to be worried about, and you said that all companies were greedy. I tried to show you that wasn't true, and that ethical companies are battling inhumane Chinese business tactics... now you're attacking my husband?

Im going to bed.

[bocarioja]

Choosing to send jobs to people in China simply because they are happy with a "job and a roof" instead of paying workers livable wages is not beyond a company's control. Aiding and abetting isn't much better. In reality, though, when I'm looking to buy a product, I look at where it's assembled and where the parts are made. Unless I just happen across the information while researching a company's products, chances are I'd never know what else a company does if all of its products and parts are made in the US.

It is when they may be faced with closing due to high manufacturing costs.

When a company is faced with a choice

1. Move manufactuing operations to Mexico or China and keep US corporate workers employed

or

2. Close down operations completely

What should happen? really?

[JudyJudyJudy]

Their stock tells a better story

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=nke
Quarterly earnings tell a better story.


going back to the argument:

While they manufacture in foreign countries and have been reported to committ human atrocities in the past, they are working to correct those problems, educate the youth in the villages where their factories are located, runs an office in Portland OR that employs thousands of people, and had been instrumental in making improvements globally. Have the fucked up? Yes. Does closing the business due to lack of profit benefit anyone globally? NO.
They? Are you speaking of Nike or of your husband's company? I'm assuming you mean Nike.


Without auto companies moving operations to cheaper counties, cars would cost even more than they do now. It is cheaper to assemble them here due to transportation costs, but the parts can be made anywhere. Chevy Cobalts are made down the road from me. The parts are nearly 100% foreign, and they can offer that car on the lot for less than $9k.
I'm not sure that it's good that people can so freely buy new cars. Too many resources are wasted, so, no, I'm still not in favor of greed.



Please. I know you well enough to know personal attacks are your style when you're losing a debate.
Who determined that I was losing? You? You nor I get to determine that. I certainly don't feel that I'm losing it since you have made some rather strange points (such as greed is good; the US wouldn't have been founded without it) to defend your argument.


You attacked his character,
You are certainly free to believe that if you so wish. Once again, if he fits what I've said I think is unethical, then, yes, I'm speaking of him. If he doesn't fit it, then I'm not speaking of him.

now you are suggesting that he is somehow associated with job outsourcing....
I used the word "if." I didn't say he was.


Through this whole debate, I have said this his company is not outsourcing, but you have never acknowledged that.
I'm glad that they're not. However, I will say that I got confused at times and wasn't sure if you were speaking of his company or in general when you spoke of the appeal of sending jobs to China because they are happy with a "job and a roof." I'm glad you clarified.


Then, you backpeddled, even after I quoted you.
Nope, no backpedaling. I'm saying the same thing I said before. I'm truly surprised that you don't understand what the word "one" means. As I've said over and over again, if he's involved in any of the activities that I think are unethical, then I am attacking him. If he is not involved in such activities, then I'm not attacking him. You say that he's not involved in such things, so I must not be attacking him. Make up your mind. "lol9"


Its funny to me because you made up this accusation of me attacking your character a while back when I never came close.
I am seriously laughing now. I knew that when you started your accusations of my attacking his character, it was going back to the other thread.


Then you resport to attacking his character, associating him with outsourcing, as though it is a main support of your debate.
Please show me where I said that he is involved with outsourcing. Repeatedly, I've said "if he is" and "if he is not." I have never said that he is.


Seriously, I know you can't stand me, but this is fucked up. Even for you.
And I'm supposed to take you seriously. :gig:


I was commenting that China is a country to be worried about, and you said that all companies were greedy.
Once again, you're changing my words. I said "most":
Since most big American corporations tend to be greedy


I tried to show you that wasn't true, and that ethical companies are battling inhumane Chinese business tactics... now you're attacking my husband?
I missed where they were battling inhumane Chinese business tactics. I went back and read your first few posts again, and I still don't see it. However, I do see that your husband's company is selling to these factories (thus, most likely contributing to these inhumane practices). You say that it's a necessity for the business. I say that it if I'm understanding correctly, I would feel unethical doing it. If you consider that to be an attack on your husband, then so be it.

[JudyJudyJudy]

Screwed up and double posted while trying to edit.

[JudyJudyJudy]

Back to the original topic, though, it truly scares me that the US is so indebted to China. China could royally screw us. I don't think a lot of Americans realize that.

[JudyJudyJudy]

What corporations are making money now? I thought the stock market losing half its value is an idication that most companies are not making money, thus laying off workers and cutting costs... thus a recession? Seriously. Back this shit up. What MANUFACTURING company is making a profit?

Seriously, WTF?

In googling I see that a lot are still making a profit. Most just aren't making as much as they were before. That doesn't mean that no profit is being made, though. That's not how it works.

The stockmarket doesn't indicate whether or not a company is making a profit. It's basically a betting game where investors bet which companies are worth putting money into. When profits fall, even if the company is still making a profit, people are less likely to invest in the company. If no company was making a profit, we'd already be in a depression, not a recession. As long as a company is making a profit, the big dogs, the ones I'm talking about when I say that a company is making money, are going to get their shares regardless of how many others lose their jobs.

Here are just a few that show a profit. If you google, you'll find many, many more. The scary part is that we don't know how long these or any other companies will continue to show a profit. Right now some of the fat cats are apparently not worried since they're still living high.


IBM:

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/01/21/ibm-profits.html

IBM's 2009 profit outlook rosier than expected

Last Updated: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 | 10:25 AM ET

The Associated Press

In what promises to be a dismal year for technology spending, IBM Corp. packed a wallop of a surprise with its 2009 profit forecast, which was far ahead of Wall Street's forecast, even as sales fell.

The Armonk, N.Y.-based company predicted at least $9.20 US per share in profit in 2009, a full 45 cents per share better than the average estimate of analysts polled by Thomson Reuters.

The bullish forecast reflects the company's belief that it can outmanoeuvre the financial crisis by focusing on services and software deals that carry big profit margins but also help businesses cut costs by offloading some of their tech chores.

IBM revealed the rosy forecast Tuesday as it reported profit for the fourth quarter of 2008 that also sailed past analyst estimates. Overall sales fell six per cent.

IBM's net income for the period was $4.4 billion US, or $3.28 US per share. That amounted to a 12 per cent profit increase from $3.95 billion US, or $2.80 US per share, in the same period a year earlier.

Analysts were expecting IBM to earn $3.03 US per share this time.


3M:

http://www.reuters.com/article/hotStocksNews/idUSTRE50S33O20090129

NEW YORK (Reuters) - 3M Co (MMM.N) said on Thursday that fourth-quarter profit and sales fell due to the economic downturn, but the company's stock rose 3 percent on hopes that the industrial manufacturer is well-positioned for growth in the latter half of 2009.

The St. Paul, Minnesota, company is a bellwether of the U.S. economy because of its geographic reach and broad lineup of products including everything from Scotch tape to optical films for liquid crystal displays,

3M said quarterly earnings fell to $536 million, or 77 cents per share, compared with $851 million, or $1.17 per share, a year earlier.



Abercromie:

http://www.reuters.com/article/hotStocksNews/idUSTRE51C2XH20090213

Abercrombie profit tops view, shares surge

Fri Feb 13, 2009 11:50am EST

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Teen clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch (ANF.N) beat Wall Street profit expectations on Friday and said it is optimistic about international expansion, lifting its shares more than 13 percent.

Abercrombie also said it is reviewing its operating expenses, has already started to cut costs and plans significantly less in capital expenditures this year.



Speaking of Avery Dennison, which you mentioned earlier, it also had profit this past year:

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/03/13/ap6165594.html

Their profits were down from 2007, but they still had a substantial profit. Like I stated before, just because a company had a decline in profits doesn't mean the company isn't making a profit.

Last year the recession hurt company results. Avery Dennison reported a 2008 profit decline of 12 percent to $266.1 million, or $2.70 per share, from $303.5 million, or $3.07 per share, in 2007. Revenue rose last year by 6 percent to $6.71 billion.


The CEO isn't hurting, either.

I also found this quite interesting about Avery Dennison:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-avery12-2009jan12,0,2968780.story

In one case, according to interviews and a copy of a signed contract reviewed by The Times, Avery received an order to supply $375,000 worth of reflective safety products for highway jobs in Tianjin, east of Beijing, and paid a commission of about 8% to an enterprise operated by a friend of Chen's.

Chen's friend, Guo Longjun of Beijing, said he had passed the money on to "experts," whom he wouldn't identify.

Such payments may be part of an ongoing federal investigation into whether Avery violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits U.S. businesses from bribing foreign officials.

But the possible corruption case has proved anything but small. Sales in the reflective-materials unit have plunged. Avery has pushed out at least eight employees and managers. Several other senior staff members have quit in frustration.

Among them was Timothy Li, 58, who resigned as business development director of Avery's reflective and graphics division in Asia, based in Hong Kong. He said he had warned regional bosses about using consultants and other questionable tactics to secure contracts.

"I told them it's risky and I don't like to do these kinds of things," Li said in an interview, his voice rising and his arms clenching his chest.


Perhaps the company isn't as ethical as you think. Just because a company says it's ethical doesn't make it so.

[bocarioja]

Nope, no backpedaling. I'm saying the same thing I said before. I'm truly surprised that you don't understand what the word "one" means. As I've said over and over again, if he's involved in any of the activities that I think are unethical, then I am attacking him. If he is not involved in such activities, then I'm not attacking him. You say that he's not involved in such things, so I must not be attacking him. Make up your mind. "lol9"


Please show me where I said that he is involved with outsourcing. Repeatedly, I've said "if he is" and "if he is not." I have never said that he is.



I missed where they were battling inhumane Chinese business tactics. I went back and read your first few posts again, and I still don't see it. However, I do see that your husband's company is selling to these factories (thus, most likely contributing to these inhumane practices). You say that it's a necessity for the business. I say that it if I'm understanding correctly, I would feel unethical doing it. If you consider that to be an attack on your husband, then so be it.

So, besides my husband being indrectly responsible for human atrocities, your main arguement states that its unethical for American companies to do business globally because foreign nations do not treat their workers to your standards? Yes, Many in China will work cheaper and underbid any American simply to get out of the fields and have a chance at education for their children. It is sad to us who are used to much higher standards, but many there see it as an opportunity.

I completely disagree with the idea that boycotting American businesses, for these ethical reasons will result in improvements in global living conditions.

In addition, the continued closing of American business, regardles of where they produce or sell goods does nothing to improve standards of living anywhere.

[bocarioja]

In googling I see that a lot are still making a profit. Most just aren't making as much as they were before. That doesn't mean that no profit is being made, though. That's not how it works.

The stockmarket doesn't indicate whether or not a company is making a profit. It's basically a betting game where investors bet which companies are worth putting money into. When profits fall, even if the company is still making a profit, people are less likely to invest in the company. If no company was making a profit, we'd already be in a depression, not a recession. As long as a company is making a profit, the big dogs, the ones I'm talking about when I say that a company is making money, are going to get their shares regardless of how many others lose their jobs.

Here are just a few that show a profit. If you google, you'll find many, many more. The scary part is that we don't know how long these or any other companies will continue to show a profit. Right now some of the fat cats are apparently not worried since they're still living high.


IBM:

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/01/21/ibm-profits.html




3M:

http://www.reuters.com/article/hotStocksNews/idUSTRE50S33O20090129




Abercromie:

http://www.reuters.com/article/hotStocksNews/idUSTRE51C2XH20090213




Speaking of Avery Dennison, which you mentioned earlier, it also had profit this past year:

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/03/13/ap6165594.html

Their profits were down from 2007, but they still had a substantial profit. Like I stated before, just because a company had a decline in profits doesn't mean the company isn't making a profit.



The CEO isn't hurting, either.

I also found this quite interesting about Avery Dennison:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-avery12-2009jan12,0,2968780.story





Perhaps the company isn't as ethical as you think. Just because a company says it's ethical doesn't make it so.

These companies you listed: IBM, 3M, Abercrombie... all outsource labor to post these numbers, Judy. It is impossible to for these companies to still post these numbers if the jobs stayed here. It isn't possible, or China's manufacturing economy wouldn't exist. When profits are down, these companies outsource more. They have to. Companies are expected to make their numbers- Greed or not, that is the nature of business.

Using your logic, any company making a profit from outsourcing is unethical. Should all global companies become non-profits that exist solely for the purpose of making everyone happy?

China banks on US companies in cost cutting mode to attract US jobs. China has a vested interest in buying securities in addition to luring our jobs out of the country. Yet still, even as jobs leave, many people in the US still have jobs rather than the company closing completely.


And regarding Avery Dennison, a poor decision was made by a select handful of people who could go to jail for their bribe. Agreed, horrible. The foreign employees even left the company because they wanted to do the ethical thing. Lets shut the whole company down and fire thousands and thousands of people because of the poor decisions of a few desperate to win a contract.

In a perfect world, US companies would produce here and get all their resources here. Its not going to happen, no matter who you boycott.

[paper_]

FWIW, people where I grew up screw parts together for $6 and change, yet their factories have closed and moved outside the borders of the US because just having to give a worker a roof and a job is tempting and appealing to greedy corporations that are only concerned about their own pockets.


Between bouts of University, I worked at a manufacturing job full time for $6.25 an hour, no health, no retirement; same as all the other workers. Most of the manufacuring in the area was pretty similar. This was at the start of the huge wave of outsourcing. The work the company did is in China now. I don't see worker greed as a major factor in those job losses.

I also have to say that I havn't seen an inkling of judy unfairly attacking Boca's DH. She isn't saying that he IS unethical, simply that IF he is doing certain things she sees that as contributing to unethical behavior.

As for Boca's reason for Judy's supposed attacks, I don't buy it. I feel Judy is winning the argument hands down. Her arguments actually pushing me away from my traditional free trade roots.

[JudyJudyJudy]

So, besides my husband being indrectly responsible for human atrocities, your main arguement states that its unethical for American companies to do business globally because foreign nations do not treat their workers to your standards? Yes, Many in China will work cheaper and underbid any American simply to get out of the fields and have a chance at education for their children. It is sad to us who are used to much higher standards, but many there see it as an opportunity.
Once again, I am opposed to outsourcing, and I would feel that I was being unethical if I were knowingly selling to factories who treat their workers poorly. I think it's a shame that people who are making great livings, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars or even millions per year, are exploiting workers just because the workers don't feel that they have better choices.


I completely disagree with the idea that boycotting American businesses, for these ethical reasons will result in improvements in global living conditions.
This seems to be the root of the problem: the whole idea that individuals, or even companies, can't change things. It took individuals and companies to get us to where we are today; it'll take individuals and companies to change that. Will I see the change in my lifetime? Probably not, but this "if we can't beat 'em, join 'em" attitude certainly isn't going to improve anything.

In addition, the continued closing of American business, regardles of where they produce or sell goods does nothing to improve standards of living anywhere.
I'm not sure I'm getting your poinit here. If American businesses were paying workers here to do the work and then selling products, why would they need to close?


These companies you listed: IBM, 3M, Abercrombie... all outsource labor to post these numbers, Judy.
If you read back over what started this portion of the argument, that was my entire point. These companies go into places like China and screw the workers while the big dogs make a killing.


They have to. Companies are expected to make their numbers- Greed or not, that is the nature of business.
"They have to" is just an excuse.


Using your logic, any company making a profit from outsourcing is unethical. Should all global companies become non-profits that exist solely for the purpose of making everyone happy?
I think it is unethical to outsource (closing plants here and moving jobs elsewhere, etc.). I've never mentioned nonprofits or making anyone happy. I'm talking about doing the right thing.


China banks on US companies in cost cutting mode to attract US jobs. China has a vested interest in buying securities in addition to luring our jobs out of the country. Yet still, even as jobs leave, many people in the US still have jobs rather than the company closing completely.
And many do not, and it's not just in China that this is happening, either.


And regarding Avery Dennison, a poor decision was made by a select handful of people who could go to jail for their bribe. Agreed, horrible. The foreign employees even left the company because they wanted to do the ethical thing. Lets shut the whole company down and fire thousands and thousands of people because of the poor decisions of a few desperate to win a contract.

Assuming they did what they are accused of doing, they were unethical. There is no excuse for such wrongdoing. I haven't suggested shutting them down; I'm just pointing out that some of these companies that you think are ethical actually are involved in scummy business practices. They play the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" game, and if everyone has that attitude, then you're right that nothing will ever improve.

[JudyJudyJudy]

Paper, thanks. Like you, I used to be in favor of free trade. However, between researching it more, listening to others from other countries (not the ones at the top of the food chain who stand to benefit from it), and seeing so many factories closing down in already poor areas of the US where the workers weren't even being paid living wages as it was, my attitude about all of this has changed.

[hidesome]

Paper, thanks. Like you, I used to be in favor of free trade. However, between researching it more, listening to others from other countries (not the ones at the top of the food chain who stand to benefit from it), and seeing so many factories closing down in already poor areas of the US where the workers weren't even being paid living wages as it was, my attitude about all of this has changed.

No snark intended. I wonder how those who don't even have a job that "pays a living wage" now feel as their once crappy job moves overseas? It is simple economics. If a worker in China or Mexico or Iran can do the same job for less than a worker in the United States, that job will ulitmately go to China or Mexico or Iran. Frankly it should. The United States is in for a rude awakening. Work is not a "right". It is a privilege. The rest of the world (except France) understands this. China's economy is growing at an incredible rate. India has more engineering students than the United States has engineers. We watch youtube and complain about our healthcare benefits. It will come to haunt us."cathug"

[JudyJudyJudy]

No snark intended. I wonder how those who don't even have a job that "pays a living wage" now feel as their once crappy job moves overseas? It is simple economics. If a worker in China or Mexico or Iran can do the same job for less than a worker in the United States, that job will ulitmately go to China or Mexico or Iran. Frankly it should. The United States is in for a rude awakening. Work is not a "right". It is a privilege. The rest of the world (except France) understands this. China's economy is growing at an incredible rate. India has more engineering students than the United States has engineers. We watch youtube and complain about our healthcare benefits. It will come to haunt us."cathug"
Are you truly saying that because a worker in China will do a job for 64¢ per hour, companies should move the jobs overseas? Are you truly saying that there should be no minimum wage in this country—that if a worker isn't willing to work for 64¢ per hour, then fuck him; he shouldn't have a job?

I disagree that the rest of the world other than France "understands" this. Thankfully, Canada, Australia, and a lot of Europe somewhat understand that the citizens of their countries matter. In the places that "understand" this process like you do (China and much of the rest of Asia, most of Africa, and most of Latin America), people are literally starving to death. According to UNICEF, 26,500-30,000 children die each day due to poverty. That's not acceptable. It's not okay that a handful of people control almost all the money in the world while others are starving to death. I honestly can't wrap my mind around anyone thinking that this is okay.

[SingingMom]

It's not okay that a handful of people control almost all the money in the world while others are starving to death. I honestly can't wrap my mind around anyone thinking that this is okay.


Judy, you make it sound like Americans are selfishly hoarding money while other people starve. We "control almost all the money"? We are a wealthy nation- even our poor people generally get enough calories to be overweight and have television sets. But are we immoral just for being wealthy when others are not?

Are you implying that we should give all our wealth away to the starving nations? You are arguing against free trade- which offers many people a chance to earn more than they would ever otherwise be able to earn.

I'd worry about outsourcing from more of a business standpoint. Some nations, like India, lack the kind of infrastructure we take for granted; clean water and reliable electricity are not things you can take for granted all over India. I would worry about the vulnerability my business would have to disaster and civil unrest.

I don't see a clear path to morally acceptable behavior WRT to global trade. It all seems very murky to me.

I do think that investors in the stock market are turning company executives' collective attention from long term profitability to short term indicators of success, and that's bad for everybody.

I also think that American workers are going to have to adjust to living in a global market. That's the way it is, and I don't think it's going to change.

[JudyJudyJudy]

Judy, you make it sound like Americans are selfishly hoarding money while other people starve. We "control almost all the money"?
We (the general we, as in the large corporations) are immoral for exploiting the people in third world countries. We are immoral for making millions per year while we are only willing to pay pennies per hour for the work that is done.


We are a wealthy nation- even our poor people generally get enough calories to be overweight and have television sets. But are we immoral just for being wealthy when others are not?
That is the case now. However, that's because we now have laws that protect us, such as minimum wage. During most of the Great Depression, among the other economic problems, there were no minimum wage laws, and people were literally starving to death. The poor were far from overweight.


Are you implying that we should give all our wealth away to the starving nations?
Yeah, give them ALL of our wealth. Leave us with nothing. That is exactly what I'm advocating. *sarcasm*


You are arguing against free trade- which offers many people a chance to earn more than they would ever otherwise be able to earn.
I am arguing against immoral and corrupt free trade. It sickens me that people make themselves feel better by telling themselves, "Oh, well, they might still be starving, but they're making more than they were before." This is similar to how many slave owners made themselves feel better by telling themselves that the slaves were living better than they would be in Africa.


I also think that American workers are going to have to adjust to living in a global market. That's the way it is, and I don't think it's going to change.
Adjust in what ways? Work for cents per hour?

[hidesome]

Judy- It really doesn't matter what I think about workers making $0.64 per hour. The simple fact is that low cost goods and efficient manufacturing are the economic reality of the future for the vast majority of people on this planet. That fact will only get more accute as time goes on. I'd love for enlightnened people in the United States and Western Europe to make more money for the same product than their competition in Southeast Asia. Regardless of what you or I believe or want or desire or protest, the reality is that they won't continue to make more than the competition. The only way to continue having a leg up on the competition is to make better products using more advanced manufacturing and a high degree of innovation. Whining and moaning and crying foul to the US Government or the G8 won't cut it. In fact, ulitimately, we will all starve if we continue that tact. We will lead or be left behind.

[Iconoclast]

Boca and Hidesome are right, there is no reversing the tide of the global economy. China really is the worlds greatest superpower. The have the largest standing army in the world, the largest economy, and iron fisted control of the largest population. I don't think they really pose a huge threat to US though, because their relationship with US consummers is symbiotic.

The people who need to be scared shitless are the Taiwanese. I would be getting the hell out of there. That situation has been increasingly volatile for 40 years. Anyday now, and certainly within my lifetime, China is going to make a move on Taiwan. It is only a mattter of time. Tibet is going to be history too. The G8 response to that inevitiabilty is going to be the tipping point, not economic issues.

[Iconoclast]

The American industrial age is over. We can't go back, and there is no pragmatic benefit to be had mourrning it. The future is high tech, and the US worker needs to embrace that, or suffer. It is a hard, simple truth, and no amount of pointing out how unfair and unfortunate it is is going to change it.

[JudyJudyJudy]

The American industrial age is over. We can't go back, and there is no pragmatic benefit to be had mourrning it. The future is high tech, and the US worker needs to embrace that, or suffer. It is a hard, simple truth, and no amount of pointing out how unfair and unfortunate it is is going to change it.
I disagree that we should just sit back and do nothing. For starters, I like Obama's idea of ending tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas.

Also, I don't think it's wrong to want to change the inhumane conditions in which workers (yes, workers in American companies) are working. While you can say, "Oh, well, that will never change," many thought the same about slavery.

[Tweet]

I disagree that we should just sit back and do nothing. For starters, I like Obama's idea of ending tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas.

Also, I don't think it's wrong to want to change the inhumane conditions in which workers (yes, workers in American companies) are working. While you can say, "Oh, well, that will never change," many thought the same about slavery.


Exactly. The apathetic state so many seem to be in is depressing to me.

[Iconoclast]

Speaking only for myself, I am not at all apathetic. I'm pragmatic. And I don't necessarily even agree that it is a bad thing. Sometimes change hurts. I just am not of the mind to lament the unstoppable evolution of societies, technology and the world economy.

I don't think it is unreasonable to have decent standards in the workplace, nor am I opposed to changing corporate tax structure.

[hidesome]

I tend to be a social Darwinist. As such, I believe those who understand the situation (in this case the Chinese and Japanese) will prevail over those who do not (in this case the United States). Just as I don't think the US Governemnt or well wishing citizens can protect the rabbit from the falcon, I don't think they can protect GM from Toyota. The choice isn't about good benefits or bad. Rather it is about whether one is a falcon or a rabbit. Wishing it were some other way only ensures that we will remain rabbits.
Of course there will be those who say, "well, we Americans should buy GM products." Once upon a time I was one of them. The simple fact is that GM makes crap. Toyota doesn't. As a consumer, I feel it is not only my right, but my obligation to buy the best product at the best price. I buy Toyota and my grandfather ran a Buick dealership.
Obviously, I would prefer that GM make a quality product at a fair price. Unfortunately, to do so, they will have to convince BOTH their management and their employees that doing so will require some hard choices. Instead, we the taxpayer are forced to pay for their incompetent operations and higher-than-justified salaries and benefits. Meanwhile, their competition just makes better cars at a better price. If there was some way to take the US Government out of this loop, I would give my right eye to do so.

[JudyJudyJudy]

The topic of automobiles is one area where we actually agree—only for different reasons. I feel no obligation to buy "American" because so-called American vehicles aren't American-made anyway.

[Iconoclast]

Re: whether or not companies "have to" outsource, yeah, they really do. Publically held companies are accountable to the shareholders. As an investor, I would not invest in a company that didn't understand process engineering (ie lowest cost and highest productivity).

Without investor support, the companies wouldn't employ anyone for long. Then the GDP free falls, the value of the dollar plummets, inflation goes through the roof, the consumer price index rises, interest rates rise, credit tightens up, and then the companies (including small biz owners) that are still in business can't do business. They lay off their employees, cut benefits. Unemployment rises, which negatively affects consumer spending. This puts pressure on the fed. So the fed lowers the prime rate, but US buyers (large corporations, banks, hedge funds) don't buy b/c they didn't sell any stock options b/c they failed to meet the dividend forcast. So the Chinese buy all those cheap Tbills. Then someone at bfeedingdotcom starts a theread about it, and there you have it. They have to. ;)

[tata]

Judy, there isn't anything the matter with being angry or upset about the way things are. But that alone doesn't change the way things are.

I think there are some avenues to take to begin working on a solution: for one, improving education in the US (I don't care to research and post the actual stats of US vs. Chinese education, but I know that it was pretty profound 3 years ago when I last took an education course in college).

I think it'd do our kids (and maybe even folks of my generation) some good to see REAL poverty, too. According to US stats, my family is living below the poverty line, but we have running water - something that two-thirds of the world doesn't have.

Further, while back in college, I had to give a persuasive speech for a public speaking class. I wanted to convince my audience that minimum wage was a good thing, but my research proved to me that it really isn't (I opted for a different topic). I daresay that (in some cases) our jobs are being outsourced to other nations because minimum wage laws don't exist in those places. Moreover, while an American would be hard-pressed to make a liveable living on some of these wages, that may not be the case for the worker in a third-world country who would otherwise have no option.

I think the "American dream" is misleading: it's not possible for everyone to be rich. For capitalism to work, many (if not most) need to be poor. (While this is not necessarily the idea behind the theory of capitalism, it seems to me how it's manifested in practice). The gap between rich and poor in the US has been growing for a long time. It isn't going to get any better if we don't act quickly. We either need to make the necessary sacrifices to make ourselves more valuable in the free market (improve education and work ethic while agreeing to more reasonable salaries/wages) or.... I don't know. Start over from scratch?

[SingingMom]

I think the American Dream is largely here- we enjoy relatively cheap food. Most people have TVs and radios. We can afford to argue about universal health care. (Which I support, BTW- I'd like to get businesses out of the business of health care.)

I disagree with your reasoning about cheap food, Judy, I think our poor can afford food because food is relatively cheap. The cost of a calorie is way down from where it was in the Great Depression.

I am all for changing the world. But I don't think we can protect American workers from competing in a global marketplace. And yes, I think workers are going to have to accept pay cuts. We are all going to have to accept cuts in benefits, or find some other way to control the rising costs of health care. And I think we should, as a nation, invest in our infrastructure. Roads, dams, and power plants. Rail systems. Not as a "save the worker" ploy- we should do it because we need that infrastructure to function as a modern economy.

We should be aggressively trying to invest in education. And IMO, we should be trying to improve our technical skills as a nation. I think that Americans can compete.

I think we should restructure our curricula in public schools. For example, two years ago a California legislator passed legislation adding a mandatory section on Hindu history to the school curriculum. Indian immigrants spent lots of time arguing about how their history and culture should be presented. I have all respect for our Indian immigrants, but legislators shouldn't be dictating the curriculum! And why should any ethnic group get mandated time?

California's public schools are loaded with nonsense like this. And kids are still walking out illiterate and innumerate.

It is more common than not that a typical graduate of a CA State University takes five years, rather than four, to graduate. This is largely because the GE requirements have become so onerous that it takes an extra year to satisfy them. There are many majors where the GE requirements add more units than the major classes.

We need to cut the crap. We need, as a nation, to quit fixating on adding little jots and tittles to education and focus on actually educating people.

We need to take health care benefits out of businesses so that businesses can hire people for what they actually need, instead of fitting it into forty hour work weeks, to get the maximum return on the benefits they pay for with each employee. And so that small businesses can just hire the people they need for the hours they need. And so that the uninsured and poverty stricken can work without losing their benefits.

The gap between rich and poor is growing all over the world. We are part of the world! We can help other nations. We can invest in them, give them advice and help and loans, medicines and expertise. And we do.

[hidesome]

I think the American Dream is largely here- we enjoy relatively cheap food. Most people have TVs and radios. We can afford to argue about universal health care. (Which I support, BTW- I'd like to get businesses out of the business of health care.)

I disagree with your reasoning about cheap food, Judy, I think our poor can afford food because food is relatively cheap. The cost of a calorie is way down from where it was in the Great Depression.

I am all for changing the world. But I don't think we can protect American workers from competing in a global marketplace. And yes, I think workers are going to have to accept pay cuts. We are all going to have to accept cuts in benefits, or find some other way to control the rising costs of health care. And I think we should, as a nation, invest in our infrastructure. Roads, dams, and power plants. Rail systems. Not as a "save the worker" ploy- we should do it because we need that infrastructure to function as a modern economy.

We should be aggressively trying to invest in education. And IMO, we should be trying to improve our technical skills as a nation. I think that Americans can compete.

I think we should restructure our curricula in public schools. For example, two years ago a California legislator passed legislation adding a mandatory section on Hindu history to the school curriculum. Indian immigrants spent lots of time arguing about how their history and culture should be presented. I have all respect for our Indian immigrants, but legislators shouldn't be dictating the curriculum! And why should any ethnic group get mandated time?

California's public schools are loaded with nonsense like this. And kids are still walking out illiterate and innumerate.

It is more common than not that a typical graduate of a CA State University takes five years, rather than four, to graduate. This is largely because the GE requirements have become so onerous that it takes an extra year to satisfy them. There are many majors where the GE requirements add more units than the major classes.

We need to cut the crap. We need, as a nation, to quit fixating on adding little jots and tittles to education and focus on actually educating people.

We need to take health care benefits out of businesses so that businesses can hire people for what they actually need, instead of fitting it into forty hour work weeks, to get the maximum return on the benefits they pay for with each employee. And so that small businesses can just hire the people they need for the hours they need. And so that the uninsured and poverty stricken can work without losing their benefits.

The gap between rich and poor is growing all over the world. We are part of the world! We can help other nations. We can invest in them, give them advice and help and loans, medicines and expertise. And we do.


Well put.

[JudyJudyJudy]

Re: whether or not companies "have to" outsource, yeah, they really do. Publically held companies are accountable to the shareholders. As an investor, I would not invest in a company that didn't understand process engineering (ie lowest cost and highest productivity).

Without investor support, the companies wouldn't employ anyone for long. Then the GDP free falls, the value of the dollar plummets, inflation goes through the roof, the consumer price index rises, interest rates rise, credit tightens up, and then the companies (including small biz owners) that are still in business can't do business. They lay off their employees, cut benefits. Unemployment rises, which negatively affects consumer spending. This puts pressure on the fed. So the fed lowers the prime rate, but US buyers (large corporations, banks, hedge funds) don't buy b/c they didn't sell any stock options b/c they failed to meet the dividend forcast. So the Chinese buy all those cheap Tbills. Then someone at bfeedingdotcom starts a theread about it, and there you have it. They have to. ;)
This goes back to what hidesome earlier referred to as the greedy investor. It's a shame that people want to make top dollars without giving a damn about what's happening to others in the process.


I think there are some avenues to take to begin working on a solution: for one, improving education in the US (I don't care to research and post the actual stats of US vs. Chinese education, but I know that it was pretty profound 3 years ago when I last took an education course in college).
This argument doesn't hold. The people in China who are only making cents per hour certainly aren't benefiting from education.

Also, when you're comparing American education to that of other countries, don't forget to take into consideration that we attempt to educate ALL kids whereas most other countries do not.


I think it'd do our kids (and maybe even folks of my generation) some good to see REAL poverty, too. According to US stats, my family is living below the poverty line, but we have running water - something that two-thirds of the world doesn't have.
While I won't attempt to compare myself to those living in third world countries, I lived for a while as a child without indoor plumbing and running water (at least we had access to fairly safe water, though). We also went without heat for a while during the winter. When I was teaching, I had numerous students who still lived this way.


Further, while back in college, I had to give a persuasive speech for a public speaking class. I wanted to convince my audience that minimum wage was a good thing, but my research proved to me that it really isn't
My research on the topic proved differently. It's actually a vicious cycle, though, since those on top will always find a way to screw over those below them (such as raising the costs of everything). By that respect, the minimum wage doesn't accomplish what it should.


I disagree with your reasoning about cheap food, Judy, I think our poor can afford food because food is relatively cheap. The cost of a calorie is way down from where it was in the Great Depression.
The cost of the calorie may be way down, but I disagree that food is relatively cheap. The reason you see so many poor people who are obese is because they eat the cheaper, unhealthy, empty calories. That's NOT a good thing. One can be overfed yet undernourished, which is the case with many of these people. Calories aren't all that is needed for health.


I am all for changing the world. But I don't think we can protect American workers from competing in a global marketplace. And yes, I think workers are going to have to accept pay cuts. We are all going to have to accept cuts in benefits, or find some other way to control the rising costs of health care. And I think we should, as a nation, invest in our infrastructure. Roads, dams, and power plants. Rail systems. Not as a "save the worker" ploy- we should do it because we need that infrastructure to function as a modern economy.
Further pay cuts and fewer benefits only increase the gap between the rich and the poor and cause even fewer to be able to afford healthcare. This is already an issue, so, no, I'm certainly not in favor of making it worse. I read an interesting article recently that said that while most of the rest of the economy is down, the sales of supplements like vitamins and herbs are up, partly because so many people are trying to self-treat since they can't afford healthcare.


We should be aggressively trying to invest in education. And IMO, we should be trying to improve our technical skills as a nation. I think that Americans can compete.
And what are your suggestions for doing this? I've yet to see anyone propose a good plan. (Both Bush's plan and Obama's plan are horrible.) Also, it wouldn't matter if everyone in the nation had advanced degrees, someone is going to be scrubbing toilets and having a difficult time feeding and clothing their families and having access to healthcare.


I think we should restructure our curricula in public schools. For example, two years ago a California legislator passed legislation adding a mandatory section on Hindu history to the school curriculum. Indian immigrants spent lots of time arguing about how their history and culture should be presented. I have all respect for our Indian immigrants, but legislators shouldn't be dictating the curriculum! And why should any ethnic group get mandated time?

California's public schools are loaded with nonsense like this. And kids are still walking out illiterate and innumerate.
We don't teach Hindu history, yet our schools are behind yours. It's not as simple as it seems. Oddly enough, though, I bet not nearly as many of your Indian students as non-Asians are walking out illiterate and innumerate, and it's certainly not because they took Hindu history, so what's the explanation for that? Are you going to blame Hindu history for that difference?


We need to cut the crap. We need, as a nation, to quit fixating on adding little jots and tittles to education and focus on actually educating people.
Again, how? Be more specific.


We need to take health care benefits out of businesses so that businesses can hire people for what they actually need, instead of fitting it into forty hour work weeks, to get the maximum return on the benefits they pay for with each employee. And so that small businesses can just hire the people they need for the hours they need. And so that the uninsured and poverty stricken can work without losing their benefits.
You lost me here. Numerous people are uninsured. Are you wanting that to increase?


The gap between rich and poor is growing all over the world. We are part of the world! We can help other nations. We can invest in them, give them advice and help and loans, medicines and expertise. And we do.
"Can" and "do" are two totally different words. The businesses that are "investing" in the developing nations couldn't care less about giving them advice to improve their situations. As has been said over and over again in this thread, the bottom line is profit; they're looking after themselves and their shareholders. If they helped the other countries, their chances of high profits would decrease.

[JudyJudyJudy]

Just so it’s clear, I’m not opposed to trade. I’m in favor of fair trade and against this so-called free trade. As Republicans love to point out when it benefits them, nothing is free. It comes with a price, and the price in this case is substantial.

I’m not in favor of trade that encourages the loss of American jobs. I’m not in favor of trade that allows and encourages the exploitation of people in developing countries. I’m not in favor of trade with countries that have no concern about the environment. I’m not in favor of trade that allows and encourages the destruction of the jungles that are necessary for the entire planet. I’m not in favor of trade that destroys entire cultures and their environments that the people need to survive. I’m not in favor of policies that encourage already corrupt governments in various countries to be more corrupt and make loads of money while their citizens become even poorer. I’m not in favor of trade that encourages companies in other countries to use inferior, even dangerous, chemicals in their products and encourages companies to even fake tests on medications so that their profits are higher (it’s all about the profits, huh?).

Decent American companies can’t compete with all that, and they shouldn’t have to do so. We shouldn’t trade with countries that allow the environment to be destroyed and allow their workers to work and live in inhumane conditions.

Is there anything I can do by myself? Of course not. However, it bothers me that so many of you make yourselves feel better about it (while you’re benefiting from it) by saying, “That’s just the way it is; it’s not going to change.” If everyone in history (not just in the US) had taken this stance, where would we be today? I’m glad that those who were opposed to colonialism (obvious colonialism; we still have economic colonialism), those who were opposed to slavery, those who were opposed to the mistreatment of indigenous people, those who favored voting rights for blacks and women, and those who favored religious freedom (and the list goes on) didn’t just say, “Oh, well, that’s just the way it is; it’s not going to change.”

[hidesome]

Personally, I think you need to get off your high horse. Do you really think you are the only person who wishes things were different? Frankly, you benefit as much as the rest of us do from what you call unfair trade. Maybe you'll be the next Frederick Douglass of fair trade. I doubt it. More than likely, you'll be just like tens of millions of Americans who are going to be run over by a train called 3rd world cheap labor. It may not be fair or just in your eyes. It is real.

[JudyJudyJudy]

Actually, no, I don't benefit as much as the average American does from cheap labor—not anymore anyway. In the past, yes, I did, but I have since made choices to greatly reduce what I buy, especially when I know that things are made in areas that have inhumane practices in the workplace. I used to have my head in the sand about such things, but I refuse to keep doing that; so I'll keep sitting up here on this horse, and hopefully one day I'll do even better and can climb even higher up on the horse. :p Oddly enough, while I now spend more than I used to when I do buy something, overall, I find that I am spending less.

[Tweet]

I'm not sure I see that wanting better working conditions and fair trade is being on a high horse. shrug. It'd be one thing to opine about it and do nothing about it. Maybe that is what Hidesome is assuming? It's also not a fair assumption that we all benefit the same from what's happening. Some people do actually research where to put their money when they purchase a product.

[JudyJudyJudy]

Thanks, Tweet.

[hidesome]

Actually, no, I don't benefit as much as the average American does from cheap labor—not anymore anyway. In the past, yes, I did, but I have since made choices to greatly reduce what I buy, especially when I know that things are made in areas that have inhumane practices in the workplace. I used to have my head in the sand about such things, but I refuse to keep doing that; so I'll keep sitting up here on this horse, and hopefully one day I'll do even better and can climb even higher up on the horse. :p Oddly enough, while I now spend more than I used to when I do buy something, overall, I find that I am spending less.

I'm glad it works for you. That doesn't justfiy the preaching. Ironically, nor does it change the situation or the world one wit. I really don't even know where to go with the newspeak about spending more yet spending less. I'll daresay you are rationalizing your new religion.

Really there are two issues here. The first is whether lower priced products must be and are always produced by unnethical business practices. Your premise seems to be that they always are. I'll submit that they rarely are, or at least that Chinese factory workers willingly choose to work on such products. I read a book recently called, "Factory Girls" which suggests that far from being indentured servants in factories, these people choose what they do, and frequently change their own course in life, and more often than not prefer it to their life on family farms, and occasionally reach much higher goals like going to college etc. It isn't perfect, but it is far superior to their lot in life otherwise, or the lot of their parents and grandparents.

The second issue is whether we can change the laws of supply and demand even if there is an unethical bias inherent in the production of low-cost goods. I'll submit that you cannot - at least not by boycotting cheap goods. The reason I say that is that the labor side of the equation is willing to perform their task under incredible circumstances because those "inhumane" circumstances are far superior to their other choices. The other reason is that, as you've already admitted, the market can be manipulated; "American" cars are not made in America at all. So, buying an "American" car in an attempt to manipulate the market to have higher labor standards is a joke. It may make you feel superior to the average consumer, but it doesn't change anything - except the price and quality of your car.

In short, labor will be exploited unless labor reacts AND their reaction is justified by legitimate market forces. For the most part, consumers cannot change the way labor is treated. It is a very natural system really. If Chinese labor is willing to work for peanuts, the value of what they do cannot be that high. On the other hand, if they demand a higher wage, or better benefits, they must demonstrate a higher value or be replaced. You simply cannot make chicken shredders more valuable than they are by claiming they are brain surgeons. Nor can you turn chicken shredding into brain surgery by boycotting chickens. Chicken shredding MUST be inexpensive for people to eat and there will always be plenty of people somewhere in the world with the minimal skills and basic desire for work who will shred chickens. What we CAN do to stay ahead of the Chinese is to train more brain surgeons instead of chicken shredders. Instead we try to redefine morality in a vane attempt to satisfy both our egos and our pocketbooks. Meanwhile the Chinese are increasingly training both brain surgeons and chicken shredders. We will lose, not them.

[tata]

I understand how you feel, Judy. However, I suppose I have come to the realization that I am tired (pun not intended) of losing sleep over things over which I have no control. I agree with hidesome in that it would be far more effective (for me) to focus on things of which I can do to promote and affect change I want to see in the world. The best avenue I can personally see as a plausible solution to this is education reform.

Your previous response to my previous post suggested that I should remember our (the US, that is) attempt to educate ALL children. I do remember and find that to be good moral fiber for a quilt I want to help weave. You also mention that some children here in the US live without running water. The fact is that, while I don't know those statistics, I say with confidence that this is the exception and not the rule. Most kids in this country don't know what it's like to be hungry: for food, for a bath, for education. It's an epidemic of taking-it-for-granted.

We need (or, at very least, I need) to do something about the state of our education. The video you posted in the "Everyday Math" thread has prompted me to take action here in my little neck of the woods. If we don't do something - and quickly - our children will not be able to compete in a global market. Teach them about unethical business practices (among many other things, of course), show them what it's like to be hungry and prepare them to compete the real world.

I absolutely agree with you for being outraged over what's happening in and with China. But I think there are more proactive actions we can take to do something about it.

[Sadalsuud]

You also mention that some children here in the US live without running water. The fact is that, while I don't know those statistics, I say with confidence that this is the exception and not the rule. Most kids in this country don't know what it's like to be hungry: for food, for a bath, for education. It's an epidemic of taking-it-for-granted.

From what I can find, from several sites, I believe it is estimated that in 2007, over 5 million people (of the more than 37 million people who live in poverty) live in extreme poverty, that is, an income at 50% of the poverty level. While this percentage isn't as high as other countries, it is still a pretty big number for a country who is supposedly so wealthy.

[Iconoclast]

In a nut shell, think globally, act locally. I think fair trade is great. I get some awesome catalogs with fair trade good from around the world, and I support them, both in philosphy and with my shopping dollars. Of course, not all of my purchaes are fair trade. AFIK, there are no fair trade agreements with Italy and France, lol. FWIW, I'd die before I wore shoes that were made in China. ;)

Market forces are unstoppable, and that is that. All one can do that has a genuine impact is support small businesses, local farmers and artisans in their community. I am sure you do that Judy, but not buying something just b/c it was made in Bangledesh isn't going to amount to shedding a tear in the ocean.

And re: greed and investment, I have to agree w/ Gordon Gecko on that one. W/O the profit incentive, investors are not going to support publically help entities. And I think Oct 1989 and Oct 2008 demonstrate pretty well what happens when investors take their dollars out of the market. I took a mere two econ classes when I was an undergrad some, jesus, almost 30 years ago. Goddamn I getting old. In any event, one semester of macro and one of micro taught me that the whole thing is far more complicated than I can wrap my brain around, but I know just enough to know that you and John Lennon are dreamers. I respect your noble intentions, but I live in the light of cold, hard reality. It is what it is. I don't bemoan it, I make the best of it.

[tata]

From what I can find, from several sites, I believe it is estimated that in 2007, over 5 million people (of the more than 37 million people who live in poverty) live in extreme poverty, that is, an income at 50% of the poverty level. While this percentage isn't as high as other countries, it is still a pretty big number for a country who is supposedly so wealthy.

Here's what I was able to find relatively easily. The article is from 2002 and based on 2000 Census. My state makes this list.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2002-07-05-plumbing.htm

Seems a trip to a third-world country isn't necessary. The point I was trying to make (although, obviously it wasn't done well!) is that so many kids - hell even adults - in the US don't realize how well we've got it. Conspicuous living and consumption at it's finest/worst.

[JudyJudyJudy]

Tata, when I was teaching in S. GA, some of the kids not only had no running water, but they also had dirt floors. They still lived in the old slave homes, and their families still worked for the descendants of the people who had owned their ancestors. Two families owned the majority of the land in the county and wouldn't sell any of it so that industry could come in, so there weren't many options for other jobs. I doubt that is only an issue in Georgia.

[Sputterduck]

I'm sure some of the homes around here have no indoor water. Further up the mountain there are lots of old homes that probably don't connect to to the water supply. My neighborhood has it's own tiny water company that only services this one neighborhood.

[tata]

Do y'all think that is typical for American lifestyle? Hell, I'm only slightly aware of it and I'm college educated!

[JudyJudyJudy]

No, I don't think it's typical, but I don't think that just because it's not typical that these people should just be forgotten. Having said that, there are areas of the US where it's not looked upon as unusual.

[hidesome]

No, I don't think it's typical, but I don't think that just because it's not typical that these people should just be forgotten. Having said that, there are areas of the US where it's not looked upon as unusual.

Since many people here live on dirt floors or without "complete plumbing", I wondered how New Mexico faired against the National average. It turns out we are the worst in the lower 48 by a factor of 2. It doesn't surprise me. However, what may surprise you is that many of those people live this way by choice. We have close friends who lived on a dirt (well cob), floor by choice because it was easy to build, easy to maintain, and cheap. Those who choose to live on reservations do so with the knowledge that Indian reservations aren't exactly know as hot beds of employment. Many stay to be close to their culture which oftentimes means living in traditional hogans and pueblos, not 3 bedroom houses. Finally, dirt floors and poor plumbing are in vogue in many green communities - again, by choice. I'm not saying some people don't live in poor conditions. However, if New Mexico is the worst and that percentage is 2% and a large fraction of those people live that way by choice, it isn't exactly epidemic elsewhere in the US. As others have said, such living conditions ARE common in the rest of the world including Mexico and even Canada. Our "impoverished" would be considered middle class in most of the world.

[Tweet]

No, I don't think it's typical, but I don't think that just because it's not typical that these people should just be forgotten. Having said that, there are areas of the US where it's not looked upon as unusual.

I agree. I've lived in areas where that is actually typical for that specific area. It is hard to believe, I know.

It's also very strange here,too. In one neighborhood you see all of these gorgeous homes and then go one block over and the living conditions are just totally unlivable. What is so strange to me is that it's still not talked about a lot. Seriously, how often do you see stuff like that reported on the news? I see more about animal abuse than about hungry children, yet I've seen it.

[JudyJudyJudy]

However, what may surprise you is that many of those people live this way by choice. We have close friends who lived on a dirt (well cob), floor by choice because it was easy to build, easy to maintain, and cheap. Those who choose to live on reservations do so with the knowledge that Indian reservations aren't exactly know as hot beds of employment. Many stay to be close to their culture which oftentimes means living in traditional hogans and pueblos, not 3 bedroom houses.
Actually, no, this doesn't surprise me at all. If you recall earlier in the thread, I mentioned that one of my problems with the way "free" trade is currently done is that it destroys cultures and the environments they need to survive. They choose to live that way. Not everyone wants this "American dream" that we try to push onto others.


As others have said, such living conditions ARE common in the rest of the world including Mexico and even Canada. Our "impoverished" would be considered middle class in most of the world.
I'm quite aware of this, which is why I have repeatedly said that one of the reasons I'm against "free" trade is because it takes advantage of people in the third world countries. That's the type of thing I was discussing before the conversation turned back to the poor of the US.

[JudyJudyJudy]

I agree. I've lived in areas where that is actually typical for that specific area. It is hard to believe, I know.

It's also very strange here,too. In one neighborhood you see all of these gorgeous homes and then go one block over and the living conditions are just totally unlivable. What is so strange to me is that it's still not talked about a lot. Seriously, how often do you see stuff like that reported on the news? I see more about animal abuse than about hungry children, yet I've seen it.
Exactly, but apparently, since people live worse in Africa, the poor here are just supposed to suck it up, and you and I aren't supposed to discuss what goes on here.

[tata]

Maybe I'm thick, but I feel like the point I was hoping to make isn't coming across...

[Tweet]

Maybe I'm thick, but I feel like the point I was hoping to make isn't coming across...


If you're point is that more people here in US should be aware, I do agree with that. I think there is a pretty big disconnect.

[tata]

Thanks, Tweet. :) I feel acknowledged!

[JudyJudyJudy]

:)

[hidesome]

Exactly, but apparently, since people live worse in Africa, the poor here are just supposed to suck it up, and you and I aren't supposed to discuss what goes on here.

You are missing the point. Market forces drive the cost of labor - everywhere. We may agree that there is a disparity. We agree that fat cats take advantage of the situation. I think we even agree that we would like to have a high standard of living - even if we don't earn it or deserve it and/or cannot afford it. Where we disagree is the idea that somehow if we (generic we) demand a higher wage or better working conditions that somehow the market forces will cease to exist and everyone everywhere will have a higher standard of living. That idea is a rationalization - one that is consistently proven wrong every time a Chinese laborer makes a product for 10% or even 1% of the "American" wage. We can lament that fact, but buying expensive products with a made-in-American label won't change it. In fact doing so enables poor business practices and irrationally high labor costs to the point where GM et al. go under despite heavy Government subsidies.

The one industry that is probably immune is farming - and even that has competition outside our borders. Even farming in the US is heavily dependent on migrant labor. Comparing labor laws and practices to slavery ignores one important essential fact. People work by choice in the vast majority of circumstances.

As long as Yuan Lee will do a job for $1, there is no reason in the world for businesses to pay Jim Smith $20 for the same job - and increaingly in a world economy they don't. If it came down to it, I'd personally fight a hell of a lot harder for Yuan's rights than for Jim's. He obviously needs the money more than Jim does.

Ironically, in my own line of work, engineering, there are a tremendous number of very highly skilled Asians. I outperform most of them for two reasons. First, I don't have any notion that I "deserve" higher pay because I'm an American. Secondly, I don't suffer from many cultural practices that hinder them - particularly in areas where effective communication, innovation and going against the grain are concerned. It really is true that Asian engineers can copy anything - and they do. They rarely innovate. It is cultural.

[bocarioja]

I'm glad it works for you. That doesn't justfiy the preaching. Ironically, nor does it change the situation or the world one wit. I really don't even know where to go with the newspeak about spending more yet spending less. I'll daresay you are rationalizing your new religion.

Really there are two issues here. The first is whether lower priced products must be and are always produced by unnethical business practices. Your premise seems to be that they always are. I'll submit that they rarely are, or at least that Chinese factory workers willingly choose to work on such products. I read a book recently called, "Factory Girls" which suggests that far from being indentured servants in factories, these people choose what they do, and frequently change their own course in life, and more often than not prefer it to their life on family farms, and occasionally reach much higher goals like going to college etc. It isn't perfect, but it is far superior to their lot in life otherwise, or the lot of their parents and grandparents.

Ive really enjoyed reading your posts on this thread, Hidesome.

The Chinese businessmen we entertained in our home repeated this exact same idea (bolded). They are willing to do what ever it takes to make sure their children are educated in moden schools rather than rural schools.

I want to make it clear, though, that I am not defending the practices of the Chinese government. Contrary, I think that China concentrating all their wealth in the hands of the government while the people's only hope for a better life comes from foeign outsourcing is despicable. In previous posts, you mentioned that China has the US right were they want us... But they are in their own panic mode. Their people are seeing more and more benefits of western democracy as a result of this outsourcing and are becoming loyal to their American business sponsors than their own government. In fact, if these people wouldn't get shot or beaten to death (ie Tibet), more of the Chinese would speak out against their government. I believe that U.S. companies can and should find ways to take advantage of this by creating 1 billion strong that love everything American. It is eye opening when people like my Husband's coworkers realize that Americans do more to help their villages than their own government.


Now, the businessmen I talked to are most worried about the future for their children because so much of the manufacturing infrastructre built in China is standing idle. The Chinese don't expect their government to take care of them, they expect to work for their survival.

The second issue is whether we can change the laws of supply and demand even if there is an unethical bias inherent in the production of low-cost goods. I'll submit that you cannot - at least not by boycotting cheap goods. The reason I say that is that the labor side of the equation is willing to perform their task under incredible circumstances because those "inhumane" circumstances are far superior to their other choices. The other reason is that, as you've already admitted, the market can be manipulated; "American" cars are not made in America at all. So, buying an "American" car in an attempt to manipulate the market to have higher labor standards is a joke. It may make you feel superior to the average consumer, but it doesn't change anything - except the price and quality of your car.

Exactly.

In short, labor will be exploited unless labor reacts AND their reaction is justified by legitimate market forces. For the most part, consumers cannot change the way labor is treated. It is a very natural system really. If Chinese labor is willing to work for peanuts, the value of what they do cannot be that high. On the other hand, if they demand a higher wage, or better benefits, they must demonstrate a higher value or be replaced. You simply cannot make chicken shredders more valuable than they are by claiming they are brain surgeons. Nor can you turn chicken shredding into brain surgery by boycotting chickens. Chicken shredding MUST be inexpensive for people to eat and there will always be plenty of people somewhere in the world with the minimal skills and basic desire for work who will shred chickens. What we CAN do to stay ahead of the Chinese is to train more brain surgeons instead of chicken shredders. Instead we try to redefine morality in a vane attempt to satisfy both our egos and our pocketbooks. Meanwhile the Chinese are increasingly training both brain surgeons and chicken shredders. We will lose, not them.

I agree with this and add that I hope the future of our economy doesn't depend on the majority of our population performing unskilled, brainless, mechanically repetitive labor. While unskilled labor is necessary, demanding that all of this kind of labor remian in the US is a frightening scenario I don't want to think about. We spend money to educate our children and prepare them for a more sophisicated, technically challenging, "green" jobs that can improve quality of life more so than unskilled labor.

Hidesome, I hope you aren't too scared of the chinese. Their government is trying to replicate what our markets, even with outsourcing have already accomplished. As you said, We have incentive to innovate, they don't.

There will always be unenployment in this country. Businesses do not exist because they feel some chariatable obligation to be "fair." Competetion and profit markets are not and will never be governed by idealistic hopes and dreams of a utopian state.

Even if all outsourcing was ended, I highly doubt it would result in all businesses making responsible environmental decisions and making sure all people globally could afford high quality healthcare and education.

I fully believe that American businesses like my husband's try and make the best decisions with the bleak choices they have.

[JudyJudyJudy]

Hidesome, actually, no, I didn't miss your point. I simply don't agree with your assessment of the situation. I don't agree that just because Americans won't work for 64 cents per hour (and aren't even allowed to by law) that we should just ship the jobs off to China. There are reasons that laws were put into effect to protect the workers here. When workers are protected, it helps everyone. Notice that the areas to which American businesses are outsourcing jobs are the countries where poverty rates are astronomical. That ought to tell us something.

In developed countries, workers are protected by laws, and they should be. I've yet to see people say that they should be paid more simply because they're Americans. In fact, I've argued the opposite. I think everyone should be paid a fair wage, and I don't think the US should allow trade with countries that don't protect their workers or the environment.

I do find it interesting that you continue to compare GM and Toyota. The fact of the matter is that while Japan is in Asia, it is no China. Japan doesn't allow its workers to be treated like the Chinese do. In fact, Japan not only has a minimum wage, but it also has universal healthcare that is rated quite high by the WHO. Interestingly enough, even China claims that it is also aiming for universal healthcare in the near future.


There will always be unenployment in this country. Businesses do not exist because they feel some chariatable obligation to be "fair." Competetion and profit markets are not and will never be governed by idealistic hopes and dreams of a utopian state.

As we are seeing, when a large number of people are unemployed or underemployed, the businesses suffer as well since people can't afford to buy their products, even if they are made in sweatshops for nearly nothing. Ultimately, while large companies are helped by greed, they can be hurt by their greed as well.

[bocarioja]

As we are seeing, when a large number of people are unemployed or underemployed, the businesses suffer as well since people can't afford to buy their products, even if they are made in sweatshops for nearly nothing. Ultimately, while large companies are helped by greed, they can be hurt by their greed as well.

This is completely contrary to what you said here:
In googling I see that a lot are still making a profit. Most just aren't making as much as they were before. That doesn't mean that no profit is being made, though. That's not how it works.

Which is it?

Company finances, when corporations are acting responsibly, are no different than personal finances. Your family may still be bringing home a paycheck, but if that paychecks shrinks, you have to make cuts at home. Businesses are the same way. Complicating matters is that businesses have to make cuts even prior to actual revenue reductions just to maintain investment ratings and future profitability projections.

When healthcare costs in the US are predicted to rise by 10+% every year, this factors into American business decisions whether to continue domestic production. If taxes are also predicted to rise, this factors into decisions.

If a decision is made to outsource, savings may not even be realized until many months, maybe YEARS down the road. These decisions are not made lightly and without regard to long term impacts to future profitability.

Judy, I haven't stuck it out through this debate simply because we have a difference of opinion. I hate seeing educated and hard working Americans, willing and able to work, not being able to find a job as much as anyone.... but there are better ways to make an impact than the consumer focused methods you have stated. Understanding how the system works in reality is the only way to make positive impacts globally.

[JudyJudyJudy]

Originally Posted by JudyJudyJudy
As we are seeing, when a large number of people are unemployed or underemployed, the businesses suffer as well since people can't afford to buy their products, even if they are made in sweatshops for nearly nothing. Ultimately, while large companies are helped by greed, they can be hurt by their greed as well.

This is completely contrary to what you said here:

Originally Posted by JudyJudyJudy
In googling I see that a lot are still making a profit. Most just aren't making as much as they were before. That doesn't mean that no profit is being made, though. That's not how it works.

Which is it?
The first isn't contrary to the second at all. In the first statement I said that businesses suffer when people are unemployed or underemployed because the people can't buy the products. In other words (and it seems like common sense), when people are unemployed or underemployed, they can no longer buy products that they were able to buy in the past, and, thus, the sales of the company go down. I did not say that the companies now have no sales.

In the second statement, I said that a lot of companies are still making a profit. First, "a lot" doesn't mean "all." Some companies are not making a profit and, thus, go out of business. Those businesses have indeed suffered. In addition to this, as I made clear, even most of the companies that are still making a profit are not making as high of a profit as before. This, of course, is due in large part to the fact that so many people are now unemployed or underemployed. Many, though not all, of those who are still employed or who still feel secure are still buying, which enables the companies to continue to show a profit, but less (sometimes significantly less) than before. These decreasing profits hurt the companies.

My paragraph after the one you quoted above was this:

Originally Posted by JudyJudyJudy

The stockmarket doesn't indicate whether or not a company is making a profit. It's basically a betting game where investors bet which companies are worth putting money into. When profits fall, even if the company is still making a profit, people are less likely to invest in the company. If no company was making a profit, we'd already be in a depression, not a recession. As long as a company is making a profit, the big dogs, the ones I'm talking about when I say that a company is making money, are going to get their shares regardless of how many others lose their jobs.
This is what has happened. Despite the fact that many companies are indeed still making a profit (again, not all), many investors are afraid to invest in them because their profits are dropping. This is hurting the companies that have profits that are dropping. As this happens, even people who feel secure in their jobs begin to feel insecure in the economy, and, thus, start to spend less as well. In addition to this, though, as I said (and we've already seen many examples of this in the current economy), the big dogs get their money regardless.

[hidesome]

Hidesome, actually, no, I didn't miss your point. I simply don't agree with your assessment of the situation. I don't agree that just because Americans won't work for 64 cents per hour (and aren't even allowed to by law) that we should just ship the jobs off to China. There are reasons that laws were put into effect to protect the workers here. When workers are protected, it helps everyone. Notice that the areas to which American businesses are outsourcing jobs are the countries where poverty rates are astronomical. That ought to tell us something.



It tells me you are going to continue to confuse cause and effect. I find it bizarre that you can watch 100,000 auto workers get laid off despite a huge influx of taxpayer dollars and then say that labor laws protect workers. I'll submit that having a job to go to is better than not having one. Unfortunately, the UAW is too busy lining its own pocket to realize that and a fair fraction of the country is going to suffer as a result.

[JudyJudyJudy]

Hidesome, you're missing my point. Labor laws in this country are designed to protect workers, and they should protect workers. However, when workers can go to countries that treat workers inhumanely, our workers lose out, too. As I've said over and over, this shouldn't be an issue. Our workers shouldn't have to compete with workers who are eating off the streets in other countries; it's not a reasonable expectation.

Our country should not allow this so-called free trade with countries that do not protect the workers and the environment. I know that we will never agree on that particular issue, but the "cause" in this case is allowing this so-called free trade that takes advantage of workers in developing countries, which, in effect, also harms the workers in developed countries.

[bocarioja]

Hidesome, you're missing my point. Labor laws in this country are designed to protect workers, and they should protect workers. However, when workers can go to countries that treat workers inhumanely, our workers lose out, too. As I've said over and over, this shouldn't be an issue. Our workers shouldn't have to compete with workers who are eating off the streets in other countries; it's not a reasonable expectation.

Our country should not allow this so-called free trade with countries that do not protect the workers and the environment. I know that we will never agree on that particular issue, but the "cause" in this case is allowing this so-called free trade that takes advantage of workers in developing countries, which, in effect, also harms the workers in developed countries.

Of course these things "shouldn't" happen in a fair and just world. No one has even argued that they *should* happen. Quite the contrary, we have argued that they do and will continue to happen until the issues that make outsourcing appealing are resolved.

Meaningful labor union concessions, Reduced healthcare costs, government subsidized energy, tax abatements, tax credits, research incentives, infrastructure investment... these are a few areas that could be addressed that will do more to end outsourcing while making sure there are still American companies to employ people. Consumer sided approaches such as boycotting do not and will never result in the outcome we all really desire.

[JudyJudyJudy]

I guess as the old saying of the board goes, this thread is done since we're back to square one. While you agree that these things shouldn't happen, rather than advocate for change, you stick to the "Oh, well, that's the way things are" attitude. Once again, I'm truly glad that not everyone in history had that attitude. If that were the case, I wouldn't be able to vote or even bitch about not being able to vote.

[bocarioja]

That isn't the attidue at all, Judy. Not even close.

[bocarioja]

I don't even understand how you can come to that conclusion after I stated Meaningful labor union concessions, Reduced healthcare costs, government subsidized energy, tax abatements, tax credits, research incentives, infrastructure investment... these are a few areas that could be addressed that will do more to end outsourcing while making sure there are still American companies to employ people.

This is hardly advocating status-quo.

[JudyJudyJudy]

But you seem to want no change in regards to China (and a number of other countries). I can't agree with that at all.

I do find it funny that some of you are in favor of "big business" getting to make all the rules, yet you want to force those in charge of healthcare to lower the costs. I'm not sure how you expect to have it both ways. Healthcare is big business. So is insurance.

As for tax abatements and credits, a lot of that already goes one, and it still doesn't help the average person. As I said earlier in the thread, I totally agree with Obama about ending tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas. I think that's a start, and I hope he's able to get it passed.

[bocarioja]

But you seem to want no change in regards to China (and a number of other countries). I can't agree with that at all.

I have no idea what this means. Sure I would love for China to change and treat its people more fairly. Hell, Ive provided many examples of why China sucks.

I do find it funny that some of you are in favor of "big business" getting to make all the rules, yet you want to force those in charge of healthcare to lower the costs. I'm not sure how you expect to have it both ways. Healthcare is big business. So is insurance.

I don't think any of us are "in favor of big business getting to make the rules." Again, I think we are "in" for promoting social and economic policies that work in the REAL world, not the idealistic one.

As for tax abatements and credits, a lot of that already goes one, and it still doesn't help the average person. As I said earlier in the thread, I totally agree with Obama about ending tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas. I think that's a start, and I hope he's able to get it passed.

They can and do help more than you think. Using fiscal incentives to encourage innovation is a start. Foreign countries are using tax incentives to lure away American work. Why should the US government NOT use that option? What sursrises me is that you're picking apart the very ideas suggested by corporations and economists to keep jobs here.

What worries me about Obama's "ending tax breaks plan" is the idea of the small manufacturing company moving entirely to another country to persue its profit goals instead of just moving a few of it's lower paying jobs. I hope that doesn't happen, but its all speculation now.

Jobs aren't going to stay in the US because "they should". They will stay in the U.S. when it becomes more competitive to do so.

[JudyJudyJudy]

I have no idea what this means. Sure I would love for China to change and treat its people more fairly. Hell, Ive provided many examples of why China sucks.
I meant our business relationship with China.


I don't think any of us are "in favor of big business getting to make the rules." Again, I think we are "in" for promoting social and economic policies that work in the REAL world, not the idealistic one.
Unfortunately, the current policies aren't working.


They can and do help more than you think. Using fiscal incentives to encourage innovation is a start. Foreign countries are using tax incentives to lure away American work. Why should the US government NOT use that option? What sursrises me is that you're picking apart the very ideas suggested by corporations and economists to keep jobs here.

What worries me about Obama's "ending tax breaks plan" is the idea of the small manufacturing company moving entirely to another country to persue its profit goals instead of just moving a few of it's lower paying jobs. I hope that doesn't happen, but its all speculation now.
I feel confident that if Obama is able to get this idea passed, the law will cover the other potentials as well. There are ways to keep this from happening.


Jobs aren't going to stay in the US because "they should". They will stay in the U.S. when it becomes more competitive to do so.
...or when laws change to help workers.

[hidesome]

Sigh.

[bocarioja]

Judy, if you can come up with protective labor laws that do not result in unintended negative consequences, you really should share these magical perfect laws with the class.

In the mean time, countries like France who tried the "guaranteed job" route are suffering.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/27/AR2006032701301.html
By accident and design, the French have discouraged work. In a recent study, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in Paris reported:

· From 1994 to 2003 unemployment among prime-age adults, from 25 to 54, averaged 9.9 percent; for those 15 to 25, the average was 24 percent.

· In 2003 French workers spent an average of 1,431 hours on the job, the third-lowest among 26 advanced countries. Italy (1,591 hours) was 11 percent higher; the United States (1,822 hours), 27 percent; and South Korea (2,390 hours, the highest), 67 percent.

. Among those 60 to 64, only about one in six have jobs. In the United States, the comparable figure is about one in two.




Historically, protectionist policies through legislation just does not work. http://www.theusaonline.com/economy/world-economy.htm

historical experience with such policies shows that they do not work. Perhaps the most famous example of these policies occurred during the Great Depression. The United States raised barriers to trade such as the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930. Other nations imposed similar kids of trade barriers and the overall result was to make the Great Depression even worse by reducing world trade.

Again, I am not advocating the status quo, but your idea of a "legislative solution" scares the fuck out me.

[paper_]

The lesgislative solution (that I suspect Judy is advocating) is largely made of tariffs against countries that don't meet certain standards, on a sliding scale. The probably would hurt some companies that are heavily invested in 3rd world and oppressice countries, but it would also give those countries a carrot to improve their conditions.

[bocarioja]

Just to be clear, are you suggesting tariffs on foreign goods as a solution to foreign outsourcing?

[JudyJudyJudy]

Exactly, paper.

As for the details, I haven't exactly worked them out yet. To do so would be a full-time job. I've probably come further than those who keep preaching about improving education yet haven't presented their plans, though. :p

On a different note, my son didn't appreciate my humor last night. He pulled another tooth, and he still pretends(?) to believe in the tooth fairy. Well, dh was joking with him last night and saying that he wasn't going to get as much as usual for the tooth.

Because we had been discussing this thread earlier, I said, "Actually, Jacob, you won't get anything for this tooth. There are plenty of kids in China who are willing to sell their teeth for nearly nothing, so the tooth fairy doesn't need yours."

He didn't think it was funny. :p

[hidesome]

Perhaps you should tell him to protest by not losing any more teeth. ;)

[JudyJudyJudy]

That's a good idea! :D

[bocarioja]

Wow. I'm with Hidesome, and I have never said that before. Sigh.

Tariffs do not result in desired outcomes. The idea of a tariff to protect jobs is nothing new and hardly unique. History itself has proven over and over again (1912, 1933, 1970's and again in the 08's) that tariffs/protectionst policies do more harm than good by deepening recessions and depressions. From William McKinley to Milton Freidman to Alan Greenspan all agree protectionist policies simply do not work because its very premise is inspired by an idealistic goal rather than hard, provable financial facts.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/bg1757.cfm

Myth #4: Free trade, free labor, and free capital harm the U.S. economy.

An underlying myth is that economic freedom is a "race to the bottom" in which American workers must accept lower wages and fewer benefits in order to compete with low-cost labor in other countries.

Fact: Economic freedom is necessary for economic growth, new jobs, and higher living standards.

Countries that embrace economic freedom—including freedom of trade, labor, and capital—experience stronger economic growth than those that seek to thwart the market through regulatory hurdles and policy restrictions. The 2004 Index of Economic Freedom confirms a strong, positive relationship between economic freedom and per capita gross domestic product (GDP). Moreover, average GDP growth rates increase as a country's economic freedom score improves, as measured in the Index.[14]

In other words, policies that are antithetical to economic freedom, including trying to protect the jobs of a few workers from outsourcing, will inevitably retard economic growth and lead to fewer jobs in the future. Trade freedom is one aspect of economic freedom, of course, and the U.S. Trade Representative confirms that the benefits of free trade are staggering:

Last year alone, hidden import taxes cost American consumers $18 billion. Duty-free trade would eliminate these hidden costs and lower prices for consumers. While this proposal would offer substantial benefits to all Americans, it would particularly help low-income families. A recent study by the Progressive Policy Institute found that cutting U.S. import taxes especially benefits single-parent, low-income families, who typically pay a higher proportion of their income on import taxes than other households. A University of Michigan study found that the U.S. economy would expand by $95 billion as a result of tariff-free trade—contributing to job-creation and higher wages.[15]

A case in point is America's experience with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which has been a net boon for the U.S. economy and American workers. Employment in the U.S. increased by 20 million jobs between 1993 and 2000. In the 10 years since NAFTA's enactment, real hourly compensation has increased by 14.7 percent, including a 14.4 percent increase in manufacturing wages.[16] Trade among the three NAFTA nations has more than doubled, helping to lower prices for all consumers.

While free trade can cause localized pain for a few workers, the overall gains are overwhelming. The myth of lower wages due to increased trade is wrong on theory and wrong on the facts.

Myth #5: A job outsourced is a job lost.

An underlying myth is that trade is a zero-sum game in which prices do not matter.

Fact: Outsourcing means efficiency.

In 1997, President Bill Clinton "advocated outsourcing as a major budget-balancing tool and the National Performance Review urged agencies to consider farming out common computing tasks wherever feasible."[17] Clinton was not calling for job losses; instead, he recognized that efficiency in government meant a lower burden on the taxpayer and that private firms can often provide a service at a lower cost with higher quality than the government can.

The larger point is that "outsourcing" was never about exporting jobs. Outsourcing, from a business perspective, simply means having a component sourced externally from the firm that sells the final product. This leaves the business free to focus its resources on their highest and best use, producing and selling its products or services.

For example, a typical American company needs office supplies, from pens to computers. Yet producing these materials within the company makes little sense. An economy in which each company produced from scratch all of its own office supplies, uniforms, food, and infrastructure would be extremely inefficient.

In recent years, the trend toward outsourcing was viewed correctly as a positive evolution of business practices toward nimbleness and flexibility. Old jobs can be outsourced domestically, or to foreign firms, but technology often replaces the old job, with machines replacing workers. This is like the automation of farm labor, which has been replaced largely by tractors and other agricultural equipment over the past two centuries.

The result of this drive toward efficiency is visible to all Americans in the form of lower prices and a higher standard of living. For example, computers and televisions today cost a fraction of their cost in 1980, thanks to a relentless process of efficiency-driven change.

Foreign outsourcing is undoubtedly taking place and may increase, but it goes hand in hand with higher wages, lower prices, higher profits, and enhanced U.S. competitiveness. Punishing firms that outsource would only erode standards of living by raising the prices Americans have to pay.

[JudyJudyJudy]

Boca, no offense meant, but with heritage.org as the source, I won't even bother to read the information.

Tariffs aren't perfect, but I think in some cases they can serve a purpose. Also, as I've said earlier several times, I'm in favor of stopping tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas. This is a complicated problem with no easy solution, but that doesn't mean that no attempts should be made.

[bocarioja]

No one, including me, has argued that nothing should be done.

While the source may be biased, the information provided is backed up with GDP statistics and other cited, unbiased sources and studies.

Even a minimum understanding of basic economic principles such as opportunity cost and comparative advantage suggest there are more effective solutions than tariffs.