Why do we ship jobs overseas when we have so many jobless in this country?
|
4
points
Because in a capitalist economy companies will always try to maximize their profits. And overseas labor is often much cheaper than domestic labor, so naturally companies will go with what costs them less. Business don't care about people who are unemployed as long as they are happy with their bottom line. The very nature of the system is such that if whoever was running the company started being compassionate at the expense of the company, the shareholders would replace him. And if the shareholders were okay with it the company could quite possibly be at such a disadvantage it would eventually go bankrupt. Side: Capitalism
2
points
2
points
1. It costs more to live in the US than many other countries, people in 3rd world countries are happy to work for less than anyone could live on here. 2. Our tariff laws are way out dated, making the shipping + worker's wages still cheaper than paying an American worker in many cases. 3. We also have stricter environmental laws. While a company here that produces toxic bi-products would need to treat it, they can go down to Mexico or another 3rd world company and just dump it in the nearest river. Side: Money
0
points
Maybe the people who's work are going over seas can go there to work. Maybe they should have done better at school or go back to school and get an education and a better job. Maybe they can learn to live on the smaller wages and forgo flat panel TVs, iPods, inch thick gold chains and $100 sneakers. Side: Money
2
points
Well that's easy. Corporations are run by greedy S.O.B.s that don't care about the average American. All they want us to do is buy their products to make as much money as possible. But the best way to make money is to lower cost- thus outsourcing. And do you think they take the surplus and help out employees? No, they use it for the higher CEOs and buy yachts and jets and nice cars and mansions! -_- Side: Money
1
point
2
points
2
points
2
points
That's funny, I think just the opposite. I think manufacturers like GM brought it all down on themselves when they refused to build cars that are sturdy, attractive and get great gas mileage. If the Japanese did it do you think America couldn't have joined in the success of those attributes? Side: Free Market globalization
1
point
wait..., what??? I think manufacturers like GM brought it all down on themselves when they refused to build cars that are sturdy, attractive and get great gas mileage. Two of GM's best selling cars were the Yukon and the Denali. Big hulking SUVs. GM built exactly what the people wanted, big hulking SUVs. Gas milage was not an issue (There are quite a lot of SUVs on the road inspite of their terrible gas mileage). We can argue about how attractive those cars are but they are sturdy. My neighbor had a Denali and another friend had a Yukon. If the union had agreed to accept a cut in either pay or benefits, GM might still be around. I will grant you, however, that management should have also taken a cut. Side: Free Market globalization
"were as our jobless people will vote themselves benefits until they bring the company down on top of them like.... kinda like what happened to GM" That's not at all what happened to GM. The unions made HUGE concessions over the years, and much of the American auto industry went under anyways. American car companies were waaaaay too short-sighted, and they continued to operate as if a future without oil was never going to happen, and they simply got burned. Side: Free Market globalization
1
point
1) Capitalist economies need approximately a 3% unemployment rate to function. So we will always have a decent amount of unemployed people even in the best economic conditions. 2) People who are unemployed for health reasons. 3) The main reason for the recent increase is as you know recession Side: Capitalism
1) Is that going to stop you from making money? It wont stop me. There is a huge list of things you could do to make money. You're right, some amount will always be unemployed but it is their fault if they choose to stay unemployed. 2) Unless of course they have a health reason setting them back. In that case they obviously need help. 3) Yes, a recession does complicate things. Another reason why government should not interfere. Thanks for the definition by the way. ... Side: opportunity
Jobs are shipped overseas because a lot of the race towards free trade over the last few decades are really been a race to the bottom for workers around the world. From an employers perspective, it makes perfect sense to move jobs out of the USA to countries where there are much weaker labor & environmental restrictions, since it's ultimately cheaper to do business that way. It's all about maximizing the bottom line for them. Business owners certainly don't have the best interests of the USA at heart. It also makes no sense to encourage businesses to outsource jobs through our current tax code. What we need instead, IMHO, is fair trade, where countries that are on a relatively equal playing field (when it comes to labor & environmental restrictions especially) actively trade & do business. The secret to growing jobs here in the USA is a much better education system in order to train our workers for 21st century jobs in hi-tech & renewable energy fields (among others), removing the burden of providing health care to employees from American business so that they can more equally compete around the globe, and investing in businesses that cannot be outsourced. Side: Free Market globalization
0
points
A man has the right to hire who ever the fuck he wants. If workers are going to form Unions and demand benefits, CEOs can just move their business elsewhere. sounds fair to me. Although, I do believe for the sake of keeping money in America, Tariffs should remain. Side: FREEDOM
0
points
There is ZERO evidence to support this position. Increases in the minimum wage have had little to no adverse affects on the job market in state after state in the USA. Self-refuting argument!! You assert that there is ZERO evidence (with capital letters no doubt) and then admit that there is little adverse affects of min. wage increase. Don't contradict an assertion by agreeing with the assertion! I think it's humorous you can infer from evidence that you say doesn't exist and yet claim from ZERO evidence that there is only a little evidence. A reply is not a rebuttal, unless of course you are ignorant of refutation. And in that case you could refute my argument by simply affirming that the sky is blue. Side: Free Market globalization
|
