Reviews:
 ·AT&T Wireless Br..
| reply to pandora
Re: Spending $8 for every $1 of income Pay 1000 workers here $15 an hour + benefits + deal with regulations such as work hour limits before it's considered overtime pay, cost of maintaining equipment, etc. for OSHA regulations + all the taxes.
OR
Pay 1000 workers in China $1 an hour, no benefits, no costly workplace regulations, far fewer taxes.
There's obviously more smaller details I'm leaving out but you get the point.
--
Core i7 920 @ 3.5ghz | OCZ Obsidian 6GB 1600mhz DDR3 RAM | EVGA X58 tri SLI-LE mobo | EVGA GTX 570 | Antec 750w PSU | OCZ Vertex 2 120GB SSD | WD Black 1TB HDD | Antec 1200 Case | G15 keyboard | G9x mouse | G35 Headset | Asus 23" LED-LCD |
|
 ArchivisYour DaddyPremium
join:2001-11-26
Earth
kudos:17 | reply to dogma
Why wouldn't it? |
|
 dogmaXYZPremium
join:2002-08-15
Boulder City, NV
kudos:1 | reply to tman852
said by tman852:There's obviously more smaller details I'm leaving out but you get the point. Perhaps I should have said why is this cost saving important to companies.
What I am trying to ascertain is what exactly is the general perception of the public with respect to corporations that move manufacturing or headquarters offshore in search of lower operating cost through lower wages, or lower taxes.
The question could be restated this way:
If companies are moving operations and manufacturing offshore to save money, what then do they do with the money they save?
To cut to the chase, I surmise that the general consensus is that companies move offshore to primarily increase retained earnings (profit). I It is my opinion that nothing could be further from the truth. |
|
| I'd agree. I'd say that it's most likely just as you said, to increase profits.
That's part of the problem though, all (or most) of that tax revenue is going to other countries and not ours, which is hurting the US as a whole. |
|
|
|
ArchivisYour DaddyPremium
join:2001-11-26
Earth
kudos:17 Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| I think that what dogma is saying is that outsourcing (to simplify the term) is not for profit reasons. If that's the case, I'd like to know why not?
--
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have. |
|
 MrMoodyFree range slavePremium
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC | reply to dogma
said by dogma:To cut to the chase, I surmise that the general consensus is that companies move offshore to primarily increase retained earnings (profit). I It is my opinion that nothing could be further from the truth.
In addition to competing more effectively by being able to sell cheaper (which is also a big reason), profits are more important to publicly-traded corporations than the simple dollars they represent, because they affect the stock price, which is very important, especially to the executives making the decisions.
--
The obstruction of our energy infrastructure has led us into being the world's policeman.-Karl Denninger,market-ticker.org |
|
dogmaXYZPremium
join:2002-08-15
Boulder City, NV
kudos:1 | reply to Archivis
said by Archivis:... I'd like to know why not?
MrMoody  is on track.
I have maintained, and I continue to submit the primary reason companies move operations offshore is to effectively stay in business. History has demonstrated that companies must stay competitive in the marketplace or go bankrupt.
When a company moves operations offshore to minimize expenses, they pass on these cost savings in the form of price reductions to their customers. This is a competitive advantage in the marketplace. A BIG competitive advantage. Their profit margin generally remains the same (so shareholders are satisfied). All other competing manufactures must follow suit or face bankruptcy. Either way, lose-lose in terms of tax revenue, as no taxes will be collected here.
This, I believe, renders the "let's tax corporations" argument to help lower the deficit rather academic. tman852 's post referencing the CEO's views are spot on. So the only corporate tax facility the government has is to incentivize companies to re-invest profits here as was stated by Andy S . This helps to create more domestic jobs, and thus indirectly more tax revenue from those jobs.
From this I would suggest that taxing, as a method of reducing government debt (both corporate and individual), has exponentially diminishing returns.
Therefore I concur that Rob 's assertion is correct: the only way to reduce government debt as a long term plan of action is to reduce government spending. Although I must say that a tax credit (incentive) for buying a very high MPG car, and other such energy related tax based incentives could be considered a viable method to reduce taxes in the future. |
|
pandoraPremium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·ooma
·Google Voice
·Future Nine Corp..
 ·Comcast
| reply to tman852
I suspect manufacturing is moved offshore to benefit from lower wages and less government regulation of factories.
For larger companies, I'd guess moving to Switzerland makes sense as they become a European entity, probably keep their U.S. name and are favored in both markets.
Jon Stewart indicated GE hired over 700 former government managers to oversee their lobby effort. I can bet GE knows what it costs to lobby, what it costs to hire people to get government regulators and elected officials to listen, and what the cost / benefit would be of moving.
With more than half of GE's workforce outside the U.S. and more than half it's profit abroad as well, it wouldn't seem like that great a move to Europe provided corporate taxes were low for a headquarters. I'd bet a lot of GE factory production is in Asia.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." |
|
ArchivisYour DaddyPremium
join:2001-11-26
Earth
kudos:17 | reply to dogma
Thanks for the clarification. |
|
| reply to dogma
said by dogma:said by Archivis:... I'd like to know why not?
MrMoody is on track. I have maintained, and I continue to submit the primary reason companies move operations offshore is to effectively stay in business. History has demonstrated that companies must stay competitive in the marketplace or go bankrupt. The FIRST company in an industry that moves it's manufacturing/production facilities off-shore does it SOLELY to increase profits. That move forces ALL other companies in that industry to follow suit or become unprofitable (go bankrupt). Unfortunately for the first company that makes the move, as soon as you force your competition to move off-shore, you loose your profit advantage. The whole industry moves off-shore for a short term increase in profit for one company.
|
|
 DSL987
join:2000-03-22
Helotes, TX | reply to dogma
said by dogma:The question could be restated this way:
If companies are moving operations and manufacturing offshore to save money, what then do they do with the money they save?
Compete against Chinese companies that use the same low wage labor? Or do you really expect people to buy an American widget for $10 when they can buy the same widget made by a Chinese company for $2? |
|
 J E F FWhatta Ya Think About Dat?Premium
join:2004-04-01
Kitchener, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
·Rogers Portable ..
·magicjack.com
| reply to sparks
said by sparks:2014 will be the end of America as we know it.
Optimistic, are we? I honestly can't see it going that far without intervention.
--
If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. - Albert Einstein |
|
 rawwhidePremium
join:2000-09-03
The Sticks
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to pandora
Stansberry's Investment Advisory
»www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vFAvrv8srE
--
If it looks blue and talks blue, then it must be blue! |
|
| reply to J E F F
said by J E F F:said by sparks:2014 will be the end of America as we know it.
Optimistic, are we? I honestly can't see it going that far without intervention. America as we know it, ends every day. It is a dynamic equation that is in constant change. They question is whether America is improving or disintegrating. |
|
SipSizzurpFo' ShizzlePremium
join:2005-12-28
Houston, TX
kudos:3 | reply to rawwhide
said by rawwhide:Stansberry's Investment Advisory
(youtube clip)
Here are a couple of helpful screen shots from the video.
Where do I send my invoice for the hour and a half I just spent for watching ? All very fascinating, but fast forward to about the 1 hour point and it will reduce the amount of your own invoice. Now leave me alone while I read the rest of my spam e-mail........
--
I spent most of my money on Women and Beer, and the rest I just wasted ! |
|
rawwhidePremium
join:2000-09-03
The Sticks | hmmmm. You spent an hour and a half watching an hour and 16 minute video. What, do you round up or something? Must be a habit for ya.
--
If it looks blue and talks blue, then it must be blue! |
|
SipSizzurpFo' ShizzlePremium
join:2005-12-28
Houston, TX
kudos:3 | said by rawwhide:hmmmm. You spent an hour and a half watching an hour and 16 minute video. What, do you round up or something?
I kept re-winding the juicy parts.
--
I spent most of my money on Women and Beer, and the rest I just wasted ! |
|
 John GaltForward, MarchPremium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:3 | said by SipSizzurp:said by rawwhide:hmmmm. You spent an hour and a half watching an hour and 16 minute video. What, do you round up or something?
I kept re-winding the juicy parts. You think that the producers of that video would have given some thought prior to including those 'hot chicks'  ...kind of makes it hard to get past that part and move on with the video.
Must be some 'relatives' (wink, wink)... 
--
Panem et Circenses
|
|
