ITAA: Offshoring Overblown > ?

?

Ha! That's easy!

The very companies and shareholders who benefit from this practice of outsourcing.
--
Part time Vonage Phone man.

Yes. That is all they are trying to do, keep costs low. By outsourcing jobs, companies save money, and increase shareholder value. The people on the board benefit because they own shares in the company, the President And/or C.E.O, and usually the rest of executive management benefit because they get lucrative bonuses, set forth, usually by the board in some obscure compensation program, and the regular employees get little of nothing.

You are dividing the economy, between the rich and poor, basically doing away with the middle class.

Education does not mean anything anymore. If your not in the good ol' boy network, good luck finding a job. I know people with MBA's and doctorates and they are forced to work in jobs where they do not get to use the skills and educated they acquired in college, because we have a President and a political party that is part of the good ol' boy network, and companies that want to cut costs so executive management benefits.

I am all for compensation, but when a President and/or C.E.O is getting 1 - 10 million dollar bonus, which probably came from the elimination of jobs and the moving of those jobs overseas at a much cheaper rate then what he/she was paying employees based in this country, then I have a problem.

So do many other people atuarre. That is why legislation is being written to combat offshoring before we do end up in a two tiered society where the rich have it all and the rest of us are striving to be lead stock person at Lowes or someplace.
--
Part time Vonage Phone man.

As long as Bush is in office, it will be allowed to continue. He'll veto! That is if the republicans in whichever group, the senate, or house, that are writing the legislation, don't strike it down first.

reply to atuarre
Can you respond to my ealier posts? bbeach seems to be avoiding them.

Not avoiding them, just don't feel like responding. We're on opposite sides of the fence where I place people before profit at all costs whereas you promote profit regardless of the costs, social or otherwise.

We can go back and forth until either this thread is shut down or the server runs out of disk space, whichever comes first. Bottom line is we are never going to agree on this so why continue on?
--
Part time Vonage Phone man.

You've made the claim that trade is destroying the middle class -- government statistics prove that the middle class is, growing, not shrinking.

You've made the claim that free-trade will cripple our economy, but I've shown with government statistics that our economy has expanded despite growing trade deficits, and we have become a wealthier nation despite loosened restrictions on international trade.

These aren't matters of opinion that we simply disagree on, these are statistical facts that disprove your claim -- and you're avoiding having to respond. The fact that you continue to believe something after emperical evidence refutes it is very telling of those on your side of the argument.

reply to atuarre
Yes, but last I looked, all classes of people were allowed to buy stock; in fact, when you consider that pensions and such are invested in mutual funds and/or stock, over ½ the population has ownership in an eeevil company. And this group is growing larger, so let's see where it situates before we go making charges of a "two-tiered" society.
--
"[Most people on dslr]'s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." —Ronald Reagan

Being "allowed to buy" and having the means to do so are two different things.

Mexican workers may well "want" decent homes and cars but they sorely lack the "means" to obatain them. eg.....a job that pays a wage beyond sustinence level.
--
Part time Vonage Phone man.