Convergys Moving Out Of Canada → Re: To Costly?

Oh yay. Creating hundreds of thousands of WalMart/minimum wage jobs that don't have benefits while shipping highly paid manufacturing and tech jobs overseas is something to be very proud of. Yay for America.

Really? You do know that Walmart offers health insurance to its workers, right?

And... average wages, as well as the number of workers, have been increasing, not decreasing. »www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/aw ··· lop.html

And yet intransigence by those that believe in higher taxes to promote socialist ideals continue to cause highly paid manufacturing and tech jobs to flow outbound.

If you take Walmart out of the equation, we will still continue to bleed those highly paid manufacturing and tech jobs primarily due to the cost of doing business in this country. Lower the cost of doing business here and the job losses should stop.

Personally I don't like or use Walmart, but I think injecting it into a debate like this only skews the facts.

Yep. Here in Washington, upwards of 40% of WalMart employees "can't" get health insurance through Mother WalMart and are forced to either go without or have state subsidized insurance. Taxpayers here are a little upset that WalMart is deliberately shoving its costs of doing business off on the taxpayers.

In addition, while wages may be rising, they're doing so at a rate much lower than the cost of living. Because of that, you're essentially taking a pay cut every year when that is factored in.

So no, creating a bunch of WalMart/minimum wage, no benefit jobs does not help America. Not while we're happy to send high paying tech and manufacturing jobs overseas.

I disagree that it skews the facts. It highlights them quite nicely, actually.

The post I was responding to trumpeted the creation of new jobs. That is technically true. What I was highlighting was that the vast majority of these new jobs are low wage, no benefit jobs a la Walmart that do nothing but create a class of working poor who, despite working, continue to qualify for various state assistance because their wages are so low. So these new jobs cost taxpayers money.

I agree with you that we continue to bleed highly paid jobs and that is the major problem.

Walmart certainly isn't the only employer that abuses the system in this manner. In fact, what you say is the most effective argument against expanding government-subsidized health care. When any employer sees the government providing health insurance for "free" to most people, then the employer takes on the attitude of "why should I pay for this? go to the state and get it." There are similar examples with the TENNcare system in Tennessee, as well as in other states. Another example is the Big Three automakers, which are actively pushing for socialist healthcare simply so they can force the taxpayers to pay for benefits that they had previously agreed to provide.The biggest cause of this problem is that taxes are just too high. When the average worker loses a third to more than half of each paycheck to taxes (and that doesn't account for property taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, etc.). Healthcare is one of the biggest expenses of Federal and State governments, and taxes will continue to go up to cover these costs, further squeezing workers.While I agree that the government needs to remove economic incentives to send jobs overseas, I still don't agree with the idea that the only jobs being created in the USA are low wage jobs. If that was the case, then the data I linked would show a stagnation or a drop in wages, and not an increase.