Republicans defeat job outsourcing bill

[Jesse_l_g]

So because they only make up 3% of businesses they don’t have rights? Got it.

[Thinman]

We need to create incentives for businesses to hire hard working Americans. At the same time, we should tax these companies that outsource jobs, so it costs as much for that Indian worker as would be to hire an American. There is no way we can compete with countries that are paying their workers 2-3 dollars an hour when the same job in the US would command at least 4-5 times that.

[SDMuscleBuddy]

So because they only make up 3% of businesses they don’t have rights? Got it.

Rights? No. People have rights. Businesses have rules.

Of course the right-wing court of John Roberts has ruled that corporations are now people.

Now, you and I don't have the same rights as these corporations. If we want to import something into the US, we have to pay a tax. But when Seagate makes a hard drive in China and imports it here, they do not. That's the loophole we were trying to plug.

[ZenBowman]

We need to create incentives for businesses to hire hard working Americans. At the same time, we should tax these companies that outsource jobs, so it costs as much for that Indian worker as would be to hire an American. There is no way we can compete with countries that are paying their workers 2-3 dollars an hour when the same job in the US would command at least 4-5 times that.

Not only is that a morally terrible choice (use force to keep poor nations poor), it is also impossible to enforce.

[SDMuscleBuddy]

Not only is that a morally terrible choice (use force to keep poor nations poor), it is also impossible to enforce.

Not sure if serious. We have ~10% unemployment. Shouldn't we fix the leak in our own roof before we help someone else fix theirs?

[transformation2]

brb trying to fight free trade with subsidies. gjdm republicans (srs)

whoever proposed the bill clearly flunked out of econ 101. and/or cut class during the lecture on comparative advantage.

lol at jobs leaving america.
the natural rate of unemployment has been pretty much the same for the last 50 years. brb getting scared at frictional and structural unemployment.

[ZenBowman]

Not sure if serious. We have ~10% unemployment. Shouldn't we fix the leak in our own roof before we help someone else fix theirs?

Bad analogy. Nobody is forcing you to do anything, you are proposing actively preventing people in poor countries from improving their own lives through the force of your government.

You are not only not fixing the leak in your own roof, you are also trying to prevent your rich neighbor from giving a poor man a roof of hay over his, and instead demanding that he fix your leak.

[transformation2]

Bad analogy. Nobody is forcing you to do anything, you are proposing actively preventing people in poor countries from improving their own lives through the force of your government.

You are not only not fixing the leak in your own roof, you are also trying to prevent your rich neighbor from giving a poor man a roof of hay over his, and instead demanding that he fix your leak.

how about we ignore this line of reasoning since imo rich countries owe absolutely nothing to poor countries. BUT, gains from trade are still possible, such is the beauty of the market.

outsourcing is good for america period as it lowers costs for producers and consumers. it does not increase unemployment (srs). look at the natural rate of unemployment (aka unemployment ignoring recessionary unemployment) for the last 50 years and you will see the unemployment rate is pretty much the same though outsourcing has increased.

if there is anything economists agree on, it is free trade. free trade leads to gains in rich AND poor countries. people in poor countries get jobs and rich countries get cheap sht.

[Jesse_l_g]

Rights? No. People have rights. Businesses have rules.

Of course the right-wing court of John Roberts has ruled that corporations are now people.

Now, you and I don't have the same rights as these corporations. If we want to import something into the US, we have to pay a tax. But when Seagate makes a hard drive in China and imports it here, they do not. That's the loophole we were trying to plug.

Are businesses not assembled people? Do people not have the right to assemble?

Not sure if serious. We have ~10% unemployment. Shouldn't we fix the leak in our own roof before we help someone else fix theirs?

Us poor Americans. Its our right to a job and fair pay. Screw the rest of the world and peoples right to free trade. Screw the fact that our own laws and regulations are whets driving them out of the country. We own them and they owe us high paying jobs.

[ZenBowman]

how about we ignore this line of reasoning since imo rich countries owe absolutely nothing to poor countries. BUT, gains from trade are still possible, such is the beauty of the market.

I never said rich countries owed anything to the poor countries, but at the same time, one person in a rich country is not owed anything by another person in that rich country. One person in that rich country cannot demand that another person in that country hire him as opposed to someone in a poor country.

outsourcing is good for america period as it lowers costs for producers and consumers. it does not increase unemployment (srs). look at the natural rate of unemployment (aka unemployment ignoring recessionary unemployment) for the last 50 years and you will see the unemployment rate is pretty much the same though outsourcing has increased.

if there is anything economists agree on, it is free trade. free trade leads to gains in rich AND poor countries. people in poor countries get jobs and rich countries get cheap sht.

Agree.

[SDMuscleBuddy]

Bad analogy. Nobody is forcing you to do anything, you are proposing actively preventing people in poor countries from improving their own lives through the force of your government.

You are not only not fixing the leak in your own roof, you are also trying to prevent your rich neighbor from giving a poor man a roof of hay over his, and instead demanding that he fix your leak.

It might be a bad analogy if we didn't have such high unemployment, and outsourcing is one of the main culprits.

Yours is a bad analogy because the rich neighbor is passing laws making harder to fix the roof, or stopping laws that would make it easier, because his agenda is to get richer, not help improve the lives of workers in third-world countries. They aren't nearly that altruistic.

[ZenBowman]

It might be a bad analogy if we didn't have such high unemployment, and outsourcing is one of the main culprits.

Yours is a bad analogy because the rich neighbor is passing laws making harder to fix the roof, or stopping laws that would make it easier, because his agenda is to get richer, not help improve the lives of workers in third-world countries. They aren't nearly that altruistic.

Whether they are altruistic or not is completely subjective and not my concern whatsoever. After all, progressives consider themselves extremely altruistic, but when it comes down to it, are displaying their tribal mentality for all to see.

I would trust the rich man trying to get richer over these "do-gooders" who seek to destroy the third-world under the guise of protecting the middle class.

What matters to me are actions, not stated intentions.

[SDMuscleBuddy]

how about we ignore this line of reasoning since imo rich countries owe absolutely nothing to poor countries. BUT, gains from trade are still possible, such is the beauty of the market.

outsourcing is good for america period as it lowers costs for producers and consumers. it does not increase unemployment (srs). look at the natural rate of unemployment (aka unemployment ignoring recessionary unemployment) for the last 50 years and you will see the unemployment rate is pretty much the same though outsourcing has increased.

if there is anything economists agree on, it is free trade. free trade leads to gains in rich AND poor countries. people in poor countries get jobs and rich countries get cheap sht.

I never said rich countries owed anything to the poor countries, but at the same time, one person in a rich country is not owed anything by another person in that rich country. One person in that rich country cannot demand that another person in that country hire him as opposed to someone in a poor country.

Agree.

False. Unemployment in your lifetime was lowest under Clinton, being 3.9% at the end of his term. It began to rise after that, which is when outsourcing really started, and has never been below 4.2% since GW, and never been below 4.4% (March of '07) since the Bush Tax cuts.

http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp

EDIT: You could say that 3.9% is "pretty much the same" as 4.4%, but I think that the 16 Million Americans that represents would disagree.

[SDMuscleBuddy]

Whether they are altruistic or not is completely subjective and not my concern whatsoever. After all, progressives consider themselves extremely altruistic, but when it comes down to it, are displaying their tribal mentality for all to see.

I would trust the rich man trying to get richer over these "do-gooders" who seek to destroy the third-world under the guise of protecting the middle class.

What matters to me are actions, not stated intentions.

OK, so why do you hate America? Better question, why do you hate Americans?

[ZenBowman]

OK, so why do you hate America? Better question, why do you hate Americans?

LOL. Nice.

[sportsfan7]

We need to create incentives for businesses to hire hard working Americans. At the same time, we should tax these companies that outsource jobs, so it costs as much for that Indian worker as would be to hire an American. There is no way we can compete with countries that are paying their workers 2-3 dollars an hour when the same job in the US would command at least 4-5 times that.

....
..

That makes everyone poorer because there will be higher costs to make and distribute things. Then with everyone poorer, there's less wealth to hire labor and less wealth to invest. Since investments produce compounding returns, this greatly limits the ability of wealth to be created, thus limiting at a quadratic factor the future number of jobs.

Not to mention, that's just terrible morality; stealing from me to pay more to someone else without my choice.

Plus, you know that with government, the process will be very poorly handled. Any tariffs created will aid whatever industry gives politicians the most money.

That's especially not the smartest thing to do during a double-drop recession. Protectionist policies such as tariffs can create depressions out of recessions. Quantitative easing and other protectionist measures in the 1930s certainly made the Great Depression worse.

Just a little thought experiment:

Imagine everything were made in America. That means your labor productivity would be directly rateable to those American laborers' productivity. After all, a clerk in America is really the same base employee as a clerk in Beijing. There's no actual reason that you should be making any more money, speaking on terms of human capital.

So, things would be much more expensive; the quality of life would be roughly comparable to what you would earn in maybe Russia.

[SDMuscleBuddy]

Another thing you people are forgetting is population growth. We are adding 150,000 new Americans to the job hunt every month. In other words, just to keep unemployment unchanged, we have to have a net gain of 150,000 jobs each month. If an American company opens a factory in China and lays off 1000 Americans, now we need to create 160,000 jobs, and the number of jobs going overseas is much greater than that.

The fact remains that we must rely on small businesses here to create those jobs, and the Republicans are absolutely and adamantly opposed to this.

[The Kurgan]

It might be a bad analogy if we didn't have such high unemployment, and outsourcing is one of the main culprits.

Yours is a bad analogy because the rich neighbor is passing laws making harder to fix the roof, or stopping laws that would make it easier, because his agenda is to get richer, not help improve the lives of workers in third-world countries. They aren't nearly that altruistic.

The fact that someone doesn't aim to do good doesn't mean that what they do isn't good. A baker who sells you bread isn't aiming to improve your life, he's aiming to make a profit. Equally, a businessman who sets up a factory in the third world is aiming to make a profit, but in doing so he creates a host of (by local standards, which are the only ones that are important to the locals) well-paid jobs.

It's Adam Smith's Invisible Hand: intentions and actions are different. Outsourcing enriches the Third World by creating jobs and enriches the First World by providing cheaper goods. The pursuit of profit creates a non-zero sum scenario.

The high unemployment in the US could be largely overcome by restoring monetary stability in the US and ending the Fed's current high unemployment stategy. Solving the famine of broad money in the US could bring unemployment back to 4% or 5% within a few years, just as happened in the 1980s after the 1982 recession.

[Black_Spit]

Another thing you people are forgetting is population growth. We are adding 150,000 new Americans to the job hunt every month. In other words, just to keep unemployment unchanged, we have to have a net gain of 150,000 jobs each month. If an American company opens a factory in China and lays off 1000 Americans, now we need to create 160,000 jobs, and the number of jobs going overseas is much greater than that.

The fact remains that we must rely on small businesses here to create those jobs, and the Republicans are absolutely and adamantly opposed to this.

How many are we simultaneously losing to retirees in the enormous baby boomer population?

[SDMuscleBuddy]

....
..

That makes everyone poorer because there will be higher costs to make and distribute things. Then with everyone poorer, there's less wealth to hire labor and less wealth to invest. Since investments produce compounding returns, this greatly limits the ability of wealth to be created, thus limiting at a quadratic factor the future number of jobs.

Not to mention, that's just terrible morality; stealing from me to pay more to someone else without my choice.

Plus, you know that with government, the process will be very poorly handled. Any tariffs created will aid whatever industry gives politicians the most money.

That's especially not the smartest thing to do during a double-drop recession. Protectionist policies such as tariffs can create depressions out of recessions. Quantitative easing and other protectionist measures in the 1930s certainly made the Great Depression worse.

I have to disagree. Giving those jobs to Americans will lead to higher wages which will lead to greater consumer spending, which will lead to lower prices. You are simply parroting the GOP talking points but history proves them false.

[The Kurgan]

Giving those jobs to Americans will lead to higher wages which will lead to greater consumer spending, which will lead to lower prices.

What? Higher wages lead to lower prices?

Consumer prices have remained low because of cheap imports. This is one of the reason why so much of the money supply has ended up in housing, causing the housing bubble. It's called the China Effect.

[SDMuscleBuddy]

How many are we simultaneously losing to retirees in the enormous baby boomer population?

Nice stealth edit. Not sure what you're asking. How many what are we losing? Jobs or workers? Part of the problem with the boomers is they had fewer babies than their parents, which is why the problem with Social Security is only temporary. Also, people are retiring later because of the recession, making it harder to find jobs for the new workers.

[SDMuscleBuddy]

What? Higher wages lead to lower prices?

Consumer prices have remained low because of cheap imports. This is one of the reason why so much of the money supply has ended up in housing, causing the housing bubble. It's called the China Effect.

Higher average wages. When employment increases, average wages increase, consumer spending increases.

[sportsfan7]

I have to disagree. Giving those jobs to Americans will lead to higher wages which will lead to greater consumer spending, which will lead to lower prices. You are simply parroting the GOP talking points but history proves them false.

X and Y have $5 each. Each will sell a pineapple to the other for $5. Z will sell a pineapple for $2. X and Y can now have more pineapples.

Change pineapples to labor and translate labor to goods, etc.

It's really that simple.

[SDMuscleBuddy]

X and Y have $5 each. Each will sell a pineapple to the other for $5. Z will sell a pineapple for $2. X and Y can now have more pineapples.

Change pineapples to labor and translate labor to goods, etc.

It's really that simple.

You'll have to come up with something clearer. If I'm X and I already have a pineapple, why would I buy any from Z at any price? If everyone has pineapples, they have no market value.

[sportsfan7]

You'll have to come up with something clearer. If I'm X and I already have a pineapple, why would I buy any from Z at any price? If everyone has pineapples, they have no market value.

B/c you get more labor and with more labor you get more stuff.

You're thinking in terms of just money. Money is fiat so that is a useless term. Money divided by price level represents wealth.

Restricting outsourcing increases the price level, which lowers wealth.

American labor needs to become more competitive to reverse this. This bill would have made American labor less competitive.

Americans want extremely high wages and most just don't have the skillsets to justify those wages. $40,000 to a factory worker is like being a king in China. That kind of pay discrepancy can not last and global wages will slowly equalize. Trying to fight the market like this bill does will just make you worse off.

The current trend is something that western countries will just have to learn live with. Fighting it will only make you poorer.

[The Kurgan]

Higher average wages. When employment increases, average wages increase, consumer spending increases.

If wages increase, then this creates inflationary pressure, not deflationary pressure. In Keynesian economics, this is called demand-pull inflation. There would also be cost-push inflation in consumer goods to pay the wages.

Paying high wages creates (a) higher prices (reflecting higher labour costs) and (b) more demand for money, which creates pressure for an increase in the supply of money, which is another inflationary pressure.

It's Keynesian economics of the most basic sort: the prices of goods are determined by their demand and their cost. All else being equal, higher wages create demand-pull inflation amongst consumers and cost-push inflation at the supply side.

[chilon1]

These outsourcers are not doing any one any favor. They are paying in many cases say starting salary of about 100-200 dollars a month to Indian workers for jobs they used to pay 3000 dollars a month to their former employees in US. Plus the Indian workers do not get any benefits, no health insurance, no 401k etc.
It is all about money here.
Money.
Quality of work is so so and sometimes substandard in India.
In some cases there are employees of Indian origins working in US companies that are facilitating this.
Knowledge and jobs are being moved out of US but behind it is not upliftment of poor countries but naked greed and money.
Even here in US there is a quiet displacement of American workers that has been going on for last 20 years.
It is in the form of H1-B visa where foreigners are coming and displacing American workers and in many cases the fired or layed off or whatever American worker has to train them to do his/her job!

[SDMuscleBuddy]

If wages increase, then this creates inflationary pressure, not deflationary pressure. In Keynesian economics, this is called demand-pull inflation. There would also be cost-push inflation in consumer goods to pay the wages.

Paying high wages creates (a) higher prices (reflecting higher labour costs) and (b) more demand for money, which creates pressure for an increase in the supply of money, which is another inflationary pressure.

It's Keynesian economics of the most basic sort: the prices of goods are determined by their demand and their cost. All else being equal, higher wages create demand-pull inflation amongst consumers and cost-push inflation at the supply side.

You're confusing increasing wages of workers who already have jobs, to the effect on the overall average of wages when we create new jobs for people who aren't working. You're worried about the cost of labor for corporations, and for them I don't give a crap. They will always be looking to cut labor costs.

I think it's far better in the long run to find ways to support small businesses who do far more for jobs creation here than the 3% of all companies that aren't small businesses, and of the two parties, only one of them is doing that.

[The Kurgan]

Again, it's a basic fallacy to confuse intentions with results. It was not the intention of foreign investors in the East Asian Tigers to transform them from Third World to First World states, but this is what has happened.