Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (159338)	9/20/2003 1:01:42 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164687

Liz, show me where I denied US companies were hiring offshore. I didn't. I simply asked Skeeter (and now you) to show me - with hard evidence - that it is, statistically speaking, a LARGE problem - i.e. that it offshoring is directly resulting in the loss of a large number of jobs by people here. Contrary to what you may think, the majority of US workers do not work for large, multinational technology firms, so the fact that HP has a couple thousand people working in development or support in India or in accounting in Mexico doesn't prove your point. Again, the fact is that large, multinational companies, by their very nature, hire people worldwide - wherever they can get the work done economically. Technology has enabled them to move certain functions offshore and, right now, it appears economical to do so. Those conditions may change, they may even be a mirage, but you'll sooner stop the wind from blowing than stop economic reality. And you've certainly not shown that this is a problem of such magnitude that imposing new, restrictive regulation on US businesses and screwing with free markets for labor is justified. For one thing, if you try to prevent US businesses from hiring wherever they find it advantageous to do so, you will end up making those US businesses uncompetitive, resulting in much greater job losses, weaker trade balances and other negative economic consequences. PS: This has NOTHING to do with "love of Bush" or with defending him. I never even brought up Bush in this discussion, much less his views and policies on this issue. That is your own weak attempt at discrediting my argument by attributing to it a basis or motive that has nothing to do with it. Try sticking to factual, reasoned, evidence-based argument instead of the left's usual attacks on Bush and anyone else who doesn't agree with you. Lines like "the most incompetent president we have ever had", "not the sharpest tool in the shed" and "lackluster economic team" are not debate - they are hyperbolic blather. You're an educated woman - I think you can do better than that.