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.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (518008)	12/31/2003 3:51:05 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

The point in this offshoring debate is that we brought all these foreign workers here on work visas in the 90s, primarily as a way to control escalating costs of the US labor force. Then, when the tech bust hit, thousands of these people went back home with their knowledge of US business, and contacts. Now, we have given away the entire industry. Had we kept the knowledge base here, where it belongs, we would have been better off. But the cat is out of the bag now. The one saving grace in all this is that if you look at companies that have set up huge offshore R&D operations, like Intel for example, they are getting their butts kicked on the design front. These offshore facilities are not up to par- YET. Maybe we can reel some of this work back in. But its hard to make an argument for allowing this to happen in the future, with some new industry. Conservatives are all for free markets until 1) they have to pay more for labor (hence the work visas) or 2) it cuts into their profit picture (drug companies)

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (518008)	1/2/2004 12:22:37 AM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

multi-year outsourcing trend Would you tell that to Lizzie? She seems to think it's all GWB's fault. It appears to me to have been going on for DECADES. At least since the 1970's. To achieve the greatest efficiencies from Capitalism, all inputs must be transferable --- that includes labor and capital. Yes. But it is also reasonable (to prevent a 'rush to the bottom') to condition transferability of labor to similar environmental and labor standards. I would suggest that tax benefits be apportioned accordingly, and that 'tiers' of nations be established, to deliniate between nations where labor rights and environmental standards are equivalent to those prevailing in the US... and those with lesser levels of protection. Hmmmmm...... Legal. Constitutional. But MY GAWD what a bureaucracy you just created! And an endless catfight! Who judges these things? How? If a nation guarantees and requires employment, as Communism did, is that a plus? Really? Is the US punished for not forcing companies to give 6 or 8 weeks paid vacation as is common in Europe? Are you sure you aren't going to start another, unintended race to the bottom here? It would be fair to use the federal treaty-making process to encourage greater levels of protections in foreign nations... and to use the tax laws to give lesser benefits when jobs are moved to the more 'non-compliant' countries. (I believe it would be safe to say that North Korea and Burma would likely find themselves in the bottom tier....) Legal. Constitutional. Another quagmire and opportunity for foreign nations to bribe bureaucrats and congresscritters. Better than anyone else. No one of those doing the b***hing, moaning, and whining has even TRIED for any solution. They just want to complain and blame a decades long trend on the current administration.