Posted on 03/04/2006 2:25:11 PM PST by Gengis Khan
NEW DELHI, India (CNN) -- Praising India's expanding economy, President Bush warned Friday that fears about job outsourcing to other nations should not prompt the United States to limit global trade. "It's ... important to remember that when someone loses a job it's an incredibly difficult period for the worker and their families," Bush said in a speech in New Delhi. "It's true that some Americans have lost jobs when their companies move their operations overseas," he said. "Some people believe the answer to this problem is to wall off our economy from the world through protectionist policies. I strongly disagree."
(Excerpt) Read more at edition.cnn.com ...
;-)
When you add the impact of taxes, government regulation on businesses, and union wage inflation you must also add the government run school system. We have the least amount of engineers graduating from our colleges than any industrialized nation. We have the highest rate of students dropping out of high school. A business is only so glad there is a highly educated worker in India with good foreign language ability (English).
You can only let our kids watch so much TV and play video games so long before it starts impacting their ability to compete in the world marketplace.
Glad a few of us are in focus. Keep up the good work.
Not doing enough against terrorism? Do you have any specific countries in mind? Please mention names if you have them so that your arguement has some substance to it.
he will just give them more opportunities to kill us with.
Good. Another tagline.
You first, what branch did you serve in?
Your motto: "I'm alright Jack, screw you?"
Is this what you regard as swearing?
This is not harsh. It is, however, correct. There has never been a centrally planned economy that protected the jobs of all of the people. That is a pipe dream. Why? Because the central planners do not and cannot know the economy in enough detail to best the decisions made by millions acting in their own self interest. The lawyers in our legislatures are not qualified to run busineses or economies. In a way, this thread is based on some false ideas. Number one is that outsourcing is a government policy. It is not. You want the US govewrnment to require that everyone stay at his current job?
A Chinese MacDonald's worker does not compete against an American one. First, he is not available because he is in China. Second, he would not be qualified because he cannot do the work without speaking English. If he learns English and moves to the US, then he can compete with the American.
Cheers!
Why should the "older worker" cost more than the better worker? And why should the government be required to compensate for the bad and lazy decisions of the poor worker? In fact, many people advance and improve with age and their employers regard them as indispensible. Those who do not are the ones to go.
Something that didn't come as a result of Daddy's money, connections, or influence.
I didn't say the older worker was not the better worker, only that they were doing the same job. Age is immaterial in that respect. However, most companies give each employee a raise every year or so as a matter of recognition and appreciation. After awhile the worker who has been around a lot longer is making quite a bit more money than a new hire. That is the difference. If the older person ha not improved his knowledge and skills to the point of being worth the extra pay, he is let go in favor of a cheaper person. No need to pay more for the same job being done. In fact, it is a poor business practice.
As I said in another thread, the older worker also cost the company more for health insurance and retirement benefits.
And why should the government be required to compensate for the bad and lazy decisions of the poor worker?
In this case I have no idea what you are talking about or where you got that idea unless you are talking about unemployment insurance. As far as pure economics and a small government philosophy they shouldn't pay them.
In fact, many people advance and improve with age and their employers regard them as indispensible. Those who do not are the ones to go.
I agree and many companies later realized they had lost valuable experience by letting the older guys go. Because of the cost of the extra benefits, many companies let the older workers go and hired them instead as independent consultants at higher pay but they were still cheaper minus the cost of the benefits.
I have reead the links you provided to your vanities. Do you want me to reply here or to the thread you started today?
Cheers!
Well, I suppose the native thread would be this one but not sure. If it is not I will repost to the other one.
I have read the vanities to which you directed me, including this one. You make some good points but I have issues with the way you connect the dots. To me, you seem to be confusing cause with effect and trends with plans, to be looking at the macro economy when decisions are made in the micro economy.
A company president or CEO doesn’t decide to hire an Indian company to do certain work in order to increase the buying power of the Indian populace. That may be a result but that is not the reason.
The US government, or the Federal Reserve, does not sell or market their Treasury notes, etc., to China, India, etc., those countries buy them of their own accord because it is the safest place to put their money.
I, too, have had experience with the McKensey Company. It is my opinion they question the customer to determine the outcome the customer wants and then put together some impressive stats to validate it. In the case I am familiar with, over time they were 180 degrees wrong. An industry they said was headed for the bone pile instead thrived and grew. The company just was no longer a part of it. The field the company went into, the computer industry, a field that was touted by McKensey, was extremely volatile and if the company is still in business it is only by selling specialty products to the military.
They say all politics is local. Well, for sure all economic activity is local, even smaller than that. It is one on one. Trends may result from that but the trend wasn’t the plan.
Also, countries don’t trade with each other, individuals and companies do. The cumulative result may be a currency imbalance between certain countries but there is never a trade imbalance. That is why China, India, Japan, etc., buy lots of US treasury instruments with those surplus dollars. They put them back where they got them.
In my opinion, you have done a lot of good work with your sharp mind only to reach the wrong conclusions.
Will reply later in more detail, but just as a teaser: Think of Robert Kiyosaki of "Rich Dad, Poor Dad". The money isn't made in buying stock but in selling it.
(Today is looking like a "honeydew" day, plus other committments. It may be a few days.)
I appreciate the compliments.
Cheers!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.