An Open letter to President Bush (End run vs. Outsourcing)

Me | Me

[Havoc]

Try responding to my main point. I mean, It's clear you read enough to edit me into saying Japan doesn't have a high cost of living - which I didn't say. But you don't seem, any of you, to be able to respond to the central point. None of them are screwing their own people to get around their own laws, constitutions, etc. Only you free traitors here in the US as the others call you are doing that. And one wonders why all of you ignore it and run from it like the plague on every thread that addresses it if it's so proper.

[Southack]

"No interest in the matter is why the polls have gone south and Bush's poll numbers are taking a huge hit on the jobs issue. Right. Care to yank our chains on that one again."

It's just wishful thinking on your part to think that because you are getting canned that so too will the U.S. President.

But it won't happen. President Bush will win his re-election this year by more than 18 electoral votes no matter how much you whine about losing your IT job.

IT is changing. That means that a lot of IT folks are going to have to change, too.

And you aren't expected to like it. By all means cry in your beer and scheme up ways to cause trouble for President Bush...but your efforts on that front are as likely to succeed as is beer-crying is to helping your job search.

[Southack]

"None of them are screwing their own people to get around their own laws, constitutions, etc. Only you free traitors here in the US as the others call you are doing that."

Nonsense. Most U.S. outsourcing is legal and Constitutional, save for the outsourcing of *data* by banks and healthcare companies that probably violates the Patriot Act's rules on data security.

[ARCADIA]

And you aren't expected to like it. By all means cry in your beer and scheme up ways to cause trouble for President Bush...but your efforts on that front are as likely to succeed as is beer-crying is to helping your job search.

I can almost feel the love here; perhaps you two should get a room.

[Havoc]

Bingo. That and the numbers they're reporting aren't accurate in the first place because they are only reporting people currently on the unemployment roles. They are not reporting as unemployed anyone not on the unemployment roles who still aren't working but no longer qualify for unemployment. Which means the number is larger than the 5.7% guesstimation that is being presented. We're going to lose the election. These people don't care. And as near as I can tell, I'm not even a human being to them, let alone a concern. I'm just a possible cause in them not getting a better stock kickback if I could get my job back.
I never understood why people told me Republicans were heartless, cruel and insulting. I'm a pull up by the bootstraps kind of guy and have always lived the 'do what you have to to get by' life - walking a mile to work in subzero weather because that's what it takes.. I now understand why people hate this party. I understand why Bush had to use the term "compassionate" conservatism. Cause he has to cover for the element in the party that treats people like they are nothing and count for nothing.
I'll never badmouth a democrat for it again. If I've learned anything today, it's that they have solid basis for being offended by elements of our party.

[ARCADIA]

I'll never badmouth a democrat for it again.

This isn't about Democrats, or Republicans; both parties have their hands dirty on this. It is about finding ways to shift the national debate to resusitate interests in the US as a viable sovereign nation. The majority of conservatives, and the majority of Democrats, care about our country. Unfortunately, there is a great deal of cash and effort that is going into dividing us into two hostile camps.

[Sam the Sham]

But there simply isn't any interest in the matter. The vast majority of Americans are employed, after all, and that's hardly a group of people to be sympathetic to that 5.7% of our population who is out on the street at the moment.

When people who have temp jobs because they can't get real jobs are counted in, it is more like 12-13% unemployment. So pretending that everything is just hunky dory is rather oblivious. Last year 1 in 73 households filed for bankruptcy. Foreclosures are at record levels. Credit card delinquency rates are at record levels. If that sounds like prosperity to you I have a bridge to sell you.

You can howl as much as you like in public about "outsourcing," and you may even find a few fellow unemployed posters to comiserate with, but it's not going to be a big campaign issue.

Then why aren't Bush's trend lines heading north ? Why is the "the country is on the wrong track" number climbing above 50% ? Tell me how an incumbent can be reelected if over 50% of the American people feel the country is on the wrong track. Why do more Americans define jobs and economy than terrorism/Iraq as the most important issue in this election ? Or are you dimly aware that of the 308,000 new jobs that were supposed to have been created, 296,000 were seasonal or temporary ?

The unions didn't even bother to yell at Clinton for getting NAFTA ratified in the Senate.

And the unions most definitely gave Clinton hell over NAFTA. The only way it passed was that Newt Gingrich and the Republicans voted for it. But it availed Clinton nothing because by forfeiting economic populism as an issue the Democrats had no weapon with which to counter GOP strength on social issues. Without economic populism the Democrats under Clinton lost the House, the Senate, and governorship after mayoralty.

What is quite significant about the whole NAFTA fight is that the Christian Coalition refused Ralph Reed's request that they support it. There is a real clash of interest here between working class social and cultural conservatives with populist economic interests (who after all are the children of New Deal Democrats and William Jennings Bryan populists) and the kind of elite economic interests you advocate. To be a Christian, after all, is to see people as more than expendable units, and to value small to medium sized businesses rooted in place and community over the MNC with its "citizen of the world" mentality. The Carolinas are in intense pain over the destruction of their manufacturing infrastructure. I think they are in play. So are the battleground rust belt states. The party that fights outshoring and offshoring head on will be the majority party for the next generation.

It is simple enough to find ways to reverse outsourcing with strong protectionist measures (and before you start denouncing protectionism, it was the conservative economic policy for nearly 200 years under which this country became strong) and security provisions. For instance if the average American were asked, "Do you want your financial and health data processed by someone making a pittance in the Third World ?", he would respond with horror, No. Why not give him the choice of saying "no" ? Why not give financial service customers the power to require signed authorizations from them before "outsourcing" their vital data ? The current situation has already generated a few identity theft and account pilfering horror stories.

[Sam the Sham]

Today, with 5.7% unemployment, however, that's hardly the case. Your particular *field* may be hard hit, but overall the nation is doing fine. Any official unemplyment rate below 6% is full employment nationwide.

As I stated elsewhere, when you factor in people with temp jobs because they can't find real jobs the real unemployment rate is about 12-13%.

Europe has 10 to 11% unemployment and they're not hollering as loud as the few laid off techies around here.

In Europe unemployment is something like half pay indefinitely. And when you count in socialized medicine and possibly subsidized housing and generous retirement benefits being unemployed in Europe for an extended period of time does not mean bankruptcy the way it does here. So in Europe people unemployed people don't have to take temp jobs. So the European and American rates are really about equal except for the fact that Americans have no social safety net like Europeans do.

[USNBandit]

I am an unfortunate NMCI customer. My previous post was a sarcastic question. NMCI continues to be a big problem for the Navy. Here are some of the reasons why.

For EDS

1. They bid way too low. The contract called for bandwidth and capabilities which required all new infrastructure. That cost a lot.
2. Too centralized of a setup. All problems require first calling a help line located in either SD or Norfolk. The help desk usually requires a couple days to fix all but the simplest problems. If my computer suddenly catches on fire, I still have to call the help desk and wait a couple days for the local tech support to fix it. The knowledge base at all levels is pretty low.
3. Extremely sloppy rollout. Computers show up with the wrong configurations. Hardware installed with no supporting software, profiles pointed into the wrong servers or no server at all. RAS works horribly.

For the Navy

1. Poorly thought out roll out plan. Instead of being based on geographical location it was initially based on chain of command. Installations as a whole should have been cutover simultaneously so that commands weren't cut off from the rest of their neighbors.
2. It is extremely difficult to rollout government softwar. Program offices are constantly putting out new versions of software. The customer has to wait for it to be certified for network use. It is very difficult to get software out on a timely basis. It is bad enough that a piece of software my command is developing will run off a CD in order to avoid having to install it on NMCI.
3. Not enough accountability for the contractor. The Navy needs to hold EDS much more accountable for it's screwups. This is a premium contract with a premium CLIN price list. The service we are getting is not premium.

[Southack]

"What Marx did not anticipate was the social welfare state.

...

After the collapse of communism, MNC's frankly don't think they need nation states anymore. Wars in any case are back to being fought by small, professional armies instead of masses of conscript riflemen. So they can act like the "suck it up, loser" capitalism of Marx's time and freely "immiserate the masses"."

So Marx was right back then, save for the welfare state, and he is right again today in your opinion?!

Oh man, the CPUSA can't wait to hear from you!

But don't be surprised. Most of what passes for so called "conservatives" who want to ban offshore outsourcing are simply Marxist platitudes rehashed with modern buzzwords.

That Marx has been disproven by Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations) and the last two straight centuries of capitalistic prosperity is apparently lost on such people.

Capitalism, however, will sort out offshore outsourcing if the government stays out of it.

For one thing, trial lawyers are going to eat CEO's alive over the outsourcing of data to third world cultures that simply can *not* implement the levels of data security that we can implement here.

For another, the Dollar will continue to fall in its foreign exchange value until such time as outsourcing makes far less economic sense than today.

[Southack]

"As I stated elsewhere, when you factor in people with temp jobs because they can't find real jobs the real unemployment rate is about 12-13%."

That's a nonsensical statistic. For one thing, all jobs are temporary. For another, even "temp" jobs are jobs.

You ain't unemployed if you are temping. Companies like EDS make a living throwing warm temp bodies to their customers like BellSouth, and many a "temp" has found life to be just fine and dandy without getting a so-called "real" job.

[Southack]

"Then why aren't Bush's trend lines heading north ? Why is the "the country is on the wrong track" number climbing above 50% ? Tell me how an incumbent can be reelected if over 50% of the American people feel the country is on the wrong track."

Clinton was re-elected in 1996 with only 49% of the popular vote.

The papers claimed that Reagan's trend lines were down, too...and you can see the surprise on the faces of liberal news anchors to this very day if you watch some of the old broadcasts from November 1980 and 1984.

[Southack]

"And the unions most definitely gave Clinton hell over NAFTA. The only way it passed was that Newt Gingrich and the Republicans voted for it."

No, no, and no.

The unions didn't give Clinton any campaign grief over NAFTA. Newt Gingrinch was in the House, and the House doesn't ratify treaties, and it was a Democratic majority Senate in 1993 that ratified NAFTA.

[dennisw]

Good one. You are still conservative but our nation has embarked on a hyper capitalist policy of ruining our middle class via insane immigration and export of good jobs. Democrats talk a good game but have no solutions.... would be no better than George Bush. They are beholden to mega multinationals too and their agenda of profits being put way ahead of America and the American worker.

[Southack]

"Last year 1 in 73 households filed for bankruptcy. Foreclosures are at record levels. Credit card delinquency rates are at record levels. If that sounds like prosperity to you I have a bridge to sell you."

No, the Administration Office of the U.S. Courts reports there were 1,661,996 bankruptcies filed across the nation in fiscal 2003 which covers the period from October 1, 2002- September 1, 2003.

The U.S. Census reports that the U.S. has 291 Million legal residents as of 2003.

That means that .57% of Americans filed for bankruptcy in 2003.

In 1992, there were 971,517 personal bankruptcies with a population of 244 million...or .4%.

That same source above also reports that "Business bankruptcies actually dropped from the previous year 7.4% to 36,183."

In contrast, there were 82,446 business bankruptcy filings back in 1987.

[ARCADIA]

The U.S. Census reports that the U.S. has 291 Million legal residents as of 2003.

That means that .57% of Americans filed for bankruptcy in 2003.

Perhaps you should consider multi-person households. I.E. that may have been 1.6 million families that filed for bankruptcy, not 1.6 million individuals.

[Southack]

"Perhaps you should consider multi-person households. I.E. that may have been 1.6 million families that filed for bankruptcy, not 1.6 million individuals."

I've forgotten the precise numbers, but it was something like 38% single women filing for bankruptcy, 36% married couples filing, and the rest filing were single men and corporations (in the tiny minority).

So no, *not* 1.6 million families filed, but 1.6 million total bankruptcy filings altogether in sum.

[neutrino]

This is not merely a rant. It is more akin to the moving finger at Belshazzar's feast - if the offshoring situation is not addressed and corrected, the days of Republican control of the White House and of congress may have been numbered and finished.

If you want on or off my offshoring ping list, please FReepmail me!

[Sam the Sham]

"And the unions most definitely gave Clinton hell over NAFTA. The only way it passed was that Newt Gingrich and the Republicans voted for it."

No, no, and no.

The unions didn't give Clinton any campaign grief over NAFTA. Newt Gingrinch was in the House, and the House doesn't ratify treaties, and it was a Democratic majority Senate in 1993 that ratified NAFTA.

You are delusionally wrong. A treaty can be ratified EITHER by a two thirds vote of the Senate of by majorites in both houses. Clinton took the latter. NAFTA was endorsed by the entire business community, every editorial page, all surviving ex-presidents, and the full weight of textbook economic theory. Clinton used every bit of arm twisting and jawboning that he could. And still in the House it only passed by 234 to 200 with most Democrats voting against it and all but 43 Republicans voting for it. NAFTA only got 102 Democratic votes in the House. In the Senate it passed by 61 to 38 with only 27 Democratic Senatorial votes. The union based left wing of the Democratic Party did not support NAFTA at all.

This created a score to settle at impeachment time. Clinton was forced, to save his butt, to depend on the Democratic Left and the price of their support was no free trade nonsense.

[Sam the Sham]

"As I stated elsewhere, when you factor in people with temp jobs because they can't find real jobs the real unemployment rate is about 12-13%."

That's a nonsensical statistic. For one thing, all jobs are temporary. For another, even "temp" jobs are jobs.

Can you comprehend the difference between a job with benefits and some expectation of stability barring gross incompetence and a job with no benefits, no expectation of a raise, and that almost certainly will be gone in a few weeks ? The people holding them certainly do.

You ain't unemployed if you are temping.

Is a temp going to buy a house or a car ? Is a temp going to make any major purchases on a highly provisional hand to mouth income ? Although a temp is statistically "employed" his status is so marginal that his outlook and behavior are "unemployed". And he will vote accordingly to bring some stability to his life.

Companies like EDS make a living throwing warm temp bodies to their customers like BellSouth, ...

Lovely for the company, but companies don't vote. People do.

and many a "temp" has found life to be just fine and dandy without getting a so-called "real" job.

What would you care if they didn't ? I knew lots of temps. None of them regarded it as anything more that hopefully a way station to a real job and a stable life. Does hand to mouth subsistence without benefits and the constant threat of termination for reasons having nothing to do with your job performance sound fine and dandy to you ?