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

Me | Me

[Havoc]

Dear Mr. President,

You don't know me, nor do I expect you to. But I'm one of those voices out here in the ether that actually did vote for you. I'm not one of those seminar caller types nor a Democrat pretending at being a republican to subvert the party faithful in dishonest fashion because their ideas aren't popular enough to win them anything. No, I'm a life-long republican who cherishes the memory of Ronald Reagan and who thought highly of you right up to the time you sunk a knife in my back economically.

Sir I understand it's a hard job being president. I also understand that in IT my job causes me to have to think on my feet and respond to an everchanging environment just to keep it. And while I was busting my behind for a company I happened to love doing a job I happened to love, you decided it's a good thing to do an endrun around equal protection and hand my job to a Mexican worker at 1/3 of the rate I'm being paid. Sir, Retail employees get paid more than that Full time and they're earning below the poverty level. The Job I hold for the moment requires a lot of hard work and problem solving skills, it requires good customer care skills, and it requires a long knowledge of Computers and software I didn't get from a degree but from practical experience.

I worked long and hard for years looking for the break that would get me in the door with my current employer. And I currently have a carreer with them. Or had, rather. I've worked for EDS for nearly 4 years. I will lose my job just short of that anniversary or just after it depending on how the breakdown happens.

I have a handicap that keeps me from driving a car. Not an official handicap, because it's so rare a problem that 1/2 of 1% of Americans have the condition so it doesn't rate being called what it is. I'm a blip on the screen. But, it means I have to live close to my employer and sometimes rely on others to help me get things done. I've lost everything and put my life back together 3 times in 15 years sir. And having just accomplished it again after 4 years with my employer, your policy has killed any protection I might have otherwise enjoyed from having my job destroyed by foriegn competition. And it puts me right back on the brink again. Sir, if I don't stand a chance of winning, it isn't competition - it's fish in a barrel. Where is my equal protection under the law?

The "competition" didn't get hired because of race or creed; but, because of national origin. They got hired because their cost of living is low enough that they can be paid sub-poverty wages to do my job. They are taking my job because they aren't constrained by the laws we have in this country to protect us and preserve our liberties. Lower cost of living, and no laws to constrain them. See, we used to have what was called ANTI-DUMPING laws on the books before Nafta to prevent the subversion of our economy by those who would attempt to compete on an unfair basis and put American firms out of business. We aren't a global economy, the globe is not the United States of America. They don't respect our rights, our Constitution, our laws or ourselves. The average citizen of the world might; but, we aren't dealing with them, we're dealing with the leaders who have their boots on the neck of the citizen of the world.

It seems today that I have to be a Mexican to get a fair shake in America. There are some 8 million of them here illegally as a tax on our system and working here taking jobs that Americans can do; but, which apparently, nobody wants to offer a fair wage for as long as they can get slave labor off the books. That isn't enough though. We need to employ More workers from Mexico, India, China.. As long as we're doing it, sire, why not be obvious and lets put Sally Struthers on the TV to advertise IT Jobs for the people under repressive regimes in africa who can live on 52 cents a day, "the price of a cup of coffee." I don't care what color their skin is, No citizen of the United states could live on that and shouldn't be asked to compete with it. It's too blatently obvious that it's unfair. And that seems to be why it's "good for us all".

Your policy sir. It's you on the tube telling me it's good for me to lose my job to a Mexican worker outside of our system and in a manner with which I cannot compete. There isn't a job comparable to it here that I can take to make up the difference cause those are being outsourced too. Outsourced. How about endran. Because sir, that is what is happening - it's an end run around our system - around our rights, our laws, our constitutional provisions and protections. Your policy has relieved me of my job without due process. It tied my hands before I had a chance to respond. And so many businesses are being forced to do the same thing, that I don't stand a chance any more than those earning 3 times what I do in the same field who have lost their jobs already and have had to take 11k a year Retail jobs just to eat while their houses go up for sale.

I don't have a degree. I don't get retraining. I just get to lose my job at the whim of your policies and will likely lose more than that in the end. You see, I bought a new home too - a year ago. This job made it possible for me to do that. And as with my Job, I had to get a huge break to be able to pull it off. I've been behind you and a cheerleader of yours since I first heard you speak. I understand that the tanking economy isn't your fault. I understand it isn't your fault we were attacked. I understand and agree with pretty much everything you've done to date, sir. This however is in my mind beyond sickening. It is a betrayal of myself, my coworkers and every other hard working IT worker, Auto worker, etc that has lost their job due to this. It is a betrayal by their government and their employer. And it's a distrust you've earned by subverting them and me. For me, it's not just my Government, it's my own party.

Now I've heard all the arguments for outsourcing and all the copout phrases about what we do about companies that have outsourced to the US. Tell me, sir, how many of them outsourced to do an endrun around their system of government, their constitution, their laws and their workers. How many of them outsourced to us to produce goods for their home market. That isn't an argument that flies with me in the face of doing an endrun around us. They've built plants in our land and are working within our market, within it's rules, within our laws, within the constraints of our constitution and are paying a competative wage. Our companies are doing the opposite. And any way you cut it, it is economic and constitutional tyranny. I'm not a single issue voter sir, until that single issue is my life and livelihood.. until members of my own party call me a robber and a thief for expecting to keep my job when I've worked my behind off to do so.

I did it right. I've busted my backside under an ever increasing workload, kept my promise to my employer and my client. Never missed a metric, never dropped the ball for either of them and have always exceeded expectation as a member of one of the best teams on this planet in my humble opinion. My job is gone not because we didn't produce and not because either couldn't afford it; but, because Mexicans work cheaper and don't have our protections, laws, rights or constitution. I have a strong work ethic and a loyalty to my company that even now makes me shudder to say a bad word about them. I have no illusions; but, I was raised that if you do your best it pays off. I know now that if you do your best, you get kicked in the teeth just as hard, and if you get ahead a little bit, the government will be there to kick you back down. I appreciate how hard your job is. Mine is pretty dang hard too. But how about you and everyone in government work for $600 a month from now on like the Mexican workers replacing us. How about you all work for the income you're forcing me into. If it's good for us, it should be good for you too. You, and all the ivory tower types in our party that hiss at me for being upset over losing my job and wanting to defend myself. How would that be, sir? I'd just as soon see little Tommy Daschle and Ted Kennedy go fly a kite as hear them spout one more offensive evil lie about you. But I'd just as soon, too, see you join them holding the string if you're gonna ruin me and tell me it's good for me. How about if we just outsource your jobs too - oh, wait, that would be unconstitutional too, wouldn't it.

[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 ?