Posted on 07/29/2003 7:09:27 AM PDT by Mick2000
Just three years ago, Congress voted to allow more foreign workers into the United States. Times have changed.
Politicians are proposing tough — opponents say misguided — steps to keep jobs at home in the face of rising unemployment, a growing number of white-collar jobs being transferred to India and other countries and lingering anger over some U.S. allies' opposition to the war in Iraq.
The House has passed measures to require the Defense and State departments to buy a larger share of equipment from U.S. firms. The measure, which has provoked a corporate and political uproar, has not been approved by the Senate.
Legislators in several states are trying to bar the export of government jobs to foreign companies.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., chair of a Judiciary subcommittee, plans a hearing today on possible problems in the L-1 visa program, which allows companies to bring workers to the USA from their foreign operations. Workers complain that firms are using the program as a backdoor way to replace domestic employees with cheaper labor.
(Excerpt) Read more at usatoday.com ...
Which is opposed by a Corporate America more concerned about the bottom line than the welfare of the country it supposedly resides in.
Your statement ignores the fact that many US based companies now have majority foreign ownership or close to it. The reason for this is plain. Foreign companies are buying into US companies at fire sale prices, since the value of US companies is being depressed by US law.
The corporate boards of those companies are responsible to ALL stockholders of the company, not just the US stockholders. Just because a company originated in the US, doesn't mean that its owners will forever remain US citizens, if indeed, they ever were. And, even if the owners are all US citizens, there is nothing patriotic about allowing your company to go bankrupt, for no better reason than to gratify a few Congressmen's egos.
One of them, at least, already is: check out Dick Gephardt's "International Minimum Wage" idea.
(Excerpt)
"Establishing an International Minimum Wage
An International Minimum Wage would keep U.S. workers competitive in the global marketplace.
Based on the imperative of protecting both human dignity around the world and American jobs here at home, Dick Gephardt believes we must establish an international minimum wage. The World Trade Organization should establish an international standard for a minimum wage.
The creation of such a wage would guarantee that workers all over the world earn a livable wage. It also would keep U.S. workers competitive in the global marketplace. Countries could offset lower wages with trade concessions, and more developed nations would share in the burden facing less developed nations."
Who cares if it's not feasible, most Pres. election voters won't give a fig as long as it sounds good and seems sensible.
Still going on record, as I have for over a year now, that Dick is gonna be the nominee, and we'll have a helluva time beating him, esp. if the economy lags into 2004.
I did some cursory Googling on WTO and outsourcing, and it appears that WTO does support free trade in software services.
How can the cure – repealing H-1B and L-1 programs – be worse than the current situation?
Yes! … and Perot’s platform before him. … and it’s always been America’s policy until Bush I and his New World Order.
People who listen to Don Imus on the radio will know this to be the case. He runs a charitable foundation that sells western clothing and things like that, and he insists on two things: 1) all of the profits go to his ranch for children with cancer, and 2) everything must be made in the U.S.
Imus has gotten to the point where he is quite exasperated about this, and freely admits that Condition #2 makes it almost impossible for them to generate any profits for Condition #1.
Most people don't realize that companies relocating their headquarters to offshore locations are not doing this to avoid paying taxes on their U.S. income and profits -- they still have to do this no matter where they are located.
What they are doing is relocating to a foreign country that doesn't tax its income and profits from countries all over the world -- income and profits that have already been taxes in those countries.
True statement in principle, but false in reality.
Japan's economy is about half ours. If Japan ever developed a military half ours, it would have some very bad consequences. Do you really want Japan to have 3 carrier battle groups, and 5 nuclear armed Trident submarines roaming around ? Do you want Germany and France doing the same ?
AHEM...neither Truman nor Eisenhower ever thought to shaft American workers.
Beginning with the KENNEDY ROUND, every Admin has shafted American Workers.
The problem is that just like Blacks, one party gets the votes and the other party just writes them off.
If every "worker", Blue, white, pink collar, could agree to vote, just once for an agreed upon party (which? flip a coin at The Million American March), the very next day working stiffs would have the Complete and Undivided Attention of BOTH parties.
If bush cared about keeping factories in america, and keeping american employed , we'd know about it by now too.
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.