Exporting jobs (Walter Williams)

Townhall.com ^ | 08/20/03 | Walter Williams

[Texaggie79]

Thanks for the ping. As usual.... Dr. Willams is 100% correct....

[Texaggie79]

Anytime the GOVERMENT must coerce coperations to hire anything other than what that coperation sees fit to hire, you are taking away the market's ability to react and evolve.

[speekinout]

businesses don't hire based on exceptional individuals; they hire based on the average worker. And the average worker nowadays leaves a lot to be desired.

And that's a sad fact. People who design automated systems for workers these days have to design them to be used by people with the equivalent of an 8th grade education. A good example of that is the cash registers with pictures on the keys.
Better and more productive things can be done with workers who have an average of a 10th or 12th grade education. Those workers aren't in the US - they're in Germany, India, the former SSR's, etc.
Shame on us. We need to stop whining and fix the problem.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

On this thread yesterday, the typical types were blaming the inner city thug lifestyle on free trade. Unbelievable. Not only did free trade cause 9/11, but it (as opposed to say, lack of education, cultural incentives role models, etc) is making inner city youths turn to dealing drugs. Un-f'ing-believable.

[harpseal]

Well since I am not talking about any coercion I do not see what your problem is. Now clearly you admit no Foreign national has a right to enter the US and work without immigrating to the USA legally or is this a presumption on my part. I think a corporation should be free to hire anyone in anyplace they wish but if they wish to bring that person into the USA they should sponsor that person as an immigrant and obey all the laws.

I further think that the laws should not allow for any temporary guest workers to affect the normal supply and demand of people to be employed to do specific tasks. Clearly such government action in a free market is picking winners and losers and should not be done. I have operated a business I had to pay employees out of what I charged my customers. Due to the nature of my business the quality of my employees was very important to me. Now if I am paying a subsatntial amount to an empoyee to do a job that requires education and skill and my competitor comes up with a government exception to the normal immigration rules to bring in a lower priced to him employee that he can say has equivalent skills and thereby charge the customers a lower price how is that fair to me as an independant businessman. My competitor had tried to hire my employee at the same rate I was paying and only when he could not did he get the special dispensation from the government. I note I would not have a complaint if my competitor was able to hire another person who was legally resident in this nation as an immigrant or citizen for less and therby able to undercut my price. It is the government action againstme that I object to.

I certainly agree that anyone should be able to hire anyone anywhere that person is and may legally go. That is the nature of the Free Market.

It is also the nature of the Free society that we all abide by the same laws.

[Texaggie79]

Indeed. Quite lazy to blame "corperations" who are not hiring who "should" be hired. People just are so used to thinking they are ENTITLED to a job, so much that they see it as a right.

[harpseal]

You will note that I have a 13 point plan for resloving the trade issues. Absolutely none of those points involve any coercion except to obey the law. Certainly abolishing a subsidy is not coercion. Traiffs are merely a tax on imports clearly a right of Congress since the US Constitution was adopted.

How is cutting back regulation or ending guest worker programs both of which end government intervention in the market palce a form of coercion. I do admit that I say perjury and subrogation of perjury should be prosecuted. But those are the laws.

[Texaggie79]

"In order to operate in this zone a company must agree to only purchase American components if available and employ only American citizens or legal immigrants in these operations. "

Seems like coercion to me....

[dogbyte12]

We coerce all the time with tax policy. We reward companies who purchase plant & equipment with tax breaks.

But, considering that these companies are hiring college graduates from public universities on our dime, to design the things that they later ship overseas, it's time they got some incentives to buy and hire american.

If anybody thinks that people in India are clamoring to buy our products at a 50% tarriff rate, with their standard of living, that will make up for the intellectual, financial, and physical capital we are sending there, I have a bridge in Brooklyn on the market they might be interested in buying.

We are chumps.

[harpseal]

Now since no company is forced to sign this agreement I do not see what the problem is. It is offering a benfit for an agreement. You do not have to pay the existing corporate income tax on any income derived under these conditions. In short if you run a corporation all you have to do is agree to these conditions to gain an exemption from corporate income tax. You can continue to do business the way you wish you are not being forced to do anything.

Now I have made clear as part of this plan that I would like this extended to the entire USA. Initially there would be geographic zones as a means of implementation I would prefer more rather than less. so what is coercive about offering people a way to get away from paying taxes?

[harpseal]

Hey nobody id forcing them to operate in the zone. I might rephase to make certain that no company shall be forced to make thsi agreement merely taht if they agree they get the break that is what was trying to be said in teh first place. Why do you object to teh elimination of some taxes? Especially when it is tied to investment in the USA? Now you say there is coercion. If a zone expands so that company x is operating within the geographical inclusion area but chooses not to sign on nothing changes for them period. Than can do whatever it they are doing exactly as before paying the same taxes they are paying today.

I would hope to eventually beable to get away form all coprorate incometaxes but this should easily handle a large majority of them.

[harpseal]

"In order to operate in this zone a company must agree to only purchase American components if available and employ only American citizens or legal immigrants in these operations. "

Since it is illegal to aid an illegal immigrant by employing him/her you seem to be advocating not enforcing our laws. Am I missing something here. these zones are in the USA or were ytou implying that because a company was geographically in teh zone they would not be able to operate which I addressed in anothe rpost and may bneed some clarification in my plan so I am properly communicating it.

[harpseal]

I followed your links. Now I have an open challenge to any Free trader to find regression analysis for any tariff in American history that proves there was a net harm from that tariff. I note the harm may not be from a combined tax hike or monetary policy combined with the tariff. A regression analysisi of just the costs of a tariff because a traiff does have costs must also be balanced by a regression analyis of the benfits same rules for both sided of the issue.

If tariffs are bad as you posted in teh links surely you can come up with such a study fo rat least one case and yes I have posted one study for one case showing the net effect of tariffs was postive. there are actually several out there on the side taht tariffs are beneficial in net.

In short would you care to back up your assertion with some hard evidence. We can then discuss the possibility of arriving at a generalization from the cases discussed. I do not assert that tariffs are always good sometimes they are neutral in that they do not provide a net benefit but I can not even find that much proof of their harmfulness. So I can only say in my opinion tariffs are not always good they are sometimes neutral and may even in some cases be harmful. But I have never been able to find a study that they are on net harmful.

Now since you assert they are harmful I hope you can help in backing up this statement. By teh way I have had another Free Trade advocate tell me that they best that could be proven was that the removal of a tariff did not harm a specific industry.

[Taxman]

You forgot to include the most important "reform" needed to fix the problem: Replace the income tax with a National Retail Sales Tax and abolish the IRS!

That one move would eliminate the necessity of most of your suggestions, except tort and regulation reform and immigration reform -- which are sorely needed, IMHO.

HST, I also heartily support "Tit for Tat" import duties. I.e., if a "trading partner" levies a 50% import duty on US goods, the US should levy a 50% import duty on that "trading partner's" goods. Exhorbitant duties would quickly become a "thing of the past."

[Gunslingr3]

Now since no company is forced to sign this agreement I do not see what the problem is. It is offering a benfit for an agreement.

Benefit? Who is going to pay for all these bureacrats to determine what and from whom companies are purchasing goods? Are you going to impose taxes on me, or on the business (and thus me indirectly) to pay for them? Good God, sir, have you experienced first hand how purchasing in a government bureaucracy functions? Will you impose taxes on my brother's small business (with a whopping 3 employees), or will you assign him a bureaucrat to make sure he's buying his materials from sources you approve of?

I have no quarrel with getting rid of income taxes. Let's do it tomorrow! But don't follow it up with a new bureaucracy to paralyze the economy!

Now I have made clear as part of this plan that I would like this extended to the entire USA.

With apparently no thought given to how it would work or what costs it would impose both directly and indirectly.

so what is coercive about offering people a way to get away from paying taxes?

The madness you propose was one of the original reasons this nation was born and our independence declared, "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance."

How, how on earth, are you going to make the determinations about what is 'American' and not? Is a GM car 'American' if it has brake parts from Mexico? Is a Ford car 'American' if it has a Mazda motor? You're going to leave these questions up to bureaucrats, to write reams and reams of regulations and leave businesses guessing whether or not they'll suddenly invite a return to huge taxes if they buy parts from a seller who buys parts that aren't 'American' enough in origin. It's madness, and it will invite even more corruption as political payoffs are made and competitors realize they can sic the bureaucrats on their competition if they get the right Congressman's attention.

Drop the preposterous taxes and regulations strangling business and capital will do what it has always done, continue coming to America where it can get the best return.

[harpseal]

I personally would not have a problem with NRST. I do not think it is feasable for ten or twenty years however.

[harpseal]

The simple way any item that is directly imported into teh USA and not merely a component of some product made in the USA. Now let us take a car directly imported. That some company wishes to make improvements on and resell. the profits directly atrributable to the improvements made would be tax exempt.

Those atributable to the original price of the automobile would not. These would be based upon the percentages of the the cost of each item to the final product. Pretty standard cost accounting. now since we are talking a tax break if a customer of this company wished to purchase the vehicle separately and have the work done to his provided vehicle the same work would be entirely corporate income tax free. As far as company cars and components that are not directly attributable to normal operations they are not counted one way or the other for purposes of determining the tax exemption. in short a japanse made fork lift operating with in the factory is not going to cause it to lose its tax exempt status nbor will a sales person driving a Ferrarri.

No coercion no big beaurrocracy and no real additional work and hey if a company does not wish to comply fine.

[harpseal]

Drop the preposterous taxes and regulations strangling business and capital will do what it has always done, continue coming to America where it can get the best return.

And how do you propose to get the polidiots in DC to drop the preposterous taxes and regulations. That is what this plan is trying to get through in part. Do you think that in 2004 the makeup of the government in DC is going to magically change an suddenly start dropping rules and regulations and giveing up power. This is a package plan that is trying to generate enough grass roots support so hopefully we will get there from here.

Do you honestly think a national retain sales tax or dropping of the corporate and personal income tax will just happen? I do not admit to wanting more regulations and your claiming I am seeking such is disingenuos IMHO.

[Taxman]

We are working to have it passed into law by Christmas, 2005, to become effective July 1, 2006.

Of course, if ABB is elected President, we can forget it. And the window of opportunity is the first year of the second Bush Administration.

Worth working for, IMHO.

[KayEyeDoubleDee]

I followed your links. Now I have an open challenge to any Free trader to find regression analysis for any tariff in American history that proves there was a net harm from that tariff.

My links had to do with the attempt to blame the actions of nineteen murdering islamofacists on free trade