Stop the Outsourcing of American Jobs

[Lunatic Fringe]

I am here to announce that an undisclosed American telecom company (huge, big, you'd know the name if you heard it, but I cannot disclose it) has decided to outsource most of its Help Desk and IT Administration jobs to India.

Folks, the only way this practice, greedy corporate executives sending jobs overseas to save a few bucks an hour, is going to end will be you demanding that Congress take action.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in free trade. I believe in Capitalism. But I also believe that corporate executives should have a responsibility to serve the interests of their nation as well.

I believe that the only way to limit the outsourcing of American jobs to overseas firms is to place a punitive tarriff on the importation of technical services. Make it so expensive to outsource the jobs, that companies think twice before they implement these "cost-saving" methods.

Write your Congressman. Make so much noise that they will have to listen. It's up to YOU.

[Lunatic Fringe]

As I said in a previous post....

Most of the free-trade purists here are not affected by outsourcing, because this is a trend in the tech sector. But what happens when the corporate execs say "Hey, we can do this with other jobs too!"

HR departments, accounting, billing, research, CAD design, light manufacturing, marketing, banking... the list is endless of the types of jobs that can be performed overseas for a lot cheaper.

The free-traders say "You need to adapt, change your career..." Some of us don't have 4 years to go back to school, or the money to do it when you are unemployed. And even if we did, what's going to happen when my new career begins to be outsourced to India?

[hedgetrimmer]

There is no such thing as an "American Job".

Carly Fiorina, is that you?

[hedgetrimmer]

105th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 519
To terminate the authorities of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

April 8, 1997
Mr. ALLARD introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

***
No conspiracy here, but some attempts at doing the right thing. OPIC is an indefensible unConstitutional act. Its unConstitutional because it allows Congress to create a private corporation which operates outside of public control or scrutiny. It is indefensible because of the liability it creates for the taxpayer, who again has no say or influence over the private corporation, but must bear all financial liabilities for it. It also is being used as a back door vehicle for foreign aid, which should be the purview of Congress only, and it is harming American citizens by funding their competition unfairly.

The conspiracy as you put is, is the effort to keep the American public ignorant of the looting of our tax dollars by overseas corporations.

[hedgetrimmer]

This story is in the congressional record and the numbers you ask for for different companies are also here, if you will read them:

FROM THE BOSTON GLOBE, MAR. 30, 1997]

Trade Trip Firms Netted $5.5b in Aid Donated $2.3m to Democrats

(BY BOB HOHLER)
Washington: Businesses that gave Democratic Party committees more than $2.3 million and won coveted seats on US trade missions during President Clinton's first term secured nearly $5.5 billion to support their foreign business operations from a federal investment agency.

In all, 27 corporations that sent executives on trade trips with the late Commerce Secretary Ronald H. Brown obtained part of a multibillion-dollar commitment in federally guaranteed assistance from the Overseas Private Investment Corp., according to a Globe analysis of fund-raising records, trip manifests, and OPIC documents.

All but three of the 27 OPIC recipients donated to Democratic Party committees, and most of them gave between $50,000 and $358,000 during Clinton's first term.

The average company contribution to Democratic committees from OPIC recipients on Brown's trips was nearly $95,000. The average support from the agency for the 27 recipients was about $200 million per company.

In addition, Brown attended several signing ceremonies for OPIC-supported projects, including a 1995 event with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat for a bottled-water operation in the West Bank and Gaza involving Culligan Water Technologies Inc. of Illinois.

Companies that went on Brown's trade missions received nearly 14 percent of OPIC's total financial commitment of $40.6 billion from 1993 to 1996, which included $34.5 billion in political risk insurance and $6.1 billion in financing.

The businesses on Brown's missions received about $3.5 billion in risk insurance and $2 billion in financing.]

Among the companies that traveled with Brown, OPIC supported projects ranging from Pepsi Cola bottling in Poland to rocket engine development in Russia to cellular phone systems in Argentina, Hungary, India, and Nicaragua.



OPIC, in fiscal 1996, provided State Street a $54 million insurance policy on the company's investment in a Brazil manufacturing project

Of the other companies represented on Brown's missions, OPIC gave the bulk of its support--$1.62 billion--to Citicorp of New York and its subsidiaries, Citicorp received financing or political risk insurance for projects in 23 countries during Clinton's first term.

Entergy's chairman, Edwin Lupberger, traveled with Brown to China in 1994 to close a deal to build a $1 billion power plant there with the Lippo Group of Indonesia. Lippo's ties to former members of the Clinton administration are under investigation by the FBI.

However, Entergy received $165 million of insurance coverage from OPIC in 1996 for a hydroelectric power project in Peru.

[LibertyAndJusticeForAll]

From the Cato Institute: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa139.html
...
Politicization of International Finance

Finally, brief mention of the proliferation of official guarantee programs run by the United States, European nations, Japan, and the World Bank is in order. Such programs are increasingly short-circuiting the free market's efficient allocation of capital by underwriting the activities of Western exporters and investors in developing countries. The programs include the U.S. Export-Import Bank (and its counterpart agencies run by European nations and Japan), the U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), the World Bank's Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency, and the World Bank's "co- financing" program.

With the aim of jump-starting economic transformation in Eastern Europe, those programs are currently being expanded for that region. Such efforts, however, by definition paper over inadequate investment climates throughout the world and tax Americans to finance the socialization of international financial transactions.

The 1989 SEED Act made Poland and Hungary eligible for Export-Import Bank assistance. The pending House and Senate SEED II bills would further qualify Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and other East European nations for Ex-Im Bank aid. As mentioned earlier, the Ex-Im Bank's aggregate net operating losses between 1982 and 1988 totaled $2.3 billion. In response, the Bush administration's proposed fiscal year 1991 budget recommended an 18 percent cut in the bank's direct loan program. In his preface to the budget, Office of Management and Budget director Richard Darman labeled the Ex-Im Bank one of the budget's "hidden Pacmen" waiting to spring forth and consume resources as further losses mount.(52)

In fact, the Ex-Im Bank is little more than a lucrative government subsidy program for the giants of U.S. industry. A 1986 OMB study found that over 65 percent of Ex-Im Bank assistance is received by just 18 U.S. firms, including the Bechtel Group, Inc.; Boeing Co.; General Electric Co; and Westinghouse Electric.

The OPIC, established in 1969, insures U.S. companies that invest in projects abroad against nationalization, political violence (war, revolution, insurrection, civil strife), currency inconvertibility, and other risks. In addition, Congress recently voted to allow the agency--backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government--to make equity investments around the globe.(53) The 1989 SEED Act cleared Poland and Hungary for OPIC assistance. In February 1990 the agency signed its first insurance contract in Hungary--covering General Electric's much-touted $150 million investment in Hungary's principal lighting manufacturer, Tungsram. The pending Senate and House SEED II bills would further extend eligibility to Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and other East European nations.

Like the Ex-Im Bank, OPIC programs primarily benefit major U.S. corporations. During fiscal 1989 OPIC extended $613 million in investment guarantees. Seventy-seven percent of that coverage ($470 million) is enjoyed by eight major conglomerates--American Express Bank, Ltd.; Cargill, Inc.; Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.; Citibank, N.A. (together with Citicorp and affiliated firms of the two); Coca Cola Export Corporation; Enron Energy Resources, Inc.; John Hancock International Holdings; and Transcontinental Capital Corp.

Certainly those giants can afford private insurance alternatives. The private market in political risk insurance, most notably served by Lloyd's of London, has grown extensively in recent years. Estimates are that that market accounted for between $150 million and $300 million in annual premium income in the late 1980s, compared with some $15 million in the late 1970s.(54) In contrast, OPIC's 1989 premium income totaled $33.5 million.

Survey data suggest that only 25 to 50 percent of OPIC- insured projects would not have been undertaken without OPIC.(55) The problem is clearly not that private insurance is not available but that its (higher) costs accurately reflect the true risks of investing in the world's politically or economically unstable nations. OPIC's subsidized investment insurance only diminishes nations' incentives to create sound investment climates and produces less efficient international investments.

Washington policymakers' rush to use OPIC in an attempt to leverage substantial foreign investment in Eastern Europe's new democracies is ill-advised. As U.S. Chamber of Commerce chief economist Richard Rahn argued earlier this year, "private Westerners cannot be expected to--and in fact should not--invest in [East Europe's] economies until full property rights have been instituted, viable accounting systems have been installed and, most importantly, a functioning convertible currency has been established."(56)
...

And something from the Clinton administration:
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/index.jsp?section=papers&code=96-C_82

We yanked the funding from India and Pakistan when they were doing nuclear testing:
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1998_h/98061806_npo.html
-- $10 billion in projects on the Commerce Department's advocacy
agenda for India that were conceived with assistance from Eximbank,
OPIC, or TDA in mind.

-- When sanctions were imposed on May 13, OPIC's outstanding financing
and political risk insurance commitments in India exceeded $1 billion.

[hedgetrimmer]

Very informative links. Thanks for posting.

[Don Joe]

It's only a violation of our anti-trust laws if AcmeCorp. uses its monopoly status to keep other companies from competing (for example, by selling its mousetrap below its cost of production so as to drive a competitor bankrupt).

How does this make sense? If I want to sell fast food hamburgers, does McDonalds have to raise their prices to give me a break? If they sell below their cost, won't that naturally run them out of business eventually?

No, they won't run themselves out of business. They'll run you out of business. That's the whole point.

[Coleus]

http://www.stoptheftaa.org

Wait until the RepubliCrats pass this the FTAA. Then for sure we will have no more jobs.

[elfman2]

I haven’t got a moment yet to study your previous post, but that kind of posting is a big red flag. Every conspiracy kook that I’ve spoken to is unable to restrain himself from cutting and pasting long narratives to threads. In your case, I specifically asked for something succinct and I boldfaced that request.

"The conspiracy as you put is, is the effort to keep the American public ignorant of the looting of our tax dollars by overseas corporations."

That rhetoric only diminishes your credibility. I’ll read at least your first post when I get some time.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

No, I never said that. I said that those who want to use their "freedom" to destroy their own country should leave, or go to prison. Do you have a problem with that?

Yes, because you want to exile or imprison employers who decide to get rid of some domestic employees and hire a few in some other country.

That is your position, is it not?

[hedgetrimmer]

You know, it is a typical ploy by propogandists to try to discredit someone by calling them names.

Another technique used by some on this forum is to demand some kind of information from a poster, but it has to be a certain way or in a certain format or it won't get read. Then if the post doesn't fit the instruction, the propogandist can complain the poster is discrediting themselves because the information isn't in exactly the right format.

These are disingenous complaints because they have nothing to do with the information posted.

You can go read S. 519 "To terminate the authorities of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation." from the first session of the 105th Congress yourself. An educated citizen would certainly do that, and know how to get access to the bill information. A caring citizen would also do that so to be informed about critical issues debated in Congress.

[Modernman]

It's only a violation of our anti-trust laws if AcmeCorp. uses its monopoly status to keep other companies from competing (for example, by selling its mousetrap below its cost of production so as to drive a competitor bankrupt).

How does this make sense? If I want to sell fast food hamburgers, does McDonalds have to raise their prices to give me a break?

No, it doesn't. If you open a fast-food chain that cannot compete with McDonalds in price, quality, taste etc. and nobody buys your burger, you are SOL.

However, say you open a fast-food chain which is doing well, but McDonalds starts telling meat suppliers it won't buy from them if they sell to you, it starts telling newspapers if they run your ads, McD's won't buy ad-space from them etc. That would be a violation of anti-monopoly laws.

If they sell below their cost, won't that naturally run them out of business eventually?

If they did it long enough, sure. However, a huge company will have more resources to burn through than a new one. So, McDonalds can take a hit for a while in order to drive you out of business. When you're gone, it can jack its prices back up.

[Don Joe]

No, I never said that. I said that those who want to use their "freedom" to destroy their own country should leave, or go to prison. Do you have a problem with that?

Yes, because you want to exile or imprison employers who decide to get rid of some domestic employees and hire a few in some other country.

That is your position, is it not?

You know, if you worked for me, and I decided to save money by getting rid of you and replacing you with another American who would take your job for a lower wage, I'd find myself in court, you'd end up rich (not as rich as your lawyer, but hey), and when I got out of prison, I'd likely not do that again.

Something is terribly wrong with the system, when I can get away with replacing you with a non-American worker who'll take your job at a lower rate.

That is "using their 'freedom' to destroy their own country," and they should either leave, or go to prison.

How many times must I repeat myself before it gets through your head that I said what I mean and I mean what I said?

[kiki p]

However, say you open a fast-food chain which is doing well, but McDonalds starts telling meat suppliers it won't buy from them if they sell to you, it starts telling newspapers if they run your ads, McD's won't buy ad-space from them etc. That would be a violation of anti-monopoly laws.

If they did it long enough, sure. However, a huge company will have more resources to burn through than a new one. So, McDonalds can take a hit for a while in order to drive you out of business. When you're gone, it can jack its prices back up.


Thanks. I really wasn't getting the point, and you explained it really well. Food (but please not McDonald's!) for thought.................

[elfman2]

"You know, it is a typical ploy by propogandists to try to discredit someone by calling them names. "

Don’t tell me, you’re deeply saddened.

I’m not going to read the rest of this post, much less your previous psychobabble dumps. That display showed your inability to put our conversation in perspective. And that’s evidence of your inability to put functions of the OPIC into perspective. You don’t have a clue how to be persuasive. Get help.

Also, only an a fool would call someone a name in a post complaining of name calling, and then misspell it. Write me again, I won’t read it.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Something is terribly wrong with the system, when I can get away with replacing you with a non-American worker who'll take your job at a lower rate.

That is "using their 'freedom' to destroy their own country," and they should either leave, or go to prison.

How many times must I repeat myself before it gets through your head that I said what I mean and I mean what I said?

I just wanted to get you to admit that you believe in totalitarian government.

Thank you for your honesty.

[KC_Conspirator]

A new epression (PC) is that a company XYZ moves jobs to IBM !!

Exactly right.

My dad works for XYZ (Sprint) and they claimed this week that the thousands of jobs were being turned over to IBM. My dad said, "IBM will do the jobs" and that they were not going to India. He actually believed it, a smart and accomplished man. Today, a chief in my reserve unit who works for IBM told me that every single one of those jobs is going to India.

[hedgetrimmer]

A person with no facts to dispute anything anyone has posted about OPIC will call names, complain about spelling, the format of the post and make false accusations.

A citizen who cares about their country would want to know as much as possible about debates occurring in Congress, and the laws that they pass which are unConsitutional and put the taxpayer at great liability.

You know who you are.

[elfman2]

I’d have enjoyed exploring this issue with a rational individual, but life’s too short to spend on paranoid crackpots.

[hedgetrimmer]

I know how to find the bill in the Congressional record and have read it. That makes me the one who is informed on this issue.