Posted on 02/18/2004 5:12:57 AM PST by beaureguard
Jobs .. and the economy. Those seem to be the issues that are driving many, if not most, of those who are supporting the Kerry candidacy.
First of all ... I'm going to repeat this simply because it makes the whiners so unbelievably angry. Listen up. They're not your jobs! The jobs belong to the employers .. not to you! You have job skills and, presumably, a willingness to work. Your task in a free economy is to get out there and find some employer with a job who needs your skills ... and strike a deal.
If you do not have the particular set of job skills that an employer needs, of if you have priced your labor out of the marketplace, guess what? It's not the employer's fault. The fault lies with you. Either develop a new set of job skills that are actually in demand, or adjust your pricing. The employer knows what he's looking for you. If you're not it .. it's your problem, not his.
Now ... you say you're going to vote for a Democrat this year because of jobs? You mean to tell me that you're going to vote against George Bush this year because you don't have a set of job skills that are in demand in our free marketplace? Yeah .. that makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?
Tell me. Just what do you want the president to do? You information technology people out there .. just what are you demanding? Do you want companies to stop outsourcing IT jobs to India? OK ... tell me how to do that. These companies aren't shipping parts overseas and completed products back. All they do is ship information overseas by phone lines or the Internet. Then that information is modified and shipped back the same way. What do you want the government .. the president to do? Do you want some federal law that prohibits companies from transmitting information overseas by the Internet, having that information transformed or modified, and then shipped back? And tell me just how do you enforce that law? Does that law then apply to you also if you seek information from a company that is located overseas, thus depriving a domestic company of your business?
Ditto for manufacturing. I've already told you the story about the California company that makes computer mouses. (computer mice?) This company ships the components to China. The mouse is assembled in China and shipped back, then sold for around $40. Why? Because the assembly is cheaper in China than it would be in the US. So, you say you want the president to force this company to have that mouse assembled in the US? Fine .. then the price for the mouse goes up to about $70 a pop and sales drop. As the sales drop the jobs of the people in this country who manufacture the components for that mouse go away. Then the 100 marketing jobs this company supports in California also go away. You see, perhaps you can succeed in forcing this company to assemble these mouses in the US, but there just isn't any way you can force the American consumer to pay 80% more for the "made in America" version.
As Bruce Bartlett says in an article listed in my reading assignments, "No nation has ever gotten rich by forcing its citizens to pay more for domestic goods and services that could have been procured more cheaply abroad."
What we are seeing here is a demonstration of the "government owes me" mentality of far too many Americans. Every time you arrive at a speed bump in your life's journey you start screaming to the government for help. Sure, the speed bump is going to slow you down a bit ... but just keep moving forward and things inevitably pick up speed again. Americans are becoming helpless whiners. The more helpless you are, and the more you whine, the more likely it is you're going to vote for a Democrat. Democrats specialize in stroking the malcontent.
Congratulations, whiners. At a time when America if fighting World War IV, the war against Islamic terrorism ... you're going to vote for a candidate who wants to treat terrorism as a freaking law enforcement problem because you've made some pitiful jobs choices. Pitiful.
Uh, no, and yes. This post is typical of the lack of clear thinking surrounding this issue.
Corporations are legal constructs as a vehicle for ownership of property. So, the corporation is a "creature" of the US (I suppose) but the US, as a government entity, has no moral claim of ownership on a corporation. Unless it bought it.
Q: What's black and brown and looks good on an attorney?
A: A Doberman.
The problem with super-capitalists is that they refuse to see the symbiotic relationship between the employer and employee. They think the employer is more important by an order of magnitude than the employee.
Well, that's the American's consumer's own fault. When we start refusing to overpay for junk, prices will come down. Of course, the stock market will then crash, the Fed's Ponzi scheme will be exposed, a second Great Depression will begin, and Bush will lose...so maybe we had better just keep on playing "let's pretend" for a while. That seems to be Greenspan's plan.
Exactly. Which is why I oppose protectionism.
In other words, if you want to boycott Hewlett-Packard because their decisions don't reflect your values -- fine, but don't tell them if they outsource labor you'll take their money away at the point of a gun.
Boortz wanks his putz again!
Hmmm... Perhaps they do, and those selling their labor/skills don't understand this and think that their "product" is somehow special and outside the laws of the market.
And thus arises the fallacy of your position. The people with jobs must pay for those without jobs. That is just plain incorrect. We don't have to, and we shouldn't. Read the previous post about those that refused a government handout and made their own way.
Seriously, climate and geography is a factor. In Russia you cannot walk barefoot in winter, you cannot live in shack, you need a warm dress and a fuel. If you do not have car/transportation you need a hardy horse. To survive, Russians had to help, share with others, rely on others help and being able to get by with little. Living in the middle of huge Eurasian mass, they needed to be shrewd, patient and courageous to repel or subdue numerous invaders. Etc, etc ...
Russia is forced by nature to be strong, resourceful, cooperative and independent.
No. They think the employer owns the property the employee is using and so has an inalienable moral right to think the employee is worthless. Whether that thought is correct or is stupid is another matter entirely.
I fully support your right to stupid values, and will vote against anyone who wants to impose on you a symbiotic relationship you don't want.
Good analysis up to this point, IMO.
What will happen is a deflationary depression (virtually certain).
After that, nobody knows.
After fifteen years of deflation, unemployment, and low production, we kicked the world's ass and sent our armed forces into Tokyo Bay and Berlin.
We could do the same again, OR lose our status and our freedom, but the latter does not follow from the former.
You really are an anachronism. Don't you know that today we live in a throw-away society? Everything is, or has to be, replaceable. How else could we support our consumerist society? How dare you suggest that instead of consumerism we believe in the sovereignty of America and the superiority of the American people as a society? Don't you realize that only the very rich should be allowed to buy quality goods? The rest of us should satisfied with cheap crap, produced simply so that we can buy it so that the corporation will garner more profit.
I think I am being mostly sarcastic.
IMO, they are.. by several orders of magnitude.
Business owners are a wonderful thing. They provide an opportunity for people to buy houses, feed their families, go on trips, etc, etc, etc.. PLUS, they pay taxes to finance projects, etc, on and on.. There's no need to drive this into the ground. Of course you realize this.
They are much more important in the big scheme of things.
The reason they are more important is simple: They can't get rich on their own. They have to have help and then many people prosper, to varying degrees, right along with them.
That means opportunity and I think that's a good deal for everyone involved.
When they aren't providing these opprotunities however, then they lose my sympathy. Because the only reason I should care about Bill Gates being wealthy is because he is providing jobs & helping people.
Likewise, the only reason Gates should care about me is because I might have skills that can help him become richer.
It's completely fair and it's mutually beneficial, provided both sides bring something to the table.
Those companies that are enjoying those perks on the backs of taxpayers and the local citizens DO owe a debt to the workers and citizens and should have all their perks rescinded with retroactive payment due for the costs incurred by the taxpayers.
What else can the government do (besides turn a blind eye to or legalize, illegals)?
EPA, EEOC, ADA, IRS, OSHA.....to name a few.
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.