LET'S TALK ABOUT "YOUR" JOBS

Nealz Nuze ^ | Wednesday, February 18, 2004 | Neal Boortz

[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.

[MEGoody]

"The perception is out there that President Bush not only doesn't care if my job is exported overseas, but he's damn glad about it and thinks its a good thing!"

Anyone who holds this perception probably doesn't have a job because of their stupidity.

[Conservative4Ever]

This is a must read for every American. Period!

Red

[navyblue]

i do however, think that we CAN compete with the lesser wages in India, if we simply learn to deal with it as they have. it's the lazy people who expect it all on their plate for less that make this world loss its value.

Mac, this tells me that you don't have a clue! Have you ever been to India and seen the way people just barely exist there?

You need to see how after the shops close, people litteraly like rows of corn, sleep on the sidewalks because of their poverty.

So in what jobs do you think we will be able to compete with areas of the world such at this? You are living in a dream world Mac.

[MEG33]

If I and my family built a company,we have ups and downs,manage to keep afloat,it grows and grows,hiring more and more people.

It becomes listed on the NYSE,the stock I hold becomes worth many millions,what part of my wealth do I owe you?My employees were given stock options.

[hedgetrimmer]

Who charters a corporation? Doesn't the government grant charters? Aren't the citizens the sovereign entity in the United States government? So who has the ability to control the corporation should they choose to exercise it? Couldn't the agency, the sovereign citizens, that charters the corporation just as easily revoke it?

... The citizens of every state, acting through their attorney general, have, and have always had, the legal authority to go to court to revoke the charters of corporations that violate the law.
--Robert Benson, Professor of Law Loyola Law School, Los Angeles

Corporations have no inherent rights in the Constitution.

They exist because they are granted a charter by citizens through an agency of the citizens, the state or federal government.

Corporate charters can be revoked because of law-breaking, or monopolization of a market (anti-trust).

The following list is some of the limitations placed on corporations in the past by various states.

Limited Duration: Charters were granted only for a period of 10, 20 or 30 years after which the corporation had to be liquidated with the proceeds distributed among the shareholders.

Limited Land Holdings: Many states imposed limitations on the amount of land a corporation could own. Most often the amount of land was limited to that required for the factory or mill site.

Limited Capital Holdings: Once again many states limited the amount of money or financial assets a corporation could own. Some state banned corporations from owning other corporations or stock in them. Once a corporation exceeded the limit, it had to be either dissolved or split.

Specific Purpose Charters: This was perhaps the most common of all restrictions in the early years of this country. Corporations were chartered only for a specific purpose such as the building of a canal or road.Once the stated purpose was completed the corporation was dissolved. Now charters were issued that enabled a corporation to engage in any type of businesses.

No Limitations on Liability: Directors, managers and shareholders were held to be fully liable for any debts or damages. In some cases the lender or injured party was entitled to double or triple the damages. Other states imposed extremely high interest rates until the debt was fully paid.

Restrictive Shareholder Rights: The internal governance of corporations was much more restrictive than today. Shareholders had more rights. In case of mergers some states required a unanimous vote of shareholders.

Restrictions on Pricing: Some states maintained the right to set prices on corporate products. Wisconsin for one gave the state legislature the power to set prices on products after reviewing the corporations expenses.

Revocable Charters: States maintained the right to revoke or change a charter at the will of the it's legislature. Almost all of the states adopted this clause after 1820.

[Conservative4Ever]

Bless you for exhibiting and sharing the great American way. I wish you unending success.

Red

[eleni121]

And apparently you do not know how unions and Communists have infiltrated each other.

The cataclysmic revolution may be delayed by the liason between corporations and unions, but the end result is the same: international socialism.

[hedgetrimmer]

corporations and unions and government
the end result is the same: international socialism

[Mr. Bird]

The perception is out there that President Bush not only doesn't care if my job is exported overseas, but he's damn glad about it and thinks its a good thing!

I think you raise a very good point, but it's not the one you think. Yes, there seems to be a growing perception that American jobs are just being sucked away by some strange, sinister force. There is a growing perception that a lost job is someone's fault; that the person displaced is somehow owed something in return.

The rumble against outsourcing/offshoring has been growing to a crescendo in, surprise surprise!, an election year. It is in the interest of those not in power to create the perception that things are worse than they once were. There are no statistical data to back that up, of course, so it's important to show nightly features on jobs going to India, or poor programmers in Duluth out of work.

If you lost your job to India, maybe your perception of your worth was a bit out of whack. If I find myself in a position that some two-bit, low rent doofus from Calcutta can fill, I think I'll look for something else. It would be less embarrassing than ranting about it here.

[eleni121]

You are right. It's a well known fact that while mega corporates offer standardized sameness, the number of small businesses providing the unique, the different, the hand made is growing by leaps and bounds.

[raybbr]

A corporation is like a person - it wants to survive, anyway it can.

No it's not. That you would say that speaks volumes.

You still haven't proposed an alternative, which I assume is some form of protectionism.

Yes. I want the government of this country to protect its citizens in every way. I would even go one step further. Were I the government I would be aggressively promote, in any way I could, the demise of foreign companies so that we could remaing the economic leader of the world. What would be so wrong if everyone had to come to the U.S. for their needs? A little bit of economic imperialism wouldn't hurt at all.

[Moonman62]

It's no longer "government by the people or for the people", it's become "government by the corporations and for the corporations". There is also something in the Constitution about the government promoting the general welfare --- but that doesn't mean putting Americans on welfare, it's supposed to promote our well-being.

To each his needs, from each his abilities.

Seriously though. Just three and a half years ago, Greenspan was warning us about the evils of full employment. When GWB took office, he made it clear that he was totally comfortable with a 70% drop in the NASDAQ, and presumably with the historic drop in business spending it reflected. If it weren't for 911 neither one of them would have ended their destructive economic policies.

I happen to believe that the jobs situation isn't that bad and that many people are going into business for themselves, but if GWB hadn't been an economic moron until his second round of tax cuts, it wouldn't even be an issue.

[MacDorcha]

im talking about college loans, not families. you need to pay off loans now, i cant help you, but i can recomend not taking out large lonas in the first place except to maybe start a business.

[A. Pole]

And apparently you do not know how unions and Communists have infiltrated each other.

I have seen the Communist aparatchiks and they looked and behaved exactly the same way as many business managers here. They made careers not by producing things but by knowing the right people. They hated unions and they were kicked out the unions (Solidarity). Now they are returning as free market supporters.

Why? I guess the same type of people choose similar career paths in every system.

[MacDorcha]

trade with them is impossible because there are sanctions against them and against us from them. even in communism, the black market arises, and truly free market exists, just not a sane alternative.

[eleni121]

The job situation presents a conundrum. Why do off the boat, hard working immigrants (BTW-legally here) seem to all be working 2 jobs and buying their homes within a couple years while lots of Americans are boo hooing about not being able to find a job?

I see them every day and even here in Western NY - the land that time forgot - immigrants are all working and going to school to improve themselves---getting ahead and not griping about free trade and jobs going overseas, ad nauseum.

[Moonman62]

Yes. I want the government of this country to protect its citizens in every way. I would even go one step further. Were I the government I would be aggressively promote, in any way I could, the demise of foreign companies so that we could remaing the economic leader of the world. What would be so wrong if everyone had to come to the U.S. for their needs? A little bit of economic imperialism wouldn't hurt at all.

Wow, I kept waiting for the sarcasm tag. An economy grows by being innovative and thus creating new markets and new businesses, and thus, new jobs. There's no need to kill foreign competion if the government steps out of the way and allows those things to happen. Had GWB been more like Reagan, rather than Hoover and LBJ on economic issues, jobs wouldn't even be an issue.

[BrooklynGOP]

BTW, that was sarcasm...

Yea, I figured. You saw what I was getting at.

[eleni121]

Please do not compare Solidarity with the Leftist, socialist run UAW, NEA, and that bunch.

They hate Walesa and what his movement helped do to the Communists.

I have seen the Communist aparatchiks and they looked and behaved exactly the same way as many business managers here.

I agree with you that superficially they behave similarly---they are bureacrats just as Max Weber described the culture. But and this is a big but - corporate flunkies present no threat other than to themselves being downsized. OTOH, Socialist Bureaucrats once they are entrenched are permanently destructive.

[Walkin Man]

So you think the Dems are going to get the USA out of the WTO and repeal NAFTA and all those other trade agreements?

Not hardly seeing as how Clinton and Gore rammed NAFTA through in the first place.

I think they are willing to do anything to regain power in Washington DC however by at least talking about changes in some trade treaties.

Kerry is saying that the treaties were not implemented correctly to take into account environmental laws and labor laws, etc.

Edwards whole spiel is about the "two Americas" that "free trade" is helping to create and independents went big for that message in the latest primary.

What has the President said?

His top economic adviser says, its good for America when jobs go overseas.

Who do you think the unemployed worker or the guy thats scared his job is next is gonna vote for?

This ain't rocket science people...