Slashdot Mirror
Outsourcing As A Source Of U.S. Jobs
An anonymous reader writes "The Economic Times, India's leading financial newspaper, reports that Diana Farrell, Director, McKinsey Global Institute during her speech at Nasscom 2004 said that Bureau of Labour Statistics is predicting a job gain of 22m in the US by 2010, against a job loss of 2m, due to offshoring. You can read the full article here."
After the debacle of Reagan's supply side, the last time these unemployment numbers were close to this high (excepting Bush Sr's next-closest nadir), you'd think this nonsense would be rejected. But I guess greed blinds even the survival instinct, when so much loot is flying through the air, without any merit to where it lands.
I guess you're too young to actually know what you're talking about ... the double digit inflation and unemployment were Carter's. "Supply-side" got us out of that.
Apparently you didn't read the word "unemployment". Double-digit unemployment was Carter, the cure was Reagan.
I didn't really provide a defense for "Bush's" economy? It's not even his economy. The President has very little to do with the way the economy runs. The President has the most influence on foriegn policy (I'm sure you could go on and on about this too. Bush lied! Bush lied!). You're just a pissed off liberal who didn't get his way in Florida.
There was no doubletalk and the only statement I made that I could have, but did not, backed up with facts was the following.
The entire world is in an unemployment slump and the U.S. is nearly a point under the world average (not bad if you ask me, regardless of what party holds power).
Here is a link for some facts. We are in a slump.
As for my "feeler", that's exactly what it was. You came back with exactly what I suspected. You're a very angry person who has a very narrow view of the world.
3cx.org - A truly bad website.
Clinton never raised capital gains taxes - in fact he cut them by about a third (28% to 20%). Sorry stupid. I guess that this got moded up to 5 demonstrates the idiocy of the /. moderators, and that you are as likely to get a decent post at -1 (where this will be moderated to with a quickness) as you are at 5 - at least on anything other than how to get Linux to run on your 1980 promotional Star Wars Seiko watch that came with your happy meal.
The main objective being to motivate shareholders and executives to think of the company's long term best interest and not just jack up earnings by cutting maintenance, R&D, selling the family jewels, etc.
Don't blame shareholders - they have almost no influence on the corporate direction unless they are major shareholders. Although it is possible for shareholders to vote executives out, in reality it is almost impossible. Blame the executives directly.
If there were a similar way to make politicians or the public fiscally-minded, too, it would be nice.
Don't blame the public - they have almost no influence on the deficit direction. In fact, a major plank of the GOP platform has always been deficit reduction and less government spending. No politician gets elected by promising to increase the deficit. I can hear it now: G.W.Bush in 1999 - Elect me in 2000! I promise to take a 1.5 trillion dollar surplus and make it a 3.7 trilllion dollar deficit in four short years! Think he would have been eleced? No way. Blame the liers directly!
Of course one could argue that Bush wasn't elected at all.