Slashdot Mirror


Intel Co-Founder Calls For Tax On Offshored Labor

theodp writes "Intel co-founder and ex-CEO Andy Grove calls BS on the truism that moving production offshore to locations with much lower wages is a sound idea. 'Not only did we lose an untold number of jobs,' says Grove, 'we broke the chain of experience that is so important in technological evolution. As happened with batteries, abandoning today's "commodity" manufacturing can lock you out of tomorrow's emerging industry.' To rebuild its industrial commons, Grove says the US should develop a system of financial incentives, including an extra tax on the product of offshored labor. 'If the result is a trade war,' Grove advises, 'treat it like other wars — fight to win.'"

565 comments

  1. How do you decide what's offshored labor? by Qzukk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The first thing companies will do is spin off "Offshore Labor, Inc" to a separate corporation headquartered in the Cayman Islands or wherever, then import the products for sale here. No offshored labor here!

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    1. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by binarylarry · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ask the companies who are being audited by the IRS for their existing Cayman tax dodging practices how much fun that is.

      This is one thing Obama should be lauded for (and I'm not a huge fan).

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    2. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google "Value Added Tax" to see how this is dealt with.

    3. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      But doesn't that mean the "product" is now subject to import duties (ie, taxes)?

      I'm not being a smart-ass, I'm curious how that pans out...

    4. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by QuantumRiff · · Score: 4, Informative

      Then they just do what haliburton did, and move their headquarters out of the US, to Dubai...

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    5. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by ducomputergeek · · Score: 5, Interesting

      From the stand point of double taxation of foreign profits in the US, you are much better creating your corporate HQ somewhere like the Isle of Man or the Caymens, et. al. and then creating a separate US entity. Then your profits made in other countries are taxed in those countries, but if you send the profits to the Caymens you aren't taxed again on those profits.

      As it works now, if you are HQed in the US and have different operating units in other countries, you pay the taxes in those countries. Then any remaining profits sent back to the US are taxed again by the IRS. So the US company is being taxed for the profits made in the UK, Germany, Russia, or wherever.

      In most countries, if their company makes profits in the US, they aren't taxed again back home when they bring the profit back.

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    6. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The logical course would be to tax money based upon where it is EARNED, not where the company resides.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    7. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Then they just do what haliburton did, and move their headquarters out of the US, to Dubai...

      No need to go to the Middle East. Monaco, on the Med surrounded by France with Italy 16 miles away, has no income tax and low business taxes.

      Falcon

    8. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ask Timothy Geithner about IRS audits. Oh wait. Nevermind.

    9. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      The first thing companies will do is spin off "Offshore Labor, Inc" to a separate corporation headquartered in the Cayman Islands or wherever, then import the products for sale here. No offshored labor here!

      If you import products manufactured offshore by another company, then clearly you're using offshore labour, even if indirectly. However, I suspect it would be far easier to simply use tolls.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    10. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by divisionbyzero · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The first thing companies will do is spin off "Offshore Labor, Inc" to a separate corporation headquartered in the Cayman Islands or wherever, then import the products for sale here. No offshored labor here!

      I agree but it's not hard to figure out who's doing it and just tax their goods.

    11. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by AuMatar · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Institute a 100% tax on any company that moves its headquarters overseas.

      Corporation exist only because they are chartered by the state to allow them too. If they're no longer in the country, their charter is invalid, seize all the assets.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    12. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by hitmark · · Score: 1

      heck, microsoft is doing that in europe, by diverting all income to their ireland branch. And i dont think they are alone in that.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    13. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by hitmark · · Score: 1

      and here i thought high tariffs on imports where seen as domestic protectionism, and frowned upon by economists.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    14. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sounds pretty simple to me. Look at it like this: Where is the product sold, and where is it manufactured/developed/supported? If it's sold WITHIN the 50 United States, and any manufacturing, development, or support is located OUTSIDE the 50 United States, then it should be considered "offshore".

    15. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Okay, so I live in Canada, your business is in the states. I order something online.

      Where was the money earned?

    16. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      "This is one thing Obama should be lauded for ..."

      The Treasury is auditing those companies? Link please?

    17. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by Amouth · · Score: 1

      that can be a logistical nightmare

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    18. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by Courageous · · Score: 1

      This rhetorical question amuses, as different law enforcement agencies in the US cannot even decide where they want it to be earned. You know, pretending they had a say in the matter and by fiat of law could make it so, the various agencies can't agree where it ought to be!

      Frankly, I'm with Von Mises. Institute a tax on the unimproved value of land, and call it a wrap. No more income tax at all. Income taxes aren't just a logistics problem (and invasive! get rid of the state's interest in knowing what people do for a living, and how much money they make for gawdsake), the system is just too gameable. Land, now that's viewable from space.

      C//

    19. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by Courageous · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So ironic that we're considering implementing the financial equivalent of the Iron Curtain. This has come up for individuals, also. It's just unconscionable. Just exactly what sort of country do you want to live in? Next you'll be proposing we snipe the richies as they attempt to flee the border. That people are considering such extremes just tells me that the current system is broken. Income taxes just aren't the right vehicle for gathering revenue.

    20. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Just require that all imports to the United States be required to pay at LEAST American minimum wage.Let's let all workers make a decent wage instead of trying to cut American wages to 3rd world standards.

    21. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by djp928 · · Score: 1

      So the government essentially owns all corporations?

      How long do you suppose before this gets implemented for individuals? Move to Canada, and we take all your shit before you go. Or, hey, move from New Jersey to New York, and New Jersey takes all your shit at the border.

      Great plan.

    22. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by wonkavader · · Score: 1

      I completely agree with you in sentiment.

      But that won't happen in our corporate-controlled state.

      Furthermore, if corporations are people (a thought I hate, but others can use it in the courts), then this would set a precedent for doing such things to individuals. I don't want the state to infringe on my ability to dump this country in favor of another.

      However, I think, in the mentality of 'If the result is a trade war...fight to win.' we could tax such companies when they try to do business in the US and make the initial move a very bad business decision. That would mean taxing other foreign businesses, too, though.

    23. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't Venezuela.

    24. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      So we just need to repeal the law of comparative advantage? Number ONE! Number ONE!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    25. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, this is how you would have to implement these kinds of taxes. It gets rid of the quandry of trying to figure out where it is earned. Put a high enough import duty on it, and if the market is big enough to warrant it, companies will move manufacturing centres there. And if you think this isn't happening now, think again. China is doing precisely this, but in a sly manner. They keep wages low, benefits low, have lower environmental standards than the west, lower safety standards than the west, less employee rights than the rest, and they keep their currency artificially low. This means that goods manufactured in the west are too expensive for the average Chinese and so nobody will import them there. It creates the same effect as a duty.

      If the west were to raise duties to counterbalance the advantages the Chines have built into their economy, given shipping costs etc it would be more economical for the companies to move manufacturing back to the west. Granted we are seeing a slow increase in the standard of living in China, but if you notice, the numbers of unemployed in the U.S. keeps growing. Today it was announced that 83000 new jobs were added in the U.S. However this is still below the number of jobs required to be produced to account for those leaving the work force due to retirements and increases in population. By the time the average Chinese worker reaches a comparable standard of living as the west, the west's workers will have their standard of living lowered significantly and be virtual serfs like the average Chinese. You cannot make the weak strong by making the strong weak. All this serves is to create a greater division between haves and have-nots, and eliminates the middle class.

      Similarly, taxing offshore services like a duty can be done for software related work for example.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    26. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first thing companies will do is spin off "Offshore Labor, Inc" to a separate corporation headquartered in the Cayman Islands or wherever, then import the products for sale here. No offshored labor here!

      Hey Guys -- I run a small software company. We've been burning our own capital (3 million) for 6 years. We employ both US coders and Chinese coders and I write code myself. An additional tax on my Tiawan coding team would just cause me to have to cut more jobs. I can't afford more US coders...with this tax I just couldn't afford more offshore labor.

      I am the CEO. Me, the COO, the CTO and two SVP's do not take a salary. We would rather spend this money on hiring staff. Still, we pay about 100K in payroll taxes ON PEOPLE WHO DO NOT TAKE SALARY.

      This is what is called "government ass rape."

      Small businesses like mine create most of the jobs in America. If you keep raising taxes on us we'll all just keep shrinking...like we have been in this economy.

    27. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by tyrione · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So ironic that we're considering implementing the financial equivalent of the Iron Curtain. This has come up for individuals, also. It's just unconscionable. Just exactly what sort of country do you want to live in? Next you'll be proposing we snipe the richies as they attempt to flee the border. That people are considering such extremes just tells me that the current system is broken. Income taxes just aren't the right vehicle for gathering revenue.

      Hate to break it to you champ, but when Eisenhower was President, Corporations and the top tax bracket were 87%. In those days, fiscal conservation actually happened. The wealthy who reaped the benefits off of labors backs paid back and the nation built highways, dams [Eisenhower screwed up by not making rails first and highways second, but that's a separate issue], power grid expansions, etc.

      Corporations weren't drowning and being incapable of innovating. They invested heavily to grow innovations. This only happened after strict regulations were put into place post Depression. Political scumbags are complaining the tax burden on corporations is devastating today and they can't create jobs.

      B.S. on all the falsehoods. These same corporations love the billions pouring into the Military complex. Cut the defense budget in half and redirect half of those cuts back into US infrastructure and you'll see them quickly fighting for that cash, but still bitching about drowning in tax burden.

      The US needs a clean slate on high, strict regulations that are fair across board, drive tax incentives to innovate and not to maintain the status quo. This will force the big conglomerates to either innovate and spin off some of their assets or die for refusing to change. Too bad. It's We The People, not We The United Corporations Against The People.

    28. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by tyrione · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This rhetorical question amuses, as different law enforcement agencies in the US cannot even decide where they want it to be earned. You know, pretending they had a say in the matter and by fiat of law could make it so, the various agencies can't agree where it ought to be!

      Frankly, I'm with Von Mises. Institute a tax on the unimproved value of land, and call it a wrap. No more income tax at all. Income taxes aren't just a logistics problem (and invasive! get rid of the state's interest in knowing what people do for a living, and how much money they make for gawdsake), the system is just too gameable. Land, now that's viewable from space.

      C//

      I don't need land to become a multi-billionaire. I can use virtual land to do that just fine. Sorry, but the land analogy is archaic. Corporations are screwing America and putting the burden of taxes on the lowest tax brackets while off-shoring their accounting to hide assets. I'm with raising the corporate tax rate up to 50% with the option to cap it at 30% if 20% of those taxes are turned back into job creation and R&D.

    29. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Companies quartered in the United States are given a 1 to 1 reduction in U.S. tax liability for each dollar in foreign tax they pay.

    30. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by Third+Position · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The difference here is that it's not the 1950's. Our only possible competitor, Europe, was recovering from the devastation of 2 world wars, Made in Japan was a synonym for cheap junk, and don't even think about China, India or Korea. You could get away with an 87% corporate tax in the 1950's, because corporations really had no where else to go.

      Try that today, and the only result you're going to get is corporations fleeing overseas as fast as they could go.

      --
      American Third Position
      Finally, a real choice!
    31. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Does someone need a hug?

    32. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by Third+Position · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The first thing companies will do is spin off "Offshore Labor, Inc" to a separate corporation headquartered in the Cayman Islands or wherever, then import the products for sale here. No offshored labor here!

      Well, that wouldn't be that hard to get around. Instead of a tax on the parent company, institute a tariff on the imported goods or services. That way you put the penalty on the consumers of imported goods and services rather than the producers, who can always find a way around a tax. With a tariff, you don't care who manufactures it where, because it's the importer and the consumer who's going to be forced to cough up, as soon as soon as it crosses the border. It would make consumption of foreign produced goods a lot less attractive, and make it a lot harder for companies to play shell games with subsidiaries.

      Reagan employed that approach to induce Japan to restrain auto exports to the US, and encourage the Japanese manufacturers to build manufacturing facilities in the US in the 1980's (google Voluntary Export Restraints).

      I'm not really a big fan of protectionist policies, but if you really decided it was necessary (and there's certainly an argument for it), it's not really an insurmountable problem.

      --
      American Third Position
      Finally, a real choice!
    33. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by Apple+Acolyte · · Score: 1

      Why haven't other countries made this imbalance more of an issue in the media? This is the first I've heard of it and will have to do some research, but it sounds right and I'm eager to trust a fellow hater of Socialism.

      --
      Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
    34. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      In other words. A trade war would be lost before it began.

      Truth be told, an American lifestyle is EXPENSIVE!!! We simply can't compete in a global market anymore unless we are willing to sacrifice with less. In the end, it comes down to survival. American's want jobs, and our nation will change in whatever direction to have them.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    35. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by Wildclaw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      n those days, fiscal conservation actually happened. The wealthy who reaped the benefits off of labors backs paid back and the nation built highways, dams [Eisenhower screwed up by not making rails first and highways second, but that's a separate issue], power grid expansions, etc.

      Which isn't very strange. When high incomes and big corporate profits are taxed heavily, money tends to get reinvested instead of taken out as profit for the rich.

      Well, as long as you tighten the tax holes that allow money to escape abroad instead.

    36. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in the states

    37. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by yoshscout · · Score: 1

      Aren't 100% of those salaries + benefits + employer side of medicare and ssi non-taxable anyways? Or are you getting at them spending 20% of the 50% (actually 10% of profits) to receive the other 10% in tax reduction?

    38. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by pgmrdlm · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hate to break it to you champ, but when Eisenhower was President, Corporations and the top tax bracket were 87%. In those days, fiscal conservation actually happened. The wealthy who reaped the benefits off of labors backs paid back and the nation built highways, dams [Eisenhower screwed up by not making rails first and highways second, but that's a separate issue], power grid expansions, etc.

      Breaks my heart that I can do this, but here is a supporting link. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

      --
      Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
    39. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by Anarchduke · · Score: 1

      That is true, but perhaps not everything in Venezuela should be sneered at.

      --
      who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
    40. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      Corporations are inherently subsidized by the government. If you're really a free market believer you should be in favor of reconnecting a company's owners to the consequences of the company's behavior. Count each individual shareholder's profit as straight income and tax it accordingly.
       

    41. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      So what you are saying is all foreign countries should immediately institute a 100% tax upon US produced software, hmm, sounds reasonable to me, that will really kick the crap out of those inflated profit margins as products are already priced at the maximum the market can bear.

      Outsourcing is very tricky control, as software product is pretend produced locally whilst in reality it is an imported product. Of course data processing outsourcing can be tackled simply by privacy security data export laws.

      Best way to cripple outsourcing, simply use free open source software, where you can only charge for locally sourced service and support. You can not hide crappy off shore call centres. By locally sourced service and support I mean really locally, your suburb, your town, not just your state or country.

      Nothing puts off shore out sourcing centres like, free open source software. Tax payers dollars saved, tax payer dollars not exported and tax payer dollars used to employ the local community, it should be mandated that governments only use free open source software and contract out service and support to regional service and support providers.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    42. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      and here i thought high tariffs on imports where seen as domestic protectionism, and frowned upon by economists.

      They are protectionism and are frowned upon by economists. This guy is suggesting that we start protecting our domestic industries rather than blindly follow the ideology of free trade, which for me seems like a very smart thing to do.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    43. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      it would be like a VAT tax, or a tax on the "value added" or the difference in what you pay versus what you can get paid. VAT works perfectly in this situation because when an offshore laborer does work for $10 instead of $100 and the company turns around and still sells that work for $200 they have to pay tax similar to capital gains on the increase in value... not merely the "profits", because most companies will never make "profit" for tax purposes but still enjoy the cost savings. VAT "levels" the field a bit.

    44. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      the problem with property tax was that too many people live in urban areas where they pay a landlord and don't "own" anything. So they jack property tax way, way up so landholders wanted more people paying in (especially when land ownership was dropped to qualify for voting) Sales tax has the opposite problem because it depends solely on spending... and the rich don't have to spend as much of their income as poor...most importantly they don't have to spend their CAPITAL which keeps them WAY ahead of everybody else.

    45. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by the_womble · · Score: 1

      It already is, AFAIK, the problem is that it is subject to manipulation. For example, Microsoft and Google, earn a huge chunk of their profits in Ireland. MS does it by:

      1) Licensing software (mostly developed in the US) to its Irish subsidiary at low rates
      2) The Irish company then re-licences to third countries at much higher rates.

      MS then pays Irish corporate tax at 10% on these profits. Ireland is very useful for this as it is a tax haven within the EU.

      As for taxing off-shoring, how do you classify it? Is all contracting of work abroad off-shoring? Are imports off-shoring? If you increase tax on off-shoring through subsidiaries, then its easy to off-shore through contracting.

      How does he intend to deal with the WTO rules on all this? Renegotiating the treaties is going to take years, and simply breaking them would be highly disruptive and damaging....

    46. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by the_womble · · Score: 1

      Bad example, it is very clear cut: the business operates in the US, and the work was done in the US, so the profit was made in the US.

      There was a recent Slashdot discussion (not the first) on how people can be intelligent about other things but clueless about IT. The fact that the parent was modded +5 insightful shows how clueless Slashdot people are about tax.

    47. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      This should not be a problem, I am not from the USA so my solution may not work there, but in general just take the top 100 corporate CEOs and execute them publicaly. Then take the next 100 top executives and hold their families hostage. Guaranteed 100% to stop any capital flight overseas.

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
    48. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by Courageous · · Score: 1

      Yes. But the Landholders do indeed pay. And OF COURSEE, the renters get it on indirect, as the Landholders will do some degree of burden transfer. This method is better, as it reduces the number of collection points.

      C//

    49. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by Courageous · · Score: 1

      I made no argument about their tax burden. Merely one that said that confiscating everything if they wanted to leave was "unconscionable" and likened it to an "Iron Curtain". I stand by this remark.

      I also stand by the remark that income taxes are not the right vehicle, and the remark that people are thinking of it is evidence of this. Tax their gross if you prefer. Or their sales.

      While I do generally think we have too high a tax burden, I am personally of the opinion that our current means of collection is highly flawed regardless of the burden. Note the difference between the definition of "income" for individuals and businesses: a business deducts all of its costs, including domiciling; an individual cannot deduct domiciling costs, or travel costs in pursuit of one's wages.

      The lack of the ability to deduct rent is just evil. It's completely a lie that people have to incur rent anyway: their is huge amounts of evidence that say people live in cities because that's where the jobs are.

      Income tax is just evil. Businesses are the ones most able to manipulate it. Kill the income tax. Anything else would be better.

      C//

    50. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      There is another solution to this though. It doesn't really matter where the corporation is, what matters is where it's produced. Let's take rubber kickballs, something that is simple, easy, and almost completely machine made. Right now Toys-R-Us sells them from China. Why? There's little labor involved in production. As for labor involved for shipping - you have the packing in China, shipping overseas, unpacking in the US by union workers, packing back up on trucks, unpacking at a distribution center, then repacking and shipping to stores. How is that cheaper than producing locally and removing all those other costs? Could it be because there are no safety and environmental pollution laws in China? I'd say YES.

      So, how to fix this? Inspect every item that comes into a port and charge the importer to cover the cost. Test a representative item to ensure it meets our quality standards (lead and cadmium in children's toys for example). If it comes from a country with lax environmental and safety laws, test more items. If it comes from a country with strict laws then perhaps only token testing would be done. This evens the additional cost burden of importing for countries that have good safety, environmental, and wage laws vs those that do not. It also would promote local manufacturing over moving offshore, as your item will see little if any price reduction by such a move.

      As we have seen, local manufacturing is key to several things, including more rapid recovery from recessions and as providing an engine for innovation. (After all, why innovate if you aren't producing anything?) Thus you could sell this under "Homeland Security" and "Think of the children" as well as several others. Corporations would be upset, but moving offshore doesn't help them.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    51. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      Considering the gap between the wealthy and poor is continuing to grow and taxes and loopholes are growing for corporations why would it be wrong to try to get things back to the way they were? If one extreme (iron curtain) is bad then surely the other extreme is bad.

      Every company can't flee to another country because it would kill a huge market by leaving everyone with awful Wal-Mart jobs. Who will buy their crap then?

      It's complete bullshit to imply that corporations are some how being screwed. They're not and they're better off than ever before. It's time they start giving back. You can't keep taking out of the pot without putting back in.

    52. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      We also had fewer markets to sell too in the 50's. We now have more but rather using that opportunity to increase our production and profits by selling to others we've opted to raise profits by moving the jobs out of the US. It is hurting the US and will continue to because a nation full of Wal-Mart employees won't ever be great.

    53. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by sunspot42 · · Score: 1

      You could get away with an 87% corporate tax in the 1950's, because corporations really had no where else to go.

      Taxes in Europe and Japan were even higher. Still are, in most instances. So that argument doesn't hold water.

      Try that today, and the only result you're going to get is corporations fleeing overseas as fast as they could go.

      Well then, tax the profits their remaining US entity makes at 95%. That should discourage any flight to offshore tax havens. Unless they want to pull out of the US market entirely, which is fine by me. I'm sure US-based companies will have no trouble displacing them.

      Oh, and once they pull out, invalidate all of their patents within the US. Hey, you don't operate here, so why should we waste our time and resources enforcing your patents?

    54. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you saying the government is better at investing than the rich?

    55. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by Courageous · · Score: 1

      What you're proposing is an act of desperation based around trying to cope with a failing system. Stop attempting the insanity of taxing this thing called "income". Instead, tax the goods directly. Or the land they use. Or anything else.

      Has it not yet become obvious to you that the muddily defined notion of income, with the muddily defined (and fictional!) notion of it being earned in some place where an HQ is, is all just so much slight of hand?

      Ruminate on it. "Income," and taxes on it are the problem. The income tax is the disease. Anything else would be better.

      Want to think about how unfair it all is? How is it a company can deduct the cost of its domiciling, but an individual can't? It's just evil. Individuals incur cost of living (rents) in high cost areas SO THAT THEY CAN BE WHERE THE JOBS ARE.

      Anyway:

      Proposing systems that amount to, in short, "let's take all their stuff". Well. It's desperate, just plain wrong, and nothing more than evidence of a deeper sickness. These reactionary proposals will NOT solve the deeper problem. Mark my words.

      The. Income. Tax. Must. Not. Go. On.

      C//

    56. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by Wildclaw · · Score: 1

      Are you saying the government is better at investing than the rich?

      I thought it was well known that raising margin income and business profit taxes doesn't actually increase the amount of money taxed as much as it changes the behavior of those making decisions in businesses. So, no, what I am saying is that rich people under such taxes tend to make investment decisions that far better benefit the society in general.

      Now, governments can indeed be better than the rich at investing for some types of investing where the benefits go beyond profit motives. But there can huge differencies in efficiency between different governments. Governments that implement flawed trickle down theories tend to be quite inefficient and corrupt for example.

    57. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, so I live in Canada, your business is in the states. I order something online.

      Where was the money earned?

      Two places, Canada and the U.S., actually, even down to the county and city locality of each.

      For physical goods, the money is earned at the origination and destination of where the goods will be shipped. There are currently sales and use tax laws determining the percentage for each.

      Each cell phone call you make, taes are claimed by the origination locality, destination locality and locality where you, the caller lives.

      Nothing new here.

    58. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by Courageous · · Score: 1

      Governments are better at investing in things in general when the thing invested in has a marginal production cost of zero after developed, or in general the thing is a "public good," for which private industry cannot be properly incentivized to produce. Obviously patents exist to generate private goods out of things which would otherwise be public goods if it weren't for the legal manipulation.

    59. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      Bad example, it is very clear cut: the business operates in the US, and the work was done in the US, so the profit was made in the US.

      And thats the issue right now with offshoring. My company is based in the Cayman islands, we took your order in the cayman islands, processed your request in the caymans islands, and merely sent a response to our shipping department in the states and they shipped it to Canada. The product went through many stages of development itself, being bought wholesale from a chinese market, modified by our company which has locations in the states and in the Caymans Islands, so which exact factory it was produced from requires more investigation.

      My example was to point out that you can't just say "Where the work was done, tax it" - because businesses will operate in anywhere from 7 to a dozen countries each office doing its little bit to effectively dodge as many tax Laws as possible.

    60. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by wonkavader · · Score: 1

      I think that's a great idea.

      But that doesn't in any way address companies offshoring service labor (call centers, remote maint for machines, etc.) or offshoring their headquarters to get tax breaks.

      Really, it's a good idea. Now apply that brain to the other issues.

    61. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by Bengie · · Score: 1

      The logical course would be to tax money based upon where it is EARNED, not where the company resides.

      To go along with this. Tax earnings made in the USA, then give tax breaks for every person that company employees in the USA with extra incentives for R&D positions.

    62. Re:How do you decide what's offshored labor? by Shazback · · Score: 1

      So it's a tax on everything, then?

      Take something "boring" like... A beef steak. Now, I don't doubt that the cow itself is as American as can be. Or that the employees of the ranch, the slaughterhouse and the supermarket are American through and through. But what about the food? Did the cow only eat "American" food? Or was it fed with granules that were partly researched in, say, Canda? What about the design or certain machines used in the ranch, the slaughterhouse and the supermarket? If the cow was vaccinated using a vaccine manufactured in Europe, is that going to make it "not-American"? Where is the limit to what is "manufacturing", "development" and "support"? Once you start looking at more complex products (IT being the foremost of those fields), you're just going to run into a situation where pretty much everything has at least one component (hard or soft) that was "designed" to a certain extent by a company with at least one non-US based collaborator.

  2. Is Grove running for office? by rsborg · · Score: 3, Interesting
    This is not only good common sense, it's totally populist and would win him many single-issue votes (including mine).

    I am completely sick of being screwed over by the corporatist plutocrats.

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    1. Re:Is Grove running for office? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      He almost got me to buy Intel again. That alone is an achievement that deserves recognition.

    2. Re:Is Grove running for office? by MrEricSir · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Too bad he's not the CEO anymore.

      And too bad all of Intel's products seem to be made in China these days.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    3. Re:Is Grove running for office? by hoggoth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If the laws and taxes make it economically infeasible to compete without offshoring, Intel like every other corporation will offshore. Grove is suggesting we make it more feasible to compete with local labor because of the long term benefits it will have for innovation. I expect if it were economically feasible to keep work here they would.

      Nothing hypocritical here.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    4. Re:Is Grove running for office? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Informative

      They might be made in China, but the decent ones aren't designed there. They're designed in Israel.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:Is Grove running for office? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Only if you define "economically feasible" as "the absolute greatest profit".

    6. Re:Is Grove running for office? by stms · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Taxes aren't for creating a desired behavior, they're for collecting funds. If you want to financially punish people for an undesired behavior you should fine them. A new tax will make our already overly complex taxation system even more complex.

    7. Re:Is Grove running for office? by scamper_22 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Absolutely not. This is the absolute worst thing that you can do.

      I'd rather the government just be straight up protectionist and say solutions must be made in the USA or at least in NAFTA.
      Companies will always find ways around taxes. they will form subsidiaries... who knows. Not that, but who ends up with the money of a tax? It will be the government. It won't be the struggling American tech worker. I see no benefit in taxes in the government's hands so it can give the money to more bureaucrats.

      The other question is how much will the tax be. Lets say a laborer in the developing world is 1/4 your salary. How much tax do you think it is going to take until it is economically rational to hire an American over a Chinese person?

      No, I'd rather we take his message which is sound. I'm tired of hearing about the innovation economy and blah blah. We need regular commodity industry as well as a retention of knowledge and the ability to innovate on existing knowledge.

      Especially with digital technology today, do we want to end up in a world where if you want to work on CPUs, you have to move to India or something? Now let's not pretend we're the victim all the time.

      American companies make a lot of money by exporting. Intel, Cisco... all want to see to the billion indians / chinese. If we take protectionist measures, they will too.
      So let's not pretend too much here, Mr. Intel CEO. I'd rather each region have reasonable job prospects in each field. So a Chinese CPU firm makes CPUs for Asia. Intel and AMD fight for the NA market. The EU does its own thing. It will limit growth opportunities for these global players, but it will ensure a more robust economy in each region

      We need to preserve freedom and industry. Putting money in the hands of government doesn't help.
      It's better to have a free market limited to NAFTA than a fake free global market with government directing the whole thing.

    8. Re:Is Grove running for office? by AmazinglySmooth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Taxes were not intended to change behavior, but they do. There is no way to avoid it unless you tax something everyone wants to do (earn money and spend money).

    9. Re:Is Grove running for office? by MrEricSir · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Intel is already more expensive than the competition. It's not an issue of making money, it's an issue of making the MOST money.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    10. Re:Is Grove running for office? by stms · · Score: 0

      Yes they do, you can also drive a Harley Davidson off road but a dirt bike is better. My point is that you should use things for what they were designed to do. Taxes weren't designed to change behavior.

    11. Re:Is Grove running for office? by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >And too bad all of Intel's products seem to be made in China these days.

      Err, do you really want to work in a chip fab? They're in China because of China's lax environmental regulations. They're essentially poison factories.

      Grove's statements are populist bullcrap. Protectionism isn't going to help. Raising the price of Intel's chips isn't going to help (that's what these taxes will do). Sure, fabs are overseas but all the cushy office jobs that aren't manufacturing are here. If sales drop because of rise of prices, which they will, we'll be laying off our local engineers, marketers, etc because of the drop in business.

      The US will never be a manufacturing powerhouse again. We're too rich. We dont want dirty factories polluting our lands and more minimum wage jobs in factory conditions. All countries that can afford to get out of manufacturing do so for a reason.

    12. Re:Is Grove running for office? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm... Intel has some assembly/test in China, and is building 1 fab there, but I thought that most of the die for their chips were built in places like the US (New Mexico, Az, Ore, Calif), some in Israel, etc.

    13. Re:Is Grove running for office? by trigeek · · Score: 4, Informative

      Are you serious? Intel is one of the few companies that still fabs most of its chips in the United States (Arizona, New Mexico, and Oregon). There are also fabs in Israel and Ireland, but the bulk of the fabbing is done in the US. The packaging is done in Indonesia, China, etc, but that's not where the real money is.

      --
      Sometimes I doubt your committment to SparkleMotion!
    14. Re:Is Grove running for office? by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      I'd rather the government just be straight up protectionist and say solutions must be made in the USA

      And when other countries also pass protectionist laws we'll end up with Great Depression II. The US exported more than $1 Trillion, do you really want many of those jobs lost?

      We need to preserve freedom and industry.

      Your proposal does not preserve freedom, it restricts it. You would deny Americans from deciding what they want to do with their money.

      Falcon

    15. Re:Is Grove running for office? by Anachragnome · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "They might be made in China, but the decent ones aren't designed there. They're designed in Israel."

      You know what? I don't care WHERE they are designed, if they are CONSTRUCTED (and then not even tested...how often do you find them little "Tested by 108" stickers on Chinese products?) in China, more then likely it is a piece of junk.

      I bought a 110v appliance timer a few weeks ago from Lowe's, a nice programmable one. Not the cheapest one on the shelf by any means.

      I plug it in, hook up the appliance, program it...then just for the hell of it (I'm funny that way), I decide to test it. I set the clock so it would complete the circuit while I watched...the thing literally squirted dense smoke and got exceedingly hot the moment the circuit was completed. Yanking the timer out of the the wall was the only thing that kept it from bursting in flames.

      In short (no pun intended), if I had not tested it and had simply plugged it in, as I am sure many people do, it would have burnt my house to the ground when the timer went off.

      I took it back. I was pissed. I went and looked at ALL of the timers Lowe's had in stock...and without exception, every single model was imported from China by one of three distributors, that were in reality all the same company. The addresses on the boxes were all the same for all the brands.

      I then started walking around Lowe's, randomly pulling stuff off the shelf and looking to see where it was made. Every single item I picked up, ALL OF THEM, were from China. I must have picked up 60+ items in the half hour I was in there, and they were all Chinese products.

      Home Depot is pretty much the same.

      I don't know where I am going with this, but I can say one thing. Sad, just...sad.

    16. Re:Is Grove running for office? by scamper_22 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While I'd like to live in a libertarian world, we do not live in it.

      The government has made it illegal for the American worker to compete. What is 'free' about that.
      We have a minimum wage that is higher than the countries we sign free trade deals with.

      We have government going into debt to prop up salaries in the public sector. What is 'free' about that.
      We have government bailing out large industries. What is 'free' about that.
      We have various protectionist professions (medical, legal...) that essentially make their living manipulating laws.

      I don't see those changing. The solutions governments are taking around the world are not for increasing liberty in case you haven't noticed.
      They're pumping money into government monopolies like healthcare and education to provide jobs. They're funding public works projects...

      China and India themselves are not free market societies. Especially China... it has heavy government invovlement in every industry. Tech companies must form partnerships with Chinese firms.
      Pardon the American tech workers who has to compete with a a population of 1 billion that is not only working for much lower wages, but also has a government that protects them.
      Free trade is premised on us all playing by the same rules. Then competition works.

      We currently do not play by the same rules. So you don't commit industrial suicide as a country by basing your entire policy on lower prices.

      Given this global trade but with ridiculous heavy government involvement, I'll gladly side with freedom within a region. You keep playing the side that empowers big government.
      Maybe you missed the last election. Obama won; not Ron Paul. The big centrally planned guy won because people are see the inherent unfair trade problems. You want to keep them exposed to unfair rules.
      Obama says he will protect them.

      Give me call when we get rid of all professions, get rid of the minimum wage, prevent government from going into debt, get rid of the property tax, get rid of public sector workers except for law enforcement and regulators... get all countries we compete with to obey these same rules of liberty... and I'll gladly sign up.

      Until that day... don't pretend we have a free market.

    17. Re:Is Grove running for office? by uncqual · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because we know what fabulously reliable products Detroit produced so efficiently in the 70's and into the 90's.

      I recall reading an article some years ago in a trade magazine for the Plastic Injection Molding industry by an engineer who was explaining why most mold production has moved to China. It didn't have to do with cost, it had to do with speed. The Chinese would diagnose mold problems quicker than their American counterparts AND fixed them much more quickly. This engineer was describing once when there was some sort of a problem with a mold (perhaps unreliable release of the part) and he diagnosed it with the mold maker and they agreed on some fairly major changes to the mold. The American engineer went back to his hotel and assumed he would just fly back to the US in a day or so because it seemed (based on his extensive experience with American mold makers) the mold change would take, I think, at least two weeks and there wasn't much to do until the mold was changed. He was shocked when he showed up at the mold maker's the next morning and they were ready to test with the updated mold.

      Americans, overall, just aren't hungry and competitive enough and have developed a sense of undeserved entitlement. The problem of off-shoring is not going to change as long as we raise our generations of kids such that too many of them expect the world served to them on a golden platter (and don't think it's the "teacher's fault" they got a B- on a test which they didn't prepare for).

      Probably multi-generation Americans won't save us. Perhaps if we let educated, professional workers enter and work freely and give them an easy path to citizenship, we can leverage off of brain drain for awhile.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    18. Re:Is Grove running for office? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget Oregon designed Nehalem.
      Texas designed Atom.

      Israel and Oregon go back and forth on designs.

    19. Re:Is Grove running for office? by tjl2015 · · Score: 1

      I think we may be going about this the wrong way. We're targeting things at the consumer or corporate board room level. Maybe we need to be looking more fundamental, at the investor level. What if we defined as a '100% American Corporation' as one with all employees located in the US and all the employees of any subsidiaries located in the US. If you employ a single person located o Then we go and say 'any investment made in a 100% American corporation will not have to pay taxes on dividends or capital gains taxes.' Investors are ultimately out to make a buck. If any purely-American company could be invested in tax free, that would be a huge incentive to keep jobs in the US.

    20. Re:Is Grove running for office? by Svartalf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ah... But define "economically unfeasible". I contend we're already there with things and just don't see it yet.

      It's a race to the bottom and it's unsustainable- and it cannibalizes much of the country that you do it in, enriching the people that were in charge and as often as not the countries they shift the work to. And it also ends up being substandard work and all- which also is economically unfeasible.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    21. Re: Is Grove running for office? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      I am completely sick of being screwed over by the corporatist plutocrats.

      I think they screwed themselves on this one. If you're the only company that offshores, you've got a huge advantage. When everyone offshores you end up with a consumer base of burger flippers who can't afford your products.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    22. Re:Is Grove running for office? by magarity · · Score: 0

      Taxes aren't for creating a desired behavior, they're for collecting funds. If you want to financially punish people for an undesired behavior you should fine them
       
      What's this semantic game you're playing? Both of these actions, taxation and fining, are 100% interchangeable. A speeding ticket can be seen as a tax on driving too fast. An income tax bill can be seen as a fine on making wages. From a private individual's point of view there is no difference; the government has confiscated the money in response to the individual's actions. High rates of taxation have the same punishing effect on high levels of income as high fines do on speeders so even if the intention of high taxation is not to punish earnings, high earnings are undesirable.

    23. Re:Is Grove running for office? by stms · · Score: 0

      The difference is that fines aren't added to our tax code.

    24. Re:Is Grove running for office? by stms · · Score: 0

      But come to think of it fine was a poor word choice on my part it's more like a license in this case.

    25. Re:Is Grove running for office? by Anachragnome · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the problem is that Americans, in general...there are obviously exceptions, don't really recognize quality when they see it?

      Perhaps they don't have the patience to actually remember which brand names have let them down and which have kept on working?

      Technology was supposed to give us BETTER products, now we don't even know what better IS because there is so much garbage out there? One would think with all the garbage out there, the really high-quality stuff would shine brightly and people would remember the brand.

    26. Re:Is Grove running for office? by duerra · · Score: 1

      Wait, are you suggesting that Intel produces its chips in the US, then sends them to China to be packaged?

    27. Re:Is Grove running for office? by SageMusings · · Score: 2, Funny

      Technology was supposed to give us BETTER products, now we don't even know what better IS because there is so much garbage out there?

      That's because we're simply holding it wrong.

      --
      -- Posted from my parent's basement
    28. Re:Is Grove running for office? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good common sense? This is a Stupid Fucking Idea(TM). Who do you think pays taxes? Are those going to come from the company profits or passed down to the consumer?

      If you're really "sick of being screwed over by the corporatist plutocrats", who IMHO can all diaf, then start a better business, or, at the very least, encourage your legislators to make it easier/cheaper for some OTHER person to start a better business.

    29. Re:Is Grove running for office? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really think that any countries decided to get out of manufacturing for environmental reasons?

      Cheap labor is the only driving force here. If it was suddenly cheaper to manufacture here (say, if transportation costs increased), new factories would be built here. We might import the labor to make it happen.

    30. Re:Is Grove running for office? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's true now, but fabs only are viable for around 8 years. Intel has "copied exactly" Fab32 in China. In 5 years when it's time to refit the Chandler AZ fab will Intel decide to put the next $10bil investment there? Same with Oregon. The other problem with Intel is that they are unbelievably screwed up in management. The Grove survivors that are running all of the initiatives that are not making Core chips are busy covering each others asses and churning thru one failure after another; Larrabee, low power embedded, automotive infotainment, health care, home tv, digital signage They can only tread that water so long, having 20+ managers and marketers for every one engineer doing the work.

    31. Re:Is Grove running for office? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, are you suggesting that Intel produces its chips in the US, then sends them to China to be packaged?

      Yes, that's absolutely correct. Intel (along with nearly everyone else) spends a ton of money flying finished wafers to Asia, where they are cut, packaged, and tested, then flown back to the USA.

      The open secret in the industry is that semiconductor manufacturing is shrinking in the USA and expanding overseas because of environmental regulations. It's not really because salaries are lower. These factories are highly mechanized -- direct labor costs are a drop in the bucket compared the $billions spent to build out the physical plant.

    32. Re:Is Grove running for office? by nanoflower · · Score: 1

      Even that doesn't work. What about a company that produces it's products here in the USA but has just sales offices in other countries? What a company that designs it's products here in the USA but has other companies (located in other countries) produce the pieces and yet another company in another country do the final assembly? The tax changes wouldn't help in those cases. It really only helps if a large company (like Intel) has employees that produce products (design/manufacture/assembly/repair) in countries other than the USA. They can bring jobs back into the USA if they have an incentive to do so. But a company that buys uses parts from foreign companies to produce their final product can't really do much to bring jobs back into the USA so long as the cost of producing/shipping those products is so much cheaper in a foreign country.

    33. Re:Is Grove running for office? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really think that if manufacturing labor was free that technology companies would build factories here? Might be true for some industries, but I don't think you have any sense as to what the depreciation of a modern semiconductor fab is relative to the labor costs in keeping the fab producing chips. The robots doing nearly all the work in the cleanroom make the same wage and have the same rights in the USA as they do in China.

    34. Re:Is Grove running for office? by nanoflower · · Score: 1

      I know which products work better for me. The problem is that say I have a great Sony DVD player. Ten years later it dies on me and I go to get a new DVD player. Should I buy the Sony or not? I could buy it but in the intervening years they may have switched from a solid body DVD player that's designed to last to a low cost plastic model that works but is much cheaper to produce and is likely to last much less time. What you are describing works great for products that don't last that long and need to be replaced. Basic toiletries fit this category. As do things like light bulbs, pencils and pens. But the items that tend to cost more like cars last for years. Even cheaper items like TVs, computers and computer components go through quick changes. That means that the company that produces great products this year may be a bad choice in a few years. What makes it even worse is that you can't even be sure of products from a good company. Seagate and IBM have both made great hard drives in the past. They've also both made hard drives that were known to crash. So if someone wants to buy the best product they have to do a fair amount of research ahead of time. As you say many people don't want to do the work so they will buy what's cheapest.

    35. Re:Is Grove running for office? by sunspot42 · · Score: 1

      The US will never be a manufacturing powerhouse again. We're too rich. We dont want dirty factories polluting our lands and more minimum wage jobs in factory conditions.

      I call bullshit. Germany is still a manufacturing powerhouse. They're rich. Their government just has an industrial policy that goes beyond "ship all the jobs overseas and bail out the criminal banksters with loot stolen from taxpayers". We should employ policies similar to theirs here.

    36. Re:Is Grove running for office? by trigeek · · Score: 1
      If it were for entirely for environmental regulations, Intel would be fabbing offshore as well. Fabbing is far more toxic than packaging and testing.

      Intel hasn't fabbed in Asia in the past for several reasons, one of which is intellectual property protection. If I'm not mistaken, Intel is constructing its first Asian fab now, somewhere in China.

      --
      Sometimes I doubt your committment to SparkleMotion!
    37. Re:Is Grove running for office? by magarity · · Score: 1

      What's truly amazing is that some marxist took such offense to my derision of income tax that he's come back 2 days later to mod it down.

  3. Damn Skippy! by FutureCIS · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is an excellent point. Offshore labor is why I cant understand tech support anymore. I would rather pay a get more for the product to ensure I get good customer support.

    1. Re:Damn Skippy! by eln · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would rather pay a get more for the product to ensure I get good customer support.

      You say that now, but how many products tell you where their tech support is based on the packaging? If you see two identical products on the shelf and one is ten bucks less than the other, you're going to buy the cheaper product without even thinking about where their call center is. Consumers cannot be trusted to vote with their dollars on things like this, especially since in the vast majority of cases they are called upon to make purchasing decisions with incomplete information.

      Global free trade is one of those things that sounds really good in theory, but in practice ends up driving down wages everywhere, decreasing quality of products and services, and gutting the middle class of more prosperous nations. We've seen this over the past decades. Unfortunately, both consumers and suppliers make decisions on short-term scales, meaning they tend to make decisions based on what the balance sheets say today without even considering the impact those decisions will have years or decades down the line. In theory, government regulation is supposed to help provide a hedge against that sort of thing, since governments are supposed to be concerned with more long-term economic matters.

      This is not to say globalization in and of itself is bad. However, it needs to be undertaken much more carefully and gradually than it has been. Simply dropping all tariffs and letting businesses run wild all at once has produced a situation where everyone except for the very richest among us suffers, and even they will start to suffer if we allow the middle class to completely disappear and they have to drive through squalor on the way to their gated compounds like they do in many developing countries.

      It's in everyone's best interest to preserve a robust middle class in developed countries and encourage the middle class to grow in developing countries. Globalization policies should be undertaken with that goal in mind, not with the sole purpose of driving down cost as has been done so far.

    2. Re:Damn Skippy! by COMON$ · · Score: 2, Funny
      Then stop supporting the offshore companies. Don't tax them.

      You have many choices of places to get support from. All that taxing these companies will do is push the cost on to you the customer.

      As a side note, I have found that I get better support many times from the offshore folks than I do from the bubblegum chewing American doing the minimal amount of work to pass me off to the next level of support. Of course I am a Nebraskan so I am accent neutral, talking to overseas is just fine with me.

      --
      CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
    3. Re:Damn Skippy! by hedwards · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sigh, I wish this line of reasoning would die the swift death it deserves. Taxes are probably the least controlling way of making these sorts of adjustments. You're not realistically going to vote with your money because there's few if any products which aren't at some stage created in that fashion. A tax is a simple way of shifting the cost curve up in areas which aren't desirable so that the new equilibrium is a bit more responsible. And it works wonders. There's a reason why Seattle beats the crap out of pretty much any other major US city in terms of fuel efficiency. The state legislature instituted high taxes on gas and when combined with the oil industries tendency to screw us over at the pump more than other parts of the state you end up with people making sensible decisions over all.

      By taxing them you put people on a more even footing to make informed decisions, it's not telling companies that you can't do it, it's telling them that if they want to do it they'll have to compete on a more even playing field.

    4. Re:Damn Skippy! by TheKidder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Global free trade is one of those things that sounds really good in theory, but in practice ends up driving down wages everywhere, decreasing quality of products and services, and gutting the middle class of more prosperous nations.

      Wait, what?

    5. Re:Damn Skippy! by FutureCIS · · Score: 1

      by Anonymous Coward....enough said

    6. Re:Damn Skippy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that the reason that Seattle beats others in fuel efficiency (provided that statement is actually true) is more a function of the type people who live there. I live in North Carolina, and we are in the top 10 for gasoline taxes. We still plenty of large, fuel inefficient vehicles here and, quite frankly, I don't see that changing anytime soon. Even when gas was $4 per gallon 2 years ago, there were still robust sales of trucks and SUV around here. Trucks are part of the southern culture, for better or for worse, and it will take a long time for people to change.

    7. Re:Damn Skippy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Global free trade is one of those things that sounds really good in theory, but in practice ends up driving down wages everywhere, decreasing quality of products and services, and gutting the middle class of more prosperous nations....

      In the short term, there is pain due to offshoring. In the long term, it helps everyone.

      In theory, government regulation is supposed to help provide a hedge against that sort of thing, since governments are supposed to be concerned with more long-term economic matters.

      This is YOUR opinion on what government should be doing. I would argue that it would be far more productive for the government to provide support for those displaced by offshoring by offering retraining, financial support, and job placement services during the time they are displaced, along with laws that provide for a level playing field for businesses within the nation and keeping us competitive with other nations.

      This is not to say globalization in and of itself is bad. However, it needs to be undertaken much more carefully and gradually than it has been.

      Ahh, Soviet-era Communism and central planning rears its ugly head again.

      a) No single entity can control the economic situation more efficiently than the billions of independent short-term decisions that are made daily. (Rumor has it that at least one Cold War-era Soviet leader was taken on a tour of a supermarket in Houston, TX during a visit, and was depressed by how well free-market economics kept all demanded goods on the shelves as compared to the centrally-planned Soviet economy.)

      b) Not even the government can stop the pace of globalization - there is simply too much inertia in it. We slow down globalization, we fall behind; we allow it to faster, we have riots in the streets.

      Simply dropping all tariffs and letting businesses run wild all at once has produced a situation where everyone except for the very richest among us suffers, and even they will start to suffer if we allow the middle class to completely disappear and they have to drive through squalor on the way to their gated compounds like they do in many developing countries.

      I don't deny there is suffering due to lost jobs/etc. Your assertion that we will become a nation of serfs lorded over by a few rich people is ridiculous, however.

      Seems to me I recall this exact situation happening oh, say, 200 years ago, after the US gained its independence from Britain. Britain doesn't seemed to have fared very poorly!

      I think you need to read a few economics and history textbooks to figure out where your logical fallacies lie. I can't provide enough text here to cover them all in this short space.

    8. Re:Damn Skippy! by nedlohs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Global free trade is one of those things that sounds really good in theory, but in practice ends up driving down wages everywhere

      Really? You have some statistics to back up your claim that the wages in China and India have fallen since they got on the global free trade bandwagon right?

    9. Re:Damn Skippy! by n2hightech · · Score: 1

      Wages are only one facet in the total of standard of living. The cost of goods and services should also factor into the calculation. If you look at the standard of living in countries that embrace free trade (globalization) generally those with more free trade enjoy higher standards of living than those with less free trade. Free trade and free markets allows for optimization of benefits over costs. If you can sell your products or labor to the highest bidder and buy your products and services from the low cost provider society benefits most. Sure some high cost providers (labor unions, or protected industries) cannot use a captive market to extort high benefits/prices however I believe that is a good thing. There is a reason that what we consider low wages draws high numbers of workers in other countries. Generally those wages and jobs are better than what is offered by other employers in those countries. The people getting those jobs dramatically improve their standard of living. Low skill workers here in the US still receive higher wages and enjoy a good standard of living than most workers around the world. I for one do not want more low skill jobs in the US I want more high skill jobs and more productive jobs from use of capital here in the US. We can attract that investment by creating an environment that rewards investment. A policy of punishing optimization will drive it away. We need less regulation and lower taxes. The concept of the beatings will continue until morale improves really does not work. A business can choose to setup shop in some other high growth market like Brazil or China. Why not make the US one sweet place to do business. Lets try some honey to catch those flies!

    10. Re:Damn Skippy! by wiggles · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree with you for the most part, but you left out something important. While, yes, globalization has been driving down salaries of the middle class, it's also reduced the cost of living of the middle class, as well as created a middle class in developing countries like China and India.

      It's not that globalization is universally bad -- it's just bad for salaries of middle class workers in developed nations.

    11. Re:Damn Skippy! by eln · · Score: 1

      In the short term, there is pain due to offshoring. In the long term, it helps everyone.

      How long is the long term? This stuff has been going on for at least 40 years. How much longer do we have to wait before it starts helping everyone?

      This is YOUR opinion on what government should be doing. I would argue that it would be far more productive for the government to provide support for those displaced by offshoring by offering retraining, financial support, and job placement services during the time they are displaced, along with laws that provide for a level playing field for businesses within the nation and keeping us competitive with other nations.

      They've tried that, it doesn't work. Sure, you help a few people with retraining, but businesses just keep offshoring the jobs they retrained for, so you have to do it again. Eventually, the only jobs left are in the service industry and upper management, everything else has been offshored.

      This is not to say globalization in and of itself is bad. However, it needs to be undertaken much more carefully and gradually than it has been. Ahh, Soviet-era Communism and central planning rears its ugly head again.

      That's slippery-slope nonsense. Market-based economies have employed tariffs and other restrictions on trade for hundreds of years without falling into Communism.

      a) No single entity can control the economic situation more efficiently than the billions of independent short-term decisions that are made daily. (Rumor has it that at least one Cold War-era Soviet leader was taken on a tour of a supermarket in Houston, TX during a visit, and was depressed by how well free-market economics kept all demanded goods on the shelves as compared to the centrally-planned Soviet economy.)

      I'm advocating for tariffs and regulations and you're arguing against a centrally planned Soviet-style economy. That's what we call a strawman. There is a vast middle ground between totally unregulated free markets and Communism, you really should learn about it.

      Seems to me I recall this exact situation happening oh, say, 200 years ago, after the US gained its independence from Britain. Britain doesn't seemed to have fared very poorly!

      200 years ago nations had complex systems of tariffs designed to keep domestic production healthy, there was no unrestricted free trade between Western nations. There was also the fact that shipping between nations, especially over the ocean, was far more expensive, risky, and slow than it is today. The situations are not even remotely comparable.

      I think you need to read a few economics and history textbooks to figure out where your logical fallacies lie. I can't provide enough text here to cover them all in this short space.

      I could say the same of you.

    12. Re:Damn Skippy! by falconwolf · · Score: 0, Troll

      Global free trade is one of those things that sounds really good in theory, but in practice ends up driving down wages everywhere,

      I'm glad I don't rely on you for economic advice, with such a poor understanding of economics there's no way you're an economist. Fact is is free trade, which does not exist today, increases people's wages.

      Falcon

    13. Re:Damn Skippy! by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Wait, what?

      Which part whooshed past you?

      He basically says that being able to move products and goods without taxation caused this scenario where labour can be sent over-seas to a country with lower wages. This generally means that either that country has all the jobs or other countries have to lower their wages to stay competitive. This also reflects the quality of products and services, since you are paying substandard wages and basically taking people who need money to survive and not people who work because they enjoy it. On the flip side, the middle class in the more prosperous nations are left without the jobs they'd need to get by, or they'd take sub-standard (for their country) wages and scrape along the bottom.

      I don't know if this is accurate to what happens but it basically works like this:
      China and the US make deals to let companies operate in each others borders. Computer Technician jobs from the States get offshored to China because China offers the lowest wages for that kind of work, so Company A can save money on support thus increasing profits. Because of this, the existing Americans that work in Tech support must either move to and work in China (Almost making them more Chinese citizens than American), or find another job. Tech Support in India was also at a low cost but since China and the US made this deal, and China is offering lower wages, India must lower their wages to stay competitive.

      Had "Free" trade not been enacted, meaning, labour, products, services, etc, getting taxed appropriately, none of this would have happened.

    14. Re:Damn Skippy! by quanticle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      in practice ends up driving down wages everywhere

      That is utterly and absolutely false. Sure the wages paid to Chinese factory workers are low by our standard. However, the wages a Chinese peasant earns in an electronics factory are far higher than the wages he or she would have earned in any of the other occupations open to him or her. If it were not the case, there would not be such a large labor force for these factories. China, despite all its other authoritarian policies, does not frog march workers into these plants. They come of their own free will.

      That's what makes me despair about a lot of the anti-globalization/fair trade protesters. They don't understand that workers are not being driven into the factories. Rather the factories are a more attractive form of employment than subsistence farming or herding. Are these factories places where you or I would want to work? Absolutely not. That, however, does not give us the right to take that factory job away from someone whose other opportunities are even worse.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    15. Re:Damn Skippy! by twoallbeefpatties · · Score: 1

      While, yes, globalization has been driving down salaries of the middle class, it's also reduced the cost of living of the middle class...

      Citation needed. Wage growth versus inflation has been very small over the past decade, the size of the middle class has shrunk, wealth concentration in the top bracket has gone up. While free trade may have decreased the costs of popular electronic and cheap Wal-Mart clothes, the "costs of living" have been steadily going up.

      --
      Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
    16. Re:Damn Skippy! by bennomatic · · Score: 0

      How long is the long term? This stuff has been going on for at least 40 years. How much longer do we have to wait before it starts helping everyone?

      Well, as soon as China and India's economies and middle classes are too strong, they'll start outsourcing back here. And then we'll show 'em!

      There may be a lost generation or two, but it'll happen, sure as sh*t.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    17. Re:Damn Skippy! by 8086 · · Score: 1

      Adding to your point, globalization has also increased the cost of living for the existing middle class here in India. People who do not work for IT or Real Estate here are at an economic disadvantage. Today, if I want to buy a drink in Hyderabad, I have to shell out at least $5 whereas when I was in a small town Ohio it cost me $2 for one. A Honda Civic here costs about $26000 and gas costs about $5 a gallon. Cigarettes are cheap, rent is cheap, but food costs about the same here as it did there. Healthcare and broadband is a lot cheaper because of lower monopolization. You fancy folk sure imbalanced our local economy. Food costs are rising as more and more farmland gets converted to shiny call centers or future sites for call centers because land prices have skyrocketed due to the perception of a growing economy.

      To add to the pain, very little permanent development actually happens here in the field of IT and CS, since we're mostly doing monkey work and the local market for IT products and services is underdeveloped. Too many Indians, too few Chiefs. If I'm an Indian businessman looking to commission a developer for, say, an account system, I have to compete with the prices that US customers are paying. Very often what Indian IT consumers end up with is half-cooked and unreliable systems. When it comes to the point when the average Indian IT worker costs half as much as a US counterpart, we risk having the rug swept from beneath us, leaving a lot of poor and hungry people who drive around in their Honda Civics.

    18. Re:Damn Skippy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was referring to wages in developed nations. Ones where the cost of living is much higher, and so wage decreases are felt a lot more.

    19. Re:Damn Skippy! by diablovision · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your post is balanced on a tower of incorrect unstated assumptions.

      He basically says that being able to move products and goods without taxation caused this scenario where labour can be sent over-seas to a country with lower wages. This generally means that either that country has all the jobs or other countries have to lower their wages to stay competitive.

      There is no mythical place with the cheapest labor prices and an infinite supply of labor. When an employer enters a new country and wants to hire people, they have to increase the wage they offer those workers in the market in order to compete. Those workers actually benefit by doing this.

      This also reflects the quality of products and services, since you are paying substandard wages

      Sub-what-standard wages? Where does the "standard" wage come from?

      and basically taking people who need money to survive

      Everyone needs money to survive.

      and not people who work because they enjoy it.

      Rare breed, they.

      On the flip side, the middle class in the more prosperous nations are left without the jobs they'd need to get by,

      Oh, are they? They couldn't possibly think up new, better, more enjoyable jobs could they?

      or they'd take sub-standard (for their country) wages and scrape along the bottom.

      I am missing the assumption that you are apparently stuck on that there is some kind feeding trough of jobs that people, like cattle, line up for...?

      Apparently you are also missing the very obvious fact that consumers who buy goods actually benefit because the goods are cheaper.

      It's like a broken record with you protectionists. Chinese jobs are bad! US jobs are good! If local jobs are better than foreign jobs, it seems somewhat arbitrary that you choose nations as your granularity. Why not states? Are Arkansas jobs worse than Texas jobs? What about California jobs versus Idaho jobs? Those labor markets have radically different wage profiles--is "exploiting" cheap labor in Detroit bad for the expensive labor market in California? Why stop there? Why not get upset that *any* jobs exist outside your town? Or your family?

      Hey, don't buy that hammer, my brother makes hammers!?

      --
      120 characters isn't enough to explain it.
    20. Re:Damn Skippy! by diablovision · · Score: 1

      Yes, I can see a new motto for the Feds:

      "We're here because you're all too stupid to do the right thing."

      "Oh, and we get to decide what the right thing is. That'll be $5. *gun in face*"

      ???

      --
      120 characters isn't enough to explain it.
    21. Re:Damn Skippy! by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your post is balanced on a tower of incorrect unstated assumptions.

      Oh probably, but this is the internet!

      There is no mythical place with the cheapest labor prices and an infinite supply of labor.

      Umm, well, China has pretty cheap labour, and 3+ billion people to do it, and because its so much its practically infinite.

      Sub-what-standard wages? Where does the "standard" wage come from?

      A standard wage is the earnings associated with the cost of living required to maintain a good quality of life. Grade 10 Social Studies, did you skip class or something?

      Oh, are they? They couldn't possibly think up new, better, more enjoyable jobs could they?

      You can't just "Think up" a job and make money. I'd like to think up "Pie eating" as a job, and get paid to eat pies. No, sadly, Jobs are based upon what positions are available at companies willing to pay employees. The big issue is that companies would rather NOT pay employees, or if they have to, would like to pay them very little. Since the government regulates a minimum pay, these jobs go to countries where the government regulated minimum pay is the lowest.

      Apparently you are also missing the very obvious fact that consumers who buy goods actually benefit because the goods are cheaper.

      Well, yes, it IS nice that my new Computer fully decked out with all the latest features ONLY costs maybe 1 or 2 thousand dollars, when really the matierals that make up the computer itself probably cost way more. However, if I make minumum wage and housing costs so much, I'll never afford it. It's a shame the way that works, choosing food over a new TV.

      it seems somewhat arbitrary that you choose nations as your granularity. Why not states?

      Silly Goose, because Nations operate under different dollars and dollar amounts! An American Dollar is worth an American Dollar all across America. However, An American Dollar could be worth more or less than the Canadian Dollar depending on how lucky those Canucks are getting. Now a lot of regulation goes into Canada and US trade (see Lumber) because they are so close. However, since China is really far away their trade can be a little more free.

      Take Gasoline for example. In Canada, we have to regulate our Gas prices to match the United States (and they to ours, its a mutual agreement kind of thing) even if one of us technically has more gasoline than the other. Why? Well, if Gasoline was signifigantly cheaper in say... Alberta (with the oilsands and all) then there would be nothing from stopping some Montana based company from driving hundreds of tankers up, buying up all the oil, and driving it south to make a profit.

      It's unlikely though, that anyone would go and buy a product over in China where it is cheaper, than bring it back to the states. So free trade is a little more lenient with further countries. (Don't get me wrong, thats not the only thing that plays a part).

      So thats where corporations come in and fill that gap. They'll make the product where its cheaper and ship it back to you, thus, THEY make the savings.

    22. Re:Damn Skippy! by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      No, you wouldn't. You check Google and pricewatch to see the lowest price and buy based on that. That is what the Internet has brought us.

      If the lowest price is from a company that models their workforce on a Roman slave galley and the next more expensive product treats their workers nicely, you are going to buy from the low-price leader. Because the price investigative services on the Internet don't tell you how the workers are treated or where the tech support is based out of.

      Yes, after you buy the lowest-cost product and find the tech support to be useless you say "I'll never buy another Acme product again!" Absolutely. And then six months later you are looking for something different and it turns out the lowest-cost product is once again from Acme. You might wonder for a few minutes about it and think there should be something you remember about that company. But until the box arrives it doesn't really matter - you buy it anyway because they have the lowest price.

      This is what the Internet has given us. The lowest price is pretty much going to trump everything because unless the company is run by Satan with whip-wielding overseers ensuring that worker productivity remains high those sorts of problems aren't really going to figure promently in Google and never in the Shopping section. When do you think Google will highlight an entry on the Shopping search with a red (blinking?) box that says "This company is evil!!!"? Yeah, right. Never. Certainly not with three exclamation points. Probably not even with one. Naa, forget about it - Google will never post such a warning.

      So we are left with making purchasing decisions based on low price and only low price. Quality of tech support will never factor into the decision.

    23. Re:Damn Skippy! by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      You are making a serious mistake. It is a common mistake, one made by our current President as well.

      The mistake is beliving that all people in the US (or anywhere) can work at high skil jobs. There are probably three sorts of people that you need to consider:

      1. People that innately, without a lot of training, can work at a high-skill job or a job that requires considerable talent. For example, a concert violist or someone that graduated high school at 15 and is working on high energy partical physics.
      2. People that with training, perhaps considerable training, can work in a high-skill job. An example of this would be computer programming or tool and die work. Heliarc welding is probably another example.
      3. People that for one reason or another aren't really trainable for high-skill jobs of any sort.

      What a lot of people seem to think is that the world is composed of the first two categories of people and utterly ignore the third. The problem with this thinking is that there are a lot of people that fit into the third category and no amount of training, education or motivational counseling is going to get them to learn how to do something like working in a tool and die shop. They might be perfectly happy in being a baggage handler in an airport or pushing a mail cart. Nothing too complicated and nothing that requires "brain work". If you haven't met someone like this you might not understand but there is clearly some fraction of the population that just isn't interested in "brain work" and finds abstract symbol manipulation to be nearly imcomprehensible. Frustraing. Boring.

      So what do we do with people that could get along in a 1930s factory but find the office in 2010 to be completely out of their league? Do we put them on permanent welfare because they can't fit in to any high-skill job? Are they deserving of only being homeless and living in a shelter because they can't cope with 21st Century life?

      Better think about that, because in spite of what people would like to believe, there are a lot of these people out there. And most of them are going to be unemployed, permanently, the way things are going.

    24. Re:Damn Skippy! by 24-bit+Voxel · · Score: 1

      Wait a minute... cost of living? Or cost of entertainment? My gas company raised the rates for the 2nd time in 3 months, but they are here. My rent is going up, my landlord lives in the US. My insurance rates are going up, and my insurance company is in the US. My local grocer has increased prices at least 20% in the past 3 years, they are local. Those are costs of living...

      A 2nd router so you can have wireless wii is not a cost of living, it's a cost of entertainment.

      So in reality, it would seem that the cost of living does nothing but increase as the workers here earn less and less. The cost of arbitrary unnecessary goods are going down, but they are unnecessary.

      Actually, I've never seen the prices of anything ever go down in the US when it comes to costs of needed living utilities and items. My salary doesn't even keep up with inflation.

    25. Re:Damn Skippy! by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Yes, and until those nations that are competitive raise their standard of living too, our middle class will continue to stagnate or deflate. Basically, it's just a form of equilibrium. America and Europe just so happens to be "over pressurized" for the moment. Eventually (not sure when), it will become cost effective again to keep most employment in the same nation as your consumers.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    26. Re:Damn Skippy! by winwar · · Score: 1

      "They don't understand that workers are not being driven into the factories. Rather the factories are a more attractive form of employment than subsistence farming or herding."

      Sounds like six of one and a half dozen of another to me. They are being driven to work in the factories because they can no longer support themselves by farming or herding related to government policy.

    27. Re:Damn Skippy! by quanticle · · Score: 1

      They're not going into the factories because they can no longer support themselves by farming. They're going into the factories because farming was never a viable strategy for them. If their parents would have had the opportunity of a factory job, they would have taken it too.

      The anti-globalization crowd thinks that the majority of peasants out there want to be stuck with subsistence farming. They do not. They want to be prosperous bourgeoisie just like the people of the first world. I think its awfully culturally imperialistic of us to say, "No, sorry, you can't have a first world lifestyle because you're a hundred years late to the party."

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    28. Re:Damn Skippy! by Whuffo · · Score: 1

      That mythical place you deny the existence of is called the global labor market. Sure, the Chinese peasants who are "fortunate" enough to have a job in an electronics factory are making a huge $3 per day which is much more than what they had before - but they're starting to form labor unions and are pushing for higher wages. Will they get more money? Yes, in the short term while their jobs move to another country where the people will be happy to work for that $3 per day and labor unions are illegal. Yes, such countries do exist and they'd love to see those jobs come to their shores. Do big corporations exploit those workers? You bet they do and they can do it more effectively where labor and environmental laws are minimal or non-existent; this reduces their costs even further.

      The big issue that you're completely missing is that those $3 per day factory workers that make Ipads and Iphones could never possibly afford to buy one on their incomes. And the people in the US who used to manufacture electronic devices are unemployed and they can't afford them either. Sure, it's "good business" to get the work done at the lowest possible cost but this kind of thinking leads to the destruction of the business in the end - and everyone loses in this race to the bottom, even those $3 per day workers - they'll be the first to go when the sales start falling off.

      Here's a lesson in basic economics for those unclear on the concepts: consumers give money to producers in exchange for their products. This is wonderful if your country produces many desirable things - but if yours doesn't and just acts as a consumer it's just a matter of time before you run out of money to send to the producing countries. Sometimes this is referred to as "balance of trade" but that road leads to obfuscation. Just remember: the money you send to China to buy a gadget is gone from the American economy. Do enough of this for enough years and we'll all be peasants. Really - do the math and quit spouting some idiotic political talking points.

    29. Re:Damn Skippy! by sunspot42 · · Score: 1

      Wages have been rising in China, for those who have a job, but unemployment is off the charts in China's old industrial rust belt (20% or higher - it's hard to get accurate statistics out of the Chinese government). Here's an article from a few years back:

      http://www.time.com/time/asia/covers/1101020617/cover.html

      It's not clear to me if rising wages in China have offset the loss in jobs. Costs are also rising fast in China. Essential commodities like food and fuel have become much more expensive in the past decade, which is crippling to the poor - especially rural peasants, given that well north of 20% of them don't have a job. If your wages go up by $10 a month but your costs go up by $15, and half your family is unemployed, you aren't exactly better off.

      Right now the real urban unemployment rate in China is sitting at around 9.5% (the government figures are closer to 5%, but nobody believes those).

      The global free trade bandwagon has been great for the wealthy, especially bankers. A tiny middle class gets to feed off their crumbs, and it's looking more and more like starvation for everybody else. We've seen this story before, and the ending is never pretty, but the free trade "let them eat cake" crowd never learns from its mistakes until their heads start bouncing off the cobblestones.

    30. Re:Damn Skippy! by sunspot42 · · Score: 1

      That, however, does not give us the right to take that factory job away from someone whose other opportunities are even worse.

      I agree. We're taking your job away first. Please report to the nearest underpass. Your cardboard box awaits.

    31. Re:Damn Skippy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Silly Goose, because Nations operate under different dollars and dollar amounts! An American Dollar is worth an American Dollar all across America.

      Ummm... Have you ever been to New York City? $50k is baller in the boonies, but impoverished in Manhattan.

      The GP is right, any argument for protectionism in the US is an argument for protectionism at smaller scales.

    32. Re:Damn Skippy! by vovin · · Score: 1

      Actually, as a comparison to when I worked in a factory in high-school vs the factories I've visited in China (very, very many) it looks to me to be about the same level of work, or a little less work, for about the same pay and benefits relative to what I got back then. At least on the East coast of China, I hear the middle/west is not as nice but I have not had any dealings out there.

    33. Re:Damn Skippy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, don't buy that hammer, my brother makes hammers!?

      He does? Really? OK, sounds better than the other options.

    34. Re:Damn Skippy! by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      Ummm... Have you ever been to New York City? $50k is baller in the boonies, but impoverished in Manhattan.

      The GP is right, any argument for protectionism in the US is an argument for protectionism at smaller scales.

      That same 50K will buy the same brand new car at any car dealership.

      It's true, living in Manhattan is more expensive. That doesn't devalue the money at all, its just mostly just the cost of housing. It's not like a chocolate bar costs signifigantly more in Manhattan than in the boonies.

    35. Re:Damn Skippy! by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Of course things have become more expensive they've been psuedo-pegging their currency to the USD, which means all those years of ridiculously low interest rates and defecit spending that should have been driving inflation in the US have instead been feeding inflation over there.

      I think inflation has been the US's major export for quite a while now :)

      They'll stop subsidizing the US soon enough and that'll stop anyway.

    36. Re:Damn Skippy! by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      That's a strange definition of "everywhere" you have there.

    37. Re:Damn Skippy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "but in practice ends up driving down wages everywhere"

      Bulshit:

      http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=gdp+per+capita+US+china+india+

    38. Re:Damn Skippy! by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Best you learn to understand context. His "definition" of "everywhere", works just fine and is easily understood.

    39. Re:Damn Skippy! by Shazback · · Score: 1

      Whilst interesting, your point fails to address one point : Who does what?

      "Umm, well, China has pretty cheap labour, and 3+ billion people to do it, and because its so much its practically infinite."

      As someone who is actually working in China, I can tell you this much : not all jobs are created equal. I'm paid well in excess of the average Chinese salary (I'm actually paid on par with what I would earn in Europe). Why? Because I have skills that are extremely rare in the Chinese market. On the other hand, jobs that require very common skills are indeed cheap to the extreme. China doesn't (yet) have 3+ billion workers, and there are serious openings in executive and engineering positions across the board. Why? Because they've got easy access to cheap manufacturing, but design and preparation is rare. In the US, design and preparation are much easier to get hold of, but manufacturing is (comparatively) rare.

      " The big issue is that companies would rather NOT pay employees, or if they have to, would like to pay them very little. Since the government regulates a minimum pay, these jobs go to countries where the government regulated minimum pay is the lowest."

      So why China? Sure, China has low salaries, but it's far from being the lowest. Laos has pretty miserable salaries, Vietnam isn't much better off, and there's always Tajikistan/Turkmenistan/Kazakhstan or Africa where the average salary is enough for the Chinese middle class to take pleasant holidays there...

      Thing is, companies want low salaries, but with a whole lot of other things. Access to materials, infrastructure, political stability, and even skills. Sure, the skills for certain jobs are quite minimal, but the immense majority of Chinese manufacturing laborers are literate, which is an obvious advantage. There's also sufficient middle-management knowledge and other skills to organise and equip these manufacturing centres. Hence why Tajikistan, Uzbekistan or Kazakhstan are a long shot from taking China's role in the near future.

      By taking away low-level jobs and allocating them to China, companies are making it more interesting for Chinese companies to outsource design and other "high-value" jobs in the US. Simple question : why do so many companies that don't do their main business in the US have HQs in the US? Why are companies that don't even operate in the US listed on the NYSE? Competitive advantage works both ways. Want to know what the Chinese middle class thinks of all the finance jobs that -every- major Chinese company has been moving to the US over the past few years? Well, you weren't particularly excited about someone who wants to work on CPUs moving to India. They just bite the bullet and apply for a job in the US, knowing that if they get the job, it's 6 months to a year without coming home, most likely without any real chance of renewing your contract with the company in question. But it's that or getting a job that they feel is "below them".

      Free trade isn't some kind of voodoo magick that companies call upon. Grove knows full well that the US hasn't been "hurt" by not keeping battery manufacturing plants any more than having millions of people working in the textile industry. Instead, the people that in an "isolationist" economy would be working in textile have been working in the service industry. It hasn't harmed America at all. It's even helped the USA stay at the forefront of IT in general, and provided pretty much the entire American population with more IT know-how than anybody but the techies and geeks of the countries where Nike and the Gap get their T-shirts made. Why is China a "follower" of the IT innovation in the US (foursquare, Groupon, Facebook, Youtube...)? Because in the US, there is both experience (which creates the idea and desire/need for new services) and the expertise (to actually create them). China has expertise, and only thanks to the 1.3 billion-strong population, which means that despite far fewer Chinese people being good with IT, the sheer numbers make it enough, but

  4. Treat it like other wars... by bl4nk · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... and enter it with reckless abandon and no exit strategy; that last part is crucial.

    1. Re:Treat it like other wars... by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And weak to no media coverage and using the same soldiers over and over until they're ground to a pulp physically and/or mentally and ensure that the general population suffers no ill effects of the war to the point that it doesn't affect more than the occasional purchase of a "Support our troops!" magnetic ribbon.

    2. Re:Treat it like other wars... by bennomatic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And don't forget about torturing your competition but decrying that torture when used against your own people!

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    3. Re:Treat it like other wars... by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      Wow this thread assumes that the war is being directly managed by politicians... oh wait... it is.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    4. Re:Treat it like other wars... by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While we're going all Iraq Invasion Style here...

      How about the rest of the world add tariffs for stuff like exceeding a certain baseline aggregated carbon emissions for the production of goods, or paying salaries to textile workers that are lower than some predefined (and local price level adjusted) level?

      This would IMO lead to a decrease in the use of manufacturing processes (and energy generation for these) that are focused on saving pennies on the dollar in exchange for large increases in pollution. In the case of sweatshops, companies can pay livable salaries without losing their competitiveness.

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    5. Re:Treat it like other wars... by need4mospd · · Score: 1

      And when another commander takes over on the promise that it will all end with him, he should remain there for at least 2 more years with no exit strategy.

    6. Re:Treat it like other wars... by quanticle · · Score: 1

      ensure that the general population suffers no ill effects of the war to the point that it doesn't affect more than the occasional purchase of a "Support our troops!" magnetic ribbon.

      A ribbon made in China, no less.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    7. Re:Treat it like other wars... by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      If you don't let them play at capitalism they will never gain enough wealth to BE capitalists. In my lifetime I've seen 'our' jobs go to other countries. And those countries have grown and embraced capitalism and then their 'jobs' go to the next hungry mouth. Yet in this shedding of jobs we are not weaker we are stronger. Governments with more money improve and the workers lot improve. When everyone is able to do the job and they compete for them then you've made them equal as much as you can economically.

      There are countries where this will not work. Ones with erratic or irrational government or no government. Ones that are so poor they don't have and you cannot economically build the infrastructure to allow them to compete. For them allow open but temporary immigration until they can send enough money home to make a difference.

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    8. Re:Treat it like other wars... by flaming+error · · Score: 1

      > in this shedding of jobs we are not weaker we are stronger

      Where "we" == "multinational corporations", and "the unemployed" are outside the scope of this discussion.

  5. Treating symptoms instead of disease by mark72005 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    As usual, the only solution the small-minded can come up with is to tax something into oblivion

    1. Re:Treating symptoms instead of disease by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      That's not the point. If you pay attention closely then you will clearly see that the reason that the USA has a trade defecit is because the other countried don't play by THEIR OWN RULES! Take China for instance. Nevermind the constant problem of paying employees less then a minimum wage or the prevailing culture of "one employee, two jobs" or the crazy amount of pollution their industrial revolution is dumping. The REAL problem was their currency. They pegged it to the dollar. They just last week allowed it to float to a more fair level. However this was after years and years of the people in the know yelling from the rooftops that it was a problem.

      Take India for instance. Some call centers are expertly run. Cisco TAC is amazing beyond belief. But for every good example of a call center in India there are 10 examples of call centers run by untrained morons who can't even speak in a manner which is recognizable by half the US population. India is not really a country with fair wages either.

      So yes, if taxing it gets the job done then I'm all for it because in this war the other side has been breaking all the rules for some time now.

    2. Re:Treating symptoms instead of disease by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Assuming a truly globalized and free economy, this is a broken window fallacy. Increasing the cost of production (by taxing the more efficient producers to make their products as expensive as the products of the less efficient producers) can never lead to any overall increase of wealth. Of course one can use force to get one party wealthier at the expense of another, and that is pretty much what he is proposing.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    3. Re:Treating symptoms instead of disease by Kefaa · · Score: 1

      "truly globalized and free economy" may be a wish for some but it is the fallacy. Take India, where they can compete and are even given preference on contracts within the US as minority owned businesses. However, to get a contract in India, as a foreign company, makes winning the lottery look easy. A rule as simple as "sustaining displaced workers." The "English" version means you need to hire a worker in India if your business would displace that worker in order to do business there.

      Free traders need to recognize that we have neither free nor fair trade and being the first to unilaterally choose the option has proven a complete failure to all except those few board members making millions on the savings.

    4. Re:Treating symptoms instead of disease by nedlohs · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's bizarre that Americans complain about that pegged currency.

      You do realize that if China wasn't buying treasuries like crazy in order to stop their currency from climbing in value against the USD then all that government spending would have to be paid by taxing you more, right?

      The US government could break that dollar peg overnight by refusing to issue anymore debt.

      But don't worry it ends in the relatively near term anyway, sadly though America isn't going to enjoy the end of this "the rest of the world does all the work, while we consume all the stuff and send them IOUs".

    5. Re:Treating symptoms instead of disease by Bucc5062 · · Score: 1

      This is not so much a case of more of less efficient, it is a case of more or less wage vs productivity. Two workers, one in the USA, one else where. Both perform similar roles, produce similar products with similar efficiency. However, Elsewhere does it at a tenth the cost. Why so cheap? Who knows. developing country, fascist/communist government controlling wages,desparate people willing to do anything to geta finger out of a gutter. Any reasonable people would accept that the worker in Else Where should have a chance at a better life, but at what cost.

      I've watch the US begin a slow economic collapse over the past 15 years as the concept of golbalization has taken hold and shifted corporate decision making. Of course the CEO and shareholders want to maximize profit. Even the janitor would like the company to groew, but while the janitor (or programmer) will work that little bit harder to improve the bottom line, the CEO and crons will outsource jobs to Else Where, lower expenses, increase profit, and say "what good job we did". Short term, perhaps.

      However, the worker in the US now sees his income drop because he/she lost a job, even in getting a new one it may be lower. Yeah for CEOs and labor, but that worker no longer wants to buy things. They don't want to travel, they don;t want to take chances, because of the next layoff, the next downsize, the next reduction in pay. That workin in Elsewhere is not buying goods in the US, not paying taxes in the US, this contributes nothing to the US economy, but a part of a product that US workers may not be able to afford any more.

      I think Mr Grove is a day late and a dollar short on his statement, but I welcome it if he does more then blow air through his mouth. Does he believe in this idea, take it to Congress and push HARD. Talk with the President and get him on board. have meetings with other CEOs and get them to see a future more then the next quarter (or month). To use a car analogy, I can run an engine at 100% RPM and watch it burn out quick, or I can run that engine at lower RPMs and have it run a long time, more efficiently.

      --
      Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
    6. Re:Treating symptoms instead of disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>> India is not really a country with fair wages either.

      Could you elaborate on this and provide your benchmark for "a country with fair wages" and demonstrate how India falls short?

      Do you know that in India, large corporations often provide their own housing, health care, transportation etc?

      Do you know the labor laws of India?

      The above is a list a few things that can offset your imaginary dreamworld of "USA, country with fair wages?"

    7. Re:Treating symptoms instead of disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans *should* complain about pegged currency. While there's an easy way to pay for budget deficits like emitting T-bonds as if there's no tomorrow, government is not going to cut it's budget and reduce itself to a smaller and more desirable form.

    8. Re:Treating symptoms instead of disease by quanticle · · Score: 1

      India is not really a country with fair wages either.

      So how exactly would you define a fair wage? $40,000 a year isn't a lot in the US, but in India, one can buy a house, two cars, pay for private school, and hire a maid for that sum. $20,000 a year is barely above the poverty line in America, but it still gets you a solidly middle class lifestyle in India.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    9. Re:Treating symptoms instead of disease by Courageous · · Score: 1

      I'm intensely interested in your comment. As a first step to digging deeper, I typed "how does china peg its currency" into Google. For whatever reason, the first article was a wikipedia article on fixed exchange rates, here:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_exchange_rate

      The article says that until 2005 China made it illegal to trade currency at any other rate than the one fixed by the government. The article says that the typical means, if the fiat law fixed rate method isn't used, is "by either buying or selling its own currency on the open market".

      This is all a bit murky.

      Do you have a link to something that explains it all clearly?

      C//

    10. Re:Treating symptoms instead of disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If China wasn't doing it, we'd be making more money so we'd have more money to pay taxes. I say we go back to the tax rates during Eisenhower. That would solve a lot of problems...

    11. Re:Treating symptoms instead of disease by jeff4747 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You do realize that if China wasn't buying treasuries like crazy in order to stop their currency from climbing in value against the USD then all that government spending would have to be paid by taxing you more, right?

      Actually, there's lots and lots of people who want to buy US debt. Someone else will pick up China's purchases, at a slightly higher interest rate.

      Really, the reason China is allowing the RMB to float is they already are not comfortable owning that much US debt. They were already cutting down on purchasing new debt.

      The US government could break that dollar peg overnight by refusing to issue anymore debt.

      Especially after our economy collapsed from doing so.

    12. Re:Treating symptoms instead of disease by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "...e paid by taxing you more, right?"
      Which is how it should be done.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    13. Re:Treating symptoms instead of disease by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      "buying or selling its own currency" is what I'm referring to.

      Actual steps are:

      1. China prints (virtually speaking) some currency.
      2. China sells said currency for US dollars.
      3. China buys treasuries with those US dollars.

      Now they could skip step and just sit on currency without earning a return on it. But that would be silly investment wise and that would make the next round of buying dollars harder because there would be fewer US dollars available.

      Buying treasuries recycles the dollars since the US government spends the money like drunken sailors.

      Without this artificial demand for treasuries either taxes would have to go up, or the US would have to print money more directly. Or reduce spending or course, but you don't get elected doing that.

    14. Re:Treating symptoms instead of disease by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Especially after our economy collapsed from doing so.

      It's going to anyway so that doesn't matter.

    15. Re:Treating symptoms instead of disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought china pegged it's currency by making it illegal to trade their currency at any rate aside from the official rate.

      Buying up treasury bonds is just something else they are doing.

    16. Re:Treating symptoms instead of disease by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      That's one perspective.

      Others consider record low bond rates to indicate there really isn't a problem right now.

    17. Re:Treating symptoms instead of disease by Courageous · · Score: 1

      This is clear.

      I agree that step #3 would logically follow once #1 and #2 are agreed to occur.

      Thank you.

      C//

    18. Re:Treating symptoms instead of disease by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Actually, there's lots and lots of people who want to buy US debt. Someone else will pick up China's purchases, at a slightly higher interest rate.

      Really, the reason China is allowing the RMB to float is they already are not comfortable owning that much US debt. They were already cutting down on purchasing new debt.

      That "slightly" higher interest rate is the problem. The US has been issuing short term bonds instead of 30 year bonds (because while people are dumb enough to buy the short term stuff, there aren't enough suckers dumb enough for the long term stuff).

      40% of the debt matures within 12 months. there's about $13 trillion of it, so $5.2 trillion needs to be rolled over or paid back in the next year. Of course a large chunk of that debt is owned by the government itself so I guess they can underpay themselves - no one actually wants to collect social security anyway...

      So every percentage point increase in borrowing costs means $52 billion dollars a year extra borrowing or less spending.

      Those "lots and lots of people" are clearly all crazy, what sort of fool wants to lend money to someone who you know can only pay it back if they manage to convince someone else to loan them even more money when the debt comes due.

      Hey that sounds just like lending huge gobs of money to someone to overpay for a house, hoping they'll manage to find a bigger sucker in a few years to borrow even more money to overpay even more.

      What could possibly go wrong?

    19. Re:Treating symptoms instead of disease by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Those "lots and lots of people" are clearly all crazy, what sort of fool wants to lend money to someone who you know can only pay it back if they manage to convince someone else to loan them even more money when the debt comes due.

      The reason they seem 'crazy' is you are thinking about regular debt, owed by a company or an individual. This is US government debt. If the US defaults, that means the global economic situation has been completely and utterly destroyed, and we're all living in a post-apocalyptic wasteland using Nuka-Cola caps for currency.

      Which means it's not a bad investment, especially at about 3% return when inflation's at -1%. You'll either get paid, or money no longer exists.

    20. Re:Treating symptoms instead of disease by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      And there was no problem in the housing market in 2006 right?

      I'm not claiming to hold the mainstream view, and hopefully I'm completely wrong. Heck it's probably likely I'm wrong, I don't have a degree in finance or anything like that and people much smarter than me hold the opposite view.

      My view is much more fun for ranting on the interwebs, though.

    21. Re:Treating symptoms instead of disease by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      And there was no problem in the housing market in 2006 right?

      In 2006? Nope. In 2007, yep. The time frame one uses is very critical for assessing if there is a 'problem' or not.

      The US has a long-term debt problem. However, there's far greater short-term problems that are helping to create the long-term debt problem. For example, high unemployment, unused capacity, and soaring heath care costs.

      Get back to full employment and the deficit falls much more than any politically practical spending cuts. Unfortunately, conventional wisdom is paranoid about debt in 2050 and unconcerned about unemployment today.

    22. Re:Treating symptoms instead of disease by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      If you don't think a way overvalued market isn't a problem, then no wonder we disagree. And if you think ignoring problems until they are too large to do anything about it the best course, then again I see why we disagree.

      And that debt isn't helping the short term problem either. Keynesian economics does actually work, but there's this little part the US forgot about - you stimulate during the down swing but you also have to hold back the economy during the up swing.

      If you run a deficit during the up swing then you are going to be screwed on the down side. The bust is then too large and your resources to few to do anything beneficial.

      If you were running stimulus throughout the boom then you can't just increase it during the bust, well you can but say hello to an inflationary bust - which is just about the worst thing you can wish on your economy.

      I'm really not concerned about debt in 2050. By 2050 the US economy will be back on track and the collapse of the 2010s will just be text book tales to scare the kiddies.

    23. Re:Treating symptoms instead of disease by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      The US government won't default of course. But when that -1% inflation is in the triple digits that 3% won't look so hot.

      They'll never default because that would be the right thing to do, they'll just print it up and inflate it away.

      And no very high inflation (or even hyperinflation) in the US will not be apocalyptic for the rest of the world. Well unless the US decides to nuke its way out instead of printing I guess, but that seems really unlikely.

    24. Re:Treating symptoms instead of disease by vovin · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately that slightly higher rate needed to make up for China's absence is a 'death spiral' where the interest rate offered to sell will quickly push the short term debt beyond the amount likely for the US tax base being able to pay, which drives the rate higher, which ... yeah, death spiral, no more debt issuance for you. Yikes.

      Nope, the US and China are tied together in this game of chicken. It's not going to end well.

    25. Re:Treating symptoms instead of disease by vovin · · Score: 1

      No shit. Especially when you consider where the RMB will float to without the middle kingdoms downward pressure.

    26. Re:Treating symptoms instead of disease by Darkman,+Walkin+Dude · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up, correct.

  6. Dont tax, remove tax breaks. by Kenja · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you send work off shore, you no longer get all the corporate welfare tax breaks that US companies get.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:Dont tax, remove tax breaks. by mark72005 · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, you avoid the demonization that is part and parcel with being a "big corporation"

    2. Re:Dont tax, remove tax breaks. by dfetter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When you frame something as "demonizing," you're implying that the characterization of demonic behavior is not accurate.

      Given the actual track record of corporations since the beginning of the East India Company, your implication is false on its face.

      --
      What part of "A well regulated militia" do you not understand?
    3. Re:Dont tax, remove tax breaks. by assertation · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But would that, alone, be enough to make offshoring financially ?

      If the answer is "no", I would say do it anyway. Tax breaks are really taxes put onto someone else...American citizens. If fewer American citizens are earning money from these companies ( to be taxed ) I see no reason why Americans should subsidize these companies with gifts.

    4. Re:Dont tax, remove tax breaks. by bennomatic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Isn't that the same thing? Effectively removing tax breaks that have been in place for 5, 10, 15, or 20+ years is just like creating a new tax, at least in the minds of people who will have to oversee its payment, potentially for the first time in their careers.

      No CFO in the world will say, "Thank goodness we've been saving so much over the years with those tax breaks! All that money is right here in a piggy bank, so we're ready to start paying those taxes again." Those same CFOs already received huge bonuses based on those breaks, and that money's long spent.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    5. Re:Dont tax, remove tax breaks. by Kenja · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Same effect, less paper work. But bottom line is that if you dont want to have the jobs in the US you shouldn't get the benefits of incorporating here.

      I'd live to see the tax loopholes closed altogether, but failing that lets stop reducing money coming in (by sending jobs offshore) while at the same time paying out in tax breaks.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    6. Re:Dont tax, remove tax breaks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Compared to what? Your words mean nothing, and we do not hear what you have said.

    7. Re:Dont tax, remove tax breaks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      We have one of the highest tax rates "on paper", and one of the lowest in practice; the tax breaks are why. Remove the ability to keep the tax breaks when offshoring, and that really does make the rest of the world more expensive. Sure, the labor elsewhere will still be cheaper, but it's the after-tax profit that matters.

    8. Re:Dont tax, remove tax breaks. by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      The effect is the same, but it may be more politically palatable.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    9. Re:Dont tax, remove tax breaks. by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      What you said is akin to saying that taxes should not be put on gasoline because we've been buying it at that price for so long, we're already used to it.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    10. Re:Dont tax, remove tax breaks. by Courageous · · Score: 1

      *shrug*

      After years and years of looking at the situation, I've decided that the income tax will never really "work".

      Consider. What's the biggest expense of a corporation, typically? Staff. Yes, your income is their expense. Think about it, young Padiwan.

      Whether you like big government or small, governments need revenues. We can both accept that. I keep hoping that I can get enough people to realize that this thing called the "Income Tax" is the absolute worst of all the options. It needs to go. Completely. While nothing is perfect, the one thing that has any kind of political support at all with any hope of going anywhere is the Fair Tax. So look there.

      C//

    11. Re:Dont tax, remove tax breaks. by bennomatic · · Score: 1

      Huh? How did I say that? I said no such thing.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    12. Re:Dont tax, remove tax breaks. by bennomatic · · Score: 1

      Yes, but that added palatability is silly. If a politician tells me that they haven't created any new taxes, but they've removed old rebates, I'm going to feel like I've been lied to because the net effect is that I'm paying more taxes, regardless of how you sugar coat it.

      I'm not against either idea (nor specifically for it), but I'd rather my politicians tell me right out, is my tax bill going to increase or decrease? Selling it to me by saying "you used to pay it, now you don't, and soon you will again, so that's not too bad," is weaselly at best.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    13. Re:Dont tax, remove tax breaks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because feudal lords and bureaucrats were/are just so much better.

      Any power structure of people is going to exhibit some funky behaviour if the motivations push it that way.

    14. Re:Dont tax, remove tax breaks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given the actual track record of governments for the past hundred years, governments are far worse. The biggest atrocities of the twentieth century were all committed by governments.

    15. Re:Dont tax, remove tax breaks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      committed by governments...

      at the behest of corporations.

  7. Taxing middle class but not taxing imports is dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Military, courts, social security, welfare cost money. Working Joes pay for it. Walmart and Steve Jobs don't. Time to redirect.

  8. Blasphemy! by ch-chuck · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    That's anti free trade and will only hurt the consumer. If USians can't compete in the open market maybe we don't deserve to have a 'chain of experience'. The only thing we need to teach our children is how to collect a government handout and shop at WalMart. Andy should be haunted by the spirit of Reagan in the church of Limbaugh.

    (sorry, too much energy drink!!)

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  9. how is it by nimbius · · Score: 5, Interesting

    every american businessman inevitably refers to business process in terms of war.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:how is it by Pojut · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You have obviously never tried to convince an American "businessman" to consider customers first and profits second.

    2. Re:how is it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      war on poverty
      war on illiteracy
      war on smoking
      war on cancer
      war on racism

      darn businessmans

    3. Re:how is it by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1, Troll

      I don't know how you were voted interesting when the term "trade war" has been around a very long time and is a political and economics term.

      It is not that "every american businessman inevitably refers to business process in terms of war." Rather, many businessmen of all countries use the same terminology and you are picking on American businessmen because you are most-likely anti-American.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    4. Re:how is it by pitchpipe · · Score: 2, Funny

      how is it every american businessman inevitably refers to business process in terms of war.

      How DARE you misrepresent the American Businessman this way! This means WAR!

      --
      Look where all this talking got us, baby.
    5. Re:how is it by suomynonAyletamitlU · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm pretty sure if they had any interests other than making profit, they could find employment doing something more useful than management.

      Well, okay, that's not fair. What I mean is, the people who went into business from the get-go were never interested in being of service to others. You don't earn a business degree as opposed to an engineering degree, science degree, law degree, etc, because you wanted to do interesting things. You earn it because you want to be in control of a business. Businesses "do whatever" and make money from it. End of story.

      I know this is biased and spiteful and a little bit flamebait-ish; however, it's a touchy subject, and I think rightfully so.

    6. Re:how is it by Pojut · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Personally, I'm going after a business degree primarily because I already have technical skills. I will be much more capable having an understanding of both sides, rather than only one.

      It will narrow my job opportunities, but the opportunities it allows will be worth it.

    7. Re:how is it by grub · · Score: 2, Insightful


      every american businessman inevitably refers to business process in terms of war.

      IIRC some business schools used to have, or may still have, The Art of War as required reading.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    8. Re:how is it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure why you added the tag "American" here - let's not for the East India Company and many others, especially the Japanese companies who quoted frequently from Sun Tzu's Art of War and such.

    9. Re:how is it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      War is just business sped up.

    10. Re:how is it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would gaining additional qualifications reduce your options?

    11. Re:how is it by tacokill · · Score: 1

      It will narrow my job opportunities,

      No, it will BROADEN your job opportunities. While it's fashionable to bash business and capitalism on Slashdot, in the real world.....money makes the world go round. The more you understand how that money makes the world go round, the more valuable you are both to yourself and to your employer (if you have one).

    12. Re:how is it by geekoid · · Score: 1

      So you want to go into upper management so you can micro manage technical people? man, you sure will be a hit.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    13. Re:how is it by ducomputergeek · · Score: 1

      The CEO works for the board of directors and the shareholders, not the customers.

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    14. Re:how is it by Pojut · · Score: 1

      :-)

      Quite the opposite, actually. Seeing as I currently work on the technical side, and have been a geek my whole life, I have an intimate understanding of the needs of technology-focused people. I also understand their perspective on things, in addition to how they can be communicated with effectively. By getting into upper management, I can ensure that the technical group is given the respect, attention, and funding it deserves, while at the same time the technical team is more likely to trust me because I speak their language and not only understand their culture, but am actually a part of it.

      My goal is to make sure tech-oriented employees are given the tools they need while providing them with a trusted voice.

    15. Re:how is it by suomynonAyletamitlU · · Score: 1

      That's why I separated "business from the get-go". I don't mean that studying business is never useful. I mean that business is a means, and if it isn't a means to anything else, you may think it's only supposed to make money.

      If it isn't making money, that's bad business, and it'll go under. But the business exists to fill a need, and money is only supposed to be a measure of success.

      Not that it's like that in most people's minds, I guess, but that's what I was trying to convey.

    16. Re:how is it by Pojut · · Score: 1

      After going back and re-reading your post...I can't believe I interpreted it that way. A very good point indeed!

  10. Balance of tradeoffs by Myji+Humoz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The trouble with these type of taxes is that the corporations simply pass it onto the customers. Unless a huge tax is placed on the products, it will still be cheaper overall to offshore labor and charge consumers more. There are three scenarios:

    1) Low tax, say taxing the corporations for 20% of the difference between US cost of labor and offshored cost of labor. Consumers will pay more in the US, but get no new jobs, and are worse off. The government earns taxes and is better off. The corporations sell slightly fewer products due to slightly higher cost, and are slightly worse off.

    2) Medium tax rate, say taxing the corporations for 80% of the difference between US cost of labor and offshored cost of labor. Consumers will pay more in the US, but get no new jobs, and are worse off. The government earns lots of taxes and is better off. The corporations sell fewer products due to higher cost, and are noticeably worse off.

    3) High tax rate, say taxing the corporations for 120% of the difference between US cost of labor and offshored cost of labor. Consumers will pay more in the US, but get some new jobs, and are worse off unless they would be unemployed otherwise. The government earns very little in taxes and is barely better off. The corporations sell fewer products due to higher cost, and are much worse off.

    Of course, the corporations lose less money if the goods in question are price inelastic (demand doesn't drop that much if price increases) and there's a social benefit from more employment and technical expertise, but the government gets the most money in case 2, where everyone except for the government is made worse off by the taxes. In real life, there's a huge time in cost and effort needed to move manufacturing back to the US, what with hiring new managers, building or reopening factories, establishing entirely new supply lines, canceling contracts, etc. Because of this, companies are unlikely to move manufacturing back to the US even if the tax makes hiring offshore workers the same as hiring American workers; the slight gain in quality and public respect is canceled out by the upfront cost of moving.

    I for one sincerely doubt that the US government will tax corporations with a high enough rate to make most of them move back to the US, as the tax income is the lowest in that situation. Sadly, even if this knee jerk reaction goes through, social benefit to consumers and citizens will likely take a back seat to corporate interests and government revenue collection.

    --
    Signatures are the new names.
    1. Re:Balance of tradeoffs by frosty_tsm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      3) High tax rate, say taxing the corporations for 120% of the difference between US cost of labor and offshored cost of labor. Consumers will pay more in the US, but get some new jobs, and are worse off unless they would be unemployed otherwise. The government earns very little in taxes and is barely better off. The corporations sell fewer products due to higher cost, and are much worse off.

      You're analysis is impressive, but is missing one point in scenario 3. While cost of goods are higher, domestic demand is raised due to more jobs and a higher median income. Neglecting domestic jobs has reduced demand (less money to shop with), which has been offset by cheaper goods.

    2. Re:Balance of tradeoffs by h4rr4r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ECONOMIES DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!

      If you have a cost and pass it on, your prices go up! If they could raise the price they already would have. Their competitors would drink up their milkshakes if they did what you are suggesting.

    3. Re:Balance of tradeoffs by hedwards · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Consumers are already paying for the degenerate practice of shipping jobs overseas. It's already being accounted for by artificially reduced wages and tax revenue that never gets collected since corporate entities don't have to ever book those profits. Putting a tax of this sort on those items puts the price of said items closer to what they'd be were the Chinese and Japanese engaging in illegal currency manipulation. Yes, it will make things cost more, but they would've already cost more were the entirety of the cost passed on as it should've been previously.

    4. Re:Balance of tradeoffs by TemporalBeing · · Score: 1

      The trouble with these type of taxes is that the corporations simply pass it onto the customers. Unless a huge tax is placed on the products, it will still be cheaper overall to offshore labor and charge consumers more. There are three scenarios: 1) Low tax, say taxing the corporations for 20% of the difference between US cost of labor and offshored cost of labor....
      2) Medium tax rate, say taxing the corporations for 80% of the difference between US cost of labor and offshored cost of labor....
      3) High tax rate, say taxing the corporations for 120% of the difference between US cost of labor and offshored cost of labor....

      Haven't heard of a tariff, now have you?

      The whole point of a tariff is that you raise the cost of the imported item at issue (e.g. off-shoring) to be the same or greater than that of doing the same thing domestically. Sure companies (of all sizes) may try to pass it on their customers; but that just means they're going to go to another vendor that can provide it cheaper because they don't have to pay the tariff. At best, the minimum price level becomes the same - since labor, etc. is generally fixed per the tariff (e.g. pay per employee, etc. - not truly 100% fixed).

      And yes, I do support getting rid of a lot of the free trade stuff (NAFTA, etc.) and imposing more tariffs. Off-shoring was a nightmare that we are just being to understand the true consequences of.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    5. Re:Balance of tradeoffs by mckinnsb · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily - the argument of "passing on the tax to the consumer" doesn't really hold up in a free market. If a good or manufactured product faces many competitors in the same market, and the prices are competitive, then the company will be more reluctant to raise the price, especially if there is little else differentiating it from its competitors. Companies act individually. They don't always act in concert.

      Lets say, for instance, you have companies A, B, and C. All companies perform the same amount of work offshore, which translates into roughly the same amount of cost savings. Lets say that we now tax all three companies along the same lines of the first scenario which you have described above. Company A is the first to "pass" its tax to the consumer, and is quickly followed suit by Company B, which also "passes" its tax to the consumer, but only passes about half of the tax.

      Company C is now in an interesting position. Assuming the goods of all three companies are the same, Company C now has the cheapest product on the market. It may be making less net profit per item sold, but there is a good chance that the sales for its product will increase, because it is now the cheapest alternative. It can now choose to hold its price instead of "passing the tax" to make the difference on the loss in profit from the tax, banking on higher sales because the competition has increased the price of their products.

      Disregarding the companies themselves, as far as the government is concerned, it is probably more interested in getting citizens off unemployment and collecting off their income taxes than making money from corporate taxes incurred from offshoring, so analyzing how much the government would benefit from tax revenue pursues the wrong path of inquiry. The national and state governments make far more money off of income tax.

      Lastly, a tax such as this would serve as a deterrent for future offshoring, which is a real concern. If a company notices that after construction, moving, and re-organizational costs, that it will also be subject to a tax that may easily be raised, then it will think more carefully about offshoring. We have lost a great many jobs, but we absolutely cannot afford to shed them in similar numbers in the future. Not all of it was due to offshoring, but a lot of the jobs that we have lost that will be difficult to replace were. Preventing that from happening again is a good idea.

    6. Re:Balance of tradeoffs by Myji+Humoz · · Score: 1

      The type of jobs introduced by manufacturing in this day and age don't pay very well. Even if a megacorp moved all of their production into the US, they might add 20,000 jobs. In a nation with 130+million employees, the increase in domestic demand is negligible. An increase in cost per product of 5%, however, is noticeable by almost every consumer.

      To h4rr4r who posted below this comment who says that if "you have a cost and pass it on, your prices go up," that's sort of the definition of passing a cost on. Everyone and anyone can raise prices, it just wouldn't make economical sense to do so when they're at an optimal level. The tax alters the economics, which alters the optimal point, which alters the resulting steady state price. Every one of their competitors likely use offshored labor if those competitors are american, and thus they would also be sharing in the higher cost. According to game theory, they'll see that all their costs will rise, and they'll be comfortable letting their prices rise.

      --
      Signatures are the new names.
    7. Re:Balance of tradeoffs by Myji+Humoz · · Score: 1

      There are very few markets where the products are near identical. Consumers are heavily influenced by brand name, societal perception of item status, and so forth.

      --
      Signatures are the new names.
    8. Re:Balance of tradeoffs by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 1

      Even if a megacorp moved all of their production into the US, they might add 20,000 jobs.

      Normal job increases in the US are now running at around 80K/month. Increasing that number by 20%, even is a single month, is pretty good, especially when consider the effects of those positions long-term.

      An increase in cost per product of 5%, however, is noticeable by almost every consumer.

      Every consumer that happens to buy that product. Playing your own game, in an economy having 300M consumers, a tax that hits 100K customers by 5% is negligible.

      --
      That is all.
    9. Re:Balance of tradeoffs by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Except that "the government" isn't an independent third party here. If the government takes in money from a tax, there's three possibilities.

      There could be a corresponding tax cut elsewhere, freeing up money for individual spending.

      There could be increased government spending, which benefits some people, and puts more money into the hands of the people (in general).

      The deficit gets cut slightly. I think that, all other things being equal, this is worth something.

      The correct way of looking at this is that there will be a shift from offshore to onshore production, with some loss in efficiency. How much of a shift depends on the taxes, and won't break sharply at a particular tax point. The US economy will take a short-term loss, due to a loss of efficiency. Whether there are long-term gains, and how much they are, is the topic at hand.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    10. Re:Balance of tradeoffs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3b) High tax rate, say taxing the corporations for 120% of the difference between US cost of labor and offshored cost of labor. Company closes up shop in US laying-off remaining employees and moves overseas.

    11. Re:Balance of tradeoffs by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Yes, but they prefer all OTHER companies to provide those domestic jobs.

      They just want to mine the money...

      If taxes are raised to the point where the product is

      $2 foreign labor + $3 taxes = $5
      vs
      $5 local labor + $0 taxes = $5

      then there would not be a benefit to producing over seas.

      Problem? No external market for our goods (Smoot Hawley).

      Basic problem(s)?

      * China until last week was suppressing their currency. (Destroyed a lot of american jobs- will probably cost china a half a trillion dollars tho)
      * Without China currency being suppressed they STILL will cost less. Ultimately our wages (and then costs) must drop towards chinese levels.

      * and then (from WAY DOWN TOWN) will come inexpensive robotics capable of replacing 80% of current manual jobs. Fundamental problem? Going forward, we may quickly reach a point where we don't NEED more than 30% of the population to "work". And we certainly won't need 70% of the population to have advanced degrees- we already have too many degreed people. China and India are pumping them out like crazy.

      We probably don't even NEED all the geniuses we'll have - at some point they just start to get in each others way.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    12. Re:Balance of tradeoffs by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      One of the competitors could and would move if it meant they could sell said good at a lower price. A tax that hurts folks using foreign labor may do such a thing. According to standard economics 1 of them will move and rape the rest of them. If the tax is high enough that american labor is competitive.

    13. Re:Balance of tradeoffs by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The trouble with these type of taxes is that the corporations simply pass it onto the customers.

      The trouble with your logic is that your competetion can choose NOT to outsource, and thus don't have that expense to pass along to their customers. They can either out-compete you, or charge the same as you and take higher profits.

    14. Re:Balance of tradeoffs by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      The trouble with these type of taxes is that the corporations simply pass it onto the customers. Unless a huge tax is placed on the products, it will still be cheaper overall to offshore labor and charge consumers more. There are three scenarios:

      You left out the most important scenario, other nations pass their own protectionist laws. Thus a new trade war will lead to Great Depression II just as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, signed in 1930, made the Great Depression as bad as it got.

      Falcon

    15. Re:Balance of tradeoffs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could add a fourth one about the history of tariffs and there effect in the U.S.

      As a chemical engineer I doubt Grove knows anything about that area of historical economics.

    16. Re:Balance of tradeoffs by Chowderbags · · Score: 1

      But it's bullshit. Companies don't need to pay dirt poor wages to be (anything besides abusurdly) profitable, nor do they need to charge an arm and a leg. In the 1950s we had a shitload of things produced right here in America (didn't that used to be a point of pride?), and people were prosperous and happy. Sure, you didn't have CEOs making thousands of times more than the average worker, but you could have a prosperous middle class where even a factory worker straight out of high school could afford to raise a family.

    17. Re:Balance of tradeoffs by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Problem? No external market for our goods (Smoot Hawley).

      Ah, someone else who's heard of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.

      Basic problem(s)?

      * China until last week was suppressing their currency. (Destroyed a lot of american jobs- will probably cost china a half a trillion dollars tho)
      * Without China currency being suppressed they STILL will cost less. Ultimately our wages (and then costs) must drop towards chinese levels.

      US wages might drop if that were the end of it, but it's not. Prior to the recession Chinese wages and pay were raising, as were Indian pay. Both nations not only have billionaires listed in Forbes and Fortune as well as millionaires, but they both also have growing middle classes. China's middle class growing fast.

      we already have too many degreed people.

      Impossible. There can not be too many people with degrees, but there can be many people applying for the same jobs.

      China and India are pumping them out like crazy.

      But how capable are they? For instance, their programmers. Are they only code monkeys or can they identify a problem and create a solution?

      I believe trade, freer trade anyway, can equalize people's pay. But I have no problem with that. I'd like to see an economy where the hardest financial decision those willing and able to work has is whether to spend a month in Spain or China on vacation. Or to get a Tesla Roadster, or whatever it's competition will be. Or maybe pinch pennies to save and invest everything they can so they can retire when they reach 50.

      Falcon

    18. Re:Balance of tradeoffs by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      All you need is one good bout of inflation and you can kiss your retirement goodbye.
      Combined with low rates on savings, there is not a lot you can do to avoid that freight train on the way (it also wipes out pensions and social security too).

      On the rest..

      >But how capable are they?
      They are capable. They have issues. They are half a world away. But it's idiotic chauvinism to assume they won't be equivalent within five or six years.

      >Impossible.
      Let me put it differently. The money it costs to get a degree only makes sense if you can get a better paying job with it. If there are 15 math majors for one math job, the compensation isn't there. If there are 15 math majors and another 25 math majors in china and india willing to work for $10k a year, a math degree really doesn't make much sense. These 2 billion people are as smart as we are. By the numbers, they have more smart people than we do. Education is purely in the brain- you can use it anywhere. You can live where costs are low.

      Right now, many college graduates who are deeply in debt are not finding jobs (and havn't been). We have a glut.

      >Chinese wages and pay were raising,
      Absolutely. I'm not saying our supervisors and team leads drop to $293 a month (foxconn first-line employees, line leaders and supervisors will rise to 2,000 yuan ($293) per month with the recent raises after the 13th suicide) vs a typical $5000 a month for 1st world supervisors (many supervisors make $6000 a month and some make as much as $8000 a month).

      Their raises will rise-- ours will mostly stagnate-- and inflation will eat away at our purchasing power. If their salary doubles every year...
      $300->$600->$1200->$2400->$4800 it would take 5 years for them to achieve parity. And it's not doubling-- it's going up about 20 to 30%. They are going to be cheaper a long time (a decade at least- probably two decades).

      And as I said above, I think $40k robots which work for 3 years without sickdays or breakdowns are not far off. And they won't need supervisors to approve vacation and deal with interpersonal squabbles.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    19. Re:Balance of tradeoffs by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      Why would anyone pay this tax? I am assuming that you wouldn't propose taxing foreign goods from foreign companies because they aren't using US workers, right?

      So the immediate result would be that instead of say, Acme Bowling Balls using offshore IT workers would be to sell off the entire IT division of the company to an Indian subsidary. Who would then be using local labor. Net effect would be zero.

      Similarly, if you make things unpleasant enough in the US any company of any real size would simply move their operations to a subsidary that was based in a more corporate-friendly (and profit-friendly) place. The result is the outsourced/offshored workers stay right where they are and even fewer US workers have jobs.

      You see, what has happened in the last 20 years or so is the reduction in costs of moving virtually everything around the planet. So it is now cheaper to make something in Malayasia and ship it to LA than it is to make it in LA to begin with. When you are shipping stuff by the containerload the cost per item is very low. So there is virtually no reason for any company to maintain anything in the US any longer.

      This has to be factored into any decision about this sort of thing. The limitations on moving the company are far, far fewer than they were in 1980 or so. But if the US shifts policies in ways that make it cheaper and more profitable to shift the place where the work is done, well, you can expect the company to be leaving the US shortly. Manufacturing has already gone that way - and there are very few companies where the operation simply cannot be moved out of the US.

      Health care would seem to be impossible to move - except today for non-trauma related care you can ship the patients around quite a bit. Mexico is getting a lot of business from the Southwestern US because it is cheaper to have elective/corrective surgery there than it is in the US.

      Obviously service related businesses like air conditioning repair can't really be moved. Except the corporate office can be moved and the service technicians simply report to a shell company operated from a foreign headquarters where all their IT and administrative work is carried out with cheaper labor.

      So don't think that some business can't move out of the US. Chances are they can move if pushed hard enough. And should the US decide to tax businesses using foreign workers (which might be a WTO violation anyway), a lot more companies might just decide to up and move.

    20. Re:Balance of tradeoffs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you figure domestic demand is raised? If costs are being passed along, which they always are, the net purchasing power of everyone is reduced because of the increased costs. If you just isolate it to computer chips, then my home computer costs more, the computer at my office costs more - the net is less money being available for buying other things. If I have to pay $50 more for my computer, then maybe I don't buy that new XBOX game I was looking at. As a result, the company that made that game does not make as much profit reducing their demand for labor, goods, and services. Multiply by 1000s and the ripple effect means that even if Intel hires a domestic worker to equal the cost of the imported, taxed chip, that hire if offset by reduced labor demand in other segments of the economy. Median income in the domestic chip industry may rise (layed off or no job to a job) but it is offset by layoffs in other areas. You can never get somethng for nothing.

      I am not saying that we should just forget about it, but tariffs have been and never will be a pro jobs economic policy.

    21. Re:Balance of tradeoffs by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Consumers are already paying for the degenerate practice of shipping jobs overseas.

      Yea, they get to buy cheaper goods. And the one in five employees who work for an exporter like Caterpillar and GE get to keep their jobs.

      Putting a tax of this sort on those items puts the price of said items closer to what they'd be were the Chinese and Japanese engaging in illegal currency manipulation.

      Just as the protectionist law Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act did, another one will cause other nations to enact their own protectionist laws.

      Falcon

    22. Re:Balance of tradeoffs by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      The correct way of looking at this is that there will be a shift from offshore to onshore production

      The correct way is to realize other nations will retaliate. Many of the one in five US employees will see their employers harmed by other nations raising their tariffs.

      Falcon

    23. Re:Balance of tradeoffs by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      If they are idiots maybe.
      Do you care what brand of cereal you bought or if you got coke or pepsi?

    24. Re:Balance of tradeoffs by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      All you need is one good bout of inflation and you can kiss your retirement goodbye.
      Combined with low rates on savings, there is not a lot you can do to avoid that freight train on the way (it also wipes out pensions and social security too).

      Inflation will only wipe out savings if the investment decisions made are poor and a number of other things happen at the same tyme or in close sequence. Though down from it's peak the Dow Jones Industrial Average is still way higher today than it was in 1973. A thousand dollars invested in 1973 is worth $10,000 today, at it's peak the investments would have been worth $14,000. And in 5 years it may be back up there. Now if you're going to be retiring in 5 years it's a good idea to have a big part of your investment portfolio in income stocks, companies that regularly pay out dividends. Utilities are pretty good. If however you still have 30 years before retirement simple regular investments in growth stocks using dollar cost averaging will keep you in good company.

      Obviously today people don't save and invest much and instead expect government, ie other workers, to pay for their retirement.

      They are capable. They have issues. They are half a world away. But it's idiotic chauvinism to assume they won't be equivalent within five or six years.

      I agree but they'll also be demanding higher pay. By then US companies may decide it's cheaper or financially better to employ US workers. Tesla is opening a plant in CA, as I bet other businesses will do too. Hell, Detroit automakers have to compeat with Japanese makers that have and are opening plants in the US. States compeat with each other to lure them to the state.

      Falcon

    25. Re:Balance of tradeoffs by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      How much is a thousand dollars invested in 2000 worth now?
      It's a little over negative 30%.
      What's the inflation rate since 2000? About 25% (http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/)

      The current market behavior is likely to go on for another nine years in a secular bear market before we get another secular bull market.
      What's next? a few years of 9000-10000, another stop at 6000?

      If you have 30 years-- perhaps. But with the algobots, the market is getting very dangerous for the common investor.
      And consider how much the world has changed since 1980. How many companies have gone bankrupt.

      It's generally a bad idea to have your retirement income in stocks. You get adverse selection-- i.e. you sell more when the market is down.
      Of course, right now bonds suck. There is even talk of municipal bonds going bankrupt.

      A lot of what you are saying is good sound advice-- in a world where the government isn't risking hyperinflation. It gives me fits. I have some overseas, some short, some long and a lot in cash right now. I'm nearing debt free and then I want to set up solar power. Electricity rates have basically tripled since 1980 (4.5c/kwh to 13c/kwh today).

      I figure no debt, pension, 401k, ira's, social security, possibly a 20 hour a month or 10 hour a week job job somewhere, plus free electricity and I should be okay unless some other major medical issue crops up.

      ---
      anyway...
      We can't sustain our income advantage over the rest of the world. The difference is too large.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    26. Re:Balance of tradeoffs by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      How much is a thousand dollars invested in 2000 worth now?
      It's a little over negative 30%.

      And how much will it be worth in 2020?

      As I said in the post you replied to, if you are going to need money soon, it should be invested in income stock not growth stocks.

      AEP, American Electric Power Company, Inc, closed at $32.39 today. Dividends paid out: $.41 for the quarter ending 31 March, with the same payouts the previous 4 quarters. For the year ending 31 March 2010 dividends paid were $1.24. At today's closing price that's a return of 3.83%, better than some interest bearing accounts.

      AEE, Ameren Corporation, closed at $23.68. Dividends paid on 31 March 2010 was $.39 again with the same amount paid out over the previous 4 quarters. One year's payout was $1.56 with a return of 6.59%.

      The current market behavior is likely to go on for another nine years in a secular bear market before we get another secular bull market.

      Citation needed.

      It's generally a bad idea to have your retirement income in stocks.

      Excuse me but I did say that if you're close to retirement you have to adjust your investment portfolio. As as the above data shows, income stocks are a good place for investments for retirement.

      We can't sustain our income advantage over the rest of the world. The difference is too large.

      I never said I wanted to keep an income advantage over the rest of the world. I've actually pointed out in freer markets incomes will converge. Nor do I want any such advantage, in my original post that you replied to I said "I'd like to see an economy where the hardest financial decision those willing and able to work has is whether to spend a month in Spain or China on vacation. Or to get a Tesla Roadster, or whatever it's competition will be. Or maybe pinch pennies to save and invest everything they can so they can retire when they reach 50." I don't care if I don't have as much money as the next person, what I do care about is having enough money to live on and if I have children to give them the best chance for them to have a good life.

      Falcon

    27. Re:Balance of tradeoffs by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      I don't see your dream free market happening Falcon.
      The free market will converge... and in the rest of the world- a couple billion people are living on under $4k per year. There will be rich winners but its likely that the middle class will continue to shrink.

      For the citation just look at the various financial advisor newsletters for the secular bear market. We are basically mirroring Japan right now-- likely to have another 10 rough years. Then who knows. If that won't suffice, google "secular bear market" and you'll get pages of citations. Still won't do... okay forbes.com, warren buffet, "But it is pretty much agreed that when the market topped out in March 2000 it was the end of the long 1982-2000 secular bull market, and beginning of a 2000 to who knows when secular bear market. As Warren Buffett said, and others predicted at the time, "The next 17 years will be quite different from the last 17 years." i.e. Buffet is looking at 2017ish.

      Income stocks *were* a good place for your retirement money. They may be again- but for the near to mid term future, you risk losing 20 to 30% of your retirement money owning in come stocks. You risk losing just as much in bonds because once interest rates start rising they are going to lose a lot of value. And you can't get better than about 2% in CD's. Municipal bonds have a strong risk of bankruptcy right now (and for several more years). Cash is also risky due to inflation- $100k could buy you a cup of coffee in 20 years.

      Yes, I agree on dividend stocks. I like GIS myself. 100+ years. I don't like the look of AEE. If you invested ANY time between 1998 and 2009, you have lost THIRTY TO FIFTY PERCENT of your money. Given that it underperformed many other stocks since the march rally, I'd pick something else... like GIS with a trailing dividend of about 3%, a 100 year plus history, an excellent product (FOOD.. you know Cheerios and stuff) and a lot of potential for international growth. But even there, the money would be at risk. There could be some terrible lawsuit tomorrow and GIS could take a 20% haircut before you could get out (even with trailing stops these days-- they are more like "suggestions" than orders when the HFT trading programs are playing your stock.)

      My point is- right now- and for nearly the next decade there is no safe place right now, our incomes will be flat to down, inflation is going to eat away at our incomes on top of that, the market is likely to be very hard to trade or invest, bonds are going to suck as well, and even sitting in cash has huge risks.

      It's just a hard time.

      I'm using a mixture of approaches ... dividends as you suggest (I'm 17 years from retirement), some dollar cost averaging, a big pile of cash, and a big pile in overseas investements as a hedge. And I'm getting debt free-- no house debt, no car debt. I'm already free of debt other than those and both of those are now quite low (I might be out in 24 months).

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    28. Re:Balance of tradeoffs by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Income stocks *were* a good place for your retirement money. They may be again- but for the near to mid term future, you risk losing 20 to 30% of your retirement money owning in come stocks. You risk losing just as much in bonds because once interest rates start rising they are going to lose a lot of value. And you can't get better than about 2% in CD's.

      I cited 2 income stocks, both with better returns than those 2% CDs, the lower return being almost 4%. For more examples do what I did, Google income stocks. Right now the first result is the definition of "income stock" given by investopedia and the second Stocks For Income Investors In 2010. I didn't check it out but the third result is the Fool's 5 Stocks for Strong Income. Now while those links may be from people who have their own agendas, such as trying to have stocks they own rise in price before they're dumped so does Warren Buffet. I say that even though what I know about him I like. The same with George Soros. Now do you think they have the same outlook on investments? Here's the portfolio at Soros Fund Management LLC.

      I'm using a mixture of approaches ... dividends as you suggest (I'm 17 years from retirement), some dollar cost averaging, a big pile of cash, and a big pile in overseas investements as a hedge. And I'm getting debt free-- no house debt, no car debt. I'm already free of debt other than those and both of those are now quite low (I might be out in 24 months).

      While the rest sounds okay, why the "big pile of cash"? As you said yourself inflation could gobble it up. One year's living expenses should be enough. But not just cash. Have 3 months in saving for ready cash, then have the rest in 6 month CDs that mature every 3 months. Of if a money market account offers higher interest then use that instead of CDs. If and when it comes down to it cutting out non-essentials, taking out odd or temporary jobs, and growing some of your own food should stretch that year of emergency funds out further.

      And yes, gardening. Just this week even though it's still early I picked some greens in my garden for salad, leaf lettuce and mustard. Now I did buy some carrot, onion, and radish because it's too early for those and I tossed some sliced ham and turkey and well as grated cheese I bought too. However within a few more weeks I should have enough in my garden for more salad and other dishes. I have Roma tomato plants to make tomato sauces, yellow tomatoes for salad, and more for soups and salsa. For salsa, and soup, I also have tomatillos. Though it won't be much I hoping I can at least can a few quarts of them.

      Oh, lest I miss it, you say you have no house debt, did you pay off a mortgage early or on tyme? If early, was the interest high? If so then it may of been better to refinance to a lower rate. With the one year emergency fund even if you lose your job and become unemployed you could still make your payments. Of course, you may feel better being debt free and having less risks. If so and that's important to you then go for it. Personally I wouldn't, but then again I can handle higher risks. So long as I have that year of funding I can get by.

      Get by? HAHA Because I'm on disability and it is being messed with, so far this year I've only got money 4 out of 6 months and not once was it the full amount of my disability, I'm living week to week. I am glad

    29. Re:Balance of tradeoffs by Wildclaw · · Score: 1

      If they are idiots

      That we already know for a fact. So I guess you concur with the grandparent.

    30. Re:Balance of tradeoffs by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      I've only recently considered gardening.

      I shoot for a year's emergency cash.

      The pile of cash is in the 401k in case we get a decline and get an entry point. I do expect they'll raise tax rates sort of nuking our 401k's if they don't try to rob them outright.

      I'm very sorry about your disability. Even in good times, it's not enough to survive on your own.

      I feel more comfortable with a paid off house. It's emotional.

      For now I balance paying ahead some and saving some- when the remaining balance makes sense, I'll nuke it.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    31. Re:Balance of tradeoffs by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      I've only recently considered gardening.

      I grew up gardening and using less than half of my mom's backyard, with plenty of sun, we could grow enough food for most of the year.

      The pile of cash is in the 401k in case we get a decline and get an entry point. I do expect they'll raise tax rates sort of nuking our 401k's if they don't try to rob them outright.

      I doubt they'll tax 401Ks, they are specifically set up to delay taxes. What is deposited in them has taxes deferred until money is withdrawn. If government went ahead and started taxing the money deposited, or raised the taxes on them, then there'd be public outcry.

      I'm very sorry about your disability. Even in good times, it's not enough to survive on your own.

      Thanks. It would be easier financially if I had someone, a roommate, to share living expenses with. But I've had roommates before and they didn't work out. My sister is helping me though, because there's trouble with my disability she has given me some money.

      Falcon

    32. Re:Balance of tradeoffs by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      On the 401k, what I mean is all they have to do is raise taxes and you end up paying taxes on your 401k money at a higher rate than you avoided as it went in.

      Yes-- room mates can drive you crazy. I do not even have any live in girlfriends. I could do that at one time but now I've been a bachelor too long.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  11. Shibby! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It'll never happen , but it's good to hear from someone in the industry.. freaking sweet !

  12. Ugh by COMON$ · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I subscribe to the theory that you should not tax just to generate income or punish. You should tax based on liability, if it costs the gov't cash to maintain a service you pay for it. fairtax.org Im so tired of paying extraneous taxes for random stuff. We seem to have this thought that we have a budget shortfall so lets tax something. Or we don't like people behaving like X so lets tax them. Did we forget what taxes are for?

    Of course this ever happening in the US this is a pipe dream, but I like to visit these dreams every once in a while and yes it makes me feel better.

    --
    CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
    1. Re:Ugh by Rivalz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think the problem is there just aren't enough jobs. For local / offshore / everywhere.
      Too many people in the world, not enough resources, not enough of anything to be honest. So we want to make a system that further skews things because too far in one direction is worse then a crappy balancing act. Offshore pushes towards labor inequality. I just wish the offshore people would demand more from their employers and it seems to be slowly moving that way. But the fact is that there are too many people that can do the same job, but with varying demands of compensation. So taxing them because they are willing to work for less does not seem very ethical to me but that is why I will always be broke. I'm not willing to screw people over just for a little extra money.

    2. Re:Ugh by larkost · · Score: 1

      Your attitude does not stand up to even moderate scrutiny, and seems to be based on the assumption that a large percentage of the Federal budget goes to stuff that benefits only a small portion of the US. I would invite you to go look at the "Death and Taxes 2011" poster:

      http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/

      Looking at the poster you can't help but realize that the vast majority of the expenditures (either discretionary like most of the poster, or the including the non-discretionary as in the small inset) are not things that could be paid for out of use-fees (as you seem to be advocating). After all, how do you decide how much of the military you are using? Or how do you decide how much of a safety net you need? Both of these things are things that a society (so a collective of people) need to work at together, and the government is exactly the body that we have erected to do things like this for us.

      Politicians love to point at government waste and blame their opponents for it, but in reality that accounts for a trivial amount of the budget.

      Short of radically cutting back on social services (and thus bringing back the worst of our capitalistic days where Civil War widows were living on the streets in great numbers), this is just not going to happen.

    3. Re:Ugh by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Fairtax is a scam whereby the rich don't pay their fair share and the rest of us end up picking up the tab. 23% sales tax is enough to kill pretty much any economic activity.

      But then again, what the hell, lets just let corporate entities make up their own decisions, I mean it's not like we just had to spend trillions of dollars bailing them out for incompetent decisions. Wait, we did, didn't we? Taxing things of this nature is the least intrusive way of guiding things in a reasonable direction. It allows them to have a say, but makes it less costly for companies that choose to behave responsibly.

    4. Re:Ugh by COMON$ · · Score: 1

      Im not saying it is easy. But a better way is a consumption tax. Military is supposed to be protecting our land, that is why we pay property taxes. We need to take care of our elderly, thus social security, straight forward right? However look at what your property taxes go to, look at your income tax, then your sales tax. There is a better way.

      --
      CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
    5. Re:Ugh by COMON$ · · Score: 1

      Fair share of the taxes? what BS world do you live in? Look at it, who can afford fancy tax attorneys, and who cannot? Who do you think is paying more for taxes. Because of this convoluted system we give breaks to the rich. A fair tax works because there aren't loopholes, you pay tax on what you buy and use. 23% on what I buy is better than 30-50% of my entire take home. You are taxed based on what you spend, period...scam my ass.

      --
      CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
    6. Re:Ugh by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      One thing that I've proposed before is making a minimum wage laws international. If you pay below the minimum wage in a different country, then you have to pay the difference in import duty. Similarly, if you don't respect local time off and environmental laws. If you pollute in China and aren't taxed for it, then you pay the same tax on imports as you would pay for producing the goods near the point of sale.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    7. Re:Ugh by kf6auf · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why shouldn't taxes punish people for negative externalities? For example, gas taxes are a more free-market way of limiting smog from cars than mandating that every new car have a certain fuel economy or telling the manufacturers every car needs to be a hybrid. The argument isn't "we don't like X so let's tax them" but rather "action X has a hidden cost to the nation of $Y, let's tax it $Y". Of course, you're lucky if you can get 60 senators to agree that pollution is bad so we don't really hear much of the nitpicking over whether it's $Y or $Y-1, just that some people think there is a cost (in other words pollution is bad) and some don't. Taxes are for forcing the free market to realize negative externalities and funding needed government services. What's wrong with the argument "it would be better for the country if we taxed X"? Furthermore, pretty much all of the taxes you pay do go to stuff the government pays for that you have previously benefited from (public education), are benefiting from (the military, police, fire protection, roads), or will benefit from (Social Security, Medicare, federally funded research). Now some of it is pretty indirect, like the Secret Service protecting the President, but in the end most of it still benefits the country. If the government cannot raise taxes to pay for these costs, how should it or should it stop doing them?

    8. Re:Ugh by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Dear god you are in idiot.

      Taxes are used to fund services government provides for the people.

      Different taxing systems have been created to provide funds for these services. They amount to taxes on income and taxes on goods and services.

      It's actually a simple system. The problem is collecting taxes from giant corporations like oil companies. The US government seems unwilling to do that. The US government also seems adverse to eliminate old taxes that no longer serve a purpose or have been succeeded by a new tax.

    9. Re:Ugh by tibit · · Score: 1

      23% sales tax is enough to kill pretty much any economic activity.

      You come from a different planet, then.

      In Europe, typical VAT hovers around 20% methinks. In Germany, VAT is 19% for most non-food, non-agricultural products and services, and somehow they seem to be economically better off than the U.S.

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    10. Re:Ugh by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Consumption taxes are regressive. Why should a poor person pay a greater percentage of his income as tax then a rich man?

      Better tax system:
      Everyone gets $X government check, this replaces all other government handouts. Everyone gets it.

      First Z * $X income is tax free. All income after from any source is taxed at rate Y. No matter if it is from stock trades, working at the coal mine or a gift from granny.

    11. Re:Ugh by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      So then you will be taxing all stock trades?
      Anything I buy for my second house in mexico while I am in mexico?

    12. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having most of the poster dedicated to discretionary spending however is misleading as most of the current budget is not discretionary spending (e.g. Interest on debt, medicare, medicaid, social security).

    13. Re:Ugh by COMON$ · · Score: 1

      It is only regressive if everyone spends the same amount. Are you saying that a family making a million a year spends as much as one making 25K?

      --
      CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
    14. Re:Ugh by COMON$ · · Score: 1
      1. Dont know, it isnt my system nor am I a financial expert but I imagine since it is a sold item it will need to be taxed in some way, I dont propose everything has the same flat tax either.

      2. Anything you buy from America.

      --
      CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
    15. Re:Ugh by COMON$ · · Score: 1
      1. Never claimed I wasn't an idiot. But thanks for telling me. You truely have effected me on a deep personal level, I am not sure I will ever be the same...thank you

      It's actually a simple system

      really? if it is so simple why is one of our biggest agencies the one that interprets tax code? Not only do you have to watch the lines where the taxes are but you have to claim certain goods but not others, not to mention there is no pattern to it. You have to look up everything, spend hundreds, or in the case of corportation millions of dollars and man hours to make sure you did it right. Real simple.In fact it is so simple that if you pay enough money you can avoid paying anything at all. It is so simple, no one ever goes bankrupt trying to do it right.

      --
      CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
    16. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You utterly fail at math, which makes you a great target for the "fairtax" folks. For starters, there's no fucking way you're paying 50% of your income in income taxes in the US. The top federal *bracket* and the top state *bracket* are, what, 33% and 7%? Social security taxes are 6.2% and have a cap on the total. It's currently impossible to actually hit 50%, and has been impossible since at least the Clinton years. You'd have to be making millions a year to even come close.

      The median household (sorted by income) pays somewhere in the 17-21% range. And has to spend most of their income on things. 23% sales tax would be an increase no matter how you try to contort things.

      The rich with the lowest taxes are the ones whose entire income is capital gains (they get different, lower tax brackets) and under a flat sales tax they'd be paying NOTHING on that instead of the 13% or so they'd normally have to pay. At a 23% sales tax rate, they'd have to spend away more than half their yearly income to exceed their old tax rate. (Note: the rich do not spend that large a percentage of their income on sales taxed goods every year, they invest it. And of course their net *wealth* is many times larger than their yearly *income*...).

    17. Re:Ugh by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Only if you figure expenses (especially basic stuff like food, housing, etc.) scale linearly with income. Do you figure your 1M/year family is spending 40 times as much on food as the 25k/year family is?

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    18. Re:Ugh by Zardoz+Speaks · · Score: 1

      There are enough resources, if wisely managed, for all to live comfortably and well. That's the purpose of war - to dispose of excess production and use the resulting artificial shortages to ensure a cheap labor pool. As to the shortage of jobs, there is more than enough work that needs doing to keep everyone busy, and more than enough wealth to pay for it . What is needed is a paradigm shift that makes the concentration of wealth economically non-viable. Keep the wealth moving, everyone wins. Concentrated wealth has produced the current economic disaster where there is so much money seeking ROI, and so little of value to invest in. Result: hundreds of trillions in fake investments (derivatives) that suck capital out of markets and destroy wealth while lining the pockets of the few who have gamed the system for their own benefit.

    19. Re:Ugh by Zardoz+Speaks · · Score: 1

      For starters, if a company lays off an American worker and replaces them with a cheaper foreign worker, why not hold them liable for FICA and unemployment taxes on that job based on the original (American) wage rate? This approach at least begins to compensate for the liability incurred by the US workforce and economy when a job is offshored, and does so with targeted taxes that do the most to protect displaced workers. It also begins to impose a real cost on "externalities", in this case the social and environmental costs of shipping product halfway around the world that could be produced locally.

    20. Re:Ugh by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      Because I know of no other tax in the US that is based on "negative externalities". Gas taxes in Europe are certainly environmental, but in the US they are directed primarily at the Federal level towards highway maintenance.

      Historically, the US tax code is behaviorally driven. You want home ownership? Give a tax break to home owners. You want companies to hire foreign workers on H1-B visas? Give a tax break for H1-B workers. There have been a few attempts at taxing undesired behavior, such as the short-lived luxury tax on large boats, but it pretty much crippled businesses in the Southeast related to boat-building and was repealed. Similarly, the gas-guzzler tax was designed to push people toward smaller, lighter more fuel-efficient cars with seriously bad crash performance - it was repealed after noticing it wasn't having the desired effect. Today, I do not believe there are any taxes designed to penalize behavior nor are there any taxes addressing "negative externalities".

      Sure, you might like to have some, but I don't think you are going to get any.

      What's wrong with the argument "it would be better for the country if we taxed X"?

      Well, for starters, who exactly might be deciding what is best for the country? Pick any two polar opposite political figures - say Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. Would you be happy with either one of them deciding which was "best for the country"? I'd bet that while you might be OK with one of them the other would be a problem. So for the most part we don't have people deciding what might be "best for the country" at any level.

      Certainly an example of this is the current healthcare situation. Yes, someone thought it might be best for the country to have a government-run healthcare system but was completely unable to implement it. What we got was a half-measure that could be implemented that is going to be extremely costly to fix. A big clue is that many medium-sized companies are discovering it is cheaper to pay the "fine" than to provide what will be approved as a healthcare package for an employee. Which pushes the employee onto the federal subsidy program quite a bit different than what was expected. Like prohibition, trying to decide things that are "good for the country" generally don't work out as planned.

    21. Re:Ugh by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      And how would you enforce this? Part of the attraction is in plenty of places there is virtually zero government (and legal) oversight. You get to do pretty much whatever you want without a lot of busybody government agents sticking their noses into your business.

      Works really well in Africa, India and China. Not so well in the US, even on Montana and Idaho.

      This means that whatever you pay your workers is your business. The government man comes by once in a while for their cut and some of that gets into the government tax fund. The bigger the amount that ends up in the government man's pocket the more you know you are going to be left alone, esp. in Africa. I suspect the rules are about the same in India and China.

    22. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really, everything should always work in US favor or else it is immoral or illegal right?

      How about Internationalizing Health care (not insurance), public transportation. If you or your country doesn't provide free or public transportation or health care to your employees then you will be hit with a tariff in other countries that provide such benefits to their citizens. Are you game?

      Also, if your country attacks and/occupies (I don't give a flying F*** about your reasons) some country that my country didn't attack/occupy, your products will be hit with a tariff.
      Now that the matter is settled, lets talk about the weather.
       

    23. Re:Ugh by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      No, but they're spending it on other things. Mind, at least in Texas, food doesn't have sales tax applied to it. It should also be noted that New Hampshire doesn't have ANY appreciable taxes whatsoever- and manages just fine in other ways. (Buy a bottle of booze at one of their Liquor Outlets and you help pay for education, amongst other things...)

      In the end, a Sales Tax or a Flat Tax would end up resulting in a fair system and would actually produce more money (or, do you honestly believe that 1M/yr family is paying their fair proportion of income taxes that the 25k/yr one is...if so, I've got some nice beachfront property in Arizona to sell you... :-D )

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    24. Re:Ugh by Zardoz+Speaks · · Score: 1

      And how would you enforce this?

      Possibly through a simple ratio - % of your market is in US vs. % your workforce in US.

      Part of the attraction is in plenty of places there is virtually zero government (and legal) oversight. You get to do pretty much whatever you want without a lot of busybody government agents sticking their noses into your business.

      Yes, you can do whatever you want - in some cases that has included murdering labor organizers and wrecking the environment. The point is, there are no "externalities". Everything has a cost, and those costs do not vanish in the absence of oversight. In the end they will all have to be paid. A market that ignores this is not sustainable.

    25. Re:Ugh by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Why shouldn't taxes punish people for negative externalities? For example, gas taxes are a more free-market way of limiting smog from cars than mandating that every new car have a certain fuel economy or telling the manufacturers every car needs to be a hybrid.

      I agree with you about discouraging people for negative externalities but fuel taxes are a poor example. Fuel taxes don't pay enough to maintain roads as it is.

      Furthermore, pretty much all of the taxes you pay do go to stuff the government pays for that you have previously benefited from (public education), are benefiting from (the military, police, fire protection, roads), or will benefit from (Social Security, Medicare, federally funded research).

      Now here I disagree. First the federal government has no constitutional authority to provide or regulate education. Leave education to local and state governments, which can and should use property taxes to fund. State and local governments should also pay for most roads with property and fuel taxes. Property tax pays for the building of the roads then the fuel tax pays for maintenance. Property tax should also pay for firefighters and police. Going back to the feds, the military should be significantly reduced in size. We don't need military bases all over the world. Close the bases in Japan for instance and require South Korea to reimburse US military costs there. Then with Social Security, it should be privatized, that was one item on a very short list of what Bush wanted to do that I supported. Medicare? It sucks, yet congress and Obama want to make everyone's health care just as bad. And yes, I know it sucks as I am on it myself. If government really wanted to help people with health care and insurance it would have mandated a freer market in insurance and gave those unable to afford it credit to buy insurance in the market. The feds shouldn't be funding research either, but since it does the research should be open sourced so anyone could use it. A flat tax, or better a sales tax, and user fees could fund the rest of what the feds do that are constitutionally authorized. Like the greatly reduced in size military. And the fuel tax paying for roads.

      Falcon

    26. Re:Ugh by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Fairtax is a scam whereby the rich don't pay their fair share and the rest of us end up picking up the tab.

      Another person who fell for the myth that the wealthy paid little taxes. The Top 1% Pay More Income Tax Than Bottom 90%.

      23% sales tax is enough to kill pretty much any economic activity.

      Yet you'd have people pay even more in taxes. The tax on the top income in the US is 35% of their salaries, bonuses and business income. And those numbers are from the pseudo (fake) liberal New York Times.

      Falcon

    27. Re:Ugh by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      how do you decide how much of the military you are using? Or how do you decide how much of a safety net you need? Both of these things are things that a society (so a collective of people) need to work at together, and the government is exactly the body that we have erected to do things like this for us.

      First, many of the things the US government does it has not constitutional authority to do. Second, I did not decide any spending, I oppose most of it. And no, the US government was not erected to do most of the things it does, otherwise the Founding Fathers would have included in things the government can do.

      Maybe you're one of those expansionist who believe the constitution can be made to mean whatever you want it to instead of what it actually means. As Thomas Jefferson said: "To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."

      Short of radically cutting back on social services (and thus bringing back the worst of our capitalistic days where Civil War widows were living on the streets in great numbers), this is just not going to happen.

      Oh, I absolutely have to ask for citations about this, otherwise it's FUD.

      Falcon

    28. Re:Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An offshore worker might say, "I have it pretty sweet!", with a quarter of what an american considers a good salary. The problem is that in the US everything's just too expensive compared to where work is offshored to.

    29. Re:Ugh by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      The government is paying welfare for local unemployed. Local employed and their employers are sucked dry to fund it. Meanwhile outsourced labor money are taxed to fund government activities in country where the outsourcing is performed.

      I think the outsourced labor should be taxed as much as it costs the government not to have a local counterpart employed instead...

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    30. Re:Ugh by Wildclaw · · Score: 1

      The Top 1% Pay More Income Tax Than Bottom 90%

      Of course they do. Because it is the only fucking way we can get the rich to pay any type of tax that has some kind of relation to how much they are benefiting from having a society.

      Meanwhile the poor pay payroll taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, state taxes and more, all while the rich laughs at them for being so docile and obedient.

    31. Re:Ugh by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile the poor pay payroll taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, state taxes and more, all while the rich laughs at them for being so docile and obedient.

      Again HAHA!!! The more you earn the higher your income tax, and that includes payroll taxes. Actually employers pay half or more of the taxes. For instance FICA, your employer pays half of that. You obviously missed where the top tax rate is 35%. The poor pay no where near that much in income taxes. The more you spend the higher you pay in stales tax. If you're poor you shouldn't be buying iPods or iPhones. If you're poor you shouldn't be buying large screen TVs. If you're poor you shouldn't be having children. What you should be doing is investing in your future, by first getting education or training that will lead to higher pay. Once you can pay your bills you should be saving money and putting some into stocks and bonds.

      Currently I am disabled and have been on disability for years. I am hoping to start working soon though and when I do I'll save as much as I can so I start taking classes again, I was a college student when I had the accident that caused my disability.

      If you don't know about economics perhaps you shouldn't be commenting on how things should be.

      Falcon

      Oh and because I was a student from a low income family I didn't have insurance when I had the accident yet I still got medical care. I was medivaced to the hospital by helicopter, where I stayed while in a coma. After I came out of the coma I was transferred from the hospital to a rehabilitation house. My medical bills came to more than $120,000 and I was still treated despite the hospital, doctors, and rehab house not knowing if they will ever get paid. Because I paid into it when I did work I also get Social Security Income. Unfortunately since last year the SSA has been messing around with my SSI, in part because of Medicare. Which sucks, yet Congress and Obama will make other's health care just as bad.

    32. Re:Ugh by Wildclaw · · Score: 1

      Again HAHA!!! The more you earn the higher your income tax, and that includes payroll taxes.

      Plain wrong. The payroll tax is capped, meaning that it will present itself to be a lower percentage for high earners.

      The more you spend the higher you pay in stales tax.

      And again, the poor spend a higher percentage of their income.

      If you don't know about economics perhaps you shouldn't be commenting on how things should be.

      You should listen to your own advice. Recommending the government to aim for economics that by definition isn't sustainable is plain stupid. This whole mess we are in right now is exactly becuase of the unsustainability of the situation. Get to big of a percentage of all wealth in the hands of a few and your economy collapses. One of the basic rules.

    33. Re:Ugh by COMON$ · · Score: 1
      Yes actually. I dont know where you live, but an unfortunate problem in the US is that Carbs and Starch is cheap. So you have the poor families eating lots of pasta, potatoes, and prefabed boxed meals because they are what they can afford. The 1M a year families (even the 350K ones I know) eat out a lot more, and spend a considerable amount more on food. My wife and I eat pretty healthy, lots of produce, rarely eat out and our grocery bill is about $300-$350 a month. That averages out to be about $1.81-$2.00 per person per meal a month. That is just for 2 people.

      That aside, food shouldn't be taxed anyway, but that is just me. But the richer families do spend more on property, an interesting figure is the number of doctors who declare bankruptcy, just because someone is rich doesn't mean they are fiscally responsible.

      --
      CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
    34. Re:Ugh by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Plain wrong. The payroll tax is capped, meaning that it will present itself to be a lower percentage for high earners.

      TROLL!!! I've already provided the top tax rate, which is 35%. No other income pays nearly as much. Since you keep on making things up I will not continue trying to have a rational discussion with you.

      Falcon

    35. Re:Ugh by Wildclaw · · Score: 1

      TROLL!!! I've already provided the top tax rate, which is 35%. No other income pays nearly as much. Since you keep on making things up

      The SS part of the Payroll tax is capped at a max of $106,800 taxable income currently. If you earn above that, it is regressive. Further:

      www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2010.pdf

      Seriously, the federal income tax is a red herring, and as I originally pointed out, one of the main ways to get rich to pay their fair share to the country, whereas other taxes hits the middle class and poor harder.

      In the end, the rich do end up paying a slightly higher percentage than the average American, but the difference is not very large. And without a federal income tax it would be completely tipped around, as it removes the one really progressive tax keeping the system in check.

  13. Re:Government is the problem, not the solution by FuckingNickName · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Or just remove worker benefits entirely. And freedom of asembly. And speech. And make it easier to bribe government officials. Also workhouses. Rows and rows of beds. That's the way to increase employment! Make workers so cheap and desperate that their only alternative is slow death. We did eliminate healthcare, yes? Good.

  14. the economic justification is actually simple by electrosoccertux · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now, I would consider myself fairly conservative. Usually the argument goes "they're taking our jobs!! We need to enact protectionist policies to protect American workers!"
    Doing this blindly, I have a problem with it-- it doesn't make economic sense. If we are more efficient at producing one good, and they are more efficient at producing something else, then it doesn't make sense for us to waste money trying to produce it ourselves in the States.

    However, I cannot economically justify free trade when
    1). the trade occurring is uni-directional (IE, we're buying from them and they're not buying anything of ours-- I don't count China's investment in Treasuries as real goods-based Trade [even though financial trade is _technically_ trade])
    2). one of the countries (China) involved in the trade refuses to let their currency's value be determined by the market.

    In other words, what we have now is not true "free trade". If it were free trade, China would be buying our products [unfortunately much of our product is now Intellectual Property and it's difficult to enforce consumption of these goods], and China would not be fixing the value of their currency. If they weren't fixing the value of their currency relative to ours, then any trade imbalances would be slowly corrected as it becomes more and more expensive (in dollars) to outsource labor/manufacturing to China.

    The Intel guy is mostly right; we just differ on how the imbalance should be corrected. I'd much rather a natural, market-driven return to mean, than a politically dangerous (taxing imports) one.

    1. Re:the economic justification is actually simple by Palpatine_li · · Score: 1

      so who won in the 19th century merchantilism wars?

    2. Re:the economic justification is actually simple by assertation · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Intel guy is mostly right; we just differ on how the imbalance should be corrected. I'd much rather a natural, market-driven return to mean, than a politically dangerous (taxing imports) one.

      What would be a realistic example of that?

    3. Re:the economic justification is actually simple by seanadams.com · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If we are more efficient at producing one good, and they are more efficient at producing something else, then it doesn't make sense for us to waste money trying to produce it ourselves in the States.

      You aren't addressing Grove's point, which is that there is intellectual capital to be gained and retained by continuing to manufacture such commodities ourselves. Textiles vs semiconductors differ in this respect. There is also physical capital we might like to have ready to go, i.e. the fabs, for when China gets tired of taking our Monopoly money.

    4. Re:the economic justification is actually simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point... after all, how many computers in China run Windows? And how many of those copies were *paid for*?

      We pay the Chinese for their products, but they take ours and don't pay a cent.

    5. Re:the economic justification is actually simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [unfortunately much of our product is now Intellectual Property and it's difficult to enforce consumption of these goods]

      That. Unfortunately, our collective hallucination about how copyrights and patents are somehow similar to "property" is coming around to bite us in the ass. Us paying them money to receive tangible stuff isn't optional. Getting them to pay for knowledge, on the other hand, turns out to be a much less reliable proposition.

      Even my toddler gets the difference between physical property ("Mine!") and "intellectual" property ("I'm going to grow up to be rich selling pictures of Tom and Jerry to other kids!" "No you're not, they're copyrighted!" "Huh? They're just pictures, and I'll draw them" "Nevermind, I'll explain when you grow up.")

    6. Re:the economic justification is actually simple by AmazinglySmooth · · Score: 0, Troll

      Just make it illegal to sell US Treasuries to foreign owners. Seems like it might be treason to do so anyways.

    7. Re:the economic justification is actually simple by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And who are you exactly? What real world corporate experience do you have?

      It's nice to blather on thinking you know something but in fact you do not.

      Let me clue you in, the markets will not correct any trade imbalance. The markets do not work for the United States. Witness the epic economic collapse of the banking industry in 2008. Free market forces at work that ripped $2 TRILLION dollars from our treasury and countless BILLIONS of dollars of people's savings, property values, jobs...the economic tsunami was unprecedented.

      Free markets without regulation is anarchy.

      FYI what's keeping the US economy afloat is all the debt China is willing to buy. China holds nearly $1 Trillion dollars in US debt.

      The US has no leverage over China. No one can force China to float their currency. If China decided to sell off it's holdings, the US would be plunged into a depression.

      If China decided to float its currency, the US would be hit with HUGE price jumps that would cause great economic hardship to an already poor population. All the cheap stuff from Walmart would become very expensive. Those goods could not be replaced with US versions since all the manufacturing is in China. The manufacturing that is in China WOULD NOT move back to the US because, if you read the article, companies made a heavy investment in China. Setting up a new plant back in the US would be very expensive, take lots of time, then you would have to hire workers, train and scale up production. Unless you have already made the investment today, it would take years to do. That's not going to happen especially since, thanks to the manufacturing in China and Asia, a middle class has developed that can afford to by these cheap goods that China was selling to the US. China could also afford to help develop other industries with all the cash they have. China is cash rich. So they could further mute the effect of a floating currency. And the flip side is, if their currency is going up in value, more investment in China and/or holding its currency may be worthwhile further driving away investment in the US.

      Read before you post.

    8. Re:the economic justification is actually simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      companies made a heavy investment in China

      Which would become a sunk cost.

      Setting up a new plant back in the US would be very expensive, take lots of time, then you would have to hire workers, train and scale up production.

      And whoever did it first would eat the lunch of people still trying to convert dollars to Remninbi.

      Unless you have already made the investment today, it would take years to do.

      Should have thought of that before bulldozing your plants.

      All of that said... what'd happen isn't any of the above, the corporations currently outsourcing to China would simply move to some other shithole third world country. Maybe convince the US Govt that Somalia or some other slum is of absolute strategic importance and get them to blow away one side or the other -- whichever pays worse -- so they can partner with the survivors to help them employ their starving masses for a bowl of rice or two a day.

    9. Re:the economic justification is actually simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      more efficient at producing something else, then it doesn't make sense for us to waste money

      That's where you went sideways.

      Getting stuff cheaper works great in the office with the spreadsheet tallying up the beans. The problem comes when the day ends and you leave the office and discover you have to live among all those "inefficient" folk you've outsourced. The ones that no longer contribute to government revenue, leaving the budgets deep in the red at all levels. The ones that end up in tent cities and lose any interest in being productive citizens. The ones that can't cover their own expenses due to wage competition and instead vote in people that make you cover it for them.

      Opps.

      Still want to characterize money spent domestically as "waste"? Ever been outsourced yourself?

      This indifference doesn't belong exclusively to the 'greedy capitalists' either. The left has not hesitated to create vast imbalances in cost through regulation and then look the other way when business evacuates the US as a result. Pollution, slave wages, unsafe conditions, etc. are all fine as long as they take place in Asia. Lemme stick an 'OBAMA' sticker on my Escalade while cap-and-trade moves the refinery to Mexico. Brilliant.

    10. Re:the economic justification is actually simple by cdrguru · · Score: 3, Informative

      The problem is now and has been since the end of WW II that neither Japan nor China want anything from the US. This isn't something new. You would think that US-grown rice would have a market in Japan and China - nope, it doesn't meet their standards. It doesn't matter what the standards are, either - whatever is brought over instantly doesn't meet their "new" standard.

      For the most part, folks in the US have stopped trying because it doesn't work. There is no power that can force Japan or China to "Buy American".

      Why, with this as a given for the last 70 years or so, would anyone open up "free trade" with China? But it was viewed by some as a way to influence their policies on human rights. Yeah, sure. We can complain about their human rights record while they are burying us economically. Because we encouraged it.

      The problem on our side is that as a member of the WTO, we can't impose tariffs on imports - including importing work that takes place overseas. Doing so will not last a month until it is repealed. Remember the flap about steel imports? No, we are't getting out of this by taxing or imposing surcharges. Quite possibly the only way out will be the market for offshore workers collapsing because the companies in the US go belly-up.

    11. Re:the economic justification is actually simple by twoallbeefpatties · · Score: 2, Informative

      The problem on our side is that as a member of the WTO, we can't impose tariffs on imports - including importing work that takes place overseas.

      I've heard here and there that the WTO will allow for certain tariffs to exist (such as Value Added Taxes) for certain externalities. I'm running around Google looking for examples... Here's a short example. Here's another.

      --
      Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
    12. Re:the economic justification is actually simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trade is never uni-directional. I give you money, you give me something. Uni-directional trading is call charity.

    13. Re:the economic justification is actually simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd much rather a natural, market-driven return to mean

      Which would require nominally-communist China to do the same.

      You won't get China etc. to play by free-market rules (for whatever bastardization of the term is in use for a given decade) without some form of blandishment, and the most appropriate seems to be matching protectionism with overtures to mutual disarmament.

    14. Re:the economic justification is actually simple by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

      Well, 75% of our debt is domestically owned, China holds $1T, and a lot of fabs are in Malaysia.
      But to be honest, I didn't RTFA.

    15. Re:the economic justification is actually simple by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure where you're getting your economic theory but it's pretty uninformed.

      ~75% of US debt is domestically owned. China doesn't even hold 10%. more like 7%. They are not "keeping the US economy afloat".

      The US would not plunge into a depression if China dumped their dollar holdings. If China dumped their dollar holdings and the value of the US dollar went to the crapper, suddenly the US would become the new country to build everything in. Any exporters that set up shop would instantly garner a profit.

      But that's never going to happen; China would be hurt much more than we would be if we were no longer able to buy their products. Their "middle class" you speak of is anything but thanks to the 20-30% savings rates because of the lack of health insurance options and because the government recapitalizes banks by the interest rate spread between savings accounts (for the populace) and the rate banks are allowed to make loans at. Not to mention their foolish over-commitment to developing a manufacturing base and pushing further in that direction even now while US consumption shrinks.
      In other words, none of this imbalance matters. We're all headed down the crapper together, it's like mutually assured economic destruction. I used to be worried about all this until I learned that nobody's going to do anything; not when there's money to be made playing the status-quo, it's must safer and easier that way.

      No, you've got it all wrong, my friend. I recommend finding better sources to educate yourself with-- Michael Pettis is a professor currently teaching economics classes at [one of the top 3 or so universities in China, don't remember which, sorry]; he's probably the best economist, most closely connected with the state of affairs in China, that I know of. If you're interested in this stuff I highly recommend his blog.

    16. Re:the economic justification is actually simple by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

      Somehow, we get China to stop controlling the value of their currency, and we find more things to sell to them that they want to buy. To get them to buy we have to help out their middle class. Rewarding their middle class for saving so much money would be a great start-- unfortunately the value of it gets eroded away thanks to [government induced] inflation. Stable currency with fair savings interest rates would mean people could start spending, instead of saving it for a medical emergency while the value of it gets inflated away.

      In other words, it's not going to happen.

    17. Re:the economic justification is actually simple by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

    18. Re:the economic justification is actually simple by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

      I think they are similar to property. Do you know how difficult it is to produce a blockbuster title? SO much work goes into all that. Or with producing music, same thing. Lots of work. I now have trouble justifying not paying $1 for a song I like...definitely changed in that regard...

    19. Re:the economic justification is actually simple by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

      that's an interesting idea. I don't see how you could actually enforce it.

    20. Re:the economic justification is actually simple by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

      oh and regarding the "free market" mess we have currently, if we let the bad banks and companies fail, then the ones that made prudent lending decisions in spite of the market-competition to make ridiculous option-arm loans to Californians for their $2m houses, would be rewarded and the foolish ones would die off. Instead, we've intervened (thanks Federal Reserve) and kept bad banks alive. If we hadn't intervened, no surviving bank would have done what those that failed did, ever again.

    21. Re:the economic justification is actually simple by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

      That's a different argument in my mind.
      You are right. In my opinion, there is one problem and it has created two issues.
      The problem, as CSL put it, is "you cannot have a good society, without good men".

      If our companies were seeking to benefit the lives of their workers, then they would treat their employees better. On the other hand, if we actually had some shame in voting for people that extended unemployment benefits (in other words, if we held ourselves more personally responsible), then those people would eventually get hungry and find some motivation to start working harder.

    22. Re:the economic justification is actually simple by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

      hmm good point about getting them to buy American.
      But in China, everybody likes our movies, and for whatever reason, Buick is a luxury line of vehicle (this is why GM didn't kill it). So it _can_ be done.

      So maybe we should just outlaw foreigners from buying Treasuries? Some other poster came up with that one. Interesting mind-food...

    23. Re:the economic justification is actually simple by stbill79 · · Score: 1

      If we are more efficient at producing one good, and they are more efficient at producing something else, then it doesn't make sense for us to waste money trying to produce it ourselves in the States.

      Just like the other gospels that have been indoctrinated as unquestionable self-truths via years of propaganda, this idea of more efficient workers, or comparative advantages as originally termed has got to go.

      Three hundred years ago, this idea that some nations or groups were better suited to producing certain products than others held water. Of course we'll trade with some equatorial nation for our tropical fruits and vegetables, instead of trying to grow them in the US.

      OTOH, very few products and services of modern times, including those we're talking about in the article like high-tech manufacturing, have anything at all to do with comparative advantages as originally meant.

      The ONLY fucking efficiencies that a nation like China has over those of the United States, Western Europe, etc is that of an extremely corrupt and authoritarian government in control of a huge and under-educated population, willing to work as slaves and destroy their environment because they know no better.

      And if (when) the Chinese finally overcome these burdens, and start to demand the same treatment workers of Europe and the US spent centuries fighting for, these once-efficient workers will simply be replaced by the now more-efficient peoples in one of the other dozen shit-holes on Earth.

      And you can be sure, there will be a good percentage of those among the now-enlightened Chinese workers, as they watch the corporations stealing their livlihoods, spouting off some BS about how they just aren't as efficient as the workers of the shit-hole to where their industries are moving.

    24. Re:the economic justification is actually simple by value_added · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      new. You would think that US-grown rice would have a market in Japan and China - nope, it doesn't meet their standards.

      U.S grown rice doesn't even meet my fucking standards.

      Rice doesn't need to be grown in the US. The majority of what's produced here is grown in arid California fer chrissakes (you know, that state that's been fighting water wars for decades). And the rice that is grown invariably consists of the low-grade, generic varieties that appeal to folks accustomed to the Wonder-bread American-style cusine that grew out the 1950s, or people who otherwise don't know any better and don't care.

      You can, of course, make the argument that a water-intensive crop like rice, if purchased exclusively from countries where it's traditionally grown and traditionally considered a staple, might raise the price for the locals. But that's a weak argument. Most of such countries have every incentive to restrict exports (populations are known to react badly when they can't eat), and the rest of the world should have no problem adapting to a higher-priced imported food and eating something else.

      Indian tech support sucks, but Indian rice certainly doesn't. Same goes for Italian, Thai, Japanese, etc. rice. So if I can say that as an ordinary "white guy", do you really think someone who's Japanese, to use your example, wouldn't balk or laugh out loud at the idea of buying American rice?

    25. Re:the economic justification is actually simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of the problems facing US grown rice stem from the end of WW II when we sent a bunch of the rice as food aids. The Chinese and Japanese government officials took bribes from local rice growers to mix the rice. Essentially you had a mixture of short grain, medium grain, and long grain mixed together that was then distributed in bags simply labeled US rice. This rice would obviously be terrible as no matter what you did a portion of it would be undercooked and overcooked. To this day the older generation will still not buy our rice because of this.

    26. Re:the economic justification is actually simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SO much work goes into all that.

      No argument from me on that. You can work very hard on making widgets, or you can work very hard on making ideas/pictures/sounds (bits). However, if you really want control (and money in exchange for your work), widgets are something you can hang on to until you get paid. With bits, you can declare them "property" (and maybe even con the government into going along with you, which is obviously what happened), but if your customer base at large suddenly decides to ignore you, you're SOL, and there's not much anyone can do about it.

    27. Re:the economic justification is actually simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The want something from US: US Dollars!!

      They need it for buying energy(petro dollars) and stuff.

      They had been buying dollars from US since WWII, and Americans you had benefited from that, printing dollars like newspapers.

      In fact, since WWII you did become the world number 1 power for this reason alone.

    28. Re:the economic justification is actually simple by Wildclaw · · Score: 1

      The problem on our side is that as a member of the WTO, we can't impose tariffs on imports - including importing work that takes place overseas. Doing so will not last a month until it is repealed

      Impose a balance tax. Only the bigger out of Imports and Exports are taxed and only in aggregate over all products. The key here is that it must affect every single product, no exceptions. And it can't target a specific country, but should be aggregate of all countries. WTO has a lot of power, but it mainly lies in preventing countries from targeting specific countries or products with tariffs.

    29. Re:the economic justification is actually simple by assertation · · Score: 1

      Somehow, we get China to stop controlling the value of their currency, and we find more things to sell to them that they want to buy.

      I asked the conservative, anti-government approach OP for a realistic and practical alternative in the spirit of having an open mind.

      "Somehow" and "we find more things to sell to them" sounds vague, not a defined alternative that somebody can try now or investigate the results.

      No offense

    30. Re:the economic justification is actually simple by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      It's nice to blather on thinking you know something but in fact you do not.

      Yes it is. And that exactly what you're doing.

      Witness the epic economic collapse of the banking industry in 2008. Free market forces at work that ripped $2 TRILLION dollars from our treasury and countless BILLIONS of dollars of people's savings, property values, jobs...the economic tsunami was unprecedented.

      Not one of those bailouts happened in a free market. In a free market those banks, insurance companies, and Detroit would have been allowed to fail. Then businesses that were run better would have come to the top. In a free market multi-millionaires would not have received millions more in federal handouts.

      Falcon

    31. Re:the economic justification is actually simple by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      So then why do we remain in the WTO?

    32. Re:the economic justification is actually simple by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

      Huh I'm confused? We get them to stop controlling the value of their currency and there are natural market pressure to stop outsourcing our manufacturing to China. But as I said at the end, "In other words, it's not going to happen" because Obama won't consistently enforce this. His politicking about exchange rates is nice, and China officially intervened less, they just told their state-controlled banks to buy more dollars instead. Of course Obama wasn't serious, he's just fussing like politicians fuss to pacify the public.

      I suppose you're implying that the absence of me providing a better solution means any wrong solution is OK?

    33. Re:the economic justification is actually simple by electrosoccertux · · Score: 1

      Yes. Even the best DRM is nothing if someone just sets a camcorder up in front of the TV with telesync audio going into the line or mic in.

      In other words yes, we are SOL, and the next 50 years are going to be NOTHING like the last 50 years, and it's foolish to think all will continue as it has. Don't bother investing in the stock market. Just save. You don't need to worry about buying a house either, aside from the benefit of owning it, it's not an investment property anymore (80m homeowners (babyboomers) will be dying in 10-30 years...who will buy their houses? The overburdened with debt just-graduated, still unemployed students? Nah.)

      Get a job in government, I think you're safest there.

  15. Hmm... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder where the good Mr. Groves stands on Intel's large R&D base in Israel... Should we be taxing that, or is this only a tax for his dirty competitors who are fabbing with TSMC?

    1. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intel invested in Israel as a preemptive strike against the Israeli penchant for stealing intellectual property. In other words, "If you can't beat 'em, offshore to them"

    2. Re:Hmm... by ModernGeek · · Score: 1

      Israel is a US State, is it not?

      --
      Sig: I stole this sig.
    3. Re:Hmm... by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      As a matter of fact, no, and Groves ought to pay his offshoring tax for Intel's design work done in Israel if he wants to sell the chips in the United States.

  16. Grove is a two faced .... by AnonymousClown · · Score: 5, Informative

    When Grove was CEO of Intel, HE was the one who moved much of their R&D overseas because they were "unable to get qualified Americans."

    --
    RIP America

    July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    1. Re:Grove is a two faced .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course they couldn't find qualified Americans.....for $10/hour. That's his whole point. If the offshore labor was taxed for the same things local labor is taxed for, the scales wouldn't be quite so imbalanced.

    2. Re:Grove is a two faced .... by Local+ID10T · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When Grove was CEO of Intel, HE was the one who moved much of their R&D overseas because they were "unable to get qualified Americans."

      Of course he did. When he was CEO of Intel, his job was to do what was best for Intel. Now that he is not the CEO of Intel, he is looking at a different picture: what is best for the USA. There is nothing two-faced about it.

      --
      "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
    3. Re:Grove is a two faced .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who the fuck cares if he's two faced? He's also right. In my anonymous book that matters a hell of a lot more than winning points in the "no u" game our public discourse has become.

      So fuck you.

    4. Re:Grove is a two faced .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps his new venture suffered from the lack of buyers because consumers in rich world now no longer have jobs and money while those in the developed world have not really got much richer either as was "predicted" by people like himself back then. Well-known people always say something in public for a reason of their own.

    5. Re:Grove is a two faced .... by cherokee158 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He was still an American when he was CEO of Intel. Shouldn't his duty to his country take priority over his duty to his employer?

    6. Re:Grove is a two faced .... by hitmark · · Score: 4, Informative

      more correctly, what was in the best interest for the shot term profits of the intel shareholders. The long term viability of intel, or for that matter, any national economy, is at best secondary.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    7. Re:Grove is a two faced .... by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      He was still an American when he was CEO of Intel. Shouldn't his duty to his country take priority over his duty to his employer?

      Only if he knew the offshoring would be detrimental to the economy of the United States. And even if he did, what's a little treason between friends. Am I right?

    8. Re:Grove is a two faced .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      When Grove was CEO of Intel, HE was the one who moved much of their R&D overseas because they were "unable to get qualified Americans."

      Of course he did. When he was CEO of Intel, his job was to do what was best for Intel. Now that he is not the CEO of Intel, he is looking at a different picture: what is best for the USA. There is nothing two-faced about it.

      Sounds a lot like "Do as I say, not as I do." To that I would posit the question, can you really have ethics if you can't live by them ?

    9. Re:Grove is a two faced .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was still a human. Shouldn't his duty to mankind take priority over his duty to his country?

      Spend a moment comparing conditions in the USA to those of India. Whatever you think that your country's legislative bodies should do, you can hardly call it unethical to direct some more money flow towards India.

    10. Re:Grove is a two faced .... by AnonymousClown · · Score: 1
      First he says there isn't any qualified Americans and now he's basically saying there is.

      Which is it?

      --
      RIP America

      July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

    11. Re:Grove is a two faced .... by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      Somebody whose declarations change according to where he is employed cannot be trusted to have something worthwhile to say. He may not be two-faced, but he is a mercenary of opinion.

    12. Re:Grove is a two faced .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you sure? check this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_manufacturing_sites Most of Intels fabs are in the USA or other high wage countries. Intels fab in OR employs about 16000 people and is the best in terms of chip manufacturing research in the world. how many other US companies can make the same claim?

    13. Re:Grove is a two faced .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why in the world would anyone feel duty to one's country? I never understood that one...

    14. Re:Grove is a two faced .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's VERY two-faced. How'd the fuck you get modded 'insightful'? /. really needs to get rid of that mod tag...

    15. Re:Grove is a two faced .... by Anarchduke · · Score: 1

      Its about not being a selfish asshole. you live here, you have a shared duty to keep it running the way it should.

      --
      who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
    16. Re:Grove is a two faced .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course he did. When he was CEO of Intel, his job was to do what was best for himself. Now that he is not the CEO of Intel, he is looking at a different picture: what is best for himself again. There is nothing two-faced about it.

      I corrected it for you.

    17. Re:Grove is a two faced .... by tomhath · · Score: 1

      Suppose this kind of trade restriction had been in place when Grove was CEO. Presumably other countries would respond with similar tariffs; could Intel have sold it's products in any country except the US? Not likely, the technology would have moved offshore much faster that it did.

      The goal should be to make engineering and manufacturing in the US cost competitive. Not sure how that can be done, but I'm quite sure the current administration doesn't have that as one of it's goals.

    18. Re:Grove is a two faced .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ha. ha. ha.

      cmon, be realistic.

    19. Re:Grove is a two faced .... by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      No, because that would require some level of nationalistic feeling, and as every good liberal knows, the nationalism of developed, Western countries is the greatest evil on Earth.

    20. Re:Grove is a two faced .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well yeah. Grove became a naturalized American citizen in 1962. But he was born in Budapest, Hungary

    21. Re:Grove is a two faced .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Short answer: no

  17. Win-Win case by stanlyb · · Score: 1

    The funny thing about outsourcing is that the outsourced company/branch is avoiding (taking back) the taxes, simply because the main company is based here (or some other tax trick). Or to make it more clear, if a company MicroHardware for example, with main office in USA, offshore 100% of its business in India, for example, then Microhardware will NOT pay taxes in USA (for the obvious reason), and will NOT pay taxes in India (for some another obvious reason). Win-win situation, but as usual, for the big pocket guys, not us, regular people.

  18. Changed my mind on this by m0s3m8n · · Score: 1

    As a conservative, I always felt it was the corporation's responsibility to insure the highest possible return on investment to the company owners. However, if no one has work, then who will buy the products produced? Perhaps free trade has gone too far. Of course this will not be popular with our trading partners and treaty signers (NAFTA, etc.). With that said, I refuse to buy inferior products JUST because they are made in the USA. Detroit was handed their lunch by producing Pintos and Vegas when Civics and Corrolas were SO SUPERIOR.

    --
    Conservative, mod down for violating /. political norms.
    1. Re:Changed my mind on this by optikos · · Score: 1

      Why are you still buying Pintos & Vegas? Indeed, where are you still buying Pintos & Vegas? The junk yard?

      As the Ford commercials from nearly 20 years ago (and on towards 20 years *after* your Pinto and Vega examples) said, "Have you driven a Ford lately?" As for GM, my wife & I have personally driven 2 Saturns up to 200,000 miles each.

    2. Re:Changed my mind on this by Animats · · Score: 1

      As a conservative, I always felt it was the corporation's responsibility to insure the highest possible return on investment to the company owners. However, if no one has work, then who will buy the products produced? Perhaps free trade has gone too far.

      It's worth looking at this from a conservative Republican perspective. Labor is considered a competitive commodity on a worldwide basis. If you accept this, the median standard of living does not increase over time. Why should it? There's no shortage of humans, and competition will keep their price down to the level at which output is maximized. That's a level above mere survival, with educational opportunities so that there's a trained work force.

      What is that level? Probably the level of the coastal provinces in China today, or the US in 1940. Big apartment blocks, higher city densities, mass transit, fewer cars, less meat in the diet. It's an OK life, but well below current US levels.

      This implies a significant drop in consumption. Which, in turn, means less production. The system stabilizes at a modest consumption level. There is little economic growth. Japan reached that point in 1989, when their housing bubble burst, and their economy has been in decline since. In 2009, real GDP in Japan hit a 34-year low. As an export economy, Japan has to trade down to China's level.

      Demand is saturated in the US. Anything you want to buy will is easily available, and probably on sale. There are no supply shortages. One of the basic problems in human history, simply making enough stuff, has been solved. There's only so much disposable income available to buy it, though. Less than there used to be. There are probably vacant storefronts near you, and perhaps entire abandoned malls.

      The other killer is that higher productivity doesn't increase living standards. The US is still the world's largest manufacturing country (at least until 2011, when China catches up), with only 13% of the work force in manufacturing. That doesn't mean high wages in manufacturing any more; it means competition for manufacturing jobs pushing wages down. The US auto worker of 1975 had a significantly higher real income than the US auto worker of today. Those workers were overpriced as economic units. That problem has been solved by pay cuts.

      That's competitiveness. Deal with it.

  19. Part of Obama's agenda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    The 3-prong assault on freedom includes:

    -Socialism (limit economic growth)
    -Homosexual education in high school (or before)
    -Apple-style culture

    The second amendment is the true and only guarantee of freedom for the American people in the entire Constitution. Please do not forget that if you're going to vote DemocRat.

    1. Re:Part of Obama's agenda by macintard · · Score: 3, Funny

      I am now dumber for reading your comment. Your power to reduce intelligence is amazing.

    2. Re:Part of Obama's agenda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You repeated you second item with different wording as your third item. Please try to write more clearly, with less redundancy,

    3. Re:Part of Obama's agenda by Berkyjay · · Score: 2, Funny

      Crap, an Anonymous Coward is on to our plan. Now we must regroup and start over.

  20. Walling yourself in and burning bridges bad by MSTCrow5429 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The US is not the only economy in the world, and Americans are not going to stay in the US if there are no jobs. The policy of the Federal and State governments should be to work to attract high-wage jobs by cutting taxation, regulation, and the deficit, and returning to hard currency. Trying to fence jobs in will only result in foreign employers even more strenuously avoiding the US, while the most capable Americans will strive even more vigorously to escape.

    --
    Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
    1. Re:Walling yourself in and burning bridges bad by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but that will not work.
      First off, it is harder to immigrate to other countries than it is to immigrate to the United States, so Americans will not be going overseas to work.

      Second, even if they did, most Americans are not willing to work for 16 hours a day for $2.00 per hour and live in a company sponsored dorm as happens in China, etc.

      Third, those high-wage jobs require high cost schooling that is getting harder to get. Also, there will not be enough of those jobs to go around. Computer programming used to be an under-staffed, high-wage career. Now, it is quickly being moved off-shore. Manufacturing jobs used to be good wage earning jobs. Now, most manufacturing has been off-shored. Even telephone jobs, which were decent paying service sector jobs have been moved off-shore. What you end up with is a tiny group of very rich people, a small group of middle-upper and upper class people with those high-age jobs you talk about, and a whole host of people working as burger flippers, Walmart stockers, and various other low-wage service and retail sector jobs.

      If you off-shore all the middle-wage jobs, you end up with huge numbers of low wage jobs, few high paying jobs, low tax income for the government, high tax outlays for all the social services need by those low wage families, and a huge deficit. This will lead to a bankrupt government and hyperinflation.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    2. Re:Walling yourself in and burning bridges bad by MSTCrow5429 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Hate to break this to you, but I know of people who are finding work overseas, I have friends that are, and I'm thinking of doing it myself. We are all highly educated, or at least can pass as such. Not all jobs are high-tech, and you can certainly find well-paying jobs outside the US in any industry. I don't want to be in a banana republic US where I'm upper-middle class (or a politician), while everyone else is starving.

      --
      Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
    3. Re:Walling yourself in and burning bridges bad by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      This is a prime example of the state of education in the USA. Read a fucking history book. Do you want to live in the 1800s? I prefer my hotdogs without child meat and my job that pays real money instead of company store credit.

    4. Re:Walling yourself in and burning bridges bad by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      First off, it is harder to immigrate to other countries than it is to immigrate to the United States, so Americans will not be going overseas to work.

      Really? Not at all. Transitions Abroad has stories from people who did that. Verge magazine does too. Googling work abroad in China returns more than 3 million results. Even if only one-in-one thousand is about working in China that's still 3000 results.

      I have been looking into it, because I'd like to do it myself. In a few years I want to go to Brazil as part of a study abroad program, then maybe go to China.

      Ni hao, ni hao ma?

      Falcon

    5. Re:Walling yourself in and burning bridges bad by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      The results of a Google search for "work abroad in China" will return results for "work abroad" "work china" and "abroad china". The 3 million results mean exactly shit because you don't know how many are about working aboard in China.

      Neither Verge nor Transitions Abroad seem to have any stories of Americans who have found jobs abroad. In fact, Transitions Abroad seems to be a general information site for working abroad that generates revenue from ads and affiliate programs. Verge seems to be a magazine.

      Now, what percentage of people who try to get positions overseas succeed?

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    6. Re:Walling yourself in and burning bridges bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans cannot just go to another country and work. Every other country protects it's own citizen's jobs.

    7. Re:Walling yourself in and burning bridges bad by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      The results of a Google search for "work abroad in China" will return results for "work abroad" "work china" and "abroad china". The 3 million results mean exactly shit because you don't know how many are about working aboard in China.

      You obviously didn't even bother to look at the Google results. If you had you would have seen that the first result was Jobs in China. I see no reason to continue.

      Falcon

  21. That FSCKER! by bennomatic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Some years back, my uncle got an MBA at UC Berkeley's Haas school of business, and the commencement speaker was none other than Andy Grove.

    He basically told them they were all fscked. "Somewhere in India," he said, "there's someone willing to do what you do and more for 1/10 your salary. Sitting next to you are people who will do anything to beat you at your own job," and so on. He talked on and on about how much you have to compete to survive, effectively saying, "your work needs to be your life and you need to expect nothing from it."

    And that'd all be well and good, but that same year, he was compensated over $100M, partially because of the cost savings of outsourcing, of forcing his employees to compete ruthlessly for each other, and so on. It seemed disingenuous at best to say, "This is the reality," when it's the decision of him and people like him to enforce that reality.

    What this change in tone says to me is that he feels that other companies are beating Intel at the outsourcing racket. Maybe he's upset that Samsung is making Apple's A4 for the iPad and iPhone, and he wishes it had been Intel ARM chips going into those millions of devices over the last quarter or so. Maybe it's something else, but this rings of the spoiled kid down the block leaving the game with his football because his team is losing.

    There is another way to run your company. Treat your employees like valued contributors. If they don't contribute, find out if they want to be in another role, or another company and let them do that. But if you're always looking to get the cheapest workers, you're in danger of losing your best people, and being beaten at the bottom dollar game as well.

    OK, end of rant.

    --
    The CB App. What's your 20?
    1. Re:That FSCKER! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that very same twat! Why, Intel had always and always outsourced, since its early beginning. I don't remember if it was Singapore or Malaysia though, and I can't be bothered to look it up.

    2. Re:That FSCKER! by Kefaa · · Score: 1

      So... we shouldn't listen to people who made mistakes in the past? I think that if someone was running up the street and said the road ahead was out, you might want to listen --- even if he did drive off it.

    3. Re:That FSCKER! by bennomatic · · Score: 1

      Did I say we shouldn't listen to him? I think he's right now. But we should also take care that whatever solutions go into place won't simply benefit his ilk. Think of it this way: if we were a little village, this would be like someone taking a dump in our well, over and over again, for years. And then, after seeing the havoc it caused, going around and yelling, "Everyone, we shouldn't shit in the well!"

      The first thing that would happen is that everyone who hadn't already kicked the guy's ass for dumping in the well would do so for his hypocrisy. But beyond that, it would be wise to be sure that he couldn't suddenly profit by becoming the premier seller of extra-wellular toilet facilities.

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    4. Re:That FSCKER! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Best designs done in Haifa, Israel All Packaging done in Penang, Malaysia and also in Philippines Recently, production in China Boards made in Costa Rica

    5. Re:That FSCKER! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So true, when the economy bounces, a lot of great people are going to get the heck out of a lot of big tech companies that treat them like utter shit and employ utterly useless replacements in cheaper shores (and then call them best)... I think your analysis is bang on

    6. Re:That FSCKER! by BroncoInCalifornia · · Score: 1

      Intel has a review process and culture that pits employees against each other like no other place I have ever seen. Of course many talented people just do not have the political skills to survive in this environment. Intel became aware that their engineering organizations are not as efficient as other companies but they can not figure out why.

      The fact is Intel is a company that could not compete on a level playing field with an equal sized competitor.

      --

      Religion is the main cause of atheism.

    7. Re:That FSCKER! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a reality: the "golden billion" labour price is artificially high. We've been enjoying a historical fluke (and being on the right side of that fluke) that allowed us to enjoy more in value (goods/etc) than we were generating.

      The bottom line is - punitive tax or not, our luxury will diminish. But it's OK, since we're not materialist yuppies, right? Right?

  22. "We broke the chain of experience..." by dpbsmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "We broke the chain of experience that is so important in technological evolution..." Darn straight. I sure wish more company management understood that.

    You can document a little, you can document a lot, but you can't ever document everything. Every company relies on stuff in peoples' heads. Reading other peoples' code and then being able to ask them about it. Solving problems at the time they occur by talking to the right person for five minutes in the hallway, instead of writing thirty-page memos and scheduling a series of weekly hour-long meetings, which eight people attend so that two of them can talk.

    The guy who says "Well, it worked well when we did it thus-and-such way on the Dash-Twenty-Twos."

    Even more important, the guy who says, "Well, the reason we're doing it that way now is because of concerns X, Y, and Z that we had on the Dash Twenty-Twos, but those reasons don't apply any more.

  23. FINALLY, someone gets it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    'Not only did we lose an untold number of jobs,' says Grove, 'we broke the chain of experience that is so important in technological evolution

    ding ding ding ding ding ding

    Give that man a cigar.

    The problem with offshoring all the entry level jobs is that in 5 years, all the folks with 5 years experience will be somewhere else, in 10 years, all the folks with 10 years experience will be somewhere else, and in 15 years there will be few folks around qualified to do more than ask if you want fries with that. (yes, I know that we've been offshoring entry level work for many years, the only reason that we aren't all phone sanitizers by now is that we haven't thrown _everything_ overseas.)

    Senior folks, capable of sustaining interesting, cutting edge work don't fall out of the sky. They need to get a first job somewhere. A country that doesn't invest in new hires is sacrificing tomorrow for today.

  24. Ridiculous populist agenda by Palpatine_li · · Score: 1

    Can you stop the free flow of capital? If you are planning to build a centralized socialist economy, maybe. But what the U.S. actually needs is better education and less bureaucracy so it (at least some of the states) can compete in the world market. Stop whining for the lost jobs like a spoiled child.

    1. Re:Ridiculous populist agenda by mbkennel · · Score: 1

      The U.S. has plenty good technical education where it matters for technological production: top 1%.

      The "education" issue is 100% bovine scatology.

      The economics & ideology issue really is the problem.

    2. Re:Ridiculous populist agenda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "education" issue is 100% bovine scatology.

      How many decades is it going to take before a politician can no longer cop out with "education is the solution"? I've been hearing that tripe since birth. Tuitions costs explode. Young people spend decades paying off "education" debt and deferring parenthood till their 40s. More degrees walking around than ever, competing with teenagers for 'service' jobs or waiting for thrice extended unemployment checks.

      It's not fucking working, mkay? Grow. Mine. Refine. Build. That works. Gotta get it past the Sierra Club, however.

      The Chinese are going to take the 'knowledge worker' jobs anyhow. They're educating a new generation of nuclear engineers. Their biotech is about to eclipse the west and they don't have the vast array of regulations to wade through; they're not paper researchers. They threw off Google and it didn't matter; they have their own search engines.

  25. Outdated industrial policy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "If the result is a trade war treat it like other wars -- fight to win" What an asinine statement. It sounds all gung-ho but as any economist knows trade wars, even more so that regular wars, contain only losers. This idea is thankfully unenforceable (without an outright ban on trade) because it would be terrible if put into practise.

    The movement of "commodity" manufacturing from the U.S. to China is overstated in it's importance, and much misunderstood. What no-one seems to have the courage to say is that we are better off as a result. Consumers are the real winners to the tune of $trillions.

    Trade is a positive sum game.

    Industrial policy of the sort Grove advocates rarely works. Occasionaly you get successes but 9 times out of 10 you breed industries with more expertise in lobbying the government for protection than producing goods.

    1. Re:Outdated industrial policy. by mbkennel · · Score: 1

      China's loser mercanitlist socialist government-controlled industrial policy is giving 10% GDP growth and immense leaps in technical leadership.

      I'd like to lose like them.

    2. Re:Outdated industrial policy. by CyprusBlue113 · · Score: 1

      You can be a mercantilist jackass if no one stands up and fights back because you own half their debt.

      --
      a handful of selfish greedy people are no match for millions of selfish, greedy people -u4ya
  26. Re:Government is the problem, not the solution by assertation · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That is already what is happening....more and more good jobs go overseas, Americans become more willing to accept lower standards of living.

  27. Re:Government is the problem, not the solution by Xiver · · Score: 1

    Making strawmen just makes them feel good about themselves. If they actually analyzed their position they may be forced to realize they're not as smart as they believe. The Slashdot crowd has always been pretty left leaning, but the pendulum farther in that direction than it has ever been. Don't let it bother you, reality will come crashing down on them eventually.

    --
    10: PRINT "Everything old is new again."
    20: GOTO 10
  28. Re: by MyFirstNameIsPaul · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How is it that China, and Japan before them, are able to peg their currencies? This is a question rarely discussed. The easiest and most effective way to accomplish this is by purchasing U.S. bonds, which we sell in abundance to cover our enormous debts. In effect, the politicians railing about how unfair the Chinese currency policy is actually contribute more to the problem than anyone else.

    'Outsourcing' allows smaller firms to take on projects that they otherwise could not afford to do. I own a small business and at least two of my products I could never hope to bring to market if my only option was to use domestic resources. Those products make money and allow me to expand. This is not a burden on the U.S. economy; it is a positive contribution.

    --

    I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

  29. Oblig Monty Python by JoeRandomHacker · · Score: 1

    I'd tax all foreigners living abroad.

  30. Dumb idea! by meburke · · Score: 1

    Jeez...doesn't anybody know any basic Economics? I mean, some places, like China, have an absolute competitive advantage in manufacturing, and that's where certain things will be manufactured because of it. The off shoring mostly a "comparative advantage" and it is still better to have things produced where this comparative advantage exists. What Andy Grove is talking about is a tariff...the worst idea of all (except for, maybe, subsidies). As much as I admire Andy Grove, this is a BAD idea.

    --
    "The mind works quicker than you think!"
  31. Re:Government is the problem, not the solution by MyFirstNameIsPaul · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Another baseless, rhetorical argument that meanders on to unrelated claims of purgatory. I suppose our current course of increased regulation, spending, and taxing is going to lead to some bright place?

    --

    I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

  32. Entry Barrier by kenp2002 · · Score: 1

    Of course he is now they have exploited it for over a decade. You have to make sure you are shutting out any up-and-coming companies from leveraging it. Now that Wipro and other contracting shops makes outsource as easy as a phone call and some basic contract negotiations they have to lock out startup from getting access to cheap labor. ONLY US MEGACORPS ARE ALLOWED!! F*#$&%( UPPITY PEASANTS!!!

    You'll notice the same two faced bullshit when it came to the Internet.

    A: Internet is novel.
    B: Oh shit there is money to be made, get on it
    C: Now that we are on it we need to lock out competition from getting on it
    D: Buy up bandwidth...
    E: Shit they network keeps growing....
    F: Quick get those political whore we own to pass some laws so we can lockout the competition on the Internet

    In short: We don't mind regulations so long as we are ones controlling those regulations to our benefit.

    More BS from an elite that thinks nothing more then 'cattle' when looking at the common human.

    --
    -=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
  33. taxes hurt us not them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't understand why so many people can't understand fundamental economics. If you tax the corps, they will just pass that cost down to us consumers.
    Quit being stupid.

    1. Re:taxes hurt us not them. by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      CAPITALISM DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!

      If you have a cost and pass it on, your prices go up! If they could raise the price they already would have. Their competitors would drink up their milkshakes if they did what you are suggesting.

      Posts like yours make me weep for the state of education in this world.

  34. WHERE THE FUCK WAS THIS IN 2000??? by blair1q · · Score: 1

    Holy fuck, Andy.

    Where were you when Carly and your boy Craig were agitating to move jobs offshore at the beginning of this millennium?

    You didn't say a fucking WORD when Bush cut the outsourcing tax to let them do it.

    You'd better start campaigning against those people, because now that they've ruined their companies and our economy, they're running for public office.

  35. Re:Government is the problem, not the solution by bennomatic · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I think the "flamebait" rating on your comment is unfair. Maybe "overrated". I wish there were a "wrong" or "misinformed" option.
    • Unions are not the problem. Without them, we'd still be eating hot dogs with up to 1% human flesh in them, much of that flesh coming from children whom companies would have no problem putting in danger for little or no pay.
    • Healthcare has had years of light regulation to get it right. Making it totally open is theoretically great, but if you think there wouldn't be collusion and price fixing, you're blind. And a truly "open" market is contradicted by your suggestion of regulation: who would choose the "fair" prices?
    • Do you even know how little most corporations pay in taxes? If it were less, the government would be paying most corps to do business.
    • Regime uncertainty? Vote for your tea party people if you will, but they're the wild card. This is a party built of folks who are in it for themselves and nothing else. I'm not saying that Obama nor the current congress have been perfect, but I believe they're trying to move things in the right direction.

    I agree with your last point. I think that we should drop personal income/payroll taxes for anyone making less than $200,000/year and have corporations pay strictly based on gross revenue minus non-executive salaries of US workers. That would cut costs and get more money moving throughout the economy.

    --
    The CB App. What's your 20?
  36. Re:Government is the problem, not the solution by bennomatic · · Score: 1

    Unrelated claims of purgatory? Have you no knowledge of history? The GP's description is exactly as things were before unions and gov't regulation of employment practices in the states.

    --
    The CB App. What's your 20?
  37. New Form by fathom108 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Your proposed solution to general social economic problems will fail because:

    [X] It requires investors to care about something other than short term profits
    [ ] It requires corporations to care about something other than short term profits
    [X] It requires politicians to care about citizens rather than corporations
    [X] It requires laws without loopholes

  38. Newsflash: Security trumps economics by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    In case nobody's noticed, we win wars on technology.... made abroad in China and India. One day, either may not like us so much, or may like another country more.

    So all you "free flow of capital" guys can tell me about it when the bombs are falling and the troops are standing at your door with dogs and guns at 5 am. This happened to my Uncle and Grandfather when the Russians stopped by to chat. Think it can't happen here? Think again.

    Right now, there's no tax or any other incentive to produce in the USA, so corporate executives who can afford to live comfortably in any country they wish were, and still are, quite happy to accumulate money while selling people who work in the USA (i.e. peasants) down the river. An invasion or economic depression here won't bother them. There's always another country.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    1. Re:Newsflash: Security trumps economics by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      So all you "free flow of capital" guys can tell me about it when the bombs are falling and the troops are standing at your door with dogs and guns at 5 am. This happened to my Uncle and Grandfather when the Russians stopped by to chat. Think it can't happen here? Think again.

      I'll turn that around to when it's US officers and troops at your door. Think it can't happen here? Look at Ruby Ridge and the Waco seige. After the Oklahoma City bombing Timothy McVeigh cited Waco. Or look at what happened after Obama won the presidential election, many people ran to gun shops to buy weapons in the fear that Obama would make them illegal. Hell there are still people who believe Obama wants to ban guns.

      corporate executives who can afford to live comfortably in any country they wish were, and still are, quite happy to accumulate money while selling people who work in the USA (i.e. peasants) down the river.

      Since Americans, in your scenario, can't afford what corporations make who is their buyers? And who owns those corporations? If you've been working but you aren't investing you're a fool.

      Falcon

  39. Only the Paranoid survive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In his book "Only the paranoid survive" (1996) he has actually predicted the offshoring boom. If I remember correctly he actually said it was fair game and everyone should up to face the competition. Was probably hailed as a visionary then but he probably never anticipated that things would evolve so fast with the innovation culture moving offshore as well.

  40. Fight to win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you vastly overestimate the competence of the legislative and executive branches of our government, Mr. Grove. Judging by the results of the wars we're currently involved in, the best we can hope for is a trade stalemate. Our leaders act like an empire that loathes itself.

  41. Re:Government is the problem, not the solution by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If executive level managers didn't take home half the payroll of their companies, said companies could afford to hire people. As someone else said, Grove took home $100,000,000 in pay one year and he is ONE PERSON. What exactly did he do to earn that much money?

    How much money could be made available for paying for on-shore manufacturing if the upper management were paid a reasonable amount? If Grove had been paid $1 million, there would have been $99 million dollars to hire 990 people at $100,000 per year. That is almost 2,000 full time positions (5% of Intel's workforce) at $50,000 per year. You could give 19,800 people a $5,000.00 per year raise.

    And, that is just for one person. Throw in the rest of the similarly over-paid executives and managers and think of how easy it would be for Intel to pay to have every one of its employees in the United States.

    The problem isn't the government. The problem is literally executive greed.

    If past experience with corporations are any indication, doing any and/or all of what you suggest will result in higher executive pay and no more jobs in the United States.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  42. You can by Aqualung812 · · Score: 1

    There are some companies, such as Dell, that sell "Enhanced" tech support that promises USA-based tech support staff.

    --
    Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    1. Re:You can by FutureCIS · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Isn't it sad that in order to get "Enhanced" support you have to pay more. Thats almost an insult to overseas labor because they are basically saying that USA support is "Enhanced".....what does that make everyone else?

    2. Re:You can by Aqualung812 · · Score: 1

      Every computer maker has to deal with the fact that most end-users buy the cheapest and have to cut costs. So, the basic, included for "free" support is going to be where it is cheaper, overseas. If you want more expensive support, you must pay more. Why is that sad?

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    3. Re:You can by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Sad? Not at all. That's how the free market works. You usually get what you pay for in a product or service. Same thing happened with Japan post WW2. Now their products are too expensive, but the quality is usually worth it. The new cheap today is China. In time, that will change also.

      Companies such as Dell felt the backlack from consumers, so at least they're giving them an option to speak to someone with native tongue (Gold Tech Support in Austin, TX). Some customers don't care, they just want the hardware while others value quality support. By segmenting the market, you're able to cater to more consumers while still remain competitive within the industry.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  43. Re: by Bryansix · · Score: 1

    That makes no sense in a capatalistic society. Trade is fine and dandy but once country cannot have such a huge trade defecit that it imports everything. Know why? Because in Capatalism there is profit. Know where that profit is flowing? Out of the country is where. But it's not so much making things which is the problem as outsourcing the service sector. Usually this results in all kinds of negative externalities which get swept under the rug and ignored. There are even some negative internalities like increased spending on training and travel and culture awareness etc. The point is that it is not cut and dry. At the least the taxes should be the same for onshore vs. offshore production or services.

  44. Re:Grove is a two faced .... and I quote: by mhenley · · Score: 1

    If the world operates as one big market, every employee will compete with every person anywhere in the world who is capable of doing the same job. There are lots of them and many of them are hungry. -- Andrew Grove

  45. Grove is correct. with no CPU production here. by swschrad · · Score: 1

    another titan of industry with a foot on both sides of the ship's rail. to make this startlingly obvious statement, he must have looked at Intel's innovation pipeline and found it dry.

    --
    if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
  46. Cut taxes for domestic employers instead by WCMI92 · · Score: 1

    It's a huge fallacy (but something the left loves to sell to people who are susceptible to anti-business propaganda) that corporations pay taxes. They really do not, every tax they pay is passed down to their customers, or borne by their employees in salary and benefits they do not get. In the end, everyone except corporations pay corporate taxes, it's really a HIDDEN tax on everyone.

    That said, you could use taxes to incentive companies (foreign and domestic) to employ American workers. And it's very simple, allow companies a 200% tax DEDUCTION for the salaries they pay non executive employees who work at locations in the US.

    This way companies could would pay no additional taxes but there would be incentive (and a competitive advantage in our markets) if the product is produced with American labor.

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
  47. Sorry, but it is too late by cdrguru · · Score: 1

    The WTO is going to balk at any attempted tax like this.

    This would be equivalent to a tax on imported products as it would seriously hurt the economy of places like India and China. That is clearly within the relm of the WTO. So unless the US wants to be subject to trade sanctions, this isn't going to happen.

    Even though it might be a good idea.

  48. The Other Side by war4peace · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Well, this debate is kind of one-sided, with a (probably) all-American current of opinion streaming here as I read the comments.
    Just to make things clear from start: I am one of the so-called "offshore" employees. I got hired by a large USA-based corporation as a call center analyst; basically I took calls for 9 months in a row.
    I am not located in India, but in Eastern Europe (Romania, to be more precise). My English is very good, and although I do have an accent, I sound just fine on the phone. I got a shitload of praises from callers during my time spent taking calls. Some got to as high as my LOB VP.
    Then I got promoted to a Team Lead position in the same Help desk organization. I didn't take calls anymore but had to practically manage the whole Romania team. I have been acting as a manager, with manager's responsibilities, except for setting wages and approving leaves. Then I got promoted again as a Service Delivery Manager within the same organization, and now I am expecting yet another promotion. Until now, that's the background. Now on with some things you should consider...
    My salary is 6 to 8 times less than an US-based employee gets for a similar position. My compensations practically don't exist (except for health insurance). I've had 0% raise ever since I got hired and I can't do anything about it (there's a huge competition here as well). And by all means, I do more than an US-based employee is willing to do, because I'm not inclined to yell "murder!" whenever my manager tasks me with something extra. I do large amounts of coding (although I shouldn't), I design processes (although I shouldn't), I create trainings and documentations (although I shouldn't) and the list can go on. Prices here are similar to prices in the US (for clothes, houses, electronics, computers, cell phones) and higher for certain commodities(e.g. a gallon of gas costs 8 dollars). I work from 5 PM to 2 AM local time to be in sync with US business hours.
    But Andy complains that off-shoring takes jobs away from the US. Guess what, it doesn't. Off-shoring generally finds the most economically-competitive people to do things that are usually frowned upon by people from other countries.
    Simply put: you would love to talk to an American dude when calling for support, but you would hate working in phone support yourself.
    Now I can also compare my approach towards work to an US-based citizen's. I often find myself having an idea but get slowed down to a halt by people from the US (such as my direct manager and his peers), because they need enormous amounts of time to have meetings, come to an agreement, provide approvals, analyze, digest the idea, think about it, think some more, forget about it, remember it, talk some more, discuss a bit more... until times change and they figure that, if everything used to work OK (translated: no major disaster occured because that idea wasn't implemented), the idea doesn't really need to be implemented anymore.
    There are many examples to be given, but I'll just stick to one. An application was in the process of being decommissioned. We used that application but didn't own it, so we (2 off-shored guys) were asked to identify a replacement. We needed 5 days to identify 4 solutions, out of which 2 were external, one was an application built by the corporation itself and the least desirable one was using spreadsheets as a workaround (bah! spreadsheets! we stuck this in to show how worse it can get if we don't act soon). We presented this list to higher management together with comparison charts, some Powerpoint presentations they use to love, live demos (we installed all the demo apps, etc). They said thank you and were never heard from again. Our attempts to get this going to one direction or another were answered with "wait, the decision is to be made soon". Six months later, the application went offline (the fact that it stayed up for this long shows that even app decommissioning is as slow as tectonic plates movement). All of a sudden, everybody panicked. They swiftly

    --
    ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    1. Re:The Other Side by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And we're doing probably 10 times the amount of work a dedicated US-based employee does.

      And, there is where you show your bias and ignorance of most Americans.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    2. Re:The Other Side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post fails where you try to claim how much more you do than U.S. employees.

      What you've described is pretty much what life is like for American I.T. employees, day in, day out. I don't see any way in which your performance is any different from mine, or that of any other employee in my organization.

      When we Americans are told "you've got to do extra task X this week, and extra task Y by tonight, even if you have to stay until midnight" we do the task, period. We may bitch about it amongst ourselves (as I'm sure you Romanians do!) but we get it done. We have to "do more with less" on a regular basis.

      I've got a counter-example for YOU, about something that happened recently at MY workplace.

      It was discovered that our website was vulnerable to a certain type of denial of service attack, where valid-seeming but fake information is submitted over and over again via our web forms.

      I was tasked with figuring out how to stop it. I suggested we use a captcha. However, there was no budget to acquire a commercial one. So I wrote one, in Java, after looking at some online tutorials on the subject, and then I reworked the code to work in a servlet.

      well, NOW all of a sudden, the plight of the blind web browsers came up. My captcha was visual! So it was no good!

      So now, I figured out how to make my servlet read the captcha to the users. I downloaded FreeTTS, studied their client-server example, and wrote a servlet that streamed 16 bit sound down to a blind person's computer when they clicked a link. Then I put in some unpaid overtime figuring out how to make sure the MIME type, the audio header, and the binary stream all worked together properly. I finally had an excuse to do a bitwise shift in Java; I never had an occasion to do that before. In Firefox, everything worked perfectly.

      But wait! It worked in I.E. but there was also an error message. Now I had to go out to the web and find out which HTTP headers I had to manually add to the stream, to make IE accept the MIME type we were sending without popping up an error. That was tricky, but amusing.

      Of course now it's up to the managers; will it be implemented? Who knows.

      The managers are the guys YOU'VE met.

      Guys like me? You never see us. We're locked in our Nerdery, living on a diet of vending machine food and Mountain Dew.

      So please, no more discussion of how much harder you work than us Americans. Not cool, bro.

    3. Re:The Other Side by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · · Score: 1

      "And we're doing probably 10 times the amount of work a dedicated US-based employee does." At my last permanent job, I often had to put in time during the weekends to finish projects. Sometimes I had to pull an all-nighter, working 30+ hours straight...and all of that was on salary (no overtime pay). The average work week was 60 hours. No exaggerations.

    4. Re:The Other Side by war4peace · · Score: 1

      I have American colleagues, American managers and have been to America more than once, for business purposes. I said "probably" because of course there are situations and situations. I didn't really want this to be interpreted in the wrong sense. I apologize. I just found out that, in this particular company (100+K employees), it's a fact.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    5. Re:The Other Side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work in the US. You seem to have some misconceptions.

      I've had 0% raise ever since I got hired

      No raises here the last few years.

      I work from 5 PM to 2 AM local time to be in sync with US business hours.

      You only work 45 hours a week? Slacker! I work more than that.

      Simply put: you would love to talk to an American dude when calling for support, but you would hate working in phone support yourself.

      My daughter-in-law just lost her phone support job. This idea that US people won't work phone support is bogus.

      Final words: my entire team of 6 is payed (in total) roughly what ONE US-based employee is paid. And we're doing probably 10 times the amount of work a dedicated US-based employee does.

      Verifiable productivity statistics are where exactly?

      Losing off-shored employees due to outrageous taxes is a loss-loss situation, because the products' prices would rise a LOT, and even if there's a perceived "win" due to more US-based jobs, there's going to be a general "loss" for the US-based population.

      Already disproven. If companies could raise the prices they would have done so already. Raise the price "a LOT" and their volume goes through the floor.

    6. Re:The Other Side by war4peace · · Score: 1

      This means we're equal in all means, except you are paid more than I am. Way more. At least 5x times more, that if you're heavily underpaid, with or without compensations. It's not that I am complaining, it's just that I want to show what exactly is happening from both sides of the fence.
      It's always a good thing to be informed of all the facets of a story before judging someone's statements. Like in TFA.
      One more thing that I forgot to add: usually, high-profile people (CEOs, VPs, Directors) have a skewed view of the world. They choose to live disconnected from the average people, and that's fine, but unfortunately they make statements that refer to the very people they don't know, or statements that refer to situations they've not been in for a long time. As an example, I heard politicians wondering why do people complain of traffic; that's because when they travel, there's always police cars making way and pushing everyone aside. They're disconnected from the world, they live in their own little cozy places and make statements we know are not true.
      So whenever someone comes and makes statements, ask yourself: "does this guy really know ine ins and outs of this? Was he in such situations lately? Had he recently lived like the people he's criticizing?" If the answers are "no", then that opinion is misinformed, by all means.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    7. Re:The Other Side by war4peace · · Score: 1

      I feel you. But how about how much we're paid for the same knowledge and the same amount of work? Would you willingly accept 20% or even 15% of your current salary and do the same work? It all boils down to this: entire divisions are off-shored BECAUSE of money. Imposing TAXATION over off-shoring will make you pay MORE for the same product you used to buy. Maybe not 5x more, but definitely double the price.
      That's the whole issue: you pay your lifestyle by having less jobs to occupy. You want US-based companies to move divisions back to US? No problem. But then their products will become more expensive, and so the Chinese or Taiwanese or [insert country here] based companies will flood your very own market with cheap products, so you'll buy those (because they are cheaper). And then your US-based companies will go bankrupt. And then you will have no jobs (not even those which are there), will produce less, will consume the same (old habits die hard) and will find yourselves in a worse situation.
      Of course, this would happen gradually, because it's a lengthy process, but it will be overlooked until its going to be impossible to pull out of.
      It's all connected, you know :)

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    8. Re:The Other Side by war4peace · · Score: 1

      I work in the US. You seem to have some misconceptions.

      Maybe I do. Nobody is perfect...

      You only work 45 hours a week? Slacker! I work more than that.

      No, I sometimes work during week-ends (3 week-ends a month on average). Have you look at the times? 5 PM to 2 AM. Hardly meet my wife. We are almost living separate lives.

      Already disproven. If companies could raise the prices they would have done so already. Raise the price "a LOT" and their volume goes through the floor.

      You are missing an important point here. Companies keep prices low because some of their workforce is dirt cheap. Make the workforce expensive, they will be forced to up prices. And THEN their volume will go through the floor, and THEN they will go bankrupt, and THEN all the hardly-earned US jobs will get lost, 100% lost.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    9. Re:The Other Side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prices here are similar to prices in the US

      Bullshit. Unless you live in a tree and eat once a month then either you make more than you claim or stuff is a lot cheaper where you are. Average US male full-time income is $~44k; cut that to $7.5k (your ratio, 1/6th; about half full-time minimum wage, in other words) and you're homeless.

      At 44k you might have basic cable and pay a small mortgage but that's about it. No asset accumulation or substantive savings; basically hand-to-mouth in the US.

      At 7.5k you live in your parents basement and they feed you. Never mind 1/8th.

      I've found that foreign workers suffer a lot of delusions about life in the US.

      frowned upon by people from other countries.

      Citation needed. That line is frequently spouted by free traders. You pay a livable wage in the US and you'll get workers.

      100+ people are using this "application". Total cost: 200 dollars

      Who paid for the Excel licenses, if anyone? I suspect you've failed to compute the cost of 100+ excel licenses in your $200 cost.

      products' prices would rise a LOT

      Yes, but the money would stay in the US. Net effect is a shift of income amongst US citizens. Maybe we could, for once, afford to pay for our staggering government spending. That would be nice.

      Losing off-shored employees due to outrageous taxes

      Since no actual rates have been discussed your 'outrageous' characterization seems a bit premature. In any case, what is clear is that the US voter is increasingly aware of the damage caused to the nation by outsourcing and will be considering what might be done to change the balance.

      You'll have to get used to that. Enjoy.

    10. Re:The Other Side by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you being unhappy, overworked, underpaid, with a vast superiority complex and bitching about how you can't get around the bureaucracy present within the company you work for, is supposed to prove that outsourcing is good for the US economy how exactly??
      People loosing their jobs in the US is good for them because they have more time to go to the store to buy cheaper stuff?

      And lets not get in to the bs and misinformation you are pushing here... (cost of living is NOT the same in Romania as it is in the USA... price of 1 gallon of gas is NOT $8..)

    11. Re:The Other Side by billhuey · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but I'm willing to bet that the cost of living is also much less where you are. San Francisco and other technological cities in the US are often the most expensive places to live in across the country.

      Yes, we're paid a lot of money but in the end the living standard is roughly the same in that you can afford this and that in roughly the same way that we can. Can't comment on the infrastructure of your nation, but having food, housing and healthcare are big pieces that make things so much common between both workforces rather than creating a massive difference in living standard.

    12. Re:The Other Side by IANAAC · · Score: 1

      Have you look at the times? 5 PM to 2 AM. Hardly meet my wife. We are almost living separate lives.

      This isn't an offshore problem. Many, and I mean MANY, workers in the US work off hours, either swing shift (yours) or third shift.

      Either we choose to do so because that's all that's available right now, or because we genuinely like working odd hours.

      I work for myself, and because I'm dealing with companies in Europe, I routinely have to get up in the middle of the night to have a conference call. Them's the breaks.

    13. Re:The Other Side by Odetta2012 · · Score: 1

      "I...was tasked to make it happen. In one week. I did." It used to seem that every other person in a restaurant in Silicon Valley was saying what you just said. Then their jobs largely got outsourced. Ten years later, we're not all making eight times what you make in Romania. We don't all have health insurance. Outsourcing has made the $3,000 desktop much cheaper but even less affordable to people doing worse than they were 10 or 15 years ago. It doesn't matter if it's $300 if you're not working. As far as the "paid for the same knowledge/skills" argument: Like someone said further up, one day someone in India or Africa or wherever you don't see a threat now will be as smart as you, younger than you and willing to do your job for a tenth your present salary with no benefits. Will you be arguing that lower price trumps all then?

    14. Re:The Other Side by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. Unless you live in a tree and eat once a month then either you make more than you claim or stuff is a lot cheaper where you are. Average US male full-time income is $~44k; cut that to $7.5k (your ratio, 1/6th; about half full-time minimum wage, in other words) and you're homeless.

      At 44k you might have basic cable and pay a small mortgage but that's about it. No asset accumulation or substantive savings; basically hand-to-mouth in the US.

      At 7.5k you live in your parents basement and they feed you. Never mind 1/8th.

      I've found that foreign workers suffer a lot of delusions about life in the US.

      Well guess what. I don't own a house, I rent (shared with others). A simple 2-rooms apartment in a pretty bad neighborhood costs 60K USD (cheapest), that's over 200 RO average salaries.
      Your assumptions:
      1. I own a house or have a mortgage; well I can't afford either.
      2. Asset accumulation or savings: I have none. Today, now, my "savings" are 26 USD, with 8 days left till next salary.
      3. I've found that foreign workers don't have a clue on how we live and what the cost of life is here - quote sounds familiar?
      Compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Romania#Growing_middle_class - you will be surprised. Net average in RO was 560 USD a month in 2009 - that's 6.7K per year.

      Who paid for the Excel licenses, if anyone? I suspect you've failed to compute the cost of 100+ excel licenses in your $200 cost.

      No, I haven't. The licenses were already there and used for various other things. And it's not me who should estimate those costs, I only did what I was told. As I mentioned before, the decision is taken by US-based employees, I only did the grunt work.

      Since no actual rates have been discussed your 'outrageous' characterization seems a bit premature. In any case, what is clear is that the US voter is increasingly aware of the damage caused to the nation by outsourcing and will be considering what might be done to change the balance.

      You'll have to get used to that. Enjoy.

      Funny thing is that you can't really do anything. Welcome to globalization. Potent minds in developing countries are used (and sometimes abused), fact which becomes detrimental to you. I know it sucks for this to happen, but lemme tell you, me being paid by an US-based company didn't make me rich, didn't make me happier, didn't "save my soul" - more like took it away from me. The only difference is that *you* would cost the company a helluva lot more than *me* for doing the same tasks I do. Nothing else.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    15. Re:The Other Side by war4peace · · Score: 1

      When did I say outsurcing is GOOD for the US? You just need to face the truth: whereas it's NOT good for the US, it's only expected for companies to seek lower costs elsewhere. Forcing them to come back to US will actually force them to move away altogether.
      Gas prices in Europe: http://www.energy.eu/#prices

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    16. Re:The Other Side by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Well I'm ready to cut off my lifestyle if such situation arises. Are you?

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    17. Re:The Other Side by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      You claimed higher up this thread that the cost of living is the same as the US. It would be impossible to live on income you quoted in that situation.

      I'll be kind and assume you made some conversion errors somewhere.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    18. Re:The Other Side by Odetta2012 · · Score: 1

      Should a person have to cut off their iPhone 4G data plan or their trips to the baths in Hungary, that's cutting off lifestyle. Should a person have to turn off his electricity or water, or have it turned off involuntarily, or get booted out from one's place and have nowhere to go--that goes beyond mere lifestyle change to...something else. For example: Let's say you continue enjoying your present success that you have worked very hard for, for maybe 8-10 years. Then here comes the 27 yo from or in Turkey or Algeria or wherever. He is faster and smarter than you, and needs the health insurance you just lost a lot less than you, too. He and others like him are hired and you and yours are out with the changing of the guard. You've saved money, but not enough to realistically retire 20 years early. So then, there you are competing with everyone else for whom said shit job was part of Plan B. Yeah, you'd have to live with it as you'd have no choice. But I bet you wouldn't just say oh well, he's better than I am half a world away, and this is the way it should be. Not for long. Even if you think it's true now or would then. It's just not human nature.

  49. Re:Government is the problem, not the solution by MyFirstNameIsPaul · · Score: 1

    You are flat wrong. The freedom of speech was created by the Constitution. The people who worked in factories and slept in those beds worked voluntarily and made more money than they did on the farm. These jobs lead to growth in industries that lead to the cushy office jobs we all enjoy today. It is more than one step from agrarian society to industrialized society.

    I travel to China regularly and visit several factories, and I see first-hand what is required to grow an economy with labor. Most people in the U.S. can't even fathom what this is like, and this is why we are on the unsustainable course we now find ourselves. That horrible lifestyle they are currently living is keeping them on the path to becoming our master.

    --

    I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

  50. Andy Grove was not one of the cofounders. by jharel · · Score: 1

    Intel was founded by Gordon Moore and Robert Noyce. I think Andy Grove was employee number 5.

    1. Re:Andy Grove was not one of the cofounders. by jharel · · Score: 1

      Correction- Wikipedia said he was employee number 3. He's still not a co-founder, however.

  51. Re:Government is the problem, not the solution by twiddlingbits · · Score: 1

    Of course you like Obama's Socialist direction. Everyone of your responses is anti-capitalism and anti-free market. Unions broke the back of the old GM, or course now that the Gov't owns them and the unions love the Govt' who protects their excesses. And we the taxpayers get shafted picking up the benefits and bloated labor costs that can't be passed on to the consumer since that would price GM products out of the market. Healthcare is working pretty good like it is now. It's not perfect but no system ever is. You think costs are high now and your selections limited to doctors and procedures your insurer will pay for, wait till it gets under the Government Corporations pay a LOT of taxes. I guess you don't realize that your taxes taken from your paycheck are matched by the corporation before they are sent in, and corps pay tax on profits, property and on things they use like electricity? Sure they get to deduct them as expenses to offset sales but they are still taxes they paid. So even IF a company paid no Corporate Income Tax they still paid Taxes I think you BADLY mistake the Tea Party movement or else are taking the Democrat talking points. Tea Party is after restoring the BASIC foundations of the USA not some personal agenda that Candidate X has. (no I'm not a member). Any strong challenge that's a reasonable option to the two idiot parties in charge now is worth consdering.

  52. This is the Austrian School at Work by copponex · · Score: 1

    You know, just say a bunch of shit without any testable theories, and as long as you reach the conclusion that government is bad, congratulations! You're an economist in the eyes the Austrian school.

  53. Different time different song by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When he was Intel CEO, no less, he was singing a different song because benefited from outsourcing. Now, he doesn't get a penny if some CEO does the outsourcing, but with US economy in downward spiral he is playing the Patriot card.

  54. Re:Government is the problem, not the solution by PK+Tech+Guy · · Score: 1

    Americans accept lower standards of living? We may be fat, lazy and stupid but we don't give up our luxuries willingly.

  55. I have designed a widget. I need a factory to make the widget-making tool and then produce x number of widgets. Where is the profit flowing out of the country? My widget did not exist before and now I am making a profit.

    Long-term total (not per-country) trade deficits are bad, but taxing does not repair the problem.

    The following is from my own A.C. post. Obviously it was before the current Euro crisis, but given the Euro's rapid increase against the dollar since the recent market crash, we can see that the dollar is actually in bigger trouble than the Euro.

    At the end of WWII the industrialized world had been literally blown to pieces, except in the U.S. because the war hadn't reached any of our industrialized regions. Additionally, major powers such as China and Russia began to experiment in earnest with Communism. The U.S. was able to supply the world with what it needed and it prospered greatly, with 1950-1965 being one of the most prosperous periods in our history. From the wealth gained out of this temporary position we decided that we would build a 'Great Society' that would guarantee minimum standards for all citizens.

    However, Communism failed, and its leaders knew they had to make changes or suffer a revolution with them on the receiving end, so they began to embrace certain aspects of Capitalism to increase the standard of living and gainfully employ the citizens.

    China was one of those countries. It had the most people, the most unemployed, uneducated, impoverished people and loads of land worth next to nothing, with lots of resources to boot. It employed its capitalism through free-trade zones. These zones were actually as difficult to leave and enter as the country's border itself, with fences and checkpoints the whole way along, although this policy would change later, it illustrates how they did not truly embrace Capitalism.

    As if the advantages of a huge population of desparate workers and millions of acres of available land weren't enough, the Chinese Government drew up a clever scheme to make their production costs even lower on an international scale. They required all foreign transactions to be transacted in U.S. dollars. Since they had a huge trade surplus, especially when considering this was for all transactions with customers from all countries, they could quickly amass a significant number of U.S. dollars. They then used the dollars to purchase U.S. debt. This debt could then be used to maintain an artificially low exchange rate on the Chinese currency (called Yuan or Renminbi (RMB)) with respect to U.S. dollars, conveniently the only currency the factories could use.

    Meanwhile, the cost of doing anything in the U.S. increased substantially, spawning from things such as the Great Society initiatives, laws to encourage unionizing, and various other policies that made sense only for a nation with no industrialized competitors. For all intents and purposes we stopped allowing legal immigrants to come to our country, cutting off a key labor supply used throughout the Industrial Revolution.

    (I always like to point out that "Made in America" all too often really means "Made by Illegal Aliens").

    So with high costs to employ people, a nearly non-existent bottom-end production workforce and deficits to build and maintain pegged currencies, substantial amounts of production has moved offshore, with much of it going to China. China is really just the most visible because of its size. Many people talk about all the things they purchase that are 'Made in China', but the real test is to look at all the things people purchase that are not made in China. After posing this question to a friend he declared that the only thing in his house that was Made in America was the house itself. China is often just the final assembly point for a manufacturer, who probably gets chips and other components from Taiwan, Malaysia and Singapore. The very, very bottom product

    --

    I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

  56. This is not only good common sense by falconwolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It is not only not good common sense but it is actually bad economically. The protectionist law Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which became law in 1930, led to the Great Depression. When one country enacts protectionist laws other countries pass their own protectionist laws in retaliation which shuts down trade. Economies then collapse causing recessions and depressions.

    If you want to help create US jobs, reduce if not get rid of Payroll taxes. Besides all the taxes employers have to deduct from employee pay checks, employers have to also pay taxes. The FICA or Medicare and Social Security tax, employers have to pay half of it. They have to pay federal and state unemployment taxes as well. Not only that but they have to pay accountants to calculate how much has to be paid in taxes. These taxes are paid for every employee, reduce the number of employees and the taxes are reduced as well. Reducing, I'd prefer them to be abolished, federal income and payroll taxes would allow employers to hire more employees and or pay them more. And more people making more money will boost the economy. They will have more money to buy more, driving demand, and or they will invest more thus creating more jobs.

    I am completely sick of being screwed over by the corporatist plutocrats.

    So hold them accountable, just don't shut down trade.

    Falcon

    1. Re:This is not only good common sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      We've already seen that these kinds of tax break "incentives" don't work. The companies pay less taxes, don't hire more people, and then give the money they save on taxes as raises to the executives. My company gets the R&D tax credit and they still sent a few thousand jobs to China this year. Tax break incentives don't work.

      The time for incentives is long past. It's time for punishments.

    2. Re:This is not only good common sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nope, sorry, experience has shown us time and again that given the increased profits that would enable them to hire more people, American corporations instead take that money and grant even more ludicrous bonuses to those already at the top of the pay scale.

    3. Re:This is not only good common sense by geekoid · · Score: 0, Troll

      ANother idiots saying stupid things about taxes.

      Are you stupid or.. no you're stupid.

      To say 'we shouldf lower taxes' or 'we should raise taxes' is stupid and you are just buyinh into nonsense.

      You determine the services pepel want, then gather revenue for them. That's it.

      When you say 'we should lower taxes' without an idea of what specific service you are going to cut you are being stupid.

      Just lowering taxes and cutting post hoc hurts everyone. That's why Reagan's tax policy change this country from a world leader in nearly every measure, to a slow failure in almost every measure.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:This is not only good common sense by rrhood · · Score: 2, Informative

      Given Clinton raised taxes (the largest tax raise in history if the Republicans are to be believed) and he left office with a robust economy and a balanced budget as well as unemployment below 4%, and Bush reversed all Clinton's taxes (and many other policies) resulting in enormous tax reductions, and he left office with a busted economy and unemployment rapidly approaching 10% I find it difficult to understand how anybody can still be pushing supply side economics (otherwise known as Reaganomics, and Reagan also failed with this policy). To many people looking for gimmicky fixes to the economy are the reason I don't think we will pull out of this anytime soon. Most of what I think need to be done; Higher taxes for people who have an income, lower benefits for everybody, bigger government (in some areas) and a certain amount of protectionism for the American worker; are painful and so probably won't happen. Eventually things will really collapse, and the pain then will be excruciating. I don't think we can avoid the pain one way or another. Given Obama also seems to believe in supply-side economics causes me to see no hope. I suspect financial incentives will not work either. I would put in a law that requires some percentage of any product consumed in the US (say for products with $100 Million gross) must be produced at least at the 25% level (of products consumed by US people) by US workers.

    5. Re:This is not only good common sense by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      We've already seen that these kinds of tax break "incentives" don't work.

      We've also seen raising tariffs don't work either, instead they lead to trade wars. Each "side", nation, raising it's tariffs harms everybody.

      My company gets the R&D tax credit and they still sent a few thousand jobs to China this year.

      Yet, China's middle class growing fast, and as it does their demands for higher pay grows too.

      Falcon

    6. Re:This is not only good common sense by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      I'd prefer them to be abolished, federal income and payroll taxes would allow employers to hire more employees and or pay them more.

      yeah right.... those at top had lotsa tax cuts and they accelerated offshoring. Meanwhile they want to continue wars in middle east. Hello... guess what funds the military? Taxes! So pay up for what you started.

      So hold them accountable, just don't shut down trade.

      OK, but they own the police (SEC) so what are us commoners gonna do?

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    7. Re:This is not only good common sense by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Given Clinton raised taxes (the largest tax raise in history if the Republicans are to be believed) and he left office with a robust economy and a balanced budget

      Given that Clinton raised taxes in 1993 and the boom in the economy was in the later '90s, it's more likely the 1997 tax cuts did more.

      and Bush reversed all Clinton's taxes (and many other policies) resulting in enormous tax reductions, and he left office with a busted economy and unemployment rapidly approaching 10% I find it difficult to understand how anybody can still be pushing supply side economics

      HAHA! In 1997 when Clinton was still president, not only were taxes cut but the economy boomed. The economy started souring, was in a recession, at the end of his terms in office, not on Bush's watch.

      I would put in a law that requires some percentage of any product consumed in the US (say for products with $100 Million gross) must be produced at least at the 25% level (of products consumed by US people) by US workers.

      Doing so would result in other nations retaliating and thus shut down trade. That, like the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act wich had a hand in making the Great Depression worse than it otherwise would have been, would cause another depression. Maybe one in five US employees depends on exports and you would have many of them lose their jobs. Caterpillar has some stats on US exports. They like GE and other companies export a lot to China. Here's a list of United States Exports by Product Section in US Dollars from 2001 to 2005.

      Falcon

    8. Re:This is not only good common sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, bad as the recession was in my present 3rd (maybe 4th) world cranny - for the agricultural mostly monoculture-dependent elite - local industry and industrial know-how flourished. The locals no longer had the money to import practically all their consumer goods, as before, and a local industry actually appeared to supply the new demand.

      Protectionism under the later dictatorships, on the other hand, was just a sick variation on crony capitalism. Local protegees produced "national equivalents" (copies that weren't of any real use) and thrived playing the "overnight" stock markets with factory money. This generated unbelievable inflation, that help mask the bleeding and didn't affect the "players", since they converted and "re-invested" their gains very much ahead of the inflation curve they helped cause themselves. When the time came to pay for supplies and salaries, their real value was little more than accounting artifice.

      The funny part is seeing the same disoriented arguments thrown around at the time, by 3rd world ("emerging") nations, now being re-mouthed so earnestly - and equally cluelessly - in the supposedly "pinnacle" U.S. economy. That has been sliding into 3rd-world caos since the 80's. With ample popular support.

      Arentina had the Falklands. But the U.S. is a bit larger than Argentina.

    9. Re:This is not only good common sense by sunspot42 · · Score: 1

      The protectionist law Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act [wikipedia.org], which became law in 1930, led to the Great Depression

      Sorry, that's yet another right wing free trader myth with absolutely no basis in reality. The stock market collapse took place in October, 1929. Banks were already failing and international trade had already plummeted by the time Smoot-Hawley was passed and took effect. And the tariffs imposed by Smoot-Hawley were in general far, far lower than those the US had already employed for much of its history.

      Trade almost always collapses during panics and depressions, and tariffs have nothing to do with it. Exchange rates go crazy and credit dries up, which makes it difficult or even impossible (not to mention risky) to engage in international trade. Declining wages at home also means that it doesn't make a lot of sense to go thru the hassle of international trade, when you can probably do about as well manufacturing, growing or mining the same stuff at home (without all the risk).

      I'd just add that the US is running such colossal trade deficits that at this point we'd be better off if we blew up every container ship that came into port and cut off trade entirely. That'll effectively happen anyway at some point - eventually Asian government won't be able to finance this enormous trade imbalance anymore, leading to a collapse in the dollar and our inability to afford any imported goods. It would be far wiser for the US to enact tariffs in a series of graduated steps, giving it time to rebuild domestic industry in an orderly fashion instead of waiting around for the inevitable currency collapse and then attempting to rebuild in the midst of total economic (and likely social and political) chaos.

    10. Re:This is not only good common sense by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      yeah right.... those at top had lotsa tax cuts and they accelerated offshoring. Meanwhile they want to continue wars in middle east. Hello... guess what funds the military? Taxes! So pay up for what you started.

      Yea right. NOT!!! Most libertarians opposed the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Libertarians are calling for Afghanistan and Iraqi withdrawals. And to head you off, they are also saying Iran should not be the new Iraq. They also are for reducing the size of the military. At least try to look into things before making accusations.

      OK, but they own the police (SEC)

      Citation needed.

      so what are us commoners gonna do?

      People themselves can request states revoke corporate charters among other things.

      Falcon

    11. Re:This is not only good common sense by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      The protectionist law Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act [wikipedia.org], which became law in 1930, led to the Great Depression

      Sorry, that's yet another right wing free trader myth with absolutely no basis in reality. The stock market collapse took place in October, 1929.

      I phrased it wrong. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act made the depression last longer and get worse than it would have without the act being law. Read what the Department of State says. Before President Hoover signed it 1000 economists urged him to veto the act. Then as Info Please says, "U.S. foreign trade suffered a sharp decline, and the depression intensified."

      So then people, perhaps you, will say FDR's policies brought the Great Depression to an end. HAHA! FDR came to office on 4 March 1933 yet the Great Depression bottomed in 1932. The "U.S. economy was growing again by 1933, and technically the United States was not in recession from 1933 to 1937." The Great Depression may of seemed to last longer, but that's partially because of the Recession of 1937-38.

      Falcon

  57. Get rid of the HB1's!!!!! by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    Get rid of the HB1's!!!!! and the BS that HR does to lock out US workers.

    1. Re:Get rid of the HB1's!!!!! by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · · Score: 1

      Agreed, 100%. Companies first pretend to interview locally...They talk to qualified local candidates whom they have no intent to hire. Then, the companies throw up their hands and say to the government "we interviewed locally and couldn't find "qualified" candidates so we're going to hire HB1s...Oh, and as a bonus, it will save us money."

    2. Re:Get rid of the HB1's!!!!! by geek2k5 · · Score: 1

      Don't get rid of them. Just audit the hiring processes to verify that there aren't any qualified candidates AND that the people hired meet the same qualifications. And, for good measure, require that ALL the requirements be posted so that outside experts can verify that there are people on the planet that meet the requirements and that the requirements are relevant. (i.e. You can't require X years of experience in something that is (X - 5) years old. You can't have a foreign language requirement that isn't relevant to the job. (Mandarin, Hindi, Spanish, or other human languages when you're writing behind the scenes Java code for hardware used in America.))

      IF there is any hanky-panky, hit them with fines.

      At the same time, improve the education system so that there ARE more qualified candidates. That may require investigating the educational practices of other countries to see how they differ.

    3. Re:Get rid of the HB1's!!!!! by andre1s · · Score: 1

      Hmm so the dude say stays in India and works for Wipro (def. saves US jobs and increases US tax revenue)

    4. Re:Get rid of the HB1's!!!!! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      At the same time, improve the education system so that there ARE more qualified candidates. That may require investigating the educational practices of other countries to see how they differ.

      Yeah, that worked so well with healthcare, didn't it?

      The teabaggers will have a field day. We's already number one! Teh gubmint wants to larn our kids French! Them feds wants to replace prayer with commienissum!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re:Get rid of the HB1's!!!!! by geek2k5 · · Score: 1

      Various employers claim that the education system is not cranking out qualified candidates, so they have to seek well trained people elsewhere. What percentage of this is hard fact and what is anecdotal based 'fact?' And what ARE the qualifications that the outsourcing promoters want?

      It could be that our current system of teaching and training isn't suited for the modern world. Comparing our education techniques to those of other countries might be worthwhile, especially if they are more efficient AND effective at training people.

      We might also be shooting ourselves in the foot when it comes to paying for education. Student loans could almost be considered indentured slavery, but to a corporate entity rather than a person or family. Those who pay their own way, without incurring student loans or credit card debt would be the truly free students.

      Do note that improving the education system doesn't HAVE to be a government activity. There are lots of businesses that do training as part of their primary purpose in life. And if outsourcing businesses had to state their requirements for personnel, the training businesses would have another product set to sell.

  58. Re: by YouAreATool · · Score: 1

    Because we don't have a truly nationalized Federal Reserve Bank. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_reserve They make the money. The US Treasury (which is nationalized) does not. So the president or congress cannot 'peg' our currency effectively.

  59. Re: by YouAreATool · · Score: 1

    I should say "they set the value of the money' whereas the treasury simply prints it.

  60. Re:Government is the problem, not the solution by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    So in short, make our work force as poverty ridden as the third world? Are you out of your fucking MIND, or are you the CEO of a large corporation? Your whole list is a recipe for eliminating the middle class and impoverishing everyone but the richest 5% of the population.

    As to unions, any company that winds up with a unionized work force deserves it. Treat your workers decently and pay them well and they won't unionize. "Right to work" laws are really "right to make unionization almost impossible so you can fuck over your work force without fear of consequences".

    Like having weekends off? Thank the union movement. Like eight hour days? Thank the union movement. Like having sick days and holidays and vacations? Thank the union movement.

    Your classist attitude is abhorrent and disgusting. I'm glad I don;t work for you, Ebeneezer.

  61. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    'Outsourcing' allows smaller firms to take on projects that they otherwise could not afford to do. I own a small business and at least two of my products I could never hope to bring to market if my only option was to use domestic resources. Those products make money and allow me to expand. This is not a burden on the U.S. economy; it is a positive contribution.

    The fundamental reason you can't produce your products using domestic resources is not that it would cost too much. It's because you couldn't sell them for enough to cover the costs and make a profit. The reason for that is because Americans today are by and large earning less, because the jobs that paid better are gone. Thus those Americans consume less and so cannot be a source of much profit for business. This is a big reason why the financial services sector has ballooned to 1/3 of our economy, because the other sectors of our economy are dying out and one of the only way to earn large amounts of money is to aggregate other peoples' money (e.g. their savings) and use it for investments. This, however, only makes a small number of people all that much richer, while everyone else continues to participate in a race to the bottom.

    The very real problem that perhaps not you, but your children, will need to worry about is this - will Americans be able to afford ANY products our businesses produce? Of course, we all need food, clothing and shelter, but you can't grow an economy if people are only buying the bare necessities. When lots of companies outsource, they're not just reducing their operating costs - by laying off the Americans they used to use to do the job, they're also reducing the number of people who have discretionary income to spend on their products! In small numbers, this is not a horrible thing, but in the past twenty years, something in the range of tens of millions of jobs have been lost, and lots of people have moved from working in factories to working at McDonalds and often working two jobs. In 1960, how many families had two parents working two jobs to make ends meet? It's not uncommon today. Why is that? Obviously, as you yourself have realized, most things Americans can do can be done by people in other countries cheaper, and that mostly just leaves what jobs people MUST be in the US to do, and those jobs tend not to pay very well because they're mostly butt-in-seat jobs.

    Unfortunately, each individual company sees in the short term an increase in profits and can't see the long term damage they're doing to themselves, and so they all rush to outsource in search of bigger profits. The big problem facing us is that people like yourselves do not think about the big picture, or, you perceive it as not your problem - you add up the dollars and cents, and if it equals profit, you think it's good. You might want to brush up on your Chinese though, soon they'll be the ones with the money to afford your product. Except that, if the Chinese decide to produce your product without your help (they don't really care about IP), they can probably charge quite a bit less and make an even bigger profit since they don't have to deal with paying an American wage.

  62. us health care costs to much and that i job killer by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 1

    us health care costs to much and that is job killer. As out side the usa The workers do not have to get there health care from there job!

  63. Quick Heuistic Analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could this idea really work? For a quick heuristic analysis, answer one question:

    How would things change if EVERY product we use were manufactured in the USA at existing labor rates?

    If you still need help - Answer.

  64. Just propaganda by evilviper · · Score: 1

    TFA is just run-of-the-mill pro-Intel propaganda. "We employ lots of people!" "People who say start-ups are better than entrenched players are dead wrong because I say so!" etc.

    The only point he makes is that newer companies have fewer (domestic) employees. Never-mind that automation has been the rule since the start of the industrial revolution. Before China opened wide, it was those "dammed robots" taking our jobs... Think of how many more jobs there would be if bulldozers were outlawed, and roads had to be leveled by hand!

    This all ignores the fact that wages for those fewer people nearer the top are rising drastically, and as the labor pool opens, more jobs are created in other industries, which might have been uneconomical before such automation was possible. Instead of having full employment, with everyone working themselves to death farming day-in, day-out, we now have some level of unemployed people, but the rest are making far more than they would have under the old system. And incidentally, the unemployed benefit greatly from the same system as well, not just because when they are working, they earn a lot more, but also because prices of necessities are so low, you can feed yourself on less than 50 cents a day, modest enough that collecting cans would get you through. And never mind government unemployment pay/welfare which will afford you a vastly higher standard of living higher than a farmer in China.

    Yes, the business world is in turmoil right now, but it's only a matter of a few years before the bubble in China has to burst. Then everything should (eventually) settle down, and result in higher standard of living for all.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    1. Re:Just propaganda by gujo-odori · · Score: 1

      Don't look now, but the US standard of living hasn't exactly been advancing since the 1960s.

  65. EXACTLY!! by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · · Score: 1

    As a degreed tech professional with 14+ years of experience, I agree with Andy completely. In 2005, I was laid-off from a large company...After 8 years of loyal service and dedication, my job was outsourced to Taiwan.

  66. Central planning by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    That's slippery-slope nonsense. Market-based economies have employed tariffs and other restrictions on trade for hundreds of years without falling into Communism.

    And the markets with tariffs and regulations are not free markets.

    I'm advocating for tariffs and regulations and you're arguing against a centrally planned Soviet-style economy.

    What are tariffs and regulations if not central planning?

    Falcon

    1. Re:Central planning by azgard · · Score: 1

      Your economic understanding is so much screwed that I don't think this will help, but anyway...

      Tariffs and regulations are not central planning. Central planning means (usually) that all business is owned by state and nobody can start their own business independently on government (and when I say can't, it's not just they need some paperwork to do it, it really means that they can't).

      Tariffs, in this discussion, only relate to the foreign markets. You can have perfectly internal free market (which means how the price of goods is determined).

      Regulations are yet a different beast. Price regulations or regulations of specific producers are certainly against free market, but in general regulations can't affect it (since they affect everybody the same). Every country has regulations, because it's very inefficient to e.g. have people killed on bad airplanes due to some cheapskate "businessman" who doesn't care about security, only short-term profits.

      Your problem is that you want see the world in black and white categories, while it isn't.

    2. Re:Central planning by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Your economic understanding is so much screwed that I don't think this will help, but anyway...

      Tariffs and regulations are not central planning. Central planning means (usually) that all business is owned by state and nobody can start their own business independently on government (and when I say can't, it's not just they need some paperwork to do it, it really means that they can't).

      No, your understanding is what is lacking. What do you think tariffs and regulations do if not make it hard for people to start businesses independently of government?

      Tariffs, in this discussion, only relate to the foreign markets. You can have perfectly internal free market (which means how the price of goods is determined).

      And if my business is importation my business is not free of government.

      Every country has regulations, because it's very inefficient to e.g. have people killed on bad airplanes due to some cheapskate "businessman" who doesn't care about security, only short-term profits.

      Except how is the "businessman" going to make money when fliers won't buy tickets and gets sued into oblivion and possibly charged with murder? That does not need big government, just an impartial justice system.

      Your problem is that you want see the world in black and white categories, while it isn't.

      Your problem is that you think you can read my mind, but you are dead wrong.

      Falcon

  67. Don't raise thier taxes... by night_flyer · · Score: 1

    But don't grant them any tax breaks if they send jobs offshore, why should they get the benefit of a tax break if they arent actually contributing to the American economy/job market

    --


    Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
    Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
  68. There are a few assumptions you are making which are not correct.

    The reason I cannot produce the product in the U.S. is because I simply don't have the finances. It has nothing to do with the sale price; I just haven't got the money. The cost of doing it in the U.S. is literally thirty times higher. I was blown away by the cost difference.

    Every business owner I know is very cognizant of the damage they are doing to the economy, but we are subjects of the same forces that everyone else is. We must make decisions that keep us alive. It is not out of malice nor with ignorance that we take such actions.

    If you really want to see my opinion on how to repair our failed manufacturing sector, check out my blog post at my home page. It was written in haste and mostly just to elaborate a discussion I was having with some friends in an email, but the concept is there.

    I have been to China many times and I have friends, some not Chinese, who own businesses there. I am certainly planning on investing in their economy when I can afford it.

    --

    I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

  69. Re:Government is the problem, not the solution by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

    To support parent's point, here are some oyster shuckers voluntarily earning more money than on a farm they'd never have seen. Unfortunately the Great Depression put so many adults out of work that children were pushed out of these jobs, which is sort of like "lead[ing] to growth in industries that lead to the cushy office jobs we all enjoy today" except to the extent that it's nothing like it.

    Before the great capitalist machine was able to put them back in their place, the communist Roosevelt forced FLSA on hard-working American children, preventing them from living out the capitalist dream. Eventually children all had the space to receive an education and the time to explore knowledge further, and that's why China's taken our jobs away.

    I received an expensive education through parental support and private scholarships, so don't worry about me. But what I'm asking of you, dear common reader, is that you go back to shucking rather than living beyond your means. It's for the good of Economy, and if some of your offspring survive then their children's children might even benefit in some way. And please, don't look East - everything's so much worse in Marxist Europe, and you'll only be distracted by sympathy for men who have dug their own unionised, healthy, comfortable graves.

  70. You are correct that the President and Congress cannot 'peg' our currency, but it is not our currency that is pegged. It is the Chinese currency that is pegged to ours. The reality that the Chinese are poorer because of this policy. Now that the RMB is floating, they're going to see their incomes effectively rise as the costs of products produced in China remains the same and imported products fall in price. This will also encourage more overseas investment by Chinese investors.

    --

    I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

  71. Re:"those reasons don't apply anymore" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > but those reasons don't apply any more.
    Heh. I'm guessing you're still fairly young.

    Trust me - those reasons still apply.

    If you're lucky, whatever you're screwing around with will be something in which the older concerns have been dealt with.
    If you're really lucky, they will be dealt with so well that the process itself makes future occurrences of accidents due to risk x,y & z really, really unlikely.

    If you're not very lucky, you will assume they've been dealt with and represent archeology. Meanwhile, risks never, ever go away. They only get smothered in assumptions and optimism, generally provided by people who have never experienced a given phenomenon and therefore assume it doesn't occur. The entire history of mankind points out the folly of this attitude, and yet we persist.

    Why? Because sometimes we get lucky and manage to avoid the consequences of our actions. Sometimes fortune favors the ignorant.
    This attitude is important for our ability to adapt as a species, but it also gives us teen pregnancy, HIV, heroin addicts, pilot error, periodic banking crises and lots and lots and lots of crappy computer software. Yay team!

  72. Re:Government is the problem, not the solution by bennomatic · · Score: 1

    You're forgetting that many of the people who moved off the farms did so because they were forced out by corporate take-overs. Remember the dust bowl? It was caused, in part, by huge corporate farms over-planting cotton, without appropriate crop rotation, so that they could maximize profits and move on. But it wasn't just cotton; anywhere they had local competition from small family farms, they'd flood the market with cheaper products so the smaller farms would have to sell out for cheap and end up working for the corpofarms or moving to town to get a "better" life.

    I've spent time in rural Bolivia, where average income for a family is about $3/mo. But they have sustenance farms which provide them with the great majority of what they need, and trade and barter locally for whatever else they need. They may never bee anyone's overlords, but there's something to be said for a less-efficient, more relaxed lifestyle.

    --
    The CB App. What's your 20?
  73. Re: by Bryansix · · Score: 1

    I agree that the USA needs to learn how to be competetive in the global workforce. I think that has to be balanced though with encouraging everyone else to raise their standard of living. Unions have time and time again negotiated themselves out of a job. Its so silly. They should advocate for fair wages and job practices but not take side in individual people's jobs or try to negootiate benefits that 99% of the rest of workers in the USA don't get. I think we need more LEGAL immigration while at the same time actually enforcing the illegal immigration laws.

  74. subsidies by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    If you send work off shore, you no longer get all the corporate welfare tax breaks that US companies get.

    Most corporations shouldn't be getting subsidies period!!! And when they do the subsidies should only be temporary.

    Falcon

  75. Would that stop it? by twoallbeefpatties · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Reducing, I'd prefer them to be abolished, federal income and payroll taxes would allow employers to hire more employees and or pay them more.

    Over the past decade or so, we've had great expansion in worker productivity in America, and we also boasted a high GDP. We also had anemic wage growth vs. inflation (especially against the prices of goods such as college education and health care) and nearly non-existant job growth. And this was after two separate substantial tax cut packages near the beginning of the decade. The lessons of the last decade appear to be that there is not always a direct link between job growth and increased business profits / lowered taxes - often, the business's shareholders just pocket those increases. So forgive some of us for being skeptical that additional cuts on payroll taxes will have any major effect.

    --
    Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
    1. Re:Would that stop it? by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      forgive some of us for being skeptical that additional cuts on payroll taxes will have any major effect.

      Sure, be skeptical cuts in taxes will have major effects. But keep that skepticism when it comes to raising tariffs as well. Actually it behooves people to be more skeptical of raising tariffs. Raising tariffs will prompt other nations to raise their own tariffs in retaliation which can hurt everybody.

      Falcon

    2. Re:Would that stop it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup

      http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/7/2/881124/-Get-Really-Informed.-The-Reason-For-High-Unemployment

    3. Re:Would that stop it? by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 1

      Which is why I think the current course (both in the US and Europe) will eventually lead to complete economic ruin for a very large part of the population. As more and more work is automated, less people will obviously be employed, even though the same amount of production is maintained. Now the question is what to do with all these unemployed people? This isn't even just manufacturing, automated checkout lines, cleaning, etc. and all the profit will of course (as is happening now) be pocketed by the shareholders and CEO's.

      I'm not saying we should stop automation or anything, but we need a system where the long-term unemployed can still survive and lead decent lives, as this is going to become the norm.

    4. Re:Would that stop it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can pay an accountant $1,000 to reduce my tax burden by $2,000. How's that good for the US economy?

      I actually don't pay any US taxes, but the time I spend on US tax paperwork is worth a lot to me, and inhibits me from doing other productive things.

    5. Re:Would that stop it? by ps2os2 · · Score: 0

      Inflation (for the most part) is not caused by taxation. From my understanding inflation is caused by an in balance in the budget.
      Essentially you are spending more than you take in.
      The people who believe taxation is the root of all evil are living in a fairy land. Countries like Monaco and others are not large and complex societies. They tend to be small and have budget surpluses, the populations are so small that they can pay for many things like retirement and road taxes from the surplus. Sooner or later when the population expands (although thats hard to do in the Cayman islands and Monaco) so it is unlikely to happen any time soon. On the other had you have places like China with very high population and the government is very poor so they tend not to care about people dying to soon so they do not need a social network.
      When you come down to it the difference of the the two is that people in smaller societies care more for their neighbors whereas people in high density type situations (over population) they tend to think that people are truly expendable.

    6. Re:Would that stop it? by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Which is why I think the current course (both in the US and Europe) will eventually lead to complete economic ruin for a very large part of the population. As more and more work is automated, less people will obviously be employed, even though the same amount of production is maintained.

      If that were the end of it yes, but the march of progress, science, and technology creates new jobs. No, the problem is that more and more jobs are specialized or compartmentalized with less and less skills easily transferable. Years ago people had the same outlook as you're showing, they were afraid robots and other technology would make physical work and skills obsolete. Did they? No they didn't. If you want a good steady job that always requires workers, try plumbing, heating, and air-conditioning.

      This isn't even just manufacturing, automated checkout lines, cleaning, etc. and all the profit will of course (as is happening now) be pocketed by the shareholders and CEO's.

      Service industries such as maids are growing. My sister used to do all the house cleaning herself but now that she runs her own business it saves her the tyme needed by hiring a maid to come once a week. Though only a few hours a week such a worker can hire out to several different clients a week. My sister also pays for lawn care and landscaping. Another area of job growth is in health care, especially with boomers starting to retire and people living longer lives.

      Falcon

    7. Re:Would that stop it? by SwedishPenguin · · Score: 1

      Right now, there's still a demand for things like maids, etc. but what about in a few years, or even more long term, what about in 30 years? Will there still be a demand for cleaners?
      Even more important short term, what are those maids your sister hires paid? US minimum wage, full time, is about the same amount as I get in government student aid, and I don't have any kids to support...
      Could your sister still afford to hire maids if they were paid a living wage?
      Long term, I simply don't think any of the "menial labor" jobs will be left. And the only jobs left will be the creative jobs which computers cannot (yet) replace... I simply don't think there will be enough of such jobs to provide jobs for the entire population.

    8. Re:Would that stop it? by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Right now, there's still a demand for things like maids, etc. but what about in a few years, or even more long term, what about in 30 years? Will there still be a demand for cleaners?

      In 30 years, who knows. If however a person can't learn something new in that tyme, hell at least start in a few years, it's their own fault. The one place where I see a potential problem is with seniors who plan to retire in several years. They may have to put off retirement. If however a person finds his or her self in that situation then it's their own fault for not planning.

      Even more important short term, what are those maids your sister hires paid? US minimum wage, full time, is about the same amount as I get in government student aid, and I don't have any kids to support...

      I don't know how much they make but I bet it's more than minimum wages. Hell as a student I had a similar job, my title was house cleaner which was just another name for janitor. I started that job being paid more than minimum pay, got a raise after 60 days then got more raises.

      Could your sister still afford to hire maids if they were paid a living wage?

      How stupid can you get? Unless they are independently wealthy they have to make more than a living wage, they are alive afterall.

      Long term, I simply don't think any of the "menial labor" jobs will be left.

      Luddites were saying that centuries ago and it's still not true. Why even today we still have people who shear sheep, spin threads, and weave clothes. They even make a living doing so. Etsy is one market people can sell their wares at though there are others. I didn't even need to search for those links just now, I have them bookmarked because I am interested in them and thought about doing something like it myself.

      Falcon

  76. East India Company by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Which one, the Dutch East India Company or the British East India Company? Or do you mean the fictional one in the Pirates of the Caribbean (film series)?

    Falcon

    1. Re:East India Company by jvkjvk · · Score: 1

      yes?

  77. Re:Government is the problem, not the solution by bennomatic · · Score: 1

    I would suggest to you that unions and collective bargaining are tightly bound with the founding principals of this country. Free speech and right to assembly are right in there, bro.

    Nobody broke GM but GM. With little exception, their various product lines suck. Ugly, inefficient and unsafe compared to their competitors.

    No talking points here; the tea party is filled with misinformed, illiterate and outright criminal miscreants who are using inflammatory rhetoric to silence real debate on important issues. I'm not saying that there aren't some good people in their ranks, but they're a minority. If I could use one word to describe them, I'd use "cynical".

    Come back to me when the central group that runs tp events is not a for-profit organization.

    --
    The CB App. What's your 20?
  78. Get the IRS involved... by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

    First make it a law that ANY company OWNED by us citizens (IE: 50.00001 percent of the stock holders) is a US company regardless of where it is based or incorporated. Then the IRS should demand payroll and income taxes on all salaries paid by the corporation to individuals or by third party holding companies paid by the corporation in question. These payroll and income taxes will be based on what a US citizen would be paid NOT what a third world employee was actually being paid. The reason is that the IRS should declare that a US company (see above) that off-shores their labor is CHEATING the IRS out of tax revenue that would have been collected had a US citizen been doing the work.

    1. Re:Get the IRS involved... by vovin · · Score: 1

      It's already the case. It's called a CFC, or Controlled Foreign Corporation and it is taxed exactly as it if is a US owned/based corporation.
      However the taxes paid by foreign individuals in foreign countries is the responsibility of the those individuals, not the corporation. Just as it is the US. It is also the reality is the corporation isn't replacing their us workforce with 1-1 skilled people (at least not at the outset) they are replacing 1 for 10 outsourced and still spending less.
      Heck I could try the same thing without going over seas. How about I replace my IC designer with 10 recent graduates. Should I pay the same FICA for the 10 graduates, am I really cheating the IRS? What if my IC designer wasn't 'in-sourced' but died (bus, heart attack, whatever)?
      Frankly large companies that do stupid stuff *should* be eliminated. The normal course is bankruptcy and liquidation.
      If 10 recent graduates can do the same job and still cost less then I say have at it. Of course I think they can't and I charge accordingly.

  79. Do taxes always get passed to the consumer? by twoallbeefpatties · · Score: 1

    The trouble with these type of taxes is that the corporations simply pass it onto the customers.

    I'm not sure how true this bit of common wisdom is. Another trope of the free market is that the price of goods is whatever the market will bear. That is to say, if a corporation thinks that people will pay more for whatever it is that they're selling, they'll charge more for it. Which is to say that if corporations were going to raise prices on their goods, they wouldn't wait for an increase in taxes to do it - they'd do it now to increase profits.

    If corporations raise the price of their goods due to a tax increase, that could mean less sales as some customers balk at the price, or less sales as some customers go to purchase from competitors who aren't hampered by the same restrictions. And so the corporation has to bring prices back to where they were in order to keep business up, meaning that they either eat the loss out of their standard profits or they look for other ways to cut costs. That's an unproven anecdote, of course, but it's just as feasible as "more taxes = higher costs passed to consumers."

    --
    Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
  80. How is the current arrangement not fair? by syncopated · · Score: 1

    If the Chinese workers can manufacture more efficiently than US workers, why should consumers be forced to support US workers? The products would have to cost more. If the efficiency disparity is an effect of US companies participating in the unfair treatment of Chinese workers, or the exorbitant cost of doing business in the US, perhaps due to certain union activities or ridiculous health care cost, then those are in themselves issues to be surfaced and addressed, and not simply that Chinese workers are getting jobs and US workers are not. Yes, Grove's position sounds like a populist one to me.

  81. Re:Government is the problem, not the solution by bennomatic · · Score: 1

    Huzzah, fellow socialist rabble rouser. Huzzah.

    --
    The CB App. What's your 20?
  82. Re:Government is the problem, not the solution by bennomatic · · Score: 1

    Untrue. It hits uninformed, inflamatory liberals and conservatives alike. That being said, while I disagree with the GP post, as I said elsewhere, "flamebait" wasn't the right moderation.

    Your post, on the other hand does seem to be asking for it.

    --
    The CB App. What's your 20?
  83. Solution for companies that leave US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many of you pointed out that many companies will just move offshore.
    Fine!
    If your HQ is abroad, and manufacture the products abroad, you are technically a foreign company.
    So you pay import/export taxes.

  84. Universal Health Care by jjohnson · · Score: 1

    Want to cut labor costs in the U.S.?

    The U.S. could cut its overall health care costs by 40% if it implemented true universal health care, and would extend the average lifespan by a couple years as a bonus. Canada, England, France, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden... all have UHC, all spend around 55% of what is spent in the U.S., and all have longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality--basically they all beat the U.S. on any aggregate measure.

    In the U.S., the standard calculation for the cost of an employee is 140-150% of wages--the overage covers the costs of administration and benefits. In Canada, it's 110-115%.

    Your fucked up health care system is far more expensive than it needs to be, and doesn't give you better health care. Want America to regain a competitive advantage on the world stage? Implement real UHC.

    --
    Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
    1. Re:Universal Health Care by gujo-odori · · Score: 1

      Why do they spend less?

      1) Rationed care
      2) Legal system works better/limited malpractice suits
      3) Lower-quality care just costs less

      I've lived in a UHC country and so has my wife, and while I would stop short of calling the care bad, but to say that it's as good as what we have in the US would be to flat-out lie.

      Sure, you can get care there that is as good as ours or pretty close, but you're going pay for it out of your pocket; UHC won't cover it.

    2. Re:Universal Health Care by jjohnson · · Score: 1

      If the care is worse, then why do the UHC countries all have a longer life expectancy than Americans? Canadian life expectancy is over two years greater.

      There's a variety of reasons that Americans pay more for worse health care overall: unnecessary tests and procedures soaking money out of generous health plans; widespread lack of preventative care that results in high emergency-care costs; inefficient and costly administration; profit-taking by parties at every level.

      I've experienced both American and Canadian health care, and while American health care does seem superficially better in some ways, it's demonstrably worse overall, and individually I'm not sure it's better either, just shinier. I went to the U.S. doctor complaining of flu-like symptoms. He prescribed antibiotics, which are useless for a viral infection; I had an injection of penicillin in my ass (again, useless for a viral infection). I received a prescription for Tylenol 3s in case my sore throat was bothersome (codeine for a sore throat? Really?). And on the way out I dealt with one of six staffers behind the desk, that number being necessary because five are required to deal with the various insurance companies; a doctor in Canada would share one with another doctor because that's all that's needed. If you've got a good health plan, you get luxury health care in the U.S., which isn't demonstrably better, just more expensive.

      --
      Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
    3. Re:Universal Health Care by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the problem is one that we can't seem to get the government on the right page on UHC. The truth of the matter is that part of the REASON it is as screwed up as it is- happens to be the Government's Healthcare option, Medicare.

      Medicare often pays only 20-30% of the billed amount. On some things they pay out amazing, almost crazy things- like power chairs, for example. But in the large something that would be billed for 1k is paid out for 200. It's why the cash price is often insane for uninsured people in this country.

      Now, ponder that for a moment and let it soak in for a bit so it'll really register with you.

      Now, it should be noted that all insurance companies will only pay out 30 or so percent OVER what Medicare pays on things. Seriously. There is a reason for this. It's the same sort of reason that's been driving offshoring and a whole host of other things. Why pay right or charge down to the levels in question when it's "so expensive"- when you can gouge for the amount people believe is getting paid out for healthcare and then pay out the way they really do?

      Combine this with the costs of rationed care in the countries you mention (for most medical care, Canadians go to their doctors there...for complicated medical procedures, they save up their money and come to the US because they can get it immediately and in many cases, you can get procedures done that won't be happening anytime soon in Canada.) you end up with a mixed view of things.

      In the end, it's not as rosy as you make it out to be, nor is it the nice picture others paint of it being over here in the States when they argue against UHC. It should be noted that what our government has tried to do with getting to UHC isn't anything remotely resembling it and it will just enrich those jokers that're paying 30% over Medicare payout and charging as much as they do for premiums.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  85. Re:Government is the problem, not the solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I received an expensive education through parental support and private scholarships, so don't worry about me.

    You liberal fuckwads don't understand what it's like to be poor and go through the public school system. I remember in 8th grade the school fucked up my schedule and left me out of a class, Algebra I. It took those morons a fucking week to fix it and when I went to class on Monday the following week I learned we had a test on Tuesday. What I didn't know was that the bottom scorers on the test would be rolled back to pre-algebra because there weren't enough fucking chairs for students to sit in. So I got a D on the test because I hadn't opened a text book all summer and didn't have the week to review like all the other students and was rolled back. Good thing though because the sheer boredom allowed me to discover my favorite drug as a teenager: marijuana. I showed up drunk, stoned, or both nearly every single day and toked up more than once per day. And this was good shit! Grown by a local grower. I still managed an A in pre-algebra by doing the homework in class while stoned, drunk, or both because I sure as shit wasn't doing any studying on my own after school and before my dad got home from work at 7:30 every night and rarely gave a shit about what I was doing anyway and mom lived hundreds of miles away. Shit, half our school had at least a dime bag in their pocket at all times. LSD, pot and meth were way easier to come by than alcohol - you know, because the Government banned those drugs so we could get them from anyone selling, they sure didn't give a shit about our age or losing their license to sell. I look through classmates.com and facebook and pretty everyone I went to high school with is still stuck in that shit town with kids and ex-'s. The Wikipedia bot that goes through census bureau and other statistics paints the perfect picture of that town with cold stats on how many are on welfare, have never worked, single mothers with no other householders present, federal aid, etc. The fucking place is worse than when I left it, except for a brief period when all those poor people were granted loans to buy new houses with, but now their McDonald's fucking income can't support the real cost of the house, so they get booted and move back in with their parents. Yeah, all this fucking regulation has done amazing things for those people wow. Where the fuck would they ever be without all the free money from the fed, all the welfare to support their meth habits, the wonderful fucking school system, and illegal drugs available for easy access to all the kids. Glad you're here looking out for us.

  86. Did Hell just freeze over? by NoBozo99 · · Score: 1

    Just asking. I never thought I'd hear this from someone like Grove.

    --
    I may not be a smart man, but I know what an inode is.
  87. Re:Government is the problem, not the solution by MyFirstNameIsPaul · · Score: 1

    The often overlooked portion of the dust bowl is that the Government caused these problems. Many people chose their crops because the Government gave subsidies to growers of those crops. The Government also had a program to encourage people to become farmers, regardless of the soil type. So people set up farms on land that was not truly arable. Death taxes was and is one of the biggest killers of small businesses, especially farms.

    Mercantilism is not an option in the U.S. because you have to pay real estate taxes with Federal Reserve Notes. Otherwise, I'm sure there is a plot of land somewhere for you to subsist from.

    --

    I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

  88. Gutting the middle class and the primary consumers by geek2k5 · · Score: 1

    Ah, somebody else who recognizes that the middle class is being gutted by off-shoring. Now take it one step further. If one of the big groups of consumers is the American middle class, then who is going to replace them when they are gone? While the middle classes of other countries may be increasing, are these increases enough to overcome the losses in America? And will they spend enough to make up the differences?

  89. Will not work by andre1s · · Score: 1

    The idea will not work and will result in US entities licensing "products"/IP from offshore entities.

  90. Re:Smoot Hawley Did NOT lead to the Great Dep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, how did the 1930 act trigger the stock market collapse in 1929? Also, explain the economic growth in the 1800's during periods of HIGH tariffs, but Laissez-Faire internal policy.

  91. On immigration we are truly in agreement. I attempted to make a blog post on my homepage which discusses this very issue, but it was in haste and not well edited.

    --

    I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

  92. Reality Right Now: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Corporations hold the cards. Taxing them makes them reserve what cash they have to pay new taxes. It makes them less likely to hire when they may have some huge government imposed burden to pay down. It sucks, but we might want to consider what would work best for the US worker. For instance, taxes based on proportion of US workers. If you have more US workers in proportion to your total company workforce, then you will get decreased taxes. Sort of like, if you invest in our nation, we will tax you less. It isn't perfect, but we need to propose tax incentives that are tied to workers to make them effective, not just blatant taxes that piss off the corporate hoards and leave them laughing while they send away more and more. We need to make the incentive a no brainer. Maybe tax the decision structure so that those who stand to benefit, such as the management or shareholders, are the ones who receive the brunt of the taxes. After all, the most routine line we hear is that they are just doing their duty for shareholders. So tax the shareholders.

  93. Sounds great, but... by hackel · · Score: 1

    All that tax revenue needs to go directly back to the people who are being exploited, working for lower wages than their would-be American counterparts. If the U.S. government starts making money through this offshoring, it would be reprehensible!

    I think a better solution would be to require that any company selling products in the U.S. abide by all of our laws with regard to their own employees, specifically with regard to the federal minimum wage...

  94. alternative explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Alternative : he learned from the experience and now knows that it is better to have only a few qualified american engineer than a lot of unqualified engineer. Just sayin'.

  95. Re:Government is the problem, not the solution by MyFirstNameIsPaul · · Score: 1

    If I were a child and were given the choice between your photo and my photo, I would choose your photo.

    --

    I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

  96. Re:Government is the problem, not the solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wrong. Time and again, corporations have shown that, even if they receive more money, they will often let the people at the top pocket it instead of hiring new workers.

  97. Just quit by gabrieltss · · Score: 1

    buying products from companies that are shipping jobs overseas. I think that there are enoucgh people that are sick of this kind of $h!t that if they quit buying products from these companies they would soon feel it in their pocket books. I know this as been said ad nausem but it still holds true.

    --
    The Truth is a Virus!!!
  98. Re:Sounds great, but... by andre1s · · Score: 1

    With some exceptions in the IT field people are far from being exploited e.g. in Ukraine as an example avg slry for developer is around 1500USD/month (amount after all the taxes) while it is obviously less then US considering cost of living and especially cost of medical care things are fairly equal.

  99. Re:Government is the problem, not the solution by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

    In what way does that make anything "the Government"'s fault? If I had the resources and the lack of regulation to farm a state to destruction over 10 years, why would a top-up from Sam be anything but a welcome bonus to something I was going to do anyway? In what way would a lack of subsidy stop me doing it, assuming I had the resources to start the operation?

    The principle is that outside investors have no reason to care about the long term welfare of the land. It's not worth the risk: better to squeeze while it's easiest, then move on, then die rich and relaxed.

  100. Taxes are not the solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Taxing offshore labor will just force companies to incorporate offshore, thereby avoiding the tax and taking all their "knowledge jobs" with them.

    The reality is that most of the innovation of the 21st century, slated to take place in the medical industry, could have created plenty of jobs in the USA. Unfortunately, our country is doing everything it can to eviscerate innovation in biotechnology, pharmaceuticals and medical devices.

    If you got rid of the FDA, untold jobs would be created, and millions of people would benefit from improved, less expensive care.

    Instead, we have an arbitrary gatekeeper that colludes with big pharma to shove toxic drugs across the counter. Remember, you are only "statistically safe" following an FDA trial, which typically consists of 200-300 people. With the average cost to market of a new drug around 1 billion, only big pharma can release drugs. And, unfortunately, the only products that get to market are the result of spending millions of dollars lobbying and intellectually bribing the FDA. Don't get me started on the AMA and the artificial restriction in supply of MDs. The whole system is a criminal, mafia-like cartel, and with this new healthcare legislation, which is just a giveaway to connected corporations, costs will skyrocket for less and less effective care. Rationing will take place, and small biotech and medical device firms will die on the vine waiting for the CER to issue a comparative efficacy opinion to support reimbursement. At least in Silicon Valley, you can raise money, build a product and sell it. In the USA today, small medical device/pharma may need to raise money and run deficits for 10-15 years before they can sell their product. It's pure lunatic facism designed to reinforce their oligopolies.

    We don't need some hybrid, mercantilist or protectionist system as Andy Grove suggests. We just need sound money, direct transactions between customers and providers, shared responsibility (i.e., no lack of liability), and clear anti-trust provisions. In a word, capitalism.

  101. Re:Sounds great, but... by hackel · · Score: 1

    Well if those people are really making $15,000, then they are already earning the U.S. minimum wage, so it's fine. It's the people in China and other 3rd world countries that are earning $1/day that need to be helped. Ukraine is actually rather well-off in comparison.

  102. Economics is a SYMBIOSIS & simple to understan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "'Outsourcing' allows smaller firms to take on projects that they otherwise could not afford to do. I own a small business and at least two of my products I could never hope to bring to market if my only option was to use domestic resources. Those products make money and allow me to expand. This is not a burden on the U.S. economy; it is a positive contribution." - by MyFirstNameIsPaul (1552283) * on Friday July 02, @02:44PM (#32777616) Homepage

    Exactly what A. Grove is saying now? I said nearly EXACTLY THE SAME on a forums around 7++ yrs. ago when this economic madness began:

    Outsourcing/Offshoring is B A D, because it takes jobs from folks that spend far more as a COLLECTIVE MIDDLE CLASS MASS INSIDE THIS VERY NATION (USA, which in effect keeps others alive too because they buy their neighbors' goods & services), & as a whole that collective "middle class mass" pays more taxes by far than a SINGLE WEALTHY ROBBER BARRON DOES, again by far...

    You take that system that worked away?

    Again, you get what we have, now (the few "haves" & TONS of "have nots")... of course, impoverishing an up & coming wealthy middle class stops competitors in the future too, now doesn't it??

    That in turn, again also allows those with monies to "push around" those who do not have them, even in courts of law (where, let's face it - there IS NO JUSTICE: Only how much "justice" you can afford & buy!).

    I mean, these people @ the head of these companies, don't THEY understand economics???

    It's a SYMBIOTIC system, and it's dependent on ALL of its parts, both the producers & the consumers... but, if the consumers can't afford to purchase the produced good due to lack of disposable income, what good is producing it period?? It will become unprofitable, & yet another business will close, because its consumer constituents are no longer able to buy their good or service they produced, period!

    Sure, you as a business, can then "chase other markets overseas", but that's been tried too... has it worked, & turned the U.S. Economy around? Look around you! No, it has not!

    (The current system offshoring & all, has only allowed the thieves @ the top to continue this madness & ruin!)

    APK

    P.S.=> NO solid long-term economy thrives in that scenario where all you have is "haves" & "have nots", NONE (RICH & POOR ONLY, no middle class - which is what we are starting to see now, today & for imo @ least, around 5-7 yrs. now... but the short term profiteers, who suddenly join the "haves" vs. the "have-nots", surely do)... apk

  103. Re:Government is the problem, not the solution by MyFirstNameIsPaul · · Score: 1

    In what way does that make anything "the Government"'s fault? If I had the resources and the lack of regulation to farm a state to destruction over 10 years, why would a top-up from Sam be anything but a welcome bonus to something I was going to do anyway? In what way would a lack of subsidy stop me doing it, assuming I had the resources to start the operation?

    In what way does this counter my argument that the dust bowl was a Government created problem? Farmers put farms where they shouldn't have. The Government told them what to farm, and those were the wrong crops to grow. Small farms are forced to sell farms because of the death tax. Do you have something to debate these points with?

    --

    I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.

  104. Re:Gutting the middle class and the primary consum by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

    I know what you mean. It won't be China or India. What scares me is that we are looking more and more like them with a huge low-paid underclass and a small middle class and tiny rich upper class.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
  105. Re:Government is the problem, not the solution by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

    So you were left out of a class. Instead of finding out what the class was up to, you waited until someone else sorted it out for you. This is the Government's fault.

    You then did badly in a test. This is the Government's fault.

    Then you found drugs. This is the Government's fault.

    Then you decided that you weren't going to do any study after school. This is the Government's fault. And your parents' fault, even though they didn't stop you.

    Then you looked up your classmates on Facebook and it depressed you, though didn't really get any information because this is Facebook. This is the Government's fault.

    Then some Thatcherite "buy a house! it'll make you happy again!" was sprinkled over your town, but it didn't work because you can't just give people a handout to tell them to become good capitalists and expect everything to work out great. This is the Government's fault.

    Your forgot that your missing Enter/Return key is the Government's fault. Also my missing gallbladder (even though it was quite painful before the crypto-Stalinist health service removed it).

  106. Part Of The Loop by b4upoo · · Score: 1

    It is no small surprise that America is hurting. We have suffered from way too much product inflation for way too long. Yet labor has been raped. Unions have been crushed. Companies decided not to share the wealth with employees. The idea that there should be a lock between the highest paid CEO and the lowest paid part time employee was not even considered. I am not saying that all should earn the same sums but the pay should not be so far apart.
                    The consequence is that those that labor can not buy product and that means that the fat cats can not sell product. And if we must do finger pointing it was managements job to design superior products and superior production facilities. That did not happen.
                    We probably will have to endure the nightmare of deflation in order to straighten things out. But even then we will need superior designs and production so that American workers can buy homes and cars while out producing China, Japan, India and others. If we can not produce we will starve.

  107. A simple solution by Pfhorrest · · Score: 1

    Much more straightforward than any additional taxes or other protectionist measures trying to compensate for the institutional discrepancies in cost between employing domestic and foreign employees, why not just correct those institutional discrepancies?

    Require any company doing business in this country, be they foreign or domestic, to provide the same standards to their employees, foreign and domestic, as domestic companies are required to offered domestic citizens working domestically.

    So if there's a minimum wage that domestic companies have to provide domestic employees, then domestic companies with foreign employees or foreign companies (with foreign employees) doing business here must provide at least that minimum wage to all their employees. If there are health care or vacation or other benefits required for domestic companies to offer their domestic employees, then they must also offer those to their foreign employees, as must foreign companies (with their foreign employees) doing business here. (Debate about what kinds of required benefits, minimum wages, etc, should apply is a separate issue: my only point is that they should apply the same to both domestic and foreign workers).

    This way, you can say to the foreign states who might otherwise accuse you of waging economic war, and retaliate with their own tariffs etc, "We're not trying to hurt you economically, we're just looking out for the well-being of your citizens exactly as we look out for the well-being of our own." The side-effect (and self-interested reason why greedy people domestically would vote to do this to begin with) is that domestic employees are suddenly not so much more expensive to employ than foreign employees, so there's much less incentive to hire foreign workers over domestic ones, more jobs and more money stay in the country, etc.

    Of course, there are less-institutional factors in the cost of domestic vs foreign workers too, such as the cost of living in one place vs another, but there's not an awful lot that can be done about that without being straightforwardly protectionist, which as plenty of others are pointing out in this thread, has a big slew of its own problems.

    --
    -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
    "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
  108. Re: by Svartalf · · Score: 1

    The biggest problem there is that if you don't have people to BUY your stuff, how can you survive either?

    No jobs? No money.
    No money? No stuff bought.
    No stuff bought? You lose.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  109. absofucklutely false : Smoot Hawley myth. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) Smoot Hawley came after start of great depression; therefore DID NOT CAUSE IT.

    2) Fordney McCumber tariffs of previous decade were much higher, yet there was prosperity.

    3) Foreign trade was 1% of GDP in 1929

    "We can't tax imports cuz it'll cause a depression" is a myth. We financed the government for the first 150 years on taxing trade and did fine. We don't tax imports and now we have a depression.

    They myth is busted.

  110. Re:Government is the problem, not the solution by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

    In what way does this counter my argument that the dust bowl was a Government created problem?

    You haven't argued that. You've argued that the Government contributed toward the problem and ignored everything else. Why did you do that? The Dust Bowl was caused by a combination of factors:

    (1) Great Depression causing desperate farmers to seek to regain losses sometimes at the expense of land management, often requiring extensive loans;

    (2) Competition from larger farming enterprises which also did not care for land management (being especially badly understood on a large scale), in turn resulting in overproduction driving down prices;

    (3) An unusual spate of bad weather, i.e. three waves of drought through the '30s;

    (4) Inability to subsist and keep up with loan payments due to (1), (2) and (3). A temporary move to the city usually meant repossession, with Federal emergency aid being limited.

    Franklin D. Ulyanov rudely stepped on the toes of the cutting edge soil researchers working for (2), commencing soil conservation programmes which started to make a difference by the late '30s.

    Small farms are forced to sell farms because of the death tax. Do you have something to debate these points with?

    Well, I don't disagree that the US tax system is far harsher on the small landowner than the big landowner. But they'd lost their land/house/equipment to the bank long before that would have become a worry in this case.

  111. In China, a company don't have the lawsuits... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that occur when a worker gets injured. In the US the cost is staggering. A major cost of doing business in the US is not just labor, but legal and insurance, along with health care. Overall, the cost of building a widget in the US is similar than in China. The differences are the other factors that do not exist in a Communist country.

  112. Re:Government is the problem, not the solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know how you fucking retards manage to post this shit without feeling completely fucking embarrassed for showing the whole world how fucking stupid you are. Yeah, 13-year olds are fanfuckingtastic when left on their own with no supervision or guidance. Couldn't someone in the fucking school watch out for me? Fuck no! Could someone fix the fucking scheduling problem in a matter of minutes fuck no! And what was there to do in that fucking town? Could I get a job? Fuck no! There was a fucking 20% jobless rate for people under retirement age. The fast-food joints wouldn't even talk to you if didn't have a fucking diploma. Why was alcohol so much harder to get than illegal drugs? Nobody ever brought any to school, but they had all kinds of other shit. God fucking dammit you do a good job at proving my point.

  113. trade by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    The government has made it illegal for the American worker to compete. What is 'free' about that.

    I have said many tymes there is no free market or free trade. Can you point out when I said we do have them?

    Falcon

    1. Re:trade by scamper_22 · · Score: 1

      Well then maybe you shouldn't condemn millions of private sector workers to poverty just for some crusade of global trade.

    2. Re:trade by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      You must be trolling, putting all these words I never said in my mouth.

      Falcon

  114. Haven't heard of a tariff, now have you? by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Haven't you heard of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act? When the US passed it in 1930 other nations passed their own protectionist laws. That made the Great Depression worse than it would have been.

    And yes, I do support getting rid of a lot of the free trade stuff (NAFTA, etc.) and imposing more tariffs.

    And no, NAFTA is not and never was free trade. If you want to complain about NAFTA complain about how because of the billions of dollars agricultural businesses receive in farm subsidies they are allowed to dump corn in Mexico cheaper than Mexican farmers can grow corn.

    Falcon

    1. Re:Haven't heard of a tariff, now have you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, I'd equally get rid of the corn subsidies. There's no need for them.

  115. Nobody wins tradewars.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except for maybe the Ferrengi

  116. Free Trade and the reduction of Tarriffs by blackdropbear · · Score: 1

    In Australia we have free trade agreements with China, Thailand etc etc. The net effect has been Chinese and Thai companies buying our companies up. Closing them down. Shipping the machinery across to their country and restarting the manufacturing there and then sending the finished products back to Australia. As a result we have stuff all low paid jobs left in the major cities where the youth have nowhere to get basic work skills except as waiters and waitresses at the restaurants the execs dine in. In the meantime to make our economy work we dig up iron ore and ship it overseas in it's raw state to be turned into steel. We also dig up the coal to ship overseas to turn that iron ore into steel. We convert gas into liquid to ship overseas to power the factories which send us the goods made with our old machinery. The ships that run overseas in some cases used to be Australian ships which we sold overseas to be reflagged in Panama etc to ship the same goods with foreign crews and less stringent safety.Because we have no pathways for the younger generations to learn trades we instead import people (many of them from those same foreign countries) to do the work on our mines in the semi-skilled and skilled areas. Occasionally we allow areas of our country (Gorgon gas fields) to be classed as 'offshore' so that the companies doing the work there don't have to employ Australian residents/visa holders or even pay Australian wages. You could probably point to many examples in England, Ireland, Europe etc etc. Any so called industrialised nation is in the process of busily de-industrialising at the behest of some sort of theoretical belief by bunches of economists who have never lived in the real world. Free Trade does not exists except in the deluded depths of economists minds and as such what countries should be looking at is how best to maximise trade while minimising the HARM it does to their own people.

  117. We have lost a great many jobs by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    And to raise import tariffs will cause many more jobs to be lost. Caterpiller, General Electric, and other businesses employ thousands of workers, about one in five. And they depend on exports. "Caterpillar sells China some of its most sophisticated, and therefore expensive, American-made equipment, including giant bulldozers, large mining trucks and gas turbines." GE has been providing the turbines for China's Three Gorges Dam. They, and their employees, can say goodbye to their exports.

    Falcon

  118. Why not simply ban all international trade? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    Surely that would create lots of jobs.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    1. Re:Why not simply ban all international trade? by winwar · · Score: 1

      Well, that's one way to become energy independent. However, I don't want to be around when our economy collapses from losing the bulk of our petroleum supply....

  119. Too late by Wansu · · Score: 1

    This is like shutting the barn door after the horse has run off. Where the hell has Andy Grove been for the past quarter century? He liked "free trade" while he was doing well. Now he doesn't think so much of it. Newsflash Andy: the damage is done. Most of the electronic industry was airmailed to China in the 90s. Plants were shuttered, supply chains dismantled and expertise scattered.

    The "chain of experience" is a dim memory. Most who knew how to manufacture electronics are nearing retirement age. Well into my 50s, I'm probably one of the youngest engineers you'll find who has significant transformer design experience.

    Semiconductor foundries like TI, Harris and other began offshoring their operations 4 years ago. Now suddenly Andy Grove is looking around and finding he has few competitors still in the US. He's not finding as many new engineering grads to staff his operation with. He has extrapolated this trend to it's logical conclusion and doesn't like what he sees. Well, Andy, I came to that conclusion 20 years ago. I was shouted down by the likes of you and other libertarian fools.

    Take a good, long look at Detroit. That is what's in store for all of the United States.

    --
    Wansu, th' chinese sailor
  120. WOW. I have a new respect for intel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't know if this is the right thing to do or not, because some of you have brought up very good arguments about how it would actually do harm, not good. But I gotta say, at least he's talking about it and trying to do SOMETHING. Just the fact that there is discussion about it opens the possibility for positive change. This coming from an INTEL dude... right on man ! I no longer have a preference for AMD cpus over intel, and I buy A LOT of cpu's... it just a drop in the bucket really.. but I'm really impressed by the fact that he said anything at all.. so cool man..... so cool !!

  121. Israel saved Intel's bacon by BroncoInCalifornia · · Score: 1

    Intel had a disaster with the P4 "Prescott" desktop processor. It was such a power hog the AMD desktop chips were much better. Then Intel did the right turn and based everything on the mobile architecture out of Israel.

    By the way -- Andy Grove was the only Intel executive who was not full of ---- when he talked.

    --

    Religion is the main cause of atheism.

  122. The Right Entity for The Right Stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Since it's international, half of the tax should go to the U.N. - to be used to supervise and act to improve worker's rights and working conditions all over the world. Not just in the U.S.

    Ditto for education. Then, offshoring will become less attractive. Or equally attractive. The best - most educated, prepared, efficient, experient, and up-to-date labor will be hired, irrespective of where they live. Or were born. Or how long their pony-tails are.

    And the U.N. could receive other international taxes, as well. It's annual budget is twice what the G20's one week in Candada cost - monetarily. The social and civil costs are astronomical and exponential. The political fallout is going to be sour the fasci.... er, "conservative" ballot box and stain the public consciousness for decades.

    And I'm not sure we even have Casblanca, anymore.

  123. Consumption taxes are regressive. by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Why should a poor person pay a greater percentage of his income as tax then a rich man?

    On the contrary, the poor should be consuming less not more than the wealthy. The poor should be investing their money to improve their economics, by say going to school and getting trained then by investing some of the new money they're making. Ask yourself, how did the wealthy who did not have their wealth handed to them on a silver platter earn it? They earned it by working for it. By struggling to get an education or pinching pennies to invest.

    Better tax system:
    Everyone gets $X government check, this replaces all other government handouts. Everyone gets it.

    Oh, come on. You can't really be seriously suggesting this. Government handing a couch potato the same amount of money as someone who breaks their backs in construction or the one who spends 4, 6, or 8 years in college to get a degree before getting a job. If a person can sit there watching TV all day why would they work? And why should I, you, or anyone else, support them?

    Falcon

  124. Protectionist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sorry, was it the US that was complaining about the protectionist policies of other countries?

  125. And by mahadiga · · Score: 1

    Due to Globalization, America is saturated and will be inhabited by people who will live on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_income

    --
    I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
  126. Re:Government is the problem, not the solution by bennomatic · · Score: 1

    Heh; great write-up. The gov't is truly damned if they do--we don't want a @#$% nanny government--and damned if they don't--that crappy school didn't help me enough! Wahh!

    Hate to say it, but you know who fucked up? The AC's parents. They should have made damn sure he got in class and prevented this whole tragedy.

    --
    The CB App. What's your 20?
  127. No, we should move into the future... by beachdog · · Score: 1

    Fascinating Andy Grove discussion.

    But the shift of manufacturing offshore happened because an American worker is $20 an hour and an offshore worker is $.50 to $5 per hour.

    Why don't we look at other dimensions of the American and "western" industrial system that we can twiddle to help move into the future?

    By "twiddle" I mean something like this: change the velocity of consumption to 1/3 or 1/5 by increasing the lifetime of consumer products by a factor of 3x or 5x.

    Stipulating a longer the lifetime for a product pushes a lot of changes in directions appropriate for the future: less waste, less trash, less CO2 emission, more value as an asset and less value as an expense. For long lifetime items, the original factory has a relatively smaller economic place.

    Funny, how I got this idea. I have noticed a change in the failure modes of coffee makers that parallels the shift of manufacturing to China. The older domestic coffee makers would blow a thermal fuse. Radio shack sells replacements. The last two imported coffee makers failed with sophisticated unrepairable open circuits that developed a few months after the warranty expired. I think there are some very smart Chinese manufacturing engineers tuning their products for a specific life duration.

  128. Labor law evasion is like tax evasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Labor law evasion is just like tax evasion, and that is exactly what large corporations are doing when they offshore their labor costs

  129. Re:Grove is correct. with no CPU production here. by SirRedTooth · · Score: 1

    I think he is referring to the USA rather than his own company. His excuse for using offshore labour is that he needs to do it to remain competitive. When are people going to realise that countries don't matter that much any more in the 21st century. We are all part of the same community and we all benefit from advanced in technology wherever they happen.

  130. rice by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    U.S grown rice doesn't even meet my fucking standards.

    You're getting the wrong rice. Try wild rice from Minnesota. That or other wild rices.

    Falcon

  131. Re:Government is the problem, not the solution by IhateMonkeys · · Score: 1

    You are obviously a card-carrying union shill. Unions have outlived their usefullness. We have realized the errors of ways and now have LAWS which prohibit child labor, unsafe working conditions, etc. That shit just wont happen anymore. If you are a union member you are obviously paid more than your education, experience and aptitude should dictate. Unions have inflated wages to an unsustainable level.
    Take for example the UAW http://www.uaw.org/node/287 and here http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070924073107AAuGk8O. Average straight wage of a UAW assembler is $27.81 per hour. $54,000 a year to assemble cars? And that doesn't include overtime. That's bullshit. How about $103,000 a year to operate a forklift? Probably with only a high school diploma. WTF?

    No wonder you blow a wad in your jeans over unions. You are scared shitless of getting paid what your labor is actually worth.

    This is about paying reasonable wages for your labor. Including keeping wages high enough to earn a decent living, and low enough that Im not getting poked in the ass when I buy a car.

    I'm certainly not Ebenzeezer but thanks for trying.

  132. Perhaps free trade has gone too far. by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Free trade hasn't gone anywhere, we don't have free trade. Or free markets. If we did bad banks would have been allowed, or forced, to declare bankruptcy or be bought out. AIG would be gone. The same with Detroit auto makers. Then better run companies would have risen to the top.

    Falcon

  133. Re:Government is the problem, not the solution by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    You're forgetting that many of the people who moved off the farms did so because they were forced out by corporate take-overs.

    Not more than 200 years ago, and immigration from rural to urban settings were happening then. Your charge that corporations forced people to move fails.

    Falcon

  134. WOW someone thinks like me by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

    I believe that some manufacturing jobs can be exported, but it should be prohibited from exporting designs and technology that can result in loss of domestic jobs. When you take away domestic jobs, you take away the opportunity for purchases of your product. You actually lower the average standard of living, in the originating country (USA). In fact, the USA is today much poorer then it was before BUSH and Global manufacturing. Others have brains. No country has exclusivity on knowledge. So, Intel says it should be taxed. What should be taxed are the bosses, and not the shareholders.

    --
    Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
  135. TVs.. by blueman80 · · Score: 1

    Not sure if anyone mentioned this, but Grove's example of TVs is incorrect. Our TV industry imploded not because TV became a commodity - it was because the Japanese made higher quality, more innovative, more efficient, and cheaper televisions. That war was over in the 70s and 80s, and had nothing to do with outsourcing/offshoring. It had to do with American companies being out-innovated by the Japanese. That also undermines his argument about batteries - again, it had nothing to do with outsourcing. I think the basis of Grove's argument is faulty.

  136. Not an inconsistent message. by vovin · · Score: 1

    Had a few this weekend but I think you peeps don't really understand world finance. Simple fact is that the US isn't even close to competitive in the world market when it comes to finance, holding earnings, inventment in r&d, and running a corporation.
    The real solution is to end corporate welfare (fat fsck'ing chance) and lowering the effective tax burden to 20% or less -- the competition is at 10% effective flat taxation.
    In reality there is no flat tax jurisdiction. Even HK is tax free for your first 16000 USD (single) 30000 USD (with dependent) and there is *no* VAT or sales tax on top.
    As a comparison the US tax rate starts at 5000 (federal) + state tax + city tax + property tax + with state sales tax (3-10% for most of the country). For most of the software writing and hardware designing workforce we are at 50+% effective tax burden. So at the end of the day a US citizen/resident is so tax burdened our 'socialist' neighbors [Canada, Europe] are taxed far less than us, of course many of them can't make the same raw income numbers ... but it's what we can spend that counts, right?
    Now Asia where taxation is still sane ... how to compete? Yeah, I know, most of us are running around with the wacky ideas that Asia hasn't changed in 30 (or 50) years, but it has. The infrustructure, wealth and ideas in Asia today leave the US hard pressed to compete on a level playing field. And it's not a level playing field. The US is behind on just about everything but work ethinc. We work 80 hard hours when Asia sit's on their collective ass for 50-60 of those same hours. And that's it. We charge 100x more for 3-5x the productivity and that just doesn't balance out at the end of the day.
    Of course in most of Asia I can maintain my standarnd of living (or better) for 1/3 of the income (which comes to 10x the income for 10x the productivity) works out. Unfortunatly the tax reverses the mess so now I make 5x the wage for 10x the productivity. Ouch.
    There are many ways to slice and dice the mess; I see it as:
      - kill corporate welfare
      - drop the effective tax burden
      - drop the entitlement programs
      - restore competition.
    If we do it on our schedule it will be much less painful that when it is done when we have no choice. The list really isn't optional, it will happen in less than 10 years. period. no choices. if we do it intentionally then the middle class will retain some wealth and/or maintain it's existance.
    I honestly believe that the middle class the the US is doomed because we/they don't, won't or can't exercise the power to push this agenda forward.

  137. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All of that is fine if you intend to sell your product mainly to the people producing your offshore product - indeed, that is the responsible thing to do.
    If you intend to sell your product mainly to people in your own country - sorry, you're too late to feed off of the carcass of the American economy.
    Offshoring worked when only a few companies performed offshoring. At this point there aren't enough Americans to buy your product to support your transition to a big business, because the pay difference between Americans and Chinese drops by the month.
    The problem with businesses nowadays is that they don't think about the environment they are in. They act like the environment (i.e. the economy, income of consumers, etc...) will not be affected by their actions, because the market will absorb everything they do. Guess what - the "invisible hand" of the market is now coming to bear, by reducing the price that can be paid for products because people don't make enough to pay for them. Hope you enjoy living overseas - because soon you will have to move somewhere cheaper so that you can live on the profits at the new price-point for your product.

  138. War is not a safe buiseness by S3D · · Score: 1

    'If the result is a trade war,' Grove advises, 'treat it like other wars -- fight to win.'"

    War is a risky business, that's why it's called war. Trade war is no exception. How about infuriated China dumping 900 billions worth US treasure notes? US already have couple of wars on its hands, which are not going spectacularly well, do it need another one?

  139. Move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the labor/money doesn't come to you

    go to the labor/money.

    I used to work for a subsidiary of emerson manufacturing generators- of 330 people at the company there are maybe 170 left. Those jobs- Good jobs mind you- may never return. And when or If they do, it is going to cost an awful lot of money to find the people who know how to operate and build the things that they used to

    I graduated in May, of 30 people in my graduating class of Mechanical Engineers, 4 currently have jobs-- what does that tell you -- A job that used to demand $60,000 or equivalent right out of school gets you nothing now, A degree that back in the 60's was "the shit" I looked for 3 months in the states leading up to graduation.. All I ever got was an automated e-mail telling me no and to "not e-mail back" WTF.. for the $100K + that we pay HR managers I would hope that one of them could actually give me a phone call in appriciation for my efforts.

    I am one of those lucky 4- What did I do? I moved, To the Cayman Islands... why? because I can take a lot less pay for the advantage on taxes- I pay no federal, State, SS or Medicare here. which I consider a $20,000 incentive to what I could make in the states. - So if I can make 40K here - it all kind of evens out, If I can work here- Over the internet- for a company or individual in the states or elsewhere and charge 2/3 of the prevailing rate it will be easy for me to get business. If I can make more- well now thats all the better.. now what does this do to the prevailing rate...

    So, the point of all this. it is absolutely imperative that The United States becomes more globally competitive, there is no stopping the Inflow or outflow of talent and money. If the cost of business increases, people will move- there is no stopping that. Everybody loves the free market-- well that is until the prevailing rate of labor decreases.. then they demand regulation.. in the end- they are still disadvantaged.

    If the jobs are no longer in the united states MOVE

  140. Because many of them.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .... work, directly or indirectly, with the militay industry, that seems to engulf everything in the US.

  141. Blah, blah, blah. Back to the real world .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... you still have the guy in India or China that can do the same that you do for a fraction of the cost.

    People in the Western World should be planning for that reality, not wishing that CEOs will become humanists all of the sudden (people in rich countries contribute to this: by buying based only on price, they favour produce from cheap loactions, and why people should do any ddifferently?)

    Workes in rich countries may be great contributors to a company, the reality is that if you are paid 5 to 10 times more than somebody else doing the same, the allure to move your function elsewhere is unavoidable, even if your company is caring.

  142. Cry me a river. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those fairy tale jobs in the US in the 50s were financied by the misery of other peoples elsewhere.

    Now that those peoples are joining the economic party the US economy (and those of other rich countries) will be scaled back down to a more realistic size, unless you think that the 1/3rd of humanity in CHina and India can continue to lead substandard lives while people in the West gorge in wasteful consumerism (if people in rich countries scaled back on spending, from the food that make them over fat, to more energy efficient cars and homes, they would realize that they can earn less and still lead a fairly comfortable life, the problem is that rich people, but particularly the US, want to continue wasting resources and living in debt, without suffering any of the natural consequences that such reckless attitude would ensure. Folks, the good times of economical irresponsibility at the personal an d national level will not be back, so scale back your spending down, which will make you more competitive, or suffer the consequences).

  143. Where is the bias? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work for a company with HQs in the US, and the amount of red tape one has to deal with is pretty much in line with what this Romanian chap has described.

    Sorry to say, but many jobs in US based companies have become dead weight and their only function is to keep people in the payroll that would otherwise have to go.

  144. Yes-- room mates can drive you crazy. by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    They can do more, one I had left me more than $1000 in debt, and that was more than 15 years ago.

    I do not even have any live in girlfriends. I could do that at one time but now I've been a bachelor too long.

    I never had a live-in girlfriend though I'm not opposed to it. While in some ways I could handle having any roommate in other ways I think it will be much harder. Because of my disability I've been living in isolation and do little socializing. However I'm hoping to change that, in the next few weeks I hope to be starting a back to work program.

    Falcon

    1. Re:Yes-- room mates can drive you crazy. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Good Luck. You can find people who share your interests at meetup.com

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  145. In the future trade wars may be over ...NOTHING.. by cosmofur · · Score: 1

    Perhaps it IS time for a trade war. Because if we wait for china to start it, we may find it un-winnable. But lets also add something different to the mix. I think we're at the peek of 'world trade' and its going to soon decline for completely different reason than most expect. You see the day of the factory..even in china... is numbered. Large bulk items like Cars and Refrigerators will probably be coming out of factories for a while yet, but in 5-10 maybe 20 years on the outside, 3d printer like technology will make 'build at point of sale' or 'build on demand' technology common place. All the 'too cheap to make in the US' plastic junk you buy at Walmart will come not from a ship from China or Japan, but out of a 3d printer in the backroom of the store. If not your own personal one in your utility-room/kitchen. We should plan for a world were trade will drop perceptibly, and be mostly for bulk raw materials (and even that will be mostly the bulkier stuff like carbon and raw plastic, with only trace amounts of the more exotic metals needed) and luxury goods. Such a change will mean a lot of the relationships between ... well.. everyone will change. Future trade wars...in both directions...will be more about IP (Intellectual property) rather than PP (Physical property) But governments will also have to deal with 7-8 billion people who will need 'constructive' things to do with their time...or idle hands will find other, probably less sociable, activities to fill their time.

  146. Re:War is not a safe buiseness by cosmofur · · Score: 1

    War is a risky business, that's why it's called war. Trade war is no exception. How about infuriated China dumping 900 billions worth US treasure notes? US already have couple of wars on its hands, which are not going spectacularly well, do it need another one?

    True, and if it truly possible to avoid the war indefinitely then that the wisest policy.... BUT the status qua is not one that would avoid war. It's leading us more or less there. The question is when, not if. So we have two choices change the status qua so that it doesn't lead to war, or FIGHT that war in your own terms before the enemy sets their terms.

  147. You can find people who share your interests at by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    meetup.com

    Thanks. One place I was interested in is the Loft. However I went there years ago and it seems more for classes than simple writers meetings. In Florida I was a member of 3 writers groups, at the college I attended, at a Barnes and Noble, and at a public library. Each one was run differently but at all of them we could just talk or share what we were working on. I also attended meetings of other groups such as the local kingdom of the Society of Creative Anachronism, SCA. Speaking of which, I'm looking forward to the Renfest.

    Falcon

  148. And by mahadiga · · Score: 1

    I guess the root cause is privatizing profits and socializing losses.

    --
    I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga