Okay, I think a bit of perspective on this is necessary. This is a political decision, so how much is the 12% of the population within a political context?
Number of people pissed if there TV (from their perspective) suddenly stops working? approximately 33 million.
The difference in the national vote count between George W. Bush and John Kerry? about 3.5 million.
I don't care a politician is a Republican, Democrat or Other; if they turn-off the TVs of even a fraction of their constituents, they will lose their next election.
I think we all need to think a bit more about what "moving jobs overseas" actually means. Paul Krugman has an excellent analogy in one of his books:
Imagine an enterprising individual discovers a new method of manufacturing a widget. He produces them at half the cost (i.e. half the workforce) of all his competitors. He's hailed as a savior of the American widget industry. America is competitive again! Good jobs for those in the widget industry.
It is then discovered that said enterprising individual was actually shipping equipment to India, manufacturing them there, then shipping them back. Suddenly America is no longer competitive in widget making!
What changed? Not anything from the American perspective. Efficiency almost inescapably means less people are able to do more.
The question which we should all ask ourselves is: Why is efficiency good only when it involves exclusively Americans?
Slashdot Mirror
Number of people pissed if there TV (from their perspective) suddenly stops working? approximately 33 million.
The difference in the national vote count between George W. Bush and John Kerry? about 3.5 million.
I don't care a politician is a Republican, Democrat or Other; if they turn-off the TVs of even a fraction of their constituents, they will lose their next election.
I think we all need to think a bit more about what "moving jobs overseas" actually means. Paul Krugman has an excellent analogy in one of his books:
Imagine an enterprising individual discovers a new method of manufacturing a widget. He produces them at half the cost (i.e. half the workforce) of all his competitors. He's hailed as a savior of the American widget industry. America is competitive again! Good jobs for those in the widget industry.
It is then discovered that said enterprising individual was actually shipping equipment to India, manufacturing them there, then shipping them back. Suddenly America is no longer competitive in widget making!
What changed? Not anything from the American perspective. Efficiency almost inescapably means less people are able to do more.
The question which we should all ask ourselves is: Why is efficiency good only when it involves exclusively Americans?