You said you see no mention that jobs are going to China. I answered. Are you moving on from that?lowing wrote:
yes, but we were talking about China and their shady trading practices....Have we moved on from that? or is the whole world engaging in shady trading practices?Kmar wrote:
http://i.imgur.com/STaoV.jpglowing wrote:
I see no mention that these jobs are going to China.
IfI missed in your link where all those companies are sending jobs to CHina specifically I apologize. All I read is they are sending jobs overseas.Kmar wrote:
You said you see no mention that jobs are going to China. I answered. Are you moving on from that?lowing wrote:
yes, but we were talking about China and their shady trading practices....Have we moved on from that? or is the whole world engaging in shady trading practices?Kmar wrote:
http://i.imgur.com/STaoV.jpg
Last edited by lowing (2011-07-23 15:57:20)
you can have safety standards and OSHA, without raping the profits from the companies.FatherTed wrote:
i'd rather the US govt rape the companies to the point where their workers aren't in the kind of enviroment the counterpart worker in china is than have super cheap iphones
government rapes small business. government rewards big business. the raping you are talking about largely is focused on taxes levied on small and medium sized businesses. Many large companies that outsource their jobs either end up net winners of government money or their tax rate is an extremely low percentage of their total overall profit. If we were to shift that scale a tiny bit, we'd be better off as a whole.lowing wrote:
I have no problem with any company that sends their shit out to be put together. It is smart business. If govts. are going to rape companies so much than it actually becomes cheaper to build your factory halfway around the world and ship all of your shit so be it. Blame the govt. not the company.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
there's also some japanese and american made components in there too. but the fact is the product is not manufactured in the US - and the fact that manufacturing jobs are outsourced to outside countries where labor is cheaper and human rights/workers rights are lacking is something we should be worried about. It's a widely discussed topic that there is a direct correlation with the fall of American dominance and the outsourcing of american manufacturing jobs since the 1960s. This decreases the power of our economy and the value of the dollar as a whole. It means less money is circulated within the american economy. Add that to what Kmar said about the unfair compettition and unequal trade regulations in foreign countries and you can see where govenrment is in a position where it might need to step in. Japanese industry is heavily assissted from their governemnt. Personally I don't think the US can bear waiting until those standards of living rise higher than the associated costs of manufacturing outside of the country (things like customs duties and transit costs), which is why I advocate intelligent government intervention into international trade. Things like a local manufacturing subsidy would go very far in lowering unemployment and increasing spending into the economy. It sure as hell beats paying citizens and large agribusiness millions of dollars not to grow corn.
Another form of subsidy is stop taxing the fuck out of these companies. Get out of their pockets and let them make money here, that is what will bring jobs back here
There are no such thing as "American jobs." THere is only jobs that belong to a company, and they have the right to seek what the market will bare for labor (legally) to fill those positions. Blame unions as well.
not to the kind of degree to be able to compete with the east you can't.lowing wrote:
you can have safety standards and OSHA, without raping the profits from the companies.FatherTed wrote:
i'd rather the US govt rape the companies to the point where their workers aren't in the kind of enviroment the counterpart worker in china is than have super cheap iphones
I can buy that, but, if it is not govt. taxation and union bullshit that makes building factories half way around the world and shipping them home cheaper than building at home, what is?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
government rapes small business. government rewards big business. the raping you are talking about largely is focused on taxes levied on small and medium sized businesses. Many large companies that outsource their jobs either end up net winners of government money or their tax rate is an extremely low percentage of their total overall profit. If we were to shift that scale a tiny bit, we'd be better off as a whole.lowing wrote:
I have no problem with any company that sends their shit out to be put together. It is smart business. If govts. are going to rape companies so much than it actually becomes cheaper to build your factory halfway around the world and ship all of your shit so be it. Blame the govt. not the company.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
there's also some japanese and american made components in there too. but the fact is the product is not manufactured in the US - and the fact that manufacturing jobs are outsourced to outside countries where labor is cheaper and human rights/workers rights are lacking is something we should be worried about. It's a widely discussed topic that there is a direct correlation with the fall of American dominance and the outsourcing of american manufacturing jobs since the 1960s. This decreases the power of our economy and the value of the dollar as a whole. It means less money is circulated within the american economy. Add that to what Kmar said about the unfair compettition and unequal trade regulations in foreign countries and you can see where govenrment is in a position where it might need to step in. Japanese industry is heavily assissted from their governemnt. Personally I don't think the US can bear waiting until those standards of living rise higher than the associated costs of manufacturing outside of the country (things like customs duties and transit costs), which is why I advocate intelligent government intervention into international trade. Things like a local manufacturing subsidy would go very far in lowering unemployment and increasing spending into the economy. It sure as hell beats paying citizens and large agribusiness millions of dollars not to grow corn.
Another form of subsidy is stop taxing the fuck out of these companies. Get out of their pockets and let them make money here, that is what will bring jobs back here
There are no such thing as "American jobs." THere is only jobs that belong to a company, and they have the right to seek what the market will bare for labor (legally) to fill those positions. Blame unions as well.
Last edited by lowing (2011-07-23 16:08:58)
IS that what this is all about? Too much safety regulation? I don't think so, see the video above.FatherTed wrote:
not to the kind of degree to be able to compete with the east you can't.lowing wrote:
you can have safety standards and OSHA, without raping the profits from the companies.FatherTed wrote:
i'd rather the US govt rape the companies to the point where their workers aren't in the kind of enviroment the counterpart worker in china is than have super cheap iphones
its the cost of labor and regulations. China and other countries don't have as stringent environmental standards and safety standards. A factory making asbestos-based products couldn't run in the US, but could run in a country where the regulations are fare more lax.lowing wrote:
I can buy that, but, if it is not govt. taxation and union bullshit that makes building factories half way around the world and shipping them home cheaper than building at home, what is?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
government rapes small business. government rewards big business. the raping you are talking about largely is focused on taxes levied on small and medium sized businesses. Many large companies that outsource their jobs either end up net winners of government money or their tax rate is an extremely low percentage of their total overall profit. If we were to shift that scale a tiny bit, we'd be better off as a whole.lowing wrote:
I have no problem with any company that sends their shit out to be put together. It is smart business. If govts. are going to rape companies so much than it actually becomes cheaper to build your factory halfway around the world and ship all of your shit so be it. Blame the govt. not the company.
Another form of subsidy is stop taxing the fuck out of these companies. Get out of their pockets and let them make money here, that is what will bring jobs back here
There are no such thing as "American jobs." THere is only jobs that belong to a company, and they have the right to seek what the market will bare for labor (legally) to fill those positions. Blame unions as well.
Here is an example. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsEHYQ1Y4tM The UAW, was against this plant being built in the US.
Probably a lot of both. That Ford factory in Brazil is a perfect example. THe union rejected it because it was too efficient and might cost them jobs. What is a company in the business to make money supposed to say or do about that shit? Unions have been trying to stall progress forever. They expect a person to be paid MORE than what a machine can do more quickly and efficiently to do. If you wanna see real job loss, watch what happens to companies that caves in to that mentality and refuses to let technology and progress take hold in their companies.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
its the cost of labor and regulations. China and other countries don't have as stringent environmental standards and safety standards. A factory making asbestos-based products couldn't run in the US, but could run in a country where the regulations are fare more lax.lowing wrote:
I can buy that, but, if it is not govt. taxation and union bullshit that makes building factories half way around the world and shipping them home cheaper than building at home, what is?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
government rapes small business. government rewards big business. the raping you are talking about largely is focused on taxes levied on small and medium sized businesses. Many large companies that outsource their jobs either end up net winners of government money or their tax rate is an extremely low percentage of their total overall profit. If we were to shift that scale a tiny bit, we'd be better off as a whole.
Here is an example. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsEHYQ1Y4tM The UAW, was against this plant being built in the US.
China's still largely rural-based. The factory workers are mostly immigrants from the historically farming regions sending money back to support their family in those areas. They make little money, and most of it is sent home. Sure, the professionals in the cities like Shanghai and Hong Kong are making somewhat comparable money to their cohorts in the US, but the factory workers make far less. It's a sustainable living wage, barely, but the costs and standards of living in these manufacturing nations is massively lower than in the US. That's why companies seek these places out to outsource their manufacturing.
Last edited by cpt.fass1 (2011-07-23 18:06:56)
I do not recall reading about any McDonalds putting a local burger joint out of business. Now Walmart have put local stores out of business however. and what laws do you suggest are implemented to keep walmart from competing.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Big Business rapes Medium to smaller business by undercutting cost even if it's for a loss then putting them out of business then raising there prices when they're gone. Look at the value meals compaired to local burger joints. The government gives them tax breaks and incentives because they "MAKE" jobs, then they steal the local money making profits then leave because they can't make money anymore. So then the government has to start taxing them higher because they don't have the Income tax coming in anymore to survive, so the business start to pull out and destroy other countries.
Good fuck these corporate companies, lets get back to real America where they're isn't a chain store every block.
Anti-competition laws that stop monopolies forming.lowing wrote:
I do not recall reading about any McDonalds putting a local burger joint out of business. Now Walmart have put local stores out of business however. and what laws do you suggest are implemented to keep walmart from competing.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Big Business rapes Medium to smaller business by undercutting cost even if it's for a loss then putting them out of business then raising there prices when they're gone. Look at the value meals compaired to local burger joints. The government gives them tax breaks and incentives because they "MAKE" jobs, then they steal the local money making profits then leave because they can't make money anymore. So then the government has to start taxing them higher because they don't have the Income tax coming in anymore to survive, so the business start to pull out and destroy other countries.
Good fuck these corporate companies, lets get back to real America where they're isn't a chain store every block.
Nothing replaces a local burger joint, certainly not a McDonalds. Burger joints have a local fan base that no McDonalds is going to replace. Walmart however is a different story. I have lived all over the place over the years, and the local burger joints are doing just fine. Ifthey go out of business it is because they suck, not because McDonalds stole their customers.cpt.fass1 wrote:
How many local burger joints do you have around you now? Are you really saying that because you haven't read that mcdonalds puts local joints out of business that it doesn't?
It's a huge change from when I was younger and used to travel to other states for different things to now. Now when getting out of state it's feels like everything is a chain.
Even now it feels like the banks started to flex there muscles the same way walmart and other chains have. They loosened they're guidelines to a point where anyone can get money and when it started to go to shit they cried about how it was going to ruin the economy when they went out of business. Stole our money then actually tightened things down to keep the money funneling up. Trust me I know I was involved in that. Now look how many banks are popping up everywhere. Also once the Mortgage bubble burst they rode it out with the bouncing fees.
The money system only works on trust and right now as middle class to below citizens it's not really working too well for us. The whole world economy is based on this system so we're going to probably dry up with goods provided to us in the next year. But hey at least we still have American Idol.
Survival of the fittest is the way it should work. To impose laws to keep a company from growing or to protect one company and not another reeks of corruptionAussieReaper wrote:
Anti-competition laws that stop monopolies forming.lowing wrote:
I do not recall reading about any McDonalds putting a local burger joint out of business. Now Walmart have put local stores out of business however. and what laws do you suggest are implemented to keep walmart from competing.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Big Business rapes Medium to smaller business by undercutting cost even if it's for a loss then putting them out of business then raising there prices when they're gone. Look at the value meals compaired to local burger joints. The government gives them tax breaks and incentives because they "MAKE" jobs, then they steal the local money making profits then leave because they can't make money anymore. So then the government has to start taxing them higher because they don't have the Income tax coming in anymore to survive, so the business start to pull out and destroy other countries.
Good fuck these corporate companies, lets get back to real America where they're isn't a chain store every block.
Anti-collusion laws.
Anti predatory pricing laws.
ad nauseum.
All companies are protected. If MacDonalds started small against impossible odds, it would have been helped.lowing wrote:
Survival of the fittest is the way it should work. To impose laws to keep a company from growing or to protect one company and not another reeks of corruptionAussieReaper wrote:
Anti-competition laws that stop monopolies forming.lowing wrote:
I do not recall reading about any McDonalds putting a local burger joint out of business. Now Walmart have put local stores out of business however. and what laws do you suggest are implemented to keep walmart from competing.
Anti-collusion laws.
Anti predatory pricing laws.
ad nauseum.
We have anti monopoly laws in place. but how do you enact laws that ultimately favor one business over another? THat is not promoting competition it is promoting favoritism.AussieReaper wrote:
All companies are protected. If MacDonalds started small against impossible odds, it would have been helped.lowing wrote:
Survival of the fittest is the way it should work. To impose laws to keep a company from growing or to protect one company and not another reeks of corruptionAussieReaper wrote:
Anti-competition laws that stop monopolies forming.
Anti-collusion laws.
Anti predatory pricing laws.
ad nauseum.
You know the way a monopoly works. When a company is big enough, it charges exorbitant fees and the consumer has no choice in the market. This is as much about protecting the consumer as it is protecting businesses.
Competition should be promoted. And I think you agree on that, but allowing monopolies and oligopolies to reign supreme actually deminishes competition.
Actually, my iPhone is a very high quality product. I could go through sone specs but it's a bit OT. Apple don't make cheap plastic shite though, far from it.lowing wrote:
I thought Apple was an American company, along with intel and microsoft. all the little shit that makes your iphone an iphone. Apple is a Chinese company? Ok I stand corrected. Cheap plastic slapped together in China makes an iphone Chinese.Poseidon wrote:
Most (if not all) Apple products are created by Foxconn in China. Just because they were designed in California does not mean they were made there. If a car is designed in a room in Texas, but assembled by a factory in Detroit, that doesn't mean it was made in Texas.lowing wrote:
invented, developed, refined, everywhere else, slapping it together in china does not make it chinese.........does it?
Promoting smaller businesses to increase competition shouldn't be classed as favouritism, when clearly they are the businesses that need assistance.lowing wrote:
We have anti monopoly laws in place. but how do you enact laws that ultimately favor one business over another? THat is not promoting competition it is promoting favoritism.AussieReaper wrote:
All companies are protected. If MacDonalds started small against impossible odds, it would have been helped.lowing wrote:
Survival of the fittest is the way it should work. To impose laws to keep a company from growing or to protect one company and not another reeks of corruption
You know the way a monopoly works. When a company is big enough, it charges exorbitant fees and the consumer has no choice in the market. This is as much about protecting the consumer as it is protecting businesses.
Competition should be promoted. And I think you agree on that, but allowing monopolies and oligopolies to reign supreme actually deminishes competition.
So what do you do for the start up business who is trying to compete with the small business who already operates with 50 people? and why should the 50 employee small business sit back and EXPECT to lose customer base and market share, and suffer stifled growth all in an effort for the govt. to prop up another business to promote equal results as opposed to equal opportunity?AussieReaper wrote:
Promoting smaller businesses to increase competition shouldn't be classed as favouritism, when clearly they are the businesses that need assistance.lowing wrote:
We have anti monopoly laws in place. but how do you enact laws that ultimately favor one business over another? THat is not promoting competition it is promoting favoritism.AussieReaper wrote:
All companies are protected. If MacDonalds started small against impossible odds, it would have been helped.
You know the way a monopoly works. When a company is big enough, it charges exorbitant fees and the consumer has no choice in the market. This is as much about protecting the consumer as it is protecting businesses.
Competition should be promoted. And I think you agree on that, but allowing monopolies and oligopolies to reign supreme actually deminishes competition.
Local businesses hire local staff and are often family run businesses. How do you expect them to compete with a company like Amazon or MacDonalds?
I don't think you understand what a monopoly is. A small business with 50 people is not a monopoly. But those small businesses competing with a company that operates throughout many states for example, deserves incentives to hire local, produce local and remain active in the industry, rather than be gobbled up but a large chain.lowing wrote:
So what do you do for the start up business who is trying to compete with the small business who already operates with 50 people? and why should the 50 employee small business sit back and EXPECT to lose customer base and market share, and suffer stifled growth all in an effort for the govt. to prop up another business to promote equal results as opposed to equal opportunity?AussieReaper wrote:
Promoting smaller businesses to increase competition shouldn't be classed as favouritism, when clearly they are the businesses that need assistance.lowing wrote:
We have anti monopoly laws in place. but how do you enact laws that ultimately favor one business over another? THat is not promoting competition it is promoting favoritism.
Local businesses hire local staff and are often family run businesses. How do you expect them to compete with a company like Amazon or MacDonalds?
Even if the companies weren't taxed at all it would still be cheaper to manufacture in Asia, whats your plan for that?lowing wrote:
If govts. are going to rape companies so much than it actually becomes cheaper to build your factory halfway around the world and ship all of your shit so be it. Blame the govt. not the company.
