Put Your Job Where Your Mouth Is
I have been debating another blogger -- who claims to be "conservative" -- about outsourcing. She charges that American corporations that seek foreign workers for jobs that Americans can do are "committing treachery against the United States." She says that "companies that are lobbying to get immigration restrictions reduced [in order to find qualified candidates] are lamos." It ocurred to me during the exchange that much of the Bush baloney about "sacrifice" for the war implicates similar issues as outsourcing and I posed the following question: "if all the outsourcing to China is having a positive, democratizing effect on China, isn't that a positive thing? If you believe that America is 'sacrificing' and dying to bring democracy to Iraq, shouldn't Americans be willing to sacrifice their jobs in order to steer China away from communism?"
It's easy to be for war when you get to watch it from thousands of miles away on your La-z-boy. It's easy to advocate the wholesale slaughter of people when you have never met them and thus delude yourself about their humanity. But, it is not easy to be for capitalism when that threatens the very jobs to which Americans believe they are entitled.
Assuming that "free markets" are the panacea for the world's ills, shouldn't we, as Americans, support the free market in all its forms, which includes outsourcing? Or does that hit too close to home? Since the so-called "conservatives" are willing to send other peoples' children to die in war and remain unrepentant about the carnage in Iraq -- all in the name of democracy -- shouldn't they be thrilled that the exporting of jobs is empowering the Chinese people to demand reforms in their country? If you believe the stories about American companies pushing the Chinese factories to bring themselves up to American standards, doesn't that produce good in the world? The last alleged bulwark of communism, China, is changing politically and it didn't require $300 billion or mass slaughter to make it happen. China's evolution from a closed society to a vibrant capitalist society in the making should be a cause to rejoice.
If you are for the war, are you willing to really sacrifice for democracy or are you just blowing smoke?
posted by Intellectual Insurgent @ 6:14 PM
31 Comments
31 Comments:
ii,
Your getting comment spams. You need to turn on "Word Verification" to stop this.
BTW, I am for outsourcing and have lost my job to outsourcing. In fact I had a $200,000 per year job for 5 years that went away because of my job being replaced by two people from India making combined 100k per year.....And I trained them knowing they were replacing me. I didn't mind because I am a person who understands that if companies have lower costs, they can not only better compete domestically, but they can lower their price and provide me a cheaper product, which allows me more choices with my disposable income.
And as is supposed to happen, it make me look for something else and now I have my own company with 17 employees that I might not otherwise have.
FAR.
oops,
should be "made" mot "make"
:)
FAR.
You’re analysis brings the neo-con hypocrisy to the forefront. If democratization was the goal, there are far more efficient ways to go about it.
The fact of the matter is these idiots – sitting around in some large country club – theorized that all the Middle East needed was a good thrashing and a subsequent “proper example” and they’d be on their way to democracy. I honestly don’t think much more thought than that was put into their plans: and we see the results.
There was a lot of thought that went into it.
First and foremost was the fear that the death-happy Wahabists would get nukes from Saddam. Their reasoning was sound...He would move certian big trucks just before the inspectors would be given permission to inspect that area. He had been warned 14, (not positive on this number), other times to cooperate, and all the libs could say was "keep giving him more chances with no consequences", yea, right it sounds like liberal parents thinking you can reason with kids without holding them accountable with consequences. They say, "I want to be a friend first and a parent second.", sorry it doesn't wrok.
FAR.
The real answer is for us to get rid of our addiction on oil. Instead of drilling more and refining more we need to put much more effort into Nuclear Power, (Oh, I forgot some owl might be displaced), and at some price point other forms of fuel become viable.
FAR.
BTW,
Japan turned out pretty good after we got rid of their dictator.
Democracies never have attacked other Democracies in the history of our planet.
So, as long as we were in favor of "regime change", (made policy by Clinton), then we might as well replace him with a Democracy. Makes sense to most people with an ounce of common sense.
FAR.
FAR -
Since I don't like the word verif. on other blogs, I am holding out to do it on mine.
I am so impressed by your support of outsourcing. If you decide to read The World Is Flat, by Tom Friedman, you are one of the Americans who will thrive in the flat world, who is capable of competing against a greater pool of people. When are you going to give up your wayward Republican ways and come to the real right wing? :-)
We fundamentally disagree on the reasons for war, so I will not go through that discussion again. However, I think that the notion that remedying our dependence on oil is the answer is only a very small part of the picture. Think about what big employers and profit-makers companies like Raytheon, Northrup-Grumman, etc. are because of turmoil in the world. The U.S. is the world's biggest arms and WMD dealer because the industry keeps a large part of the Southern California economy moving. If there was world peace, there would be a lot of engineers out of work and a lot of stock portfolios that dive in value. We don't need to look far to figure out on that Bush prefers to protect his stock than peace.
10 28 05
Hello II:
You are so cruel and wonderful! I actually thought a bunch about what you said last night and just completed a post about it. I bring up some valid points you mentioned so come visit if you wish!
10 28 05
Oh one more thing:
II I didn't mention anything about the war in Iraq in our discussion to my knowledge. One reason why is because I have a fundamentally different view on the war and don't believe that it should have happened. I don't think it makes sense to wage wars on two separate fronts EVER! Also about China, I never really advocated that outsourcing to China produces a democratizing affect at all; I have heard that although they make more money their quality of life is greatly diminished and they work longer hours. Frankly, I have researched outsourcing and different perspectives on it. From what I gather, companies do so to reduce overhead because the cost of doing business here is prohibitive. I believe that we should remove the impediments to these businesses flourishing here and outline some points to do so. I do think that China has a lot of potential and is opening up its doors, but the situation is so complex due to their structure of governance and I actually feel that great care must be taken when dealing with the Chinese for that reason. I understand that there was some beef between Google and Microsoft over a Chinese businessmans acumen and intellectual property so...
Hey Mahndisa,
I know we weren't talking about the war. It's our discussion about outsourcing that got me thinking about all the implications of outsourcing, including the principles about the war. I don't mean to be cruel and I have enjoyed our discussions.
How are you anti-war and so supportive of so many insane pro-war blow-hards?
ii,
The sad thing is that both the Libs and some of the R's believe that jobs are more important than principals.
True Free Market Conservatives don't thik that way.
I am a Ultra-Conservative first and a Republican second.
I will stay with the R's because I see liberalism as the greatest threat to freedom this country has ever seen. Liberalism leads to Communism, and Communism leads to a Dictatorship or at least a loss of most of our freedom and leaving the R's would help the Liberals advance their agenda.
Economic Freedom is necessary for a free society. The liberals are somewhat libertarian in social freedoms but Communistic in their Economic Freedoms.
Re-distribution of the wealth is a Communistic doctrine. Make everyone equally poor is all they want, as long as their are no poor people, it doesn't matter to them that you might destroy the economy in trying to get their with all of their "transfer payments."
FAR.
I should have said "make everyone a little above being poor is all they want."
FAR.
10 28 05
"Hey Mahndisa,
I know we weren't talking about the war. It's our discussion about outsourcing that got me thinking about all the implications of outsourcing, including the principles about the war. I don't mean to be cruel and I have enjoyed our discussions.
How are you anti-war and so supportive of so many insane pro-war blow-hards?"
Ah, there you have it II. Who have I said I supported? I usually DON'T make such statements. I have said that I like Janice Rogers Brown and Clarence Thomas due to their legal opinions and interpretations of the Constitution. Here is an article I wrote and the perspective is a bit different than what I have seen elsewhere:
http://mrigmaiden.blogspot.com/2005/09/rehnquistians-browns-and-thomases.html
I did a post on who was the Best conservative president and said I liked the fiscal conservatism of Clinton, the Rough Riders of Teddy Roosevelt and ironically the spending under Mr. Reagan that assisted in bringing down The Wall. I am not a Republican or a Democrat; I have voted independently for eight years. So, I support many conservative IDEALS, but haven't outlined many politicians who embody that philosophy because frankly there are very few. We have many oligarchists but very few conservatives...
Free Agency Rules:
Have you heard of an oligarchy?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+oligarchy
This is what our society is heading towards UNLESS we balance socialist concepts with Adam Smith Wealth of Nations type concepts. A true communist state NEVER works because it trumps on human ambition; but a TRULY FREE MARKET never works because it creates a marginalized underclass with no power!
Here in the US, we try to balance this out. We subsidize certain industries to keep things a flowin' such as agriculture. Do you want the government to remove the assistance it provides to aggies? Do you see my point? We don't live in a completely free market and probably never will due to the "tyranny of the majority" ideal. So the issue is how to balance the NOTION of a free market with the tyranny of the majority ideal in mind. I think that the US does the BEST job of this around the world, but still we have too big of a safety net and too many impediments for Americans to do business in the States. By removing these impediments, that is sound business NOT protectionism. And yes Free Agency, I am a conservative but more centrist than anything else. I can admit when someone makes valid points, just as II can. You shd open up your mind!
10 28 05
Hello II:
One more thing. I write of ethics within the business community and have advocated that American companies need to look out for American consumers. YOu have said that it is not the corporations obligation to do so. While I concur, I still believe that such an attitude would lead to a greater symbiosis between consumers and businesses. To see what I mean, check out Walmarts new advocacy plan:
http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/25/news/fortune500/walmart_wage/
They are lobbying to raise the minimum wage, so they can keep thier customer base AND exercise some compassion for the average American. If they continue to do things like this, they will have an unwaivering customer base and that is significant in the competitive world of markets!
Mahndisa,
Here is a link to a real conservative's take on the Wal-Mart issue.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/wal-mart-state.html
American companies are looking out for the American consumer when they produce in China, thus being able to offer cheaper products. A DVD player won't sell for $50 at Wal-Mart if an American makes it.
There is an inherent tension between being a consumer and laborer. Stopping outsourcing isn't going to resolve that. You are proposing that Americans continue to get their cake and eat it too and you can't have it both ways.
I wasn't referring to judges you support. I was referring to some of the blogs to which you link.
Agricultural subsidies are no different than welfare. You want a smaller safety net, but you think subsidies are okay? That is a HUGE contradiction. Welfare is welfare, no matter what you call it.
BombsOverBaghdad: We collectively have no idea what it is to be poor. We truly don't have any poor in the United States; we have the drunk, the drugged, the mental cases, the purposely anti-social, the misfits, the in-between-jobbers, the lazy, the unmotivated and the stupid.
Our poor have cell phones. They have chains around their necks. They have a 1975 Toyota Corolla. Or a bicycle. You want a view of poverty, my friend? Check out most any country in Africa. How do I know? BTDT, BOB.
Mahndisa,
said: "TRULY FREE MARKET never works because it creates a marginalized underclass with no power!"
Where have you seen a TRULEY FREE MARKET? I don't think we have ever seen such a thing.
BOB,
A little bit of legal larcany is still wrong. Taking from those who have earned it, and giving to those who haven't is stealing even when the government uses the power of voting to do it. In order to be a provider, the government must first be a "taker." And taking is just another word for stealing.
So, let me get this straight, a little stealing is a good thing?
The Constitution allows for taxes only for a very few things. Fire, Police, and other things that protect our freedom. No where in the Constitution does it authorize legal plunder.
I am sorry, but too me principals are more important than stealing for a good cause.
Caring for the poor is an individual responsibility not one that we should transfer to the government. That is shirking our duty and encouraging our police powers to steal based upon selective punishment by amount of wages. Talk about discrimination, the more you have the more the Socialists/Communists want to punish you.
Well said Bloviating Zepplin!
FAR.
II you asked Since the so-called "conservatives" are willing to send other peoples' children to die in war and remain unrepentant about the carnage in Iraq -- all in the name of democracy -- shouldn't they be thrilled that the exporting of jobs is empowering the Chinese people to demand reforms in their country?
You know that the Iraq war is only killing middle and lower class kids and brown people however exporting jobs is really important that's about money.
II you asked Since the so-called "conservatives" are willing to send other peoples' children to die in war and remain unrepentant about the carnage in Iraq -- all in the name of democracy -- shouldn't they be thrilled that the exporting of jobs is empowering the Chinese people to demand reforms in their country?
You know that the Iraq war is only killing middle and lower class kids and brown people however exporting jobs is really important that's about money.
Again, I am for exporting jobs and so are most "true" conservatives.
Free Market is the best economics, even if it cost me my job, which it did.
Most libs want to bring home the troops right now so that the terrorists can bring home the war to us. That way they can blame that on Bush too.
:)
FAR.
Keeping the fight from coming here? That is hardly what Iraq is about. By that logic, if the Iraq war is keeping the U.S. safe from attacks, there would be no need for the PATRIOT Act because we would have no reason to worry about people doing things in the U.S. There would be no need to beef up the DHS, just the CIA.
Funny that it's the CIA that the Administration is fighting.
ii,
Very good logic as usual, but there is still room for a combination of our views.
They are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
We may still have to worry about a few of them who are home grown, but at least the ones that try to travel here see a much bigger priority over there.
Make sense?
FAR.
"I am a Ultra-Conservative first and a Republican second."
What a pompous blowhard - right wing poitics survives because it makes idiots feel important.
Where have you seen a Liberal Democracy turn Communist? When have you ever heard of a government surviving that supports only police and fire departments? Any such imaginary construct would fail in the direction of feudalism immediately.
You're not conservative, you're a utopian anarchist whose ideas make less sense than Karl Marx's utopian dream world does. All you're about is being a cheap bastard terrified of losing what you think the world owes you and arrogant enough to try to sell it as philosophy.
FAR: Interesting...
I'm trying to catch up so I only skimmed the last few comments, but here are some of my thoughts:
I don’t believe a lot of serious analysis went into the case for War… Particularly, I don’t believe that the administration honestly believed “Wahabists would get nukes from Saddam.” There were many dissenting voices as to the existence and ‘threat’ posed by Saddam’s supposed pursuit of WMD: this administration simply chose to ignore the voices it didn’t agree with.
As we know from Paul O’Neil and Richard Clarke, the administration was talking about taking out Saddam before 9/11… And was trying to find a link between 9/11 and Saddam the very next day.
This is a clear case of a policy in search of a justification.
Take General Anthony Zinni’s testimony before the Senate. If you don’t know, the 4-star was in charge of central command immediately before Tommy Franks (the general who prosecuted the war). He has since said said:
“We bombed him almost at will. No one in the region felt threatened by Saddam. No one in the region denied us our ability to conduct sanctions. Many countries joined us in sanctions enforcement, in the no-fly zones, and in the maritime intercept operations where we attempted to intercept his oil and gas smuggling…
And I think that will be the first mistake that will be recorded in history, the belief that containment as a policy doesn't work. It certainly worked against the Soviet Union, has worked with North Korea and others. It's not a pleasant thing to have to administer, it requires troops full-time, there are moments when there ... there are periods of violence, but containment is a lot cheaper than the alternative, as we're finding out now.”
We know the experts at the DOE said the aluminum tubes were unsuitable for use in a centrifuge…
We know that Saddam was NOT seeking Uranium from Africa.
Etc. etc.
To say that Iraq and Saddam didn’t “suffer consequences” is also wrong. He country was wrought with sanctions. His military was a shell of it’s former self (it used to be the 4th or 5th largest in the world). So, I do not agree with that analysis at all.
Addiction to oil: I agree – we need to build more nuclear plants. I’m a “liberal” – and who built the last nuclear plant in this country: Carter.
Regime change: Sure, that’s a great policy. But all policies have cost. The way in which this administration has administered that policy has cost 2000+ Iraqi, $250 billion, 10 or THOSANDS of Iraqi civilian lives, etc.
After we were told (by the VP) that we should expect to be greeted as ‘liberators’ … The scenario that has unfolded belies terrible decision making, a lack of planning and understanding and extremely flawed execution.
So even if I was to agree that ‘forced regime change via military force’ was a good idea, the execution of that policy has been carried out ineptly at every phase…
I won’t waste my or your time on your premise: “we’re fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here…” Every study on the conflict done by both government and private groups demonstrates that 90% of the insurgents are nationalist Iraqi’s … supported by a small number of foreign fighters (jihadists). We threw out a bunch of Baathists – not violent fundamentalist Islamists!
On to Free Markets:
They are wonderful things, but anything close to a free market economy will NECESSARILY create winners’ and losers’ – in the economic sense. The system encourages risk taking – for the greater good. Ok, what does society do with those who loose?
Capitalism also supposes a “level playing field” where the merits of ideas are the basis of rewards. Do you really think we have anything close to a level playing field? Is the kid born to a single mother in the inner cities presented with opportunities to learn, excel, innovate on a level anywhere near that of a upper-middle class family? Assume otherwise comparable kids: one from a poor inner city being raised in the project by a single mom … the other raised in upper-middle class suburbia. Say both have the ‘innate smarts’ (given a decent education, etc.) to be the next Bill Gates… Do you think capitalism in the form you expose will provide the opportunities for both to excel?
Of course not…
The founding fathers pointed out that a thriving middle class is essential not only to democracy, but to the welfare of the citizenry. Under Clinton’s policies poverty DECREASED every year he was in office, while the economy grew at a steady rate.
Poverty has INCREASE every year under Bush’s tenure… And the gap between “have’s” and “have not’s” is again accelerating at an alarming rate.
I simply do not want to live in a society where we do not try to lift people up – simply because it “sounds like communism” …
Ok – I’ve typed enough.
10 31 05
Hello II:
I read the article that you suggested regarding Walmart. As I said in my UPDATE post; it doesn't matter WHY Walmart is advocating for a min wage increase, what matters is how consumers PERCEIVE it. Therefore, they are doing GOOD BUSINESS because they are able to convince consumers that they care; DESPITE their true intentions. I do think the article had merit and will probably add the foundation to my links list. HOWEVER, I disagree with the last statement about doing away with min wage. This is because, as one of your readers pointed out, no true free market exists. And to do away with min wage would create a more OLIGARCHAL society than anything else. The Walmart tactic is clever and basically they are intervening in the markets to do a price fixing scheme. I look at min wage as a fixed price for labour. This is governmenally established vertical price fixing and has a place in our society. since Walmart has nothing to lose by advocating min wage increases, in the end, it is capitalism shining brightly, as it should. But I am preparing to see a greater rift between haves and have nots if these trends continue...Thx for recommending the article!
There are a ton of comments on this!
I'll be brief.
Excellent food for thought.
polo ralph lauren, prada outlet, oakley vault, christian louboutin shoes, cheap oakley sunglasses, tory burch outlet online, true religion, michael kors outlet, coach outlet, prada handbags, michael kors outlet online, chanel handbags, louis vuitton outlet, tiffany jewelry, gucci handbags, burberry outlet online, kate spade outlet, michael kors outlet online, coach outlet store online, michael kors handbags, oakley sunglasses, louis vuitton outlet online, tiffany and co jewelry, longchamp outlet online, ray ban sunglasses, michael kors outlet store, louis vuitton, nike air max, longchamp outlet, red bottom shoes, true religion outlet, polo ralph lauren outlet, jordan shoes, michael kors outlet online, nike outlet, ray ban outlet, christian louboutin, nike free, nike air max, burberry outlet online, kate spade outlet online, louis vuitton outlet, coach outlet, longchamp handbags, louis vuitton handbags, coach purses, christian louboutin outlet
babyliss, new balance outlet, replica watches, vans outlet, mcm handbags, celine handbags, beats headphones, nike trainers, nfl jerseys, giuseppe zanotti, jimmy choo shoes, ugg boots, birkin bag, asics shoes, canada goose outlet, ferragamo shoes, insanity workout, nike huarache, chi flat iron, hollister, abercrombie and fitch, uggs outlet, north face jackets, north face jackets, mac cosmetics, soccer jerseys, canada goose outlet, uggs outlet, uggs on sale, bottega veneta, instyler ionic styler, ugg boots clearance, nike roshe, valentino shoes, lululemon outlet, ugg, marc jacobs outlet, ugg outlet, longchamp, ghd, reebok shoes, ugg soldes, p90x workout, soccer shoes, wedding dresses, mont blanc pens, herve leger, canada goose outlet, canada goose
ugg, gucci, canada goose, iphone 6 case, hollister canada, vans, canada goose, swarovski uk, pandora jewelry, air max, ray ban, pandora charms, moncler, timberland shoes, moncler outlet, moncler, canada goose, replica watches, louis vuitton canada, uggs canada, coach outlet, juicy couture outlet, converse shoes, thomas sabo uk, nike air max, juicy couture outlet, ralph lauren, hollister clothing, moncler, hollister, supra shoes, louboutin, toms outlet, oakley, canada goose pas cher, parajumpers outlet, moncler, wedding dress, baseball bats, converse, swarovski jewelry, links of london uk, lancel, moncler outlet, pandora uk, karen millen, moncler, montre femme
lebron shoes
oakley sunglasses wholesale
kobe bryants shoes
cheap football shirts
michael kors outlet online
rolex watches outlet
air jordan 13
tory burch outlet online
north face outlet
swarovski crystal
rolex watches,rolex,watches for men,watches for women,omega watches,replica watches,rolex watches for sale,rolex replica,rolex watch,cartier watches,rolex submariner,fake rolex,rolex replica watches,replica rolex
polo ralph lauren
discount ugg boots
canada goose outelt
michael kors wallet sale
tommy hilfiger
ysl outlet
air force 1 shoes
ugg outlet uk
fred perry polo shirts
1207minko
tory burch outlet online
michael kors outlet online
christian louboutin online
cheap oakley sunglasses
oakley sunglasses
rolex uk
cheap nfl jerseys
cheap oakley sunglasses
louis vuitton handbags
beats headphones
20170321caihuali
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home