Ah…I thought it was pretty clear that I was pointing out that the actual *wording *of the question didn’t support the *conclusion *that was being drawn. Which point you disagreed with.
For what it’s worth, I’m sure the pollster intended to ask if the respondant though outsourcing is correlated with the economic downturn. But whether through intent or ineptitude, that’s not the way the question is worded.
You do understand that my example was a simplification, don’t you? I suggest you go back to the actual poll to answer your question.
Perhaps they could have worded it more clearly, but they probably didn’t want to repeat the same wording in front of every question. The instruction say that they are going to read statements that other people have made about why the economy is struggling. After they read each one, the respondent is supposed to agree or disagree. That is, agree with what other people have said is the reason the economy is struggling.
It’s not the best wording I can imagine, but it’s crystal clear to me. I would respond to each statement whether I agree or not that the statement is reflective of why the economy is struggling.
Press One for English.
Press Two for Irish.
Press Three for Ulster Scots.
Press Four for Shelta.
Press Five for Drunk.
We’re kidding, if you’re drunk there’s no way you’re pressing five. Hold on the line and the next available bartender will answer your call.
Are you saying that Native Americans are not citizens of the US or that the US belonged to people not from the region that is now US when Europeans arrived? I’m not sure which is more asinine.
Damn, that had to hurt to be him reading this response.
Ah yes, I see what your problem is. It’s roughly the same problem John Headcase has: delusions of adequacy.
You’ve got your little SDMB club that stands around patting itself on the back about how logical you are compared to the rest of society. When your vast number of mental deficiencies are pointed out to you and it is also pointed out to you that few people out there think highly of you anymore, you run and hide behind claiming it’s an “argumentum ad populum fallacy”.
In reality you’re just an idiot and the more you make your logical case the more people you’re turning against you.
Take action!
Petition: Don’t Let Clean Energy Jobs Go to China
<link removed>
This petition doesn’t have anything to do with offshoring.
What do you mean? It had the word “China” in it! If I google “China” and post any link that I get, it proves that offshoring is bad!!
Damn, that had to hurt to be him reading this response.
“Energy jobs going to China” is not related to offshoring?! :rolleyes:
You’re an idiot. You are an idiot. You, sir, are an idiot. You are a fucking idiot. An idiot. Yes, you’re an idiot. Very much an idiot.
“Is the American way of life directly (or indirectly) a hindrance to other countries’ ways of life?”
Why is the answer YES? Because of… you guessed it… the principles behind offshoring.
If all third world nations became prosperous that would mean their standard of living would increase. In fact, this is a historical fact. Workers in Japan are a classic example. China and India are emerging examples, as is Latin America. Their GDP is going up and so is the average amount of wealth being held by their citizens.
The oft-made claim that there are 900 million desperately poor people in China does not negate the fact that China has a growing middle class. Growing, folks, as in growing in numbers. So does India. Their GDP is going up and so is the collective wealth of their citizens.
History also shows that the cost of labor in these countries has risen as their standard of living has improved. Japan is a classic example. China and India are emerging examples. They’re even looking at offshoring to places like Eastern Europe and Vietnam as a direct result of their improving standards of living.
So let’s do some induction here. If the standards of living increase around the entire Third World such that they rise to the level of the First World, their wages will also approach the levels of the First World. History has already demonstrated this with individual countries like Japan.
When Third World wages approach First World wages it will become too expensive for offshoring to continue.
Emacknight has rigorously argued that this would have a profound effect on the cost of goods. If you cannot find labor priced much below American labor anymore the cost of an iPod will in fact bounce back from $300 to $1500: because when the Third World reaches First World standards of living, you will not be able to find labor anywhere that is cheap enough to keep iPods at $300.
Of course I pointed this out to him in a roundabout way but that’s about when he gave up-er, I mean, declared spank.
Of course the alternative is that these other countries remain quite poor so the cost of their labor remains very low. Which means that if you accept the pro-offshoring argument… first world living standards cannot survive without the third world having low standards of living. If we are to maintain our standard of living, according to the pro-offshoring argument, we MUST interfere with the third world’s rising standard of living… or things will become QUITE expensive here because we cannot find cheap labor anymore.
RickJay? Msmith? John Mace? Emacknight? Ravenman? Care to explain how we can keep labor cheap if standards of living rise to American levels all around the world?
And I’m not just talking manufacturing. This’ll affect call centers, research jobs, computer tech jobs… a bunch of things that you can offshore but can *not[/] automate.
What, got nothing to say now? I wonder why…
If he’s an idiot, then the English language is not sufficiently expressive to cover how fucking stupid you are. Go and read the petition you linked to.
The petition text:
The aim of the petition is clearly greater investment in clean energy leading to creation of new jobs, not extent jobs being outsourced to China. I.e., it’s “beat China to the technological punch” and not “offshoring baaad”.
You posted the same bullshit in your other Pit thread (and still haven’t posted to the actual GD thread…why is that?).
So…the answer to the question (which was ‘Is the American way of life directly (or indirectly) a hindrance to other countries’ ways of life?’…my emphasis) according to you is ‘yes’. Then you go on to say:
Um…if third world nations are prospering because of servicing the US markets, then that directly contradicts the question you just answered ‘yes’ to…idiot. You either don’t understand what the word ‘hindrance’ is, or you are so fixated on outsourcing and offshoring that your knee jerks anytime the subject comes up even peripherally.
-XT
Can you think past the nose on your face?
If we do not beat China to the technological punch this means they will wind up exporting clean energy products to the U.S. instead of us servicing our own market.
Oh wait, already happening. China is exporting photovoltaic cells to the U.S. instead of us making our own here.
I’ll explain, and I’ll use small words so you’ll be more likely to understand, you warthog faced buffoon.
It doesn’t really matter how many or what percentage of people believe something because it doesn’t make it true. Let’s say, just for the sake of argument, that I found a poll that showed that a vast majority of people in the U.S. (let’s say it’s 86% since you have such a hardon for that number) prefer Young Earth Creationism (YEC) over Evolution and want it taught in public schools. Since you’re so smart, I’m sure you’ll agree that this is ludicrous. The evidence against YEC and for Evolution is overwhelming, and it makes no sense to teach something to kids that you know isn’t true. Would your argument then become that since so many people believe it that it must be true? Of course not, that would be stupid.
The same thing goes for your argument. Your continued harping of “Oh, so you think you’re smarter than 86% of the people in this country?” is the same thing. I don’t care how many people believe it, it’s still a logical fallacy. Even if 86% of people think that offshoring is bad (which your poll doesn’t even show), they’re still wrong. You’d know this as well if you’d ever taken an economics class. Things are best for everyone involved if resources are allocated in the most efficient way possible.
For example, I work for a financial software company doing tech support. We’ve got a large group of people who work in the Philippines. Not only are they good at what they do, but they’re much cheaper. This frees up resources that my company can now allocate towards R&D for the next version with improved features while also lowering the cost of our software and support for our clients. Since our clients spend less on the software, they now have more money to spend on their own business.
Your inability to understand this most basic of logical fallacies and economic theories, coupled with your adolescent insults of anyone who disagrees with you, not to mention the fact that you keep adding so many people to your ignore list and bragging about it, really doesn’t make you look like the genius you seem to think it does. You would do well to read more and post much, much less.
You can make that argument, and perhaps it’s valid, but the petition nevertheless has crap-all to do with outsourcing. It addresses the fear that China, by investing in clean energy, will create its own jobs before the US can – winning the race to become successful suppliers of clean energy products.
It is not about keeping jobs but taking advantage of the opportunity to create them. In the view of the petition, if China wins there will not be outsourcing; they will simply profit from providing products/services that the US cannot.
So says the butt faced baboon who still doesn’t get it.
Your entire argument assumes that anti-Offshoring is the same as Young Earth Creationism vs Evolution. It’s not. Why? Because you have miserably FAILED to make a credible case for offshoring. Your views are not based on science, they’re based on fantasies. That apparently few people share in.
But since you are a babboon you probably don’t understand why so many people aren’t buying into your fantasies.
There you go again with your delusions of adequacy.
While denying jobs to Americans who could be doing tech support work. Instead said Americans are languishing on unemployment.
Which leads to your delusional and unprovable claim that they’ll actually use this to hire more people to offset the jobs lost when you send tech support overseas.
Furthermore, if third world nations like the Philippines achieve America’s standard of living, you will not be able to find this cheap labor anymore. So your entire miserably joke of a theory depends on keeping them poor.
So not only is your theory stupid (like you), but it’s also malicious in the long run… and unsustainable.
That is not an established theory. It only exists as a theory in your mind. It is a hypothesis that is rife with easily demonstrated contradictions - a fact that you seem to be militantly ignorant of.
You have almost as much credibility lecturing anyone about economics as Rush Limbaugh has in lecturing 16 year old girls about how to deal with their periods.
You guys started the adolescent insults. You dish it out but you can’t take it. Poor babboon child.
Why? Because I would give you fewer options to make yourself look stupider than a babboon?
And thus, there will be no more outsourcing. You should be thrilled about the prospect.