it just really makes me mad when they get everything and half of them have never even paid into the system.
As interesting as hearing someone’s personal life sob story about how they hate Muslims and Spanish people and are 61 and can’t get a job is, I’d like to ask this question:
If companies are to be prohibited from off-shoring, what will the negative results be?
It’s obvious what the intended results will be: more employed Americans. But as is so often the case, prohibitive regulations can cause unwanted effects. Studies on rent control have almost always shown that extreme versions of rent control (mainly ones that can cause rents to get depressed massively below fair market value, as opposed to ones which just put more reasonable limits on year to year rent increases) cause extreme housing shortages and land lords that refuse to comply with regulations and skirt as many maintenance and upkeep requirements as they possibly can. One needs to consider what the unwanted side effects of a prohibition on off shoring would be.
when i came from england in 1967, first of all we HAD to have a job to come to, we came on a permanent resident visa, we had a green card at the time, a social security card, yes we paid our taxes and did everything by the book. now we have people from all nations coming but they don’t come legally, never pay taxes because they can’t get a social security card, but everything is handed to them on a silver platter when its the hard working americans who pay into the system that allows this to happen. i say close the boarders before its too late!!
its not a SOB story, it’s FACT, and until you have walked in my shoes you have nothing to say about it. i never said i hate muslims and mexicans, re-read my post. some of my best friends are legalized citizens of spanish decent.
I never said it wasn’t fact. But to be frank, your personal troubles have nothing to do with this debate. They are pointless, uninteresting anecdote. Your prejudices against people speaking Spanish or Muslims, and the flagrant and unsupportable claims you made because of them are also not part of the debate at all. Unless you’re willing to provide some real cite that in England (or let’s talk about the UK, I find it strange when people I’m presuming are British refer to England that way) you have to “wear the long robes to get anything.” Maybe flesh out that claim since it is so vague as to be meaningless.
After that, please show me how we in America are being forced to learn Spanish.
When I ask for a cite that means some link to an authoritative and respected source of information, not another anecdote.
I see the last 5 out of 7 posts as more of a collection of standard racist old person rants than a coherent argument against offshoring or immigration reform.
When you buy things, does cost enter your mind at all? Would you voluntarily pay twice as much for an item if you could just go next store and get the exact same thing for much cheaper?
The problem isn’t “outsourcing”, it’s that American labor is too damn expensive. Now, there are two ways to fix this, and the correct way is a little of both: Make foreign labor more expensive and make American labor cheaper. Both of those goals will be acheived when we allow anybody who wants to come and be an American laborer (eespecially if their countries of origin allow that as well).
Suppose the Chinese now have free entrance into the US job market. A) they will demand higher wages here than they did in China, and B) laborers who remain in China will demand higher wages because they know if it comes down to it, they can just come to America and get those wages. So the net result is that American labor is more desirable to employers and Chinese labor is less desirable.
With a true, worldwide job market, wages even out across the gobe and outsourcing stops looking like a good deal. We’re not even close to this ideal, and that is why we have both an “outsourcing” problem and an “illegal immigration” problem.
And yes, restricting the ability to move jobs and production overseas is absolutely protectionism.
For what it’s worth, my wife is a (highly qualified) manager at a human resources outsourcing firm - who are starting to send some of their analyst positions overseas. She’s not in danger of being replaced, but she was when she started working there. I found it amusing, but she failed to enjoy the irony.
After all, you went to all the trouble of learning English when you moved here. Oh, wait…
Not “our” language. Your language. One of the funny things about moving to America is that the laws are different. One of those differences is that the US doesn’t have an official language.
Sounds like those 5 and 6 year olds will be quite an asset one day.
How will they learn English as a :first language:, exactly? Will they have to unlearn the ones they already know?
There would be many negative results. Take for example the aforementioned Apple. If they had to manufacture in the US it would be more expensive for a variety of reasons. Now most of apple’s customers are mind numbed robots who would pay any price for their shiny doodads, but there are some that are not and actually would buy a competitor’s brand. Apple’s profits would fall and they would not have the money to hire new software designers and Apple store employees. Many of the competitors would be Japanese, so they profits would be spent in Japan on R and D and give Japanese firms a headstart on the next generation of devices.
American companies might want to start having their headquarters overseas so they can still outsource their labor. Other countries might respond in kind and american companies that foreign companies use to outsource would be hurt. Various free trade agreements might be affected and the US might have to withdraw from international trade organizations. This would let other nations raise tariffs on American goods.
The irony is the Krugman won his Nobel memorial prize in trade economics and he can make the argument for outsourcing much better than I can. One of the reasons he became famous was for how articulately he made the case for free trade in the 1990s. He is pretending to criticize Romney for being an outsourcer, but doing it in a way that allows him to say he was criticizing Romney for a different reason. He is criticizing a politician for not being able to articulate a nuanced defense of outsourcing in the middle of a campaign. Yet he is just as unwilling despite having far less to lose.
The irony being that there isn’t a lot of evidence that Mitt is an outsourcer or offshorer. I actually started a thread in Elections to discuss how successful the Dems and Obama have been in painting Mitt as both. I think it’s going to be a winning tactic, to be honest. It’s pretty much off the scale, irony wise that Krugman taking the position he’s taking and attacking Mitt on this. 
-XT
And? I’m not seeing the point I guess.
-XT
Well, if the Republican Party’s Maven of the Free Market thinks you outsource too much…
Then what?? 
I guess my point is that it doesn’t matter who came up with the meme originally, the Dems and Obama are running with it and it’s definitely gaining traction. That seems to be the key issue, to me at least…and one that, IMHO, is likely to cost Mitt any small chance to win the presidency he might have ever had (mind, I think it was always a pretty small chance).
-XT
I had no idea I was a mind-numbed, brainwashed idiot robot! I thought I just liked cool gadgets.
Populism isn’t limited to just one party. Both resort to it shamelessly when it suits them.
Politically, it’s a smart move even if it’s intellectually dishonest.
But does he understand that there is a net benefit in practice? I think he clearly believes that in practice offshoring is not good for America. I could also ask how you know that Krugman believes it’s good in principle.
While he may indeed be taking a dig at Romney, he is also clearly saying that when Romney tries to “temper” his argument by bringing up outsourcing, he isn’t doing himself any favors; Krugman also clearly believes that outsourcing isn’t good for America either. Where exactly is the “hack” work in this column?
Back when Krugman, the Economist, was in charge of his brain, he would write stuff like this:WHAT SHOULD TRADE NEGOTIATORS NEGOTIATE ABOUT? A REVIEW ESSAY.
He is very careful these days to say things like “outsourcing isn’t as big a problem as people think it is”, which is a sort weaselly way of avoiding sounding like he supports it, but allows him plausible deniability if anyone calls him an anti-free trader.
The main focus of the article is clearly to criticise Romney. However, while he doesn’t explicitly say so, I think it’s also quite evident that Krugman thinks outsourcing is bad for America. In the article he refers to Romney’s campaign saying -
And then he proceeds to argue against the latter half of the assertion(outsourcing is ok), while letting the first half (offshoring is bad) stand entirely unchallenged. By implication, he believes(or wants you to believe) that offshoring is bad for America, and so is outsourcing. Either that, or he’s bad at communicating what he actually wants to say.
On the contrary, Krugman is very good at communicating. He wants you to think he is against offshoring without having to say it. If he says it he knows every reputable economist will jump on him. Both because the arguments against outsourcing and offshoring are very weak and he was once the foremost advocate for free trade. Furthermore Krugman loves to attack economists who disagree with him as partisans who agree with whatever their politician master tell them to. If he comes out and says he does not like offshoring it will be transparently obvious that he is only saying it for partisan reasons.
However, he can also not say he like outsourcing because that would undercut and attack on Romney. It might also make his liberal readers have to think and reconsider their views and they hate that. Some might even stop reading him.
He is in a pickle so he obsfucates and pretends to support a policy he believes is detrimental to the country.