Since I use Google to look at this newsgroup, some of the posts must
be missing because I seem to be entering in midstream.

First let me say I posted what I did to begin with in response to what
I thought was somebody saying that Kerry and Bush both support
outsourcing.

What in the world is Kerry going to do to stop it? Give a few tac
breaks? Does anybody think that any anoutn of tax breaks will make up
for workforces that are willing to work for $12/day?

The age-old argument will be that when the $12/day folk get up to
speed and their wages start to increase, they will have more buying
power and they will purchase more goods blah, blah, blah.

I have a questions: where in the world is the other side of the
argument?! What happens to the societies where the jobs came from?
What do those people do for a living?

What happens when a programmer (for example--could be an engineer, an
accountant, a help desk person, etc.) goes home to his/her family and
tell them his company has decided he/she needs to teach somebody who
lives 8,000 miles away their job so the person 8,000 miles away can
have a good paying job (for that country) and the
programmer/engineer/etc has nothing. Nada. Zilch.

Go get another job, you say. Ha! Where?! I know scores of people in
that situation and each and every onethathas been fortunate enough to
have found another job have all only been able to get jobs 65% or less
than what they were making.

Oh, yeah, taht's right. Being underemployed means nothing. I have no
problem with making an even playing field but I do not think that
means driving down thw standard of living of one country just so
others can raise theirs is the right way to go.

Additionally, all thei *great* stuff was supposed to happen with
NAFTA. Ross Perot was right: what WAS that sucking sound? Oodles of
jobs went south of the border. Some went north but not nearly as many
as went south. Now that Mexico was actually making headway, what
happened? They were making too much! Actually, they probably didn't
make all that much headway but it was discovered that people in other
parts of the world were willing to work for significantly less than
they were.

I have to ask which is worse: having a decent-paying job and paying
too much for a shirt that is made in the USA or having no job and not
being able to afford a shirt made in some country you never heard of?

As far as insourcing, this new round of outsourcing isn't the same.
Yes, there are lots of Indians who are starting high-tech comapnies in
the US and hiring people who happen to live on US soil to work at
those place but far too many of them are imported from India.

I do not see the Indians buying many of our products. I don't see the
Chinese buying may of our products. I don't see the Eastern Europeans
buying many of our products. They all purchase products and services
that are rpoduced in their homelands.

I do not begrudge them--more power to them. They know what it's like
to stick together.

Outsourcing to a point is okay but taken to the extreme it has been
taken to is horrendous. I don't care what kind of statistics are
pushed in my face saying only 5,000 jobs left the country. Bull****.
I think I am going to have to find that document produced by the
General Accounting Office in Washington, DC to rebuke your point that
5,000 jobs left the country but 8,000 were created per day.

I don't see me being better off than I was 8 years ago at this point
and sinking further because of the price of oil which is making
everything skyrocket because you need gas to fuel the trucks to bring
products to the stores, etc.


Last point: If you think the President of the United States has any
power wahtsoever to either stop or speed up outsourcing (or anything,
for taht matter) is sadly mistaken. He is just the Executive Branch.
There are two other branches that carry just as much, if not MORE,
weight: the Legislative Branch (House and Senate) and the Judicial
Branch (Supreme Court, judges, etc.). If people want to make changes
one way or the other, they need to pay attention to all three
branches, not just one.










"JerryMouse" wrote in message ...
Mike Jak wrote:
Another set of lies from repukes

KERRY: You can't stop all outsourcing, Charlie. I've
never promised that. I'm not going to, because that
would be pandering. You can't.


Which John Kerry should you believe - the John Kerry who wants to
limit outsourcing or the John Kerry who thinks that stopping
outsourcing is
pandering?

Kerry was saying that from the day one. He was not for "BAN" on
outsourcing, his position was to level the plain field.

Look at his speaches during dem caucases about a year ago...
He was saying exactly same thing.

No as far as my vote goes the choices I see:
1) retard W, who openly opposes cutting loopholes that unfairly
benefits Indians & US CEOs, where his economic adviser "claims
offshoring r&d is good for economy"

2) Guy who is saying "I can not stop all forms of offshoring, but
I'll try to
level the field".

Choice is clear.

Bush & Cheney = Retard & Crook

Outsourcing = Good. Good for you, good for me. Umm, ummm good.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is completely devoid of economic knowledge,
logic, and common sense. There are (usually) three major categories making
up productivity and an increase in the standard of living: capital, raw
materials, and labor.

No one is demanding that all aluminium be produced with domestically-mined
bauxite or that foreign investment be stopped. It is equally absurd to
require American-only labor.

First, off-shoring is a false problem. In the first quarter of this year,
the department of labor computed less than 5,000 jobs left the country.
Meanwhile the economy was creating 8,000 jobs PER DAY.

Secondly, FAR more jobs are "in-shored." Toyota has a plant in Tennessee
that makes cars solely for export to Japan! Legislation to stop
"off-shoring" invites retaliation.

Third, some off-shoring promotes the economy directly. Boeing, for example,
often allows manufacturing of sub-components in the country that buys its
jets but the majority of the manufacturing is done in the US. If not for
this provision, Boeing wouldn't sell anything at all to the affected
countries.

I do note, however, that you're using a Micros~1 (domestic) product to post
here rather than some French-sounding alternative. That's good.