Africa

[widebody911]

[speeder]

"Tragicomedy".

[island911]

So Thom, are you saying the US should go into Africa? . . ..even though they have little oil.

[Aurel]

If there is no oil, it will help the image of the US to REALLY do something to help the people there, without ulterior hidden motives. And I think that after the illegal Iraq invasion, the image of the US needs some big time overhaul, vis a vis the rest of the world. So, this looks to me like the perfect opportunity for Bush to lighten the attention from Iraq.
It is a little bit like a guy who just did a bank robery thinking of giving away some money to a charity, just to make himself feel better. But then, this goes against the true nature of the guy...
Or maybe am I wrong and cynic, and the US genuinely seeks to topple dictators and promote democracy. Then, definitely YES it should go to Africa.

Aurel

[BGCarrera32]

Where's Africa?

[widebody911]

GWB needs to get his ass in gear and do something about the economy. Food for thought; with the massive outsourcing and depression of wages, and cutting his rich friends tax breaks, where will he find the tax base from which to fund his silly wars?

[APZak]

Originally posted by BGCarrera32
Where's Africa?

War teachers americans geography

[dd74]

Originally posted by widebody911
GWB needs to get his ass in gear and do something about the economy. Food for thought; with the massive outsourcing and depression of wages, and cutting his rich friends tax breaks, where will he find the tax base from which to fund his silly wars?

What economy? Or better yet, "whose economy?"

The economy IS getting better, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the president just as the surge in the economy had nothing to do with the prior president, though Al Gore did invent the Internet, right?

I'm not defending W. But I'm trying to bring some accuracy to your statement. The economy, obviously, is global. The dollar is weak, which is why, for example, I'm not paying $2,000 for an Italian bicycle frame when I can get a whole American bicycle for less than $1,500.

But that's just bikes. In other places the economy is getting much better. Automobiles is a good example. People are paying top dollar for cars, particularly luxury and sports cars. Real estate is going well. Stocks are, more or less, coming back.

As for the computer industry: well, to me there's a certain finite side to it, where most industries using computers (except for entertainment/the arts, etc), feel they don't need to upgrade as often as they did previously. In many cases, the software we use has been so engineered (read: "over-engineered"), that it can last five years before an upgrade is needed. Computers usually have more powerful than the software needs, at least for the common company, so if this is the "the economy" you're speaking of, it seems natural for it to slow down.

As for jobs going to India and wherever: that's what free enterprise does. It goes to where the labor is more free, or closer to free.

[hoff944]

"....the illegal Iraq war" haha.........thats rich.
Bush cutting his rich friend's taxes? Why the hell should the rich have to carry the burden of taxes? There goes the pathetic class warfare gimmick. Why don't we complain about some of the things that are worth complianing about when it comes to G.W. like his expanding of the federal government!!!!!

[widebody911]

Originally posted by dd74
The economy, obviously, is global.
Spending billions on dubious wars while the tax base at home is shrinking is a local problem.

As for jobs going to India and wherever: that's what free enterprise does. It goes to where the labor is more free, or closer to free.
Free enterprise is one thing, but the administration is actually aiding and abetting the loss of jobs - http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=10595

There's also a misconception that it's only computer jobs that are going offshore, so people shrug their shoulders and say "eh, so we have some unemployed nerds" They think their own jobs are safe from exportation or the importation of cheap labor. In reality, hundreds of different types of jobs are going over, including accounting, tax preparation, customer support - in short, many of the semi-skilled jobs.

In addition to that, the rampant abuse of the H1 and L1 visas continues; despite huge unemployment numbers in the tech sector, the government is still letting them in. This is something GW could influence, but is being paid-off to look the other way.

Still think you're safe? Think again. There's a trade agreement being worked out with India which would grant 'equivalence' in many new professions, including medical and legal.

The free market is not a perfect system; there have to be some checks and balances regulated into it, or it becomes a race to the bottom in search of the dollar. Without such checks and balances, it would be more profitable for a chemical company to dump their waste in your drinking water (and they used to); the free market purist would say 'well, that's what the market wants, who am I to question it?'

If you think the massive outsourcing is good for the country & economy - 'free market' or not, you're sadly mistaken.

As to real estate, I know price escalation out here has slowed. Prices elsewhere are going up because people are fleeing the more expensive areas. Commerical vacancy out here is at an all-time high.

Car sales have been fueled by insanely low or zerio interest rates, both from the dealers and by refis. How long do you think that can last? Now that interest rates are on the way back up, the refi biz is going to dry up, cutting off the available cash for these purchases.

Without jobs, there will not be a real recovery. Period. The onsely-twosey indicators reported in the financial press are red-herrings to distract people from the big picture.

Putting people out of work to boost the profits and share price of a company and enrich a few select people detracts from the economy as a whole. The problem is, the people doing the cutting have all the control. They get their money, and don't care. They pay the politicians, who in turn not only look the other way ('it's a free market', 'they need to remain competitive') but they also set policy to make it easier to slash the jobs (H1/L1 visa, trade agreements, tax breaks).

When you take a guy making $60k as a programmer and reduce his pay to $20k working at Starbucks, or someone who was making $24k doing customer service, and put them on the dole, you've drastically reduced the amount of income taxes and sales taxes they'll pay (please don't tell me this is a beneficial tax cut!) At the same time, taxes on the very wealthy are decreasing; who is going to pick up the difference?

More info on specific outsourcing initiatives can be seen at http://h1b.info/outsourcing/

[/B]

[dd74]

So what's your argument, Thom? Do you believe that a status quo of lifestyle should be given to you? Do you believe these companies should not be concerned with their bottom line so that they can simply exist and avoid putting even more people out of work?

You cannot talk to me about layoffs. I've seen more than a few of them within the large corporations I've worked for: Times Mirror, Time Warner/AOL, to name two. I will allow that initially it is not fair for these people to lose their jobs. However, most of whom I know who have lost their jobs - just average people - have moved on. They have diversified. They have taken responsibility for themselves.

Blaming big business and the government is such a tired argument that it goes in one ear and out the other with me. Detroit is dead and Silicon Valley should follow suit. Real estate "up there" has slowed, because no one has any money to buy real estate. Down in So. Cal., it's fine and getting better.
Zero-percent financing, etc., for new cars - is just good business, don't you think?

And as to the ones who still have money because they didn't get suckered into 1) 401Ks (should have taken "responsibility" and diversified themselves - never trust anyone with all your eggs); 2) stock options from ridiculous dot.com pipe dreams that any reasonably thinking person would laugh at; or 3) think as did the greedy middle income Joe Schmoe who believed he could mosey up to a Rockerfeller's level... are who now buy new cars at zero-percent financing, and keep a successful American auto industry afloat with newer models.

The economy is getting better. It's the fake players, day traders, and those who think they can get something for nothing, who have fallen off the economic scope.

And just so you know, yes, I too bought into all that dot.com crap (the ones who are the biggest economic complainers now) in the mid to late 90s. But I soon found no substance in the product. A keyword in investments should be "tangibility." What you can see, touch, eat, drink, or pour into your Porsche, is what makes a for a better investment than the half-baked products of the so-called and dearly departed "new economy," that was in itself nothing more than a catch-phrase, yet succeeded in destroying the U.S. economy -- at least for a time.

Of course nothing I say here admonishes Bush. I don't think the war is as just as others, and yet I can understand aspects of it. Personal gain is one, a vendetta is another, a territorial threat is just one more. All his ducks are pretty much lined up for this one. If he's nailed for one option as to his attack on Iraq, he can easily go to another.

He's like the 49ers of the Steve Young era - Rathman, Rice and Taylor offered a lot of weapons to advance the team to the end zone.

Gotta' run now...

[BGCarrera32]

and cutting his rich friends tax breaks,

Please define for me, in an actual dollar figure, what defines "rich". I really want to know Thom what you know as fact that number is.

You are "rich" when you earn $_____________k.
You are rich when your assets total $________k.

Tell me what it is.

[widebody911]

Originally posted by dd74
So what's your argument, Thom? Do you believe that a status quo of lifestyle should be given to you?
Never said that.

Do you believe these companies should not be concerned with their bottom line so that they can simply exist and avoid putting even more people out of work?

Not quite those words, but if every company lays off as many people, who in the hell is going to buy they stuff they make? Employees pay taxes; without those tax dollars, where do we get the money for schools, roads, wars, et al? Look at the existing situation, and the hurt we're in because of the loss of tax revenue.

Why is it that every time I mention this, all I get in response is some 'entitlement' or 'handout' crap? If I'm wrong about the loss of jobs and tax revenue, then please explain to me - in concrete terms - why it's wrong.

My postion: the massive outsourcing is bad for the short term and long term of the country and the economy. I'm not asking the government to stop it - they can't, really, although they could bow less to pressures to make it easier. Corporate America needs to realize they're shooting themselves in the foot. For all I know, they know this already, but don't give a flying f*ck, which explains the loot-n-scoot management style that's been in vogue for the past few years.

When most of the manufacturing is gone, the engineering is gone, the semi-skilled service jobs are gone, WTF is left to base an economy on?

Yes, the people who got laid off 'moved on' - to lower paying jobs. 'Diversified' is a PC way to say 'took a job at home depot to make ends meet'.

[dd74]

So what do you want these companies to do?

In lieu of mounting taxes they can barely afford?

In lieu of disproportionate and politically-aligned state government (such as ours), who does not have any idea what "industry" is, and how it is needed for a state to exist?

In lieu of insurance premiums they can't afford?

In lieu of environmental issues that are unrealistic (like CA's)?

In lieu of a workforce whose labor costs increase exponentially year after year?

In lieu of unions who stranglehold industry with seemingly little knowledge that industry is the reason unions exist at all?

In all actuality, I might agree with you more than disagree. My position comes from two points:

1) No president shook take credit or blame for economic cycles whether they be positive or negative cycles.

2) A business that moves overseas to conduct manufacturing should not be ridiculed as un-American simply because it wants to survive.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

If Thom and I are thinking alike on this one (and I believe we may be), the basic problem here is that we persist in thinking of corporations as entities that have rights, free will, etc.

Corporations are NOT people. They are NOT citizens of the USA. Therefore they should not enjoy equal (or, in some cases, greater) protection under US law. And yet they do, because they continually fill the pockets of US lawmakers. And the US public is too stupid to vote against the *********s who give handouts to corporate America. Worse, there appear to be very, very few politicians who aren't classifiable as *********s.

Those of us buried (for one reason or another) in corporate life get very frustrated at seeing a (seemingly) useless CEO pull down huge bonuses while we (or our fellow employees) are axed. At the same time the US gov't is granting huge wins to corporations like the outsourcing above, the DMCA, etc.

[widebody911]

Originally posted by dd74

In lieu of mounting taxes they can barely afford?

Please show evidence of the 'mounting taxes they can barely afford.'

In lieu of disproportionate and politically-aligned state government (such as ours), who does not have any idea what "industry" is, and how it is needed for a state to exist?

??? Sounds like you're swalling the 'pure capitalism is best' dogma.

In lieu of environmental issues that are unrealistic (like CA's)?

While some of California's regulations may seem unrealistic, are you proposing a return to the 'free market' system where you just dump the crap in the river, like US companies are doing overseas?

In lieu of a workforce whose labor costs increase exponentially year after year?

Really? Even though real wages, adjusted for inflation, have been consistently falling, while executive pay is what's really rising exponentially?

In lieu of unions who stranglehold industry with seemingly little knowledge that industry is the reason unions exist at all?

What unions? Most of the jobs being outsourced have no union affiiliation.

1) No president shook take credit or blame for economic cycles whether they be positive or negative cycles.

Maybe.

2) A business that moves overseas to conduct manufacturing should not be ridiculed as un-American simply because it wants to survive.

Ah yes, when in doubt, wrap it in a flag!

It's not about being un-American, it's about unsustainable economic practices.

And it's more than just manufacturing! It's everything from credit card support reps to EE's

These companies doing the most outsourcing are still recording hefty profits and awarding lavish bonuses (bonii?) to their executives. It's not about survival, it's about turbocharging profits and pocketing the difference.

Pure capitalism is an ugly, ugly thing.

[dd74]

To my knowledge, I've never seen pure capitalism. Nor have I seen pure communism. Nor pure freedom.

What I have seen are people who have jobs at Home Depot, or a better example, Nordstroms Dept. store, working behind cash registers, pulling down close to $80,000 a year.

Not too bad.

So good jobs are out there, and so are the good companies. If one perceives their employment might be terminated, or there is a shift overseas with their position included, should they simply sit and let it happen? I hope not.

Case in point: a man I know worked in animation, specializing in relations between American animation production houses and Malaysian animation companies. His work was terminated - why, I don't know. But he did manage to adjust himself to where he now works with the Malaysian tourism and attractions industry - he still has his house and car.

No doubt the work industry is hard. But free enterprise as it defines itself will never stay in this country as a means of employment. No matter how much complaining any of us do, it will slither away to India, China, or wherever. What I'm saying is, the best way to prevent being a victim of "pure captilism" and its "ugliness" is by adjusting one's self to the changing tides. All of us will always feel slighted. After a while, one simply has to rise back up and look for a different line of work. Those 25-years-in-one-job-days are long gone.

BTW: how can a guy who drives a 3.6 like a bat out of hell be at all concerned about the environment? (0-60 in 4.3 seconds!)

[TSNAPCRACKLEPOP]

close to 80 k, i think not

[dd74]

Originally posted by TSNAPCRACKLEPOP
close to 80 k, i think not

It's called "commission." If you work hard, you get more, see?