#2 is the refuge of a failed country.

Sound like a Utopian society for Mr. Superman.

I don't get it the business bashing.

Say my company produces a car fo $20,000.
Say "x" country produces the same quality product for $10,000 due to lower labor rates.

My choices are:
1) Cut cost...move 30% of production to some other country to be competitive and maintain a viable business where 70% of us still have a job.
2) Get run out of business, then no one has a job.

Ok, maybe I'm being a bit utopian here now, but what about raising labour wages in third world countries to meet first world standards? If your car is already selling for $20,000 then presumably that's a price tag the market is willing to bear. Therefore if this company in another country were to pay their workers proper wages you'd be facing competition on an even playing field

The alternative viewpoint to this is that labourers in the US are paid more than what the global economy has determined is fair wages for that labour. Then, at least in the automotive industry, it becomes a question of unionized labour.

I guess I believe the later to more true than the former. As we become fater and lazier we expect to be entitle to more and more...income, toys electronic gizmos. Workers in other countries are willing to work for less just to put food on the table. Therefore products can be sold a cheaper prices than here in the US.

How is a US company supposed to stay globally competitive in this enviroment. As thier quality of product increase the market may not bear my price anymore as they can get the same quality for less money.

Who said anything about Seattle?

That's a pipe dream. If you raised the labor rates in many of these countries to standard wages here in the US the people making widgets would be the highest paid people in the entire workforce!! Plus, we don't have control over what other people make in other countries. I seriously doubt that the countries that are getting economic investment due to cheap labor would raise those labor rates.

Basically the only solution is to allow those economies to develop on their own and the standard of living will slowly rise. Once the labor rates are high enough, the manufacturer will move on to the next country where the labor is cheaper...

Remember, The USA used to be the cheap labor country!

That line caught my eye... Not trying to pick a fight here, I'm honestly asking this:

What makes you think any individual has a right to be taken care of (in any regard) by another person? Much less, at yet another person's expense?

Health care is a trade, just like a commodity that can be bought and sold, it has a value, and those providing it should be able to earn what they can. I do think it should be affordable, but if I have a skill that few people have, it should be an advantage, and I should be able to capitalize on that skill.

Re: Re: Why do many guest workers & immigrants complain about the US economic system?
 

I have 4 open positions unfilled in my department because American kids are too f*cking stupid to study math and science. Instead they're getting MBAs and liberal arts degrees.

These are stateside jobs I'm talking about.

Guess what? We're not hiring in India anymore. It's a false economy for highly skilled engineers. It takes 2 managers for every single Indian engineer to get anything done on time. And don't expect creativity, willingness to put in extra hours, or basic problem-solving. Those cost extra. :rolleyes:

The firm I work for has been searching high and low for qualified candidates to fill open positions stateside. The positions range from starting to 10+ years experience. Starting salary for college grads is $45k with outstanding benefits. We have a hard time finding kids who aren't complete tards. We aggressively recruit on college campuses nationwide and are now getting started even in high schools...

I always find it interesting when I hear the defenders of the "global economy" and outsourcing of American jobs use the "better jobs" argument. The oft-stated theory is that our mundane tasks are the ones going overseas, to be replaced by more highly skilled, more technical jobs. Everybody at the lower end of the job market gets to move up a notch, get a more interesting job, and therefore live better. Yeah right.

This theory ignores a whole class of Americans that are simply unable to perform at this higher level. There are those who are not, quite simply, bright enough to move up this employment ladder. The only jobs they are capable of performing are the ones we want to outsource. What happens to them? What happens when intelligence becomes a prerequiset for a dignified living in the U.S.?

I think too many folks at the higher end of our socio-economic foodchain ignore this. Either that or they have convinced themselves that anyone occupying the lower rungs are only there due to laziness and a lack of motivation, and they deserve what they get. Or these bottom-feeders are - get this - just too plain "stupid" to get anywhere. Talk about the very height of pompous, crass, careless, arrogant treatment of "lower class" people.

So the movers and shakers, the money makers, of our society are willing to forget about a class of people they would rather not think about anyway. Those less intelligent than themselves. No matter that many of these less intelligent are honest, hardworking people. They are "stupid", so they don't figure into the equation.

Through no fault of their own, they get left out in the cold as our economy "globalizes". It's almost as if the globalization crowd would just as soon "offshore" this class of people along with the jobs they can perform. That way, the intelligencia can live among themselves and never have to be offended by the "working class" again, or pay their high wages, or pay for their health care, or any number of inconveniences. The only working class left would be the service class; changing the oil in their Porsches, serving them their food, mowing their lawns, stuff like that.

Yup, that's the ticket. Transform the U.S. into some kind of high-tech utopia and just ignore those who can't keep up. Hope they will go away and quit griping about their lost jobs. Where they go away to, what they do after their jobs have been exported is not our problem; we are providing higher level opportunities. Those that can move up into them, great; the rest, well - we don't know. Can't they just go away? Uh huh... anyone else see any potential for massive social unrest, and perhaps the collapse of this high-tech house of cards looming in our future?

Nice rant, now tell me how we outsource lower-paying service jobs. You know, the ones the intelligentsia pay someone to do.

Or does everybody deserve a nice cushy job as a telephone support monkey?

Well, I'll probably get raked over the coals for this... :D

[flame suit on]

Legally speaking, in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person" which courts have upheld to mean that everyone in Canada has the right to basic health care. So legally, here, every individual has that legal right.

Morally, however, I truly believe that in a first-world country, nobody should be without the basics of life, and that includes basic health care and education. Why? I guess simple human compassion. If that makes me a cry-baby, pinko commie bleading-heart, well, so be it. Jeff made some good points about the upper social/economic ranks of our society preferring to just forget about the working class.

I disagree with your opinion that health care is a trade like any other, and, while I can't say for sure, I would suspect most doctors would as well.

Flame away :)

Chris

Yes, people just dying in the streets down here.. Dickensian waifs with a consumptive cough on every corner. Chris, you should come down and see for yourself. Its terrible.

Well Christien, our Constitution mentions something to effect "to provide...for the general welfare", but we haven't (yet) taken that to mean every person deserves free health care. I would take the opposite position that a first world economy should be logical and sane enough to not hand out luxuries as rights to those who can't afford them. Health care is not a right. If it were, anyone could refuse to pay their hospital bill with no consequence. I've gone almost two yrs. without health insurance before and I sure was nervous about it. But you gotta pay to play and at the time there were plenty of other things I needed to spend the $150-$200 a month on that could have bought me health insurance. I never once expected someone else owed it to me though.

Jeff while I usually agree with what you post, I gotta disagree here.

Your concern for the not-so-intelligent members of our society is misplaced. There will always be jobs needed to support those who make the economy go. Garbagemen, cooks, gas station attendants, janitors, etc. The real issue is manufacturing and whether those jobs should be kept here through artificial means or allow the global free market to do its job.

200 years ago intelligent didn't mean squat. The people who got ahead were hard workers who could farm the land and build a good house. Were we concerned about all the geeky weaklings then? No, in fact the geeky ones have only begun to be truly successful in the last 50 years or so, after the invention of the computer. The market and the society have a way of settling these things out.

I wouldn't consider basic health care a luxury. To clarify, the "basic" health care Canadians are guaranteed includes (IIRC) 2 family dr visits per year, all required hospital visits (basically anything that's deemed necessary, which of course wouldn't include things like cosmetic surgery), and some limited Rx drugs. No dental, you have to pass some qualifications for drugs, no wages for time off work, (though usually unemployment insurance covers that). The "luxury" parts (cosmetic, dental, private hospital room etc) are not covered (though most are covered by private ins. plans).

Recent Canadian finances (and those of pretty much every other first-world nation) would indicate that it *is* logical and sane (and affordable) to provide health care to its citizens, regardless of whether or not they can afford them. (we've turned surpluses for something like 8 years in a row now, and that's with a middle-of-the-road party (i.e. not the conservatives) in government, and millions of wasted $$ in scandal)

Call me crazy. But if you want it and can't afford it, it's a luxury. Fortunately, socialized health care has been repeatedly rejected by American voters. I hope it stays this way.

Fair enough, I guess it comes down to difference of opinion then.

Answer me this (and I'm really asking, not trying to be a twit!): If someone shows up in an ER having a serious heart attack but with no insurance, what happens? What about a gunshot wound? Or any other serious, life-threatening issue?

We turn them away and let them bleed to death on the sidewalk.