|
Home > Archive > Medicine transcription > April 2005 > OT: Outsourcing--A Greater Threat Than Terrorism?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
OT: Outsourcing--A Greater Threat Than Terrorism?
|
|
| leslie 2005-04-22, 8:48 am |
| These two paragraphs are from the following article by Paul Craig Roberts:
`...Nothink economists assume that new, better jobs are on the way for
displaced Americans, but no economists can identify these jobs. The
authors point out that "the track record for the re-employment of
displaced US workers is abysmal:
"The Department of Labor reports that more than one in three workers
who are displaced remains unemployed, and many of those who are lucky
enough to find jobs take major pay cuts. Many former manufacturing
workers who were displaced a decade ago because of manufacturing that
went offshore took training courses and found jobs in the information
technology sector. They are now facing the unenviable situation of
having their second career disappear overseas."...'
http://www.vdare.com/roberts/050418_outsourcing.htm
VDARE.com: 04/18/05 - Outsourcing--A Greater Threat Than Terrorism?
| |
| leslie 2005-04-24, 10:52 pm |
| Gisele (Gdubson@aol.com) wrote:
: If a nation wants a middle class, it must define it, desire it, and
: work to both create and keep it..."
:
: The middle class orginally came into being without anyone doing any of
: the above.
:
The writings of Jefferson and Madison show intent to keep the country
from being controlled by an oligarchy:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0101-07.htm
Now Corporations Claim The "Right To Lie"
"Published on Wednesday, January 1, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
Now Corporations Claim The "Right To Lie"
by Thom Hartmann
[snip]
Jefferson and Madison proposed an 11th Amendment to the Constitution
that would "ban monopolies in commerce," making it illegal for
corporations to own other corporations, banning them from giving money
to politicians or trying to influence elections in any way,
restricting corporations to a single business purpose, limiting the
lifetime of a corporation to something roughly similar to that of
productive humans (20 to 40 years back then), and requiring that the
first purpose for which all corporations were created be "to serve the
public good."
The amendment didn't pass because many argued it was unnecessary:
Virtually all states already had such laws on the books from the
founding of this nation until the Age of the Robber Barons.
Wisconsin, for example, had a law that stated: "No corporation doing
business in this state shall pay or contribute, or offer consent or
agree to pay or contribute, directly or indirectly, any money,
property, free service of its officers or employees or thing of value
to any political party, organization, committee or individual for any
political purpose whatsoever, or for the purpose of influencing
legislation of any kind, or to promote or defeat the candidacy of any
person for nomination, appointment or election to any political
office." The penalty for any corporate official violating that law and
getting cozy with politicians on behalf of a corporation was five
years in prison and a substantial fine..."
| |
| leslie 2005-04-26, 8:48 am |
| Gisele (Gdubson@aol.com) wrote:
: Thinking more about this. I don't deny that there are fat cats who are
: getting fatter by sending this work around the world to be done by the
: lowest bidder.
The fat cats are getting fatter at an accelerated rate, hollowing out
the middle class:
http://www.progress.org/2004/noury05.htm
The Double-Edged American Dream
"...The Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy
published a report (detailed in the Progress Report:
http://www.progress.org/archive/gap01.htm) that highlights the
gross inequities between executive and worker pay: Executive Excess
2001: Layoffs, Tax Rebates and the Gender Gap. As revealed in the
report, executive pay rose by 571% between 1990 and 2000. During
the same period, workers' pay rose only 37%. The Progress Report
article notes, if the minimum wage, which stood at $3.80 an hour in
1990, had grown at the same rate as CEO pay over the decade, it
would now be $25.50 an hour, rather than the current $5.15 an hour.
Why such a disparity between the working and upper classes? Are we
not working hard enough? The Washington Post notes in an article on
December 17, 2003 (More Reports Signal Expanding Economy; Factory
Output Up; Prices Drop) that U.S. business productivity grew by
9.4% in the third quarter of that year, the highest increase since
1983. Workers are working harder, but this has not translated to
higher wages. In Progress and Poverty (1879), Henry George asks,
Why, in spite of increase in productive power, do wages tend to a
minimum that will give but a bare living? Perhaps we should ask
corporate executives, whose astronomically high salaries are made
possible by the workers' increasing productivity..."
That sounds like Ricardo's Iron Law of Wages.
:
: I don't deny that we are in a time of transition, and it's true that
: some people are going to be left behind as this equation changes.
:
The "some people" will be "most people".
:
: Some folks at the top of the economic chain will be there to make a buck
: off of it. Sometimes outsourcing will make sense, sometimes that work is
: going to come back home. We are going to have to adapt as best we can,
: I don't see that we have any other choice.
:
The choices will be made clear as more and more people realize what is
happening.
| |
|
|
"RaeMorrill" <RaeMorrill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:dwt9e.3332$mG3.2120@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> Bad for whom? Gees. I'm sure that class of people just LOVES the way
> they are treated.
>
My point was that the caste system and its repercussions are the norm in
India and are not all hush-hush so that evidence of them would have to be
gathered and presented here. Things that are fairly common knowledge don't
require proof.[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Sandi wrote:
there.[vbcol=seagreen]
| |
| Gisele 2005-04-27, 5:51 pm |
| What if there isn't a "next new wave of jobs" in the U.S. ?
Like I said before, we stop paying taxes, that's the end of the post
office, Medicare, road repair, the whole bit. I'm glad to know that
ingenuity is not confined to our country, why the heck should it be?
|
| |
|
|