Sure, but then to go in front of a factory and give a big ol' speech about how you're protecting their jobs? That's not honesty. Neither is this: Mitch Daniels, former director of the Whitehouse Office of Management and Budget (OMB), assessing the first round of Bush tax cuts “The tax cut will help create 800,000 jobs by the end of 2002,” Jobs lost in 2002: 1,400,000 (BLS)
Both Kerry and Edwards are in favor of removing tax incentives from the tax code that motivate companies to move their corporate HQ along with the jobs elsewhere.
Nope... And i couldn't have delivered his State Of the Union address with a straight face. Not disagreeing on Bush's record. Or his sensitivity. I'm asking how to address the issue of overseas job losses. Bush is of the 'que sera, sera' camp. I'm guessing you favour something else.
I am not kidding. The standard of living is up. That is a fact. More people go to college these days overall. Are you also arguing that the standard of living went down under Clinton (where free trade got big momentum) or are you just arguing the last couple of years?
I know there's the problem of moving HQ offshore to avoid (evade!) tax...generally to tax haven countries. However, I was unaware the jobs went with them. (How many exec's REALLY moved to Bermuda???) Do you know of any significant companies that have genuinely moved their corporate HQ's away from the US. (By genuinely, i mean more than just the paperwork!) My impression was that the real job loss was production -- not HQ. How do you stop that?
Do you know of any significant companies that have genuinely moved their corporate HQ's away from the US. (By genuinely, i mean more than just the paperwork!) Well, if you move the production off shore and much of the paperwork, what is left? I suppose there are some true managers who don't do much paperwork, just get reports from MBA's and the like and make decisions and give orders and speechs. An interesting question is what are the European countries like Holland doing about this issue? They don't have a theological based approach to economics in which you can't question the canon-- unlike simplistic guys like Trader Jorge, soon to do service work for GOP big wigs after he is replaced by Trader Raj. In addition they have working class folks who vote their economic intererests with some real political power who aren't blinded by such wedge issues as school prayer,abortion, flag burning, hand gun rights etc.
To be fair, jobs have been moving to Bangalore, etc... for some time now. They didn't just start moving in 2000. I have done a lot of training for Shell and they have been moving IT management and support to Kuala Lumpur for quite a few years now. If you want to blame Bush for these jobs moving, to be fair you have to put as much blame under Clinton as well.
To be fair, jobs have been moving to Bangalore, etc... for some time now. They didn't just start moving in 2000. I have done a lot of training for Shell (as an example) and they have been moving IT management and support to Kuala Lumpur for quite a few years now. If you want to blame Bush for these jobs moving, to be fair you have to put as much blame under Clinton as well.
Attention, journalists: Journalism jobs are heading overseas, too. Now, Nasdaq live from Bangalore WASHINGTON: Reporting on the outsourcing issue may never be the same again. The news agency Reuters has announced that it will be hiring six reporters in Bangalore. No news here – except the reporters sitting in Bangalore will be covering American companies and financial markets.... Journalism jobs go overseas By the way, moving jobs overseas to evade taxes, working standards, and liveable wages isn't "outsourcing." It's a fleecing.
Most all of my friends who are married and have families have a single income provider. The wives stay home to take care of their kids. I can only think of two families where this is not the case (and according to them they really benefitted from the $400/child tax credit so many of ya'll said only went to the rich). All of us are very middle class. The reason the wives stay at home is a not because the husbands make a fortune (although some do very well), it was a lifestyle choice commited to raising kids. With regard to the two families where both parents work, they do it to enjoy a nicer standard of living (luxuries). The wives don't have to work. I'm sure that there are many families who have two working parents where the wife has to work. However, for many families the wives choose to work for self-fulfilment or to enjoy more luxuries in life. If they felt staying home with the kids was more important they'd make sacrifices. Looking back, I grew up "middle class" and my mom stayed at home to take care of us but as a family we made many sacrifices. We never had new cars, rarely went on family vacations all of which we could have done if my mom had chosen to work. My parents just felt it was more important for one parent to stay home and raise the kids. Also, the trend of women working probably has many roots in the femenist movement. Once again, just trying to show that the truth is somewhere in the middle and not as black and white as some of you want/need it to be to try and win silly arguments.
Don't you love it when liberals end their sentences with "..." They want to make you think that they have more to say, yet instead of saying it, they will merely put "..." This is a cheap escape route for someone who frankly doesn't know what he is talking about. RM95, please elaborate on how our country's standard of living has declined over the past 50 years. I look forward to reading about how technological advances and dramatic increases in wealth have set us back mightily in how we live our lives. Furthermore, I would like for you to list your credentials. That way, we will be able to fully appreciate your economic analysis.
I never argued it did. I'm just saying that Mr. Clutch's example as to why it's risen doesn't hold water. We may very well have more stuff than past generations, but we also have way more personal debt.
excuse me, mr. kettle...mr. pot is waiting for you on line one. i can't wait until you give me more commentary on the texas rules of civil procedure.
I'd actually like you to list yours: Rice? Not Harvard or Wharton? Houston? rejected from Wall Street? I'm beginning to think that you may not even make it past the pre-screening for Houseboys.
You know, you are the worst on this BBS about obviously having an opinion, wordsmithing it in very Clinton-esque, transparent fashion, and then trying to go back on your stance by tip-toeing around the wording. Very very weak. Very very obvious. Very very amateurish. Why are you afraid to write what you actually mean? Afraid someone is going to rip you to shreds again? Well, at least you have learned from experience.
From you that's a compliment. It means that nearly everyone else on the board feels the exact opposite. I wrote what I meant that time. You're the one that wants to make ASSumptions about what it implied. Go back to Match.com.
I applied to one school. Rice. My grades, test scores and athletic prowess could have easily granted me admission to many, many more. Why didn't you go to Yale for law school? Chicago is fringe top 10. Actually, Sam, I did work on 'Wall Street'. Broad Street to be precise. I worked for the best investment bank in the world. In New York. Perhaps you are familiar with it. I moved to Houston because the quality of life here is exponentially higher than that in Manhattan. Manhattan is a stink hole.
And the quality of life will improve greatly once you live up to your promise to move out of the city. Off to the suburbs with you. Mr. Right may be out in First Colony!!!
back on top to bnb's question - we've talked about this a lot on d&d and folks unemployment threads, no answers from me, just the same questions. If other companies do not have laws ensuring the safety of workers and laws to ensure that companies don't just dump toxics wherever they want, just how exactly can the United States worker compete on cost or efficiency? The pendulum will not ever swing back in manufacturing until the price of oil makes transportation costs prohibitively expensive - which may happen in this century. For stuff that can be transmitted electronically, it will be cheaper to import for a long time coming. It could be like a backwards revolution, manual labor becoming important in all countries, and third world countries being used for "brain" work because they'll have all the experienced guys and will work for the least. edit: It's mildly entertaining that out of one side of the Bushies mouth comes statements saying we should buffer the effects of offshoring by training workers for new jobs and out the other side of the mouth comes cuts in training programs across the board.
