Quoted: Quoted: My point is, regardless, big biz is what is wrong with this country.  We have too many corporations with thieir own self interests trying to put their hand in how the country should be run.  Weather or not it is a farce remains a myster, however today, Big Oil, Big Corps seem to think they know what is best for us. The problem isn't big buisness, it's big government. We have too much socialism. FDR played a key part in that. Did you know that the Soviet Union (Stalin) wanted to endorse FDR, and CPUSA talked them out of it? CPUSA understood that an outright commie endorsement would hurt FDR more than help him. Further, the second version of the New Deal (there were three versions) was a direct lift from Italian fascist economic planning. It was rejected by Congress. Fascism isn't far right, it is actually a leftist ideology. FDR's ideas were, at the same time, more fascist and more communist than previous US government policy.

Agreed about Big Government.  Its odd, I always thought Republicans were for small government, however now as it sets, we have a HUGE government.  

I never quite realized FDR was such a socialist.  Interesting though, I need to educate myself further on that....

Quoted: I never quite realized FDR was such a socialist.  Interesting though, I need to educate myself further on that....

Read up on the New Deal.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: My point is, regardless, big biz is what is wrong with this country.  We have too many corporations with thieir own self interests trying to put their hand in how the country should be run.  Weather or not it is a farce remains a myster, however today, Big Oil, Big Corps seem to think they know what is best for us. Big biz is why this country has what it is. Hey, Liberia doesn't have big business, go move there. Business creates wealth. Big Business creates big wealth. Big Oil, geezus fucking krist?  I bet those profiteers at the quickie mart really piss you off, too! Big Business is in the business of making fucking money.  Go buy some stock and get into it.   Wow, maybe we should put the government in charge of everything.  That should work out great, Komrade! I am sorry you suck so bad you can't make money yourself.  tough shit, move to canada. Can't wait till school is back Wow... what a douche.  I am talking about Lobbiest running our country.   I served 6 for MY country, I pay taxes at a GOOD JOB THAT PAYS WELL.  Why dont you shut your damned mouth before you go spewing this kind of crap. The problem with Big Biz in the US is that they are trying to railroad our country to make a buck.  They send American jobs over seas to save on the bottom line.   YOu can kiss my ass with that Komrade BS.  And go figure you what the hell you are talking about before you start shitting at the mouth. Yeah go back to school and learn something productive boy.... He's right. You are wrong.

This isnt a right or wrong question.    I not here to have a pissing contest.

But thanks for the compelling conversation...

The US government has created the environment which makes business more and more difficult to conduct in the United States.  To try to correct that makes sense as the US government has progressed far beyond constitutional mandates to become a near defacto central controlling figure of all industry today.

Under the covers of environmentalism and interstate commerce, there is no aspect of the private sector which isn't at least partially controlled by the federal government.  To the point that whole industries have died.

What killed the steel industry?  Environmental regulations and government protected (no right to work laws) made it impossible to compete, so the industry died.
Same thing is slowly strangelling the domestic car companies.

Why are we running a huge deficit?  1.4 trillion a year in welfare.

Business is about making money.  If they can't do it here, they will do it somewhere else.

Quoted: Quoted: I didnt say they were responsible.. I said they had a hand in some of it. Where did I loose you there? You lost me right there. You think corporations had a hand in creating laws that are detrimental to them?  So you think corporations hang themselves? What do you think the purpose of a corporation is?

Making money.. I know.  And I see your point as well.  I made a hasty generalization when infact, I should be more specific in regards to the lobbyists.    Pharma, Oil, Medical and Energy....

Now your right, they didnt put a plan in play that would harm their own.  So I concede... Your right, I am wrong.

Quoted: The US government has created the environment which makes business more and more difficult to conduct in the United States.  To try to correct that makes sense as the US government has progressed far beyond constitutional mandates to become a near defacto central controlling figure of all industry today. Under the covers of environmentalism and interstate commerce, there is no aspect of the private sector which isn't at least partially controlled by the federal government.  To the point that whole industries have died. What killed the steel industry?  Environmental regulations and government protected (no right to work laws) made it impossible to compete, so the industry died. Same thing is slowly strangelling the domestic car companies. Why are we running a huge deficit?  1.4 trillion a year in welfare. Business is about making money.  If they can't do it here, they will do it somewhere else.

+1 agreed.    I guess it makes me bitter to see my peers jobs get shipped over seas due to cheaper labor.  I have taken the time to educate myself and keep my certifications as current as possible to preserve my own posistions.    I see and hear alot of BS about Corporate interaction.  I guess I need to shut my damned mouth though, the company i work for is based out of.... (I hate to say this...)  France....

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I didnt say they were responsible.. I said they had a hand in some of it. Where did I loose you there? You lost me right there. You think corporations had a hand in creating laws that are detrimental to them?  So you think corporations hang themselves? What do you think the purpose of a corporation is? Making money.. I know.  And I see your point as well.  I made a hasty generalization when infact, I should be more specific in regards to the lobbyists.    Pharma, Oil, Medical and Energy.... Now your right, they didnt put a plan in play that would harm their own.  So I concede... Your right, I am wrong.

He over simplified it. It could NEVER be as cheap for business to operate in the states, so long as people refuse to work for one dollar an hour. No matter what the government does or says.

So ultimately, business will go overseas to save money.

Quoted: Making money.. I know.  And I see your point as well.  I made a hasty generalization when infact, I should be more specific in regards to the lobbyists.    Pharma, Oil, Medical and Energy.... Now your right, they didnt put a plan in play that would harm their own.  So I concede... Your right, I am wrong.

The vast majority of the lobbying corporations do that isn't to get a government contract is to get the government to roll back a policy that shouldn't be there in the first place.

Quoted: He over simplified it. It could NEVER be as cheap for business to operate in the states, so long as people refuse to work for one dollar an hour. No matter what the government does or says. So ultimately, business will go overseas to save money.

Assuming the first part is true, which I don't believe, does that make the 2nd part bad?

Quoted: Quoted: Making money.. I know.  And I see your point as well.  I made a hasty generalization when infact, I should be more specific in regards to the lobbyists.    Pharma, Oil, Medical and Energy.... Now your right, they didnt put a plan in play that would harm their own.  So I concede... Your right, I am wrong. The vast majority of the lobbying corporations do that isn't to get a government contract is to get the government to roll back a policy that shouldn't be there in the first place.

That depends on the policy that they are lobbying for.  I am about 40/60 in agreement with you on this, I still feel that some Coroprations, specific sectors, have some corruption that plays in to our Goverment "polcies"  

Just think about what I am saying.

Quoted: Quoted: He over simplified it. It could NEVER be as cheap for business to operate in the states, so long as people refuse to work for one dollar an hour. No matter what the government does or says. So ultimately, business will go overseas to save money. Assuming the first part is true, which I don't believe, does that make the 2nd part bad?

Didn't say that any of it was bad. But I don't see how you could deny the first part being true. In the grand scheme of things, Americans cannot compete cost wise, with foreign countries. Now, overall we could offer a better quality product, which in turn could make the lessened profits worth the price.

Quoted: I dont support Big Businesses having say in our DAY TO DAY lives, by sending  lobbyists to push their own agendas.

How about unions and the likes of George Soros?

Politicians mostly reward companies for having hiring lots of voters in their districts . . . and in any case it isn't corporations, but individuals, who are making campaign contributions.

In any case, it is far from clear that politicians are under the control of lobbyists, in many ways it is the politicians calling the shots. We should roll back efforts at campaing finance reform, not engage more. In reality, campaing finance reform has mostly been used to attack free speech.

Quoted: I also dont support an AMERICAN business sending AMERICAN jobs over seas to save a buck.

Why not? After all, Americans don't have a right to those jobs. If forign workers are more productive, then the company probably should send those jobs overseas. The company exists for the benifit of the shareholders, no one else.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: He over simplified it. It could NEVER be as cheap for business to operate in the states, so long as people refuse to work for one dollar an hour. No matter what the government does or says. So ultimately, business will go overseas to save money. Assuming the first part is true, which I don't believe, does that make the 2nd part bad? Didn't say that any of it was bad. But I don't see how you could deny the first part being true. In the grand scheme of things, Americans cannot compete cost wise, with foreign countries. Now, overall we could offer a better quality product, which in turn could make the lessened profits worth the price.

I agree that we'll never get wages that low, but I firmly believe that if we got rid of the tax code in its current incarnation, we'd see a lot of companies come back here to get a shot at our higher-skilled work force.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I didnt say they were responsible.. I said they had a hand in some of it. Where did I loose you there? You lost me right there. You think corporations had a hand in creating laws that are detrimental to them?  So you think corporations hang themselves? What do you think the purpose of a corporation is? Making money.. I know.  And I see your point as well.  I made a hasty generalization when infact, I should be more specific in regards to the lobbyists.    Pharma, Oil, Medical and Energy.... Now your right, they didnt put a plan in play that would harm their own.  So I concede... Your right, I am wrong. He over simplified it. It could NEVER be as cheap for business to operate in the states, so long as people refuse to work for one dollar an hour. No matter what the government does or says. So ultimately, business will go overseas to save money.

Actually, the United States has a lot to offer businesses.
An educated,mobile work force.  Lots of natural resources, very good patent laws, and RELATIVELY free markets.

So what has happened in the past 40 years?

The work force has become progressively MUCH dumber.
The restriction on use of natrual resources.
More and more restrictive markets.

The United States will never again lead the world in unskilled labor except in mining, timber, etc (non portable natural resources) due to advances in shipping and global economics.

Nor should we try.  Look at what Estonia and Israel have done with their economies with none of the advantages the US has.

If you have no skills, the US still has a lot to offer (but you better be able to compete with illegal alien wages).

Get some fucking skills and be willing to work.
Be prepared to change jobs.

Its a global economy and you best be prepared to adapt.  The days of the unskilled laborer making middle class wages with a pension after 35 years are over. (unless you work for .gov)

Quoted: That depends on the policy that they are lobbying for.  I am about 40/60 in agreement with you on this, I still feel that some Coroprations, specific sectors, have some corruption that plays in to our Goverment "polcies"   Just think about what I am saying.

I agree with that, but I don't blame a company when they try to get a tax break or other such advantage in the marketplace.  Thats simply the nature of a corporation.

But bullshit like Randy "Duke" Cunningham and buying contracts - thats bad.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: He over simplified it. It could NEVER be as cheap for business to operate in the states, so long as people refuse to work for one dollar an hour. No matter what the government does or says. So ultimately, business will go overseas to save money. Assuming the first part is true, which I don't believe, does that make the 2nd part bad? Didn't say that any of it was bad. But I don't see how you could deny the first part being true. In the grand scheme of things, Americans cannot compete cost wise, with foreign countries. Now, overall we could offer a better quality product, which in turn could make the lessened profits worth the price. I agree that we'll never get wages that low, but I firmly believe that if we got rid of the tax code in its current incarnation, we'd see a lot of companies come back here to get a shot at our higher-skilled work force.

I don't deny the tax BS has a lot to do with it. But corporations have gotten their teeth into a workforce that works for next to nothing. I doubt things would change that much.

edit: And I can speak to the massive amount of money you save. Our department outsourced the inbound/outbound call staff, and managed to save 80% of the overhead.

Quoted: Quoted: I didnt say they were responsible.. I said they had a hand in some of it. Where did I loose you there? You lost me right there. You think corporations had a hand in creating laws that are detrimental to them?  So you think corporations hang themselves? What do you think the purpose of a corporation is?

Corporations sometimes push for laws that they expect will hurt the competition. For example, Ruger wanted to hurt Glock with a ban on handgun mags over 15 rounds.

I do know one thing about govt. and big business, in the 20th century, big business didn't march 100 million of its employees off and execute them, govt.s did.

Just sayin'.

Quoted: Even if everything Butler said was true--and I don't think it was--you can argue about which side was really the "fascist" side. FDR was in the middle of implementing the NRA, which was creating a Mussolini-like corporatist state. It wasn't outlandish to think that the elected government would seize power and rule by dictatorship, and create something like Italy in America.

FDR wasn't the first.  Read Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg; he makes a compelling case that the first Fascist dictator of the 20th century was not Benito Mussolini, but was, in fact, Woodrow Wilson.

Quoted: Quoted: I dont support Big Businesses having say in our DAY TO DAY lives, by sending  lobbyists to push their own agendas.   How about unions and the likes of George Soros? Politicians mostly reward companies for having hiring lots of voters in their districts . . . and in any case it isn't corporations, but individuals, who are making campaign contributions. In any case, it is far from clear that politicians are under the control of lobbyists, in many ways it is the politicians calling the shots. We should roll back efforts at campaing finance reform, not engage more. In reality, campaing finance reform has mostly been used to attack free speech. Quoted: I also dont support an AMERICAN business sending AMERICAN jobs over seas to save a buck.   Why not? After all, Americans don't have a right to those jobs. If forign workers are more productive, then the company probably should send those jobs overseas. The company exists for the benifit of the shareholders, no one else.

That is one of the funniest things I have ever seen said.  I know for a fact that the engineers in Mumbai are no were near as productive, we loose two engineers and gain six more in mumbia and they dont do their jobs, take off all the time complain about how much work we give them and then quit after three months, so we have to retrain new ones.  This isnt just an isolated event, it is INDUSTRY Wide in the IT sector.    And several of these morons lied to get their jobs.

Live it before you say that kind of stuff man.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I didnt say they were responsible.. I said they had a hand in some of it. Where did I loose you there? You lost me right there. You think corporations had a hand in creating laws that are detrimental to them?  So you think corporations hang themselves? What do you think the purpose of a corporation is? Corporations sometimes push for laws that they expect will hurt the competition. For example, Ruger wanted to hurt Glock with a ban on handgun mags over 15 rounds.

See, now that is an example of something worth killing a man over.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I didnt say they were responsible.. I said they had a hand in some of it. Where did I loose you there? You lost me right there. You think corporations had a hand in creating laws that are detrimental to them?  So you think corporations hang themselves? What do you think the purpose of a corporation is? Corporations sometimes push for laws that they expect will hurt the competition. For example, Ruger wanted to hurt Glock with a ban on handgun mags over 15 rounds. See, now that is an example of something worth killing a man over.

+15

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Why has this discussion become "You're a communist if you believe the heads of big business tried to over-throw the government?" More concerning, the comments about big business taking over the government is somehow better? I just wanted to see other's opinions about the whole situation.  Not get called a Commie and stupid... I dont know who did what during FDR, but I do know, that I currently see alot of corporate interest groups trying to push their own agendas.. I never said they are trying to take over.. i am saying they are buying government officials, who should be there to serve our (the people) interests over Big Oil or Banks for example.   Im not trying to raise the whole "conspiracy" flag, I am concerned however how our Government allows the corporate world to infiltrate our schools and etc.    (10,000 ft view, I dont feel like expounding much more right now, i will save that for a later discussion) Im not a Socialist, I am not a Communist, I am an American.   Period... Ar15.com - Last Hold-out of McCarthyism

The only problem with your statement is that almost all of the people named by McCarthy as being in the paid employ of the Soviet Union were actually....in the paid employ of the Soviet Union.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: My point is, regardless, big biz is what is wrong with this country.  We have too many corporations with thieir own self interests trying to put their hand in how the country should be run.  Weather or not it is a farce remains a myster, however today, Big Oil, Big Corps seem to think they know what is best for us. The problem isn't big buisness, it's big government. We have too much socialism. FDR played a key part in that. Did you know that the Soviet Union (Stalin) wanted to endorse FDR, and CPUSA talked them out of it? CPUSA understood that an outright commie endorsement would hurt FDR more than help him. Further, the second version of the New Deal (there were three versions) was a direct lift from Italian fascist economic planning. It was rejected by Congress. Fascism isn't far right, it is actually a leftist ideology. FDR's ideas were, at the same time, more fascist and more communist than previous US government policy. Agreed about Big Government.  Its odd, I always thought Republicans were for small government, however now as it sets, we have a HUGE government.   I never quite realized FDR was such a socialist.  Interesting though, I need to educate myself further on that....

Keep in mind that in the 1930s, America was at its most socialist. Many supported the USSR, the CPUSA did the best ever in presidential elections (even though it really wanted people to vote for FDR), and many Americans thought the future rested with fascism or some form of socialism.

As far as Republicans and big government, keep in mind that it is very, very hard to reduce the size of government. Too many benifit from this or that program, and those who don't benifit usually have other priorities. Also, it takes more than a Republican president and a slim Republican majority in the House and Senate to roll back government. It would take solid majorities in the House and Senate, and the president and key members of Congress would have to make reducing government the priority. Reagan's priority was (rightly) defeating the Soviets; Bush's the war on Islamic terror.

Why does the United States have the highest corporate tax in the western world?

Quoted: [He over simplified it. It could NEVER be as cheap for business to operate in the states, so long as people refuse to work for one dollar an hour. No matter what the government does or says. So ultimately, business will go overseas to save money.

We don't have to be as cheap. We have to be more productive.

It is cost/benifit ratio that matters. If you want a higher wage, you need to be more productive.

And, reducing our insane regulations and taxes would make our companies much more competative.

Quoted: Quoted: [He over simplified it. It could NEVER be as cheap for business to operate in the states, so long as people refuse to work for one dollar an hour. No matter what the government does or says. So ultimately, business will go overseas to save money. We don't have to be as cheap. We have to be more productive. It is cost/benifit ratio that matters. If you want a higher wage, you need to be more productive. And, reducing our insane regulations and taxes would make our companies much more competative.

Production costs, are mostly overhead depending on the industry. (Not including machine costs, which for the scenario we're discussing now, we'll remove from the equation)

As such, we CANNOT compete with the silly salaries these other countries can offer. Now, marketing ability comes into play of course, if you can convince Americans to buy American. But in the end, business will go where it is cheapest to assemble and build, as that is where the true cost of manufacturing comes from.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I dont support Big Businesses having say in our DAY TO DAY lives, by sending  lobbyists to push their own agendas.   How about unions and the likes of George Soros? Politicians mostly reward companies for having hiring lots of voters in their districts . . . and in any case it isn't corporations, but individuals, who are making campaign contributions. In any case, it is far from clear that politicians are under the control of lobbyists, in many ways it is the politicians calling the shots. We should roll back efforts at campaing finance reform, not engage more. In reality, campaing finance reform has mostly been used to attack free speech. Quoted: I also dont support an AMERICAN business sending AMERICAN jobs over seas to save a buck.   Why not? After all, Americans don't have a right to those jobs. If forign workers are more productive, then the company probably should send those jobs overseas. The company exists for the benifit of the shareholders, no one else. That is one of the funniest things I have ever seen said.  I know for a fact that the engineers in Mumbai are no were near as productive, we loose two engineers and gain six more in mumbia and they dont do their jobs, take off all the time complain about how much work we give them and then quit after three months, so we have to retrain new ones.  This isnt just an isolated event, it is INDUSTRY Wide in the IT sector.    And several of these morons lied to get their jobs. Live it before you say that kind of stuff man.

Then you don't have anything to worry about.

The key is the cost / benifit ratio. If you are more productive, you can be more expensive.

Quoted: The key is the cost / benifit ratio. If you are more productive, you can be more expensive.

This isn't always true, especially if your product has competition that is cheaper.

edit: Flooding the market has huge consequences.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: [He over simplified it. It could NEVER be as cheap for business to operate in the states, so long as people refuse to work for one dollar an hour. No matter what the government does or says. So ultimately, business will go overseas to save money. We don't have to be as cheap. We have to be more productive. It is cost/benifit ratio that matters. If you want a higher wage, you need to be more productive. And, reducing our insane regulations and taxes would make our companies much more competative. Production costs, are mostly overhead depending on the industry. (Not including machine costs, which for the scenario we're discussing now, we'll remove from the equation) As such, we CANNOT compete with the silly salaries these other countries can offer. Now, marketing ability comes into play of course, if you can convince Americans to buy American. But in the end, business will go where it is cheapest to assemble and build, as that is where the true cost of manufacturing comes from.

We can and we do, in industries where skill matters.

No doubt, unskilled labor is gonna take it in the ass.  Tough.  
There is always the service industry for those unwilling or unable to compete.  Again, let them move to Canada or some other place.  

Yep. you nailed it... They can hire 4 engineers for what I charge.... However these 4 engineers still cannot be as productive as me.  

Its interesting, but that is what it is.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: [He over simplified it. It could NEVER be as cheap for business to operate in the states, so long as people refuse to work for one dollar an hour. No matter what the government does or says. So ultimately, business will go overseas to save money. We don't have to be as cheap. We have to be more productive. It is cost/benifit ratio that matters. If you want a higher wage, you need to be more productive. And, reducing our insane regulations and taxes would make our companies much more competative. Production costs, are mostly overhead depending on the industry. (Not including machine costs, which for the scenario we're discussing now, we'll remove from the equation) As such, we CANNOT compete with the silly salaries these other countries can offer. Now, marketing ability comes into play of course, if you can convince Americans to buy American. But in the end, business will go where it is cheapest to assemble and build, as that is where the true cost of manufacturing comes from. We can and we do, in industries where skill matters. No doubt, unskilled labor is gonna take it in the ass.  Tough.   There is always the service industry for those unwilling or unable to compete.  Again, let them move to Canada or some other place.

Where are you getting your numbers from? Of course there are examples of American companies that compete on the market. Obviously, else there wouldn't be any. But in the context of this discussion, we're talking about companies overall.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: [He over simplified it. It could NEVER be as cheap for business to operate in the states, so long as people refuse to work for one dollar an hour. No matter what the government does or says. So ultimately, business will go overseas to save money. We don't have to be as cheap. We have to be more productive. It is cost/benifit ratio that matters. If you want a higher wage, you need to be more productive. And, reducing our insane regulations and taxes would make our companies much more competative. Production costs, are mostly overhead depending on the industry. (Not including machine costs, which for the scenario we're discussing now, we'll remove from the equation) As such, we CANNOT compete with the silly salaries these other countries can offer. Now, marketing ability comes into play of course, if you can convince Americans to buy American. But in the end, business will go where it is cheapest to assemble and build, as that is where the true cost of manufacturing comes from. We can and we do, in industries where skill matters. No doubt, unskilled labor is gonna take it in the ass.  Tough.   There is always the service industry for those unwilling or unable to compete.  Again, let them move to Canada or some other place.

Your obsessed with Canada ey...

EDIT:  Wow.. you are making some hasty statements there... Police, Firemen, Paramedics, Military in some cases are considered "service industry".. however, I am sure you are actually meaning.. "Food Service"

Quoted: My point is, regardless, big biz is what is wrong with this country.  We have too many corporations with thieir own self interests trying to put their hand in how the country should be run.  Weather or not it is a farce remains a myster, however today, Big Oil, Big Corps seem to think they know what is best for us.

Ya! They're being all corporationy.

Quoted: Yep. you nailed it... They can hire 4 engineers for what I charge.... However these 4 engineers still cannot be as productive as me.   Its interesting, but that is what it is.

The problem is, we can't compete on a productive basis, either. Because if we start to, a foreign company will drop salaries until they hire enough people to again defeat our production. We don't have the ability in many of the unskilled markets.

Quoted: Production costs, are mostly overhead depending on the industry. (Not including machine costs, which for the scenario we're discussing now, we'll remove from the equation) As such, we CANNOT compete with the silly salaries these other countries can offer. Now, marketing ability comes into play of course, if you can convince Americans to buy American. But in the end, business will go where it is cheapest to assemble and build, as that is where the true cost of manufacturing comes from.

If those other countries can match our quality and production quantity at those "silly salaries", then they will beat us in manufacturing. If that's the case, then buying low cost high quality forign products is the right answer for American consumers, and American workers will have to find a field they can remain competative in.

However, American manufacturing is hurt by high taxes and excessive regulation. Cutting back on taxes/regulation will make our companies more productive.

Quoted: Quoted: Yep. you nailed it... They can hire 4 engineers for what I charge.... However these 4 engineers still cannot be as productive as me.   Its interesting, but that is what it is. The problem is, we can't compete on a productive basis, either. Because if we start to, a foreign company will drop salaries until they hire enough people to again defeat our production. We don't have the ability in many of the unskilled markets.

US Sr. Unix Engineer.(tested, proven and certified through a verifiable source).. 87 - 105K annually
India Sr. Unix Enginner (That may or may not actually have credentials) $30K annually....  

Exactly what your saying...

One of the funniest things I have seen is the 22 year old Mumbian that claims he has 12 years of Unix Experience...

I guess they are teaching Unix to 10 year olds... hmm...

Quoted: Quoted: Production costs, are mostly overhead depending on the industry. (Not including machine costs, which for the scenario we're discussing now, we'll remove from the equation) As such, we CANNOT compete with the silly salaries these other countries can offer. Now, marketing ability comes into play of course, if you can convince Americans to buy American. But in the end, business will go where it is cheapest to assemble and build, as that is where the true cost of manufacturing comes from. If those other countries can match our quality and production quantity at those "silly salaries", then they will beat us in manufacturing. If that's the case, then buying low cost high quality forign products is the right answer for American consumers, and American workers will have to find a field they can remain competative in. However, American manufacturing is hurt by high taxes and excessive regulation. Cutting back on taxes/regulation will make our companies more productive.

I agree, however people don't buy on quality. Maybe you do, and I do... but we're the minority. And I agree, Americans will have to find markets they can compete in. But those fields ARE NOT mass manufacturing, which is unfortunately where a lot of our labor is being lost in.

Johnny X makes 9 dollars an hour making toys. Juan Cheng and his nine buddies, using the same machine, make 1 dollar an hour.

Johnny X is not going to match the ability of Juan and his buddies. The only solution, is to mark Johnny's salary down to match his ability ratio of Juan and his buddies, lets assume that he can only be as productive as 3 of Juan's friends. Is Johnny going to work for 3 bucks and hour?

More to the point, what if Juan is actually quite productive?

Unless you step in and tell companies they can't outsource (Not very capitalistic) then it isn't going to stop. We honestly have too many people in this country, we'd probably be wildly successful with about 200 million people.

Quoted: Quoted: The key is the cost / benifit ratio. If you are more productive, you can be more expensive. This isn't always true, especially if your product has competition that is cheaper. edit: Flooding the market has huge consequences.

I was talking about an individual's productivity.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The key is the cost / benifit ratio. If you are more productive, you can be more expensive. This isn't always true, especially if your product has competition that is cheaper. edit: Flooding the market has huge consequences. I was talking about an individual's productivity.

Yea, I realized that later. I thought you were talking about productivity, as in we'll make so many products the foreign companies would have to lower their price beyond their ability to make money

It is a good way to screw up another companies market, though

Quoted: My point is, regardless, big biz is what is wrong with this country.  We have too many corporations with thieir own self interests trying to put their hand in how the country should be run.  Weather or not it is a farce remains a myster, however today, Big Oil, Big Corps seem to think they know what is best for us.

Stand firm, MHHAMMER.

The ground you stand on regarding this matter is Truth.

Gen. Butler was a certifiable loon.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: [He over simplified it. It could NEVER be as cheap for business to operate in the states, so long as people refuse to work for one dollar an hour. No matter what the government does or says. So ultimately, business will go overseas to save money. We don't have to be as cheap. We have to be more productive. It is cost/benifit ratio that matters. If you want a higher wage, you need to be more productive. And, reducing our insane regulations and taxes would make our companies much more competative. Production costs, are mostly overhead depending on the industry. (Not including machine costs, which for the scenario we're discussing now, we'll remove from the equation) As such, we CANNOT compete with the silly salaries these other countries can offer. Now, marketing ability comes into play of course, if you can convince Americans to buy American. But in the end, business will go where it is cheapest to assemble and build, as that is where the true cost of manufacturing comes from. We can and we do, in industries where skill matters. No doubt, unskilled labor is gonna take it in the ass.  Tough.   There is always the service industry for those unwilling or unable to compete.  Again, let them move to Canada or some other place.   Your obsessed with Canada ey... EDIT:  Wow.. you are making some hasty statements there... Police, Firemen, Paramedics, Military in some cases are considered "service industry".. however, I am sure you are actually meaning.. "Food Service"

Military is service industry.  Doesn't take much for some jobs.  You will get paid a flat rate regardless of how well you do it based upon grade and time of service.

You will notice that I said earlier, .gov jobs are gonna be the only good ones left for unskilled labor.

Paramedics make FAR less than many unskilled union workers do.  Yet require marketable skills.  Why?  Lots of people want to be paramedics.

I used to work as a petro-chemical engineer.  The days of plane loads of indian engineers ended as they realized the quality of their work is sub standard.  

Be good at what you do, and do something of value.  You need not worry about outsourcing or corporationy corporations.

Quoted: I agree, however people don't buy on quality. Maybe you do, and I do... but we're the minority.

I think it depends on the product. Buy decisions are based upon a mix of quality/cost, depending upon the product.

Quoted: And I agree, Americans will have to find markets they can compete in. But those fields ARE NOT mass manufacturing, which is unfortunately where a lot of our labor is being lost in.

Well, we can go to lower labor intensive methods. More machines making things, operated by fewer but higer qualified workers. This will likely be the case for some things, other things that continue to require human hands will be outsourced. Which is fine; I don't mind having forign people do the heavy lifting for me . . .

Quoted: Be good at what you do, and do something of value.  You need not worry about outsourcing or corporationy corporations.

If you live in a utopian society, maybe. Your assumption is that foreign labor will always lack in quality.

It doesn't.

Quoted: Quoted: And I agree, Americans will have to find markets they can compete in. But those fields ARE NOT mass manufacturing, which is unfortunately where a lot of our labor is being lost in. Well, we can go to lower labor intensive methods. More machines making things, operated by fewer but higer qualified workers. This will likely be the case for some things, other things that continue to require human hands will be outsourced. Which is fine; I don't mind having forign people do the heavy lifting for me . . .

This is 100% true, of course. Our technology will eventually end the outsourcing market.

Quoted: Gen. Butler was a certifiable loon.

General Butler won not one but TWO medals of honor, he is ONE of the most decorated Marines in the history of the U.S.    

Please respect that.

Quoted: Quoted: Gen. Butler was a certifiable loon.   General Butler won not one but TWO medals of honor, he is ONE of the most decorated Marines in the history of the U.S.     Please respect that.

The only people he fought were capitalists! I bet those medals were given to him by Lenin!

Quoted: Quoted: Gen. Butler was a certifiable loon.   General Butler won not one but TWO medals of honor, he is ONE of the most decorated Marines in the history of the U.S.     Please respect that.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

His actions would not have been awarded a MoH in later conflicts.  
the siege of veracruz saw over 50 MoHs awarded.

Quoted: Gen. Butler was a certifiable loon.

I suppose Gen. Dwight David Eisenhower was a loon also?

He tried, on more than one occasion, to warn the American people of the very same threats to national soverignty, and personal liberty, that Gen. Butler spoke plainly of:

Gen. D. Eisenhower's Farewell address, Article IV.

" A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."