Anti-Outsourcing Movement Gains Congressional Momentum

[David Abramowitz]

Yes, new technology does create new jobs, but we have shipped out so many technical jobs of all sorts to the point where college and university course offerings have been decimated. In my area the technology course offerings are about one third of what they were several years ago. That begs the question, where will the new scientists come from? Dave

[Guest.Visitor]

Anti-Outsourcing Movement Gains Congressional Momentum

Brian S. note: But what if those very corporations that you say "choose to hurt Americans" instead paid their workers what they've always paid them, despite the presence of cheaper competition. The companies would have higher costs, and consequently would not be as competitive and would generally lose when competing against those companies that can get the job done more efficiently. The "protected" programmers could lose their jobs anyway, along with the rest of those employed by the company. The companies would still be accused of "choosing to hurt Americans", don't you think? We compete in a global world now. Laws can't do much to change that. The Soviet Union had the ultimate in market protections, and they ultimately collapsed in the face of global competition. Brian Response: Choose sides. I don’t contest that there are scenarios that may work out the way you describe. I think that your response has to do with the innate notion of fair play that many Americans have. We sometimes care about affecting our opponents too harshly. When the other team is outmatched we might even do a little rooting for the underdog, even if it’s not our team. However, these guys are far more powerful than us, and standing by and letting offshoring happen is a losing strategy. With all due respect, they have done nothing to deserve our patronage. I believe in countervailing powers. If there is no countervailing power, then the powerful rule and their edicts do not have to be fair. Right now, everywhere I look, including my own backyard, good people are losing their jobs. I don’t see good corporations going out of business because they can’t compete in the world market without hurting Americans. I see a few extra cents of earnings lining the pockets of industry titans who may not even notice the extra. I see the plight of the business executive who, prior to the first Wednesday golf swing at the country club can’t wait to tell the other moguls “our company too is going offshore.” I see management recognizing offshoring as one of its “best practices.” I see no moral or ethical sense to the corporate job carnage. I see companies taking what they can and leaving the pillage behind for the rest of America to deal with. There are many humanitarian and business reasons to offshore American jobs. For example, China must find jobs for 125 million farmers migrating to its cities and work coming from the U.S. is critical to doing this. I just don’t think that we want them to take our jobs. It is that simple. I want it stopped. At a minimum, I want it lessened. Why did Carly Fiorina and the band of eight lobby Congress last month? Why did the Yankees pursue A-Rod? It’s the same reason. Big and powerful organizations try to gain more power to assure their success. That’s why. Carly and company tried to get our player, the Congress of the US, to be on its team. With Fiorina trying to dismantle and neutralize the U.S. government, our most natural defense ally, what other form of countervailing power do we, individual workers, have to make the other team, the multi-national corporations pay any heed to us. We have none. By making us think that “protectionism,” which can save our jobs is a bad word, and then by lobbying Congress to assure that protection for us will not come, the offshoring proponents want to insure their success and place our demise at their option. Was Carly Fiorina and her crew looking for my government to help her do me in? Was Carly looking for a little preemptive corporate protectionism, though she would make US worker protectionism look like a bad and hurtful idea? Why was she there? She was there because she is concerned about what we will do, when bad things come our way. HP, IBM, Accenture, and many more “American Corporations” do not need potentially displaced US workers to defend them. They don’t need potentially displaced US workers to take our best weapon, government protection, off the table as a weapon. They don’t need smart people like the many who have written about Tom Stockwell’s article to see the multinational corporations’ side of the story. And, they don’t need folks like us letting them know that there is dissension in our ranks, leaving us vulnerable to exploitation. No, they don’t really need us to help them think that their actions may actually be right by us. They’ve got plenty of high paid lawyers already doing that for them. We’ve got nobody but our individual voices. That means that they are going to win. The powerful always defeat the weak. Don’t expect a shipment of benevolence and altruism to arrive at the doorsteps of “American” corporations any time soon. Therefore, we need every voice to join in a bigger voice that says the same thing over and over about the perpetrators who are secretly and not so secretly attacking us. To whom shall we speak in this one big voice. That’s another simple one. To our government, whom we pay to protect us. There is little right about offshoring. Others in this forum have articulated that quite well. Off shoring is a basic product of poor management, not poor workers, not a lack of worker talent, and not poor work. It is the panacea solution du jour for poor management to squeeze a few nickels more into the bottom line. This is lots easier for these modern day wallet busters. It’s lots easier than being forced by the stockholders to actually manage the business by finding ways to achieve real efficiencies in the organization. Offshoring, among other things is a big ruse to take the pressure off poor management. Left on its own, management is going to keep playing the offshoring game. If you or I or whole neighborhoods happen to be affected negatively, they will classify us as necessary breakage. That makes it OK. Necessary for what? It’s necessary to sustain bad management. So, it really is time to choose sides. What side of the offshoring issue are you on? We need you over here. Regardless of your sense of fair play on the issue, we, the potentially displaced IT workers of America, have to recognize that the opposition has no similar sense of fair play. They shudder at only one thing – the notion of protectionism. We cannot “not” use our one advantage. They don’t want us to seek the very same protection that they seek from our government. They don’t care about us. They care about bottom lines. We care about us more than their bottom lines. Our means of engaging this enemy is to not care about them. Don’t give tem any help. For a time at least, offshoring companies must be looked upon as the enemy while we put them in their place.. It should be simple. They are the enemy. Did I capture the guy’s anger?

[Guest.Visitor]

Anti-Outsourcing Movement Gains Congressional Momentum

bkelly1, I agree with you. The thing to ask yourself is this: (This is a theoretical example to help resolve the ideas) When you go to Best Buy to buy a DVD player and see two DVD players with identical features, dental size and identical quality would you buy the $79 DVD player made in Asia or would you pay $279 for the one made entirely in America? I know that there are no DVD players made in America, but think of any product that is, such as a car or Radio Flyer, etc and ask yourself if you'd pay 50% to 200% more for an item made in America. Not just once in a while, not just for nostalgia, but every item you buy. It's really the consumer that controls what jobs are kept in America, NOT corporations. Corporations only react to market pressures. I think I know what most of us, including me, would answer. chuck Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer. "bkelly1" wrote in message news:6ae97717.25@WebX.WawyahGHajS... > Brian S. note: > > But what if those very corporations that you say "choose to hurt Americans" instead paid their workers what they've always paid them, despite the presence of cheaper competition. The companies would have higher costs, and consequently would not be as competitive and would generally lose when competing against those companies that can get the job done more efficiently. The "protected" programmers could lose their jobs anyway, along with the rest of those employed by the company. The companies would still be accused of "choosing to hurt Americans", don't you think? > We compete in a global world now. Laws can't do much to change that. The Soviet Union had the ultimate in market protections, and they ultimately collapsed in the face of global competition. > Brian > > Response: > > Choose sides. > > I don't contest that there are scenarios that may work out the way you describe. I think that your response has to do with the innate notion of fair play that many Americans have. We sometimes care about affecting our opponents too harshly. When the other team is outmatched we might even do a little rooting for the underdog, even if it's not our team. However, these guys are far more powerful than us, and standing by and letting offshoring happen is a losing strategy. With all due respect, they have done nothing to deserve our patronage. > > I believe in countervailing powers. If there is no countervailing power, then the powerful rule and their edicts do not have to be fair. Right now, everywhere I look, including my own backyard, good people are losing their jobs. I don't see good corporations going out of business because they can't compete in the world market without hurting Americans. > > I see a few extra cents of earnings lining the pockets of industry titans who may not even notice the extra. I see the plight of the business executive who, prior to the first Wednesday golf swing at the country club can't wait to tell the other moguls "our company too is going offshore." I see management recognizing offshoring as one of its "best practices." I see no moral or ethical sense to the corporate job carnage. I see companies taking what they can and leaving the pillage behind for the rest of America to deal with. > > There are many humanitarian and business reasons to offshore American jobs. For example, China must find jobs for 125 million farmers migrating to its cities and work coming from the U.S. is critical to doing this. I just don't think that we want them to take our jobs. It is that simple. I want it stopped. At a minimum, I want it lessened. > > Why did Carly Fiorina and the band of eight lobby Congress last month? Why did the Yankees pursue A-Rod? It's the same reason. Big and powerful organizations try to gain more power to assure their success. That's why. Carly and company tried to get our player, the Congress of the US, to be on its team. > > With Fiorina trying to dismantle and neutralize the U.S. government, our most natural defense ally, what other form of countervailing power do we, individual workers, have to make the other team, the multi-national corporations pay any heed to us. We have none. By making us think that "protectionism," which can save our jobs is a bad word, and then by lobbying Congress to assure that protection for us will not come, the offshoring proponents want to insure their success and place our demise at their option. > > Was Carly Fiorina and her crew looking for my government to help her do me in? Was Carly looking for a little preemptive corporate protectionism, though she would make US worker protectionism look like a bad and hurtful idea? Why was she there? She was there because she is concerned about what we will do, when bad things come our way. > > HP, IBM, Accenture, and many more "American Corporations" do not need potentially displaced US workers to defend them. They don't need potentially displaced US workers to take our best weapon, government protection, off the table as a weapon. They don't need smart people like the many who have written about Tom Stockwell's article to see the multinational corporations' side of the story. And, they don't need folks like us letting them know that there is dissension in our ranks, leaving us vulnerable to exploitation. No, they don't really need us to help them think that their actions may actually be right by us. They've got plenty of high paid lawyers already doing that for them. > > We've got nobody but our individual voices. That means that they are going to win. The powerful always defeat the weak. Don't expect a shipment of benevolence and altruism to arrive at the doorsteps of "American" corporations any time soon. Therefore, we need every voice to join in a bigger voice that says the same thing over and over about the perpetrators who are secretly and not so secretly attacking us. To whom shall we speak in this one big voice. That's another simple one. To our government, whom we pay to protect us. > > There is little right about offshoring. Others in this forum have articulated that quite well. Off shoring is a basic product of poor management, not poor workers, not a lack of worker talent, and not poor work. It is the panacea solution du jour for poor management to squeeze a few nickels more into the bottom line. This is lots easier for these modern day wallet busters. It's lots easier than being forced by the stockholders to actually manage the business by finding ways to achieve real efficiencies in the organization. Offshoring, among other things is a big ruse to take the pressure off poor management. > > Left on its own, management is going to keep playing the offshoring game. If you or I or whole neighborhoods happen to be affected negatively, they will classify us as necessary breakage. That makes it OK. Necessary for what? It's necessary to sustain bad management. > > So, it really is time to choose sides. What side of the offshoring issue are you on? We need you over here. Regardless of your sense of fair play on the issue, we, the potentially displaced IT workers of America, have to recognize that the opposition has no similar sense of fair play. They shudder at only one thing - the notion of protectionism. We cannot "not" use our one advantage. They don't want us to seek the very same protection that they seek from our government. They don't care about us. They care about bottom lines. We care about us more than their bottom lines. Our means of engaging this enemy is to not care about them. Don't give tem any help. For a time at least, offshoring companies must be looked upon as the enemy while we put them in their place.. It should be simple. They are the enemy. > > Did I capture the guy's anger?

[Guest.Visitor]

Anti-Outsourcing Movement Gains Congressional Momentum

I choose to be on the side of the country that I was born and usually believe in - the USA. I'm just trying to figure out what's the best for us (IMO) as a nation, like everyone else is. When I get the chance to travel outside the country, I see products from companies I've never heard of competing with products from American companies, and I want our companies to win. That doesn't mean that I want it to be at the expense of the American worker. But the globalisation of the world economy is a force bigger than workers or individual companies, and the best you can do is survive and thrive any way you can (within moral and legal limits). Your post is well thought out. I think my biggest difference of opinion with you is the "us vs. them". Let me address some points specifically.

Right now, everywhere I look, including my own backyard, good people are losing their jobs. I don’t see good corporations going out of business because they can’t compete in the world market without hurting Americans.

I too know people who are out of work. But there are indeed American companies going out of business because they can't compete internationally - that's what's happening to the manufacturing jobs. Those companies that don't get more efficient will be gone, and then what's left?

I see a few extra cents of earnings lining the pockets of industry titans who may not even notice the extra.

That may be true, but those extra earnings also helped other investors who may need the money. Of course, the extra earnings are diluted by all the investors, so it's no compensation to individuals losing jobs, but still, it's not just the fat cats getting weathly if companies do good.

There are many humanitarian and business reasons to offshore American jobs. For example, China must find jobs for 125 million farmers migrating to its cities and work coming from the U.S. is critical to doing this. I just don’t think that we want them to take our jobs. It is that simple. I want it stopped. At a minimum, I want it lessened.

The trouble is, how do you stop it? And which jobs do you stop from leaving? Would you want to protect American workers who are making shoes or belts or low-tech items? Manufacturing consists mainly of low tech labor and high tech factories. We can have that here too, if we get high tech enough. At least, that's the theory. But at any rate, the jobs replaced by automation are gone forever. Why fight to preserve them, when the people could be doing something better?

We’ve got nobody but our individual voices. That means that they are going to win.

If we are workers and investors (aka owners), who is the "they"?

Don’t expect a shipment of benevolence and altruism to arrive at the doorsteps of “American” corporations any time soon.

The market is brutal (see Chuck's post for a succinct explanation). It's where everyone competes against everyone, and the most efficient survive and thrive. That's where we compete now. Those companies that make the best decisions about how to provide the best quality for the lowest cost are the ones that win.

Our means of engaging this enemy is to not care about them

I don't think of those on either side of this argument (US workers, amangement) as the enemy. Instead, I think of them as competitors trying to grab a slice of the pie whichever way they can. I like this chart and this chart, and I want it to stay that way. As long as we're up there, we can figure out how to divide our slice of the pie amongst ourselves (through taxes, etc.). I don't think protectionism will keep us up there, although it's far from clear what will. One thing that is for sure, we don't need any extra restrictions hampering our ability to allocate resources efficiently. That's a cold way to put it, but that's what it boils down to. When Brian P.S. Tonka's post on this topic is good - innovation is where the difference is. That applies on a macro and micro level. There are a number of contributors here who continue to be successful in today's economy who say that you have survive by continually pushing the envelope of maximizing your value. I take that advice to heart. P.P.S. Please don't take this post as a defense of "evil corporations". Greed is not always good, and for cases where it goes counter to what we want as a society, we have the gov. I'm just not convinced that this is greed - I think it's more about survival.

[T.Stockwell]

Anti-Outsourcing Movement Gains Congressional Momentum

If this is of interest, look at the following op-ed piece in the NY Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/20/op...20HERB.html?hp

[Guest.Visitor]

Anti-Outsourcing Movement Gains Congressional Momentum

I don't know what happened to your response posted several days ago. It is gone. From my eyes, in that response you offered again that the enemy is us because we are invested in the very corporations that are eliminating our jobs. Though I think I appreciate your "there's two sides to every story approach," I disagree with the premise of that argument. We are not them and they are not us. We have no power over them and they have great power in many ways over us. Regardless of your politics, you've got to believe that corporations, even those of which we may have some holdings, have separate agendas from their minor stockholders, and even from the minor stakeholders in the big pension plans who are their biggest investors. Nobody could disagree that as Americans we have interests in American Corporations and that we benefit when they do well. However, if we look at this issue of Americans losing their jobs to offshoring, it is simply a matter of "keeping American jobs is not on the corporate agendas." Corporations are too busy to think of saving our jobs. Nobody has forced that as an issue on their agendas. Good management figures out how do get good things done. Take the rogues in Rochester Minnesota who long ago, despite mainframe IBM's wishes to the contrary, built a less powerful computer (MIPS) than a mainframe as directed by IBM, but yet they built one with the most elegant and extensible architecture possible for its time and our time, and time to come. Perhaps if not constrained by mother IBM to do its wishes, the System/38 would ahve looked more like a more powerful System/3 than a machine that defined business computing architecture for decades. Without constraints, corporations will do as they want. My perspective is not that of an investor in corporations, but a worker in IT. I believe that American corporations can do better if motivated. They can do the right thing. I don't see them going out of business over saving American jobs. I see them taking the fact that they must consider American workers more in their decisions as something they can deal with far better than merely blaming the worker for their financial problems and shipping jobs off shore. If the survival of the American worker becomes part of the corporate survival picture, American corporations will figure a way to survive. In so doing, American workers will have real jobs with real purpose. I am not against big corporations and the right to businesses to make big money. I just think they should have more room in their hearts than just a continual notion of their bottom line. There was a recent report from CBS' 60 Minutes about how certain American companies help fund rogue terrorist states. Without offering substantial commentary, I think they could do better also. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in595214.shtml If that's not enough to ruffle your feathers, not much will. Forget about sending jobs to other countries. Some American corporations apparently think it is OK to finance the terrorists who attack us. I think we must consistently and continually tell the corporations that exist in our country and to which we are invested that we expect them to behave well. And, judging from how they behave when they think we do not care enough to act, I supsect we will have to spell out what we mean by "behave well." The offshoring dilemma is certainly not hopeless unless we permit "American" corporations to act constraint free.

[Guest.Visitor]

Anti-Outsourcing Movement Gains Congressional Momentum

I do not want American corporations to disappear because they can't compete. I give them credit for being able to adapt in a world in which the host country demands that they pay more attention to the plight of its workers. In your response you offer that the enemy is us because we are invested in the very corporations that are eliminating our jobs. Though I think I appreciate your "there's two sides to every story approach," I disagree with the premise of that argument. We are not them and they are not us. We have no power over them and they have great power in many ways over us. Regardless of your politics, you've got to believe that corporations, even those of which we may have some holdings, have separate agendas from their minor stockholders, and even from the minor stakeholders in the big pension plans who are their biggest investors. Few could disagree that as Americans we have interests in American corporations and that we benefit when they do well. However, if we look at this issue of Americans losing their jobs to offshoring, it is simply a matter of "keeping American jobs is not on the corporate agendas." Corporations are too busy to think of saving our jobs. Nobody has forced that as an issue on their agendas. I think that the time has come to do just that. Good management figures out how to get good things done. Take the rogues in Rochester Minnesota who long ago, despite mainframe IBM's wishes to the contrary, built a less powerful computer (MIPS) than a mainframe as directed by IBM, but yet they built one with the most elegant and extensible architecture possible for its time and our time, and time to come. Perhaps if not constrained by mother IBM to do its wishes, the System/38 would have looked more like a more powerful System/3 than the machine that defined business computing architecture for decades. Bad management blames its poor performance on factors beyond its control. Without constraints, corporations will do as they want. My perspective is not that of an investor in corporations, but a worker in IT. I believe that American corporations can do better if motivated. They can do the right thing. I don't see them going out of business over saving American jobs. I see them taking the fact that they must consider American workers more in their decisions as something they can deal with far better than merely blaming the worker for their financial problems and shipping jobs off shore. If the survival of the American worker becomes part of the corporate survival picture, American corporations will figure a way to survive. In so doing, American workers will have real jobs with real purpose. I am not against big corporations and the right of big businesses to make big money. I just think they should have more room in their hearts than just a continual notion of their bottom lines. Whether they beleive it or not, coprporations have a moral and ethical responsibility to its workers. There can be no free ride or the worker will always be the last item considered, if considered at all. That's why unions were formed earlier in the not too distant U.S. history. Left on its own, robber baron management was not inclined to do the right thing for its workers. The same mentality regarding workers is in place in today's U.S. based corporations. Therefore, we cannot let U.S. corporations be alone as they determine the fate of the American worker (IT worker in this instance). There was a recent report from CBS' 60 Minutes about how certain American companies unknowingly and perhaps even knowingly help fund rogue terrorist states. Without offering substantial commentary, I think they could do better also. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in595214.shtml If that's not enough to ruffle your feathers, not much will. Forget about sending jobs to other countries. Some American corporations apparently think it is OK to finance the terrorists who attack us. I think we must consistently and continually tell the corporations that exist in our country and to which we are invested that we expect them to behave well. And, judging from how they behave when they think we do not care enough to act, I suspect that we will have to spell out what we mean by "behave well." The offshoring dilemma is certainly not hopeless unless we permit "American" corporations to act constraint free.

[Guest.Visitor]

Anti-Outsourcing Movement Gains Congressional Momentum

I have been following this discussion and everyone has made important points, but frankly, it seems to me that this one problem of jobs lost to outsourcing is an indication of a larger overall trend - and not a new one as bkelly1 pointed out. The goals of private companies and corporations are not the same as, and are usually antithetical to, the goals of democratic social institutions. They are autocratic and/or oligarchical, discrete economic units. Basically they are totalitarian states - their only difference is that their "votes" (shares, if a public corporation) are bought with money, not guns like in N. Korea or the PRC. It is not "one man, one vote" as in a democracy. Jeffrey Skilling wasn't voted out of office at Enron by "shareholders" - he ran away and was indicted and arrested by OUR government. The Global economy touted by corporate representatives is basically a power play designed to increase the influence of multinational corporations over national government policies and usurp the spheres of influence of these states for their own gain. This is where they go wrong. Standard Oil and others tried it in the late 19th century, I. G. Farben tried it in the mid 20th century - ultimately, it was the guys with the guns (and voters) that won out over the guys with money. Laws are made by government entities, not corporations. And as long as we have a democratic voting system in place we as citizens can oversee and create the government and it's laws. And, we not only have the right to vote, we have the responsibility to vote - a responsibility too often not impressed on people. No government should put the needs and concerns of business above those of it's citizens. The goals of totalitarian economic units (businesses) are opposed to those of democratic institutions at a basic level. Business must be constrained and subservient to the society at large in which they exist, not the other way around. Stop outsourcing? Give companies a tax break for every US citizen they employ, or a tax penalty for every non-US citizen whose services are contracted. Laws are arbitrary and made up all the time. Be creative - if you aren't, our politicians will (or will not) be. Protectionist? Of course! Why do we have a DOD, a DOJ, laws, a government? - to PROTECT ourselves, our country, and our society. This Island Earth has no world government, no "New World Order" (except in the minds of CEO's and sundry Rock stars). It's composed of discrete nation-states, each with their own agenda, rules, morality, culture, and people. It should not be allowed to become a corporate game of Risk to see who can take over the world as quick as possible for their personal exploitation. A capitalist totalitarian society is no better than a communist totalitarian society. I suggest you scream bloody murder and vote, or put your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye.

[Guest.Visitor]

Anti-Outsourcing Movement Gains Congressional Momentum

I'll say it again: Soon there will be only four catagories of employment left in the US: 1) Doctor 2) Lawyer 3) Politician 4) Fast Food Worker To you mid- and upper level managers I say, beware! They'll come for you next!

[Guest.Visitor]

Anti-Outsourcing Movement Gains Congressional Momentum

Haven't you heard - fast food workers may be reclassified as "manufacturing workers". Since they can hold the pickle or hold the relish, the government wants to put them in the same category as the people who make your car.

[danweidman]

Anti-Outsourcing Movement Gains Congressional Momentum

I'm not so sure where I stand on the issue, but I figured I'd throw this log onto the flames...The great holllowing-out myth

[Guest.Visitor]

Anti-Outsourcing Movement Gains Congressional Momentum

As jobs leave the country, do these people in India and elsewhere have to pay any US income taxes on their income? If not, does that mean the the US local, state and federal goverments are collecting fewer taxes? And if so, how does our federal goverment plan to pay for the national debt? It just keeps growing and growing. Chris

[Guest.Visitor]

Anti-Outsourcing Movement Gains Congressional Momentum

Lots of food for thought in this thread. To add more, here are two good articles that I read over the weekend. The first is by Thomas Friedman, a very smart man. The second was very tough to read... Meet the Zippies - New York Times: "We grew up with the hippies in the 1960's. Thanks to the high-tech revolution, many of us became yuppies in the 1980's. And now, fasten your seat belt, because you may soon lose your job to a 'zippie' in the 2000's." Behind the Asian outsourcing phenomenon | CNET News.com: "Wage rate differentials generate cost savings, of course, but the really compelling gains come from pairing savings with top-flight skills. While it is true that only a few Asian countries offer enough English-speaking call-center representatives to deal with U.S. customers, many other skills are more abundant in Asia than in the United States. China, for example, produces 350,000 graduate engineers every year, compared with 90,000 for U.S. engineering schools. And most leading Indian IT-outsourcing firms operate at level five--the highest degree of expertise--of the IT service capability maturity model, whereas most internal IT departments in the United States operate at levels two or three. "

[uptech]

Anti-Outsourcing Movement Gains Congressional Momentum

A few more points. (1) So there's no misunderstanding, other things being equal, those things more easily and cheaply produced in area (or country) A than area B without sacrifice of quality (etc.), then "A" is where it should be. That said, (2) There is a group of opportunistic lawyers organizing an effort to sue the U.S. for the "benefits" of slave labor. I rather see it as a stifling influence that allowed inefficiencies in the economic sense, besides the general universal law of "Whatsoever a man sews, that shall he also reap". They have a much bigger and easier target: China. (3) Bobtheplanet: The corps are pushing for the NWO. They envision, together with the UN, a "corporate-friendly socialism". This is the hidden thrust of environmentalism. My wife, from Honduras, her brother owns vast extensions of forest land, and the weenie-greenies have put a lock on cutting one tree. This is recent. Do you think Weyenheuser, the "tree-cutting company", has such restrictions? Hah! Do you think the oil companies are worried about scarcity? Hah! (4) New programming techniques, Don Denancourt: good point! (5) The worst the corporations have done is lied. For example, saying that H1B's were because they couldn't find somebody. (6) A solid manufacturing base, and "essential services" base, is necessary for defense. My Mom drove a taxi during WWII (much safer then)> (7) And Jim Roland's thrust was right on. Pretty soon, these new companies formed with our help will start dealing among themselves, with Japan's enthusiastic help, and insomuch as they are not oppressive I salute this. (8) THE BIG POINT missed here though is that the very same complex labyrinth of oppressive laws that have tied the hands of both workers and big corps, but most important keep the small entrepeneur guessing, these are the main factors in driving the overseas migration of GDP. (9) Also, where is it written that the U.S. will always prosper from every "natural" economic trend, as asserted in the article from the Economist? In other words, what made us prosperous? Among other things, education and moral reliability were key. These are fruits of a nation that deserved more than it does now. (Not a statement about individuals herein).

[Guest.Visitor]

Anti-Outsourcing Movement Gains Congressional Momentum

CAN YOU PROVE THIS? If not, then I can also speak of numerous kickbacks given by american companies here and in america. Please attach relevant proofs before making such allegations. Thank you.