"Deuteros" <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:4424605d$0$16461$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net...

50 cent jobs won't be around forever. It's simple economics. Right now
there are so many exported jobs to India that they are experiencing a
labor shortage and wages are going up. Many companies not seeing as
much of a benefits to offshoring there as they used to. Eventually
everything reaches equilibrium.

Meantime those 50-cent jobs are driving down wages in the US -- which is
what Corporations want.

America is not losing jobs. In fact, more Americans are employed than
ever before.

Except those American jobs are low-paying, no-benefit ***** jobs.

And, no, more Americans are NOT employed than ever before -- go look at the
actual -employment- statistics and not the -unemployment- statistics.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Deuteros <deuteros@xrs.net> wrote in
news:4424605d$0$16461$892e7fe2@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net:

Secret Squirrel <ssquirrel@nottheremailer.net> wrote in
news:A7YMZCVQ38800.4500231482@anonymous.poster:

a) said corporations are being, in essence, *paid* by the
Bushites to move jobs to places like Indonesia;

Provide proof that Bush is paying companies to offshore
jobs.

- From a libertarian-leaning site, no less:

http://libertyissues.com/blog2/?page_id=12\

Take your pick: American living standards are either stagnant
or declining. Market libertarians know the solution to both.
We’ve known for over two centuries. Invest more capital per
worker.

But what if manufacturers are punished for investing in their
workers? What if manufacturers are punished for investing in
new jobs? What if manufacturers can escape this punishment,
by expanding outside the United States?

By punishment, I of course mean taxes. I’ve used
manufacturers as the example, but the tax penalty applies to
every capital-intensive business in America.

Manufacturers buy new machinery for one of two reasons: to
support a new worker, or to increase productivity of a
current worker. As business buys more machinery, more workers
are employed, at higher living standards.

This is good. So why do we levy a targeted tax penalty on
productive investment?

This tax penalty is called depreciation. It is a somewhat
boring topic. So why do I think you need to know about
depreciation?

It is because you don’t understand depreciation that Congress
pulled one its biggest blunders with Republicans leading the
way.

b) you ever have any experience with said moves, and their
effect? (I'm talking strictly in terms of the economic
bottom line, of making good product, not the sad effects
on US communities decimated by the loss of good
manufacturing jobs).

It's not a company's obligation to provide you with a job.
You may have a right to work but you don't have a right to
a job.

If you don't like offshoring then start your own company.

Wombat!

Some brilliant overseas corporate moves I've had the
pleasure to be aware of, encouraged no doubt in part by
your wise Republican tax laws, have resulted in
corporations moving jobs overseas where the new plants
have *yet* to make on-spec material even **years** after
start-up. This is even true when the overseas plant had
the latest technology whereas the US counterparts
struggled with outdated equipment; the US plants still
made money whereas the overseas plant *lost* money because
they couldn't make decent product.

For the same money, or less, the coroporations could have
simply updated their US plants with new technology. But
no, they were greedy, with their eyes on that 50-cent an
hour labor.

50 cent jobs won't be around forever. It's simple
economics. Right now there are so many exported jobs to
India that they are experiencing a labor shortage and wages
are going up. Many companies not seeing as much of a
benefits to offshoring there as they used to. Eventually
everything reaches equilibrium.

America is not losing jobs. In fact, more Americans are
employed than ever before.

At lower wages and lower quality of life. As Bob LeChevalier
correctly notes, Repubs love to cite "family income" instead
of average wage income, but the fact that Dad, Mom, Older Sis
and Bro have to go out and work (each at lower and lower wages)
to make ends meet, whereas previously only one spouse had to
work, indicates a lower quality of life under the Brave New
Economic Order.

(The second stat that Repubs like to cite to avoid admitting
the decline in real wages: family *spending*. Yes, let's
pretend that people being head-over-heels awash in credit
card debt, incurred to make ends meet, is a *good* thing!!).

<http://www.newwork.com/Pages/Opinion/Raynor/Middle%20Class.html>

The University of Pittsburgh's Professor Emeritus Fred Thayer
also writes about the disappearing middle class and the
relentless cost reduction efforts by corporations. "Global
competition now compels corporations to adhere to standard
economic principles by drastically reducing costs by punishing
workers and retirees in order to sell their output at the lowest
possible prices. This trend will inevitably spill over into
public and nonprofit sectors via privatization mania, and some
of the actions now being taken are indeed tragic... I am old
enough to remember when the streets were full of disabled
people, many of them amputees, who themselves had no choice but
to beg for assistance from passerby who themselves had little or
nothing to spare. That world is returning." (Thayer, 8/19/03).

Of course, there's a simple way to begin to fix this problem:
raise the minimum wage to something to its 1968 equivalent.
If indeed the country's wealthier now than then, we can afford
it; nor does it lead to unemployment or inflation (particularly
in the global economy, sellers can't just arbitrarily raise
prices to compensate for higher costs). What it *would* do is
to reverse the increasing partition of the US's income from
bottom-to-top, which has been going on since Reagan. In fact,
raising the minimum wage is the biggest single thing that the
government could do to reduce poverty in the US. (That, and
creating a universal health care system).

Secret Squirrel

For the same money, or less, the coroporations could have
simply updated their US plants with new technology. But no,
they were greedy, with their eyes on that 50-cent an hour
labor.

50 cent jobs won't be around forever. It's simple economics. Right now
there are so many exported jobs to India that they are experiencing a labor
shortage and wages are going up.

India could absorb every job in the US and not have a labor shortage,
and China if necessary could take up the slack. Between them, they
have around 8 times our population. Yes, eventually their wages will
go up, but never anywhere close to our minimum wage.

And as their education levels improve, their skilled labor force is
growing much more rapidly than their population.

Many companies not seeing as much of a
benefits to offshoring there as they used to. Eventually everything reaches
equilibrium.

The equilibrium will be reached at a significantly lower standard of
living for Americans. This may or may not be a good thing for the
world, but it won't be a happy thing for Americans.

America is not losing jobs. In fact, more Americans are employed than ever
before.

But at a lower real wage level. Individuals earn less than ever in
"real" terms. Households make *slightly* more because housewives have
gone to work enough to make up the loss in individual wages, at the
cost of having people at home to raise the children, and increasing
the total day care costs more than the increase in wages.

Deuteros wrote:

LOL, MIB's a student, who will probably make more money
than you (or I, for that matter) one day, given his major.

Which would be...?

None of your damn business, since I've already picked
up cyber-stalkers and had to close two email accounts
because of it.