From: "Russell Chapman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Michael Harney wrote: > > >For one, I want heavy penalties levied against companies that off-shore > >work. Call it an intelectual property terrif if you like. Second, I want > >the government to establish work programs with that money so that people put > >out of work by off-shoring are able to have some kind of job available to > >them. > > > But that's nonsense - you'd cripple the companies that are such a vital > component of the economy. If Boeing finds that an Israeli firm has a > brilliant new avionics package, why can't they contract that firm to > develop a better system for their jets. If Chrysler doesn't have the > resources to build a new sports car, but needs a fresher image, why > can't it turn to other parts of DaimlerChrysler and get their engineers > to develop the Crossfire (excepting of course the 2 Chrysler badges > which are made in the USA), just because those engineers happen to be in > Eastern Europe. > If Boeing don't - Airbus has a better package and USA loses. If Chrysler > don't, then BMW or Acura have the better car, and USA loses. > What about the truly global multi-nationals which are still American > companies - IBM, Ford, GE, Texaco, Intel etc. Do they get penalised for > the productivity of their workers outside the USA? If they don't why > can't every US company set up an Indian office or a Russian office and > do the same? No, it's not nonsense, it's the only way that we can keep jobs in the US, make it more expencive to off-shore work than to contract locally. I never said they couldn't off-shore work, I just said there should be fines associated with that to make it less cost effective. > >A country based on total free enterprise isn't neccessarily a good thing. > >Moreover, even in the past, our nation had tarrifs so that cheap foriegn > >imports wouldn't put American businessmen out of business. For one, we can > >extend the concept of tarrifs so that they protect not only business men, > >but workers as well. > > > Tarrifs are being abolished because they are a short term gain for long > term pain. The simple fact is that there are more consumers outside the > USA than within it, and US companies need to be able to sell into those > markets. Uncompetitive practices propped up by artificial tarrifs make > that difficult, and the tarrifs imposed by trading partners in response > make it impossible. For products, that may be true, I don't know, but we want to export our products, not our jobs. Do you want american jobs exported? Do you want to increase the rift between the working class and business owners? Make the poor poorer, make the rich richer, and eliminate the middle class? Maybe you do, but I don't. I'd hate to see yet another revolution that rips a country in half. If you don't know what I am talking about, review your history of Russia and France. > >I think that would require corperate responsability laws restricting (not > >forbidding, just restricting) all outsourcing (outsourcing of anykind > >weakens the strength of unionizing... > > > But you can't restrict it. If I run a wholesale business and find I can > expand into e-commerce, should I be prevented because the three guys who > always ran my inventory system don't have the expertise to set up and > maintain a full-blown e-tailer system. When I contract an outside firm > to replace the computer system, my network administrator is going to see > himself as having been outsourced, but as a business owner I won't see > it that way. There are all sorts of reasons - PriceWaterhouseCoopers ran > a very effective consulting division within their practice, but the > facts are that modern consulting requires different ownership > structures, risk management, resourcing, insurance and legislative > compliance to accounting or audit, so they hived off the consulting > division... Should they be penalised that suddenly all those workers > were now attached to offices on an outsourced basis? Did I say forbid it? No, in fact I stated to the contrary: "not forbidding, just restricting". And what kind of restriction did I say was needed? Corperate resopnsability laws. Not taxes, not red tape, just corperate responsability laws to protect the rights of the outsource workers. > I'd really like to know how anyone can stop American companies from > giving contracts to foreign companies? You don't have to stop it, you just have to make it less cost effective to do so. Michael Harney [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
