This topic is born out of another. The thought came to me as I read the various posts in this topic.

The majority of people seem to feel (rightly IMHO) that globalization in inevitable. The differences in opinion seems to be what to do about the effects it has on our people and our economy.

Many discuss the loss of jobs to globalization as being a terrible thing. Then go off to the store and buy the various goods they need never bothering to look to see where one or the other was made.

Others would like to support American Workers, but many goods in the stores today that are from overseas are so much cheaper that it becomes a budget problem. "Sure, I could buy one outfit for work that was made in America, or I could buy a weeks worth of work clothes made overseas".

The bottom line is that Globalization is the reason why some can afford to support themselves, while it is the also the reason why some cannot.

The question becomes. What do we do?

Does government choose to block or tariff foreign goods to improve American Made goods ability to compete? Does government begin to subsidize industry so it can better compete? Does government do nothing and allow the market to adjust to the changes?

There are many proposed solutions out there. However, for the purposes of this debate topic I would like to limit the discussion to government based solutions. For the sake of this topic (not reality) let's assume that the only solution is a government one (though I do not completely agree).


One one hand, if government uses isolationist like policies to block or increase to costs of foreign goods, American goods can better compete in the American Market. The problem there is that other countries would likely do the same to American goods, resulting is international sales losses for companies that could possibly eliminate anything gained in the American Market. The Bigger problem, as I see it, is that the costs of all manner of goods would increase for consumers. Using these methods to make American Goods more competitive does so by causing an increase in the cost of bringing foreign goods here. What would our economy really gain if American companies could compete better, but Americans could buy less because everything costs more?

On the other hand there are various ways for Government to increase what is usually called Corporate Welfare, to effectively subsidize companies, allowing them to make less on what they sell and thus be more competitive with foreign goods. While this would be the better solution for the consumer in the short term, what long term ramifications might present themselves? Government would have less to spend on other services. If those services were needed, and taxes had to be raised as a result what would the consumer truly gain? If instead we continued deficit spending to cover both what would that mean for the future of our economy? If instead, needed services were cut, what possible negatives might effect the consumer and the society as a whole? The further problem is whether or not this type of program is sustainable. As American Companies would become more and more dependent on the government support, what happens if the government can no longer fully support these programs? Would that not result in a massive economic crash?

The Key question for me is, which is better? Supporting companies so that they can support the American Workforce, or Supporting those displaced from the American Workforce?


Questions For Debate:

If we assume that Globalization is inevitable and that the only solution is government intervention, then is it better for our society to indirectly support workers by supporting the companies they work for, allowing the workers to "earn" their money? Or is it better to simply allow the companies to rise and fall based on their ability to compete and directly support displaced workers through unemployment, welfare, or other programs?

What do you see as the worst flaws in your choice and what are they ways you feel we can mitigate those flaws?

The CEO of GM was talking about the huge shift to China and when asked about Lou Dobbs he asked "what car does he drive?".

And I had to admit, he was right. Lou can blow steam about how evil corporations are, but American consumers don't seem to be too discerning about what they buy. Consumers are just as much to blame.

And this is why I think our gov't is our only salvation to the issue of globalization.

Expecting an answer from the free market is like expecting professional athletes to solve the abuse-of-steroids problem by themselves. It just ain't gonna happen.

If we can do what Nader suggests, create barriers for countries that don't have similar environmental and labor laws, barriers such as adding tariffs to such products made in those countries, then maybe we can turn the tide. If it does not increase employment here, it may increase the standard of living abroad such that those now poor countries will have sustainable and viable markets for American workers to sell to.

People in China can't live off of $0.50/day either.

Assuming we take that tactic. How do we address the problems it creates?

The first problem is the increase in the cost of living to average Americans. If you tariff these foreign Goods, that causes them to cost more. The result is that America Companies can better compete but Americans can buy less as a result. Does that really help? Is there a way in minimize this effect on consumers?

The second problem is the resulting tariff wars that would likely result. Contrary to popular opinion American Companies do sell alot of goods overseas. Would corporations really make enough money through this policy to make it economically feasible to keep manufacturing and other jobs in the US? Wouldn't the more then likely tariffs on US sales overseas reduce the international revenues of US corporations and take a huge chuck out of any gains made in the US market? Wouldn't the tariffs of US imports in other countries actually promote the creation of US facilities in other countries to avoid the tariffs? Though it could lead to the creation of foreign company facilities here would there really me any net gains? Is there something we could do with the program to ensure there would be a net gain?

This was the point of the second question in this topic:

What do you see as the worst flaws in your choice and what are they ways you feel we can mitigate those flaws?

I am curious about what your answer(s) would be.

Did we have problems when China and Mexico weren't taking over our manufacturing? What we are trading in now is good paying jobs/high prices with low paying jobs/occasionally low prices.

Don't kid yourself about low prices, there's a reason why the number of billionares are increasing and the middle class is becoming poor: those cost savings are being passed on as dividends and CEO salaries, not as price cuts. Check out inflation vs. wage stagnation. If truly losing jobs meant cheaper goods, we'd see close to deflation along with sagging wages. Instead inflation is looming and the rich are getting richer.

Personally, I don't think "low prices" is an issue.





You mean we could have LARGER trade deficits because of tariffs? We're at record deficits now, could it get much worse??



I'll just stop you there. This is the sore point, corporations run our gov't and they make a lot of money on making cheap crap in China and selling it here. So it's going to take a lot of PAIN to overcome the financial INFLUENCE that keeps globalization going.


What do you see as the worst flaws in your choice and what are they ways you feel we can mitigate those flaws?

I'm kind of on the fence with globalization. Globalization is like a tidal wave a mile out at sea. It's coming this way but I'm not sure if it's just a big wave or if I should start running inland NOW! I hear people say things will work themselves out, but I've already been severly affected by globalization: losing my job to visa workers and seeing several plants in Michigan/Ohio/Pennsylvania move to Mexico and China.

Personally I have no idea how globalization will help us and how it will "work it's way out". I just see pain and suffering in the future for "most" Americans from globalization.

So the only flaws I see in some type of tariff solution is that globalization may turn out to just be a small wave and that all those people who said it was "nothing" turn out to be correct. That would be a major flaw. But if globalization is as bad as it appears, then we definately need to run for shelter....and a solution as drastic as tariffs should be considered.

I second OS's concerns....and would add a third...what guarentee is there that the tariff protection would have any long-term effect on employment. The steel industry was protected this way...what happened there? American companies have a history of simply pocketing the extra profits, and making no effort to correct the situation. The foreign companies, meantime, are forced to become even more competetive to survive in the face of tariff's. So, the long term effect is that the protected companies end up even worse off, with fewer workers, at even lower wages. All at the cost of higher prices to the consumer in the meantime. Hardly the outcome one would desire.

You see...it is just almost impossible to work around the market forces in play here. There is no win-win situation. Anything gained somewhere is likely lost somewhere else. Especially considering the basic problem we are purporting to solve: that being that American labor is overpriced in the global market. In a global economy, that problem can't really be hidden as it could in the past (as tariffs attempt to do). The only long-term way to maintain high wages is to have the productivity to justify it.

I think the assumption is, a) Americans will have to produce their own goods due to tarriffs (i.e. costly goods will allow Americans to compete) or China and the rest of the 3rd world will shape up, pay their employees (ala Henry Ford) and we'll see an uplifted market in those countries that increases employment everywhere (with expanded markets).

I'm not sure how an American corp could pocket profits if there were tariffs for moving production to Asia. That's the purpose of the tarrifs. Right now American corps are pocketing the profits and we're not seeing a great decrease in cost of living as promised by globalization gurus.



I agree that the risks are very great for very wealthy people and for that reason you may be right. But wait until unemployment explodes and we see another great depression (which I'm convinced is possible). We had 25% unemployment during the great depression and I see a lot of similarities between then and now. Mainly that demand is bound to plummet (see wages and a huge credit-to-savings ratio) and that productivity has sky-rocketed (see technology and 3rd world skilled/unskilled labor). That's what happened in the great depression: high productivity and low demand.

That said, it's easy NOW to say there is no win-win situation. But given my firestorm prediction actually happens we will see some protectionism or people will fry. You can't tell me that high unemployment (and low wages) is worth cheap goods....it didn't work in the great depression, it won't work now.



So is $1/day a fair value for a 12 hour work day? I agree to some extent that Americans are over-wealthy and over-paid.....but usually that's due to the billionares and millionares, and some of the upper middle class. You can't say a person who works a phone bank for $15/hr is overpriced. $15/hr is a poverty income if you're the bread-winner. Yet those jobs are being shipped to India for 1/3 the salaries.

It's a bit cold to say wages of people making $10-20/hr are overpriced. CEOs making 10s of millions a year are overpriced....regular Americans are just getting by.

Basically the problem with globalization as I see it is that we have a number of wealthy countries transacting business with poor countries. But as long as we take it slowly and carefully, we will see those poor countries gain an equal wealth. I can see the world economy looking much like the American economy, with all 50 states on a more or less even footing. I can also see any number of painful years as we transition to that.


I'm fond of quoting Walter Williams, the chair of the department of economics at George Mason University, and he has a good perspective on this subject. I'll just quote part of it, but the whole thing is really good.


http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams012804.asp

I'm not a big fan of Walters, so this is no big surprise that I disagree with him here. So would you say that prostitution versus starving is a viable alternative? Obviously the children in Asia that are pimped as child prostitutes need food, so if we discourage the practice are we "destroying their best alternatives"?

It's called exploitation. We know what a liveable wage is, but corporations are making profits and consumers are getting cheap goods, at the cost of these cheap workers.

What is fair and equitable is to let their markets flourish on their own such that the shoes they make are for themselves and that they can afford them. You aren't really building much wealth in a nation or helping to build their economy if you're just barely paying sustenance wages.

The main problem is that the number of jobs and the number of people are highly unbalanced. You can't just let market forces "go to work" because people with power and money will always have enormous leverage on just about any worker.

I see it now with highly educated people. China had some million college students go unemployed last year. So why should you have a job, with your college education, when someone from China will do it for $1/day!! And can you beat that? Maybe we can get you both down to a few cents a day.

The mistake is thinking things are "fair". This nonsens about "best alternatives" only works when workers have some type of leverage, otherwise employers can make your best alternative become working for peanuts.

I think that protectionism is definitely not the answer. First of all, it hurts our economy more than it helps. One study estimated that in 1984 U.S. consumers paid $42,000 annually for each textile job that was preserved by import quotas, a sum that greatly exceeded the average earnings of a textile worker. It also estimated that restricting foreign imports cost $105,000 annually for each automobile worker's job that was saved, $420,000 for each job in TV manufacturing, and $750,000 for every job saved in the steel industry.

I think it is almost self-evident that that money would be better spent on retraining and unemployment assistance.

Also, protectionism disproportionately hurts the poor. A recent study by the Progressive Policy Institute found that "tariffs are highest on the goods important to the poor." For example, a tariff of 48 percent is applied to sneakers costing $3 or less. This means that poor people, the ones most likely to buy such shoes, pay $4.79 instead of $3.23, which is what they would sell for without the tariff.

Perhaps most important, however, is the effect on other countries. If the US loses a job to foreign competition, that job is not lost, someone in another country gains it. Now if it goes to, say, Japan, I would say there is no real loss or gain; Japan needs jobs as much as the US. But if it goes to a poor country, the person who gets the job there is helped greatly. Most third world countries cannot afford any reasonable amount of unemployment insurance. If a job goes from the US to Mexico, the person who lost their job here gets unemployment insurance and probably can find another job, and the Mexican goes from living on the edge of poverty to getting by. Thats a gain in my book.

Also, talk about disaster relief. While we are trying to send money to help Sri Lanka out, the government is imposing $250,000,000 a year on imports from that country. How counter-productive is that?

For a global picture, an Oxfam report found that trade restrictions imposed by developed countries are costing developing countries $2.5 billion in foreign exchange each year. Thats terrible.

I think blanket comments or suggestions like "tariffs hurt an economy" are too broad to be taken seriously. South Korea has tariffs that keep out American vehicle manufacturers, but meanwhile they're dumping all of those Hundyis into this country because we have no tariffs. You can't argue, look at market share, that the US auto companies are hurt by this and that the SKs benefit.

Sure, putting tariffs on raw goods like steel may hurt the economy, but that is almost predictable. But there have been effective tariff-like laws that have greatly benefitted the US economy.

If our economy gets much worse, we won't even have a debate, there will be a mandate for tariffs, you can count on it. It's like anything, if it's out of control people will get desperate for a quick fix.



Why is that necessarily a gain? If the Mexican, with his new minimum wage job can't buy the stuff he's making, and the American who ONCE was the consumer of that product can no longer buy that product because all of the good jobs are going to Mexico, WHO BUYS THE PRODUCT??

The evidence I'm seeing about jobs going to Mexico are that American are going from decent $30-40K jobs to jobs at $5/hr at McDonalds....if they can find jobs. I'm not seeing people just moving laterally like you imply.

Here's some home town evidence for you from my home state. Not pretty stuff, and I'd like to see you tell people in Greenville that "that's a gain".

Yeah, I'd say we are destroying their best alternative. Not that I approve of prostitution, but if the only options are prostitution and starvation, and they choose prostitution, and then we step in and take away that alternative, then that leaves them with starvation. Ask yourself if we have done them any favors by taking away their alternative.

Nobody said anything about prostitution, though. The subject is the minimum wage in various forms of legitimate manufacturing/commerce. But, to put it in the context you chose, the alternatives are:
1) working in a factory/sweatshop/etc.
2) prostitution
3) starvation

So what happens when we enforce a mandatory minimum wage? Corporations don't have a large pile of money sitting around for whatever use happens to come along. The money for a minimum wage would have to come from somewhere. One of the following would happen:
1) The company lays off a portion of these people in order to afford the new labor costs.
2) The company lays off more American workers in order to afford the new labor costs.
3) The company brings the plant back to America, because there is no longer any cost-savings advantage.
4) The company closes down the plant entirely.

Not one of these options is an improvement for these people, except maybe for those lucky few who keep their job in #1. Paying them $2/day may not seem like much, but how does $0/day sound? Is the $2/day, which is measly by our standards, exploitation if the next best alternatives are prostitution or starvation?


It is only exploitation if they are either not aware of all the facts or if they are coerced into working. The facts are simple. They get paid $X/day to do Y job in Z factory. It is no surprise that American factories in Mexico and other countries have no problem keeping all their positions filled. Those people want the jobs they are being offered. That's not exploitation.

Interestingly, who is pushing the hardest for an international minimum wage? It's the labor unions in America and other developed nations who are seeing their jobs disappear overseas. Follow the money, and it becomes apparently clear what's happening. The unions understand simple economics, and they know that if they can increase their competitors' prices (other laborers' wages), then they have a better chance of keeping their own job at the wages they currently earn.

Well that's a nice spin, but IMHO, your alternatives are:

1) working in a factory/sweatshop/etc.
2) prostitution
3) starvation
4) Give them a real working wage

You'd rather see them starve than give them a real wage. You'd see them in prostitution than starve and you'd rather see them in sweat shop 12 hours a day/7days a week for pennys a day.




You forgot option 5.

5) They increase prices, cut their PROFIT MARGIN, the CEOs no longer make 500 times the average AMERICAN worker. And people ACTUALLY PAY for the REAL COST of their service or good.

Or is that too much to ask for?



I'm not sure where you got your definition of EXPLOITATION but that isn't my definition. Someone is exploited if they have few or no other choices and someone takes advantage of that situation.

from dictionary.com

ex·ploit·ed, ex·ploit·ing, ex·ploits (k-sploit, ksploit)To employ to the greatest possible advantage: exploit one's talents.
To make use of selfishly or unethically: a country that exploited peasant labor.


That's what our coroprations are doing. EXPLOITING people because they have no other alternatives. If you can't even admit that our corporations are exploiting the 3rd world, then you're missing the big picture.



How do you know what they "want"? Maybe they don't "want" to work for penny's per day, maybe they want to own a nice home and a car? What is apparent is that they NEED those jobs. And we're taking ADVANTAGE of their desperation.



Do you have a problem with this? That workers would be interested in their position? Who wants to compete with bottom-of-the-barrel wages? Corporations can walk the planet looking for cheaper and cheaper workers, it only hurts ALL workers. It's funny that corporate advocates (people that think corporate self-interest is a GREAT thing) think that worker advocates are somehow SELFISH.

It's pretty ironic.

Did you totally miss my point here? We are talking about providing a minimum wage for 3rd world workers, supposedly for the purpose of benefiting them, and the people who are pushing for it turn out to be those people with the least incentive to see these people benefited. The entire point here, is that the American labor unions are not trying to help these people, as claimed, but are trying to eliminate any possible incentive for their job to move overseas. That indicates to me that, with a minimum wage, these people will not have better working conditions and better pay, but instead won't have any of either. Otherwise, explain the actions of the labor unions. Philanthropy?



Very well, lets say that #4 is an option. That leads directly to the consequences, which you also extended:



Increased prices means reduced demand for the product being manufactured. Do you honestly believe that customers will happily continue to purchase the same quantities regardless of the price? Cutting profit margins means less profit, which negates the whole purpose of moving overseas. Neither of these options will provide the incentive to give 3rd world workers jobs.

You are proposing legislation to put a cap on CEOs' salaries? Or you are asking the CEOs to willingly accept lower pay? That would be great if they would, but the reality of it is, that if you want a CEO, you have to pay him a competitive salary, or else he will leave and work somewhere else, either for more money or reduced workload. You and I may envy how much he makes, but supply and demand economics apply here as well as everywhere else.

I think what you meant when you said "REAL COST" was "REAL VALUE". The cost is whatever is charged by the seller. But I get your point. My question is, who are you to determine what the real value of something is, unless you are doing the buying or selling? If one person offers to sell another person an item for $x dollars, and the buyer is willing, who are you to say that's not the real value? If you legislate a minimum wage, then the only way to get buyers to pay your perceived real value is to legislate minimum price controls. And when buyers decide to seek substitutes, you have to legislate price controls on those as well...and so on. In the long run, about all you accomplish is to artificially inflate the cost of everything involved.



And what kind of garbage is this? Do you honestly believe that I'm wishing the worst for them? I would love nothing more than for every man, woman, and child on Earth to live in a mansion, drive a nice car, and have every other luxury imaginable. Whether you and I agree on the best way to improve circumstances, don't insult me by asserting that I delight in others' misery.



I was defining "exploitation" in the context it was being used in this thread, which is unfairly or cruelly using someone's inferior position for your exclusive benefit. Under this definition, it is not exploitation if they have few miserable alternatives, and someone offers them a better one, even if it's not as good as a different alternative that could be given. Especially when that hypothetical alternative won't work.



And is my employer exploiting me? I don't necessarily "want" my job, but I "need" it. I'd like to own a tropical island and a pleasure yacht to take me there. I guess my employer is taking ADVANTAGE of me by not paying me enough to afford these things? I don't think so. My employer is trading a salary for my services that both of us agree is fair and reasonable, based on market conditions. When I say "want", what I was meaning was that they "want" the job more than they "want" to starve.

My position is this: If we want to improve the workers' lot in life, we need to do it by letting market forces provide jobs that are equitable to both the employer and employee. Minimum wage controls won't work.

I flat out said that it was a selfish reason for Unions to want other countries to have some type of minimum wages. My comment was that you probably love the selfish motivations of a company, but cringe when Unions are self-motivated. Why is that? Doesn't labor have a seat at the table?

Minimum wages are beneficial to ALL labor. The only problem may exist if the minimum wage is too high, which in the US it is certainly NOT. They key is to make wages high enough so that corporations don't make billions on the backs of workers because they pay slave wages.



Then so be it. If you can't pay a living wage to a worker, then maybe you don't really need the service/product. Otherwise, put up the cash that it REALLY costs to produce them. And if companies are really competitive, then their profits shouldn't be that large anyway. And the incentive to go overseas should not be to make gigantic profits at the expense of those workers.





Actually, CEO salaries are way out of line and it has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with supply and demand. There are plenty of horrible CEOs making outrageous money. The system is set up for a CEO to set his/her own salary and make tons of money in the process (again, at the expense of workers and consumers).

So to answer your question, yes, if we can legislate salaries for CEOs so that they are more realistic then we should do it.



No, I mean COST. If someone is doing work for you, you should pay them a minimum living wage. That is the REAL COST. If you exploit that person and pay them less than a living wage and/or make a huge profit by selling the product, then you are paying far less than what the real cost is. True competition will eliminate the second part (largess profits) but only legislation will eliminate the first part (horrible wages passed on as savings to consumers/profits for companies).



I never said set prices directly. Companies can make all the profits they want, there just needs to be competitive wages in a labor market that over-excedes the amount of workers needed. Labor should not be treated like a commodity. Labor = consumers = real living people. To just say "there's a huge slack in the labor market" as if you were talking about oil is insane. Low unemployment should be a goal and providing decent jobs should also be a great concern.




I guess it's perspective then. You can feel like a good samaritan when in fact you're PROFITING on the plight of others. It reminds me of all the people that say slavery in the US was a favor to African Americans and that blacks should thank us for our good deed.

I guess it's all perspective. But let me turn your own question on YOU; are companies doing this for PHILANTHROPY? Nope. They are EXPLOITING the situation.



You're the one who used the term "want". Your implication sounded like they enjoyed the work. Don't turn this around on me, you're the one who used it first. And yes, they NEED those jobs or they will starve. That is the EXPLOITATION part of the equation, corporations are TAKING ADVANTAGE of someone's inability to take another job. And in your situation, you probably have alternatives and you have a minimum wage standard to protect you.

And FWIW, there's a difference between making a liveable wage (one that is acceptable to most people) and becoming a horder of large wealth.




Minimum wages have worked swimmingly in the US. In fact, the min wage in the US is too low, IMHO. I've seen wages here in Michigan steadily plummet. For all the people that say companies would ask for min wages anyway are full of hot air. Companies here are pushing wages down TO MIN WAGES because of the huge number of unemployed skilled workers. ANd if they had the option, they'd use Mexican workers for LESS than MIN WAGES (legally of course, I'm sure they're already doing it for less now illegally).

The problem with market forces is that they are not working as predicted. Supposedly competition and laissez-fairre will bring down prices when labor is cheap and plentiful. THAT IS NOT HAPPENING. We see inflation and we see companies making HUGE PROFITS while wages stagnate and unemployment remains high. The "market forces" are NOT working to MY satisfaction, companies are exploiting the situation and are making money off of cheap labor.

We saw the same thing in the great depression. Productivity sky-rocketed, the rich got richer, the poor were 25% unemployed and BROKE. Low demand, low wages, high productivity, corporate greed, all caused the Great Depression.

Minimum wages DO work. Market forces will not save us from a terrible spiral of abusing labor.

One thing I would like to point out in this discussion is that a "living Wage" varies from country to country. If you made 5.00 / hour in many parts of southeast Asia you could live a life of luxury. The cost of living here is so high, partially because wages are so high (when compared to the rest of the world). Prices of goods and services are based on supply and demand, as well as production cost. Theoretically, if we started paying everyone in America 8.00 a hour and nothing more, the costs of goods and services including, houses and cars, would plummet. This would likely happen because of the sudden drop in production costs (lower wages) and the sudden drop in demand (lower wage owners can't afford as much). Not that I am advocating this.

Another thing to consider is America's Poor. If you institute higher minimum wages both here and abroad, you increase the costs of production. By increasing the cost of production, in an environment where not everyone earns minimum wage, you increase the cost of goods, making the poor's living expenses higher. Where is the benefit here?

It is the work performed overseas that allows people like me to support a family of three on 30,000.00 a year. If you increase to cost of production overseas, or you force the work to be performed here (also increasing the cost of production) then you increase my cost of living. Considering where we are right now, that increase will likely push my family onto public assistance. Now, if that effect happens to alot of people, and we assume that we reach a point where the government starts to take it's financial responsibility seriously, then to pay for these costs of increased services the government either needs to reduce services, or increase taxes. Increased taxes also increase the cost of goods, driving the cost of living up even higher. Reduced services, could mean people like me would be forced to sell pencils and oranges on the street corner.

Forcing an increase in the minimum wage will either increase the costs of goods and services, making it almost useless for the poor, or reduce the number of low wage jobs, which is also bad for the poor. It depends on the industry. For example, if McDonalds feels that there is no way it can be profitable by increasing the cost of it's burgers to pay the cost of increased minimum wage, then they will reduce the workforce to make up the difference.

Suggesting that they will reduce profit margins, or executive salaries is simply not realistic. The world does not work that way. At best, they might reduce the number of executives, but keep the remaining ones at the same pay. This results in even more unemployment.

When considering these various potential solutions you have got to examine all of the possible consequences, both negative and positive. Or you will very likely make it worse for the people you are trying to help. Increased cost of production is ALWAYS passed onto the consumer, in one fashion or another.

When faced with increased costs of production, businesses always make one (or more) of three choices:

Reduce labor costs
Increase the price of the Goods
Close / relocate the business.

That is simply how the world works. We can examine the situation and try to find real answers that work within our system, or we can continue to demonize corporations and accomplish nothing.

To me, the best answer that works for American Consumers and Workers is to re-train workers who lost their jobs to overseas plants. Get them into jobs that are not possible to move overseas. There are plenty of those, but most require skills. Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man how to fish and he eats for life (or something like that ).

If we assume that Globalization is inevitable and that the only solution is government intervention, then is it better for our society to indirectly support workers by supporting the companies they work for, allowing the workers to "earn" their money? Or is it better to simply allow the companies to rise and fall based on their ability to compete and directly support displaced workers through unemployment, welfare, or other programs?

Unemployment comp is way out of date, and that ought to be beefed up for formerly well-paid pros between jobs due to business cycles. I could also see creative government efforts at building infrastructure, especially telecom and non-fossil fuel energy sources. In order for that to happen, we'd have to get rid of the non-creative government types who get hung up on non-issues, like putting the Ten Commandments into government buildings , although that would help the stone-cutter trade.

What do you see as the worst flaws in your choice and what are they ways you feel we can mitigate those flaws?

The worst flaw is that this country has lost vision. I don't know how we can get it back, nor does anyone seem to care. We're probably too fat and happy, so crisis is the only thing that'll motivate.

Great Depression II? Bad for business, good for street musicians

That's true. And wages vary throughout the US, for example the coasts are really expensive and the south and midwest are fairly inexpensive.

BUT, when you pay some poor CHinese guy $1/day, that's still far below a decent wage. Things in China are NOT that cheap.



I don't want to state the obvious, but, how about INCREASE WAGES? Have you ever heard of the doctrine of Henry Ford? He increased wages to increase demand for his products.....AND IT WORKED.



How is that? I make less than that and everything I pay is going UP. Sure I can get some things very cheap like clothes and crap made out of plastic. But the effect of "overseas" isn't reducing mortgages, rent, heat, phone, utilities, electric, car payments, food, tickets to entertainment such as sports or movies, etc. etc.

Overseas isn't helping much with basic needs. Yet you're 30,000.00 could sooner than later become 15,000.00 LIKE ME when they realize they can hire Indians to do that work for $1-4/hr. You assume YOUR pay will remain constant, which is a bad assumption.



So would losing your job to companies that went overseas.




Those are assumptions you can't back up with facts. Increasing wages for the poor may give them new economic power, they may spend more in the ghettos of America, creating new businesses. Here in Detroit, there are relatively few stores (in the city per se, in the suburbs malls are abound). Stores just don't go into Detroit because of the poverty and crime. Maybe increasing their income would start a spending boom in the poor communities.




The world works the way we want it to work. Or don't we live in a democracy?



That's not necessarily true. If the profit margins are wide enough, some companies just make less money. But again, I give you the Henry Ford mantra, pay your people well and they will be great consumers. Increasing wages may also increase revenues, hence the costs of production may increase, but so will revenues.



Nothing gets me more agitated than the comment above. Exactly how often do you "get new skills"?? I have more education than most people on this board, and I'm working for $10/hr PART TIME. What skills exactly do I need? Do I need to be constantly a FULL TIME student, getting a Nursing Degree, then getting A LAW DEGREE, then getting a Md, etc. etc.????

Seriously, it sounds so nice when you say it, but if you want to REALLY talk about how the "world works", it's like this: A company will ship a job overseas as quick as your head can look up. YET it takes several years and $1000s to get RE-EDUCATED, much less get any EXPERIENCE. So let's say I spend the next 4 years getting a Nursing degree, I'm 35 now, so that means I'll be 39 when I can work as a Nurse (the only apparent profession hiring in Michigan today). But let's say after 4 years George Bush increases visas so Asian Nurses can flow into the country, making all my effort and money spent rendered useless?

No job is safe and just saying "get retrained" is SOOOOOO much easier said than done. How do get ANOTHER degree in a short amount of time, especially if you have family and obligations and a full or part-time job that pays NOTHING ??

No one is looking out for labor in this country. It's becoming increasingly discouraging to pursue "the American Dream" which has been more and more limited to those who Bush calls "his haves and have-mores".

1 dollar a day may be extreme, however there are countries that this is very close to what is needed, though that will change as more and more people earn that wage, and can buy more goods, the price of the goods will go up. I remember the Save the Children ads "for less then a dollar a day you can sponsor a child". My family did that. They got a lovely letter from the child thanking them for financing her Piano lessons. In many areas of the world, people live on less then 1% of what the average American makes.



You're forgetting the law of supply and demand. As more people are able to buy something, and they choice to do so, the demand goes up. As the demand exceeds supply the cost goes up. Supply and Demand has a major effect here as well. Why is it that houses built 100 years ago for 1000.00 now sell for 100,000.00+? Isn't this at least partially because so many more people can buy houses today?



I know my pay will remain constant because I have a contract. I also know there is no reason for my employer to reduce it because I am paid piece work, meaning I am only paid based on what I produce.

How do I live like this? For one I make certain decisions. Like owning used cars instead of new ones with payments. Buying a smaller house, in a cheaper area that needed work so that the purchase price was only 25,000.00 then working hard to make extra payments on the mortgage to get it paid of in years instead of decades. Paying monthly for cable and be satisfied with waiting a bit longer to see movies, not going to major sporting events at all because I would rather be comfy at home and watch through a professional cameramens lens, then be uncomfortable at a stadium trying desperately to keep up with the action through binoculars from the nose bleed section, going to discount grocery stores with coupons, doing home improvements to reduce heating and cooling costs and then wearing less or more to be able to keep the temperature higher or lower to save money, paying extra for an unlimited long distance option on my phone bill to save money on all those calls to the east coast (love ya Mom ), drying clothes outside in the summer and keeping the heat from the dryer in the house in the winter, etc, etc, etc. I can do it because I live in the midwest and I do what I can to live within my means.

And unless they come up with some way to install alarm systems from across an ocean cheaper then someone here can do it here, I bet my job is safe. So part of the equation is also looking for work in areas that simply cannot be outsourced.




And you have provided which facts for your "assumptions"? See above for my situation. However, which is worse here? Some people having to make job changes because of outsourcing or everyone having to tighten their belts because of the sudden cost of living increase due to insolationism?

It is common sense and basic business. If make a product costs X+Y+Z to produce and X is labor and you are forced to increase the cost of it, then to continue to make a profit you must increase the selling price of those goods. Also, the highest cost of production of most goods in America is labor, so increasing those costs will likely drive even more work overseas.



Sure we do, and people vote in those democracies, and 50% of Americans are Employed by small businesses that would likely be devastated by such labor cost increases, and those small business people vote too. The other 50% are employed by those corporations that would be looking at layoffs or overseas moves if their are forced to push their production costs above what the market will bare.



Again, supply and demand is a major factor that this idea does NOT take into account. Also, these companies still have to compete with foreign produced goods sold here by foreign companies, as American Made goods prices are forced up by higher labor costs we make the foreign goods that much more attractive to the average consumer.

Also, if everyones wages go up, and to making this happen causes the costs of goods and services to go up to pay for those wages then are the people with the higher wages really getting anything out of them?



Ok, since everywhere I have ever lived has a shortage of qualified nurses in hospitals and it is not possible to outsource hospital nurses I would say if you choose that route you would be set. You cannot argue a case in American court from India so again, you would be safe. If you went all the way and became a practicing doctor, be it a generalist or any of the multitude of specialities, again (assuming you could afford the malpractice insurance) you would be set (Yes there are "medical tourists" who seek to go around their countries waiting times or our countries medical costs and goto India to get a medical procedure done, but these people are few and far between). You can't install an alarm, build a house, fix a car, etc, etc, etc from another country so if you looked at your career options, and did a bit of research you would likely find that there are many directions you can go that would protect you from outsourcing and can be quite lucrative.



I asked a similar question before and you ignored it so I'll try again. Do you think I am a President GW Bush supporter? Excellent point!! You won't get an argument from me on the multitude of immigration issues that need reform, nor that these issues are being handled in the wrong way by the current Administration. However, I fail to see how increasing wages changes this problem.



You don't always need a degree. I can tell you how easy it is, I have made 4 career changes in my life, some out of necessity and some out of choice. I do not have a tech school or college degree in electronics, and yet that is what I do everyday (and only a handful of the 100 or so installers I know have any formal education). I am pursuing some schooling to improve my options, like A+ certification and the like, but a degree is not needed for every job.



Sometimes you have to re-evaluate the dream. I work with guys who work on the hourly side of my company, make more money then I do, and also have a wife who works (mine does not) and yet cannot make ends meet. But they just had to have that 3000 square foot house in the "right" neighborhood, and the new cars every other year, and the new clothes on a near weekly basis, and they have to goto major league sporting events all the time, etc, etc, etc. They choose to live way outside of their means and then blame the company, the government, etc (not putting you in this category as I do not know your situation).

One of the groups NOT looking out for labor are the unions. They look out for THEIR people, but no one else need apply. Most trade unions (until recently) unofficially required that you have family in the union to vouch for you in order to get in yourself. The only reason this is beginning to change now is because most trade unions are looking at loosing 50% or so of their members to retirement over the next 10 years. So there is another option, assuming they relax their "ancestry" requirements, consider a skilled trade and apply for their apprenticeship program.

[QUOTE]In many areas of the world, people live on less then 1% of what the average American makes. [/QUOTE]

There's no doubt that Americans need to adjust to the global economy.

There are two problems with the way it's being done now, IMHO. 1) It's going to be very dramatic and sudden, e.g. manufacturing workers making very nice salaries will suddenly be unable to make more than minimum wages and 2) companies are making out like bandits, because they're still getting the same profits just with cheaper labor.

[QUOTE]Another thing to consider is America's Poor. If you institute higher minimum wages both here and abroad, you increase the costs of production. ...Where is the benefit here?

I don't want to state the obvious, but, how about INCREASE WAGES? Have you ever heard of the doctrine of Henry Ford? He increased wages to increase demand for his products.....AND IT WORKED.

You're forgetting the law of supply and demand. As more people are able to buy something, and they choice to do so, the demand goes up. As the demand exceeds supply the cost goes up. Supply and Demand has a major effect here as well. Why is it that houses built 100 years ago for 1000.00 now sell for 100,000.00+? Isn't this at least partially because so many more people can buy houses today? [/QUOTE]

I'm not sure how that applies to what I was commenting on.

Some goods, like autos are pretty expensive, and if people make decent wages then more people can buy cars, hence providing demand, which is what we need to create more jobs. If you increase wages across the board and have a "flatter" wage demographic, then demand for all products increases.

If you cut wages or layoff labor, then you cut DEMAND, that's what happened in the Great Depression, there were enormous production rates but 25% unemployment; there was very little demand and it spiraled out of control until the gov't starting spending money to get people to spend again.

If wages are TOO low, you kill demand and then you have excess supply.


[QUOTE]I know my pay will remain constant because I have a contract. I also know there is no reason for my employer to reduce it because I am paid piece work, meaning I am only paid based on what I produce.[/QUOTE]

Do you have an iron clad contract for the rest of your life? If so, you are pretty lucky. My question to you, since you seem immune to globalization, is: what happens when those 10s of 1000s manufacturing workers get laid off and start looking for more work? What happens when you have Elec Engineers who can't find work because their work went to India or Asia? Or Computer Science Majors?

Can you compete against them for your position? And what happens when your going rate of $30000/year is far more than what any of the people above are demanding? For instance, I have a Masters In Computer Science, I work for $10/hr now, what if I told your employer I'd work for $12.5/hr instead of your $15/hr? I also have a degree in elec engineering, BTW.

Not to be offensive, but I'm assuming your job isn't terribly complicated.

Are you really so bullet proof now?

[QUOTE]How do I live like this? For one I make certain decisions.....I can do it because I live in the midwest and I do what I can to live within my means.[/QUOTE]

Could you do it on $15,000/year? That's still above minimum wage. How about $11,000 or minimum wage? How would you make ends meet on 1/3 your current pay?

[QUOTE]And unless they come up with some way to install alarm systems from across an ocean cheaper then someone here can do it here, I bet my job is safe. So part of the equation is also looking for work in areas that simply cannot be outsourced.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't have to be your job that is outsourced that could put you out of work.

[QUOTE]And you have provided which facts for your "assumptions"? See above for my situation. However, which is worse here? Some people having to make job changes because of outsourcing or everyone having to tighten their belts because of the sudden cost of living increase due to insolationism?[/QUOTE]

I already told you about Henry Ford. There was a law in the 80s where foreign auto companies were required to manufacture a certain fraction of their vehicles in the US in order to have access to our markets. That type of isolatiom created jobs in the US. See Maryville Oh where Toyota has plants for example.

I'm not an isolationist, I'm not fringe on anything. I believe in the best solution which typically requires a mixture of thoughts and ideas.


[QUOTE]Again, supply and demand is a major factor that this idea does NOT take into account. [/QUOTE]

I've had micro and macroeconomics classes, I'm still not sure what you're trying to say here.

[QUOTE]Ok, since everywhere I have ever lived has a shortage of qualified nurses in hospitals and it is not possible to outsource hospital nurses [/QUOTE]

I guess I consider visa workers to be "outsourcing". So yes, you can outsource ANYTHING. Look up "H1B Visa" in google, anything can be done with a foreign worker, and is done.


[QUOTE]You cannot argue a case in American court from India so again, you would be safe. [/QUOTE]

Nope.

Latest trend in outsourcing jobs: lawyers - Oct. 15, 2004
http://money.cnn.com/2004/10/14/news/econo...urcing/?cnn=yes


[QUOTE]If you went all the way and became a practicing doctor, be it a generalist or any of the multitude of specialities, again (assuming you could afford the malpractice insurance) you would be set [/QUOTE]

I see, you just need to become an Md. ? Sure why not, I'm in my mid 30s by the time I finish I'll be a 60 year old practicing doctor. Sure, why not.

I hear you also can become President of the US and that job will never be outsourced, or maybe a Senator. Maybe that's what all of us millions of underemployed workers should do? Become Doctors and Senators. (tongue in cheek)


[QUOTE]You can't install an alarm, build a house, fix a car, etc, etc, etc from another country so if you looked at your career options, and did a bit of research you would likely find that there are many directions you can go that would protect you from outsourcing and can be quite lucrative.[/QUOTE]

No but, now that I'm underemployed, I CAN install an alarm, and I'd do it for less than you!

[QUOTE]I asked a similar question before and you ignored it so I'll try again. Do you think I am a President GW Bush supporter? [/QUOTE]

To be honest I don't care either way, he just happens to be our President right now and will be in 4 years. Clinton loved all these Free Trade Agreements and globalization as much as anyone. So I have no loyalties.


[QUOTE]You don't always need a degree. I can tell you how easy it is, I have made 4 career changes in my life, some out of necessity and some out of choice. I do not have a tech school or college degree in electronics, and yet that is what I do everyday (and only a handful of the 100 or so installers I know have any formal education). I am pursuing some schooling to improve my options, like A+ certification and the like, but a degree is not needed for every job. [/QUOTE]

What's the most money you've made? I've had jobs making 6 figures solely based on education and experience. There's no doubt you can find jobs making minimum wage (not to offend), is that the American Dream?

You have probably made decent wages while other people were making $60K/year at the factory. Hence, your competition was severly reduced to others without degrees. When those factory doors close, you'll see degree'd and other skilled workers pushing to get your job.

Also, what's to prevent me from starting my own Alarm installing business that wipes you and the owner out? I'm sure I could earn more than $10/hr doing that.

BTW, stay away from the A+ cert, it's useless.


[QUOTE]Sometimes you have to re-evaluate the dream. ...They choose to live way outside of their means and then blame the company, the government, etc (not putting you in this category as I do not know your situation). [/QUOTE]

That's true to a degree. I live in a low-rent neighborhood, but I own my home outright. I can actually afford to live off of $15K/year. And like I said before, when you see Hummers and SUVs as the common mode of traffic, something isn't right. We're consuming resources far too fast and I agree a belt-tightening is in order.

My only problem is that the ones suffering are the middle class, not the ones making millions and billions.

(since I can't edit my previous post, I just wanted to add)

Sailor,

I don't mean to be a jerk, but this subject is more than idle chit chat to me. I've seen my job go overseas, and in fact I've seen my livelyhood and my career go overseas. I've seen H1B workers dominate local businesses in my own backyard when I needed a job.

The trend is not good from where I sit. There's a race to the bottom for worker salaries and I really don't see much upside for middle class Americans.

I just wanted to comment also on this:

You can't install an alarm, build a house, fix a car, etc, etc, etc from another country so if you looked at your career options, and did a bit of research you would likely find that there are many directions you can go that would protect you from outsourcing and can be quite lucrative.

For one thing, Mexicans and Latinos are building our houses now. So you're right, they can't move the job to another country, they just move cheap labor into the country.

I used to work for a landscaping company when I was going through college. The pay was pretty low but I could get up to 80 hours a week and made some hard bucks working 12 hour days Mon-Sun. That was a great job for a kid starting out.

That same landscaping company, who now does landscaping for the Basebfall field where the Detroit Tigers play, was caught with too many immigrant workers in a home. The workers were legal, it was just that the housing was overloaded.

That company uses 99% Mexican labor now. Those jobs are GONE. And not a single one of them left the country. That was an option to me once that is no longer for ANY American.

I'm not sure what the solution is, I just know that it definately a PROBLEM. And a lot of people may feel unaffected by it but it may affect you sooner than later and then you'll get a better understanding of what's going on.

And if wages are too high you have excess demand which drives prices up. What I am getting at here is that if you give a massive pay increase across the board, what you will see is a matching increase in the cost of goods across the board. This would be do to the suddenly higher demand and would make the pay increases all but meaningless.



I have a three year contract, through my union, and Seniority protects me from those who would seek my position. Seniority means I do not have to compete for the position, because I am already here. And you would have to accept working piece work to work in my side of the business. Furthermore, if my employer was to take an offer from you to pay you less then me, my employer would be in violation of that contract. Of course there are contractors that install alarms as well, then generally do residential work, where I do commercial work, but it can be a pretty lucrative way to go as well. Most good, experience guys I know working for the contractor that does residential for us, make between 45,000.00 and 60,000.00 a year. In my Job, we used to average about $35,000.00 a year, but the company provides benefits, the take home work truck, power tools, ladders, etc. Now, with the great increase in business we are seeing these days, guys in my department could do $50,000.00 pretty easily, so long as that volume of work continues.

Actually I think you would find that my job it quite complicated, thanks. The programing of the systems is simplistic enough, depending on which system (there are a ton) and what options the customer wants (there are hundreds of variations). However, the real trick is running the wire. Specifically hiding the wire through various types of wall fishing. This is not the easiest thing to do most of the time, it takes experience, skill, and frequently special tools. Now, add to this the fact that I work "Piece Work", meaning I get paid per job, regardless of the time it takes, and it becomes pretty difficult for someone outside the industry to replace me and make any money. Not to mention the fact that, though someone might have an electronics, electrical engineering, or whatever degree, they still need to go through all the employer based training classes, which all cost the company both time, and money. So yes, in that regard I am bullet-proof. However, given the opportunity, anyone can learn this job and be good at it with enough experience. All someone needs is the opportunity.



I could do it if my wife worked as well. Sure, I might have to drop broadband, and/or maybe cable as well, but we could do it.



When it comes to nurses, as well as other fields, as I said in the last post, I have real issues with the way we are currently handling immigration. This is what needs to be addressed. Though I doubt it will be handled by President Bush. He seems to simply not care about border security, or legal immigration.

In reference to lawyers though, did you read your own article? It says that law firms have taken to outsourcing basic, repetitive tasks. You STILL cannot argue a case in American courts from India or anywhere else overseas. The simple reason is that you have to be in the court to argue the case.



I was responding to YOUR reference to becoming a Doctor. Since YOU brought it up, I agreed that as a practicing doctor you would likely be immune to outsourcing so long as you were not driven out of the profession by the cost of malpractice insurance.



You sure do spend alot of time talking about how good your old jobs were, how great your education is, etc. You may not intend to offend, but you sure to come across a bit rough, posssibly even a tad conceited to be honest (not to offend).

No one will be coming to take my job away. If there is one thing that makes it good to be union it is that. Anyone hired after me, has less seniority then I do, period. Thus, they will loose their position before I do. That is the way it works.

Personally, considering your background I think you should consider starting your own business. As for putting my employer out of work, trust me, it is not AT ALL Likely.

Not true. There are 4 jobs I can think of just off the top of my head, in my field that I cannot get without A+, a few more require N+. I am setting up to take A+, N+ and the new S+. With that foundation I will then start working towards Microsoft and Cisco certifications if I think they are worth it to me and the direction I am working towards.



I don't know where you live, but you really should at least consider relocation. Several areas of the country are booming right now. For example, St. Louis is covered with commercial construction (commercial and industrial construction work is 90%+ union around here, even the laborers). Businesses are starting all over the area and homes are being built by the hundreds. Perhaps, a move to a different area would be beneficial.

Also, if you are serious about Alarm work, they recently posted to hire another installer in my department.




This depends on where you live and what the union climate is there. In this area, about 65% or so of the new construction in residential is union. But, as I have said before, I agree that immigration is a problem that needs to be addressed, and one that will not be properly addressed by this Administration.



I understand perfectly well what is going on. I have family who's jobs were lost to outsourcing. And I told them the same thing. Do some research, find the field that works best for you among the fields least likely to be outsourced because of the nature of the work, and do what it takes to get into that job. Take classes, intern, network with people, whatever it takes. There are NUMEROUS fields that are all but immune to outsourcing.

That's not a very good example of what you're trying to prove. Sure the demand for housing is high (mainly because of the huge influx of aliens), but it's definately not because "people are able to buy them". Along with all these new "homeowners" are record foreclosures and bankruptcies. They can buy them, they just can't afford them.




I don't think anyone's saying there will be massive pay increases.



I see, so you're unionized. Were you ripping unions in previous threads? There were a lot of unionized workers here in Michigan that are now working for $6/hr at the local megalo mart, if at all.




I didn't mean to slight you. But can you honestly say you couldn't teach ANYONE to do your job? I guess I'm comparing that to say, a doctor or a nurse or a computer programmer or a CPA. Professions that you can't just sit down for a month and say "see this is how you do it".


In reference to lawyers though, did you read your own article? It says that law firms have taken to outsourcing basic, repetitive tasks. You STILL cannot argue a case in American courts from India or anywhere else overseas. The simple reason is that you have to be in the court to argue the case.

Who works at those repetitive jobs? Seriously, how many lawyers "try cases"? There was an interesting article about how business people were beginning to turn on outsourcing when they started moving finance/accounting type jobs overseas. They thought it was a great idea, until they lost their job.

I can pick a bunch of specific jobs that are unique, like "trying cases". But show me MANY jobs that are that way. Obviously you can't say "be a lawyer" because that has already been shown to be vulnerable.

I was responding to YOUR reference to becoming a Doctor. Since YOU brought it up, I agreed that as a practicing doctor you would likely be immune to outsourcing so long as you were not driven out of the profession by the cost of malpractice insurance.

I used becoming a doctor to exaggerate the situation to make a point. Becoming a doctor is like getting into Harvard. Either you start early to get in or you don't get in.

But, again even doctors are being outsourced. See radiologists for instance.

My point, which you avoided, is that it is very unstable to seek the AMerican dream. You can pursue a degree or career, and have it dry up in seconds due to outsourcing. You can purchase a home near a factory and have the factory shut down and be unable to sell your home.

It's a fragile situation where you can lose everything you've worked for. And I don't think anything is bullet proof.

Not true. There are 4 jobs I can think of just off the top of my head, in my field that I cannot get without A+, a few more require N+. I am setting up to take A+, N+ and the new S+. With that foundation I will then start working towards Microsoft and Cisco certifications if I think they are worth it to me and the direction I am working towards.

Well if you're making a move inside then maybe those certs will help you. I have A+ and Cisco, Java,Sun, etc, etc. certs up the yahoo. I wouldn't recommend anyone spend the money on these certs to alone help get a job. If it's a bonus to what your current experience is, then that's a different story.

I understand perfectly well what is going on. I have family who's jobs were lost to outsourcing. And I told them the same thing. Do some research, find the field that works best for you among the fields least likely to be outsourced because of the nature of the work, and do what it takes to get into that job. Take classes, intern, network with people, whatever it takes. There are NUMEROUS fields that are all but immune to outsourcing.

Obviously those are the steps to be taken. We'll see if the current trends continue: businesses continually looking for cheaper and cheaper workers. If it does, there will be less and less of these un-outsourcible jobs that you talk about.

And I still am waiting for these numerous fields that you say can't be outsourced. Name a field, I'll show you how it was outsourced.

Ok, this is a little too easy.

Alarm Installers cannot be outsourced. Also Illegal aliens cannot do the job because of the registration and licencing requirements. Aliens however, can do the job, but as I have said before, addressing the issue of immigration is something that must be done.

Electricians, Plumbers, Mechanics, HVAC techs, etc, etc. All of the Skilled trades cannot be outsourced.

There are jobs that support these trades, like drafters and the like that can be outsourced but the techs on the ground cannot.

Salespeople cannot be outsourced. Sure telemarketing can, but the salesperson that goes into the home to quote the cost of an alarm, the estimator that goes into a Home Depot to quote an alarm, and all the rest, cannot be outsourced.

Computer Repair technicians cannot be outsourced. The Nerd Squad at best buy, or the various other companies that provide in home / business tech support cannot be outsourced.

Office machine technicians cannot be outsourced. The guys that go into businesses and setup, repair, and maintain all manners of officer equipment. Exterminators cannot be outsourced, etc, etc.

There are hundreds of career paths that cannot be outsourced.

As for my job. Could I teach someone to do the BASICS of my job in a month? Of course that depends on the person being trained, but generally yes. However, to work with the more complicated services, systems, and equipment available to homeowners and small businesses alone takes alot longer. I have worked in this industry, as a tech for four years, doing anywhere from 1-4 installs a day on average, and I still do not know everything about all of the basic systems.

Now, large commercial and industrial systems take years to learn.

Just today:

McDonald's may outsource drive-thru order-takingLOS ANGELES (Reuters) — McDonald's (MCD) wants to outsource your neighborhood drive-thru.
The world's largest fast-food chain said Thursday it is looking into using remote call centers to take customer orders in an effort to improve service at its drive-thrus.

"If you're in L.A.... and you hear a person with a North Dakota accent taking your order, you'll know what we're up to," McDonald's Chief Executive Jim Skinner told analysts at the Bear Stearns Retail, Restaurants & Apparel Conference in New York.

Call center professionals with "very strong communication skills" could help boost order accuracy and ultimately speed up the time it takes customers to get in and out of the drive-thrus, the company said.

You want a sales guy to go into someone's home, here's a sales guy with a permanent work visa:

Sales Representative,
Building Equipment And SupplY
PERM- XC & C MARBLE COMPANYX X
FT LAUDERDALEX FL 1 4
$223004
10/25/1996

Want to find someone else? Try this site:

http://www.zazona.com/LCA-Data/






Some occupations requiring licenses do not usually fall into the H-1B category because college degrees are not normally needed. Such occupations include many types of medical technicians, real estate agents, plumbers and electricians. Unless a college degree is required, people in such occupations are limited to the more restrictive H-2B visa.