T1B

Posted: **Mon Sep 19, 2005 4:44 pm**

Tom In VA wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/19/ ... index.html

This is disconcerting. Unprecedented and disconcerting.

I suppose lowering taxes is perfect to stimulate an economy, when you're not spending shitloads of money.

But borrowing money to lower taxes ? Is there some sort of "long term" plan to have the 1%'ers pay these countries back ? With their new found profit and such ?

Needless to say, I'm concerned.

Posted: **Mon Sep 19, 2005 4:52 pm**

WTF is Clinton talking about?

"I think it's very important that Americans understand... tax cuts are always popular, but about half of these tax cuts since 2001 have gone to people in my income group, the top 1 percent. I've gotten four tax cuts.

This is the typical liberal class warfare mush. Uh, Bill, the government doesn't give anything to anyone when it cuts taxes.

Like I said two weeks ago in my "Political Thought for the Day" thread:
When you decide to tax a person less, you are not, properly speaking, giving him money. You are taking less from him.

In any case, while Bill's point is somewhat correct in the sense that the "savings" nominally has benefitted the "rich," it is only because the "rich" pay more in taxes nominally than other groups. It's a self-evident fact that does nothing to inform the debate.

On the other hand, as has been demonstrated, the tax rates at the top were cut less than those at the bottom which included the creation of a 10% bracket splitting up the old 15% bracket.

Clinton is merely playing the class warfare game.

They're responsible for this big structural deficit, and they're not going away, the deficits aren't."

Wrong. Though the argument can be a chicken and egg argument. However, federal government revenues were shrinking before Clinton left office and congressional spending was expanding. It's a spending problem, not a tax structure problem.

Clinton said America's deficit has forced the United States to borrow "money from other countries to finance Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina, and our tax cuts."

Wrong. And he knows better than this. The federal government has sold treasury bonds to finance spending for how long?? Treasury bonds have been sold to finance government operations including social security, medicare, the first Gulf War, etc. His characterization is neither accurate nor damning.

"We have never done this before. Never in the history of our republic have we ever financed a conflict, military conflict, by borrowing money from somewhere else."

Now, you can only laugh at such ignorance.

"I mean, sooner or later, just think what would happen if the Chinese -- we're pressing the Chinese now, a country not nearly as rich as America per capita, to keep loaning us money with low interest to cover my tax cut, Iran -- I mean Iraq, Afghanistan, and Katrina. And at the same time to raise the value of their currency so their imports into our country will become more expensive, and our exports to them will become less expensive."

Very few Republicans are demanding that China devalue its currency, in fact, it's mostly Democrats crowing about this. Nonetheless, Clinton failed to answer his question. I wonder why?

Posted: **Mon Sep 19, 2005 4:57 pm**

So is your contention that he's merely pulling this "Chicken Little" act to get ready for the upcoming elections ?

Posted: **Mon Sep 19, 2005 5:06 pm**

Yes, that's what the reserve the class warfare and deficit spending rhetoric for, Tom.

Do you find a flaw in my responses to his comments?

Posted: **Mon Sep 19, 2005 5:11 pm**

I'm a bit fuzzy on the "class warfare" thing. You dismiss it far too easy. I don't see how history is anything BUT class struggle.

Haves vs. Have Nots

Our fortune, as I understand it, is a nice stable, graduated line, between to the two, i.e. a strong Middle Class we can call the "Have Enoughs"

Have Everythings
Have Enoughs
Have a Little Bit
Have Nothings

And varying degrees in between.

I'm stuck on that one. Please break down your thoughts on "class warfare" for me. Then perhaps we can move on.

Posted: **Mon Sep 19, 2005 5:53 pm**

I don't dismiss it, I acknowledge it. But it only exists as a political philosophy to be used by Democrats to create class envy and justify tax increases on the middle and upper class. The majority of Americans all believe that they can move up the economic ladder and that thet movement is facilitated by education and employment. And this economic mobility is evident in individual tax returns as we see people moving up and down as conditions change.

But, the Democrats can mobilize the lower economic classes by citing the greed of the "rich" to explain why the "rich" have the lower class have not. It is merely an economic tool.

This type of public policy philosophy serves no other purpose than to justify higher taxes on the middle and upper classes. It offers no insight into the American condition.

Posted: **Mon Sep 19, 2005 6:09 pm**

I don't believe the Democrats "create" class envy.

Exploit it, perhaps, but they don't create it.

The envy that rears it's head when you have something and I do not, is natural and is part of the "human condition". Logic, reason, and good healthy living tells us that the envy is there to prompt me to make a decision.

1. I can do what you did to acquire said item.
2. I can dismiss that item as not necessary for me.
3. I can harm/kill you and take that item.
4. I can sit an burn in my envy and do nothing, go nowhere, and never acquire that time. Using drugs, alcohol and a variety of other means to numb the pain of that envy.

Clearly the first two are the only reasonable and healthy choices. In fact, in most cases, I'm sure the second is the most healthy choice to take.

But we live in a society that is bombarded by messages whose sole purpose is to generate ENVY in the hopes people will make the first choice, and BUY the item.

Some people do not have the resources to do so, so they resort to taking choices 3 and/or 4.

I will yield to you that the DNC seems to be the party that nurtures the notion that people deserve and have rights to the resources to take the first choice, #1 in the list.

But when it comes to items of necessity, bare items of necessity, I can see where that is just and righteous.

In sum. We agree, class struggle does exist.

"When you decide to tax a person less, you are not, properly speaking, giving him money. You are taking less from him."

I'm going to reflect on that a bit. On the surface and technically speaking, you are absolutely correct.

Posted: **Mon Sep 19, 2005 6:20 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:I don't dismiss it, I acknowledge it. But it only exists as a political philosophy to be used by Democrats to create class envy and justify tax increases on the middle and upper class. The majority of Americans all believe that they can move up the economic ladder and that thet movement is facilitated by education and employment. And this economic mobility is evident in individual tax returns as we see people moving up and down as conditions change.

But, the Democrats can mobilize the lower economic classes by citing the greed of the "rich" to explain why the "rich" have the lower class have not. It is merely an economic tool.
This type of public policy philosophy serves no other purpose than to justify higher taxes on the middle and upper classes. It offers no insight into the American condition.

Good post, good analysis.

I would add that the Dems do a good job of convincing the lower economic classes that if someone is making more or has more, than someone else is making less or has less. Which is absurd, of course.

Posted: **Mon Sep 19, 2005 6:43 pm**

I don't believe the Democrats "create" class envy.

Exploit it, perhaps, but they don't create it.

The poll data affirms what I posted, Tom. Americans believe that they are very economically mobile. And the tax return data supports that belief.

Hence, class envy doesn't exist in its own right, it's been cultivated since the 60s and the birth of the entitlement mentality.

The envy that rears it's head when you have something and I do not, is natural and is part of the "human condition". Logic, reason, and good healthy living tells us that the envy is there to prompt me to make a decision.

I don't buy that. I don't buy envy as being a natural, instinctive condition of Americans.

But we live in a society that is bombarded by messages whose sole purpose is to generate ENVY in the hopes people will make the first choice, and BUY the item.

How does that square then with your position that envy is a precondition? It doesn't, of course.

We are bombarded by messages to consume. We are because we have the ability to consume goods and services. And we are inspired to be better so that we may consume more and better goods and services.

Some people do not have the resources to do so, so they resort to taking choices 3 and/or 4.

Sorry, but people do not do drugs, murder, rape, etc., because they are poor. That just is not the case.

But when it comes to items of necessity, bare items of necessity, I can see where that is just and righteous.

No one in American society struggles for items of necessity. They do make conumer choices. That's why those who are classified as "poor" own homes, drive more than one vehicle, have color televisions and cable subscriptions.

Posted: **Mon Sep 19, 2005 6:56 pm**

DrDetroit wrote: I don't buy that. I don't buy envy as being a natural, instinctive condition of Americans.

.....

How does that square then with your position that envy is a precondition? It doesn't, of course.

....

1. It isn't just Americans. Envy is part of the human condition and predates America. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods".

2. One can stimulate the envy in another, of course the ultimate responsibility lies within the the person whose envy is being agitated to resolve it. To suggest that the purpose of advertising and sales is anything but to influence people to purchase goods and services through ENVY, is blind.

My use of the word "generate" was incorrect. There is efficacy and truth in the statement with a more precise wording.

"But we live in a society that is bombarded by messages whose sole purpose is to CONJURE UP ENVY in the hopes people will make the first choice, and BUY the item."

Posted: **Mon Sep 19, 2005 7:01 pm**

1. It isn't just Americans. Envy is part of the human condition and predates America. "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's goods".

1. America is different.
2. Americans have told us that us that firmly believe that they have the ability to move up and down the economic ladder.

For me this says that envy must be brought to the surface, cultivated if you will.

2. One can stimulate the envy in another, of course the ultimate responsibility lies within the the person whose envy is being agitated to resolve it. To suggest that the purpose of advertising and sales is anything but to influence people to purchase goods and services through ENVY, is blind.

I don't purchase goods and services because others have already. I do so to satisfy my needs and wants which are entirely dependent upon my own values. Advertising and sales is a technique to bring a good or service to the consumer and persuade that consumer that that good and service is valuable to them.

I do not see KIA appealing to an individual's envy, Tom. KIA is appealing to a consumer with certain needs and values.

Posted: **Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:54 pm**

"For me this says that envy must be brought to the surface, cultivated if you will."

I don't disagree with that, in fact that is exactly what I'm suggesting.

"I don't purchase goods and services because others have already. I do so to satisfy my needs and wants which are entirely dependent upon my own values. Advertising and sales is a technique to bring a good or service to the consumer and persuade that consumer that that good and service is valuable to them.

I do not see KIA appealing to an individual's envy, Tom. KIA is appealing to a consumer with certain needs and values."

I understand, the appeal to one's "envy" occurs on a deeper level. We're teetering on the edge of "what comes first, the chicken or the egg" model of debate on this. I would only suggest to you that envy occurs at varying degrees in different people and at different times.

Within context of this thread, we can agree.

1. Class struggle is a reality but Bill Clinton is continuing with the DNC strategy of cultivating "class envy".

My next sticking point is this notion that we will be indebted to China, Saudi Arabia, etc.. etc..

Is this not putting the U.S. in a bad place ?

"Borrower nor lender be".

Posted: **Tue Sep 20, 2005 2:10 pm**

No, Tom, we do not agree on "class struggle" being a reality. The concept of class struggle is a Marxist concept and mischaracterizes the struggle of the oppresses against their oppressors. There is no class struggle in America because Americans, by far, feel that upward mobility is possible and realize that those above them on that ladder frequently fall on that ladder.

And, no, American investment in China nor Chinese purchase of American treasury bills is bad for America.

Notice that Clinton's comments have no meat, no substance, it is purely rhetoric. It's the same crap being run by liberals in the 90s about Japan owning the US.

Posted: **Tue Sep 20, 2005 3:11 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:No, Tom, we do not agree on "class struggle" being a reality. The concept of class struggle is a Marxist concept and mischaracterizes the struggle of the oppresses against their oppressors. There is no class struggle in America because Americans, by far, feel that upward mobility is possible and realize that those above them on that ladder frequently fall on that ladder.

True, there is no "class struggle" in America. It is more like a "class beatdown" of the poor by the rich with the government taking the side of the rich. The most recent example is the eminent domain decision by the allegedly conservative Supreme Court.

Posted: **Tue Sep 20, 2005 3:48 pm**

True, there is no "class struggle" in America. It is more like a "class beatdown" of the poor by the rich

Nonsense. WTF are you talking about? This is the tripe that divides this country.

with the government taking the side of the rich.

More nonsensical rhetoric that doesn't merit a response.

The most recent example is the eminent domain decision by the allegedly conservative Supreme Court.

1) No one but intellectually lazy liberals call this Court "conservative."

2) The Kelo decision is a reflection of government taking the side of the "rich?"

Seriously, where do you buy that Kool-Aid?

No wonder liberal intellectualism is taking a nosedive. The basis of your ideology is the classic rich versus poor canard.

Sorry, but the American form of democracy is not characterized by a fight between the rich and poor but a fight between individuals and government. And liberalism certainly takes the side of government.

Posted: **Tue Sep 20, 2005 3:59 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:
True, there is no "class struggle" in America. It is more like a "class beatdown" of the poor by the rich

Nonsense. WTF are you talking about? This is the tripe that divides this country.

The country is already divided six ways to Sunday. Get over it.

with the government taking the side of the rich.
More nonsensical rhetoric that doesn't merit a response.

Translation, you know I'm right.

The most recent example is the eminent domain decision by the allegedly conservative Supreme Court.
1) No one but intellectually lazy liberals call this Court "conservative."

2) The Kelo decision is a reflection of government taking the side of the "rich?"

Yes, the Kelo decision is a ringing endorsement of corporate profit over personal liberty.

No wonder liberal intellectualism is taking a nosedive. The basis of your ideology is the classic rich versus poor canard. Sorry, but the American form of democracy is not characterized by a fight between the rich and poor but a fight between individuals and government. And liberalism certainly takes the side of government.

No, the fight is 3 sided. You got the first 2 parties. You missed the 3rd and most dangerous party. That is, corporate power restrained only by the desire to feed shareholder demand.

Posted: **Tue Sep 20, 2005 4:00 pm**

But Doc, our track record isn't too good on the side of labor.

From our inception, indentured servitude, slavery, child labor, etc.. etc...

Granted our system seems to be the one that allows traversing the classes, up and down. I am quite sure that is easier said, than done, but most things fall into that category.

But let's not pretend that the poor do not have a "struggle" ahead of them. Furthermore while our American form of democracy cannot be classified by a fight between the rich and poor, the American form of Capitalism depends upon it. Labor, like products, seems to go to the lowest bidder. The more poor one is, the more willing to work for paltry wages one will be.

Which is why our leaders refuse to do anything about the border.

Posted: **Tue Sep 20, 2005 4:40 pm**

B:

The country is already divided six ways to Sunday. Get over it.

I was mocking the Democrats consistent appeal to unity, dumbshit.

Yes, the Kelo decision is a ringing endorsement of corporate profit over personal liberty.

Wrong. It was a perfect example of liberal judicial activism. Corporate profit had nothing to do with it. It represented the Court taking the government's side.

No, the fight is 3 sided. You got the first 2 parties. You missed the 3rd and most dangerous party. That is, corporate power restrained only by the desire to feed shareholder demand.

Sorry, but the intent of the Constitution is not to protect individuals from corporations, but from the government. Think about it.

Posted: **Tue Sep 20, 2005 4:45 pm**

mvscal wrote:
DrDetroit wrote:2) The Kelo decision is a reflection of government taking the side of the "rich?"

I should say so. You would have to be a total dumbfuck to argue otherwise.

Wrong. Kelo represents the courts taking the side of government. Remember, it is the local government "taking" property. The decision permits local government to "take" private property for a private interest.

I guess we're talking past each other here because I am looking at the immediate effect, i.e., the local government having the authority to take private property for private gain and that's clearly unconstitutional no matter what the Court says. On the other hand, the intermediate effect is to transfer ownership of that property to a private interest. However, the ultimate effect is to change the composition of the tax base in order to increase tax revenues. Hence, the real aim was to expand the local tax base. Therefore, the government took the side of government.

Posted: **Tue Sep 20, 2005 4:50 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:B:
The country is already divided six ways to Sunday. Get over it.

I was mocking the Democrats consistent appeal to unity, dumbshit.

You're mocking appeals to unity by speaking to me as if I am part of a monolithic Borg like bloc?

Got clues?

Yes, the Kelo decision is a ringing endorsement of corporate profit over personal liberty.

Wrong. It was a perfect example of liberal judicial activism. Corporate profit had nothing to do with it. It represented the Court taking the government's side.

And what side was the government taking?

Let me know when you spin out of that.

Sorry, but the intent of the Constitution is not to protect individuals from corporations, but from the government. Think about it.

It is failing on both counts. But hey, if you can look at Kelso and not see a defense of the corporate state, you're fucking beyond help anyway.

Posted: **Tue Sep 20, 2005 5:12 pm**

Tom In VA wrote:But Doc, our track record isn't too good on the side of labor.

So what? We no longer in those conditions. And those conditions were a matter of reality in those times. Only very rich nations have the ability to impose labor laws on employers. It's just like environmental laws. Developing nations don;t have them because they cannot afford them. If they were impose them businesses would fold immediately as the cost of compliance would bankrupt them. Same with labor laws.

However, we are no longer living in those times and haven't been thirty years.

Granted our system seems to be the one that allows traversing the classes, up and down. I am quite sure that is easier said, than done, but most things fall into that category.

Easier said than done? Wrong. It is easy as Census and IRS data prove it. Income mobility is very dynamic both up as well as down.

But let's not pretend that the poor do not have a "struggle" ahead of them.

Now you're shifting the goal posts. Your characterization of the "class struggle" was rich versus poor, not the hardships of being poor.

Furthermore while our American form of democracy cannot be classified by a fight between the rich and poor, the American form of Capitalism depends upon it. Labor, like products, seems to go to the lowest bidder. The more poor one is, the more willing to work for paltry wages one will be.

American capitalism does not depend upon a struggle between the rich and poor. American capitalism is a struggle between competitors along quality and price. American capitalism is founded upon the principle of competition. Come on, Tom. That Marxism streak is sure showing through. It frames your entire argument here.

Which is why our leaders refuse to do anything about the border.

Way too complex an issue to sum up so simplistically, however, I would agree in part that immigration is ignored because it does benefit employers.

Posted: **Tue Sep 20, 2005 5:18 pm**

You're mocking appeals to unity by speaking to me as if I am part of a monolithic Borg like bloc?

Uh, yeah, because you are a part of that bloc. You are a Democrat that spouts the Democratic line on nearly every major issue.

And what side was the government taking?

The local government was seeking to change the composition of the tax base in order to generate more tax revenue. That's no secret. This is not about local leaders handing out favors to their pals. The ultimate aim is to enhance the property tax base and you do that by adding commercial property relative to residential property.

It is failing on both counts.

And the Courts deserve your thanks since it's the erosion of individual rights that the Courts have engaged in at the behest of liberals.

But hey, if you can look at Kelso and not see a defense of the corporate state, you're fucking beyond help anyway.

Corporate state. You act as though there some evil incarnate there. Frankly, I don't know what you're talking about with rhetoric like this. It's amzing that you people believe that corporations have it so great in this country given the tax laws, labor laws, environmental laws, etc., etc., that are imposed on business and cost businesses billions and billions (probably more) every year.

Posted: **Tue Sep 20, 2005 5:27 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:American capitalism does not depend upon a struggle between the rich and poor. American capitalism is a struggle between competitors along quality and price. American capitalism is founded upon the principle of competition. Come on, Tom. That Marxism streak is sure showing through. It frames your entire argument here.

I mischaracterized my post.

The rich in our capitalistic society, actually, exploit and depdn on a fight between the poor and the poorer. Which is in line with your statement

"American capitalism is a struggle between competitors along quality and price"

My view of "class struggle" is not entirely Marxist at all. Marx never really fully developed his theory, perhaps because to do so would have revealed his own fallacies. But, the notion of haves vs. have nots, is older than Marx and dates back to the moment we stood upright and one guy had meat and the other did not.

So I wouldn't consider myself a Marxist. I'm more of a "More"ist. No matter how much human beings have, most seem to want more.

Posted: **Tue Sep 20, 2005 5:42 pm**

Tom In VA wrote: I mischaracterized my post.

The rich in our capitalistic society, actually, exploit and depdn on a fight between the poor and the poorer. Which is in line with your statement

"American capitalism is a struggle between competitors along quality and price"

My view of "class struggle" is not entirely Marxist at all. Marx never really fully developed his theory, perhaps because to do so would have revealed his own fallacies. But, the notion of haves vs. have nots, is older than Marx and dates back to the moment we stood upright and one guy had meat and the other did not.

So I wouldn't consider myself a Marxist. I'm more of a "More"ist. No matter how much human beings have, most seem to want more.

When you said you were a quick study, you weren't kidding! Discounting your analysis of Marx, spot on post.

Moneybags does indeed wants it both ways.

When workers in the US obtain relatively high wages, their employers use every trick in the book to undercut this high pay - most of all, by pitting well paid US workers against cheap forign labour, seeking to reduce US wages by investing Capital in foriegn countries or allowing migrants to enter illegally

At the same time, you get the trumpet blast from rich kid, hired polititians who demand your loyalty for 'God and Country'. Their arguement? That US workers are better off than elsewhere! Moneybags is quite happy to have his cake and eat it too. He drives your wages down by hiring cheaper labour power available elsewhere, while mobolising US workers to fight in wars designed to smash the foriegn poor, who seek the bare minimum of subsistance. For you, this should be unacceptable.

Posted: **Tue Sep 20, 2005 5:46 pm**

Tom In VA wrote:I mischaracterized my post.

The rich in our capitalistic society, actually, exploit and depdn on a fight between the poor and the poorer. Which is in line with your statement

"American capitalism is a struggle between competitors along quality and price"

1) No, American capitalism does not depend upon a struggle between the poor and poorer.

2) No, that characterization is not inline with my statement re: what American capitalism is.

American capitalism has always been discussed with a central focus on competition, the cultivation of competition, and the free market.

If there is a struggle between actors in that environment it is between the government and individuals wherein individuals seek to reduce government interventions and the government (at the behest of special interests) seek to enhance governmental intervention.

This is what fuels my argument (due for another time) that the role of special interests would be significantly reduced if the federal government vastly simplified the tax and regulatory structures. It is through those structures that special interests seek to gain advantages and assert their influence and power.

My view of "class struggle" is not entirely Marxist at all. Marx never really fully developed his theory, perhaps because to do so would have revealed his own fallacies. But, the notion of haves vs. have nots, is older than Marx and dates back to the moment we stood upright and one guy had meat and the other did not.

Of course we have always had the haves and have nots. However, you are framing that in a very Marxist manner that relies on the class warfare rhetoric of the Left. There is no "class struggle" in America that requires government intervention. What are the "rich" doing to oppress the "poor?" And how does that characterization fit in the world's richest nation where no one, except by choice, foregoes basic necessities? It just doesn't square, Tom.

So I wouldn't consider myself a Marxist. I'm more of a "More"ist. No matter how much human beings have, most seem to want more.

So look beyond the political rhetoric and recognize that this economy is not a zero-sum game, is not a fixed pie. It is a growing economy that facilitates significant mobility through the income ladder.

Posted: **Tue Sep 20, 2005 5:48 pm**

mvscal wrote:
DrDetroit wrote:
mvscal wrote: I should say so. You would have to be a total dumbfuck to argue otherwise.
Wrong. Kelo represents the courts taking the side of government. Remember, it is the local government "taking" property. The decision permits local government to "take" private property for a private interest.

Bottom line:

It permits the government to take property from ordinary joes and give it to rich developers.

No disagreement here.

If that isn't the government taking the side of the rich, nothing is.

It's government acting in its self interest. Local government wouldn't do it if it did not directly benefit it, i.e., enhance the tax base. That's the ultimate aim here.

And how do those states that are moving to pass laws prohibiting local jurisdictions from taking private property for private interests fit into your thinking here?

Is that not representative of government taking the side of individuals?

Posted: **Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:12 pm**

Dr_Phibes wrote: At the same time, you get the trumpet blast from rich kid, hired polititians who demand your loyalty for 'God and Country'. Their arguement? That US workers are better off than elsewhere! Moneybags is quite happy to have his cake and eat it too. He drives your wages down by hiring cheaper labour power available elsewhere, while mobolising US workers to fight in wars designed to smash the foriegn poor, who seek the bare minimum of subsistance. For you, this should be unacceptable.

There are many things that are unacceptable, but a fact of life. I find diarrhea unacceptable, but that doesn't stop the occasional bout with it.

Anyway, if you look a bit closer, far from the U.S. being the sole actor in the use of our "workers" to fight war, I'll point out that in most any conflict, the "workers" fight the "workers" while the "ruling class", devise the plans, make the decisions. The thing about the U.S. though is that we have many stories about "workers" who might or might not have fought in the conflict, being able to reap and enjoy the spoils.

War is unacceptable, but like diarrhea, .... the 'shit ~~happens'~~

Posted: **Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:14 pm**

DrDetroit wrote:
American capitalism has always been discussed with a central focus on competition, the cultivation of competition, and the free market.

You'e kidding, right?

Posted: **Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:20 pm**

Damn, Tom, I never knew you had Marxist strains in yourself. Quite pathetic in my view.

Too bad Phibes' premise is flawed:

When workers in the US obtain relatively high wages, their employers use every trick in the book to undercut this high pay - most of all, by pitting well paid US workers against cheap forign labour, seeking to reduce US wages by investing Capital in foriegn countries or allowing migrants to enter illegally

1) American firms shift operations overseas not because American workers are being paid high wages. Phibes needs it to be that easy to continue his bullshit socialist worker agenda. Rather, American firm sshift operations overseas to take advantage of a relaxed, simpler tax and regulatory structure. Yes, wages are cheaper there, but that's not what is driving those firms to flle America. Relative to the US, these other nations offer stable tax environments and cheaper regulatory framework. Study after study of organizational behavior demonstrate this.

2) The shift of some American operations overseas has not had the effect of reducing wages here in the US. At worst, wages have remained flat, while in fact wages for the most part have been increasing.

3) Increased immigration also has no had the effect of reducing wages. For the most part, immigrant workers are not replacement workers and they certainly are not taking jobs away from currently employed Americans. As we hear over and over, these immigrants are taking jobs that otherwise go unfilled by arrogant Americans who believe that such work is beneath them.

Tom, engage your brain.

Posted: **Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:23 pm**

Mikey wrote:
DrDetroit wrote:
American capitalism has always been discussed with a central focus on competition, the cultivation of competition, and the free market.

You'e kidding, right?

I'll ignore for the fact that you have completely removed yourself from good faith debate lately to respond here:

Relative to the discussion surrounding "class struggle," ... yeah, I am serious.

Now, since you failed to offer an alternative in that post I'll simply presume that you are, again, posting in bad faith.

Carry on.

Posted: **Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:32 pm**

Doc,

The fact that "money talks and bullshit walks" isn't Marxist.

"stable tax environments and cheaper regulatory framework"

Exactly, money talks and bullshit walks. They can get the work done cheaper. They can get the LABOR CHEAPER, by using overseas pools. The bottom line is MONEY and the bottom line is Americans in a given field, need to find work elsewhere.

You might have the wrong perception of my thoughts, that's okay. But to suggest that people don't exploit illegal/legal immigrants because they're willing to work for less, is ridiculous. I don't buy the "arrogance of Americans" as an excuse either.

The "arrogance" has more to do with Americans not being willing to pool their resources like Hispanics, some living several families to ONE house. That coupled with the practical factor that, the wage being paid is simply not a livable wage, they probably don't even bother trying to get these jobs.

Posted: **Tue Sep 20, 2005 7:16 pm**

Actually mvscal, the Indians with whom I've worked in the IT field have been paid well, that's here though. Those with their full rights to work in the U.S. do well, those that have not completed their processing and are sponsored, actually serve in some modern "indentured servant" capacity. They make decent money but they aren't free to move around and God forbid they experience a medical emergency that disallows them from working for an extended period of time.

That's been my experience working with Indians.

As for shipping the work out to perceived "coding sweatshops" in India. It's just a simple matter that they work cheaper. For a variety of reasons. The information I've gathered from Indian co-workers is that programmers in India, who work for less, actually enjoy a higher quality of life than their American counterparts.

This could lend creedence to Docs contention, that while somewhat myopic, does hold a certain amount of water that the relaxed regulations and tax structures on foreign soil, is the primary reason for farming work overseas.

But the bottom line is, it's cheaper. It's cheaper and the American workforce gets the high hard one squarely up their ass.

Posted: **Tue Sep 20, 2005 7:33 pm**

mvscal wrote:Indians work cheaper even the ones in here in the States. Trust me, there would be no clamor for more visas if that weren't the case.

I do trust you. I was just conveying my experience. The Indians with whom I've worked, were competitively compensated in areas like DBA, Oracle development, VB development and the like.

Posted: **Tue Sep 20, 2005 7:44 pm**

Tom In VA wrote:Doc,

The fact that "money talks and bullshit walks" isn't Marxist.

But you're completely misapplying it.

Exactly, money talks and bullshit walks. They can get the work done cheaper. They can get the LABOR CHEAPER, by using overseas pools. The bottom line is MONEY and the bottom line is Americans in a given field, need to find work elsewhere.

Come on, Tom. Lets be honest here. You do not know why American firms shift operations overseas. On the one hand, we agree that the shift is happening and that it is financial. On the other hand, you are speculating why it is shifting. I know why. I read the literature. Part of it is wage related. However, that's awash after considering the locational costs and transactional costs. The real savings is in the savings realized from relaxed labor and environmental laws.

As for Americans having to find work...you know that employment is at an all-time high and while income is at worst steady, if not growing slowly. Nonetheless, we have not witnessed a mass bout of unemployment due to American firms shifting operations overseas. That right there undermines your point.

You might have the wrong perception of my thoughts, that's okay. But to suggest that people don't exploit illegal/legal immigrants because they're willing to work for less, is ridiculous. I don't buy the "arrogance of Americans" as an excuse either.

I didn't suggest they don't, but I was suggesting that illegal immigrants are not taking good paying jobs that come with benefits. We're talking about labor intensive jobs that many Americans simply refuse to perform (re: the arrogance comment).

The "arrogance" has more to do with Americans not being willing to pool their resources like Hispanics, some living several families to ONE house. That coupled with the practical factor that, the wage being paid is simply not a livable wage, they probably don't even bother trying to get these jobs.

Your living wage remark is bunk. A living wage is nothing more than individuals demanding that the rest of us pay for their lifestyle choices.

Posted: **Tue Sep 20, 2005 7:48 pm**

Mvscal:

Like all those unemployed IT professionals who got long-dicked in favor of Indians who will work for an apple and a comic book?

Well, lets see the data. Sure, we all heard the horror stories of "all those people" who lost their jobs. Ironically, though, we never saw the actual data.

So...how many people lost their jobs due to outsourcing? Then, how many of those people didn't find related work? Then, of those who didn't, how did they ultimately fare?

Without that information your comment is speculative at best relying on garbage rhetoric.

BTW - are you at all considering the "in-sourcing" of financial capital and jobs for foreign companies? probably not, but it ain't chump change to dismiss out of hand.

Posted: **Tue Sep 20, 2005 7:52 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Tom In VA wrote:This could lend creedence to Docs contention, that while somewhat myopic, does hold a certain amount of water that the relaxed regulations and tax structures on foreign soil, is the primary reason for farming work overseas.
Regulatory compliance, taxes and salaries are all operating expenses with salaries being far and above the largest chunk. Indians work cheaper even the ones in here in the States. Trust me, there would be no clamor for more visas if that weren't the case.

I don't think anyone is arguing that labor costs are not largest chunk, Mvscal. However, of the costs related to labor, salaries and wages represent a little over half. This is more easily understood when you start counting the costs that the employer bears just to employ a single employee, including ss, medicare, unemployment, workers comp, etc.

Posted: **Tue Sep 20, 2005 7:56 pm**

Also, outsourcing is a net gain for the US:

Economist Martin N. Baily, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Clinton, looked at who benefits from outsourcing. He found that for every $1 spent by a U.S. corporation on outsourcing to India, only 33 cents stayed in India. The other 67 cents came back to the U.S. in the form of cost savings, new exports, and repatriated profits. However, productivity gains add another 45 to 47 cents of value to the U.S. economy. Thus, on balance, the U.S. economy gains $1.12 to $1.14 for every $1 invested in outsourcing.

Economist Charles Schultze, chairman of the CEA under President Carter, looked at the number of jobs lost to outsourcing. He found that between the end of 2000 and the end of 2003, at most 215,000 service-sector jobs were lost. This is a minuscule amount in a working population of close to 150 million. Moreover, Schultze says, the productivity gains produced by outsourcing raised real incomes and living standards in the U.S. He concluded that outsourcing cannot be blamed for the “jobless recovery.”

International Monetary Fund economists Mary Amiti and Shang-Jin Wei did the most thorough study of outsourcing to date for the prestigious National Bureau of Economic Research and found that:
--Contrary to popular belief, the U.S. is a large recipient of outsourcing from other countries — i.e., insourcing. In 2002, the U.S. ran a healthy trade surplus in this area — receiving $22 billion more in outsourcing from other countries than it paid in outsourcing to other countries.
--The number of jobs gained from outsourcing approximately equals the number of jobs lost.

In the third quarter of last year, the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City released a study of outsourcing. It concluded that outsourcing has no permanent employment effects, although there can be temporary displacements.

So, sorry, but the rhetorical nonsense re: outsourcing just doesn't square with reality. take that shit back to John Kerry's campaign bus.

Posted: **Tue Sep 20, 2005 8:03 pm**

No, I just read the research.

Listen I know why GE sold its outsourcing businesses and started bringing home investment in foreign countries. Do you?

To adopt your tact, Mvscal, I'd have to imagine that you're a similar spearchucker that swallows all of this outsourcing rhetoric without even considering it.

Shit, it's the "all those people" shit that gives it away. No data, no research, just the hook, line, and sinker for you, eh?

Posted: **Tue Sep 20, 2005 8:11 pm**

mvscal wrote:
DrDetroit wrote:I'd have to imagine that you're a similar spearchucker that swallows all of this outsourcing rhetoric without even considering it.
No, I just sit in the meetings and watch how these decisions are really made.

Well, I won't argue with you about what your firm did. What I know is from the research into corporate locational decisonmaking.

I also have actual data on jobs outsourced, insourced, investment in new jobs domestically, etc. And all of that tells me that outsourcing is not hurting America and not hurting American people.

Like GE reported in its proxy statement last year, "overseas expansion "has helped keep GE competitive and growing and, in many cases, helped to create and preserve jobs in the United States..." The GE statement goes on to note that despite outsourcing, its U.S.-based employment has remained stable. The cost savings have helped finance additional domestic investments in "high-tech, high-value jobs in areas such as healthcare, digital entertainment, energy and water technologies, renewable resources and research and development."

That's one lost part in this whole thing...the savings. It's not simply pissed away. it's reinvested domestically creating new jobs or expanding exisiting operations. That's never talked about.

Posted: **Tue Sep 20, 2005 8:12 pm**

mvscal wrote:
DrDetroit wrote:Also, outsourcing is a net gain for Wall Street.
Fixed.

Nonsense.

All-time high for employment.
Low unemployment rate.
Stable or growing wages.

Dumbshit, you do get the fact that when Wall Street hurts we all hurt and when Wall Street booms we all do well, right? This ain't a zero-sum game, it's an expanding pie.

T1B

Break away thread re: Tom CNN article

Break away thread re: Tom CNN article