Why do we have so much off shoring of jobs?

Corporate taxes, Excessive purchases of off shore manufactured goods such as automobiles starting in the 60s and 70s, consumer demands for lower prices.

In spite of the off shoring, for every job sent over seas the US has created 1.7 jobs of higher complexity requiring more skilled labor which paid more than most of the jobs outsourced. http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/dp1147.pdf

And don't forget Tax Incidence: https://www.kansascityfed.org/Publicat/RegionalRWP/RRWP07-01.pdf

 

We also offshore jobs due to environmental regulations and of course, labor costs.

 

Of course!

 

And the number 1 reason is: Greed.

Even if the corporate tax was ZERO, even if we didn't have environment regulations companies STILL would outsource if able to because none of that changes the fact they can get close to slave labor overseas.

 

In a nutshell, globalism means that U.S. labor is going to have to compete with foreign labor. No matter what the globalists tell you, it cannot. At least it cannot compete and maintain the standard of living it enjoyed pre-1980s. There are now four decades of PROOF of that. Suck it up, American labor, I hope you enjoy the Bangladeshi lifestyle. And, btw, the people who have profited the most by globalism are the American corporatists, Wall Street investors and bankers who own companies, plant and equipment abroad and have to pay very little (relatively) for labor and can then sell their products in America. Renegotiating trade deals isn't going to help so Trump doesn't have the answer. He's a braying ass. If you really want your country back (as you say you do), start 'protecting' it like you OWN it.

 

agreed with everything until the last part which is a scandalous attack on Trump.

so its not okay to support Trump because your guy Sanders lost? this is about what is good for poor and middle class American's, not who won or loss.

Trump is the only one speaking out now against the rich, who want Americans to live in the third world to make the rich richer, clinton will not even lie because it will upset her rich donors.

we need to make a stand and there were two candidates who spoke out against the rich, sanders was whipped into submission by clinton.

Trump is a man's man who is self funding and not beholden to anyone, he won't let the rich dominate him whether they are feminists or not, unless it's consensual.

 

Well, finally we agree on something.

CORPORATIONS, stock holders and CEO's amount to a socio economic machine with no ethics and morals, and of course it is driven by greed.

None of that amounts to a benefit, generally speaking, for the average American. In fact, corporations have been corralling skill and technology within their ranks while sending the work requiring the skills and technology to foreign countries. Meaning that Americans generally have less skills and technology PERIOD. This is actually dangerous.

 

Cost of labor and virtually no regulations is the main reason American companies wanted to manufacture overseas. The importing of cars specifically fron Japan,and then fromKorea was purely an import of foreign goods problem. The Japaneses captured the electronics market in the 1960,s and the car market by the 1980,s and there are a lot if readies for that.

Now the once Japanese hold on electronics manufacturing was captured by China and that again is cistern of labor because Chinese labor custard less than Japanese.

To try and explain the entire offshore manufacturing as the boogeyman of corporate taxes is not completely correct and I would say that corporate taxes alone are not the reason or even the main reason that manufacturing went off shore.

 

You got it. Corporations went overseas like pigs to the food trough to eat up the cheap labor.

Amerucan corporations are cutting their own troths because it will reach a point where American labor will be making so poor a wage that they will be able to afford the cheap logos from Bagaladesh, orvSaigon, or Bagalore.

 

You're only as important as the amount of money you have to spend. The amount of money you'd like to spend if you had a good job to buy it is irrelevant.

 

This is true, but it has nothing to do with Greed; Everything to do with Productivity.

Besides, by shifting from an industrial to a post-service sector economy, we have also moved those dirty, nasty manufacturing jobs (which were bad for the enviroment) to poor countries who can really use the jobs; effectively killing two birds with one stone.

Last time I checked, we're supposed to care about the enviroment and the poor.

 

america is innovative enough to figure out ways how to manufacture cleanly, and pollution is in the air so it does not just stay on one side of the world due to wind patterns.

corporate productivity is an illusion today, it is based on greed, laziness, and entitlement, rather than actual work.

- - - Updated - - -

 

It is. The big question is: what is the cost? Less than what it would cost to simply relocate the job elsewhere; less than what it would cost to have automation do it?

So far, the cost extremely outweighs the benefits.

I agree; not with the greed, laziness, and the entitlement part, but most of the data shows that the economy is suffering from a severe lack of output.

 

the cost of operating an ethical business does outweigh the benefits to the rich

they should absorb some of the costs of retraining americans, instead of bringing skilled foreigners to america to take jobs away from us.

 

I don't see what is more ethical than increasing everyone's standards of living by exporting jobs.

No one is taking your jobs; it's not as if the economy has a job that is designated for everyone to have. Jobs that are destroyed essentially creates better jobs for everyone.

You're only SOL if you don't have an education (a REAL education), which is what most people don't have. These people are the most vunerable to automation and oversourcing.

 

You are not increasing everyone's standard of living by doing this, but assuming it were true, increasing the world's standard of living increases world consumption of natural resources and the world's output of pollution. How is it ethical that more people will be able to afford cars when the price is an acceleration of global warming and the destruction of other people's homes?

If you take my job and send it to china and replace it with 2 jobs in New York, you still have taken my job.

Those with REAL education know they are just as vulnerable as anybody else. If they are smart, however, they will move forward with a life-raft for when the floor drops out from them by having multiple income-streams set up. Those who are most vulnerable are not those who lack REAL education. It is people who live outside those large urban centers that are siphoning dollars out of smaller and rural areas to finance their largess.

 

Greed. Very funny.

The reason jobs go overseas is because the companies want to stay in business, like the Missouri company that Romney's company bought. They had about 2,500 jobs here and the company was about to shut down because it couldn't compete. Romey's company moved 1,500 of the jobs overseas, but that allowed them to save the company and 1,000 jobs here.

Isn't 1,000 jobs better than a complete shut down? Not to Obama, who demagogued this issue to death in 2012.

 

Why dont you guys start your own business and do whatever it is you want

No one says you have to work for someone else

dont be lazy

 

It is true. The data shows this; there is nothing to assume.

You probably haven't noticed, but some of the most polluted places or also some of the most poorest places in the world. That is no coincidence. The one thing that has been proven to create cleaner enviroments throughout history is wealth.

Wealthy nations largely have the resources to clean up the messes they create and to make enviroment cleaner for soceity. Poorer nations don't have the wealth or the resources to make the enviroment cleaner; considering, you need to build wealth in those nations.

If you believe that, then it doesn't say much about your human capital.

I think you're talking about people without a REAL education, because that statement is false.

The data doesn't support such a ridiculous assertion. Upward mobility studies and educational attainment earings shows that those with an education have higher lifetime earnings than those without.

 

I have 2 and I have a job besides that allows me to work part of the day at home and part of the day at work. Once the debt I took on to capitalize the businesses is paid off, I am quitting work forever.

 

Don't forget oppressive regulations.

 

Gladly provide this data and I will demonstrate why you are wrong. All you need to do is look at the pollution that is created in China to extract the rare earth minerals that are used to build wind turbines in Europe.

You are confusing sanitation with clean environment. Global warming is not caused by sewage in the river. I is being caused by people spending an hour each way commuting to work.

Yet they do not. Obama has cleaned up even fewer superfund sites than George Bush. We don't clean the environment. We export our pollution and hide what is left.

It is true whether you want to believe it or not. You only need to look at the couple hundred economic dead zones in the US. There will be more if Hillary wins. No matter how much money you pour into Appalachia after you kill coal, you still are not going to create any comparable paying jobs in Appalachia that does not rely on importing workers. It is the same thing that happened when Clinton went after tobacco.

No I am talking about people with REAL educations and not you because pretty much every response you have given is pure ignorance. Lawyers are being replaced by legal zoom. 1 doctor can do the rounds of 5 using offsite telemetry, video uplinks to patient rooms and lots of high tech equipment (something I have seen first hand); stock brokers are replaced by etrade; the list goes on and on.

You clearly know nothing of data. Aggregate numbers do not reflect the reality of what life is like outside of large urban areas.

 

exporting jobs increases living standards of poor countries at the expense of rich countries, and the middle class of those rich countries pay for it not the rich.

older middle class Americans who didn't sell out to corporate greed are the only ones who can remember when America was great, and not forced to give their wealth away to the poor to make the rich richer.

when the rich destroy jobs, they leave a lot of poor and lower middle class americans behind because they keep the wealth instead of creating higher pay jobs.

it is good you mention education because it is the only fact that i can present to you that isn't manipulated by the rich, who outsource jobs and paint a rosy picture of the economy.

according to your own logic, the 60 percent of Americans who don't have higher education are out of luck. you can only fool all the people some of the time, as abraham lincoln said.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown...ses-paying-degrees-tops-financial-challenges/

 

The data reflects the average GDP growth from the last 30 years as well as the Human Development Index. China's standard of living has dramatically improved from all the jobs we have given them

You were talking about Global Warming; I was initially talking about pollution.

It's simply my way of not allowing people to distract from the topic.

You're disllusional then, because the first world is significantly much cleaner than the developing world. In terms of air pollution, water pollution, soil, etc.

Of course we're not creating comparable paying jobs. We're creating better paying jobs. Destroying jobs that are not efficient makes society much better off due to new jobs that make society more productive.

It's pure economics.

That is a good thing. That means society doesn't need as many laywers; which it doesn't.

No, stock brokers aren't being replaced by eTrade. Each trade facilitated in the financial market always has a broker behind it.

I don't know why you expect anyone to believe your ancedotes over the data…

 

Manufacturing has chased cheap labor all over the globe from Japan to Korea to China to Malaysia to Vietnam to Pakistan.

Within a short time that cheap labor becomes expensive and they move on.

What happens when they run out of place to chase it to?

Will they start wars to "underdevelope" new cheap labor areas?