Why Doesn't The US Regulate Which Companies Can Send Jobs Overseas?

Prices did go down when we started shifting toward imports. Just compare the standard of living from a few decades ago to the current standard of living.

As for competing for workers, businesses only need workers when they have enough demand to justify the extra production. Fewer customers (since overseas nations would naturally raise tariffs on the US in the same way that the US would raise their tariffs) combined with less disposable income from domestic consumers who would be paying higher prices for domestic goods would reduce demand and reduce the need for workers.

So in reality, wages would probably go down because of significantly reduced demand, totally devastating the economy.

 

Is it legal for a company to relocate their factory to another state because of anger toward the union? And why is that illegal? And why do companies relocate their manufacturing operations to other countries? LESSER PAY OF COURSE! Isn't that a way to get revenge toward their employees who are asking for too much pay? Or is too much pay?

 

It's because the Republicans are in charge. Why should they care anyways? They're not representing the people who are losing jobs overseas? They're representing the corporate executives who are making this happen. But they try to brainwash you with this idea that cutting taxes for their corporate friends is going to create more jobs. It probably will. But those jobs won't be in America.

 

Stop drinking the kool-aid man! The cost of overseas labor is simply TOO CHEAP. You can't compete! And the weakening US dollar should be a good reason NOT to send jobs overseas. When things cost more, you send MORE money overseas.

 

Doc Righteous, when the dollar drops in value, products are cheaper where ever the local currency has held its own, US products then cheaper than the locals. This would stimulate US jobs or prevent the need to manufacture closer to the consumer.

However your on target with regulation (Keynesian, not relevant), adding uncertainty over future cost, which prevents foreign investment in the US, expansion of current business and most importantly start up business....

Montoya; Business in the US is based on Free Market Capitalism, with the intend to make a profit, which by definition is greed. Those profits provide jobs, taxes to local/State/Federal Governments, dividends to those that have invested, which includes over half the US population via some retirement funding and satisfies a consumer base here and around the world. Regulation to increase isolationism or protectionism for specific business or employee base, removes the incentives from the equation...

 

Protectionism costs more jobs than it saves. The reason is that it saddles the internationally competitive parts of the American economy with additional costs which reduce its sales revenue.

Say for example you protect the American steel industry because foreign steel is 50% cheaper.

What that means is that everything produced in the United States made out of steel is more expensive than the equivalent item made overseas, all labour costs being equal. That kills your export sales and it always kills more jobs than it protects.

. John Nash got the Nobel prize for doing the theory work that proved it.

When I grew up in Australia, every industry was protected. I assure you that it was a bad thing. You have no idea of the size of the bureaucracy that would be needed to enforce industry protection.

For example, we protected our sugar and confectionery industry. Regulations were written to give effect to this.

...Then someone comes along and says "Hey, diabetics can't have sugar so sugar free confectionery should be exempt from the regulations if it is for diabetics."

......Rewrite the regulations after the court case.

..Then someone says "But Hey! People are importing sugar free confectionery without paying duty under the diabetic exemption and selling it as part of a weight loss diet"

......Rewrite the regulations again after the court case.

...Then somebody else says "Hey, I've started making sugar free confectionery in Australia, so I want all foreign product to be taxed because I want to be protected"

...Then someone else says "You sugar free confectionery is not as good as the imported product so don't protect it.."


......Rewrite the regulations again after the court case.


Now multiply that argument by a zillion products and you will understand why you can't afford the bureaucracy.

 

Maybe John Nash can figure out how much money is leaving the US economy each year. I'm not an economist but I can easily figure out that if you have 1 trillion dollars coming in and 2 trillion dollars going out, your country has 1 trillion dollars less in the economy. In other words you're POORER.

 

Hence, the country is going down in flames.

 

Gregdavidson:

If that is the case then either you make better value products and lift your exports or the value of the dollar reduces, making imports more expensive until you reach a balance.

We have a name for this phenomenon - it's called "competition". Developed countries normally compete by differentiating themselves from the likes of China by making high value added products that command a premium price.

..Of course that takes an educated and informed population and workforce - all of it.

Unfortunately America is a country that doesn't believe in investing in education and excellence, as the link below conclusively demonstrates...

http://www.care2.com/causes/homeless-mom-charged-stealing-school.html

 

I have a name for this phenomenon - it's called "greed".

Why hire a worker in the United States for $20 an hour when you can hire somebody overseas for far less than that? It's too tempting for greedy companies - even if they're making a profit.

 

What you choose to call greed......many call survival. If cheaper means exist overseas to manufacture the same goods, then doing so is a matter of survival, because the competition will most certainly do so. We are in a globally competitive marketplace, and nothing is going to change that reality.

 

Because we believe in freedom and liberty and the right to your property and wealth.

 

20 dollars an hour only goes to someone who's talent is worth that much.

I don't think making making shirts fits that bill.

 

But for a married older woman without no children at home $10 and hour can be a nice supplement to the household income. If there is a profit sharing or 401k plan a very nice supplement towards retirement. And of course a woman at 40 reentering the workforce has plenty of time to work her way back up the ladder.

Everyone always makes excuses to not work and then supplementing those who don't work with the money of those that do. I worked minimum wage jobs starting out. Not for long, I worked hard and worked my way up.

 

That's the point of a minimum wage. It's meant as a starting wage for people entering the labor force or immigrants. Progressives think it's actually something to live on. Ask them how many people actually earn the minimum wage in this country. You'll just confuse them.

 

I worked when there wasn't a minimum wage during high school. Then my first real job I started at minimum wage. I quickly learned that the easier I made my boss's job the more money he was willing to pay me and the better working conditions I would enjoy.

 

Demand will go down regardless... unemployment decresses demand.

Demand will decrease and prices will increase.
I am saying we should reduce imported goods by 10% a year.

I am not talking about raising tarriffs

Take 10% off the total of light bulbs imported.
Take 10% off televisions imported.
Take 10% off refrigerators imported.

Only allow so many goods to come into this country.

We are running a trade deficit...we are spending more than we bring in.

How long can this continue???

If you spend more than you make... eventually the chickens will come home to roost.

How long before it "crashes" down on us???

 

How do you decide which companies get to import and which ones don't? Which companies do we decide to cripple and which do we protect?

 

We reduce imports 10% across the board.

20% in five years.

Let them know whats coming.

If you import 100,000 items this year you are only allowed to import 90,000 next year.

 

Based on this year only? What about firms that imported nothing until this year, or ones that imported more than they needed last year so this year they didn't bring in as much? Is it right to base their quota on on year?

Also will they be able to exchange import rights? What about request waivers? What happens if a firm goes out of business, does someone else get their rights?

Also how do we handle the fact that other countries will probably enact similar quotas against us? What do we do when our companies see their export income cut 10%? Since we don't export the same things as we import, they won't just magically fill the void created by reducing imports.

And what about oil and power, do we cut the import of them as well?

 

We could switch to LNG and reduce oil importation at least for gasoline.

And no...no games...no switching of credits..what they imported last year is already here. If they managed not to import last year they can do it this year.

If we don't reduce imports we will become a third world country.

We will not magically fill the void...companies will locate here to make money.

Just like Honda and Toyota.

 

Honda and Toyota import a large percentage of the parts and materials they use to manufacture those cars. They may assemble them here, but the majority of each car is actually manufactured overseas.

This kind of limit will reduce their ability to manufacture here and increase their prices - further hurting the economy.

Your plan increases prices and cuts exports, both of which will likely hurt quality of life of Americans and the economy overall.

 

In the short term...yes.

But whatever we do it is going to hurt.

I guess you would rather just wait until only the people that import products have any money.

But when that day comes...who is going to buy the imports?

And yes I know Honda and Toyota only assemble cars in the U.S. It is a way to get around the import quota.

 

Many imports are created with raw materials exported from the US, so they will get income as well. Both importers and exporters need services that must be provided locally, keeping the people who provide those services employed.

In the end, we've shifted to a service based economy from a manufacturing society. Our economy has continued to grow even as we have increased our import rate.

I don't think our import rate is nearly the problem you seem to believe it is.

 

Go to your local retail establishment and compare the products made in America and the products made overseas.

Just because an economy recovers doesn't mean that people are employed.

Corporations are sitting on tons of money but they are not hiring...at least not here.

And raw materials mined here would be used here.