I have been working on an entry about outsourcing for some time. I find it difficult to make a concise and comprehensive declaration on the situation of jobs and outsourcing. Even more difficult is to make it attention grabbing. The truth of the matter is that it is not an attention grabbing subject unless one wants to use hyperbole. The only thing I can say that will grab attention is:
OUTSOURCING JOBS IS GOOD FOR THE AMERICAN ECONOMY!
also
PEOPLE WANT THE BENEFITS OF CAPITALISM WITHOUT ANY CONSEQUENCES!
There. I said it.
The complaint is that there are not enough jobs in the United States (and many European countries) and companies are sending jobs overseas. Some things I no longer have to clarify due to the nature of the news cycle. I had originally broken down how much these jobs pay but so many news stories have broken about the pay rates at Foxconn that this is no longer necessary.
I do believe that many people who have strong opinions about the situation of outsourced labour have a purely emotional response. It is this drive to resent the “other” and attach negative feelings on outsiders. When looking at the employment situation many aspects need to be considered. There is the aspect of Cost of Living (not CPI) and wages, economic theory, international relations, technology… it is terribly complicated. So, why the insistence that “Outsourcing is the problem” when analysing the employment situation?
Let’s look at this rationally: Foxconn employees make 31 cents an hour to assemble the iPhone. They work 12 hours a day, six days a week. I have heard the argument that American wages would only increase the cost of the product by 26%, but what most of these statements ignore is the situation that allows these phones to be assembled at such a high pace. When Apple needs new glass for the front of their phone, Corning can supply them with new glass the same day in China… the Corning plant is there, too. Most of the components are in Shenzen, or close to it. The cost of shipping components around the world would start increasing costs exponentially.
I went on a long tirade last night about my problem with this debt ceiling debate. I was reading a few articles on the debate today and then reading the comments. This is still bullshit. The arguments of the Right are so invalid today, I cannot even believe we give them credibility by listening to them.
Taxes on the Wealthy
This argument keeps coming up with the Tea Party/GOP. They keep stating that increasing taxes on the wealthy will destroy the economy, cripple job creation, and open the gates of hell. This is, of course, just crap. Even if taxes on the top marginal percentage were raised substantially, they would still be much lower than before Reagan left office.
Someone tried to make an analogy of taxing the rich on a roommate situation and I feel that it fell short, but was a good try. I thought of a better analogy.
Imagine, if you will, a business. This business is owned by 3 partners. This business employes 17 people. The 17 employees make $200 a week. The owners have a net revenue of $10k a month. The three owners announce that the business needs to pay the bills and everyone will pay the bills. The bills amount to $20,000. So, everyone pays $1k a month for the bills of the business. This leaves the employees with a negative income ratio, and the owners with 9 thousand dollars net income. (This is fair.) As the business continues to make money, the partners announce that it is too costly to continue to provide benefits for their workers, so they have to pay for their benefits. Eventually, all the workers quit and move to China to manufacture iPhones and computer components, because even though the pay is low and the work is tedious, they are not slowly going deeper into debt to make the three business partners more wealthy.
This is really what the GOP is proposing by demanding that increases taxes on the top marginal percent as “destructive” or even “Marxist redistribution.” Really, it is about keeping things going. The wealthiest Americans own a significant portion of the United States. The least wealthy (those who receive entitlements) are just renters. Why should the renters be forced to invest in another’s investments?
Spending
The crazy thing is that we know this works… that when the wealthy pay higher taxes, net revenues increase. So, would you rather make $1,000 and be taxed at 10% or would you rather make $100,000 and be taxed 40%? Of course, the GOP and the wealthy are given this choice and giving the answer: I’d rather make $1,000,000 and be taxed at 10%.
That wasn’t an option… and it doesn’t work.
There is significant evidence to show that careful spending actually resolves an economic crisis. Job creation increases Per Capita GDP. Investments often yield a profit. Increasing spending to yield a profit IS a plausible way to resolve an economic crisis.
Yet the New Right wants to scream and yell that “spending is the problem, not the solution!” Where is the evidence of this? Everything I have seen shows that Supply-Side Economics show very little evidence of being effective. How many times do we have to do this to see it doesn’t work?
Debt crisis
The debt crisis is a result of this ideological nonsense. The “debt crisis” has been manufactured. The Tea Party and GOP have effectively stalled the American economy over this debate. It is a non-issue. But it has become an issue. Just as race has no scientific basis, but very real implications, the debt crisis has become a true crisis.
My only hope out of all of this is that people can see who really cares about them. Either make the Right move a little closer to center, or make a new party to the Left of the DNC. (Well… or just implement fascism now and don’t make everyone suffer through the transition.)
What we do see is that cutting budgets does stifle the economy. The New Right wants to cut pensions, benefits, salaries and programs that give people enough money to live comfortably… but refuse to examine raising taxes on the top marginal percent? And then they claim to be “for the working class.”
It reminds me of the past religious practices of exercising demons… either by drowning, fire, torture, et al. “We are drowning you to save you.”
Every time there is a story on the Huffington Post about the downturn in the economy, increase in unemployment, a stupid bill, political corruption… any of these types of stories… the comments section is flooded with an immediate deluge of anti-Obama, anti-Democratic comments. I noticed in an unofficial capacity that this phenomena has been increasing over the past few months.
I can’t help but wonder “why”? I mean, trolls are trolls. You cannot avoid trolling on any website. And I’m sure plenty of right-leaning sites get their fair share of leftist trolls. I have even seen a troll or two on the racist websites, like Stormfront. But when the trolls out-number the regular subscribers, what is going on?
The President was elected by 537 votes in the deciding state for electoral votes and stopped the manual recount that was to decide if he actually did win the election. He was appointed to office by a U.S. Supreme Court decision. He actually received 543,895 votes less than his opponent.
The President and Congress passed a bill that opened up ability for government surveillance, restricted rules on opening bank accounts or transferring money, gave the government more access to private information. (Expanded government control over civil rights.)
The United States was attacked under the watch of this President.
This President ran on a platform of limited international involvement and less bi-partisanship. The same President went to war with a foreign nation on false pretenses. Congress was actually lied to before approving the war.
This President said “Bring It On” to people who were trying to kill American soldiers.
This President that claimed to be “bi-partisan” in his campaign made statements such as “you are with us, or against us.”
Enron.
This President gave large tax breaks to the wealthy, claiming it would help invigorate the economy.
According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the real GDP grew at an average annual rate of 2.5%. (Lower than had been in the past 50 years.) The DOW Jones Industrial Average dropped from 10,587 to 7,949. “Adjusted for inflation, median household income dropped by $1,175 between 2000 and 2007, said Elizabeth Warren, professor at Harvard Law School, in written testimony before the Joint Economic Committee.“ (Resource) In the last year of his office, the U.S. entered the longest post-war recession since WWII, due to a housing market bubble, mortgage crisis, and high oil prices. (Reuters, Xinhua)
This President passed an educational bill known as the No Child Left Behind Act, which has so many criticisms, they cannot all fit in one passage, but included underfunding and increase in access for military recruitment, and most importantly, increased segregation in public schools.
