I disagree. In the computer industry, only low level jobs are exported. You can't get access to global market while keeping all the jobs domestic. That's the price you have to pay.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
top 1% vs bottom 50% (US wealth)
- Thread starter richardyu301
- Start date
I disagree. In the computer industry, only low level jobs are exported. You can't get access to global market while keeping all the jobs domestic. That's the price you have to pay.
If you mean managerial jobs - then yes they are not being outsourced yet. As far as technical computer jobs are concerned - they outsource entire departments and entire projects.Quote from CoolTrader:
I disagree. In the computer industry, only low level jobs are exported.
Even if you were right how do you think it can work out going forward, if american college graduates can't get low level computer jobs because there are all in India how can they possibly ever become project managers or architects?
Well we're not keeping all the jobs domestic but we're not getting access to global market either as is quite evident from our huge and growing trade deficit. We're paying the price but we're not getting anything in return.Quote from CoolTrader:
You can't get access to global market while keeping all the jobs domestic. That's the price you have to pay.
Right... We buy their socks, they buy our profitable manufacturing and high-tech companies, they lend us money to buy their socks, we pay them interest and will still have to eventually pay off the principal. That's WEALTH indeed, the biggest transfer of wealth in history. Nations do not create wealth by buying cheap foreign stuff and/or by binge borrowing, they create wealth by producing their own goods and services.Quote from fhl:
What we're getting in return is goods and services at a better price than we otherwise could have gotten them. That equals WEALTH.
dddooo. i see what u are saying but it all just comes down to simple economics. i mean why are Ford and GM in such bad financial shape? Because the cars coming from overseas are cheaper/better. Same basic economics with what was said earlier about CEOs of major corporations. If there was no demand for these type of people then the salary they are paid would look closer to ours. If a US company can get socks made cheaper and faster overseas than here in the US...then why wouldnt they? The world is becoming more flat everyday. just my 2 cents. jimQuote from dddooo:
Right... We buy their socks, they buy our profitable manufacturing and high-tech companies, they lend us money to buy their socks, we pay them interest and will still have to eventually pay off the principal. That's WEALTH indeed, the biggest transfer of wealth in history. Nations do not create wealth by buying cheap foreign stuff and/or by binge borrowing, they create wealth by producing their own goods and services.
dddooo,
The statement that we buy socks, they buy manufac is just liberal claptrap. It could be more accurately stated that we are investing in high margin goods, while they are investing in machines to make socks. If you would rather invest in sock making machines, be my guest. The whole issue of dollar proliferation is a separate one, but I somehow knew you would bring it up once your other argument was destroyed.
The statement that we buy socks, they buy manufac is just liberal claptrap. It could be more accurately stated that we are investing in high margin goods, while they are investing in machines to make socks. If you would rather invest in sock making machines, be my guest. The whole issue of dollar proliferation is a separate one, but I somehow knew you would bring it up once your other argument was destroyed.
Obviously nobody in the world is interested in our "high margin goods" whatever they are, otherwise we would not have an enormous trade deficit. When you're able to calm down and explain why other countries are not buying american goods and services including "high margin goods and services" feel free to post again. (Hint - instead of buying "high margin goods" they use the proceeds of their sock sales to buy american companies investing in high margin goods).Quote from fhl:
It could be more accurately stated that we are investing in high margin goods, while they are investing in machines to make socks.
Jim, absolutely everything can be made overseas and it will always be cheaper due to slave wages, terrible and unsafe working conditions, child labor, total disregard of the environment etc. The flat world means americans working for the same wage as their chinese/indian/russian/south american counterparts - $2-5hr. That includes you, your parents, friends, children, neighbors. I don't think that should be the objective of the economy.Quote from jim c:
If a US company can get socks made cheaper and faster overseas than here in the US...then why wouldnt they? The world is becoming more flat everyday.
Two quick points.
One, we have trade surpluses in very few areas, chiefly agriculture and raw materials, plus aerospace. So we are a thrid world country that happens to also have Boeing and a massive Defense Departemtn budget to fund it.
Two, regarding CEO compensation, I dispute the supply and demand explanation. Who is setting the demand? The CEO's and their handpicked boards, not a true marketplace. It is more a question of "how much can I take", rather than "what is he worth?" I read a suggestion by a famous compensation expert, who said that boards should require the CEO every year to present them a number that he would resign unless he received, along with his letter of resignation. Needless to say, if you're on a board and suggest that, you'll be an ex-board member very quickly.
One, we have trade surpluses in very few areas, chiefly agriculture and raw materials, plus aerospace. So we are a thrid world country that happens to also have Boeing and a massive Defense Departemtn budget to fund it.
Two, regarding CEO compensation, I dispute the supply and demand explanation. Who is setting the demand? The CEO's and their handpicked boards, not a true marketplace. It is more a question of "how much can I take", rather than "what is he worth?" I read a suggestion by a famous compensation expert, who said that boards should require the CEO every year to present them a number that he would resign unless he received, along with his letter of resignation. Needless to say, if you're on a board and suggest that, you'll be an ex-board member very quickly.