Birthers vs Returners

I would also note that major reasons people dislike Romney's wealth include
1) He and his wife constantly trying to claim that he is an ordinary man and understands the plight of the unemployed and poor when that is clearly BS.
2) The means he acquired a large portion of his wealth by moving jobs overseas and potentially avoiding taxes.

It isn't just that he is rich.

When you actually look into what happens when jobs are outsourced, you'll find that outsourcing is actually better for American workers than keeping the jobs here, especially for the Middle Class. By hiring foreign workers for a lower price, companies here in America can avoid laying people off and expand their business using the extra money so they can hire MORE people. Some people do lose their jobs, but the majority of those workers will be re-hired by the company into easier jobs that pay better than the old ones did. In the meantime, those low-paying jobs that we send overseas to India and China are often much better jobs than most people could get had the company not chosen to outsource. In the meantime, the costs for running the business go down, and the prices for goods go down as well. Everyone benefits.
 
When you actually look into what happens when jobs are outsourced, you'll find that outsourcing is actually better for American workers than keeping the jobs here, especially for the Middle Class. By hiring foreign workers for a lower price, companies here in America can avoid laying people off and expand their business using the extra money so they can hire MORE people. Some people do lose their jobs, but the majority of those workers will be re-hired by the company into easier jobs that pay better than the old ones did. In the meantime, those low-paying jobs that we send overseas to India and China are often much better jobs than most people could get had the company not chosen to outsource. In the meantime, the costs for running the business go down, and the prices for goods go down as well. Everyone benefits.



That's the theory. But the real world does not work that way. The money is never reinvested in the US, and so the workers never recover what they lost in wages. So it becomes a net loss to the economy because people who used to be self sufficient now are dependent on food stamps and the economy grows slower.
 
That's the theory. But the real world does not work that way. The money is never reinvested in the US, and so the workers never recover what they lost in wages. So it becomes a net loss to the economy because people who used to be self sufficient now are dependent on food stamps and the economy grows slower.

I'm not very verbose when it comes to economics, so I'll just present this.


Link to video.
 
That's the theory.
It is depressing how many people (no personal insult at you intended KaiserElectric, you just provided the occasion) seem to mindlessly iterate those basic neat theories which make everything alright.
It is like someone brainwashed them with economic models but neglected the model-part.
 
I'm not a brilliant economist but it seems overly simplistic to me to say that a company making more money automatically translates into job creation.
 
When you actually look into what happens when jobs are outsourced, you'll find that outsourcing is actually better for American workers than keeping the jobs here, especially for the Middle Class. By hiring foreign workers for a lower price, companies here in America can avoid laying people off and expand their business using the extra money so they can hire MORE people. Some people do lose their jobs, but the majority of those workers will be re-hired by the company into easier jobs that pay better than the old ones did. In the meantime, those low-paying jobs that we send overseas to India and China are often much better jobs than most people could get had the company not chosen to outsource. In the meantime, the costs for running the business go down, and the prices for goods go down as well. Everyone benefits.
Guess that explins the massive job growth in the U.S. during the outsourcing era.
 
It's not massive, but it's there. Something is better than nothing.
 
I wonder if anybody has told the Republican Party yet that the financial crisis is now over thanks to so many jobs being outsourced. They really should update all those attack ads.


Link to video.
 
He panders to whom? What about the arguments he makes? Why are they wrong?
 
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnstossel/2012/08/01/myths_we_live_by

The Olympics have gone smoothly despite -- gasp! -- America's team wearing clothing made in China at the opening ceremony.

"I'm so upset," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. "Take all the uniforms, put them in a big pile, and burn them. ... We have people in the textile industry who are desperate for jobs."

Here, Reid demonstrates economic cluelessness. It seems logical that Americans lose if American clothing is made overseas. But that's nonsense. First, it's no surprise the uniforms were made in China. Most clothing is. That's fine. It saves money. We invest the savings in other things, like the machines that Chinese factories buy and the trucks that ship the Olympic uniforms.

The Cato Institute's Daniel Ikenson's adds: "We design clothing here. We brand clothing here. We market and retail clothing. ... Chinese athletes arrived in London by U.S.-made aircraft, trained on U.S.-designed and -engineered equipment, wear U.S.-designed and -engineered footwear, having perfected their skills using U.S.-created technology." That's free trade. Trade makes us richer.

While making the clothes in America would employ some Americans, the excess cost would mean that the Olympic committee had less to spend on other products -- many of which are made in America.

Losing jobs like cutting, sewing and working on a loom is a sign of progress because working in factories is unpleasant. It's good for most Americans when factory jobs are replaced by engineering and design jobs. Art Carden, an economist from Samford University's Brock School of Business, explained that "one could argue that the American uniforms were not manufactured in China, but grown in the soybean field in Iowa. We export soybeans to China. Because we're incredibly productive in the soybean market, we get more uniforms at lower prices (and) the Chinese get more soybeans at lower prices. ... Everybody wins."

Contrary to protectionists like Sen. Reid, if we insisted that everything be made in America, we'd be poor.

There is so much that we think we know -- that is not so.

We're told that "overpopulation" is why countries are poor. But that's nonsense, too.

"The problem is not that there are too many people," Carden said. "The problem is that for the most part they don't have free markets."

Right. They have bad governments, kleptocracies that steal people's resources.

The data make that obvious. Poverty in Nigeria and Pakistan is often blamed on "overpopulation." Nigeria has 174 people per square mile! Pakistan 225! But so what? Wealthy Holland has 483 people per square mile. Hong Kong, 6,783. Singapore, 7,252. These are among the richest places in the world. They also have clean environments. When there is the rule of law and economic freedom, more people means more inventions, the cross-pollination of ideas -- and that creates better lives.

Another myth is that we're running out of fuel. In 1977, President Jimmy Carter said gas and oil would be gone in the next decade. Others said by 2000 or 2010.

It didn't happen because as oil and gas get expensive, people search for substitutes. When they are free to profit by doing that, they invent new ways to dig deeper, suck more oil out of the same wells, etc. America now has stores of much more oil and gas than when Carter was president.

There are so many myths. I wrote my new book when I realized that the most dangerous myth is that solutions to our problems will most likely come from government. It's intuitive to think that the wise people in Washington know more than we do. Therefore, they should plan our lives. But the opposite is true.

People freed to pursue their own interests are more likely to solve problems. Government fails, but individuals succeed. Individuals would create prosperity if politicians and bureaucrats got out of the way.

It is time we saw through the big government scam.
 
Except that ignores that many of the decently paying factory jobs arent being replaced by engineering jobs, they are getting replaced with low pay jobs in the service sector.

The population density argument is flawed too, density doesnt determine how many resources you need. The Netherlands only has 16 million people it needs to worry about clean water, electricity, etc for, Pakistan has 177 million, Nigeria has 170 million, its tough to build infrastructure for that many people when you are starting from behind.
 
So it was Harry Reid who was primarily behind it? What utter nonsense.

The Congressional reaction on Capitol Hill today extended to both houses and both parties.

“You’d think they know better,” Speaker of the House John Boehner, R-OH., said in response to a question from ABC News today.

Lipinski Introduces Bi-Partisan House Bill Requiring U.S. Olympic Committee To 'Buy American'

Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL) and Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) introduced a bipartisan bill, H.R. 6123, in Congress on Tuesday requiring the United States Olympic Committee to “Buy American.”

The bill comes on the heels of last week’s revelation that the 2012 team outfits provided by Ralph Lauren for the opening and closing ceremonies were made in China. Some lawmakers, including Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) demanded that the Chinese-made uniforms be burned.

H.R. 6123 would ensure that American workers make the uniforms and equipment that the USOC provides to American athletes wherever possible.
 
Back
Top Bottom