Re: Jobs overseas ? Who can we blame?
Christine O'Donnell
union pay to millions of ignorant, unskilled bozos!
What would YOU rather pay some fat, beer-gutted slob with a 7th grade
education to tighten screws on a auto production line? Take your
pick.
UAW -- $36/hour.
Foreign Company -- $8.25/hour.
Now you know why the U.S. jobs are gone overseas -- forever.
It's called global leveling.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread469565/pg1
Raymond
Don't unions ultimately drive jobs offshore?
In an economy based on competition, companies are driven to cut costs
and increase profits in pretty much any way they can. This sets in
place a "race to the bottom". If unions settled for wage reductions of
50%, pretty soon this lower wage rate would set an industry standard,
and further cuts would be necessary to maintain competitiveness. The
solution is not to settle for a spiral of decreasing pay and
conditions, but to ensure that rights and wages in developing
countries are raised. For this reason many unions are now working
across national borders, seeking fair pay and labour rights for
workers in the developing world. Last year saw improved legislation in
China, and substantial wage increases in both China and India. With
this, of course, came company threats to relocate. It's going to be a
long, hard struggle.
Unionism 101
Unionism is about workers standing together to improve their
situation, and to help others.
SEE:
http://www.newunionism.net/unionism.htm
At the rate these countries are organizing, they will soon be on a
level that the American workers were on at the height of their power
and the Chinese, especially, will be moving their companies into the
United States to take advantage of the slave labor rates. Some
Americans, seeking work, will have to illegally cross into Mexico to
compete with the Mexican labor force for menial jobs. What goes around
comes around.
Even in these countries, when unions and management fail to reach
agreement, or where relations break down, the union has the option of
pursuing industrial action. This can take the form of a strike, a go-
slow, a work-to-rule, a slow-down, an overtime ban, or even an
occupation. Sometimes other unions will take action in solidarity with
the initial group, and in rare instances this can lead to a general
strike. Different countries have different legislation governing
industrial action, with some trying to suppress it altogether.
These countries also have their forms of national guards, similar to
those in America that were the strike breakers of the earlier years
when the labor movement was in its infancy and the workers can expect
to lose many lives at the hands of these corporation police just as
was the case in America.
Hopefully, the United States will be able to remain a strong military
force that can continue making war around the globe. If successful,
there will be jobs for thousands of young Americans willing to go to
war. This is one soultion for the uneducated school dropouts. Of
course, standards for enlistments will have to be lowered and we will
have to continue borrowing money from nations like China in order to
fight our wars, But at least work will be available for many. After
all, "War is the health of the state" as Randolph Bourne wrote years
ago.
Last year saw improved legislation in China, and substantial wage
increases. However, more time is certainly needed before Chinese
workers emerge as a force to be reckoned with.but it will happen.
Ray Keller
"Raymond" wrote in message
news:7d65fc5f-d120-46d8...@j18g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
another mentally ill leftard.
plink
John Galt
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 15:15:31 -0700 (PDT), Raymond<Bluer...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Don't unions ultimately drive jobs offshore?
>> In an economy based on competition, companies are driven to cut costs
>> and increase profits in pretty much any way they can.
>>
>> This sets in
>> place a "race to the bottom".
>
> post relies on this premise. If the premise is ends up being false,
> or not universally true, than your entire argument collapses.
>
> I challenge you on your premise. Please substantiate your reasoning
> to support the conclusion that a job becomes a "race to the bottom".
Agreed. It is more likely that it's a "race to the top."
Complainants about the job offshoring all make a VERY QUESTIONABLE
assumption, that being that IF the jobs had NOT been offshored, that the
US companies that offshored their jobs would still be in business (or,
even if in business, would not be shrinking due to foreign competition).
Gotta think the entire problem through. No US company ever wanted to
offshore a job. It's a pain in the ass managing a workforce that's awake
when you want to be asleep. They did so for a REASON; the
anti-offshoring crowd all says the reason was "greed", without even a
thought to look at the competitive issues involved.
JG
Raymond
> On 10/31/2010 9:39 PM, ByeStander wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Many American companies ...like top U.S. Defense Contractors move
offshore to avoid taxes .
A "no bid contractor" usually refers to a private for-profit
corporation that receives American tax payer monies in large amounts
(billions of dollars) without having to competitively bid for the
contract. One of the most famous "no bid contractors" is Halliburton.
Since Bush and Cheney have been in the White House, Halliburton has
received tens of billions of dollars of our money.
There's four important things to remind ourselves about
Halliburton...
Dick Cheney served as its CEO right before becoming Bush's VP,
Halliburton has received numerous "no bid" contracts since Bush became
the U.S. President,
Halliburton made profits hand over fist in Iraq, and,
Halliburton moved its corporate offices out of Texas and into the
Middle Eastern country of Dubai so that Halliburton could avoid paying
U.S. taxes.
In other words, Halliburton has had carte blanche access to our tax
payer funds, has profited enormously by banking our tax payer monies,
but then, Halliburton itself does all it can do to doing its part to
support the government that feeds it.
Now, there's even more to report...
Another "no bid" defense contractor moved offshore to avoid U.S. laws
and to avoid paying U.S. taxes. This one was also a part of the
Halliburton/Dick Cheney gravy train. It has moved it's payroll offices
to the Cayman Islands in order to sidestep U.S. laws:
SEE
http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2008/03/cayman_islands_shell_companies.html
Offshore Companies Do $1 Billion in Business with US Government
Lawmakers estimate corporations that have moved to low-tax countries
cost the U.S. treasury $4 billion a year.
by Jonathan D. Salant
WASHINGTON -- Associated Press. Companies that reduced their U.S. tax
bill by incorporating overseas did $1 billion worth of business with
the federal government last year, an Associated Press computer
analysis of federal contracts showed.
The Bermuda-based consulting company Accenture Ltd., a spinoff of the
former Big Five accounting firm Arthur Andersen, was the biggest
federal customer. It received $662 million in contracts between Oct.
1, 2001, and Sept. 30, 2002, mostly from the Transportation Security
Administration.
The engineering firm Foster Wheeler Ltd. received $293.2 million.
Ingersoll-Rand Co. Ltd., which boasts that its equipment helped carve
Mount Rushmore, received $7.6 million.
During the federal fiscal year that ended in September 2001, companies
with offshore headquarters received $846 million in federal contracts,
according to the House Ways and Means Committee's Democratic staff.
"It's outrageous that we would do business with these folks," said
Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., who has introduced legislation to continue
taxing companies that move their headquarters overseas. "They are
shirking their citizenship."
The process is known as corporate inversion: A company moves its
headquarters -- sometimes nothing more than a post office box -- to a
low-tax enclave such as Bermuda or the Cayman Islands while leaving
its operations and employees in the United States.
The Senate twice has passed legislation to prevent the new Homeland
Security Department from doing business with companies that relocate
overseas, but both times the provision was removed from the final bill
by House Republican leaders.
Jonathan Grella, a spokesman for House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-
Texas, said the issue should be addressed as part of an overhaul of
the tax system. Republicans have blamed high U.S. taxes for the
problem.
Corporations that have moved overseas spent $5 million to lobby
Congress and the federal agencies and donated $1.2 million to
campaigns in 2001 and 2002, according to an AP analysis of data from
Political Money Line, an Internet site.
To fight legislation restricting their ability to move offshore, the
companies have assembled an all-star team of lobbyists, including
former Sens. Slade Gorton, R-Wash., and Dennis DeConcini, D-Ariz.;
former House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Archer, R-Texas;
and former House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bob Livingston, R-
La., according to disclosure forms filed with the House and Senate.
Company officials said the tax breaks that result from moving their
headquarters overseas keep them competitive.
"We felt that American companies, based upon the tax laws that are
written today, are clearly put at an economic disadvantage to foreign
companies," said Victoria Guennewig, a spokeswoman for Cooper
Industries Ltd., a company that makes electrical products and tools.
It moved from Houston to Bermuda in 2002 and received $3.6 million in
government contracts last year.
Lawmakers estimate corporations that have moved to low-tax countries
cost the U.S. treasury $4 billion a year.
"People should be screaming to the rafters about the hypocrisy
involved in corporations moving offshore and then coming back to the
taxpayers for a handout in the form of government contracts," said
Charlie Cray, director of the campaign for corporate reform at Citizen
Works, an advocacy group affiliated with consumer advocate Ralph
Nader.
Ingersoll-Rand spokesman Paul Dickard said preventing companies such
as his from seeking government contracts would hurt the company's
26,000 U.S. workers.
"They're not necessarily hurting the company as much as they're
hurting U.S.-based employees," Dickard said. "That would be
unfortunate."
One of the Homeland Security Department's agencies, the Transportation
Security Administration, gave Accenture a contract of close to $515
million to handle human resources for the agency's employees,
including administering health insurance, life insurance and
retirement benefits.
Accenture, which began as the consulting arm of Chicago-based Andersen
Worldwide, said the company shouldn't be included on a list of
corporate expatriates because it never was a U.S.-based corporation.
But House Democratic lawmakers and others who want to change the law
disagree.
"They are a spinoff of Arthur Andersen," said Robert Borosage, co-
chairman of the Campaign for America's Future, a liberal research and
advocacy group. "Their contracting is significantly done with American
companies. If they want to get contracts with the federal government,
they ought to pay taxes."
Companies who move offshore to save federal taxes still get federal
contracts
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - If you haven't turned on a TV or read a
magazine or a newspaper recently, you probably haven't heard that your
job is moving overseas.
Odds are, it's not, of course. But a growing number of jobs are, and
many of them are higher-skilled jobs that once seemed immune to
outsourcing.
U.S. companies moving jobs offshore has helped keep the job market in
its most painful slump since World War II, creating tremendous worry
for millions of workers and triggering a vigorous national debate
about how best to respond.
Here are some of the more common proposals, along with some of the
arguments for and against:
Scrap WTO, trade pacts
.http://money.cnn.com/2004/03/01/news/economy/outsourcing_solutions/.
Let;s be realistic; It's hman nature.
"Greed is good indeed." Stockholders don't care where the company is
located or who they hire. Do I get a dividend?
John Galt
Agreed. That's all part of "competitiveness".
> A "no bid contractor" usually refers to a private for-profit
> corporation that receives American tax payer monies in large amounts
> (billions of dollars) without having to competitively bid for the
> contract. One of the most famous "no bid contractors" is Halliburton.
> Since Bush and Cheney have been in the White House, Halliburton has
> received tens of billions of dollars of our money.
We were talking about job offshoring. Why are we moving to Halliburton,
which is a very different matter?
>
> There's four important things to remind ourselves about
> Halliburton...
>
> Dick Cheney served as its CEO right before becoming Bush's VP,
And? Nothing illegal about that, right?
> Halliburton has received numerous "no bid" contracts since Bush became
> the U.S. President,
And under Clinton.
> Halliburton made profits hand over fist in Iraq, and,
> Halliburton moved its corporate offices out of Texas and into the
> Middle Eastern country of Dubai so that Halliburton could avoid paying
> U.S. taxes.
Yes.
> In other words, Halliburton has had carte blanche access to our tax
> payer funds, has profited enormously by banking our tax payer monies,
> but then, Halliburton itself does all it can do to doing its part to
> support the government that feeds it.
Yep. It's about time for the government to kill the corporate tax in its
present form. It's killing us.
> Now, there's even more to report...
>
> Another "no bid" defense contractor moved offshore to avoid U.S. laws
> and to avoid paying U.S. taxes. This one was also a part of the
> Halliburton/Dick Cheney gravy train. It has moved it's payroll offices
> to the Cayman Islands in order to sidestep U.S. laws:
> SEE
> http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2008/03/cayman_islands_shell_companies.html
>
> Offshore Companies Do $1 Billion in Business with US Government
> Lawmakers estimate corporations that have moved to low-tax countries
> cost the U.S. treasury $4 billion a year.
> by Jonathan D. Salant
>
> WASHINGTON -- Associated Press. Companies that reduced their U.S. tax
> bill by incorporating overseas did $1 billion worth of business with
> the federal government last year, an Associated Press computer
> analysis of federal contracts showed.
>
> The Bermuda-based consulting company Accenture Ltd., a spinoff of the
> former Big Five accounting firm Arthur Andersen, was the biggest
> federal customer. It received $662 million in contracts between Oct.
> 1, 2001, and Sept. 30, 2002, mostly from the Transportation Security
> Administration.
Yep. There was a very large congressional hearing about this when it
occurred. Both sides of the aisle threw up their hands and admitted that
the feds are dependent on Accenture.
>
> The engineering firm Foster Wheeler Ltd. received $293.2 million.
> Ingersoll-Rand Co. Ltd., which boasts that its equipment helped carve
> Mount Rushmore, received $7.6 million.
And Transocean, and Weatherford........
>
> During the federal fiscal year that ended in September 2001, companies
> with offshore headquarters received $846 million in federal contracts,
> according to the House Ways and Means Committee's Democratic staff.
>
> "It's outrageous that we would do business with these folks," said
> Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., who has introduced legislation to continue
> taxing companies that move their headquarters overseas. "They are
> shirking their citizenship."
"Shirking their citizenship"? Geez. And the Dems have the nerve to call
OTHER people "stupid", while their own guys display a complete ignorance
of basic financial markets?
They're not "shirking" anything. Their job is to protect the interests
of their shareholders. Period. NOt the citizens. That's a socialist model.
>
> The process is known as corporate inversion: A company moves its
> headquarters -- sometimes nothing more than a post office box -- to a
> low-tax enclave such as Bermuda or the Cayman Islands while leaving
> its operations and employees in the United States.
Goddamn Internet. Turned the tax system of the largest nation in the
world right on its ear. :-)
>
> The Senate twice has passed legislation to prevent the new Homeland
> Security Department from doing business with companies that relocate
> overseas, but both times the provision was removed from the final bill
> by House Republican leaders.
I should hope so. It would be inflationary.
>
> Jonathan Grella, a spokesman for House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-
> Texas, said the issue should be addressed as part of an overhaul of
> the tax system. Republicans have blamed high U.S. taxes for the
> problem.
They are correct, in part.
>
> Corporations that have moved overseas spent $5 million to lobby
> Congress and the federal agencies and donated $1.2 million to
> campaigns in 2001 and 2002, according to an AP analysis of data from
> Political Money Line, an Internet site.
>
> To fight legislation restricting their ability to move offshore, the
> companies have assembled an all-star team of lobbyists, including
> former Sens. Slade Gorton, R-Wash., and Dennis DeConcini, D-Ariz.;
> former House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Archer, R-Texas;
> and former House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bob Livingston, R-
> La., according to disclosure forms filed with the House and Senate.
>
> Company officials said the tax breaks that result from moving their
> headquarters overseas keep them competitive.
It does. If the corporate tax were repealed, the pressure to do so would
abate to some extent.
>
> "We felt that American companies, based upon the tax laws that are
> written today, are clearly put at an economic disadvantage to foreign
> companies," said Victoria Guennewig, a spokeswoman for Cooper
> Industries Ltd., a company that makes electrical products and tools.
> It moved from Houston to Bermuda in 2002 and received $3.6 million in
> government contracts last year.
>
> Lawmakers estimate corporations that have moved to low-tax countries
> cost the U.S. treasury $4 billion a year.
They probably lose 10 times that from retirees who move overseas and
"forget" to report foreign earnings. (But, I'm sure the number has
already grown substantially over the last few years).
>
> "People should be screaming to the rafters about the hypocrisy
> involved in corporations moving offshore and then coming back to the
> taxpayers for a handout in the form of government contracts," said
> Charlie Cray, director of the campaign for corporate reform at Citizen
> Works, an advocacy group affiliated with consumer advocate Ralph
> Nader.
Hmmmmm. Competing for government contracts is "hypocrisy?" Rubbish. It's
their job to compete for anything they can.
>
> Ingersoll-Rand spokesman Paul Dickard said preventing companies such
> as his from seeking government contracts would hurt the company's
> 26,000 U.S. workers.
Yep. Guess we should fix our tax system.
>
> "They're not necessarily hurting the company as much as they're
> hurting U.S.-based employees," Dickard said. "That would be
> unfortunate."
Yep. Guess we should fix our tax system.
>
> One of the Homeland Security Department's agencies, the Transportation
> Security Administration, gave Accenture a contract of close to $515
> million to handle human resources for the agency's employees,
> including administering health insurance, life insurance and
> retirement benefits.
>
> Accenture, which began as the consulting arm of Chicago-based Andersen
> Worldwide, said the company shouldn't be included on a list of
> corporate expatriates because it never was a U.S.-based corporation.
>
That's true.
> But House Democratic lawmakers and others who want to change the law
> disagree.
>
> "They are a spinoff of Arthur Andersen," said Robert Borosage, co-
> chairman of the Campaign for America's Future, a liberal research and
> advocacy group. "Their contracting is significantly done with American
> companies. If they want to get contracts with the federal government,
> they ought to pay taxes."
He's wrong. If the government wants to limit it's contracts to US firms
only, they can, but they signed a treaty not to do that with the WTC
during the Clinton Administration.
Oh, what a tangled web we weave for ourselves.....
....and then complain when we get caught in it.
JG
Gunner Asch
wrote:
>One of the most famous "no bid contractors" is Halliburton.
>Since Bush and Cheney have been in the White House, Halliburton has
>received tens of billions of dollars of our money.
You are aware, are you not..that Clinton also used Halliburton as a No
Bid contractor, and he and the Democrats showered Halliburton with much
praise and lots and lots of government contracts.
Dont believe me? Then you are incredibly ignorant.....
Just a few examples.....
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze1tvxm/thepoliticalarena/The%20Truth%20About%20Halliburton.htm
http://www.randomjottings.net/archives/000091.html
September 19, 2003
Clinton sweetheart deal with Halliburton...
Rich Lowry pours a cold bucket of facts and truth on the smears against
the Halliburton Corporation. It won't make any difference to the
scoundrels who are deliberately spreading lies. But perhaps you RJ
readers will be interested:
...The Clinton administration made the same calculation in its own
dealings with Halliburton. The company had won the LOGCAP in 1992, then
lost it in 1997. The Clinton administration nonetheless awarded a no-bid
contract to Halliburton to continue its work in the Balkans supporting
the U.S. peacekeeping mission there because it made little sense to
change midstream. According to Byron York, Al Gore's
reinventing-government panel even singled out Halliburton for praise for
its military logistics work...
"...the U.S. Army Logistics Civil Augmentation Program, or LOGCAP... is
a multiyear contract for a corporation to be on call to provide whatever
services might be needed quickly..." Halliburton has frequently been the
low-bidder on LOGCAP, and both no-bid contracts were been made in the
context of many Halliburton low bids to do exactly the same things. The
idea that Dick Cheney just tossed a crony contract to his old firm is
rubbish spread by toads who get to sleep quietly at night because decent
Americans like Mr Cheney and the folks at Halliburton roll up their
sleeves and tackle horrible problems in faraway places. And if they are
well-paid for it, good! They deserve it. It doesn't look to me like they
are nearly as overpaid as the NGO's and multinational institutions that
the snivelers would prefer.
And imagine if the expected massive oil-field fires had actually
occurred, and our response had been delayed for even a week by red tape.
How the Bush haters would have crowed about the Administration's "lack
of planning."
"Confiscating wealth from those who have earned it, inherited it,
or got lucky is never going to help 'the poor.' Poverty isn't
caused by some people having more money than others, just as obesity
isn't caused by McDonald's serving super-sized orders of French fries
Poverty, like obesity, is caused by the life choices that dictate
results." - John Tucci,
Raymond
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Don't unions ultimately drive jobs offshore?
> >> In an economy based on competition, companies are driven to cut costs
> >> and increase profits in pretty much any way they can.
>
> >> This sets in
> >> place a "race to the bottom".
>
> > This is your premise - "race to the bottom". All of your remaining
> > post relies on this premise. If the premise is ends up being false,
> > or not universally true, than your entire argument collapses.
>
> > I challenge you on your premise. Please substantiate your reasoning
> > to support the conclusion that a job becomes a "race to the bottom".
>
> Agreed. It is more likely that it's a "race to the top."
>
> Complainants about the job offshoring all make a VERY QUESTIONABLE
> assumption, that being that IF the jobs had NOT been offshored, that the
> US companies that offshored their jobs would still be in business (or,
> even if in business, would not be shrinking due to foreign competition).
RE:" US companies that offshored their jobs would still be in
business (or,
even if in business, would not be shrinking due to foreign
competition)."
Foreign Competition ? The foreign competition is American companies
making product with foreign labor and exporting it to the USA.
Made in China may be on the product but the owners of the factories
and plants that made the item are generally American ...and let's
consider the tax base we are losing.
Can you see many Mexicans opening million dollar manufacturing
plants? Not hardly. They are lucky to be opening family operated
Taco shops. Whore houses are big employers in Mexico, especially
along the border of California and Arizona This is one product that
was not exported from the USA,. at least for now.
Rght now, 80 percent of global output is made in China and.
60 percent of Wal-Mart's total merchandise is imported.
Moreover, many US firms have simply moved to China,
and now export to America and other nations.The same is
true with Mexico.where companies have moved for cheap labor
This may be fine if the product sent back to the USA reflected
a savings to the American customer, but it doesn't. The
retail price is the same as it was when it was made in the US.
The difference? The company's profits are greater. As John Kasich,
running for governor of Ohio says, "That's what it's all about."
Millions of jobs have left our nation for countries like Mexico and
China
American Jobs? This list comes from Lou Dobbs as he is not happy
about this trend of us losing such a huge Tax Base not to mention
JOBS
Outsourcing is economic treason.
Here are some companies gone out of the USA
3Com
3M
A
Accenture
Adaptec
ADC
Adobe Systems
Advanced Energy Industries
Aetna
Affiliated Computer Services
A.G. Edwards
Agere Systems
Agilent Tech.
AIG
Alamo Rent A Car
Albertson's
Allen Systems Group
Alliance Semiconductor
Allstate
Alpha Thought Global
Amazon.com
AMD
American Express
American Household
American Management Systems
American Standard
Amphenol Corp.
Analog Devices
Andrew Corp.
Anheuser-Busch
AOL
Apple
Applied Materials
A.T. Cross Company
AT&T
AT&T Wireless
A.T. Kearney
Automatic Data Processing
Avanade
Avery Dennison
B
Bank of America
Bank of New York
Bank One
BearingPoint
Bear Stearns
Bechtel
BellSouth
Best Buy
Black & Decker
BMC Software
Boeing
Brocade
Bumble Bee
C
Cadence Design Systems
Capital One
Carrier
Cendant
Cerner Corporation
Charles Schwab
ChevronTexaco
CIBER
Ciena
Cigna
Circuit City, Inc.
Cisco Systems
Citigroup
CNA
Coca-Cola
Cognizant Technology Solutions
Columbia House
Comcast Holdings
Computer Associates
Computer Sciences Corporation
CompuServe
Continental Airlines
Convergys
Cooper Tire & Rubber
Cooper Tools
Countrywide Financial
COVAD Comm.
CSX
Cummins
Cypress Semiconductor
D
Dana Corporation
Delco Remy
Dell Computer
Delphi
Delta Air Lines
Direct TV
Discover
Document Sciences Corp.
Dow Chemical
Dun & Bradstreet
DuPont
E
Earthlink
Eastman Kodak
Eaton Corporation
EDS
Electroglas
Electronics for Imaging
Eli Lilly
EMC
Emerson Electric
En Pointe Technologies
Equifax
Ernst & Young
Ethan Allen
Evolving Systems
Expedia
ExxonMobil
F
Fair Isaac
Fedders Corporation
Federated Dept. Stores
Fidelity Investments
Financial Techologies International
First American Title Ins.
First Data
Fluor
Ford Motor
Franklin Mint
Franklin Templeton
Freeborders
Fruit of the Loom
G
Gateway
GE Capital
General Electric
General Motors
GlobespanVirata
Goldman Sachs
Goodrich
Google
Greenpoint Mortgage
Guardian Life Insurance
H
The Hartford Financial Services Group
HealthAxis
Helen of Troy Corp.
Hewitt Associates
Hewlett-Packard
The Holmes Group
Honeywell
HSN
Humana
I
IBM
iGate Corporation
IndyMac Bancorp
Infogain
Innodata Isogen
Innova Solutions
Intel
Intl. Paper
Intuit
Invacare
ITT Educational Services
J
Jabil Circuit
Jacobs Engineering
Jacuzzi
JDS Uniphase
Johnson Controls
Johnson & Johnson
JPMorgan Chase
Juniper Networks
K
KANA Software
Kaiser Permanente
Keane
KeyCorp
KLA-Tencor
Kraft Foods
Kulicke and Soffa Industries
Kwikset
L
Lawson Software
Lehman Brothers
Levi Strauss
Lexmark International
Lifescan
Lillian Vernon
Linksys
Lionbridge Technologies
LiveBridge
Lockheed Martin
Lowe's
Lucent
M
Maritz
Marshall Fields
Mattel
Maytag
McDATA Corporation
McKinsey & CO
Medtronic
Mellon Bank
Merrill Corporation
Merrill Lynch
Metasolv
MetLife
Microsoft
Monsanto
Morgan Stanley
Motorola
N
Nabco
National City Corporation
National Life
National Semiconductor
NCR Corporation
neoIT
NETGEAR
Network Associates
Newell Rubbermaid
New York Life Insurance Co.
Northwest Airlines
O
Office Depot
Ohio Art
ON Semiconductor
Oracle
OshKosh B'Gosh
Otis Elevator Co.
Outsource Partners International
Owens Corning
P
palmOne
Parker-Hannifin
Parsons E&C
Pearson Digital Learning
Pericom Semiconductor
Perot Systems
Pfizer
Pitney Bowes
Planar Systems
Portal Software
Pratt & Whitney
Primus Telecom
Procter & Gamble
ProQuest
Providian Financial
Prudential Insurance
Q
Quark
Qwest Comm.
R
Rainbow Technologies
Radio Shack
Rawlings Sporting Goods
Raytheon Aircraft
RCG Information Technology
Regence Group
Rogers
Rohm & Haas
RR Donnelley & Sons
Russell Corporation
S
Sabre
SAIC
Sallie Mae
Sanmina-SCI
SBC Comm.
SEI Investments
Siebel Systems
Sikorsky
SMC Networks
Solectron
Sovereign Bancorp
Sprint
Sprint PCS
Stanley Furniture
Stanley Works
Starkist Seafood
State Farm Insurance
State Street
StorageTek
StrategicPoint Investment Advisors
Sun Microsystems
SunTrust Banks
Supra Telecom
SurePrep
The Sutherland Group
Sykes Enterprises
Symbol Technologies
Synygy
T
Target
Tecumseh
Telcordia
Teleflex
TeleTech
Tellabs
Teradyne
Texas Inst.
Textron
Thrivent Financial for Lutherans
Time Warner
Tower Automotive
Toys "R" Us
Trans Union
Travelocity
Triquint Semiconductor
Tropical Sportswear
TRW Automotive
Tyco Electronics
Tyco Intl.
U
Union Pacific Railroad
Unisys
UnitedHealth Group Inc.
United Online
United Tech.
USAA
V
Valence Technology
VA Software
Veritas
Verizon
VF Corporation
Vishay
W
Wachovia Bank
Washington Group Intl.
Washington Mutual
WellChoice
Werner Co.
West Corporation
Weyerhaeuser
Whirlpool
Wolverine World Wide
WorldCom
Wyeth
X
Xpitax
Y
Yahoo!
www.cnn.com/lou
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1144493
> Gotta think the entire problem through. No US company ever wanted to
> offshore a job. It's a pain in the ass managing a workforce that's awake
> when you want to be asleep. They did so for a REASON; the
> anti-offshoring crowd all says the reason was "greed", without even a
> thought to look at the competitive issues involved.
>
C. E. White
"Christine O'Donnell" <lilh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:31e4ee58-be17-4f8e...@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
I'd rather not pay some bully with an MBA a seven figure salary for running
a company into the ground.
Ed
John Galt
In some cases. This was more true before US demand dropped off a cliff.
> Made in China may be on the product but the owners of the factories
> and plants that made the item are generally American ...and let's
> consider the tax base we are losing.
Not "generally" at all. US demand continues to fall, developing market
demand continues to rise.
We're not the dog anymore. We're the tail. They wag us.
JG
> Black& Decker
> Cooper Tire& Rubber
> Cooper Tools
> Countrywide Financial
> COVAD Comm.
> CSX
> Cummins
> Cypress Semiconductor
>
> D
> Dana Corporation
> Delco Remy
> Dell Computer
> Delphi
> Delta Air Lines
> Direct TV
> Discover
> Document Sciences Corp.
> Dow Chemical
> Dun& Bradstreet
> DuPont
>
> E
> Earthlink
> Eastman Kodak
> Eaton Corporation
> EDS
> Electroglas
> Electronics for Imaging
> Eli Lilly
> EMC
> Emerson Electric
> En Pointe Technologies
> Equifax
> Ernst& Young
> Johnson& Johnson
> McKinsey& CO
> Procter& Gamble
> ProQuest
> Providian Financial
> Prudential Insurance
>
> Q
> Quark
> Qwest Comm.
>
> R
> Rainbow Technologies
> Radio Shack
> Rawlings Sporting Goods
> Raytheon Aircraft
> RCG Information Technology
> Regence Group
> Rogers
> Rohm& Haas
> RR Donnelley& Sons
TE Cheah
Easy to accuse, truth is businesses must lower production costs to
compete & stay in business, e.g. Motorola must compete with Nokia /
Sony / Sagem etc., Seagate & Western Digital with Samsung / Hitachi,
Intel & AMD with Motorola / VIA / SiS / nVidia.
Your govnmnt has forced them to pay minimum wage, payrol tax, health
insurance, to please voters @ businesses' expense. Your govnmnt can
scrap all 3, & lower US$, to win them back.
Your fatsos ( can't move fast, sick often ) better slim down, if they want
a job.
Dan
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 15:15:31 -0700 (PDT), Raymond<Bluer...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Don't unions ultimately drive jobs offshore?
>> In an economy based on competition, companies are driven to cut costs
>> and increase profits in pretty much any way they can.
>>
>> This sets in
>> place a "race to the bottom".
>
> post relies on this premise. If the premise is ends up being false,
> or not universally true, than your entire argument collapses.
>
> I challenge you on your premise. Please substantiate your reasoning
Considering 90+% o the jobs sent overseas were NOT union jobs, and a
sizable % are now professional jobs, the premise is like most
rightwingnut lore, too stupid for thinking people to believe.
Rightwingnuts - the very definition of insane.
Dan
Dan
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2010 19:34:02 -0700 (PDT), Raymond<Bluer...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> One of the most famous "no bid contractors" is Halliburton.
>> Since Bush and Cheney have been in the White House, Halliburton has
>> received tens of billions of dollars of our money.
>
> You are aware, are you not..that Clinton also used Halliburton as a No
> Bid contractor, and he and the Democrats showered Halliburton with much
> praise and lots and lots of government contracts.
And?
Most of us know the Democrats are FAR less than perfect. WE are also
aware, unlike you, that the Republicans are FAR worse in most those very
areas, and move us far slower away from the country the founders envisioned.
What we need are liberals in charge, with conservatives to act as
tempering agents. Worse, but still tenable, are Democrats in charge,
with old school Republicans as the loyal opposition tempering agents.
The worst of all probable worlds is neoConned Republicans in charge with
Democrats as tempering agents.
Dan
Curly Surmudgeon
You should see some of the embedded firmware code that is coming out of
China and India. What I wrote to run on an 8051 family product in Forth
now requires a pentium class processor to cope with the C and C++ crap
they've produced.
It fails much more often due to added complexity, costs more due to more
complex components and memory requirements and the printed circuit boards
are much larger.
But it's cheap in the short run...
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lest We Forget: Jeff Sessions
------------------------------------------------------------------------------