Why must candidates/politicians lie to voters about outsourcing?

[Duke Leto]

Lumpenproletariat's main argument seems like screaming "Consumers! Consumers! Consumers!" as if producers ought to be enslaved to benefit consumers, who get all their money from picking money trees each day and why never have to work or produce anything.

It also has to be the right sort of producers who get enslaved.

And you are mistaken, Lumpenproletariat's main argument is JUST the forum equivalent of screaming: The same post topics, again and again and again, regardless of what arguments are brought to bear against him.

 

[SimpleDon]

You're confusing which politician is lying. There is no politician saying that outsourcing or firing people is better for the economy. No politician is campaigning on the platform that it's good to outsource or to lay off workers.

Rather, there are several who campaign on the platform that outsourcing is bad for the economy and that any CEO who does it is doing harm to the country, even though they know that it is really necessary and beneficial for the economy, just like automation (replacing workers with machines) is good for the economy.<snip>

This is not the argument of the politician who condemns outsourcing. This was not the argument of Senator-Demagogue Barbara Boxer who condemned Carla Fiorina for outsourcing jobs. If this was the argument, the politician would not say that outsourcing is bad for the economy, but would acknowledge the need for outsourcing and say that the CEOs should continue doing this necessary function rather than running for U.S. Senate. But instead they lie and claim that the CEOs who do this are inflicting harm onto the economy. And they even try to pass laws to punish companies that do outsourcing. By imposing tax penalties onto them.

I don't know what kind of economics that you are forming your arguments from. You are straining any economics that I know with your claims. I assume that you will either attack the data, the CPI is bogus, you can't trust GDP, etc. Or you will attack me, your economics is bizarre. Or you will ignore me. Or a combination of all.

But this is your claim, that prices have dropped because of globalization. It is up to you to back your claim. Present your evidence that we are ahead by sending 800 billion dollars out of the country to buy products that we could just as easily make in the US. I assume that the price savings on consumer goods makes that 800 billion dollar number look insignificant by comparison.

I am watching a David Purdue ad right now. He implies that the recession of 2008 was the fault of Obama and Nunn's policies. Then he goes on to endorse the same policies that caused the recession, deregulation and tax cuts for the rich.

The massive increase in profits, paid overwhelmingly to the rich, is what causes all of the real asset bubbles that have characterized our economy over the last thirty five years since we decided to trade lower relative wages for increased relative profits. These asset bubbles destabilize the economy when they burst, as what happened in the 2008*. Bubbles caused by financial capital (money) that can't find a productive investment.



*actually 2007, but I have given this battle up, I think that people lie about this in order to get Obama closer to the blame for the recession, like they blame Obama for the massive deficit from the 2009 budget submitted by Bush for the fiscal year that started two months before the 2008 elections.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Supply side economics never worked. The economy is driven by demand, not supply.

Whatever this means, does it lead to the conclusion that companies are hurting the economy by replacing workers with robots? or with cheap labor?

So whenever companies improve the production/supply by replacing workers with machines that do the same job at much lower cost, so that jobs are eliminated, that then damages the economy by reducing the demand? because all those workers lose their income and so can't stimulate the economy with their demand? and so the economy collapses?

And so all those times in the past when companies upgraded their production by installing robots or computers that replaced workers and reduced their cost of production, it led to bad results and made the world a worse place, and therefore companies should never save on labor cost by replacing workers with robots?

And that's what it means to say that "demand-side" economics works and "supply-side" economics (replacing workers with robots to save on labor cost) never works?

 

[Underseer]

The relevant question at this point is not whether outsourcing is good or bad for the economy. It is obviously GOOD for the economy.

It's not so obvious. It is only obvious to people who limit their information sources to extreme right wing sources.

And of course by "obvious" I mean people believe it simply through repetition from their favorite propaganda trough.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The function of the company is to 1) serve consumers, or 2) provide "jobs" (choose one)

They don't equate the loss of jobs due to automation with the loss of jobs due to outsourcing because there are substantial differences between those 2 types of job loss. Comparing them is like comparing a burst pipe to a major flood.

The economic consequences are the same. Workers lose their jobs and incomes, so the demand, or their spending power decreases. And because of the cost savings, companies can either reduce their prices, or not raise them as much as they would have otherwise.

All consumers benefit, but some laid-off workers are worse off. Same economic result either way.

Have you ever seen the movie Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (inferior in every way to the 1971 verson)? In the movie, Charlie's father works in a toothpaste factory. One day he loses his job to automation, and the family is rendered even more destitute. But Charlie's father learns how to service and repair the robots that replaced him and winds up with a better paying job. Meanwhile, all of the other factory employees whose job was not on the production line still have their jobs. The Receiving Dock workers and warehousemen who handle shipments of parts and raw materials, the maintenance and janitorial staff who maintain the facility, the secretaries and shipping clerks who handle the paperwork, the quality control inspectors and production managers responsible for the manufacturing process, the security guards, and everyone else who works there are still employed.

So to take that example out of the movies and put it in real life, the loss of jobs due to automation can be painful but if job retraining is available to displaced workers, being laid off can lose a lot of its sting.

All the above can be said also about jobs that are outsourced. Many workers laid off from outsourcing get retrained and eventually get better jobs.

But some of them don't, and also some workers replaced by machines never get retrained or never regain their former income but have to accept a much lower-paying job.

You can cook up any scenario you want. There is no inherent difference between replacing workers with machines or replacing them with cheap labor. There are a million scenarios of what happens after the layoffs, and all kinds of scenarios apply to both examples of workers being replaced.

Give people a shot at moving up the economic ladder and the net loss is largely nullified, assuming the entire economy isn't slowing down and good jobs are still out there waiting to be filled. Those workers might even return to work at the same production facility doing a job that requires a different skill set.

Or they might not. There are good and bad scenarios that apply to the laid-off workers no matter whether they were replaced by new technology or by cheap labor.

Now compare that to a factory being shuttered and everyone who works there losing their jobs.

And this never happens as a result of new technology? There are plenty of modern factories which now produce the same product with a tiny fraction of the employees they once employed for the same production, and in factories a fraction of the size of the former less efficient factories.

And also the same loss of jobs to nearby companies that used to sell to the factory workers who no longer exist.

It is not true that there is any substantial difference between the conditions of the workers or the economic activity as a result of the workers being replaced by machines rather than being replaced by cheap foreign labor.

The difference in lost jobs is huge.

The number of jobs lost because of automation is also huge.

And besides, it doesn't matter how large the number is. If replacing high-paid workers by machines is good for the economy, then what difference does it make whether it's ten workers replaced or 10,000 workers? The economic benefit to the company and to the consumers is 1000 times greater if the number replaced is 1000 times greater, so the greater economic benefit to consumers offsets the harm to the laid-off workers.

Also, companies that used to supply that factory with parts and raw materials, trucking companies that used to handle its product, stores where employees used to shop, professional services employees used to hire, and every other business that was connected to that factory is negatively affected.

All this is equally true of companies who laid off workers to replace them by machines. The new technology requires fewer replacement parts and raw materials and less cargo to be shipped by truck, also fewer stores needed for the employees who are a fraction of the earlier number, and also fewer professional services needed, and all the earlier businesses needed by the company --- all this extra spending by the company is reduced and that economic activity is much less than before.

Why is it necessarily a good thing when a company upgrades its activity and yet still has to generate as much spinoff business as it did before? Why isn't it OK for a company to improve its performance and at the same time use fewer suppliers and professional services and need fewer employees and less operating space and less shipping services than before?

Are you insinuating that it's OK for a business to upgrade ONLY IF it continues to spend as much money as before for shipping and services and office space and services to employees and contractors? Why isn't it perfectly legitimate for a company to improve its performance and to reduce its need for all these?

You're claiming this would be bad for the economy? You're saying it's good for the economy for a company to improve its production ONLY IF it continues to spend the same amount of money as before, and generate the same spin-off business as before, so that its total spending does not decrease from its earlier level?

Why?

Why is it a virtue for a company to generate a lot of business and spending in order for it to be a legitimate business?

Why isn't it legitimate for a company to find ways to produce a good product or service and make big profits serving the consumers, and yet at the same do little spin-off business, using very little shipping services or professional services etc.?

Why isn't it OK for a company to REDUCE its total spending on all the services and all the spin-off business? Why isn't it good if it can improve its performance in serving consumers and also REDUCE all its spending and dependency on other companies?

Why isn't that perfectly legitimate for a company to do? Why isn't it just fine for a company to find ways to improve its product/service by reducing its workforce, not retraining the workers but eliminating its need for them entirely and become sufficient with a much smaller number of workers and suppliers and services of any kind?

Why would you want to punish a company that is able to do that? What harm has that company done by reducing its need to provide "jobs" to the whole society and instead just improving its service to consumers, offering lower prices to them, and yet reducing its entire spending for any kind of help from workers or other companies?

What is the function of that company? to serve the consumers with its product or service? or to provide "jobs" to keep the rabble off the streets and be the community's babysitter? Which is its function?

Something stinks when we start preaching to companies that they can't upgrade their service to the consumers unless they maintain the same level of babysitting slots ("jobs") as they had before, and must continue hiring just as many suppliers and shippers and other businesses to support them because these others need the business and the income so they can keep on providing the same level of "demand" for the economy as they did before.

Something about that STINKS REAL BAD.

So this is not about harm to the economy from job loss and reduced incomes and demand, but about some kind of deep resentment about workers being replaced by other workers who are more competitive.

No, it's about the loss of good paying jobs, and the widespread effects that loss of income has on businesses that depend on customers having disposable income.

So in other words, a company that can do without so many workers and could replace them with machines is being recalcitrant unless it provides new "jobs" (babysitting slots) to absorb those workers to be laid off? Even if it doesn't need them?

You would force that company to provide those new "jobs" to replace the old ones, even if it is only a cost for them which would force them to raise prices because there is no economic benefit to be gained from those new "jobs" that you're forcing them to create?

You would punish a company that upgrades its product if this means eliminating some of its workers? You think that company is hurting our country by doing that upgrade and improving its performance and service to consumers? You would punish those consumers by forcing them to pay higher prices in order to subsidize the laid-off workers who aren't needed any more?

It is not a sympathy toward the laid-off workers, which is absent if it is machines that replace them. Rather it is a hate or resentment toward the more competitive workers who replace the higher-paid workers.

I doubt anyone here hates, envies, or resents workers in Bangladesh . . .

or Pakistan or Viet Nam or Malaysia etc. But then what is the anger about? If those American workers are replaced by machines, there is no resentment. Even if the replaced workers cannot get retrained or have to settle for a much lower-paying job than before, as many of them do, there is still no anger and no demand that the company be punished for replacing the American workers.

But if the workers are replaced by them damn foreigners -- what? -- they can't do that! That's MY job you're taking away, that's an AMERICAN job you're taking and giving to that -- that --- [blankety-blank beep]

What's the reason for the deep emotional outburst from these American laid-off workers and that the politicians find so easy to exploit at election time and with their dog-whistle slogans about "American jobs" or "our jobs" and "stealing our jobs" and "unfair competition" and "we have to take care of our own workers" and "America First" etc.?

Replace him by a machine -- he shrugs his shoulders and says -- "that's life" or "that's progress." But replace him by cheap foreign labor -- same economic result -- and he throws a tantrum and goes whining to the politicians to punish the company.

What's the reason for this difference of behavior if the worker is replaced by a lower-paid worker as opposed to being replaced by a machine?

 

[laughing dog]

The notion that "outsourcing" benefits all consumers is false. It has been well understood for decades that while free trade has the potential to improve the well-being of everyone, it does not. There are always winners and losers. In economics, free trade is generally presumed to be beneficial because the winners have the potential ability to compensate the losers and still end up better off. However, in the real world, that compensation does not occur - the losers end up actually losing.

 

[lpetrich]

Lumpenproletariat, will technologically-displaced workers be able to get their very own money-tree groves? That's so they can become consumers.

 

[Arctish]

The economic consequences are the same. Workers lose their jobs and incomes, so the demand, or their spending power decreases. And because of the cost savings, companies can either reduce their prices, or not raise them as much as they would have otherwise.

All consumers benefit, but some laid-off workers are worse off. Same economic result either way.

Have you ever seen the movie Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (inferior in every way to the 1971 verson)? In the movie, Charlie's father works in a toothpaste factory. One day he loses his job to automation, and the family is rendered even more destitute. But Charlie's father learns how to service and repair the robots that replaced him and winds up with a better paying job. Meanwhile, all of the other factory employees whose job was not on the production line still have their jobs. The Receiving Dock workers and warehousemen who handle shipments of parts and raw materials, the maintenance and janitorial staff who maintain the facility, the secretaries and shipping clerks who handle the paperwork, the quality control inspectors and production managers responsible for the manufacturing process, the security guards, and everyone else who works there are still employed.

So to take that example out of the movies and put it in real life, the loss of jobs due to automation can be painful but if job retraining is available to displaced workers, being laid off can lose a lot of its sting.

All the above can be said also about jobs that are outsourced. Many workers laid off from outsourcing get retrained and eventually get better jobs.

But some of them don't, and also some workers replaced by machines never get retrained or never regain their former income but have to accept a much lower-paying job.

You can cook up any scenario you want. There is no inherent difference between replacing workers with machines or replacing them with cheap labor. There are a million scenarios of what happens after the layoffs, and all kinds of scenarios apply to both examples of workers being replaced.

Give people a shot at moving up the economic ladder and the net loss is largely nullified, assuming the entire economy isn't slowing down and good jobs are still out there waiting to be filled. Those workers might even return to work at the same production facility doing a job that requires a different skill set.

Or they might not. There are good and bad scenarios that apply to the laid-off workers no matter whether they were replaced by new technology or by cheap labor.

Now compare that to a factory being shuttered and everyone who works there losing their jobs.

And this never happens as a result of new technology? There are plenty of modern factories which now produce the same product with a tiny fraction of the employees they once employed for the same production, and in factories a fraction of the size of the former less efficient factories.

And also the same loss of jobs to nearby companies that used to sell to the factory workers who no longer exist.

It is not true that there is any substantial difference between the conditions of the workers or the economic activity as a result of the workers being replaced by machines rather than being replaced by cheap foreign labor.

The difference in lost jobs is huge.

The number of jobs lost because of automation is also huge.

And besides, it doesn't matter how large the number is. If replacing high-paid workers by machines is good for the economy, then what difference does it make whether it's ten workers replaced or 10,000 workers? The economic benefit to the company and to the consumers is 1000 times greater if the number replaced is 1000 times greater, so the greater economic benefit to consumers offsets the harm to the laid-off workers.

Also, companies that used to supply that factory with parts and raw materials, trucking companies that used to handle its product, stores where employees used to shop, professional services employees used to hire, and every other business that was connected to that factory is negatively affected.

All this is equally true of companies who laid off workers to replace them by machines. The new technology requires fewer replacement parts and raw materials and less cargo to be shipped by truck, also fewer stores needed for the employees who are a fraction of the earlier number, and also fewer professional services needed, and all the earlier businesses needed by the company --- all this extra spending by the company is reduced and that economic activity is much less than before.

Why is it necessarily a good thing when a company upgrades its activity and yet still has to generate as much spinoff business as it did before? Why isn't it OK for a company to improve its performance and at the same time use fewer suppliers and professional services and need fewer employees and less operating space and less shipping services than before?

Are you insinuating that it's OK for a business to upgrade ONLY IF it continues to spend as much money as before for shipping and services and office space and services to employees and contractors? Why isn't it perfectly legitimate for a company to improve its performance and to reduce its need for all these?

You're claiming this would be bad for the economy? You're saying it's good for the economy for a company to improve its production ONLY IF it continues to spend the same amount of money as before, and generate the same spin-off business as before, so that its total spending does not decrease from its earlier level?

Why?

Why is it a virtue for a company to generate a lot of business and spending in order for it to be a legitimate business?

Why isn't it legitimate for a company to find ways to produce a good product or service and make big profits serving the consumers, and yet at the same do little spin-off business, using very little shipping services or professional services etc.?

Why isn't it OK for a company to REDUCE its total spending on all the services and all the spin-off business? Why isn't it good if it can improve its performance in serving consumers and also REDUCE all its spending and dependency on other companies?

Why isn't that perfectly legitimate for a company to do? Why isn't it just fine for a company to find ways to improve its product/service by reducing its workforce, not retraining the workers but eliminating its need for them entirely and become sufficient with a much smaller number of workers and suppliers and services of any kind?

Why would you want to punish a company that is able to do that? What harm has that company done by reducing its need to provide "jobs" to the whole society and instead just improving its service to consumers, offering lower prices to them, and yet reducing its entire spending for any kind of help from workers or other companies?

What is the function of that company? to serve the consumers with its product or service? or to provide "jobs" to keep the rabble off the streets and be the community's babysitter? Which is its function?

Something stinks when we start preaching to companies that they can't upgrade their service to the consumers unless they maintain the same level of babysitting slots ("jobs") as they had before, and must continue hiring just as many suppliers and shippers and other businesses to support them because these others need the business and the income so they can keep on providing the same level of "demand" for the economy as they did before.

Something about that STINKS REAL BAD.

You know, even though you quote my posts and address each segment, it seems to me you miss half of what I say and inject your own words into the gaps.

I never said companies must remain inefficient or that they must babysit workers, or anything else along those lines. I said the economic impact of closing down factories is much greater than the impact of automating them, because it is. I also said that giving people a shot at moving up the economic ladder can offset much of the pain that comes from lay-offs, because it does. And I said politicians who shipped jobs overseas don't have to lie about it, but voters expect them to have had good reasons and expect them to be able to articulate those reasons, because that's what voters do.

If you can demonstrate that "the economic benefit to the company and to the consumers is 1000 times greater if the number [of workers] replaced is 1000 times greater", please do so. I've been watching my budget for many years now, and I have yet to see this supposed benefit to the consumers as production has moved overseas. All I've seen is flimsy Chinese made crap replacing better quality goods for a somewhat lower price, but nowhere near as low as the poor quality merits. In fact, given that the poor quality goods fail sooner and have to be replaced more often, I don't see any benefit to the consumer at all. And let's not even get started on dog food that kills your pets, drywall that corrodes your wiring, and children's toys coated in lead paint and cadmium.

 

[Togo]

Politicians have to 'lie' (i.e. say things you disapprove of) because they have to deal with the real world as it actually is, rather than a right-wing fantasy economy. They're relatively sophisticated, and have to deal with a much more complicated world.

 

[Jayjay]

The economic consequences are the same. Workers lose their jobs and incomes, so the demand, or their spending power decreases. And because of the cost savings, companies can either reduce their prices, or not raise them as much as they would have otherwise.

All consumers benefit, but some laid-off workers are worse off. Same economic result either way.

No. When you replace a worker with a lower-paying worker, that new worker still has to do out exactly the same job. The end result is just passing a $1 from workers (both domestic and foreign) to consumers. There is no efficiency or inherent improvement in that transaction. On the other hand if you replace a worker with a machine, both workers are free to do something else with their time and labor.

In 19th century, you would have been defending slavery on the grounds that having low-cost slaves working the cotton fields was no different from having machines do it.

 

[braces_for_impact]

What I find interesting is the way conservatives view economics in that greed is good. Supposedly it drives ambition, spurs competition, and the free market will make everything OK. We can cut corners everywhere, and outsource the jobs to continue to cut costs. The suddenly, once the finished product rolls off the assembly line, the greed disappears, and a fair an equitable price for the product is then established.

Riiiiight. The markups and profit margins in excess of 50 percent for many of the outsourced products (an iPhone 5 was the latest example I have read about) goes to show that these cheaper products do not go back into the economy to stimulate spending.

 

[ksen]

1. outsourcing leads to bigger trade deficits which is bad for consumers

2. automation leads to loss of income which is bad for consumers

God, I can't believe I'm responding in a freetrader thread.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The notion that "outsourcing" benefits all consumers is false. It has been well understood for decades that while free trade has the potential to improve the well-being of everyone, it does not. There are always winners and losers. In economics, free trade is generally presumed to be beneficial because the winners have the potential ability to compensate the losers and still end up better off. However, in the real world, that compensation does not occur - the losers end up actually losing.

There are always winners and losers but the winners greatly outnumber the losers.

 

[laughing dog]

The notion that "outsourcing" benefits all consumers is false. It has been well understood for decades that while free trade has the potential to improve the well-being of everyone, it does not. There are always winners and losers. In economics, free trade is generally presumed to be beneficial because the winners have the potential ability to compensate the losers and still end up better off. However, in the real world, that compensation does not occur - the losers end up actually losing.

There are always winners and losers but the winners greatly outnumber the losers.

That is an empirical question because it is not necessarily the case. And it ignores the relative sizes of the "winnings" and "losings" as well as the actual distribution of the "winnings" and the "losings".

 

[Nice Squirrel]

1. outsourcing leads to bigger trade deficits which is bad for consumers

2. automation leads to loss of income which is bad for consumers

God, I can't believe I'm responding in a freetrader thread.

Self Knowledge is always the most difficult.

- - - Updated - - -

The notion that "outsourcing" benefits all consumers is false. It has been well understood for decades that while free trade has the potential to improve the well-being of everyone, it does not. There are always winners and losers. In economics, free trade is generally presumed to be beneficial because the winners have the potential ability to compensate the losers and still end up better off. However, in the real world, that compensation does not occur - the losers end up actually losing.

There are always winners and losers but the winners greatly outnumber the losers.

In fantasy world!

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

Why do voters let themselves be manipulated by the trade-bashing demagogues?

The purpose is to provide to people what they want, as much as possible.

So, if people as voters want to keep the jobs for factory workers, what are you complaining about?

But I'm asking WHY they want to keep those uncompetitive jobs instead of enjoying the benefits of the lower prices we gain from increased trade and competition and outsourcing. Are you saying we can never question anyone about why they voted a certain way?

"what they want" means what consumers want, not what voters vote for.

Voters can vote wrong in some cases, but consumers are never wrong in what they choose, as long as there's no fraud.

For your argument to be correct, that the voters are always right, if they vote to have Creationism taught in the schools and Evolution banned, that proves that Creationism is the truth and that Evolution is false.

And anyone whoever disagrees with how a vote went is automatically wrong, no matter what the issue was.

Which is false. Creationism is not made true and Evolution false just because the majority voted that way. And neither is outsourcing bad just because some voters may have mistakenly voted against it.

Even if "the people" do vote against outsourcing, I'm still right to ask them why. This is what I'm asking. It isn't answered by saying the vote went this way or that.

And meanwhile, the function of business is to give consumers/people whatever they want. I.e., whatever products or services they want. And they "vote" with their dollars, not by ballot on political issues.

This is something different than taking a vote on everything and giving "the people" whatever they voted for in an election.

And outsourcing gives consumers, i.e., people, more of what they want.

That's just another way of providing to people what they want.

No, they express what they really want when they spend their dollars. When they do this they know what they're getting. But when voters are driven by propaganda and demagoguery from charismatic speech-makers we have good reason to believe they will (often) not get what they really want.

Plus, when they vote, they are imposing their choice onto others, e.g., society or all consumers, whereas when consumers "vote" in the market, they are imposing nothing onto others but just choosing for themselves.

The cheap foreign imports improve their standard of living by giving them more choices and making the producers compete more. If you think this makes them worse off, then you must believe that MORE competition is bad for consumers.

I want these voters to explain why they think LESS competition is in their interest as consumers rather than more.

Don't they understand they will have to pay higher prices if we reduce foreign competition? How can it be good for 300 million U.S. consumers to have to pay higher prices?

Those voters still have to explain this. It's not sufficient to just say they voted against outsourcing. Why did they? Why do they think this leads to a good result, when it obviously means they will have to pay higher prices?

If you believe that more competition is bad for consumers, then you must be opposed to antitrust laws, which are based on the theory that competition is good for consumers. Isn't more competition better for consumers? And yet less outsourcing means less competition. Why do the voters imagine that LESS competition will make them better off?

This isn't answered by saying simply that people voted this way or that.

You seem to think that it's ok to provide people what they want, as long as they want the right things that you approve of . . .

No, only when what they want, or vote for, is an assault on others who want something, in which case they need to explain why they are voting for something that inflicts harm onto others, and also why they think choosing to restrict production and trade is going to make themselves and others better off when it obviously makes them worse off. The higher prices and reduced choice makes them worse off, not better.

A consumer in the marketplace is making an individual private personal choice, which doesn't have to be explained. But a voter needs to explain why s/he would deny to consumers the benefit of lower prices and increased choices in the market which result from outsourcing.

When what you want impacts on everyone else, it is appropriate to ask why you want it. Especially if it reduces the general living standard of everyone, which is the result of trying to restrict outsourcing.

. . . instead of letting them decide for themselves.

"decide for themselves" yes, let them decide for themselves what they want to buy or not buy. But not decide FOR ME, or for other consumers.

Voters should not be dictating to me and others as consumers that we are not entitled to the benefits of lower prices and more choice which we all enjoy as a result of outsourcing and other cost-saving measures by companies.

If voters choose to assault consumers by denying them these benefits of our economy, I think they are obligated to explain it.

They should decide FOR THEMSELVES individually, but not interfere with the free choices of others. It's their deciding FOR OTHERS that I am objecting to. I am asking why the personal choices of consumers should be curtailed by the voters or those they put in power.

 

[SimpleDon]

The OP has made claims that it hasn't backed up.

The OP claims that outsourcing has resulted in lower prices. But we haven't seen any data that shows this. In fact, prices have climbed every year. Inflation has been constant. Nowhere do we see prices dropping to the degree that the OP claims.

What has happened is that corporate profits have increased dramatically and wages in the US have dropped in real terms for the majority of workers. The main beneficiaries of outsourcing are the Chinese workers and the corporation profits. At a cost of a 800 billion dollar trade deficit.

No matter how many times you repeat that you believe that outsourcing is a great benefit to all consumers it is not the case, you have no data to support it, because it simply isn't true. Unless you live on corporate profits.

 

[SimpleDon]

The notion that "outsourcing" benefits all consumers is false. It has been well understood for decades that while free trade has the potential to improve the well-being of everyone, it does not. There are always winners and losers. In economics, free trade is generally presumed to be beneficial because the winners have the potential ability to compensate the losers and still end up better off. However, in the real world, that compensation does not occur - the losers end up actually losing.

There are always winners and losers but the winners greatly outnumber the losers.

Yes, and the winners are Chinese workers and corporate profits. This must be what you meant the other day when you said that we should redistribute our national income and wealth to the whole world and not just to the corporations. And not to the poor in our country.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There are always winners and losers but the winners greatly outnumber the losers.

Yes, and the winners are Chinese workers and corporate profits. This must be what you meant the other day when you said that we should redistribute our national income and wealth to the whole world and not just to the corporations. And not to the poor in our country.

The American consumer wins when the products they buy are cheaper. The only losers are the workers whose jobs got displaced.

 

[Valjean]

It's not a win when the consumer doesn't have the money to buy the cheaper goods.