Discussion:
USA – America’s Biggest Companies Continue To Move Factories Offshore
(too old to reply)
chatnoir
2013-09-05 18:15:29 UTC
Permalink
http://tinyurl.com/mp9huwh


headline:

Despite a lot of talk and articles written about reshoring — bringing production back to the United States — offshore outsourcing of manufacturing and service-sector jobs to foreign nations continues to plague the American economy.

Hundreds of major American corporations are shipping thousands of jobs overseas, according to an analysis of Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) filings made to the U.S. Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration on behalf of the displaced workers.

While the trend is down from its peak, it has not fully abated, and there are many times more outsourcing events — as per the TAA petitions filed with the Labor Department — than there are reshoring (or “insourcing” or “onshoring”) announcements, as per searches of media stories on www.news.google.com and www.news.yahoo.com.

A survey of petitions filed on behalf of workers to receive generous TAA benefits and training during the first three weeks of July, 2013, indicates that offshoring of American production and jobs — as well as import substitution — remains a fixture of the largest and most well known American companies. Seventy-seven petitions were filed on behalf of American workers, from companies such as IBM, Walgreens, International Paper, Sanmina Corp., Chicago Bridge and Iron, NCR, AT&T, Tenneco Automotive, Micron Technology and Honeywell, among others.

If it were not for the TAA program, few of these company decisions to displace American workers with foreigners would be known. The database is searchable at www.doleta.gov/tradeact/taa/taa_search_form.cfm.

Here are some of the filings:

Flextronics Americas in Stafford, Texas, will lay off 147 workers because their jobs “are being transferred to Juarez, Mexico,” writes Chrystal Broussard Johnson, a Workforce Account Executive at a TAA “One-Stop Operator/Partner.”

Jabil of Tempe, Ariz., will lay off more than 500 workers making printed circuit boards and box-build assemblies for the medical, industrial and aerospace sectors. “We are in the process of moving several assemblies to other Jabil facilities in Mexico and Asia in order to reduce labor costs and meet our customers’ pricing expectations,” writes Jabil HR Manager Dawn Tabelak in a July 15 TAA petition.

Joy Global of Franklin, Penn., will lay off 245 workers making underground mining equipment because production is “being shifted to a foreign location, outsourcing increased imports, articles and services,” writes Timothy Buck, a union official in York, Penn.

Phillips Lighting Company’s Bath, N.Y., factory making finished lamps will lay off 265 workers because “production is being shifted to a foreign country,” writes Amy Heysham, Director of Human Resources for Phillips.

Hewlett Packard will lay off 500 employees working in customer service and technical support in Conway, Ark., due to “global restructuring,” according to Mazen Alkhamis, Business Solutions Analyst for the state of Arkansas in Little Rock.

DAK Americas of Leland, N.C., is laying off 340 full-time workers and 264 contract workers because it closed its entire production facility at its Cape Fear site due to dumped imports of competing products, according to Stephen Seals, DAK Americas’ Senior Director of Human Resources. “Imports of PET resins have continued to rise in quantity over the last several years, especially from China and Oman,” writes Seals. “The low price of these imports as well as the increasing volume continues to have a negative impact in the U.S. marketplace. For DAK Americas’ Cape Fear site, it is the price suppression that these low-priced imports has brought with them that has been the most damaging. The continuing decline in prices has forced DAK Americas to rationalize capacity.” Shutting down the Cape Fear PET resins manufacturing plant “would not be the outcome if the increasing volume of low-priced imports had not driven the manufacturing economics for this site beyond a state that cannot be maintained and be viable.
Werner
2013-09-05 19:06:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by chatnoir
http://tinyurl.com/mp9huwh
Despite a lot of talk and articles written about reshoring — bringing production back to the United States — offshore outsourcing of manufacturing and service-sector jobs to foreign nations continues to plague the American economy.
adapty or perish. Industry moved from the North East when it had to.
rumpelstiltskin
2013-09-05 21:02:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Werner
Post by chatnoir
http://tinyurl.com/mp9huwh
Despite a lot of talk and articles written about reshoring — bringing production back to the United States — offshore outsourcing of manufacturing and service-sector jobs to foreign nations continues to plague the American economy.
adapty or perish. Industry moved from the North East when it had to.
Only if "The People" (whom you feel don't exist) behave like
lambs to the slaughter, in humble subservience to the tyrants
who rule them, unless and until they rise up to take back
their birthright, as they did in France in 1789.

As long as they continue to behave like lambs to the
slaughter, I agree with you that they can be dismissed with
contempt, and with as little concern as brushing off flies.
Werner
2013-09-05 21:19:12 UTC
Permalink
The People exist. A Public exists only in the imagination.
http://www.endit.info/Myth.shtml

Should there be another revoluion it will be people revolting. The Public does not exist. Is The Tea Party The Public? Is your Democratic Party The Public?
BIG BIRD
2013-09-05 21:26:20 UTC
Permalink
"Werner" <***@mac.com> wrote in message news:8c493cee-1f35-46e7-b542-***@googlegroups.com...
: The People exist. A Public exists only in the imagination.
: http://www.endit.info/Myth.shtml
:
: Should there be another revoluion it will be people revolting. The Public does
not exist. Is The Tea Party The Public? Is your Democratic Party The Public?
:




it's everyone other than you low life, shitheaded, right wing,trailer trash, porch
monkeys

but hell, you hillbilly losers and failures have always been society's outcasts

the public,society as a whole, can not adapt to being perpetual losers and
failures, or would they want to
adapt

you're on your own goober
chatnoir
2013-09-05 21:31:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Werner
The People exist. A Public exists only in the imagination.
http://www.endit.info/Myth.shtml
Should there be another revoluion it will be people revolting. The Public does not exist. Is The Tea Party The Public? Is your Democratic Party The Public?
http://www.spectacle.org/897/trust.html

headline:

Why I Am Not a Libertarian
I thought about entitling this essay "Two Cheers For Libertarianism." On civil liberties matters, I am perfectly libertarian; in fact, I have just delivered a briefing paper on the pervasiveness doctrine to the Cato Institute, and hope to write more for them on topics such as anonymity and mandatory ratings systems.

But there are other libertarian positions, such as that against anti-discrimination laws, which shock the conscience; like Hayek, I believe that there are things worth doing that the free market cannot do. Here then, is an attempt to outline what is good about libertarianism, and then contrast what doesn't make sense. The conclusion I draw is that like most human belief systems, libertarianism mixes practicality with some idealism unrelated to human nature. Therefore, as much as I sympathize with most of the diagnoses and some of the prescriptions, I am not a libertarian.

Big government v. little government

When I was a child, someone asked me what my favorite color was, and I replied "Blue." A day later, I went to the store and selected a red bicycle, to replace the worn out red bike in the garage. I realized that the color I thought I favored was not the one I actually selected.

In preparing this essay, I had a similar insight about government. Though I have been quick to say that there are things the free market cannot do, that must be done by government, I have made choices in my own life that led me away from government regulation as much as possible. I left a regulated profession for an unregulated one. It matters to me that the government does not attempt to tell software developers how to write code. Though I believe that government-backed unions served an important purpose in securing advances for American workers, I am also happy that as an employer I do not have to deal with the Teamsters ("We say the word, and not a line of code moves in this facility!"). I have rebelled in my life against government actions such as the Vietnam war. Every time I take a close look at any process owned by the government, wther it is immigration or the air traffic control system, I am horrified by the inefficient way it is handled. And, as a civil libertarian, I have been a plaintiff in the Communications Decency Act case to invalidate an Internet censorship law passed by Congress and backed by the President.

Confidence in government is at an all time low; most people believe that the government is inept at almost any project, whether that project consists of curing poverty, reforming health care, fostering the arts, or launching the space shuttle Challenger.

Nevertheless, as libertarians are quick to point out, most traditional liberals and conservatives believe in a role for big government somewhere:


Conservatives want to be your daddy, telling you what to do and what not to do. Liberals want to be your mommy, feeding you, tucking you in, and wiping your nose.--David Boaz, Libertarianism: A Primer
Conservatives, in other words, want the government to intervene in matters of private morality such as sex, sexual preference, abortion and pornography. Conversely, they want the government to stay away from regulating business and markets. Liberals want the opposite: perfect freedom of action in the moral sphere, and a vigilant, interventive government in the business sphere. Looked at this way, libertarians are the only consistent party: they want the government small and far away for all purposes; they don't want it involved in what we can read or see at the movies, nor do they want it telling us we must hire black people or can't hire children.

A classic example of big-government thinking is Professor Catharine Mackinnon, a Marxist and anti-pornography feminist who believes that government perpetuates sexism and pornography, yet drafts ordinances that would ban as pornography any work depicting violence against women. She thus calls upon government to intervene in our lives to do the opposite of what she believes it now does, without being able to explain how we should bring about the revolution in the minds of men required to accomplish her goals.

It seems clear that in the minds of most big-government types there is a dichotomy: there is the real government, the one we perceive with our senses and distrust, and there is the fantasy government, the one we all believe we could have if we just worked a little harder, voted in larger numbers, turned the rascals out, and perhaps made some changes to our laws. Somehow, we fail to perceive any inconsistency between the two versions of government; perhaps this failure is based in our own need for self-deception, much like the unbridgeable gap between the "ought" and the "is" which Hume pointed out.

Libertarians, then, are better diagnosticians than most of us when they say that the odds are infinitesmally small that we can have a better big government, much like a doctor counselling you not to depend too much on the cancer going into remission.

Libertarianism and the Tragedy of the Commons

The tragedy of the commons is a first-rate device for testing the efficiency of any human proposal for governing ourselves.

The tragedy of the commons is essentially a parable with a moral, like an Aesop's Fable. In the parable, we all live in a village that shares a commons on which we, farmers all, graze our sheep. The moral of the story is that left to our own devices, we will each decide to add one sheep too many to the commons, destroying it for ourselves and for future generations. The short term benefit to each of us of an additional sheep outweighs the intangible gain of preserving the commons for our grandchildren.

David Boaz gives us the libertarian take on the "tragedy of the commons":


When resources--such as a common grazing area, forest or lake--are "owned" by everyone, they are effectively owned by no-one. No one has an incentive to maintain the value of the asset or use it on a sustainable basis.
In other words, the libertarian answer to the tragedy of the commons is to eliminate the commons. No commons, no tragedy. If the commons was owned by a single individual who charged everyone else grazing fees, he would be more committed to preserving it for the future than a village of farmers.

But why is this necessarily so? I could argue the converse, that a village acting collectively is more likely to avoid short-term thinking than one man responsible only to himself.

Hume made the point that in most moral philosophizing, we carry on talking about the "is" until, suddenly, in mid-paragraph, we encounter an "ought". There is no real-world bridge from the "is" to the "ought"; all such bridges are fantasies based on optimism and self-deception.

Where libertarianism crosses this chasm is when it passes from selfishness to enlightened self-interest. A human being who owns the Pennekamp coral reef in Key Largo is entitled to break up the reefs and sell the pieces to gift shops (in the absence of a government expressing the will of the majority and telling him he can't.) He ought to realize that there is more gain in selling tickets to Pennekamp over many generations--that way, it will support his children and grandchildren as well. But most human beings, left in complete freedom to act, will select the short-term gain. This is what the Prisoner's Dilemma teaches: we will select betrayal over cooperation because it grants an immediate benefit more tangible to us than the repetitive, long-term benefits of cooperation.

Individuals and groups ... (cont)
rumpelstiltskin
2013-09-05 22:57:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Werner
The People exist. A Public exists only in the imagination.
http://www.endit.info/Myth.shtml
Should there be another revoluion it will be people revolting. The Public does not exist. Is The Tea Party The Public? Is your Democratic Party The Public?
I'm a socialist. I only support democrats because republicans
are awful and socialists have essentially no chance of winning
elections in the USA, yet.
chatnoir
2013-09-05 21:13:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Werner
Post by chatnoir
http://tinyurl.com/mp9huwh
Despite a lot of talk and articles written about reshoring — bringing production back to the United States — offshore outsourcing of manufacturing and service-sector jobs to foreign nations continues to plague the American economy.
adapty or perish. Industry moved from the North East when it had to.
Can you live on Chinese wages? - oh excuse me you are one of the elites!
Werner
2013-09-05 21:21:01 UTC
Permalink
The country is bankrupt. Triage is in our future. Adapt or perish.
rumpelstiltskin
2013-09-05 22:57:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Werner
The country is bankrupt. Triage is in our future. Adapt or perish.
Non-answer as usual.
Werner
2013-09-05 23:50:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Werner
The country is bankrupt. Triage is in our future. Adapt or perish.
Non-answer as usual.
I expect to adapt or perish.
rumpelstiltskin
2013-09-06 03:27:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Werner
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by Werner
The country is bankrupt. Triage is in our future. Adapt or perish.
Non-answer as usual.
I expect to adapt or perish.
As I've noted and of course you've never answered, I suspect
you're not in any danger of perishing and that's why you can
tolerate the philosophy you have. People sometimes support
beautiful philosophies just because they're beautiful, but there
has to another reason to adopt an ugly philosophy, and a
self-serving reason is a good guess.
BIG BIRD
2013-09-06 03:31:44 UTC
Permalink
"rumpelstiltskin" <***@x.com> wrote in message news:***@4ax.com...
: On Thu, 5 Sep 2013 16:50:15 -0700 (PDT), Werner <***@mac.com>
: wrote:
:
: >On Thursday, September 5, 2013 6:57:48 PM UTC-4, rumpelstiltskin wrote:
: >> On Thu, 5 Sep 2013 14:21:01 -0700 (PDT), Werner <***@mac.com>
: >
: >
: >I expect to adapt or perish.
:
:
: As I've noted and of course you've never answered, I suspect
: you're not in any danger of perishing and that's why you can
: tolerate the philosophy you have. People sometimes support
: beautiful philosophies just because they're beautiful, but there
: has to another reason to adopt an ugly philosophy, and a
: self-serving reason is a good guess.
:
:
:

he's like the rest of the poor ass, cold,hungry,sick hillbillies,

he wasted his life kissing that rich ass, has nothing to show for it, and
now he's so bitter and angry he wants everyone to be as miserable as he is

let him stew in his own juices, as my mama used to say


LOL

Loading...