Ad for a job in India 4110
army,
On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, HIT Fanatic Well, my "take" on what I've read that was written by economists falls into these categories: i) part or all of it makes...
This is the reason why US businesses should pay more to hire labor in the US. It's the cost of doing business. Trade can and should be regulated as follows:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2005, Mr. Smith Exactly the same arguments I can cite books and sources, including from economists, that profer that increasing employment is a legitamate goal of economics. (b) Any...
1) If you want access to sell your products to the US market, you should make sure that 50% of the production cost involved US labor and-or 2) That the products were made with labor which followed similar OECD guidelines (reasonable minimum wage, environmental laws, etc).
Some globalist-types argue that emerging markets (India namely) should also have the right to have US companies create jobs over there. That is fine, I'm quite sure that Microsoft should be expected to create jobs in India, if India buys their products, but the trade deficit that the US has with these poor countries is very one-sided. I'm quite sure there would be a LOT LESS outsourcing if the number of jobs created in India by American companies was proportional to the amount of money India spends in buying American computers, software and services.
When the American car companies wanted to sell their cars to the Canadian market, the Canadian government told them that they could do that provided that car manufacturing jobs were created in Canada. Japanese automaters also create jobs in the US (this makes good sense, it reduces the political backlash and people are less averse to buying Japanese-made cars). What's happening here with outsourcing is that the US companies want access to the US market but want to use cheaper overseas labor.
Free trade with third world countries leads to economic dissolution.
A job is a job is a job.