Jerry Barnes wrote:
>
> "Outsourcing is over. It probably ended 3-5 years ago."
>
> I think it is just starting to ramp up.
I think we disagree on what "outsourcing" is.
You seem to be implying that it's jobs that would be done in the US if
it weren't for higher US labor costs.
If that's your
"The assumption in your example is that chip design, manufacturing, and
assembly is core to Apple's business model, which it isn't, so Apple isn't a
relevant example."
Say what?
My assumption is that paying employees $6.00 per week for 12 hours of labor
per day with no overtime, no benefits, no
Jerry Barnes wrote:
>
> Take Apple. Number one Tech company in the world. Very profitable. Yet
> they outsource labor to sweat shops in China
The assumption in your example is that chip design, manufacturing, and
assembly is core to Apple's business model, which it isn't, so Apple
isn't a rel
"To wrap it up, if your point is that "outsourcing" is simply a labor
arbitrage play then you're missing 80% of the picture. "
I think you are missing the whole picture.
Take Apple. Number one Tech company in the world. Very profitable. Yet
they outsource labor to sweat shops in China, where
Robert Munn wrote:
>
> Sure. It isn't just the R & D staff, it's the entire business. The dream
> scenario for these folks is to have top management, local/regional/national
> field people for Marketing and Sales, minimal internal support staff
> (accounting, etc), and the bulk of the workers loc
Sure. It isn't just the R & D staff, it's the entire business. The dream
scenario for these folks is to have top management, local/regional/national
field people for Marketing and Sales, minimal internal support staff
(accounting, etc), and the bulk of the workers located somewhere else,
either as
Robert Munn wrote:
>
> BS. I have had lots of managers in the corporate world tell me that
> outsourcing is almost entirely about labor arbitrage because that's where
> the money is.
Sure. That's what they told you. Now ask them to open their books
and see how it all worked out. The correct a
That's why Ireland was so popular for tech for so many years. They
even had to import workers to keep up with demand. Now it's getting
too expensive so where's next?
.
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Robert Munn wrote:
>
> BS. I have had lots of managers in the corporate world tell me that
> o
BS. I have had lots of managers in the corporate world tell me that
outsourcing is almost entirely about labor arbitrage because that's where
the money is. Loose environmental and employment regulations help, too, but
labor costs are the big enchilada, as labor in a typical US firm makes up
the si
Jerry Barnes wrote:
>
> All I am saying it that the market cost of outsourcing, particularly in
> regards to employees, is more profitable than staying at home.
>
> Can I assume you disagree?
>
I'm not sure what you mean by "market cost" but yes, in general I
disagree, depending on who, what, wh
"I'm assuming you wouldn't agree with that, so, to prove your point, why
don't you detail out those market infrastructure costs you think are
legitimate and then tie them to a broader fiscal policy and explain how that
would preserve markets and thus grow wealth"
Assume all you want.
All I am sa
Jerry Barnes wrote:
>
> "Let's take an example from the airline industry, and then you explain how
> and where government interference is causing unprofitability at home:"
>
> No. Let's not take your example. It misses the whole point.
>
Ok, let's take all that stuff which I'll call "market inf
"Let's take an example from the airline industry, and then you explain how
and where government interference is causing unprofitability at home:"
No. Let's not take your example. It misses the whole point.
Employers have to contribute to social security above and beyond what the
employees contr
Jerry Barnes wrote:
>
> "profits"
>
> Exactly.
>
> It is unprofitable to employ at home. Why? Government interference.
>
Let's take an example from the airline industry, and then you explain
how and where government interference is causing unprofitability at
home:
Every so many cycles aircraf
"profits"
Exactly.
It is unprofitable to employ at home. Why? Government interference.
"The theory is great, but it isn't happening. Without the virtuous circle,
globalization is nothing but a drawn out death spiral for our economy."
Theory cannot encompass human nature or Murphy's law.
J
"Collapse, protest, elections - who knows exactly how it will happen? But
one thing is clear, once the middle class figures out what is being done to
them in the name of globalization, they are going to demand changes to
preserve something of their way of life."
You have more faith in the middle
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Jerry Barnes wrote:
>
> "The employer does not need a global playing field. Employer wanted and
> actively lobbied for a global playing field precisely in order to gain
> leverage over employees."
>
>
> But why does the employer want or need to gain leverage over
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 12:59 PM, Robert Munn wrote:
>
>> Collapse, protest, elections - who knows exactly how it will happen? But
> one thing is clear, once the middle class figures out what is being done to
> them in the name of globalization, they are going to demand changes to
> preserve som
"The employer does not need a global playing field. Employer wanted and
actively lobbied for a global playing field precisely in order to gain
leverage over employees."
But why does the employer want or need to gain leverage over the employee?
J
-
Ninety percent of politicians give the other
On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 4:58 AM, Jerry Barnes wrote:
>
> Ahh, but why does the employer need a global playing field?
>
>
The employer does not need a global playing field. Employer wanted and
actively lobbied for a global playing field precisely in order to gain
leverage over employees. Right no
Vivec wrote:
>
> Systemic flaws in Capitalism as it is practiced today, is why the world is
> trending toward this economic and social mess.
>
The problem is not Capitalism; it works just fine. The problem is government.
You can see this by looking at successes in business government
partners
Corporation set up shop where the taxes are low and the workers are
plentiful. Doesn't that tell you we should lower corporate taxes and
allow more work visas?
Or should we just tax the corporations until they are at break even
levels and either shut down for lack of profit or get subsidized?
No
"Systemic flaws in Capitalism as it is practiced today, is why the world is
trending toward this economic and social mess."
I'd change it to: Systemic government interference in Capitalism as it is
practiced today, is why the world is trending toward this economic and
social mess.
"That is t
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 10:17 PM, Jeff Garza wrote:
>
> Do you blame them? Publically traded corporations sole responsibility is
> to
> deliver profits to their shareholders. Period.
>
That is the systemic flaw. The employer (corporation) has a global playing
field and every incentive to find
Do you blame them? Publically traded corporations sole responsibility is to
deliver profits to their shareholders. Period. You don't do that and you
don't survive as a business. I don't blame them one bit for using every bit
of accounting magic to make their numbers look better and reduce thei
25 matches
Mail list logo
