Returning jobs to the US - What Does It Really Mean?

Returning jobs to the US - What Does It Really Mean? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

ThatDaveGuy69 -> Returning jobs to the US - What Does It Really Mean? (11/3/2008 6:55:48 AM)
Let me start this thread by saying I am not interested in the political rants about which party cares/doesn't care about American workers, blah, blah, blah. What I want to know is this: Given that we are in a "global economy", what will it really mean to have previously outsourced jobs return here? Some examples that come to mind: Inbound Telemarketing By now I'm sure everyone here has dealt with Mr or Mrs Gupta when trying to call for tech support or get information from their bank. This type of work was sent to the India's of the world because the labor costs are far lower. So if these jobs are returned to Nebraska (a huge concentration of call centers are/were located there) who is going to pay for the higher wages American workers demand? The Auto Industry I don't mean the assembly lines, per se. We still have several here, if for no other reason than a car maker can say "built in America". But for decades those same car makers have done all they can to source parts from overseas. A fuel injection assembly that was once made in Ohio is now made in Malaysia, using very cheap labor. If we demand such jobs be returned to Ohio, who will pay for the increase in labor costs? Please don't get me wrong - we need to bring this work back back here. We need Americans doing these jobs so that Americans can afford to live in America. But just exactly how can we accomplish this without huge increases in the price of just about everything? When a company sends jobs to a cheaper labor market, the shareholders benefit from increased profits. The savings certainly were not passed along to the consumer. So if that same company brings those jobs back to a more expensive labor market, won't those costs be passed on to the consumer? So: how do we get ourselves out of this? ~Dave

meatcleaver -> RE: Returning jobs to the US - What Does It Really Mean? (11/3/2008 7:13:21 AM)
Developed countries can't bring back cheap manufacturing jobs because if they did, they wouldn't be cheap and they wouldn't be able to sell their products. The only way to create good jobs in the developed world is to make premium products or provide premium services that customers are willing to pay a high price for. That is why Obama's idea of concentrating R&D on developing alternative energies is a good idea if he means it. That would create an industry with products the world would queue up to buy. I guess he has to sell his vision to enough Americans, however, he is in for a tough time if one goes by the responses to alternative energy from the rightwing crew on these threads.

pahunkboy -> RE: Returning jobs to the US - What Does It Really Mean? (11/3/2008 7:22:30 AM)
it could mean the collection agency is hiring. prisons could be expanded, and morgues could be in style? LOL. frankly- Im not impressed. it must be a new tax sceem - with the purpose to wipe out taxes.... when new jobs locate here, the good jobs of it - those people are shipped in, (could be across state or country) sweaping the floor type jobs are then for the locals. the locals have caught on to this tho. when a place wants to take a farm rather then re-use another empty place- they are denied. too often they build - then in 10-15 years after the tax break runs out- then they leave the locals with the shell of the place to figure out how to solve the blight.

Anarrus -> RE: Returning jobs to the US - What Does It Really Mean? (11/3/2008 7:34:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDaveGuy69 Let me start this thread by saying I am not interested in the political rants about which party cares/doesn't care about American workers, blah, blah, blah. What I want to know is this: Given that we are in a "global economy", what will it really mean to have previously outsourced jobs return here? Some examples that come to mind: Inbound Telemarketing By now I'm sure everyone here has dealt with Mr or Mrs Gupta when trying to call for tech support or get information from their bank. This type of work was sent to the India's of the world because the labor costs are far lower. So if these jobs are returned to Nebraska (a huge concentration of call centers are/were located there) who is going to pay for the higher wages American workers demand? The Auto Industry I don't mean the assembly lines, per se. We still have several here, if for no other reason than a car maker can say "built in America". But for decades those same car makers have done all they can to source parts from overseas. A fuel injection assembly that was once made in Ohio is now made in Malaysia, using very cheap labor. If we demand such jobs be returned to Ohio, who will pay for the increase in labor costs? Please don't get me wrong - we need to bring this work back back here. We need Americans doing these jobs so that Americans can afford to live in America. But just exactly how can we accomplish this without huge increases in the price of just about everything? When a company sends jobs to a cheaper labor market, the shareholders benefit from increased profits. The savings certainly were not passed along to the consumer. So if that same company brings those jobs back to a more expensive labor market, won't those costs be passed on to the consumer? So: how do we get ourselves out of this? ~Dave Hi Dave, Perhaps we don't. I'm no economic expert nor global expert by any stretch of the imagination, but maybe the scenario as you describe won't happen. But instead and over some time the conditions in the global economy and in other countries (especially recently developing nations) will change in ways that will the raise the wages paid to workers and the conditions under which they work, in those countries. Should that occur a parity of labor costs may develope on a global scale and it will no longer be economically feasible nor profitable for the globaly based corporations that exist in this country to outsource their work to cheap third world labor markets. It seems a win win situation for labor and for the American worker. But perhaps I'm simply dreaming or simply too simplist or idealistic in my thinking. Anarrus

MrRodgers -> RE: Returning jobs to the US - What Does It Really Mean? (11/3/2008 7:42:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Developed countries can't bring back cheap manufacturing jobs because if they did, they wouldn't be cheap and they wouldn't be able to sell their products. The only way to create good jobs in the developed world is to make premium products or provide premium services that customers are willing to pay a high price for. That is why Obama's idea of concentrating R&D on developing alternative energies is a good idea if he means it. That would create an industry with products the world would queue up to buy. I guess he has to sell his vision to enough Americans, however, he is in for a tough time if one goes by the responses to alternative energy from the rightwing crew on these threads. Two reasons jobs come back to the US...the quality of the production and the technology improvements that brought it and greater productivity. The one place where the US has an undisputed lead in the world...is in technology.

DomKen -> RE: Returning jobs to the US - What Does It Really Mean? (11/3/2008 7:58:16 AM)
Firstly your basic premise is wrong. Overseas production is not generally cheaper, primarily due to the shipping costs. Relatively few jobs that existed in the US actually moved overseas and virtually all of those were in the auto industry, primarily GM, where a long and bitter relationship with the UAW is a driving factor. Other US industries were driven under and replaced by foreign manufacturing by way of below cost foreign government subsidized dumping on the US market. To bring manufacturing jobs back to the US, first let GM collapse. Second enforce anti dumping laws and enforce existing sanctions against imports from countries that used to dump. Third commit federal funds to industrial R&D with the goal of producing high quality high productivity factories that can be competitive in the 21st century. Fourth encourage the biotech industry which is poised to be the emergent high tech business of the middle of this century, which means end stem cell research bans and vigorously pursue animal rights terrorists. Finally improve our educational outcomes. We must stop sending young people into the workforce without good reading and learning skills.

pahunkboy -> RE: Returning jobs to the US - What Does It Really Mean? (11/3/2008 7:58:35 AM)
yeah but hopefully that teck is not made in china. since 1968 per square mile- we have not produced as much. so we wont be able to feed ourself. baffling in a way. there is ALWAYS work to be done. but no work? and yet- if the peon navigated the grid better then the peon could flouish.

meatcleaver -> RE: Returning jobs to the US - What Does It Really Mean? (11/3/2008 8:24:32 AM)
The US has done the same as Britain (or maybe it is the other way round), created an economy where the majority of jobs are opening and shutting door jobs. Germany concentrates more on technical jobs that need an educated workforce which is why they export more manufactured goods than the USA. America is world class at what it does do in the technology field which is enormous but not that enormous if you consider the size of America.

BitaTruble -> RE: Returning jobs to the US - What Does It Really Mean? (11/3/2008 9:59:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Finally improve our educational outcomes. We must stop sending young people into the workforce without good reading and learning skills. I agree with this and would add that parents are a vital participant in educational outcomes. Kids should be reading before they get to school and they will be if they are read to every day. It's so easy to instill a love of books into kids and the payoffs are amazing. If by 'learning skills' you mean critical thinking, then I agree with what you wrote.

DomKen -> RE: Returning jobs to the US - What Does It Really Mean? (11/3/2008 10:23:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Finally improve our educational outcomes. We must stop sending young people into the workforce without good reading and learning skills. I agree with this and would add that parents are a vital participant in educational outcomes. Kids should be reading before they get to school and they will be if they are read to every day. It's so easy to instill a love of books into kids and the payoffs are amazing. If by 'learning skills' you mean critical thinking, then I agree with what you wrote. Both critical thinking skills but more basically research and study skills. Your research skills are clearly very good but I'm sure you've encountered people who can't even do a simple google search for desired data much less how to critically consider the data.

bestbabync -> RE: Returning jobs to the US - What Does It Really Mean? (11/3/2008 10:24:46 AM)
i agree! i even read to both of my children while they were in my womb. my oldest has an IQ at 140....brillant young lady my little one in college on full scholarship because of her academic standing. parents please do not drop the ball on this one![:)]

BitaTruble -> RE: Returning jobs to the US - What Does It Really Mean? (11/3/2008 10:39:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Both critical thinking skills but more basically research and study skills. Your research skills are clearly very good but I'm sure you've encountered people who can't even do a simple google search for desired data much less how to critically consider the data. I agree. The one without the other becomes fairly useless! Now, see, all you politicians, how easy it is to come up with a consenses! Wanna run for Congress with me, Ken? [;)]

DomKen -> RE: Returning jobs to the US - What Does It Really Mean? (11/3/2008 11:18:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BitaTruble quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Both critical thinking skills but more basically research and study skills. Your research skills are clearly very good but I'm sure you've encountered people who can't even do a simple google search for desired data much less how to critically consider the data. I agree. The one without the other becomes fairly useless! Now, see, all you politicians, how easy it is to come up with a consenses! Wanna run for Congress with me, Ken? [;)] I'm a perv atheist so I doubt I am electable. How ever I'd be happy to support your run in 2010. Just let me know who you need photoshopped into bed with what.[;)]

BitaTruble -> RE: Returning jobs to the US - What Does It Really Mean? (11/3/2008 11:49:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I'm a perv atheist so I doubt I am electable. How ever I'd be happy to support your run in 2010. Just let me know who you need photoshopped into bed with what.[;)] Yeah, that perv thing is going to be a bitatruble for me, too. [:D]

candystripper -> RE: Returning jobs to the US - What Does It Really Mean? (11/3/2008 12:09:29 PM)
That's exactly the connudrum allegedly faced for many decades by Big Agriculture: the belief that there will be no more oranges, etc. grown on US soil if access to illegal immigrnats as laborers is cut off, because Americans will refuse to pay more for oranges. How about we drive up the cost of imported oranges too, with tarrifs and other protectionist policies? That way every orange-grower selling to U.S. consumers gets a level playing field, and U.S. orange growers caan finally pay their workers the minium wage....believe me, growers can hire Americans to pick oranges for $6.55 an hour. It's just so much bullsht IMO that they cannot manage unless labor costs stay below $1 an hour. As for the rise in price to U.S. consumers, what I grasp about the macro-economics of Big Agriculture strongly suggests so many factors act on the price it'd be hard to say exactly what the correllary between labor costs and consumer prices really is. In any event, obviously consumers who earn more can pay more. Henry Ford founded the assembly-line etc. based on a goal of prodcing a vehicle so cheap, the workers on the assembly line could afford to buy it. Seems to me that was a sound business plan then, and still is now. candystripper [sm=pole.gif]*

candystripper -> RE: Returning jobs to the US - What Does It Really Mean? (11/3/2008 12:20:22 PM)
quote: Two reasons jobs come back to the US...the quality of the production and the technology improvements that brought it and greater productivity. (Excerpt.) MrRodgers Used to be a third reason I can think of: access to a skilled and educated labor pool. When we cut off funding for education, etc., here in the U.S., we are slitting our own throats. If we are not better shepards of 'human capital' we are going to lose that competitive edge altogether. candystripper [sm=pole.gif]

philosophy -> RE: Returning jobs to the US - What Does It Really Mean? (11/3/2008 12:30:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: candystripper How about we drive up the cost of imported oranges too, with tarrifs and other protectionist policies? ....cool, so long as you don't want to export anything.......protectionism sounds fine until it happens to you.......

UncleNasty -> RE: Returning jobs to the US - What Does It Really Mean? (11/3/2008 1:04:43 PM)
If more parity of global labor wages is to occur it will involve a fair amount of ours going down. Bringing the far ends of the stick closer to the middle, closer together, means low wage areas will have rise, and higher wage areas will have to decrease. And this is already happening. There is a burgeoning middle class in places one did not exist 20 years ago - India, China, etc. Over the same period the middle class in the US has been squeezed pretty significantly. I talked with a long time career dry waller several months ago. His basic statements were thathis wages, his hourly rate, has remained the same for the past 25 years. All of his costs have gone up - everything from materials, to gas and food. Ultimately his quality of life has diminished and his retirement keeps getting pushed further and further out. Uncle Nasty

candystripper -> RE: Returning jobs to the US - What Does It Really Mean? (11/3/2008 2:00:28 PM)
Ever hear the old chestnut to the effect that 'a society which prizes its philosphers over its plumbers will have neither laws nor pipes that hold water'? I cannot find the exact quote, sorry. Anyway, maybe the AFL-CIO acted against the best interests of the economy, or the workers, etc. Even if you think so, we NEED skilled craftsmen, tradesmen, artisans etc. in this country. Many, many people have a high intelligence but cannot write, speak, etc, all that well -- they shine when they have something tangible, mechancial, etc. in their hands. There was a time in this country when becoming a plumber, e.g., was just as 'respectable' as becoming a lawyer, etc. Personally I'm sick of beng told we all need to move to 'service jobs'. The mechanic who fixes my car charges $60 an hour for labor. My brother thinks it's an outrage; I think it's a bargain. He's got a shop, two parking lots and something like three employees. I doubt he makes all that much on parts...so seems reasonable he'd charge a sizable labor cost. How else is he supposed to make money? Drive an 18 wheeler? Roof? Repair appliances? Whatever the case may be, when did we collectively decide these people shouldn't earn enough to belong to the middle class? I think we act too much like 'sheeple' sometimes in this country. candystripper [sm=pole.gif]

Bethnai -> RE: Returning jobs to the US - What Does It Really Mean? (11/3/2008 2:44:02 PM)
We need something new. We really do. We need a new industry. A new advancement. One of the things that I wish that we would do as a nation is begin to show an enthusiasm for life beyond sports in the education system. I've never seen a pep rally for the robotics club.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625