RE: Would you agree to tax incentives to bring jobs back to the US?

RE: Would you agree to tax incentives to bring jobs back to the US? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

vincentML -> RE: Would you agree to tax incentives to bring jobs back to the US? (7/30/2010 7:29:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi No, the union seeks to increase the pay for themselves. If the workers get something out of it, that's alright, but it's not the main goal. Just wish to repeat the statistic I gave earlier. Only 7.2% of private industry workers in the US are unionized. It makes little sense to lay the problem of job outsourcing to the Unions. The Unions are as much victims of outsourcing as the workers are whatever ill feeling people have for labor bosses. I also wish to repeat what I posted earlier: innovation is the essential force of Capitalism. No one is to blame when new markets and new methods of production evolve. The more important issue is how do we respond to it. I do not favor government involvement simply because the issue is bigger and more enduring than any tax credit can alter. We are in a post-industrial economy. Individuals need to be aware and seek out skills they can sell in this new service oriented economy. quote: Your tactic of putting words in people's mouths is getting old. I said the unions seek to increase the pay for themselves. That means I think the union leaders are a bunch of self serving mother fuckers. No where did I mention laying the problem of outsourcing at their feet. Did that clear things up for you? Your shrillness, crude invective, incivility, and defensive self-absorption are getting very old as well. You contribute so little that is reasoned and meaningful to these threads. Gutter-sniping is your very transparent tactic. You use it because you have nothing intelligent or original to say. Your repetitive criticisms of other postings reveals the empty vault of originality. This thread is about tax incentives to bring jobs back to the US. You go off topic to rail at Union bosses. Try to stay alert to the main topic, however difficult that may be for your limited facilities. Additionally, I was addressing my comments to LaTigresse as I did earlier in this sequence. She was the one who first accused the Unions. You are merely an ugly echo. You should not presume I was addressing you just because you were the last in line. You are just not that fucking important. Not at all. More importantly, what makes you think that I give a fuck about anything you have to say? The answer is that I don't give a fig about the empty mewings that spit out from your mean little mind.

toxic66 -> RE: Would you agree to tax incentives to bring jobs back to the US? (7/30/2010 7:39:10 AM)
quote: Perhaps you might enlighten us as to the relative differences in economic capacity between the u.s. and the ussr say in steel production,food production, public works (number and size of hydro-electric instalations, miles of highway and railroad built). Then you might also enlighten us as to how much the soviets had to spend to repair the damage done to their infrastructure by wwII as opposed to the u.s. Please do not forget to factor in the 25 million dead as the result of wwII as opposed to the 250 thousand suffered by the u.s. If you are going to make comparisons perhaps it would do you well to know what you are talking about before you stuff both feet in your mouth. LMFAO!!! You Sir are hilarious!! “Perhaps you might enlighten us… blah blah blah!” You expect me to write a 50 page dissertation on railroads, and industrial production (which you know no one will ever do on an Internet thread) just so you can look at the evidence and still be blind. Riddle me this: how come the United States could pick itself up and become a world power after the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and especially the Civil War had devastated us? Huh? Why could we, but yet it was beyond the abilities of your vaunted command economies of the USSR, North Korea, or East Germany? How come as European countries have tightened control of their economies they have started to go bankrupt, and as India and China loosened control they have become wealthier? Perhaps you could enlighten yourself on these questions. If you are such an ideologue that you cannot see the truth when it is right before your eyes, then that is on you. I do not suffer fools gladly, so I am done. If you are truly in search of the truth, go to your community college and take some courses on economics. You will find they will teach you some of the things I tried to say in this thread. The only one who put his feet in his mouth on this thread is you! LMFAO again!

mnottertail -> RE: Would you agree to tax incentives to bring jobs back to the US? (7/30/2010 7:45:29 AM)
Well, thats an apples to oranges comparison, North Korea, the USSR, and East Germany did not enter into our war of 1812.

Moonhead -> RE: Would you agree to tax incentives to bring jobs back to the US? (7/30/2010 7:51:43 AM)
Is it worth mentioning that the soviet union spent most of its existence chasing after bankruptcy with a series of "who can piss the highest" contests against the richest nation on earth, and it still took you people the best part of half a century to wreck their economy?

DomYngBlk -> RE: Would you agree to tax incentives to bring jobs back to the US? (7/30/2010 7:57:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: toxic66 quote: Perhaps you might enlighten us as to the relative differences in economic capacity between the u.s. and the ussr say in steel production,food production, public works (number and size of hydro-electric instalations, miles of highway and railroad built). Then you might also enlighten us as to how much the soviets had to spend to repair the damage done to their infrastructure by wwII as opposed to the u.s. Please do not forget to factor in the 25 million dead as the result of wwII as opposed to the 250 thousand suffered by the u.s. If you are going to make comparisons perhaps it would do you well to know what you are talking about before you stuff both feet in your mouth. LMFAO!!! You Sir are hilarious!! “Perhaps you might enlighten us… blah blah blah!” You expect me to write a 50 page dissertation on railroads, and industrial production (which you know no one will ever do on an Internet thread) just so you can look at the evidence and still be blind. Riddle me this: how come the United States could pick itself up and become a world power after the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and especially the Civil War had devastated us? Huh? Why could we, but yet it was beyond the abilities of your vaunted command economies of the USSR, North Korea, or East Germany? How come as European countries have tightened control of their economies they have started to go bankrupt, and as India and China loosened control they have become wealthier? Perhaps you could enlighten yourself on these questions. If you are such an ideologue that you cannot see the truth when it is right before your eyes, then that is on you. I do not suffer fools gladly, so I am done. If you are truly in search of the truth, go to your community college and take some courses on economics. You will find they will teach you some of the things I tried to say in this thread. The only one who put his feet in his mouth on this thread is you! LMFAO again! Couldn't resist. But your facts are not facts. India's economy has not open or closed one iota. As has not China's. What has changed is the West's views of those economies and the inclusion of China as a full trading partner. WE changed. They did not. Go ask google about how much China has "opened". Again, the change was here and not there once Boards and CEO's figured the risk was worth it in investing in China and India to have a grab at even larger profits...

toxic66 -> RE: Would you agree to tax incentives to bring jobs back to the US? (7/30/2010 10:55:41 AM)
quote: Couldn't resist. But your facts are not facts. India's economy has not open or closed one iota. As has not China's. What has changed is the West's views of those economies and the inclusion of China as a full trading partner. WE changed. They did not. Go ask google about how much China has "opened". Again, the change was here and not there once Boards and CEO's figured the risk was worth it in investing in China and India to have a grab at even larger profits... I couldn't resist either. Just because you say something doesn't make it so. I worked for a company that employed lots of Indian subcontractors. They brought them over here for a year at a time. I worked closely with some of them and talked to them quite a bit. They asked me a lot of questions about America, and I asked them many questions about India. They talked a lot about the changes taking place there. But, what do they know they just live there. So, I followed your advice and did a search and guess what I found. Your assertion was flat wrong. Here is from Wikipedia (I think a pretty non-partisan source): quote: India followed a socialist-inspired approach for most of its independent history, with strict government control over private sector participation, foreign trade, and foreign direct investment. However, since the early 1990s, India has gradually opened up its markets through economic reforms by reducing government controls on foreign trade and investment. The privatisation of publicly owned industries and the opening up of certain sectors to private and foreign interests has proceeded slowly amid political debate. <snip> In the late 80s, the government led by Rajiv Gandhi eased restrictions on capacity expansion for incumbents, removed price controls and reduced corporate taxes. While this increased the rate of growth, it also led to high fiscal deficits and a worsening current account. The collapse of the Soviet Union, which was India's major trading partner, and the first Gulf War, which caused a spike in oil prices, caused a major balance-of-payments crisis for India, which found itself facing the prospect of defaulting on its loans. In response, Prime Minister Narasimha Rao along with his finance minister Manmohan Singh initiated the economic liberalisation of 1991. The reforms did away with the Licence Raj (investment, industrial and import licensing) and ended many public monopolies, allowing automatic approval of foreign direct investment in many sectors. Since then, the overall direction of liberalisation has remained the same, irrespective of the ruling party, although no party has yet tried to take on powerful lobbies such as the trade unions and farmers, or contentious issues such as reforming labour laws and reducing agricultural subsidies. Link to full article: Wikipedia Wow, now are you sure they have not changed one iota?

vincentML -> RE: Would you agree to tax incentives to bring jobs back to the US? (7/30/2010 11:06:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk Surely you aren't saying that companies have relocated offshore because of increased production rates and innovation came about? In fact, it is the opposite. I think what you are saying is correct. The innovation was the opening and availability of new labor markets. That is what I had in mind.

DomYngBlk -> RE: Would you agree to tax incentives to bring jobs back to the US? (7/30/2010 11:20:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: toxic66 quote: Couldn't resist. But your facts are not facts. India's economy has not open or closed one iota. As has not China's. What has changed is the West's views of those economies and the inclusion of China as a full trading partner. WE changed. They did not. Go ask google about how much China has "opened". Again, the change was here and not there once Boards and CEO's figured the risk was worth it in investing in China and India to have a grab at even larger profits... I couldn't resist either. Just because you say something doesn't make it so. I worked for a company that employed lots of Indian subcontractors. They brought them over here for a year at a time. I worked closely with some of them and talked to them quite a bit. They asked me a lot of questions about America, and I asked them many questions about India. They talked a lot about the changes taking place there. But, what do they know they just live there. So, I followed your advice and did a search and guess what I found. Your assertion was flat wrong. Here is from Wikipedia (I think a pretty non-partisan source): quote: India followed a socialist-inspired approach for most of its independent history, with strict government control over private sector participation, foreign trade, and foreign direct investment. However, since the early 1990s, India has gradually opened up its markets through economic reforms by reducing government controls on foreign trade and investment. The privatisation of publicly owned industries and the opening up of certain sectors to private and foreign interests has proceeded slowly amid political debate. <snip> In the late 80s, the government led by Rajiv Gandhi eased restrictions on capacity expansion for incumbents, removed price controls and reduced corporate taxes. While this increased the rate of growth, it also led to high fiscal deficits and a worsening current account. The collapse of the Soviet Union, which was India's major trading partner, and the first Gulf War, which caused a spike in oil prices, caused a major balance-of-payments crisis for India, which found itself facing the prospect of defaulting on its loans. In response, Prime Minister Narasimha Rao along with his finance minister Manmohan Singh initiated the economic liberalisation of 1991. The reforms did away with the Licence Raj (investment, industrial and import licensing) and ended many public monopolies, allowing automatic approval of foreign direct investment in many sectors. Since then, the overall direction of liberalisation has remained the same, irrespective of the ruling party, although no party has yet tried to take on powerful lobbies such as the trade unions and farmers, or contentious issues such as reforming labour laws and reducing agricultural subsidies. Link to full article: Wikipedia Wow, now are you sure they have not changed one iota? So you are telling me there was no direct western investment in India until the 90s or that there were no internal growth businesses till then? Is that what you are saying? There has always been the ability for the west to invest into India. British Companies have been there for many many years. The change came from US. Industrialists decided that it was ok to go against the interests of your own country and countrymen and move whole companies outside of the country. Economic treason is another name for it. But, I will bite. If it happened in the late 80's, why did it take to the new millenia for the full effects to be seen?

DomYngBlk -> RE: Would you agree to tax incentives to bring jobs back to the US? (7/30/2010 11:24:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk Surely you aren't saying that companies have relocated offshore because of increased production rates and innovation came about? In fact, it is the opposite. I think what you are saying is correct. The innovation was the opening and availability of new labor markets. That is what I had in mind. I get it but that seems to me progress in reverse. It was the same as with moving businesses to mexico. It certainly doesn't do anything to advance humankind

vincentML -> RE: Would you agree to tax incentives to bring jobs back to the US? (7/30/2010 12:39:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk Surely you aren't saying that companies have relocated offshore because of increased production rates and innovation came about? In fact, it is the opposite. I think what you are saying is correct. The innovation was the opening and availability of new labor markets. That is what I had in mind. I get it but that seems to me progress in reverse. It was the same as with moving businesses to mexico. It certainly doesn't do anything to advance humankind Nobody ever claimed that Capitalism was dedicated to progress. It is what it is - an economic force propelled by intenal imperatives. Sometimes it self-destructs. Greed, fear, revolution, self-destruction all part of the mix. Progress? I'm not sure capitalism has an external reason for existence. That would imply it was invented and organized. I think it is better viewed as organic and historic.

DomYngBlk -> RE: Would you agree to tax incentives to bring jobs back to the US? (7/30/2010 12:57:28 PM)
I see. Well I don't consider returning to a place that was visited 100 years ago to be discovering a new innovation. It is a time honored one that was revisited.....

toxic66 -> RE: Would you agree to tax incentives to bring jobs back to the US? (7/30/2010 12:57:34 PM)
quote: So you are telling me there was no direct western investment in India until the 90s or that there were no internal growth businesses till then? Is that what you are saying? There has always been the ability for the west to invest into India. British Companies have been there for many many years. The change came from US. Industrialists decided that it was ok to go against the interests of your own country and countrymen and move whole companies outside of the country. Economic treason is another name for it. But, I will bite. If it happened in the late 80's, why did it take to the new millenia for the full effects to be seen? I never said there was no Western involvement with India. Certainly the British were there at one time. But, did you read any of the article I linked to? India was a client state of the USSR. Western companies were not really welcome too much until the fall of the USSR, and after India loosened its policies allowing them to. That is why it took place in the 1990’s. There is growth going on in India now far beyond what our companies are bringing them with their business. It is happening because they did loosen up their markets and went to a more free market economy. It did not happen in the 1980’s, it happened in the 1990’s. . But hey, you ever hear that saying “Rome was not built in one day”? Neither was India. You do not go from being a third world impoverished nation to an industrial giant over night. Actually, it is amazing they have come as far as they have in so short a time.

thompsonx -> RE: Would you agree to tax incentives to bring jobs back to the US? (7/30/2010 1:00:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: No, I would not support tax incentives. I would support smacking the shit out of organizations like the, Teamsters and Machinists Unions, for bargaining the people they are paid to represent, right out of jobs. OMG, LT!! The Chinese or Vietnamese worker earns much less than even minimum wage in this Country. How can you lay the blame on Labor Unions? Are you advocating a competing wage for American workers at $2 per hour? Because I have seen first hand, how the Labour Unions have played a huge part in the closing of manufacturing plants that employed hundreds, and at times thousands, of people. The union seeks to increase the pay for the worker so management goes offshore for cheap labor to increase the pay for management and somehow that is the union's fault...perhaps we should just abolish the 13th ammendment and all the jobs will come back. No, the union seeks to increase the pay for themselves. If the workers get something out of it, that's alright, but it's not the main goal. Which union contract gives the union anything...all the ones I have read deal with compensation for the workers. I would be glad to look at any data you have where the union gets something?

thompsonx -> RE: Would you agree to tax incentives to bring jobs back to the US? (7/30/2010 1:08:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: What exactly is greedy and unrealistic for a worker to expect for their labor and time? Can we agree that it is greedy and unrealistic to expect compensation that bankrupts the company? No I want a number. What percentage of labor's compensation do you think should represent managements compensation, shareholders compensation?

vincentML -> RE: Would you agree to tax incentives to bring jobs back to the US? (7/30/2010 1:15:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk I see. Well I don't consider returning to a place that was visited 100 years ago to be discovering a new innovation. It is a time honored one that was revisited..... Sorry, I just do not understand your reference and meaning. Could you spell it out a little more explicitedly please? I am not sure we really have a disagreement here but maybe we do.

thompsonx -> RE: Would you agree to tax incentives to bring jobs back to the US? (7/30/2010 1:16:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: India has a very high rate of educated English speaking workers.... that I cannot understand. India has a very large population. So large that they have both the highest number of illiterate people and the highest number of literate people in the world. That they speak english might be because they were a colony of england for quite a while.

rulemylife -> RE: Would you agree to tax incentives to bring jobs back to the US? (7/30/2010 1:35:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: What exactly is greedy and unrealistic for a worker to expect for their labor and time? Can we agree that it is greedy and unrealistic to expect compensation that bankrupts the company? Can we agree that it is greedy and unrealistic for executives to be receiving huge bonuses while demanding salary and benefit concessions from employees?

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Would you agree to tax incentives to bring jobs back to the US? (7/30/2010 3:33:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rulemylife quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: What exactly is greedy and unrealistic for a worker to expect for their labor and time? Can we agree that it is greedy and unrealistic to expect compensation that bankrupts the company? Can we agree that it is greedy and unrealistic for executives to be receiving huge bonuses while demanding salary and benefit concessions from employees? No.

DomYngBlk -> RE: Would you agree to tax incentives to bring jobs back to the US? (7/30/2010 3:50:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk I see. Well I don't consider returning to a place that was visited 100 years ago to be discovering a new innovation. It is a time honored one that was revisited..... Sorry, I just do not understand your reference and meaning. Could you spell it out a little more explicitedly please? I am not sure we really have a disagreement here but maybe we do. No disagreement other than I don't count going back and using human labor as finding a new innovation. Is old as time.

vincentML -> RE: Would you agree to tax incentives to bring jobs back to the US? (7/30/2010 4:12:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: DomYngBlk I see. Well I don't consider returning to a place that was visited 100 years ago to be discovering a new innovation. It is a time honored one that was revisited..... Sorry, I just do not understand your reference and meaning. Could you spell it out a little more explicitedly please? I am not sure we really have a disagreement here but maybe we do. No disagreement other than I don't count going back and using human labor as finding a new innovation. Is old as time. Well yes. True. maybe I was careless in my description of the innovation. Sure as hell the human labor alone was not the innovation. The innovation is the availability of cheap labor in distant lands that can be brought to the manufacturing line, the logistics of how the constituent parts are brought to the line, the distance, logistics and speed with which the assembled materials are brought to market, and the electronic payment transfers in return. But, you know all this I think. I am not making a value judgment other than to lament what it has done to the blue collar guy next door. When a large scale economic change happens many individuals usually suffer. It'a not pretty. Sometimes it can be beneficial for local labor as for example the two world wars opened up many opportunities for blacks to migrate north, get factory jobs like my parents had, and develop a middle class structure. Unfortunately, that very structure for both blacks and whites is under serious stress now.

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875