What would happen if we hired Americans instead of people in other countries?

[Philosoraptor]

What would happen if when you had a computer tech issue, and you called someone for help, it was an American, in Iowa, or Texas, instead of someone in India who can barely speak English?

What if CEO's of huge companies had Americans working in American factories and offices instead of people in Taiwan or China?

Would it help the American economy? Would it create jobs for Americans?
Would it kill them to keep the work and the money here at home? Would it ruin the CEO's and their companies?

What would be the big problem with HIRING AMERICANS instead of foreigners?

Am I a xenophobe? Do I hate America? Is this basically just a silly idea?

I'm just asking, what if?

[TheMastersNemesis]

1. The Anti Immigrant Argument Is A Straw Man Argument. Your View Is Valid

Hiring American citizens regardless of nationality would help the situation. I am generally very liberal and do believe immigration is important as a policy. There needs to be a balance. Employers abuse immigration to get cheap labor and nothing else. It is about being cheap.

I look at putting American last when it comes to hiring and I believe that big business employers tend to be biases against American workers is very much like having a family and feeding others kids and not feeding your own.

We do not need the level of immigration that we have now when we have so many citizens who need jobs. Outsourcing is pretty much killing our economy and driving down wages. And we have a high unemployment rate above veterans many of whom served in combat we have an obligation to them more than anyone who wants to enter the US.

[Philosoraptor]

2. It seems ridiculous whining about unemployment here when the jobs are outsourced

But then, I see ridiculousness everywhere lately.

[madokie]

3. The manufacturers would have to give a shit for about our environmental laws

as well as more people working making more money to spend on the things he was selling so he would make more money in the end. The tripper in all this is that would mean that the CEO, owners etc would have to care about us. They don't want to do that anymore. They want to keep us down kicking us every chance they get. No fun in changing that for them.
Honestly it would solve all our problems and be good for the problems of other people around the globe but the owners, ceo and etc don't want to look soft and thats what they'd do, look soft, in their bastardly eyes.
It's crazy what is going on in the world today and they are the ones who are directly responsible for all the hardship, pain and strife and they like it that way. The bastards thinks it makes them look tough, godly even that they have this power that they are abusing in this way.

I don't know but if there was a hell it will be filled to the brim with the bastards of this world thats for sure.

edit to add:

[Philosoraptor]

4. Super Greed drives it all

I mean, making a huge profit is o.k., but at what cost to Americans?

[madokie]

5. Its all greed

[raouldukelives]

18. Totally agree and It couldn't happen without the full support of investors. nt

[madokie]

20. That is where the ETC. came in

[Shadowflash]

6. I had read something recently

That said companies are starting to bring jobs, that were at one time outsourced, back now that Americans are used to working for less than half their previous wages and less employers are offering health care and other benefits. I'll see if I can find it, it was a month or so ago.

It was really depressing.

[Zalatix]

7. The John Birch Society would take control, poor people abroad would all starve to death

The American Empire would conquer the planet and jaywalking would increase.

Did I miss any of the pro-offshoring ranting points?

[Philosoraptor]

8. CEO's would have to take slight cut in pay!

Dogs and cats co-habitating together!

[cleduc]

9. You have to apply common business sense

but in general, it would help the country.

Corporate profits would probably fall. They'd sell less because they're less competitive so you can't go too extreme.

There are a number of things the government could do to help. Obama has proposed a few of them with his jobs act.

If tax breaks went to employers who provided American employment, that would help.

Retraining tax credits to help shift the workforce that would be paid for in part by reducing welfare & UI

A number of things could be done in trade agreements to help the American work force compete on a more level playing field. Sadly, a number of them should have been in place before they entered into the trade agreement because that is part of the reason so many jobs have been lost.

For example, why should foreign products compete on a level playing field with the US when some of these countries don't do nearly the same protection of their environment. There is a cost to producing goods in a way that protects the environment. Countries that don't protect their environment either should pay a premium on their products before they enter the US OR they should not have access to the US market. But that is not what happened and American workers have paid a dear price.

I could go on and on. I recently posted about this here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1144907

[Philosoraptor]

10. Mexican 'guest workers' are actually slaves

Not slaves like the old days, but the new slaves. They'd rather pay these poor folks to work their asses off, not give them any benefits, and send them home, all while pretending their taking jobs from Americans and treating them like less than human beings.

It sucks.

[juajen]

24. What benefits do you think Americans have?

I know of so many kids who are working their butts off with no benefits at all. They don't get paid holidays, they don't get vacations, and forget any kind of insurance. I believe the only answer is to stop buying items not made in the US. It would hurt a lot, because we are making less money, so need to buy cheap goods. This was all in the plan. If we stopped buying they would be forced to do something. Companies that pay decent wages and have benefits should be exalted instead of put down as elitest. I am thinking of Starbucks. They continue to treat their workers better than most other companies in the US. I wish Starbucks would again grant sick days with a doctor's visit to verify, as a lot of workers cannot afford to miss work and work sick and spread their germs around. I would love to see a survey showing the number of young people who are working for horrible wages, and get no benefits at all. We certainly are not the greatest country in the world. I would love to see us reach that status again.

[sa2968]

11. What would happen??

It would cost corporations more money since Americans are paid more, and that would leave less money in the pockets of those who run the corporations; and thus, people like Mitt Romney would have less money to build car elevators. It would also cost more money to buy things, and thanks to pathetic companies like Walmart, selling cheap crap has now become the American way.

[Philosoraptor]

12. I question the patriotism of those who would send jobs overseas...

...while so many are unemployed HERE.

[harmonicon]

23. Who gives a fuck about patriotism?

Apart from someone who's fought on the winning side of a revolutionary or civil war, I think patriotism is for suckers.

I prefer to buy products produced in the US or EU because these places generally produce better things and have better labor laws than other places, but that's not the case in every single instance. I just want good stuff. We aren't doing ourselves any favours by buying inferior products out of a sense of patriotism.

[Philosoraptor]

27. republicans always attack OUR patriotism

It's one of their most over used tactics.

[harmonicon]

37. Well, I say let them.

Fuck patriotism. Patriotism is a cousin of nationalism. Both are bullshit, but while one is foolish, the other is frightening.

[HiPointDem]

33. capital has no country. they *use* patriotism to manipulate ordinary people.

[cleduc]

13. All of that is valid

But the short sighted thing about what the wealthy are doing is hurting the country for their kids and in the long term putting their own families at greater risk.

What good will all this top end wealth really do them if the country goes down the toilet? The primary reason the US military is so strong is because they have spent so much on it. If the economic decline is allowed to continue, and it will if Americans don't rejoin the work force in a good proportion of jobs that add value in a way that contributes to generating wealth for the country, then the country won't be able to afford the military it has and these wealthy folks won't be protected at their country clubs beyond paying for their own security. Eventually, that will catch up to them.

Secondly, it's short sighted because if history has taught us anything, it's that those in power putting their foot on the throats of their working class is also short lived. Eventually, those people get pissed off and rise up to throw them out - regardless of the political system in place.

If the GOP keep on doing what they're doing, it will eventually end unpleasantly for them or their families.

Quite frankly, with the shift in demographics that is underway in the electorate, the days of this version of the GOP are short lived. It's no longer a question of "IF". The only question is "when". It's tough right now but these heartless pricks are losing their grip on power such that no amount of Citizens United money, no amount of assault on voter rights nor rigging of election machines will be able to stop it.

[quaker bill]

14. Wal Mart hires lots of Americans

and pays them poorly enough that half of them qualify for or are on food stamps.

[Philosoraptor]

15. The stuff they sell should be made here, by us.

Walmart and all those other mega corporations, but I suppose that the concept is too radical.

[Dustlawyer]

21. Let's boycott Walmart and Chinese goods! We will have to do without a lot, but we would not hurt

franchisees (as in the case of BP stations). We would hurt the 6,7,8 riches people in the country, but other than that, the Walmart employees could raise a fund for support until they could get an equivalent job flipping burgers etc. Whatever we do will involve sacrifice, but better now under our control, than later totally under theirs.

[quaker bill]

36. If we stop buying the stuff, they will stop selling it.

At some point people just need to reject patronizing all businesses that pay their employees so poorly that they have to subsist on food stamps in subsidized housing. This would include a number of big boxes and fast food franchises, not just Wal Mart. We need to take the incentive out of using part time minimum wage labor. We also need to raise the minimum wage significantly.

I do not know how you get to banning imports as government policy without starting a trade war and global economic depression. The best answer for all of us is just to stop buying cheap stuff from overseas. If their stuff doesn't sell here they will stop stocking the shelves with it.

Tea Party folks whine about China owning so much of our debt. What they don't get is that China's currency is not exchangeable on the open market. The reason China owns so much of our debt is that they have to do something with all the US dollars they have from selling us mountains of cheap stuff, in large measure I would bet to Tea Party members and other Wal Mart shoppers. What we have done is gotten our dollars back by exchanging them for treasury notes. If they did not have this massive pile of excess US dollars, they probably would not be buying our debt at all. You cannot use Chinese Yuans to buy US treasury notes, it is not legal. In short, they own our debt because we own their cheap tee shirts. Trading cheap tee shirts for treasury notes is not bad business, which is why there is concern that the economy in China is slowing to only an 8% growth rate, a rate we probably have not see since the 1950s.

[quaker bill]

16. For most production

labor cost is only a small portion of the product price. Marginal changes in wages paid would only need to impact product end price if the profit multiplier is not adjusted. A slightly smaller, but still very large profit can be made in most industries with higher wages at the same consumer end price.

This is why the price of a Big Mac did not change when Clinton raised the minimum wage.

[Philosoraptor]

17. The only solution is for the CEO's to take a little less

And the American workers get payed BETTER wages.

[HangOnKids]

19. Ah Shit That Makes Sense

The BIG problem is the PIGS have their snouts shoved in a pile of cash and they aren't about to get out. Sad and ugly fact about greed, it's contagious.

[On the Road]

31. I Was About to Disagree

that labor costs are only a small portion of product price. Then i Googled this:



http://richardtorian.blogspot.com/2011/08/salary-and-wage-costs-as-percentage-of.html

The blogger appears to be a CPA who does a lot of general business metrics, which IMO makes it more trustworthy.

It would be very interesting to see how this has changed over time. I think the proportions were significantly different thirty years ago.

[quaker bill]

32. I think you would find that little has changed

Wage differentials only pay when the cost of shipping is cheap, and transportation is quick and dependable. This is why off-shoring began to work well in the late 50s and boomed from the 1980's on with free trade. Very modest tarrifs were all that were ever needed to offset the off-shore advantage because wage differentials make only a tiny dent in the profit picture. What you might be missing is just how little we are actually paid for the value of what we do, and always have been. As you can see, a doubling of wages in some industries would only increase the total wage cost to 12%.

I run my own little business from the ground up, I am my only employee. I manufacture the product and am the salesman, and also the CEO. It is fairly easy to pay myself pretty well and underprice the competition because of this huge gap.

Before you disagree with me, check things out, you will find that I read alot.

[Zalatix]

34. Wow, nice cite! Thanks!

[Barry2012]

22. It's capitalism

The right has always stood up for capitalism or free markets.the problem with capitalism is it supports greed and corruption, no matter how you look at it.it don't matter how many tax cuts they get it will never be enough, because greed is like a bottomless pit.those politicians like romney and ryan who believe otherwise are just stupid or pretending to be.

[bucolic_frolic]

25. President Lincoln fought the same battles

Free trade vs. Protectionism (High Tariff in those days)

Somehow this country got married to the sanctity of free trade

in the post 1980 era

I don't think you could sell a protectionist tariff in Congress anymore

So therefore you must compete with foreign wage rates

[Zalatix]

35. The American people are screaming for protectionism.

Congress will be unable to sell free trade to America again.

[fadedrose]

26. CEO's would make less money hiring Americans

Not much difference in quality as far as fashion goes. It used to be that it had to be American-made to be any good, but lots of clothing coming over is very good - and getting very expensive as well. And the folks making these fine garments still only make about .30 an hour under deplorable working conditions.

We need to send over union organizers who would teach them how to go on strike to demand better wages so that they could buy the wonderful stuff they make. Until then, our workers are screwed, and so are those overseas..

[treestar]

28. "We" would, it is the CEOs of multinationals

who see the bottom line improved by hiring people in countries with lower standards of living. Bill Gates said it's not Apple's job to solve America's problems. Apple wants to make the product as cheaply as possible. It's pure capitalism.

[CrispyQ]

29. The corporate entities & the global 1% live beyond national boundaries.

They have no allegiance to any country.

[bvar22]

30. You don't have to guess.

Simply go to the History Books and check out the 50s, 60s, and early 70s.
We built the largest, wealthiest, and most upwardly mobile Working Class the World has ever seen.

*Taxes on the Upper Brackets were over 70% (91% in the 50s)
but people still got rich.

*UNIONS ruled.

*Anyone could attend the State University and graduate DEBT FREE if willing to work part time.
This was the NORM, not the exception

*Good Jobs with benefits and high wages were plentiful.

*A Blue Collar Worker could provide good Health Care to his entire family.

*Fair Competition laws prevented the Big Corporate Stores from moving into an area and undercutting locally owned businesses.

This could happen again IF we had a Political Party that represented the Working Class.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[reformist2]

38. Wages would go up, prices would go up some, profits would plunge.

It would be great for the working class, bad for the "owning" class.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. Don't get offended

but this has been a discussion going on since the earliest days before there was a United States.

Back then the complain from freemen was that people rented slaves, who did the job they were just as qualified to do much cheaper.

The American system depends on cheap labor.

What you need to change is a world view among the owners of capital, which has now expanded into a globalized economy. For this to change workers need to understand, that indian worker is not your enemy. Indeed he\she could be a powerful ally, if we thought at a global scale and organized at a global scale. In that situation where are they going to go for their next cheap labor? MARS?

Until then, well, you are doing the same thing the northern freemen did, hate the slave because the slave was taking his labor away, instead of the right targets, those who rented these slaves to owners of capital looking for the most bang for their sterling.

[reformist2]

40. Impose tariffs in proportion to the labor-cost advantage.

Any other cost differences should be fair game when it comes to global free trade and comparative advantage - we need to take people out of the cost calculations.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. Yes, but we also need to work with people

Work, well paid work, IMHO is a global human right. Corporations don't understand that.

I am going to turn utopian right now, but smith understood this. Business owners get together to keep labor costs down and profits up...he understood living wages would benefit all... What not Marx? Marx is the other bookend. These days I prefer to speak the words one Adam Smith wrote. He would also tell you that Romney is a soulless $ 5@)) when he said that corporations are peope, my friends.