Blacks are taking OUR jobs!

[_Jumper_]

If I seriously posted a thread arguing this I'd be banned. The fundamental argument against outsourcing is the fact that foreign workers are willing to work less, not that they are less qualified, and this takes jobs from "where they belong." Of course, the same people that claim to be concerned solely about jobs look the other way when they lose a job to a less-qualified person because a company has to fill a quota. This speaks volumes about the true motivation of these people. Racism against blacks is unaccepatble in America but every other minority is fair game, even on "progressive" boards such as DU. After 9/11 America showed its true colors: black and white. Everyone else be damned. See you in Canada I guess my brown friends.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

1. Is this the new attack strategy?

If we are concerned about US corporations firing Americans and exporting jobs to other countries and collaborating with unfree regimes, we will be accused of being racist? The funny part is that supposedly white people and black people are working together to be racist to other ethnic groups? Give me a break!

If you are a US citizen, no matter what your ethnic group, you have the same rights under the constitution as everyone else. Corporations, chartered by state government, have to follow the law, or they can have their charters revoked. Race doesn't enter into it.

[ibegurpard]

2. Nice try

Someone else already tried to throw this very obvious straw man into the GD mix this morning.

[nini]

3. huh?

Racism in the U.S. and going out of the country for cheap labor are two different things.

Racism/Discrimination is WRONG against any group of people.

Am I missing your real point???

[damnraddem]

11. It's DLC, 'third way' b.s.

It comes from those who have applauded the U.S.'s losing of its manufacturing base, and now starting to clap as the U.S.'s service base is outsourced.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

38. yep, "third way" bs, just like "new democrats" and the "new economy"

I remember when Bush I called it the "New World Order" - same bs, different labels. The question is who gets to decide important issues about our economy, our jobs, and our government - people, US citizens, through our democracy, or corporations and their CEOs. That's the issue.

[demnan]

4. I think that's an oversimplification

People in this country, regardless of race, ethic origin or religion should hold the jobs in this country. Many Indians come over here to live to get these jobs and they become part of our community and raise their children here. I have no objection to that. What I do object to is outsourcing jobs to areas in the world where the company can exploit the low cost of living/wage earning in order to secure themselves a profit. Yes it does help the people in those countries survive, but they'd do a lot better by moving over here and they know it.

However, this has been happening in every field I can think of: factories, electronics etc., with software engineering just being the last to go.

I wonder who is going to support the consumption of the goods produced overseas when no one has a job here?

[Zero Gravitas]

8. The Incredible Vanishing Middle Class

What will these corporate geniuses do when they have exported the last middle class job, and all thats left is a few very rich people and a couple of 100 million poor people who can't afford to buy any of the crap they're selling?

The end result of this is 99% of the world living at a third world standard of living a few rich people in their fortress estates worrying about not being rich any more because no can buy any goods or services.

[leftyandproud]

5. why don't we...

STOP making these arguments based on race. Companies are moving because of cost. We need to make it CHEAPER to hire people in America. Make it more attractive to start a business in America. The question is--HOW DO WE DO IT?? Without repealing min wage, how can we encourage employers not to leave? We need solutions...not complaints

[Interrobang]

7. No, you're looking at it too much from THEIR point of view...

We don't need to make it *cheaper* to hire people in (North) America, we need to work on making it more expensive to hire people in other countries...which I think we should do mostly by helping to raise their standards of living, and by passing living-wage laws, helping organizers, and working with activists abroad.

Otherwise, all you've got is a "race to the bottom," and surely we can do better than that.

[damnraddem]

13. Karl Marx thought that a race to the bottom was a feature of capitalism ..

irradicable. The only resolution favoring workers would be to overthrow capitalism itself.

Others have argued that capitalism can accommodate economic justice for workers, through unionization, worker protection, regulation of the economy, and so on.

Who will ultimately be proved correct?

[bowens43]

16. make it cheaper?

How? Minimum wage? Do you really believe that a family can survive on minimum wage? This is about corporate greed plain and simple. This is about the rich getting richer and the middle class and poor getting poorer. This has nothing to do with racism or wanting to deny jobs to people in third world countries.

[kcwayne]

24. The Solution???

Chinese workers make $80-100 per month, and there is an endless supply of Chinese that want and need those jobs. American workers cannot possibly compete with that, even if we go back to the days of the Corporate town and the standard of living plummets. There are no enticements to keep corporations from moving everything into the slave labor gulags of China.

We presumably have to do things smarter, but that will become increasingly difficult since India's engineers work for a tenth of their American counterparts. Now that the "smart" jobs are being exported in mass, it leaves the landscape barren of options.

Along with the labor differential, China is exporting goods below their costs in some industries in order to buy marketshare. This practice of dumping on the US market has totally destroyed the domestic furniture business, and they are currently targeting the lumber products market. (For example, they are buying logs from US and Canadian companies and selling them back plywood for less than what they paid for the logs).

Faced with massive and unalterable unemployment, the government has only one tool. It must raise tariffs on imports to offset the differential of cheap labor and state subsidized predatory sales tactics. The point will come when the total economic collapse in the US outweighs the benefits to free trade.

The world simply cannot have an econonmic model that allows nations such as China to produce goods and services on the backs of slaves, and destabilize prices in all markets they enter. In short order, there will be no market for the slave produced products because no one can afford to purchase these goods if they have no means of earning an income, regardless of how cheap they are.

The solution will come, but it will require a complete destruction of the standard of living in the US, or in institution of a government that understands that 50-60% unemployment is not a good idea.

Anyone up for boycotting products made in China and India?

[StopTheMorans]

29. thank you

I asked the same question a month ago:) Race isn't the motivator behind everything (although it is obviously a problem in many areas), I think this may be a likely case of crying wolfowitz one too many times:)

[Brian Sweat]

52. No minimum wage jobs are being exported.

That's what we have illegal aliens for. The jobs that are being exported are manufacturing (mostly gone) and information technology. These are the relatively high paying jobs that make it possible for the average person to lift themselves up into the middle class.

I believe that there are people in this country who do not like the fact that these types of jobs exist. They believe that the only people who should get ahead are managerial and sales type people. With few execptions, the vast majority of CEOs more of a sales background than a technical back ground. I think they have contempt for people who "work for a living."

[kcwayne]

66. Sure minimum wage jobs are being exported

When a company moves its entire production facility offshore, all the support services that were in place to support the facility are indirectly exported. Janitors, security guards, food workers, lawn maintenance, etc, etc are gone. They are not only gone from the factory, as the local companies that are highly leveraged to provide support to that facility fold, those jobs are gone as well.

When a small town (say 30-50,000) people loses an employer such as an auto assembly plant that hires 3-4,000 people, unemployment ripples through the entire community affecting all levels of workers.

I just read an article last week that talked about how teenagers are having an awful summer finding jobs (virtually always a minimum wage) because the jobs have been filled by the legions of unemployed that are taking the positions "temporarily". So although the local McDonald's didn't export its minimum wage jobs the jobs are lost to the people that traditionally take them because of the overall effect of job loss.

[Blue_Chill]

6. ..::THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE;;..

It has everything to do with opportunity and employment. I'm hispanic and I could care less if someone from every race on the planet applies for the same job I want. I got a shot, maybe I get it, maybe I don't. But if you move my job to India, then I got nothing. No chance at all.

IT jobs are not the same as factory jobs. We bust our asses and spend LOTS OF MONEY to get into this field. Only to be rewarded by having to sit in an unemployment line and read our fellow liberals call us racist.

FUCK THAT!

[charlie]

12. Desperate and cheap

These race "arguments" are a lot like "why do you hate America?" retorts.

Trek234 owes an apology to those whose comments he cherry-picked to bolster his White Power screed.

[damnraddem]

9. No, the issue with outsourcing is:

the ability of companies to abandon workers who have built companies and to move freely to areas where there is less protection of labor, and of the environment. So-called 'free trade' has focused on free trade in labor and commodities -- not on freeing workers to fight for their own protection, for example. Decades ago, it was about fleeing unionized, industrialized states for the Sunbelt. Now, it's about fleeing to other countries with cheap labor -- in some cases because the U.S. has supported repressive regimes that have crushed workers' organizations.

[a_random_joel]

10. Shame on you.

American Corporations that profit in America should hire American workers, and pay American taxes.

End of discussion. I do not see where race comes into this...

[skypilot]

14. "Jumper" seems to have jumped

*

[Muddleoftheroad]

21. Why?

Why should they? And besides, many companies are now multinational, so why can't they locate production around the world?

[a_random_joel]

64. Hi MOTR

Why?

I am not talking about multinationals(although there are exceptions). I am talking about American corps. Why DON'T you think they should hire American workers?

Cheap foreign labor = More profits & no labor regulations
Offshore assets = less taxes = More profits
More profits = more AMERICAN profits.

Why the hell should we support companies that make money here, but do not want to use our labor pool or pay taxes as we all do? I say if they want to compete as foreign companies, then they should operate as foreign companies, and be slapped with tariffs and regulated trade.

I do not understand the mindset that harps on immigrants taking our jobs, but justifies corporations that export our jobs to other countries. If people want to come here and work, I say let them, and make them pay taxes as the rest of us do.

Bottom Line - I say if you run a business and wish to make some good old American Benjamins, you better be willing to invest some of those Benjamins in our labor pool, and pay taxes.

As for this person's thread, I am not understanding why he made this a race issue.

[bushisanidiot]

15. Is this the new RNC talking point?

not biting.

[Robin Hood]

17. This is really simple.

If you want to sell your crap here, you have to make your crap here.

[_Jumper_]

40. Says who?

?

[a_random_joel]

65. Lib_Guerilla ALMOST got it right

If you want to sell crap here, you have to make crap here - OR you must pay tariffs and face trade regulation.

Says the law.

Unless of course you believe in laissez-faire. In which case, this probably isn't the right board for you.

[nannygoat]

69. And if you pay people in other countries hardly anything to make

your products then the prices you charge here in the US should reflect that and be significantly lower than they would be if American workers made the products.

[Melsky]

18. Ain't no racism here

Many jobs are now being outsourced to Poland. Well, I am from an Eastern European background, does that make me racist against myself for resenting the fact that a lot of our good jobs are moving there?

We need a huge tax on companies that hire offshore. Companies that provide living wage jobs in the US should get tax breaks. It's that simple.

[Cocoa]

19. you should answer some of these posts, jumper

n/t

[Feanorcurufinwe]

20. I'm having trouble making sense of your confusing flamebait

n/t

[Caution]

22. This is a bullshit argument

The question has nothing to do with race. If jobs were being exported out of the country to england the principle would be the same. American jobs are being sent offshore to exploit cheap labor. I work for a company which is doing exactly that. Is there a change in product quality? maybe, too early to tell, but the people in Sri Lanka I deal with are intelligent and hard-working. They are however draining jobs here in the US. To drag race into this is total garbage.

[_Jumper_]

23. If this is all about jobs

Why don't these very same people complain about losing jobs to less-qualified people due to affirmative action?

[Nobody]

26. This is about laying people off and replacing them

Why is it OK to lay off existing experienced workers and replace them with new people (doesn't matter where they're located) who will have to be trained in procedures, company policy, etc.

[_Jumper_]

27. No, it's supposedly about protecting "our jobs"

These people seem to have no problem with not getting hired in the first place due to a quota.

It's okay because it's more profitable for the company. A company has the right to hire anyone it wants.

[Nobody]

31. How does it help the bottom line to lay off experienced workers?

A company needs customers to make money. If you have a bunch of people whose job it is to take customer phone calls and they have been doing this for 5 years or more, you have people who have seen nearly every scenario and can deal with the problem efficiently. This will make the customer happy because they get an answer in a timely manner.

Keep these people happy and they will stay.

Lay them off and then you can put the money you're paying them into your pocket. But wait, you need someone to do the job. Customers have questions and complaints and need some way to buy your product or service.

Ooops. You just killed the goose that laid the golden egg.

Solution! Hire temps to work for less and you don't even have to pay them benefits. Find someone willing to work for pennies.

Oops. But you just laid off the experienced people who know the job inside and out. Now what do you do?

Again I ask. Why is this acceptable?

(on edit: &*%^#$ typos!)

[TheDonkey]

28. duh?

Because you don't lose less qualified jobs under Affirmative Action. That is classic conservative scape goating to scream quotas and "I'm losing my job to a colored person or women who is less qualified".

[_Jumper_]

30. Nope

You don't lose jobs to unqualified people but you do lose jobs to less-qualified people. Moreover, the fact that AA lowers the bar to allow some into college can't be denied. There are some out there who didn't get a chance to become an IT worker because they couldn't get into college due to AA.

[Blue_Chill]

37. couldn't get into college because of AA?

LoL who?

In order for that to be true the person must have been bumped from several colleges, because *NEWS FLASH* there is more then one. Also the person could have taken a few tech class like A+ or net+ while they waited for a spot to open up.

AA does not lower the bar at all, no more then sports or legacy admissions did before AA existed.

and again you are assuming AA means "less-qualified" which is bullshit.

[_Jumper_]

46. John Doe?

"In order for that to be true the person must have been bumped from several colleges, because *NEWS FLASH* there is more then one. Also the person could have taken a few tech class like A+ or net+ while they waited for a spot to open up."

John Doe was applying to a bottom-tier college and barely met the criteria for admission. However, he was denied admission due to affirmative action. Do you honestly think that this scenario hasn't occured many times in America?

"AA does not lower the bar at all, no more then sports or legacy admissions did before AA existed."

Yes it does. Look at the SAT scores and GPA of those allowed in due to AA and those that got in due to merit. Sports and legacy admissions lower the bar too. I don't support then.

"and again you are assuming AA means "less-qualified" which is bullshit."

On average it does. If it didn't we wouldn't have a debate about it in college admissions.

[TheDonkey]

41. wow

First of all Affirmative Action is a complex policy. It intends to most importantly have employeers hold the burden of actively seeking minorities that create a workforc (or education population) roughly equal to that of America. To get to this quotas and "bar lowering" programs are extremely irregular and only used when a company or school clearly does not represent the population and is FORCED to admit more immediately.

By doing this you are not taking jobs away from Americans... no you are giving them to Americans who have historically been shunned from whatever company or school is forced to use quotas under AA. The most common reasoning is "Well black, hispanics, women, are not ________ enough to get this job." But that is the same reason we have AA, you'd be called a bigot if you said any of those said groups of people didn't have the same raw ability as a white person and for good reason. If no one goes to leghnt to hire or educate any minority then we only allow the gross racial and sexist divisions grow bigger in our society.

Edit: Just hope I making it clear how different Equal Oppurtunity and Affirmative Action is far different than the discussion of globilization and free trade. Whatever your opinions of either are. Corporate profit maximization = Free Trade
Corporate responsibility to create a balanced workfroce= Affirmative Action.

[_Jumper_]

50. Really?

"It intends to most importantly have employeers hold the burden of actively seeking minorities that create a workforc (or education population) roughly equal to that of America. To get to this quotas and "bar lowering" programs are extremely irregular and only used when a company or school clearly does not represent the population and is FORCED to admit more immediately."

How many colleges reflect America's demographics without affirmative action? Do you know what happened in California and Texas when affirmative action was ended?

"By doing this you are not taking jobs away from Americans"

Technically that's correct. In order to have something taken from you you must first possess it. However, what it does is deny people jobs or educational opportunities that they earned to fill a quota. If people oppose outsourcing because it hurts their economic prospects they should logically oppose affirmative action in most cases.


"But that is the same reason we have AA, you'd be called a bigot if you said any of those said groups of people didn't have the same raw ability as a white person and for good reason. If no one goes to leghnt to hire or educate any minority then we only allow the gross racial and sexist divisions grow bigger in our society."

The natural ability is the same but due to socioeconomic factors certain groups perform better than others. This is a fact. We need to rectify thise by equalizing school funding and other things that tackle the root causes of this inequity, not by giving handouts after 20 years. Why did you use the word "minority"? Do Asians need affirmative action? When affirmative action was ended in California do you know what happened to the Asian share of the student body at California's public colleges?


"Corporate responsibility to create a balanced workfroce= Affirmative Action."

No, a corporation's responsility is to maximize profit. In order to do that it should hire the best qualified people for the lowest cost.

[TheDonkey]

60. hahaha

"No, a corporation's responsility is to maximize profit. In order to do that it should hire the best qualified people for the lowest cost. "

By this account we should repeal child labor laws, the minimum wage, and unions so that corporations can maxamize their profits!!!

yeah...

You need to find a balance between corporate benefit maximization as well as the benefit of all Americans (that is real economics). Unless you feel that corporations should rape Americans for their own good and cause a negative burden on us (and eventually them) in the long run.

[_Jumper_]

61. That's what CEO's are paid for aren't they?

Or are they paid to engage in social engineering?

[TheDonkey]

63. yikes

They are paid to run the corporation economically sound and abide by the laws of America.

Good economics= Increased public benefit + Increased profits.

But if you want just plain greed which many CEO's wouldn't be opposed to then profits are the only bottom line. That is as harmful as shooting someone (and can be just as criminal).

"Social engineering" or responsible and fair practices which you should be saying is mandatory for a corporation to abide by.

We have labor laws and AA for the benefit of Americans to be protected from racists, sexist, ignorant, and inhumane corporate leaders. I'm glad for that.

[Blue_Chill]

32. nice assumption you made there _Jumper_

Why do you assume a minority replacement is less qualified?

That sounds like a RW talking point to me.

Also this is about keeping jobs where all of us in America (all races) can at least try to get them. If you ship them away then none of us have a chance.

[_Jumper_]

35. Where did I say minorites are always less-qualified?

?

[Blue_Chill]

42. You didn't use the words "on average"

but you did write....

You don't lose jobs to unqualified people but you do lose jobs to less-qualified people

Why don't these very same people complain about losing jobs to less-qualified people due to affirmative action?

Moreover, the fact that AA lowers the bar to allow some into college can't be denied.

All of which make the assumption that minorities are "less qualified" then their white counter parts.

[_Jumper_]

51. On average Asians are more qualified than whites

Your assumpation that they aren't is interesting...

[w4rma]

58. That was *your* assumption, not his, _Jumper_. Reread the post.

And quit trying to be intentionally misleading.

[Chilly_Willy]

43. huh

You lead the reader to believe you are speaking about affirmative action quotas.

"they lose a job to a less-qualified person because a company has to fill a quota"

[w4rma]

34. Dems are, and have been since the 1960's, pro-affirmative action

This is not about ethnicity, its about the race to the bottom. It's about a ruling class with their own extra-national feudal/corporate empires making demands on democratic governments. It's about the impossibility to compete against a near slave in another country. It's about stopping slave wages in the world. It's about stopping the decline of the standard of living in America and building up the standard of living elsewhere.

[_Jumper_]

39. It's a-okay to lose a job due to a quota

Losing a job because a company wants to increase profits is a tragedy, though. Now that is some principaled opposition to outsourcing. It's all about jobs!

"It's about stopping the decline of the standard of living in America and building up the standard of living elsewhere."

Using that logic couldn't it be argued that all pat Buchanan is doing when he opposes AA is to stop the decline of the standard of living of whites to build up the standard of living of blacks? Isn't AA all about equalizing the standard of living among whites and blacks? Again, if you're opposed to people losing jobs for social engineering shouldn't you oppose affirmative action?

[w4rma]

54. Quotas are illegal. Do your research _Jumper_.

Note that American blacks and latinos are being hurt by outsourcing just like American white folks are.

Overseas folks are hurting because these mega-corpse are paying slave wages.

The ONLY folks who are making out are the boards of directors of these mega corps.

[DS1]

48. for one, those jobs still stay in the United States

AA is about evening the country out a bit, we don't need what precious few good jobs left being exported.

[_Jumper_]

53. Tell that to an IT worker who lost their job

If they are consistent they wouldn't be happy to lose a job to "even things out."

[Lydia Leftcoast]

62. That's a stupid Limbaugh Legend

In recent years I have heard of dozens of companies firing hundreds or thousands of skilled workers each in order to replace them with people in India, China, ...or Ireland or Russia.

I have NEVER heard of a company firing its white workers to replace them with blacks and Latinos here in the States.

The Limbaugh legend about white workers losing out to "unqualified" people of color stems, I suspect, from chickenshit employers who don't want to tell applicants the real reason they weren't hired. I personally know of a case in which two white men who applied for the same job were each told independently, "You were the best-qualified candidate, but the government is making us hire only blacks."

[alaine]

70. We're only charged with "promoting the general welfare"

of U.S citizens. When we have a global government under a sovereign then we can worry about employing the rest of the planet.

[Chilly_Willy]

25. Please explain why you want the unemployment rate to rise?

Look at the employment rate in the US again my friend before we start moving corporation headquarters and outsourcing to different companies just to save a buck.

Why are you assuming when someone loses a job in the US a less-qualified person acquires that job? Why are you assuming when any American gets let go during these times of recession anyone replaces us at all?

After 9/11 America showed it's colors...red, white and blue which I think can stand for anger, fear and tears. That's what happened anger and fear against anything and everything, bursts of crying at any moment. Slowly we are getting back to stability in our lives.

The job thing...man you must be a crazy college kid that doesn't understand what a job means to have this kind of view on outsourcing jobs.

[opihimoimoi]

33. The pysops thing employed by the Pubs is working well.

we are being manipulated into a state of madness.

we are being slowly transformed from a vibrant happy camper society to that of fear and all the attending misery ,,,,people.

We are the victims of a hardened campaign that wants to dominate and control.

Unless we stop the Pub Madness, we are toast.

[It was not a pretzel]

36. This arguement is a damned insult

I'm from Europe and it's happening here too. Hey jumper are you going to offer your employer to work 6 days a week for $100 a month? Can't you afford to live off that? You'd better hope your corp doesn't decide to move it's jobs abroad!

The corps are always telling us we need to compete? How can we compete with wages even 50% lower than ours? I dread to think what will happen in 50-100 years if the corps get there way.

[Blue_Chill]

44. 50% lower?

try 500% lower and you are getting closer.

[It was not a pretzel]

57. I know

I was using an optimistic figure.

[TahitiNut]

45. "Buy American!"

Have you ever seen this motto? Did you ever think it was a good idea? If you did, then why shouldn't it apply to domestic corporations when buying services of labor?

Who says that the only way for people to work is for a corporation? Isn't it fascinating that this has become assumed? Why do you suppose that is? Is it perhaps that certain kinds of products, and the directly associated skills, are now controlled by an oligopoly? What's to stop Indian workers from forming Indian companies? Could those companies ever survive in competition with the global corporations? If the labor is the same, why not?

[Riptide]

47. What a straw man...

My husband is a computer programmer. He has an undergrad in finance, and when he heard about the need for programmers about 9 years ago, he returned to school to get his master's in computer science. We paid for his education (with our savings, loans).

He works with many people who are Indian. They are our friends, and they are part of our community. However, if they send all the IT jobs to India, there will be no jobs for which he can compete. We have already spent much of our savings on his education, now some people are just saying "learn something else". We still have these loans to pay off!

In order to lure the work to India, there are actually some Indian companies who have sent programmers to work at the same place as my husband for FREE! The Indian companies pay the programmers wages themselves. How is anyone supposed to compete with free?

To label this racism is unfair and wrong! We would be equally upset if the jobs were going to a country like Sweden. If they were, would you accuse ud of being "anti-blonde"?

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

49. Indian-Americans are losing their jobs too

These pro-corporates are trying to sidestep the issue by calling us racists. I know of Indian-Americans who have lost their jobs because of outsourcing the India - when they complain, are they being racist? Of course not.

The state governments charter corporations, and we can revoke their charters if they are no longer an asset to America.

[Brian Sweat]

67. My company has been outsourcing to India.

My old job was outsourced to India. Fortunately, I was hired by another division within the company. The people who replaced me call me on the phone because they cannot solve the problems, but I don't work for their business unit and I do not have time to help them.

I have nothing against the guys that replaced me and my coworkers, but I think it was shitty the way the company did it. Other groups within the business unit had been outsourced. We saw how things worked. They swore they were not going to do the same to us, but it followed the same pattern. I actually had to train my replacements.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

55. This is all a smokescreen. The real problem is corporate personhood.

n/t

[salmonhorse]

56. A little ditty from The Great Depression ~

If you're white...you're all right
If you're brown...stick around
If you're black...don't come back...

But then I thought, "'black'? How: 'black'?" Cause I seen some guy from like India on the light rail within the last week blacker than any 'black dude' I ever seen so go figure.

:shrug:

I think you have a non-starter here ~

[sangha]

59. I am very "alert"

to the ways in which some seek to demonize liberalism

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.