I'll thank you, sir, not to bring up actual facts and introduce rational, deductive reasoning into an otherwise perfectly good bunch of nonsense.

Thing is, he didnt bring up actual facts. What we consider horrible wages in the US are EXCELLENT wages in other parts of the world. Its no different than moving a factory from Michigan to Tennessee. The amount which can be paid to people for the job they do is reduced but the local employees consider the wages adequate.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Silence is golden...Duct tape is silver.

This is an another example of an economic inefficiency in fiscal policy. By upgrading infrastructure, we could be improving the efficiency of US labor so that it is more cost competitive with foreign labor. Consider a hypothetical, federal research hospital in every State and DC. It would require mostly local skilled labor and potentially result in an improvement in our standard of living. Public sector means of production are more fiscally responsible than discretionary spending on wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror; since public sector means of production could result in a lower tax burden and a more efficient economy.

You missed the point. The jobs in question aren't paying anything to those who used to hold them here.

Doesn't matter. The jobs do not belong to them - they belong to the company.

A company does not exist to provide employment, but to turn a profit.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Silence is golden...Duct tape is silver.

You're going to have to explain that. I fail to see how any change to infrastructure could POSSIBLY enable wages in the US to drop to the level of India for example.

Neither the 9th nor 10th Amendments have a damn thing to do with it. Why you posted them is beyond me.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Silence is golden...Duct tape is silver.

No, that IS the point. That's why it matters, in context of what the topic is.

The claim was made that companies were moving to other nations so they could pay people horribly.

Just because the wages are lower than what a similar job would pay in the US does not mean it is an horrible wage. Here in Houston, for example, ~$9 an hour is about average for McDonalds. In OKC it is about ~$7 and in NYC, about $15 i think. Does this mean OKC is getting screwed? No, it just means that area demands a lower wage for unskilled labor.

Same thing if a company packs up its factory in MI and moves to TN for example. Instead of paying a guy $60 an hour to bolt a wheel on a car, they can pay him $25. Cost of living is not artificially inflated by unions in TN.

Also the same if they offshore to India. A company can get a halfway decent C++ programmer in India for a LOT less than they can in Seattle.

Even if they DID offer in Seattle what they offer in Bangalore, the Seattle programmer doesnt have to actually ACCEPT that wage. If he chooses to, he is deciding that is all his skill is worth.

This is not a constitutional issue - it is simply business. Nothing more.

__________________
In case you were wondering, yes, there really ARE more idiots these days....technology has made natural selection obsolete.

Silence is golden...Duct tape is silver.

Indeed it was.Yes, and no one is arguing that to the contrary.Irrelevant, for the most part, since car factories were built up in TN from scratch; they weren't moved there from, say, MI.Thanks, I really don't need a lesson in economics; you've missed the point entirely, such that it appears not really worth trying to make again.

Why would we want to "race to the bottom" and lower our standard of living with the socialist welfare-state economics enumerated in our social contract and Constitution?

We could improve our standard of living by subsidizing US labor to not provide labor input to the economy, at the rock-bottom cost of a hypothetical minimum wage that exceeds the poverty level.

Employers would need to seek cost efficiencies through productivity instead of wages.

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments enumerate the concept of individual liberty at both the State and individual level.

Good luck!

His explanations are just more of the same. I think he is practicing to be a politician. I have never met anyone more obtuse.

Greetings and Felicitations,

We are all practicing to be politicians. Politics is an essential part of life.

Certain it is and sure, love burns, ale burns, fire burns and politics burn. But cold were life without them.

Sincerely Yours,
C. David Neely

__________________

You have to remember these liberals believe the sole purpose of a corporation is to provide jobs NOT make money.

__________________
Sic Semper Tyrannis






http://www.myspace.com/swoop187muzic

so the money to subsadize this just comes out of thin air ?

__________________
Socialism doesn't create a rising tide that lifts all boats. It drains the lake and teaches the boat riders not to help themselves by rowing.

Jesus loves you, allah wants you dead

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand

You may also have been "ensnared" into thinking that we cannot cut discretionary spending on socialist warfare-state economics while cutting social spending that can provide for the general welfare through socialist welfare-state economics. Our wars on abstractions are a form of less fiscally responsible, national and socialized, warfare-state public policies which are not enumerated in our Constitution as there is no provision for the common Offense, or the general Warfare.