Posted on 03/30/2004 4:25:08 PM PST by MikeJ75
As you say, Snow is arrogant indeed. And yet, David Wyss, quoted above, seems to have an equal gift when it comes to offending potential voters. Incredible!
If you want on or off my offshoring ping list, please FReepmail me!
Not to worry - they already have. China and India certainly have major trade barriers and restrictions. It is the US that continues to open its markets to those who fail to reciprocate.
To start with those Japanese could take all those Sony and Honda jobs back to japan. Japan has a stagnet economy and why should thousands of central ohio workers get high wages making Hondas when good japanese citizens could make those high wages.
Japan is clever. They open the plants in the U.S. in order to reduce transportation costs and avoid in potential problems with tariffs. Of course, those profits will go back to Japan - not to companies in the US. If Japan would like to encourage U.S. citizens to buy U.S. manufactured cars, then by all means let them do so!
And how about those high paid Michelin tire makers in Greenville South Carolina. They could be making furniture for minimum wage instead of auto workers wages if Michelin took their jobs back home where they belong.
Same issue as Japan, above. Here, you've set up a straw man argument. Is it possible - just, barely possible - that a U.S. tire maker might open a plant in the old Michelin facility and make quality tires? And might hire the workers you allude to above to fill those jobs? It's every bit as possible as your unsubstantiated premise that they would start making furniture.
All together we have about 6 million high paid industrial jobs out sourced by other nations to us. Some fools want to trade those jobs for the minimum wage jobs we export overseas.
(Chuckle). Minimum wage jobs like Stock Analysts? Computer Scientists? Engineers? Machinists?
How many people are stupid enough to see if we start preventing our jobs from being out sourced, then other nations will prevent out sourcing to us. WE have a lot more jobs out sourced to us than from us.
First of all, I'd like to see a source on this. Second, we are the world's primary market. If countries wish to access that market, they must meet our price - and that may well mean outsourcing their jobs to us. The tactic works - just ask China.
Germany has high unemployment. How about they take all those Daimler Chrysler jobs an move them to Germany where the Germans obviously think they belong.
That's fine. The Benz is a fine motorcar, but our domestic luxury cars are more than adequate. If they wish to remove the jobs, we can add a tariff to the Mercedes and BMW cars they sell here. Say...5,000%?
If we are stupid enough to start an outsourcing war, we will be the giant loser. Six million high paying jobs will go down the drain!. They will be relaced by 3 million low paying jobs... And won't that be nice. The 3 million out of work suckers can just deal with it... After all we won't be out sourcing jobs.
Mere hyperbole, and unfounded. You have, Common Tator, swallowed the globalist line hook, line, and sinker. Filling the needs of the domestic market will employ our people well, and in good paying jobs.
Of couse our companies will have to find a way to compete or they will lose all the business to importers. The easiest way to to not bring the jobs back, but just import the goods to the us and have US firms become marketing organizations and not manufacturers.
Good point. We need to control imports, thus reducing (or, better, eliminating!) the trade deficit. Notice that the dollar has been weakened to accomplish this very end.
Or do we really think that if we prevent out sourcing by our companies other nations will not follow suit and prevent outsourcing to the USA. We out source for low wages. NO international company outsources to us for low wages.
As mentioned above, you'll find that China, India, and Pakistan don't do much outsourcing to us.
And losing 6 million high paying jobs to get 3 million low paying jobs is one of the Dumbest ideas of the last 10,000 years. That means we will most likely do it.
Let us hope that we do it, and soon.
Common Tator, recall that the United Nations is a strong proponent of outsourcing and globalization. Think, now - when has the UN ever been a friend to the US? Why is it that China (now the world's sixth largest economy!) is growing a lot faster than the US? What will we as a nation do when we give up our industrial base - and when our intellectual base declines as we outsource the jobs?
Are you aware that computer science enrollments - even in MIT! - are down a third this year? Are you prepared to rely on China to supply our military needs? What happens if China and the US face conflict - perhaps over Taiwan?
Offshoring is just another UN sponsored global welfare scheme, with the US taxpayer footing the bill. End offshoring before it ends the U.S.A.!
You are easily impressed. One thing that Mankiw, Snow, and Wyss have in common is that none of them is a politician.
Wait a minute. That means when a US company opens a plant overseas, the profits come back here.
That assumes the earnings are repatriated - and hence subject to taxation. As long as it's an operating company, they can establish it in a locale that grants tax exemptions and pay no tax on the earnings.
Grenada will sign a 10 year tax treaty with you or I - if we establish a corporation there. It costs all of $1,500 US. Note that you can have plants, offices, and other operations in the US, but the corporation is based in the offshore venue.
You'll find that more and more U.S. companies are using this tactic. Stanley Tool Works recently moved their corporation to Bermuda and saved $30,000,000 in taxes.
Especially in Ohio, a key electoral state.
Moral of the story - don't get that high dollar college degree. I wonder what will happen when we have no industrial base and a poorly educated population? Since offshoring makes us rich, we should really start doing well then! (/amused sarcasm)
U.S. corporations are taxed on world-wide income. The only way around it is to establish a completely-independent foreign subsidiary and pray the IRS finds no "effectively-connected" (legal term) income. Perhaps we should concentrate on removing the tax disadvantage on US corporations instead of preventing them from opening a subsidiary? That's the central problem with protectionists: they'll destroy a company in order to save it and the jobs it provides.
Brilliant. Maybe I'll ask my two professors, who are simultaneously teaching me Taxation of International Business at one of the better law schools in Chicago. Did I mention that both are former tax specialists with Jenner & Block? What's your tax experience? [hoot]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.