Not at all.
American hitters would be far preferable to always hiring foreigners though.
This is becoming a national issue. We need patriotism to win out over what is happening now:
Selling out America.
I do not mean to focus only on the corporation. Government also wastes billions and billions and billions every day.
But Corporation are ripping off America equally, and it is harmful to our country.
It must stop.
Not a complicated concept to understand. That's why the caterwauling about jobs here (on this thread) is just that, caterwauling.
Perhaps a key observation to be made about jobs leaving the country is that it is a side effect of increasingly efficient multinational corporation trade supporting infrastructure and particularly international trade and the information networks. This in comparison with income disparity between the USA and third world / “developing” countries leads to jobs migrating as a matter of economic law, not necessarily politics or legislative policy.
So what can we do about economics and increasingly efficient international trade infrastructure? Perhaps not a lot besides tariffs. But politicians seem adverse to tariffs, perhaps due to the disproportionate influence of multinational lobbying (aka foreign campaign contributions). Nothing much can be done about this problem given the current status — nationwide mass instant gratification at any cost — without violating the First Amendment for corporate persons.
If we slap tariffs on countries indiscriminately, prices of stuff based on materials not readily available in the USA might rise inordinately— think oil, titanium, rare earth metals, etc. — that currently are a part of products used in everyday life in the USA. This would hypothetically make prices of such things as gasoline used in cars, cell phones, and jet airplanes rise to near astronomical levels in US dollars, unless we have or can produce stuff that other countries want, need, and are able and willing to buy.
More and better paying jobs does not seem to attack, and solve directly, the core problem of entitlements exceeding revenues— from recent (eg dot com boom era) past experience, more tax revenues usually just leads to increasing entitlements due to the collective inertia of our current domestic political processes’ social inertia.
The phenomenon of jobs leaving rhe US seem as if they might only be solved on an even playing field by normalizing benfits and industrial regulations across international borders. This implies that the incomes and thus living standards of workers in developing countries rise while the living standards of workers in developed countries such as the USA be lowered until the living standards of all countries become more or less equal.
In modern (War between the States and beyond) US history, I don’t believe a decline in living standards has ever avoided being accompanied by an accumulation in federal government of power relative to individual citizens, one way or another.
So a decision of what to do about SS and other big ticket federal entitlements may ultimately be up to faceless federal bureaucrats even more than the current political system we have in place with all its various flaws. What would they do when faced by a Hobbsean choice of upsetting large numbers of retired/disabled former workers or employed workers? Sooner or later economics will make the question of whether to raise taxes moot. That leaves printing money, aka QE3, or Obamacare triage, aka death squads. Here I’m presuming we don’t go the route of pre-WWII Germany and Japan and start invading other countries willy-nilly simply because we think we are better than they are or because we deserve their stuff. Something that would in theory tend to avoid war is yielding sovereignty via merging into a larger economic unit such as NAFTA or WHFTA. At that point, the USA and its unique form of government might officially become extinct. A few folks (Freepers for example if they are still around then) might complain, but the liberal alliance of very rich and less well off would probably welcome such a move if it were cloaked with the message of being economically justified to help prevent or forestall an economic Armegeddon.
This all in turn supposes that a WW III does not occur first, which of course seems to be an ever present possibility given that other countries don’t seem to have even the admittedly meager political means to handle economic challenges that we in the US currently “enjoy” ...