Posted on 04/21/2005 7:36:41 AM PDT by A. Pole
It is customary, when making an assertion, to be ready to back it up. It's a matter of simple courtesy. Your talk of "burden" of proof is just that, talk. You do not come close to understanding that term.
And those greedy, overpaid Americans with their indoor plumbing and sleeping one to a room must be reduced to Third World standards, Jorge. Right ?
Hey, nobody forces American workers to have families and children. Why the employers should pay for it and lose their well deserved profits?
If it is cheaper to raise children in Mexico - let free market decide where the next generation of workers will come from.
Of course, send it all overseas, because nothing matters but the bottom line! And the free market? What a joke. I guess 24 hour child labor and slavery is a good example of the free market?
Every time I have heard a pitch for outsourcing, I have only heard how we won't have to pay healthcare and not once have I heard the word "quality" mentioned.
Perhaps you can explain how these supposedly "domestic export" representatives even went so far as to TAKE THE SIDE OF the E.U. in the trade dispute, and fully embraced its "uber" dubious legal position? Have you seen this main-stream legal analysis?
October 20, 2003
CITAC LEGAL ANALYSIS ONCE AGAIN MISSES THE MARK
Robert E. Lighthizer and Alan Wm. Wolff
In a three and a half page analysis that is long on rhetoric and attack, but short on legal support, Mr. Lewis Leibowitz – on behalf of the Consuming Industries Trade Action Committee (CITAC) – has taken issue with the conclusions expressed by the above authors 1 in a legal paper analyzing two issues related to the steel Section 201 safeguard measure: (i) the purported right of the European Union (the "EU") and other complaining parties to ignore WTO dispute settlement rules and immediately retaliate against the U.S. safeguard action; and (ii) the criteria to be employed by the President in determining whether modification or termination of the relief is appropriate.
CITAC's last major venture into the public debate over the Section 201 measure, it should be recalled, was a purported study of jobs lost in consuming industries as a result of the safeguard relief – a study so flawed and exaggerated that it was lampooned in the Financial Times as a "new low" in the world of Washington lobbying 2 and was rejected even by opponents of the steel relief. This latest legal analysis continues the approach of treating facts as malleable items – to be massaged and manipulated to achieve a desired result.
Mr. Leibowitz is a partner of the lawyer who wrote a recent paper for the Emergency Committee for American Trade (ECAT) endorsing the EU's right to retaliate against U.S. exporters, a position that the CITAC piece attempts to defend. The law firm in which these two lawyers are partners, of course, represents multiple foreign producers and importing interests opposed to the Section 201 relief. What is particularly startling, however, is that CITAC and ECAT, two organizations purportedly concerned with the interests of U.S. exporters, would endorse the right of foreign countries to unilaterally retaliate against American products – particularly where, as here, the argument being advanced by the EU is so clearly inconsistent with WTO rules. Given the obvious inconsistency of these arguments with the interests of U.S. exporters, one must wonder who or what is actually driving this analysis.
The fact is that detailed WTO requirements countries must follow before imposing retaliatory measures are critical to the system of rules-based trade and to the assurance of U.S. exporters that they will not be unfairly penalized by foreign nations acting unilaterally to harm U.S. interests. Ensuring that our trading partners live up to these requirements should be matter of urgency for all Americans, but in particular for organizations purportedly dedicated to the interests of U.S. exporters.
1 See "An Adverse WTO Decision in the Steel Safeguard Case Would Not Authorize Immediate Retaliation or Termination of the Safeguard Relief," Alan Wm. Wolff and Robert E. Lighthizer (October 2, 2003). 2 See "The Devil's in the details," Financial Times (February 10, 2003).
How many permanent jobs are permanent. Is there job security in even the largest, strongest companies?
A company tried to switch from COBOL to VB/Client Server. Many employees and consultants hopped to the new technology. VB/Client Server was a failure. Now people are rusty or don't want to go back to the old technology. And they don't know Java-Websphere, which is the hot new flavor of the month. So there are many Java-SQL and many COBOL-SQL positions open. The company needs to fill openings. It is willing to go perm or consulting.
But many of the VB employees were perm and look where they are.
Why are you asking me?
You're the one making these absurd statements. Not me.
Prove it.
You can't.
My facts are correct.
The REAL threat of outsourcing is that products of equal or superior quality can be made overseas paying lower wages.
You need to remove your head from the sand before it's too late.
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.