Do the conservatives enjoy seeing a lot of good jobs being shipped overseas?

Answer 1

http://vh10303.moc.gbahn.net/news/stories/20041030/opinion/1509600.html

I enjoy these insourcing jobs that nobody seems to report about..

Answer 2

This has nothing to do with conservative or liberal politics it is economics and the global economy. I doubt most mainstream Americans like outsourcing and I know most who are against it offer only emotional arguments to support their position while ignoring economic realities. In many areas American workers have priced themselves out of the marketplace while at the same time demanding more benefits such as shorter work hours and more vacation time. Companies have responded by sending jobs overseas to take advantage of ample labor with less associated cost. The economy is not suffering as a result and unemployment is good. Further there are many companies which insource jobs. So the road goes both ways. Personally I would prefer to see more jobs stay in America, but I also understand that it does not make good business sense to pay 3 and 4 times the costs for less productive labor. The last thing here is that Americans demand low prices. We love the low price Walmart business model. The simple fact is that you cannot have both. You can have products manufactured in the US which you pay more for, or you can have low cost goods manufactured elsewhere. Either way you need to stop trying to make this a political issue because whether or not a company chooses to outsources is not under the discretion of the United States government, nor is it conservative or liberal in nature. It's about profit and loss plain and simple.

Answer 3

It is a conservative idea that free trade without any restraints is good for all the countries involved, and while the US may have some "temporary discomfort", it's good for everyone in the long run. Milton Friedman liked the idea of unconstrained trade because other countries would eventually be brought to the level of the US. Meanwhile the US will have some trouble adjusting to job loss, but no one knows how long-maybe 50 years before equality is achieved.

Funny, this free trade thing results in equality-a "communist" principle. By the way Clinton was very very moderate, not liberal. So is Hillary. Look at what they do, not what the pundits and blogs say!

Answer 4

What is it with you liberals and the inane questions about our "feelings"? What the hell do "feelings" have to do with the facts about the global economy? What is required is "thinking".

The fact of the global economy is that no business can stay afloat if its costs of production are significantly higher than competing businesses from other countries. Simple fact.

So, what is to be done? Do we force businesses to stay open and operate at a loss? That's unconstitutional at best. Do we erect tariffs and import taxes to protect the industries? That would trigger a trade war, and would have serious economic impacts worldwide. Shall we subsidize that business? That, too, is unconstitutional.

So, in the end, being still a free country, that business has the option of closing or going overseas to be more competitive.

There is nothing to "enjoy" about it. Nor is there anything to mourn. It just IS.

That's what it's like in the adult world.

Answer 5

Uh, wasn't NAFTA ratified by a democratic president?

But, seriously, instead of buying into all the "Party Politics" crap, blaming the "other" guy, and pointing fingers, we should be working together as a nation to find solutions to the problems facing our country. Taking sides, republican and democrat, doesn't get anything done. There are a lot of differing points of view, and we have to be willing and able to recognize and accept the merits of others. We have to work together, not at odds.

Rather than fixing the blame, maybe we should focus on fixing the problem.

Answer 6

Regardless of "who started it" (and I'd put good money on a bet that the corporations did!!), who is going to end it? And how?

Aside: Aren't you tired of all of your customer service questions being answered by people thousands of miles away, with such bad English/communication skills that you can't understand them?

EDIT: I see that the Repubs all want to lay the blame at the feet of Clinton...Well, Folks, if you don't agree with it, why haven't you changed it in the past 6 years? Dubya too busy being the "War Decider"??

...

Answer 7

I have been wondering about this for a while now!

Are we actually trying to phase out the middle class and have more of a society like Saudi Arabia where you are either a have or a have not?

That seems to be the way things are going!

Perhaps that's why illegal immigration isn't being dealt with more effectively----someone has to do the actual labor that the haves don't want to do!!

EDIT: Actually GHW Bush set NAFTA into play --- Clinton signed it into being----This isn't Democrat vs Republicans people !!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush

It's globalists vs the average American!!!

Answer 8

Basic economics mean nothing to you dont they?

A company can make 100 cars for $100. But the union goes on strike and wants $150 for that same 100 cars. And so on.

But if you take production overseas, you can make that same 100 cars for $75. Where workers are just grateful to have a job

Answer 9

i don't, and i am a conservative. are Conservatives really the bad guys here? do they force wages down in other countries? do they make people buy the products made by foreign workers paid those lower wages? i guess conservatives need to get everyone to pay more for goods that cost more to produce in the u.s., and if everyone does not pay more, it will be our fault.

Answer 10

To the uneducated conservatives trying to slough NAFTA off on Clinton, it was CREATED under Bush the First and was wholly a conservative vehicle.

“The North American Free Trade Agreement, known usually as NAFTA, is a comprehensive trade agreement linking Canada, the United States, and Mexico in a free trade sphere. NAFTA went into effect on January 1, 1994.”

“This agreement was an expansion of the earlier Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement of 1989. Unlike the European Union, NAFTA does not create a set of supranational governmental bodies, nor does it create a body of law which is superior to national law. NAFTA, as an international agreement, is very similar to a treaty (indeed, in Spanish, it is styled a tratado). Under United States law it is classed as a congressional-executive agreement.”

“The agreement was pursued by the conservative governments in the US and Canada. In Canada, the Government was led by Brian Mulroney of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. The Canadian government worked aggressively with Republican President George H. W. Bush to create and sign the agreement.”

http://www.vancol.com/history-of-nafta.cfm


You know, you'd really, really, REALLY think that the right would be embarrassed to be so wrong, so often.

Answer 11

I don't think any American likes seeing good jobs shipped overseas, do you?