Why would an elected american politician push for policies that create jobs in China and India and elsewhere?

Question

jobs that are being literally taken from american citizens who elect those politicians in office. Something is not computing here. Could someone explain to me how this can happen? Isnt the elected politician supposed to represent the americans?

Answer 1

Economics!

Most companies are forced to send manufacturing and service jobs outside the country because it is cheaper. Labor laws, workman's compensations, medical insurance and other mandated regulations levied on companies, corporations and small businesses operating here in the United States takes up most of the operating capital to run a business.

The primary reason businesses are set up and started is to make money (profit) for the business owner and/or it's shareholders. Unfortunately, feeding the workers or making the employees richer is not part of any business' goals unless the company is profitable. When policies, laws, regulations, business taxes and labor unions makes it hard for a business to survive, most companies looks elsewhere outside the country where jobs and services are cheaper.

We need to elect politicians who would enact policies that makes it easier for businesses to operate in the United States and keep most of the jobs here at home.

Answer 2

NO, you have it all wrong. Under the american system of government, an elected politician raises huge sums of money from people that sponsor his election. Once in office, those people have essentially purchased influence with the elected politician. Therefore, he or she is not supposed to represent the people as a whole, he is supposed to represent the people to whom he owes favors and for whom he really works. Thats the way the game is played here in the USA. So to answer your question, of why the politcians would support such policies, the answer is that they do it because that's what the people who gave them all those millions to be elected want. And if they want to get reelected and get more money for their reelection bid, they need to make a good show and make their bosses happy the first time around, or else they wont get money and wont get reelected.

(Edit) its a shame the guy above me did not elaborate his answer. He just said Economics. I guess we are suppose to read his mind.

Answer 3

So, Romney is the purely one plagued by this? You do comprehend that MANY businesses outsource to different international locations. The did the faster and nonetheless do because with each of the criticisms on each area, no individual has replaced it! no longer the GOP, Democrats nor Obama have addressed this in any respect, yet Democrats are utilising it to attack Romney. Mildly hypocritical i could say. The Warlock

Answer 4

One word my friend: lobbying.

You have to look at it from an economic point of view also. Business' only care about the bottom line, how much money they can bring in so that they can answer to their shareholders if public, or to make more money for themselves if private (just plain greed if you ask me). Generally speaking corporations are not interested in the well being of society or social responsibility just the bottom line. This is unfortunately one of the downfalls of a free market economy, or capitalism.

Now back to your question, politicians are influenced by lobbyist more than they are by their constituents because lobbyist backed by the deep pockets of the corporations who fund them directly affect how the politicians term of office will be run (by threat of cutting of campaign funds). I could go on forever but you get the idea.

Answer 5

An informed politician with desires to do what is best for the country as a whole will advocate free-trade policies. Free trade helps all countries participating. Jobs being created in one country doesn't necessarily result in a reduction of jobs in another country. The U.S. trade with China is a good example. If anything more good quality jobs have been created here in the U.S. since trade with China has expanded. Sure, some types of jobs have been displaced in the economy, while other jobs have expanded. This is reflected in our low unemployment rate and by our growth in productivity and in personal income over the past decade. Remember, growth in productivity results in higher wages and salaries. Free trade increases productivity. Free Trade is good. . It expands our economy and elevates our standard of living. Protectionism results in the opposite effect. Remember the Smoot-Hawley tarriff act in the 1930s - it exacerbated the great depression. Not a smart response to a depressed economy.

Stop listening to Lou Dobbs, Pat Buchanan and other protectionists. They are not economists and their bias results in a lot of misinformation about the benefits of free trade

Answer 6

that's easy. They push for that because americans own those jobs in india and will expand their own economy, which is weighed down by lazy american workers who are too dumb to vote for a tax increase to make sure the education system can compete with china and europe, and then demand a wage for cleaning toilets that's 3 times that of a chinese ph. d. We will be better off dropping the american blue collar worker on the safety net they didn't bother to pay for. the only way for US to maintain a shred of significance in the next 2 decades is to try to stay in front of the technology curve, meaning increasing education spending, research spending and importing educated brains from former soviet countries and others. Kinda a shitty situation, but that's what happens when the standard of living is too high and there is nowhere to conquer.You have to be the top of the development chain, cause companies cant afford to feed the 250lb all-american worker.

Answer 7

Because the truly American people that used to defend and care The People are GONE for ever, there are just a bunch of thiefs mercenaries.

Answer 8

Yep..

But they also represent American busnessmen...who think having access to a free supply of cheap labour is good. too.

Answer 9

one thing money