Out sourcing jobs

The reason companies outsource jobs, is because if they didn't, they wouldn't be in business. Take for example the Chevy Aveo. The reason GM outsourced the Chevy Aveo is pretty simple. If it was made in the US, it would cost too much, and no one would buy it. No Chevy Aveo, no dealerships hiring people to sell them. No people to service them. No truckers transporting them to dealerships. No companies supplying parts for them. No parts stores selling those parts. Thousands on thousands of people have jobs because on GM outsourcing the Chevy Aveo. Now granted, GM has many other car lines. But what if the Aveo was their sole product? Then without outsourcing GM would cease to exist. The fact is, most companies that outsource are in that situation. If they didn't outsource they would simply cease to exist. Instead of outsourcing a few 100, to a thousand jobs, to save hundreds of thousands of domestic jobs, everyone would be out of work. Another aspect you are overlooking is that eliminating outsourced jobs, would eliminate tons of jobs in the US, that exist because of outsourcing. In 2009, Obama was pushing GM to eliminate outsourced jobs. Now of course the theory is that they would move those jobs here to the US. But as I just explained, just because you make a product expensively, doesn't mean it's worth more, or that people would pay that high cost. A Chevy Aveo doesn't suddenly become worth as much as a Malibu, just because you have expensive Union labor building it. So not outsourcing would simply mean the product wouldn't be built at all. In 2009, a letter was sent to Obama on behalf of small manufacturers that supply auto parts, arguing that if GM ended their outsourcing, part suppliers which ship to Europe, Mexico, and Canada would be devastated. And they are right. Thousands of employed workers, which supply parts for outsourced products, would be out of work. Because those products would simply not be built. So to recap the point... The massive flaw with any discussion of outsourcing, is a false assumption that without outsourcing the products or jobs would still exist, only domestically. That's false. Further, the discussion always errors on the side of a limited economic view, that focuses exclusively on the jobs lost, and not on the broader view of all the jobs that are saved and created by the outsourcing. You can see the truth behind the discussion throughout history. I dare you to find one example where any countries broadly banned or prohibited outsourcing, or imported goods, where the economy didn't tank. I'll save you the trouble, there is no such example. Every time a country attempted to "protect" their economy by preventing outsourcing or imports, the result has always been decline and depression.

You make a good point but whether it be jobs or anything else, a country to be in debt has to produce more than it consumes. And the problem is we are the number 1 consumer in the world, so to stay even with ourselves we need to be the number 1 producer as well. Let's look at the Aveo, first off the problem with most of what domestic manufacturers are making is they haven't done squat to keep up with technology. US vehicle brands have been lacking a good 5 years behind in vehicle technology, and the quality is severely lacking as well. Outsourcing hasn't helped this. I know at bare minimum of one engine line failing because the cheap labor wasn't properly torquing down cylinder heads. The argument for other countries outsourcing can go both ways as well. Let's just assume GM failed entirely. Some company would have to produce more vehicles to fill the demand for cars, and that would still create those same jobs of trucking cars and selling parts. The problem we have now is what does the US produce? Wheat? That's about it. We don't produce any usable energy beyond our own consumption, we may be modernized but one of our biggest industries was manufacturing nearly anything with an engine in it. We outsourced all of those jobs, and replaced them with nothing. Entire cities are in collapse because plants that once employed half the city are gone. In short, we've outsourced so much we no longer produce more than we consume.

The biggest thing with attacking Investment Capital is that it is their money and if the investors do not want to invest off shore then they can take their money and invest it where they want vs the government taking individuals money by force (you can get arrested if you do not pay your taxes) and investing in in companies that meet a political agenda, if you don't like what the government is doing you can't take your tax money back and spend it the way you want. The only recourse you have is vote the people out of office but this takes time.

Every president spend money on foreign jobs. It's a matter of effective coercing another country to do as you want. No doubt Bush, Clinton, and Bush Sr, and Carter, and Reagan, all did the same thing. We've been hiring foreign companies to push governments to do various things since the Cold War with the Soviets. And there is no doubt that 20 years from now, whoever is president, regardless of what party they belong too, will continue to do the same, unless we successfully bankrupt the government and they are simply incapable of doing it anymore... which is a possibility at this point.

I feel your pain crossbones, every time I enter the left zone.

This is true Andy. I just do not understand what it will take for these people to get a clue. This method is obviously not working. Then again it does work, but just for the people who are making these investments in other countries. Which pretty much screws the rest of us for the most part. I hear you Deb both sides can make outrageous claims.

Let's not forget the administration has actually HIRED and/or appointed ex Bain executives to government posts. http://patriot-newswire.com/2012/01/obama-appoints-former-bain-alum-as-omb/ [i]Jeffrey Zients will serve as President Obama’s new acting director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), but the president’s decision might undercut attacks on Republican Mitt Romney’s career as a venture capitalist, because Zients and Romney are both alumni of Bain & Company. “I’m pleased to designate Jeff Zients to lead the Office of Management and Budget. Since day one, Jeff has demonstrated superb judgment and has provided sound advice on a whole host of issues,” Obama said in a statement accompanying the announcement today. Zients previously served as Deputy Director of OMB under Jack Lew, who became Obama’s chief of staff with the departure of Bill Daley. President Obama’s top campaign strategist, David Axelrod, criticized Romney for having a “Bain mentality,” just as some of Romney’s Republican presidential election rivals have blamed him for layoffs that took place at companies that Bain Capital financed. The White House emphasized Zients’ “twenty years as a CEO, management consultant, and entrepreneur” when announcing his promotion, but did not mention that Zients’ used to work with Bain & Company.[/i]