Corporations are outsourcing to developing countries who have far less stringent EPA laws and a far cheaper labor force. Their concern is the bottom line. IMO a heavier tax should be placed on the companies that do outsource jobs.
All that will accomplish is forcing the entire corporation offshore.........they are then capable through free trade agreements to import their products and keep their revenues at a minimum level of taxation.......all wealth is "portable"
EPA laws combined with high pay scales have caused a lot of problems, yes. While some of both of those need to be curtailed, the corporations still need to try to compromise on the issue instead of just bailing out. I don't see any of these options happening.
Corporations are, by definition, profit driven, they are not benevolent organizations. Over the decades they have "compromised" to unions, and regulators to the point where their products cannot compete. The days of compromise are over.......if the US doesn't offer a stable environment for business, they will take it elsewhere. In the micro a good example is California........laying an onerous level of taxation and regulation on business to the extent that they are fleeing the state in droves, same for Illinois.
The key word in the above statement is "stable".......corporations plan product development and manufacture years in advance of products hitting the street. They can't afford the political environment that exists in the US today. For a few years we will have a business friendly conservative government, and then the voters will throw a tantrum and elect a bunch like the current crop, who think that business is the bad guy, and heap on "Health care", draconian EPA requirements, and taxes........no way a business can plan successfully in an environment like that. Therefore, they simply maximize their current operations, or go elsewhere.
The problem with stimulating business isn't "compromise"......it's the American voter. Four decades ago, even the Democrats were "business friendly" to an extent, until the "progressives" took control. In our system we need for the arc of the political pendulum to be smaller, with less impact on the economy. Sadly, the solution to that is the extermination of "progressives" as a political reality.
Let's look for a moment at that "political pendulum".......as it passes center and swings right, the business environment improves........regardless of how far right (even to the extreme), it goes, the taxation, capital flow, regulation, and legal environment remains pro-business.
On the other hand, when it swings to the left......it doesn't have very far to go before it hits Keynesian economics, "tax the rich", protect the snail darters at all costs", cap and trade", and all the way to national healthcare. moratoriums on petroleum exploration and production, plus the folly of "green energy". The two present political positions are never going to be reconciled.
If Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling it may all be a moot point anyway.
Americans have become pretty spoiled, demanding 'The American Dream' and not being willing to produce fair work for fair pay. It has gotten so bad that if this country lost it's illegal workforce our economy, what's left of it, would tank overnight.
I agree with MOST of this statement, however, if all of the illegals were gone, the cost of having them here would offset the loss of productivity. They are basically ignorant, unskilled workers.......reforming welfare (yet again) would solve the manpower shortfall quickly.
I guess I miss the days where loyalty between a worker and the company was a two way street. Each knew the other would take of the other. It seems both are in it for themselves today, which I suppose is just a part of the natural progression of things.
I, too bemoan that loss, however it is the result of degradation of the system by both sides. Unions contributed much to the adversarial relationship, as have various "anti-discrimination" laws and regulations.
Oh, and I'm not a lib.
I would agree with that as well.....
doc
