It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Exactly how will Kerry end outsourcing?

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 09:49 PM
Basically, as long as you have free enterprise, companies are able to do business when and where they please. So how will Kerry or anyone else stop outsourcing.

By definition, any multinational company has overseas subsidiaries. Is Kerry going to outlaw those? What if a company's main numerical growth is overseas? Is THAT considered outsourcing?

Anything Kerry does will chase big business out of america, and leave us a nation of shopkeepers.

posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 10:01 PM
You obviously have no idea of what you're talking about, but here goes. Kerry never stated that he would end outsourcing. He merely stated that he will attempt to discourage outsourcing by offering tax cuts to those that don't outsource.

posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 10:01 PM
He can't and he admitted as much during the debates.

He is promissing to creat tax incentives to keep jobs in the US.

I guess some people would equate that with a bribe payed for by the taxpayer.

Corporations win even if Bush looses just not as big as they would if he won.

As for the jobholders... I guess it depends on the size of the bribe and the realities of the market. Manufacturing is a thing of the past in the G8. So are financial services and high tech business services and support.

posted on Oct, 28 2004 @ 10:03 PM
He may not be able to end outsourcing. But who ever wins needs to end the stupid H1B visa program.

posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 03:00 AM
I don't know about Kerry, but these are my ideas.

1. When a company moves overseas then they should be mandated to rescind and repay all tax breaks they were given when they moved into a city. I.E All property tax breaks they were enticed with by state and local governments. This should not be a payment plan, but all at once.

2. It should be mandatory they maintain thier factories at 100% working level as far as equipment, computers, etc. They should also have to pay for the security to safeguard those facilities. This can be done as a nessecity for Homeland Security due to the fact we are losing all of our factories and would have no industrial complex if things got to bad or another World War.

3. If a company keeps a facility open just to stamp "made in America" they should be forced to notify their customer of the truth.

For example; I worked securtiy for a large international company. They produced materials for industrial smelting plants. A few years ago they moved over 300 jobs to Mexico because of cheaper labor. Needless to say the quality dropped off dramatically. It became so bad that they had to reopen some jobs here for quality checks. After that they stamp "made in America"

posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 09:17 AM

Originally posted by Blackout
You obviously have no idea of what you're talking about, but here goes. Kerry never stated that he would end outsourcing. He merely stated that he will attempt to discourage outsourcing by offering tax cuts to those that don't outsource.

A tax cut for those who don't outsource?

So, the bigger the company, the bigger the tax cut?

This will effectively penalize small businesses.

Who will get the really whopping tax breaks? GM, Ford, Boeing, Martin Marietta, Kraft Foods, Tyson Foods, Walmart.

Gee, and I thought liberals were suspicious of "deals" that only serve big business!

posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 09:35 AM
There is only one true valid way to stop outsourcing - Nepotism

posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 12:04 PM

Perhaps Kerry can start by talking to the people who own/run
HEINTZ. They outsource a lot! (or should I say, OUTSAUCE)

posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 01:17 PM
Having been a senior manager at a firm that outsourced customer service jobs, the main reason was healthcare costs per employee. At up to $21,000 per year per employee (and that doesn't include other costs, such as facilities & training + a crappy salary) , the firm couldn't maintain operations with an American workforce. Outsourcing will continue until the cost of providing healthcare benefits is under control.

Health insurance costs are the main cost involved in maintaining a full-time employee--they are keeping salaries lower than what they need to be, and they are lowering profit margins. I'd say a good place to start with addressing outsourcing is to reduce the cost of healthcare.

Kerry's healthcare plan does do this--especially by recognizing the burden that catastrophic illness places on all of us. Businesses and individuals all pay for the risk of catastrophic illness in our premiums. The idea of creating a "premium rebate" pool will reduce the premiums that business and individuals pay. Also, by putting pressure on pharmaceutical firms and health insurance companies to manage their businesses better instead of incenting them for keeping prices high is a step in the right direction.

posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 03:53 PM
Healthcare where I work costs the company about 16,500 per employee. (This covers employee's family as well, and includes some life insurance benefits.)

I have to disagree with your assesment that healthcare (gawdawful as it is) is the driving force behind outsourcing. Since most of the companies that are tempted to outsource have already gutted their benefits package, and gone to "part-time" and "contract" labor.

I think there are 3 main forces against american employees:

1) The payscale of American workers. Exchange rates in developing countries, and a generally lower standard of living, means that workers in developing nations can be induced to work for money that would simply not bring workers to the factory in america. Fiddling with benefits cannot compete with the fact that in many parts of the world, outsourcers need only offer a bare minimum, if anything. USA simply cannot compete with that.

2) The legal climate in the US. From a legal department's viewpoint, workers in a developing nation are not nearly the liability as USA workers are, with relatively powerful worker's comp laws. Couple that with Environmental legislation and consumer protection law, and you can see that dollar for dollar, it is seriously cheaper to operate a foreign factory.

3) Unemployment benefits and Union action. Many developing nations are seriously anti-union. This cuts another level of cost. The fact that the employer doesn't have to pay unemployment on terminated workers also weighs in favor of parts made in developing nations.

As much as I favor healthcare reform, it will do little to stem the flow of production jobs overseas. This is first and foremost a result of competitive pressures, as any introductory macroeconomics textbook will explain.

The simple fact is that you cannot keep manufacturing jobs in a first world country, unless the work ends up being automated, which results in the workers being replaced by machines. Only those industries that require precision equipment and specialized training will keep their production here.

The other option is another favorite of socialists, protectionist legislation and subsidies for unwanted goods.

As a government, you can ignore economic forces, but you will have to pay for that privilege of doing so, one way or another.

posted on Oct, 29 2004 @ 04:23 PM
Outsourcing not the problem, it's companies trying to be profitable. We suffer from unions holding companies hostage, demanding more money and getting less work. Living in Ohio, I deal with the unions everyday, You could burst into flames, and an union employee would stand there and watch you burn. Why should companies be blamed, for wanting to make a profit. Haven't heard the unions cry "Buy American" lately!

new topics

top topics


log in