Presidential Election: 2012

[Pupik]

Or you could be an American company, have all the work exported/sent over the border, and when there's no American buyers...just ask the American government for a bailout. Proceed to increase prices of goods because the economy is bad and due to too much government involvement.

Fleece, launder, and repeat.

 

[Bye Ya]

You've lost lock on what I'm trying to say.

I'm trying to say that in my example America benefits from a Chilean product even though Chile retains all of the profits and jobs.

I don't disagree at all, but it's a different situation than what I am discussing.

So back to my example, my Chilean company is the extreme of your fruit of the loom company. It hires nobody in the US, takes all of the profits and never gives them back, and only sells extremely cheap electricity to the US. Do you see how we benefit from what amounts to 100% outsourcing of electricity generation?

Of course. Do you not see the difference in where job creation lies in our examples?


Those are middle class jobs the Chileans are filling. Their economy at home is also being spurred by the money in their pockets they're making by working at that company. If you took that away (ala Romney) by shipping those jobs to another country, and called yourself a supporter of the middle class, you'd be a hypocrite, as I originally said. You are ignoring the fact that in our two examples one involves an economy benefitting while its own people retain their jobs, and the other does not.

 

[Danoff]

just ask the American government for a bailout.

Facepalm - don't remind me.

Of course. Do you not see the difference in where job creation lies in our examples?


Those are middle class jobs the Chileans are filling. Their economy at home is also being spurred by the money in their pockets they're making by working at that company. If you took that away (ala Romney) by shipping those jobs to another country, and called yourself a supporter of the middle class, you'd be a hypocrite, as I originally said. You are ignoring the fact that in our two examples one involves an economy benefitting while its own people retain their jobs, and the other does not.

How can I say this more clearly?

Look at this only from the point of view of the US. In my Chilean example, the jobs are not here, the money is not here, only the products are here. In your fruit of the loom example, the jobs are not here, and you are concerned that he money is not here, and that only the products are here. Forget about where the company is supposedly "based", it has no bearing on the discussion.

My Chilean example is the ultimate outsourcing, the whole company is outsourced!

 

[Bye Ya]

How can I say this more clearly?

Let's clear it up...

Look at this only from the point of view of the US. In my Chilean example, the jobs are not here, the money is not here, only the products are here.

The key difference being, the Chileans keep their jobs in the process. The company didn't lay them off to get cheaper labor elsewhere. How do you not see that this is my point?

In your fruit of the loom example, the jobs are not here

The jobs WERE here. That's the point. The focus of what I've been talking about is the outsourcing of preexisting jobs in our country.

In my real life example, Fruit of the Loom shipped jobs overseas, which may have allowed 'us' to provide the rest of the world cheaper products. In your example the Chileans did not ship preexisting jobs overseas. They provided a product, AND their people kept their jobs. I can't be any clearer.

you are concerned that he money is not here, and that only the products are here

Not the money, the jobs. Specifically, the millions of jobs that were already here before they were shipped away, the jobs that American people used to invest their money into our economy.

My Chilean example is the ultimate outsourcing, the whole company is outsourced!

I never said outsourcing altogether is a bad thing. Outsourcing of preexisting American jobs to elsewhere is specifically the part I don't agree with. And to stay on topic: outsourcing preexisting middle class jobs to third world countries for cheaper labor costs, while simultaneously saying that you are in support of the middle class is hypocritical (Romney).

 

[Danoff]

Let's clear it up...

Lets. You're still completely missing what I'm trying to say. Allow me for a moment to alter my Chilean example.

In my new Chilean example, the company originally was located in the US but moved to Chile and by doing so was able to reduce price of the electricity they sold to 1/100th of what it used to be. They continue to sell their electricity to the US, but went from being a 100% US owned and employed company to a 0% US owned and employed company.

With that trivial change do you now understand my example?

 

[Bye Ya]

No.


Not joking.


How about you tell me what you think I'm trying to say?


You seem to be saying that the cheapest products, no matter who is producing them, is the bottom line best thing for everyone's economy. Is this not your point? One thing at a time here.

 

[Danoff]

How about you tell me what you think I'm trying to say?

If outsourcing results in cheaper products, we benefit from that. Will the benefit to people in the US outweigh the cost to people in the US? That's case by case. But it's not a general conclusion that outsourcing jobs from the US to other countries hurts the US financially.

 

[Bye Ya]

If outsourcing results in cheaper products, we benefit from that. Will the benefit to people in the US outweigh the cost to people in the US? That's case by case. But it's not a general conclusion that outsourcing jobs from the US to other countries hurts the US financially.

Yee haw, a connecting point. Well sir, I agree with you there, but I think that job outsourcing has been so prevalent in the last several years that it has hurt the US financially.

Now, what I would like to know is... I am an American businessman. Of the 500,000 employees in my company, myself and 3 other big wigs are the only Americans. The rest of our labor is located elsewhere in a remote, low-budget part of the world. That comes to 99.9% of the company being 'other than American'.

Am I really an 'American' company? Do I really make 'American' goods? Is it only because of where I pay taxes that you answer this question as you do?

 

[Azuremen]

Generally, in that extreme situation, what you'll find is the complications arising from outsourcing will not help your product. Why? Because you can't easily work with a team that is more use to the local market. As Danoff said, this model encourages Americans to be educated and skilled labors versus relatively unskilled factory workers.

And you keep viewing things in the more immediate, emotional, perspective rather than a long term. Your folks that worked at the factory are, relatively speaking, unskilled labor that isn't really anything special. Sounds harsh, but it is true. Even some basic classes or attempt to develop a skill set beyond something so specific would help immensely.

 

[Bye Ya]

I don't disagree with that at all. But I think that there's a serious problem when your market is beginning to demand higher educated workers, yet you cut funding for education... or in general create a set of circumstances that trap people into being 'unskilled'.

And I still don't buy that having more skilled workers solves the issue. The outsourcing is the result of cutting labor costs, like dramatically cutting them. Skilled workers cost more, and there is less room for them in the company (per Danoff's model, there can only be so many engineers at a company), but the population is not decreasing, rather it's much the opposite. So you put the the (literal) average American out of work, and only leave room for a few skilled workers.

 

[FoolKiller]

Shipping middle-class jobs overseas to save himself labor costs?

Careful. I had to lead an outsourcing initiative in my last job. I sent jobs overseas that were filled by people I consider friends, people I had worked with for eight years. I wasn't feeling entitled and it was done with a very heavy heart and a sense of dread. But to put it simply, if those 12 jobs weren't lost there would have been hundreds lost when the company couldn't afford to keep operating in the same way in our changing economy.

I'You could argue that the shipping of jobs overseas is not immoral, however saying that you are concerned for the middle class and job creation when you literally do the opposite is hypocritically immoral, in my mind.

From that I can tell that you have never had to make a decision that affected someone's job. I had to let a guy go who had twin babies, a woman who had just bought a house two months earlier, and a woman whose food bill was bigger than my paycheck. None of that comes easily or happily. It is rare that you have to fire, layoff, or outsource someone and feel good about it. That only happens when an individual is dangerous or a disturbance to everyone.

Don't listen to the bile spewed by labor unions and Obama about outsourcing. Even Romney's version is twisted. The fact is there is rarely a manager who feels fine with it. My wife knew when I had to let someone go the moment I walked in the door, simply by the look on my face. And if an accountant says we need to cut jobs every decent manager starts trying to rework the budget themselves in order to find the money elsewhere.

And you want to know what I did when we outsourced the department? The day I found out I began looking around the company for open positions that my guys were qualified for. By the day we actually outsourced the jobs all but two people were in other positions, and those two were only because they chose to take retirement.

So please, don't try to tell me it is hypocritical to outsource jobs and be concerned. That shows a complete lack of understanding of the mindset required to manage people and budgets and paints an unfair and unjust image of honest, hardworking people who are cursed with the skillset to make the right decision, even when it is the hard decision.

I know people who were affected by this firsthand, and this practice did not create jobs for them elsewhere. They did not, and have not, benefitted from it in any way.

The very first thing anyone in this situation has to ask is if they have or can acquire skills that can't be done for less money by others. When you buy the same product at a store because it is on sale did that store steal from the other stores, did you make an immoral decision that hurt every other store? No. A small country training their citizens to get out of the mud fields and work a sewing machine/wrench/computer/phone just began offering the same product your friends were offering, but at a huge discount. It is called competition and your friends lost out, my employees lost out, and anyone else in that situation lost out.

I was out of work this time last year. I offered to work for less pay than I knew some of the jobs were looking to pay. I tried doing the same thing guys in India are doing right here at home. Ultimately, I got a job that had a non-negotiable salary, but even then I took a step down in responsibility to get a job that I am over-qualified for.

In my real life example, Fruit of the Loom shipped jobs overseas, which may have allowed 'us' to provide the rest of the world cheaper products.

Rest of the world? What about right here? When was the last time you bought a six pack of t-shirts and found the prices were rising at the same rate as gasoline or even groceries? Did you get shocked by the price of the last multipack of white socks you bought? Sometimes cheaper products means counter balancing increases elsewhere so your price doesn't go up when everything else's does.

And to stay on topic: outsourcing preexisting middle class jobs to third world countries for cheaper labor costs, while simultaneously saying that you are in support of the middle class is hypocritical (Romney).

And I'll say it again. This statement shows that you have zero understanding or experience with these matters.

You seem to be saying that the cheapest products, no matter who is producing them, is the bottom line best thing for everyone's economy. Is this not your point? One thing at a time here.

So, are you saying, in his example, that if a few thousand people losing their jobs to people overseas lowered energy costs for all Americans by 99 percent it wouldn't be the best thing for everyone in America?

Or to use your real-life example; if a few thousand Americans losing their jobs to outsourcing resulted in all Americans being able to still buy their righty whiteys for the same price they did in 2007, before the economy went to hell, wouldn't it be the best thing for all Americans?




All that said, I can't believe we will get stuck with either of these guys for the next four years. Part of me hopes the world will end in December.

 

[Danoff]

Yee haw, a connecting point. Well sir, I agree with you there, but I think that job outsourcing has been so prevalent in the last several years that it has hurt the US financially.

Based on what data exactly? That's going to be very hard to substantiate. If outsourcing prevented a bunch of US businesses from filing bankruptcy and eliminating even more jobs, well then you're clearly wrong. So demonstrate to me that every company that has outsourced jobs could have stayed in business and kept those jobs at home.

Now, what I would like to know is... I am an American businessman. Of the 500,000 employees in my company, myself and 3 other big wigs are the only Americans. The rest of our labor is located elsewhere in a remote, low-budget part of the world. That comes to 99.9% of the company being 'other than American'.

Am I really an 'American' company? Do I really make 'American' goods? Is it only because of where I pay taxes that you answer this question as you do?

Who cares? Honestly I really have no idea why you care about this at all.

I don't disagree with that at all. But I think that there's a serious problem when your market is beginning to demand higher educated workers, yet you cut funding for education... or in general create a set of circumstances that trap people into being 'unskilled'.

The government shouldn't fund education AT ALL! That doesn't mean that people can't get educated to meet the demands of a more technical market. Cutting government funding of education and shifting the US market toward more educated workers are not incompatible and both things I support.

And I still don't buy that having more skilled workers solves the issue. The outsourcing is the result of cutting labor costs, like dramatically cutting them. Skilled workers cost more, and there is less room for them in the company (per Danoff's model, there can only be so many engineers at a company), but the population is not decreasing, rather it's much the opposite. So you put the the (literal) average American out of work, and only leave room for a few skilled workers.

This is not a zero sum game, and it's not nearly as simple as you pretend. Companies in other countries outsource their engineering work to the US. I've seen them outsource legal work to the US firsthand. Yes, a single company that oursources 50,000 jobs to Malaysia may never hire 50,000 US workers to replace them (net loss in jobs to the US). But the reduction in cost of their products can allow other US companies to grow. Furthermore, the more better we do at more technical jobs, the more companies from outside the US rely on us for technical expertise.

But let's just take one company as an example. Lets say your company has 100,000 employees and is about to go out of business. You can either outsource 20,000 jobs to Malaysia and keep the lights on for the other 80,000 employees here in the US (overall shifting the US portion of the company away from unskilled positions) or you can fire all 100,000 and shut the lights off. Which is better for the US? Which is better for Malaysia? Notice how the answer is the same.

 

[Bye Ya]

Good grief. I don't have time to sit here and line by line everything for days on end. Obviously there are circumstances where things work and times where they don't. You're making far too many assumptions about what I do and do not know based on a few things I've said here that don't tell the whole story. It feels like you've just been waiting for someone to make a comment so you can spew off all the stuff you think know about how the economy works. Things do and do not always work as they should/are likely to. You are taking things I say and running to the deep end with them. Have fun with it, but it's not serving a purpose here.

Bottom line is that the way out of a recession/depression is with more people working, people in our country, and you still haven't suggested anything that shows clearly that a $25K income cut is worth it for cheaper underwear. Cheaper products are great for everyone, no argument, but cheap is useless without an expendable income. The models you propose here might encourage one version of an ideal economic progression of job skills based on the outsourcing of labor, but you yourselves don't have all the data necessary to say for sure whether the circumstances actually exist to fulfill the ideal version of that model as a result.

The government shouldn't fund education AT ALL!

Right see, this is obviously an opinions discussion and you are free to yours, but I don't have the time to sit here and waste hours replying to some guy(s) who thinks his opinion on everything is better and more informed than mine, or that they know everything about me based on a few things I posted. I honestly don't care what you think about what my knowledge might be. I posted a link regarding a current event: Romney's 'inarticulate' speech. I don't have to run down some rabbit chase with you all so that you think I'm getting educated to your ways as a result. I posted a current event regarding the election in the current events election thread. My guess is you guys hang out here and do this sort of thing quite a lot. Personally, I've got work to do. No offense.

Go ahead and rattle off how I asked for it, etc.

 

[Danoff]

Classic. Shows up spouting nonsense, refuses to listen, sticks fingers in ears and runs away.

 

[Dennisch]

He would be a good politician.

 

[sumbrownkid]

He would be a good politician.

Not enough pandering though.

 

[Bye Ya]

Classic. Shows up spouting nonsense, refuses to listen, sticks fingers in ears and runs away.

You never did show how these middle class jobs are being replaced though. That was the focus, jobs, and you redirected to to being about whether outsourcing was good for the economy. If the outsourcing I am talking about leads to product values going low enough that they offset the loss in people's incomes, then yes I'm wrong and Romney is not a hypocrite, but you haven't demonstrated that. You act like you've given me some divine revelation that outsourcing can help economies. 💡

 

[Danoff]

Not that you'll listen this time...

You never did show how these middle class jobs are being replaced though. That was the focus, jobs, and you redirected to to being about whether outsourcing was good for the economy.

Keeps businesses from going bankrupt - Check.
Reduces the cost of goods on the market - Check.
Enables companies to spend more on R&D to continue to innovate - Check.
Shifts the US economy toward higher value, more efficient jobs - Check.

All of this was explained.

If the outsourcing I am talking about leads to product values going low enough that they offset the loss in people's incomes, then yes I'm wrong and Romney is not a hypocrite, but you haven't demonstrated that. You act like you've given me some divine revelation that outsourcing can help economies. 💡

Romney is not a hypocrite (on this issue) because of all of the above.

Edit: It actually doesn't even matter if it worked in the specific cases where Romeny was involved (I have no knowledge of his business practices). All that matters for whether he is a hypocrite (he is, but not on this issue) is that he thought it would help.

 

[Bye Ya]

Not that you'll listen this time...



Keeps businesses from going bankrupt - Check.
Reduces the cost of goods on the market - Check.
Enables companies to spend more on R&D to continue to innovate - Check.
Shifts the US economy toward higher value, more efficient jobs - Check.

All of this was explained.

And once again, I was only discussing a portion of it. I'm only in disagreement with the last one, the shift toward more efficient jobs. "Higher value, more efficient" can mean different things (like further overseas employment at ALL levels), and once again you have not answered to the fact that the jobs are shipped overseas because the payroll is dramatically less. While they might take on a few higher value, more efficient American jobs, it will still be far less than the number of grunt workers that lost their jobs.

And again, things are not necessarily in place to allow for everyone to simply up their employability value in the job market. It depends on a lot of factors like age, education, and the financial means to make some of those things happen. What you are talking about benefits a few people who either already have those high value, efficient jobs, or people who will become capable of attaining them in the future. The overwhelming majority of older citizens will not, however. Yeah, yeah, I know - some people lose out.

Yes, it creates an incentive for those kinds of jobs in the future, but there are a lot of factors at play that remain to be seen whether those things will be realized in a positive way, specifically concerning new job creation. What about other countries who are filling not only the grunt worker roles, but also the high efficiency roles as well for less pay? Where do Americans get jobs then? Starbucks? KMart? Yes, the products benefit the economy, I don't disagree, but what kinds of jobs are left for the majority? Population is a problem here, specifically when it's over 300 million and you are shipping the jobs that fit such a large percentage overseas.

Please refrain from addressing anything but job loss and creation. I get how cheap products benefit everyone.

 

[FoolKiller]

Bottom line is that the way out of a recession/depression is with more people working, people in our country,

Yes and no. If all we need is jobs, full stop, then we could just pay people to dig holes and fill them back in. But that isn't how it works. More people working, people in our country, on jobs that are efficient and productive are part of what is needed (it is more complicated than just jobs).

Overpaying someone to do something just because they've been doing it for 20 years only makes things more expensive. That is only considered a good way to do business if that person or group are the only ones that can do it. Sometimes we find that outsourcing doesn't work out. An example is GE bringing appliance manufacturing back to Kentucky from Mexico because since they began
outsourcing their quality went down and they lost sales because of it. Even then, it took the rise of LG (Korean) to cause enough market share loss to be worth the cost of manufacturing in the US, but even then those jobs went from $25/hour starting jobs before they were outsourced to less than $20/hour jobs.

If you receive a union guaranteed pay raise every year to do the exact same thing, after 20 years you are making way too much for the work you are doing. If you want to save your job you need to start doing work worth what you are paid or take a pay cut. In the case of GE, reduced pay increases and/or pay cuts, benefits reduction, and various other things were proposed over the years to save those jobs. The union wouldn't allow it and would go on strike if management wouldn't give them what they wanted. I worked an internship at GE during a strike my freshman year of college, and then was working a work education requirement (class credit) my senior year when those same people were laid off to have their jobs outsourced. They had a chance to save their jobs and didn't take it.

I don't know enough about Fruit of the Loom (other than their chemical dumping in Kentucky rivers in the early 90s), so I don't know what the situation around the layoffs you refer are, but I do know that even when I was living off of Ramen in college, buying new underwear was not an expense I had to worry about. Even when I am comparing brands and unit prices on groceries as their prices increase, and my health-required diet is very expensive, I buy t-shirts, socks, and underwear by looking at the style and size, not the price. I feel sorry for your friends but I have never heard about people choosing between underwear and medicines. And to me, that is a good thing.

I posted a current event regarding the election in the current events election thread.

And when someone agreed with Romney's comment regarding people with entitlements voting for the guy who will give them entitlements you accused Romney of being entitled and hypocritical for not continuing to overpay Americans for the sheer act of being Americans.

Danoff wishes to educate you. I just want you to understand that managers making those kinds of decisions are mostly not a bunch of a-holes. We feel pretty crappy about it, actually, and try to do everything we can to avoid it.

My guess is you guys hang out here and do this sort of thing*quite a lot. Personally, I've got work to do. No offense.

None taken. I'm on my phone on my break. I didn't get on GTP most of last week because I was planning a health workforce conference with the heads of our state's health organizations to figure out how we will address the granting of health insurance to hundreds of thousands more people in our state when there is already a national shortage of doctors (particularly in low-income, rural areas) and current trends show it will only get worse over the next 20+ years.

Please refrain from addressing anything but job loss and creation. I get how cheap products benefit everyone.

If you want to find a way to make outsourcing not a necessity then figure out why it costs us hundreds of times more to employ someone in the US than overseas and address that. Otherwise efficiency growth is the best thing for the economy. A computer allows one person today to do the work of ten people 20 years ago. Are computers bad? They made 90 percent of clerical employees unemployed. But that ten percent remaining are a more efficient, more skilled workforce.

The simple fact is that economic growth means efficiency. Efficiency means layoffs. But somehow we have been doing this ever since John Henry faced the machine on the railroad. Yet, somehow, with the exception of the market correction every 20 years or so, we rarely see sky high unemployment rates. It is part of the business cycle. Things get more efficient and 7-8% loses their jobs as companies add efficiencies. Then those companies begin to grow and hire more of the efficient, better skilled jobs until unemployment reaches under 5% again (some people are just plain unemployable). Then things do it all again. Usually the efficiency leads job downsizing, but occasionally the economy has a hiccup and jobs are lost a a result and efficiencies created to help speed recovery.

 

[Bye Ya]

Appreciate the respectful tone. I still think that while there are a lot of good points here, there are also still a lot of unknowns. Maybe I need to realize that as well and rethink some of this in how I feel about that part of Romney's practices. I will give it some consideration.

And when someone agreed with Romney's comment regarding people with entitlements voting for the guy who will give them entitlements you accused Romney of being entitled and hypocritical for not continuing to overpay Americans for the sheer act of being Americans.

That's a little overboard. The sheer act of being Americans? That's an exaggeration of my position. In any case, it's been fun, but I really don't have time to continue this. Appreciate the input.

 

[Azuremen]

That's a little overboard. The sheer act of being Americans? That's an exaggeration of my position. In any case, it's been fun, but I really don't have time to continue this. Appreciate the input.

Talk about taking the easy way out.

What he means is that people want to get paid the US minimum wage, which is incredibly high for incredibly unskilled labor, simply because they live here. Really, a huge part of the reason for outsourcing is you have to pay someone with zero skills quite a bit of money to flip burgers. Reducing minimum wage would help in this matter quite a bit.

I don't know if you've worked absolute bottom of the barrel jobs, but you will find people at that level that simply can not be employed reasonably; they don't work hard, don't follow instructions, are not responsible and yet they feel entitled to a job. The attitude is simply mind-numbing to deal with.

 

[Bye Ya]

Talk about taking the easy way out.

Right, I owe it to you guys and myself to sit on here and waste even more time. Read the very first part of what I posted last. What more do you want?

 

[Joel]

It's not the PC thing to say, but Azuremen's right. There are a lot of people whose labour isn't even worth minimum wage. This summer alone at the kitchen I work at, two dishwashers were fired, and one "parking lot attendant" (pulls down a rope and points at a parking spot) were fired. These are the absolute bottom of the barrel jobs, and they just didn't have the attitude, or work ethic to do them.

 

[FoolKiller]

That's a little overboard. The sheer act of being Americans? That's an exaggeration of my position.

You may feel like it is, but your issue, as I understood it, was that American jobs leaving America is the primary issue, without seeing the bigger picture. I understand that your point is that the US economy requires jobs producing money to work. To me, your view breaks down to the US economy needs US jobs bringing in money, aka, paying Americans to work just because they are Americans in the US economy.

The thing is that it is the money, not the jobs, that is what moves the economy.
For example:
Say for every $30,000/year job shipped overseas Fruit of the Loom prevents a $0.01 rise in the cost of a t-shirt. This may be important because the economy and the drought this year have caused cotton prices to rise.
According to CBS News there are 2 billion T-shirt sales every year. For the sake of argument, let's say half of those, one billion, are Fruit of the Loom. That is a $10,000,000 savings to the economy as a whole. So, $30,000 quit coming in, but $10,000,000 was saved. That is an overall net gain of $9,970,000 to the US economy.

Now that is all oversimplified, of course, but ultimately we have a year where cotton prices are climbing and both Hanes and Fruit of the Loom are preventing their prices from going up. In fact, they are making them go down. They are actually helping Americans not only not pay more for t-shirts, the most common fashion in the US, but helping them save money on t-shirts, thus offsetting the increase in costs of other things.



But I will set all that aside to point out to you one important point that directly has to do with the topic of the presidential election. If your friends being laid off by Fruit of the Loom has a direct bearing on your vote, you should know this:

The company was bought from bankruptcy by Berkshire Hathaway Corporation, controlled by legendary investor Warren Buffett, who wanted the valuable brand. He agreed in January 2002 to purchase the company for approximately $835 million in cash. The deal was concluded on April 29, 2002.

So the guy ultimately in charge of everything Fruit of the Loom does is Warren Buffett, the guy who hosted Obama's campaign kickoff fundraiser, and his largest donor.

Now, you can take that as a man the president relies on and, could be argued, has allowed to play puppet master at times is almost directly responsible for your friends' lost jobs. Or you can look at it and see that, arguably, one of the worlds most successful businessmen sees outsourcing as a net positive in certain cases.

Either way, if outsourcing is a key issue for you then you may want to look third party.

 

[Dennisch]

So, Romney's secret video popped up over here.

Safe to say he blew off both his legs?

 

[Azuremen]

So, Romney's secret video popped up over here.

Safe to say he blew off both his legs?

Read the last few pages to see how we've been reacting to it

But to the masses, basically. To those that think, not so much.

 

[Dennisch]

I do like the fact that in his interview commenting on the video he stands by his words.
He should be turning and twisting about he didn't meant it that way. Like a true politician.

 

[FoolKiller]

I do like the fact that in his interview commenting on the video he stands by his words.
He should be turning and twisting about he didn't meant it that way. Like a true politician.

What's he going to do, backtrack to save the votes of people he's pissed off by saying, during a candidly honest moment, he isn't ever going have? Its like pissing off a guy selling private islands and him telling you he won't do business with you. Um, OK.

 

[Bye Ya]

But to the masses, basically. To those that think, not so much.

You really are a troll man.

That is a $10,000,000 savings to the economy as a whole. So, $30,000 quit coming in, but $10,000,000 was saved.

$30,000... from one family. Now multiply that by the number of jobs lost, which was more than 333.333333. If more than 333 people are laid off, then the $10,000,000 made from the $0.01 price drop is surpassed by the losses. Now also consider that those people did not replace their jobs with equally paying ones, and the losses continue on for however long.

I mean, from the same article you get this...

In the last two years, Russell fired nearly 2,000 employees from two separate factories simply because the employees spoke out against sweatshop conditions including unsanitary drinking water, wages too low to feed a family and verbal abuse.

To those that think...

But the factory owners refused to pay 62 cents per hour, or $5 per day...

Interesting article to draw from.

In the end this is a tough pill to swallow. Fruit of the Loom has done a lot of damage not just by destroying factory towns in the USA but as you just read is racking up an impressive record in foreign countries as well. There is a lot that can tick you off about this article. The fact that a former great American company is no more. The part where they bribed our Government. (For legal reasons I should mention all they did was lobby and lobbying isn’t bribery.)HAHA! How about the fact that our own Government suppressed labor wages in foreign countries, or did this for a company that actively busts unions (They take Union busting the old fashioned way apparently, like death threats.)
Vote with your pocketbooks people! Buy American. And avoid any product with such a poor track record of any maintaining any morality such as Fruit of the Loom.