Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Supposedly, the purpose of offshore outsourcing is to add value for shareholders and increase profits by paying people in other nations less for the same work.
As most people know, CEOs are the most obscenely overpaid people in the US, and their salaries are obscenely high even if they do pretty terrible jobs.
Would it not create more value for shareholders and cut down on costs if CEO positions were outsourced to some other nation? There has to be someone in India, China, or Eastern Europe who'd do a better job as a CEO than Tony Hayward, Jamie Dimon, Lloyd Blankfein, Maurice Greenberg, Vikram Pandit, Robert Benmosche....the list goes on and on and on.....and for far less of a salary.
Why aren't boards of directors demanding that CEO positions be outsourced to somewhere else? Considering they've offshore outsourced just about everything else, it only makes sense. It would save companies a great deal of money, much more than laying off employees in the US. OTOH, it probably makes too much sense to ever be adapted.
Why? Cause we live in Corporatism... have been for a while... I had hope Obama would fix it (and to some extent, he has with the Finance Reform bill) but its still here... we can't outsource it cause the major players are big friends with the senators and WH staff... with connections like those, you lose, not them...
Supposedly, the purpose of offshore outsourcing is to add value for shareholders and increase profits by paying people in other nations less for the same work.
As most people know, CEOs are the most obscenely overpaid people in the US, and their salaries are obscenely high even if they do pretty terrible jobs.
Would it not create more value for shareholders and cut down on costs if CEO positions were outsourced to some other nation? There has to be someone in India, China, or Eastern Europe who'd do a better job as a CEO than Tony Hayward, Jamie Dimon, Lloyd Blankfein, Maurice Greenberg, Vikram Pandit, Robert Benmosche....the list goes on and on and on.....and for far less of a salary.
Why aren't boards of directors demanding that CEO positions be outsourced to somewhere else? Considering they've offshore outsourced just about everything else, it only makes sense. It would save companies a great deal of money, much more than laying off employees in the US. OTOH, it probably makes too much sense to ever be adapted.
The CEO, and the Board of Directors, comprise a cronyistic team. Outsourcing, especially to a foreigner, might shatter crony spoils-sharing. There would be more money for the shareholders, but at a price. Dang it all - it just wouldn't be American!
Supposedly, the purpose of offshore outsourcing is to add value for shareholders and increase profits by paying people in other nations less for the same work.
The purpose is to keep your business competitive with other companies both foreign and domestic. If you can't remain competitive and aren't making a profit you go out of business.
As long as the US remains hostile to many business's and foreign countries can offer many things we can't like cheap labor these jobs will continue to go overseas. I'm not suggesting the American worker needs to accept $1 an hour, I'm just stating a fact.
I would love to see this happen. Give them a taste of what they've been doing to the middle class for years. Hey, shareholder value - right. Put it in terms that they would use on us.
Who do you trust more, the white collar ceo running a business or the guy in a dark alley with a ski mask on waiting for you to walk through? Both have greed and are willing to harm YOU and others to get what they need. The only difference is that the guy in the dark alley ,,,, you know what he‘s up to.
The purpose is to keep your business competitive with other companies both foreign and domestic. If you can't remain competitive and aren't making a profit you go out of business.
As long as the US remains hostile to many business's and foreign countries can offer many things we can't like cheap labor these jobs will continue to go overseas. I'm not suggesting the American worker needs to accept $1 an hour, I'm just stating a fact.
Okay so how do you account for high wage, strongly unionized developed nations like Germany & Japan having such a strong export and manufacturing sector?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc
How Europe builds better products for better lives.
For here’s a strange fact: since 2003, it’s not China but Germany, that colossus of European socialism, that has either led the world in export sales or at least been tied for first. Even as we in the United States fall more deeply into the clutches of our foreign creditors—China foremost among them—Germany has somehow managed to create a high-wage, unionized economy without shipping all its jobs abroad or creating a massive trade deficit, or any trade deficit at all. Sure, China just pulled slightly ahead of Germany, but that’s mostly because the euro has soared, making German goods even more expensive, and world trade has slumped. Meanwhile, the dollar is dropping, and we still can’t compete with either nation. And even as the Germans outsell the United States, they manage to take six weeks of vacation every year. They’re beating us with one hand tied behind their back.
German worker control contributes to a group interaction that over time not only builds up but also protects a certain amount of human capital, especially in engineering and quality control. This kind of knowledge is not just individual but group knowledge. It’s the kind of group knowledge that our efficient, “flexible” labor markets so readily break up and disperse. It’s our flexible labor markets that make it so hard for the United States and the UK to compete. We spend vastly more on basic research than the Germans do — U.S. companies are unrivaled. We spend far more on higher education. But with our flexible labor markets, we’re unable to capitalize on this research and education. Sometimes we try the Japanese model of work, but we never try the German, because we don’t want to cede any real control to workers. Supposedly it’s a great mystery why Germans keep investing in manufacturing and even prospering, despite the claims that the German education system is broken (OK, it needs help) and they aren’t spending enough on research (OK, they aren’t). But they’re doing something right. What is distinctive about Germany is the privileged position the worker has within the firm.
The ugly reality of what "free trade" has given us.
"According to the Commerce Department, all our net new jobs are in categories such as security guards, waitresses, and the like. The vaunted New Economy has not contributed a single net new job to America in this century. "
It will happen, eventually. Either that, or American businesses will continue to be gobbled up by foreign corporations. The way American businesses are being run, the profits being extracted, the path is simply unsustainable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
which one's worse?
