Outsourcing Gone Wild...

Why not outsource our military then? Health care? Social Security?

 

Why not?

Insurance:
My business partner is from Germany. His health insurance is better and cheaper than mine and he uses it here in the states. However, government protectionism keeps me from purchasing out-of-state (god forbid - out of the country) insurance.

Social Security, while admirable is a logistical nightmare that doesn't take population growth and aging into consideration, continues to devalue because it can't keep up with inflation, and is already leveraging our current spending deficit. Australia successfully moved out of their Social Security nightmare into something that is sustainable. We can ship our system to be managed by others and remove the government incompidence in managing money.

Military, god only knows why we continue to police the world, have troops in over 100 countries, bombing this country or that. We have certainly lost sight of the spoils of WAR - as you can't WIN democracy. Out source it - the French and other nations have done it and you release yourself of the burden of logistic costs. We keep a military to DEFEND and let other's police.


The fact is - everyone complains about jobs, but they don't complain when they can buy a $500 50" flat pannel TV at Wal-Mart.

If you have been following the Bay-Bridge construction nightmare that has gone on for years - you would already know that our local and state governments have screwed that up ROYALLY, that unions have mucked it up ROYALLY, and everyone else involved. It should of been outsourced over 5 years ago when they started - it would be done by now and cheaper.

If you can't carry the water, don't complain if you are thirsty!

 

I'm against outsourcing when it involves any sweatshop nation that bars unions. I'd ban it.

In contrast trade with democratic nations that are better at producing what we want than we are is good for them and us.

But I suspect you're against unions and this is merely a form of xenophobia. Trade (or the lack of it) based on fear is foolish.

 

But when does trade itself provide the driving mechanism in favour of positive political change? We'd perhaps have to refer to the left wing historical structuralist approach to trade: i.e. ascertain when its the multinational that's profiteering at both domestic and foreign population

 

I don't know who here is against or not against Unions, but as I tell my brother in law (the proud teamster), I'm not against private unions but the public union has to go. Just the idea is repulsive to me, the Public Union has gone crazy and should be done away with asap. Outside of that I really don't care about unions, if GM and others have made really bad deals with union contracts, their money not the public money should of dealt with it.

 

There's zero economic rationale to make a private and public sector distinction. For example, the same worker voice effects operate. The same bargaining issues between pecuniary and non-pecuniary benefits exist etc etc etc

 

The answer is simple: trade is a driving force for liberalization when the authoritarian regime needs trade more than it needs its political strictures. And I would suggest China is there.

By the way, trade is in general a force for liberalization, which is why we should be trading with Cuba. But China and the sweatshop nations are a special case since they are so dependent on US consumers that we have a very big hammer to use against them. And it would benefit us in the short run since it would result in higher employment for the lower brackets.

But I think there is plenty of empirical evidence (there was a Princeton study just 5 years ago or so), that shows that trade with sweat shops nation, while a plus in the aggregate to both trading partners, has differential burdens and benefits within each country, and the way it works is, the top brackets are benefitted and the lower brackets are burdened.

The rich in this country do quite well by trading with China, since they own capital and get a better return. Workers get the burden of suppressed wages. The same is true in China, where the owners of capital have become extremely rich off workers who are forced to work for slave wages in unsafe conditions without a social safety net (due to China's "internal immigration" policies that basically force rural workers to the cities as naked labor without few social protections).

Let me suggest that trade policies that benefit the wealthy in this country and lower the income of workers is exactly the policy we should not be pursuing.

 

Looks like my suspicions were well founded.

 

Suspicions? I never hide my leanings, public unions is in my opinion and most likely correct opinion that the idea of public unions are indeed anti constutional and wrong headed as many states are now dealing with this issue.

 

Like I say, you're anti-union. Your claim that public unions are not Constitutional is nonsense and contrary to law.

 

I'm not anti union but anti public union, I stand by what I stated, there is no power given to the federal government to collectively bargain with any public union. Now if states do it, if they have such clauses fine but as we are seeing more and more states limiting the collective bargaining of public unions is of itself proof that this in fact true. Even Jimmy Carter knew that! LOL

 

Sorry, you lose. The Supreme Court disagrees with your curious argument, and judicial review is how we constitutionally determine these issues.

So you're engaging in cognitive dissonance.

 

Oh no, here we go again. So slavery is okay with you since one day the SC said it was constutional? Obvious it wasn't just as today there is no power given to the federal government to get involved with collective bargaining on the behalf of the people of the US. Of course some SCJ today view it differently but as soon as Congress says no, it is no. This is surely coming into play quickly and will be debated in Congress soon, IMHO. Just curious, why then is the Armed Forces not allowed a union? Just details that need to be brought to light. Some things are so simple by nature but there are always those that want to muddie up the waters, public unions are a terrible idea and IMHO are seeing the days coming to an end.

 

Focus, focus. Slavery wasn't ever "OK"; but it was constitutional, until we amended the constitution. As you recall, THAT'S WHY WE AMENDED THE CONSTITUTION.

You claimed that public sector unions are unconstitution. They aren't? So are you abandoning that debunked argument and now claiming that public sector unions are like slavery and "not OK".

Since you lost the constitutional argument, I'm happy to now move to the policy argument. But make up your mind.

 

No, I was only saying a SC ruling is only as good as till the next ruling. No I don't back down that the federal government has no authority to participate in collective bargaining, just takes the right time to shove it down the throats of the Ivy Elite that is now encompassing the public work sector. As been demostrated over and over again, when federal government oversteps its proper roles bad things happen. One of those areas is the establisment of public unions may it be in the Postal Service or another is setting up a monopoly, which is highly uncostitutional but yet they do it?

 

No, you didn't say that. Slavery was never held "constitutional" or "unconstitutional". If you're talking about Dred Scot, that's not what the case was about, and Dred Scot wasn't overturned by another SC court case. It was overturned by the Civil War and 14th Amendment.

You're making no sense.

 

Dred Scott upheld slavery via its ruling on blacks being considered private property, if that isn't calling slavery constitutional I really like to know that means. Plus the 14th had really nothing to do with slavery itself, so slavery is still constitutional. Some would tell me that collective bargaining via the government is also constitutional, personally I don't think either are constitutional and never were.

I still believe that federal employees can not collectively bargain with the federal government. The unions loophole is that they create monopolies much like the postal system and consider the employees not as direct federal employees but employees of the postal service. I'll check but direct federal employees at Oak Ridge do not have unions. I do not think the FBI, CIA, IRS, NCIS, ATF or any of them have unions? Last attempt I know about to get unions in them failed when Carter veto it calling it unconstitutional. I consider postal workers federal workers, and very unconstitutional but it isn't because its a monopoly, last I look those are not thought of very well?

By anyother name a Rose is a Rose.

 

One should be able to purchase insurance across State lines.

We can keep it in house, and still remove the government from it.

It would not be wise to outsource the military.

 

I am a union member myself, but I also know they cannot solve all problems, and they have their limits.

 

Does anyone think they can solve all problems? They're clearly needed to reduce inefficiencies created in capitalism, but that's a case of the pursuit of the second best

 

They have their limits.

 

But, without them, expect lower productivity rates

 

What's your source for this bit of information?

Statistics I've read show that union shops in America at least are among the least productive of facilities.

 

Simple economics: from voice effects to Hayek's distributed knowledge.

And empirical evidence? e.g. Asteriou and Monastiriots (2004, What Do Unions Do at the Large Scale? Macroeconomic Evidence from a Panel of OECD Countries, Journal of Applied Economics, Vol. 7 Issue 1, pp 27-46):

Our results provide robust evidence of a positive impact of union status on individual workers’ productivity and thus of union density on aggregate labor productivity.

 

I believe some unions create lower productivity rates.