I think any major economic player will need to learn how to compete in
the global economy, or perish. Protecting USA jobs, while foreign
competitors make the same quality products more cheaply will drive USA
companies out of business. A USA company driven out of business,
because it can't compete with foreign companies that have access to
cheap labor, provides no jobs.
Giving tax incentives to companies that do not use the cheapest labor,
whether the cheapest labor is at home or abroad, is a government subsidy
brought a paid for by guys like you and I, and its not a permanent
solution. Instead of providing protectionism for American companies, it
would be better for force them to learn how to compete globally. A
better solution might be a fairer distribution or earning within the
payroll system of companies, so there isn't such a disparity between the
salaries between labor, management, and ECO of the companies, but in the
final analysis, USA companies must learn how to compete globally,
whether it be using cheaper labor at home or abroad, reducing the price
of the product by using better technology, reducing the price of the
product by mass production on a large scale, producing a better product
for a price that yield the best value in the global market.
Regards,
LelandJ
Ed Leafe wrote:
> On Feb 28, 2008, at 3:45 PM, Alan Lukachko wrote:
>
>
>> I’m starting to
>> dislike unions because they don’t want to play in the new global
>> economy.
>> That’s where we’re going to live from now and into the future, so they
>> better get used to it.
>>
>
> I don't think that they "don’t want to play in the new global
> economy"; rather, I think they want to ensure that the laws are even-
> handed. Right now US tax laws actively encourage corporations to ship
> jobs overseas; leveling the playing field will help US workers, and
> thus the US economy in general.
>
> -- Ed Leafe
>
>
>
>
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
©2008 Leland F. Jackson, CPA |
