What should the US do about the job drain?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

health insurance has nothing to do with one's job and is a business cost that is part of the reason businesses are moving jobs to regions where they can hire workers and not provide health care insurance.

You DO realize that employers don't HAVE TO PROVIDE health insurance, don't you? It is something they do to entice workers.

Yes, of course Imran.

[Spiffor]

DanS, Chegitz, if you're interested in the comparative analysis of educational system, here is the link to the PISA study

You may be interested in the complete thing, but beware, the document is a monster (323 pages)

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Yes. Matter of fact I'm in that situation currently. Fortunately the wife has full bennies.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, of course Imran.

So your point really doesn't matter that much. If they were scared of health care insurance costs, they could simply not offer any.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So your point really doesn't matter that much. If they were scared of health care insurance costs, they could simply not offer any.

Imran, I hope your post will ring the other's bell that comapnies do not only look at labor cost when they invest

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Yes, of course Imran.

So your point really doesn't matter that much. If they were scared of health care insurance costs, they could simply not offer any.

I think what Ned was saying is that free from the overhead burden and faced with now much greater proftiability, industry would now look at greater opprotunities to invest/grow in the US.

My point is and was that shifting it to the governement is pointless in that governement inefficiency would make the actual costs greater and in all likelihood be apportioned back to those same industries in the form of higher taxes to the rich/corporations.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I hope your post will ring the other's bell that comapnies do not only look at labor cost when they inves

I thought that was obvious .

Productivity is, obviously, more important than people who'll take lower wages. Much more money to be made if you have one skilled guy working a machine, rather than a factor of unskilled laborers. Especially in the long run.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Yes, of course Imran.

So your point really doesn't matter that much. If they were scared of health care insurance costs, they could simply not offer any.

Well we have Social Security as well as company retirement plans. But the better the one, the less expensive the other.

[Ned]

My point also is that the more we move social costs onto government, the less incentive businesses have to go offshore to avoid paying those social costs themselves. Today, businesses offer retirement and health to US employees. Both are not true business expenses. As was observed by Imran, they are offered as bene's only to attach and "lock in" employees. Moving these costs out of business would reduce the incentive of businesses to move offshore.

[Japher]

So, buisnesses are leaving because American workers have become too demanding. They want a cush job, making a good salary, with health benefits, a retirement plan, and whatever other perks they can grab.

At the same time, on other continents, there are people who are just asking for enough money to put food on the table.

If a company can get away from giving in to every demand of their greedy employees than they will. Cutting costs is key to profitability which is key to success.

[chequita guevara]

I might remind you that the only reason this country is wealthy is because of "greedy" employees. Or do you think sweatshop laborers can afford to buy their own products? You're the kind of people that would buy a tiger protection rock that obviously works because there are no tigers around.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Moving these costs out of business would reduce the incentive of businesses to move offshore.

Um... wouldn't moving these costs to government increase corporate taxes as well? So I don't see the 'less incentive'.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Moving these costs out of business would reduce the incentive of businesses to move offshore.

Um... wouldn't moving these costs to government increase corporate taxes as well? So I don't see the 'less incentive'.

Imran, if they increase corporate taxes to pay for this, I agree that it will not help. No, they need to impose social security-type taxes or increase SS taxes to pay for this kind of social welfare.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Japher
So, buisnesses are leaving because American workers have become too demanding. They want a cush job, making a good salary, with health benefits, a retirement plan, and whatever other perks they can grab.

At the same time, on other continents, there are people who are just asking for enough money to put food on the table.

When they are analphabets, can't use a computer, or can't use semi-complex machine-tools, these less demanding people are much less worth to the greedy amployer than any "whiny" American laborer.
When there is no satisfying road, rail or sea route to transfer the production from the sweat-shops to the malls, the factory is much less worth than one in the US, no matter how cheap it is.
When there are mafias galore, high mortality among employees that cannot get experience, and massive corruption, the place sucks compared to the US, no matter the cost.

Japher, you're one of the many people who should think a bit about investment decisions. If you wanted to build a car factory, would you do it in Sudan (where you're sure the people won't demand more than a bowl of rice a day?), or would you do it in the US? Think about it for one minute, and tell me the pluses and the minuses of each place, then your eventual decision.

[Kidlicious]

Re: What should the US do about the job drain?

Originally posted by Lancer
What is the answer?

1) Shorter work week

2) International minimum wage