[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by Chojin

Here's your problem. All you have is theory.

No, there is quite a bit of empirical evidence that has been gathered in support of my arguments.

He didn't say that at all - his example involved a guy operating a simple piece of machinery for many years. Again, you have no basis in reality for this, or you'd know that most labor businesses have a hierarchy system based on seniorty in relation to their function. If you were a driver at Rite-Aid (drives forklifts) and had your job taken away, you'd be sent back down to the 'picker' level (takes products from one place, puts them in another, usually boxes), which pays far less. You would not be eligible for other low-education-level positions in the factory, because things have changed since you had the driver job, and need to be re-trained to start over again in that field, while your pay suffers. While this example in particular doesn't involve outsourcing, the same consequences apply.

I'm fully aware of that. What I'm saying is that those workers are far less likely to lose their jobs to outsourcing. As I said, it is far more likely that new factories will be moved to foreign nations rather than existing ones.

Plus, some companies do pay prospective employees with experience more from the start.

Way to ask a question that doesn't relate to the topic at all. You sure dodged that one, Houdini.

Think about it. In my question, I'm asking if we should have stopped progress because of job displacement. Now, granted, outsourcing doesn't increase technological advances, but it certainly speeds up societal advancement.

Hold on, I need to elaborate on this. Do you honestly think that the only people that work at Wal-Mart are people that couldn't graduate the seventh grade? Such people wouldn't be useful at all in clerking or inventory or stock room. Clerk jobs and manual labor ARE your only options for outside employment if you only have a high school diploma. No matter how many bright red apples you deliver to teach with a bite in, concealed with construction paper cause it was late mom didn't pack enough sandwiches and a full stomach is a clear mind am i right guys and you just couldn't help yourself.

You need to remember that I was critiquing very, very difficult forms of manual labor, not just stuff that you can do with your hands.

I can think of a few other things you can do with a high school diploma. How about being a secretary? Car mechanic? But even giving you the point, how many clerk jobs actually pay the bare minimum wage? I'm pretty sure some of the jobs require a bit more skill than simply being a cashier, which I'm pretty sure you don't need to hold a diploma.

BTW, it's small businesses which are most known for creating job growth, not large ones. Which is important, because many of them are better than Wal-Mart.

Uh huh... and what about when all 1000 low-education jobs in the same factory are out-sourced? Do they ever just say, "Okay, Bob. You and Joe can run the factory by yourselves since you know what you're doing. We're still gonna pay you a lot." No, those jobs move with the factory, too.

The whole point of out-sourcing is to save money and inflate the bottom line. Take a few business administration courses and you'll find out exactly how out-sourcing and lay-offs are handled in big companies.

I understand that outsourcing is hardly a humanitarian effort. However, you need to understand that closing an existing factory for the sole reason of moving to another country is not that common of an occurance.

Your question is unrelated to anything that we're talking about. Telephone companies emerged from telegraph companies. When there's major technological shifts the industries that are involved retrain their own workers gradually because its cheaper to retain an employee than it is to hire a new one. The workers are happy, too, because they get to keep their job.

That isn't true. Often technological advances come from newer, emerging companies that outcompete the outdated ones.

And Pops fucking blow.