What should the US do about the job drain?

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Me- I understand.
He- You understand?
Me- Hmmm. Copy all.
He- (laughs) No need for further verification of military service, I don't suppose.
What would your friends say about you, were I to bring them in for discussion?
Me- Friends? (Because in thinking ahead I was assuming bosses or co-workers)
He- (laughs, again) Yes, friends. People you hang around with? You know.
NOW, ACS crosses my mind, for SOME ungodly reason
Me- Nothing that would get me hired here, I can tell you that much.

Let me give you some friendly piece of advice: you really need to work on your interview skills.

[SlowwHand]

I guess you'd have had to have been there.

[MrFun]

no thanks

[SlowwHand]

I wish my job field allowed for making half the things up, and ignoring the other half.
Nice, isn't it MrFun?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I wish my job field allowed for making half the things up, and ignoring the other half.
Nice, isn't it MrFun?

it's fabulous

[MrFun]

Of course, the pattern of the Confederate flag would look much nicer on toilet paper than on cloth meant for an actual flag.

[Ned]

Just one question:

Why should your employer pay for your health care?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

They shouldn't but neither should it be in the hands of the government bunglers.

[DanS]

Dan, a commie. A COMMIE?!?!

Well, the question really is "want should the US government do about the job drain". Why should the government be empowered to stop the trend? Are we now going to have 5-year plans or some other nonsense?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
They shouldn't but neither should it be in the hands of the government bunglers.

We are just talking about health insurance here. The problems come in when the government tries to control prices or dictate medical procedures. (BTW, if the government were paying for health insurance, we would all have an incentive to curb tort lawyers to reduce costs and taxes.)

But, as far as I can tell, 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. If basic health care insurance were provided by the government instead, businesses could hire workers without having to take on this enormous burden.

Health insurance today can cost as much as $1000 per month for each employee. If you are trying to hire an assembler for $20,000 per year max cost, you only pay that employee $8,000 (assuming no other government-imposed costs) if you had to give him health care insurance as well. One can easily see just how health care insurance has become a major reason for jobs moving outside the United States.

edit: corrected math

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I agree. Your preaching to the choir. Health care costs are a huge disincentive to emplyers/employment. What concerns me is once inthe hand of the government one can only shortly see teh massive regualtion that would occur dictating medical practices and costing ala medicaid.

The long and short of it is this:

Basically anything the goverenment can do to make employers more profitable is going to be a stimulus to employment.

What I find ironic is that the left has a complete distaste for private industry so as a consequence has a tough time finding government policies that stimulate job creation that meet their agenda. Any stimulus policies by default would be pro-industry and hence a problem for them.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Just one question:

Why should your employer pay for your health care?

Because employers like healthy, happy employees. If your employees don't have health care, they are more likely to be disgruntled and more likely to need more time off work.

[Ned]

Ogie, you are right about the left and jobs. They say they are pro jobs but anti-business. The two concepts do not comfortably co-exist.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

And yet that is the left's rallying cry about Bush.

Bush didn't create jobs. Bush didn't create jobs.

Whats he supposed to do?

Be FDR and create another wave of governement works programs. Fabricate WW2.

Whoops perhaps both of those are a little to close to the mark.

[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.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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

Quote:

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.

[Kidicious]

Originally posted by Lancer
What is the answer?

1) Shorter work week

2) International minimum wage