What does the word outsourcing mean to you?

[CrumpleZone]

I didn't say they were less motivated but if they don't have a whole shitload of shareholders to appease then they need less profit to be happy then a company with a whole bunch of shareholders to satisfy as well.

As for private property I'm all in favor of that it's this notion of private entities being publically traded that I oppose.

Have you ever met a rich man with "enough"?

Bufett didn't quit after his first billion.

 

[ibjamming]

It's ALL because of greed...man wants it all...for himself. Business, corporations, government, lawyers, laws, markets, they were all invented so one person could "get an advantage" over someone else. It's all human nature. To be expected.

The problem isn't the "market", it's the CORRUPTION...the fucking sleazy thieves who FIX things in secret that screws it up for everyone else. The manipulators who stack the deck and misinform. CEOs and politicians! Let the "natural market" govern everything...it will work itself out...the problem is...some people will get hurt while it does...and we won't allow that to happen. EVERYONE gets a bailout...from the welfare queen to the biggest banks. THAT is what is wrong.

 

[HempKat]

Have you ever met a rich man with "enough"?

Bufett didn't quit after his first billion.

I don't care if someone gets rich off the sweat of their own brow, it's when they get rich off the sweat of everyone else's brow that I object.

I have met plenty of wealthy people that no longer work to accumulate wealth but rather they go out and enjoy life with the wealth they have already.

 

[!!!]

Let's pretend, shall we?

I could take your advice or I could pool all my (and friends) billions. Buy whatever I want. Put whoever I want out of business. Leveraged buyouts, hostile takeovers, underpricing mom and pop until they croak...

...

No offense to you. I respect your opinion and I agree that the guys on top have it good. Very fucking good. But that's the law of the land. Life isn't perfect, nor is it fair, and who says it has to be fair anyway? That's another thing you can bitch and moan about, but ultimately it won't result in anything.

Nobody is saying you need to make $1 billion a year to be happy. By outsourcing, I went from being $20k in debt to making close to $200-500/day legally and with maybe 2 hours of work a week. I had an advantage of getting into my scene early as well as being knowledgable in tech and in having friends who spoke Hindi well. And this was done using Indians who "took" my old job. I learned to use it to my advantage. It's a win-win-win for the Indian, me, and my consumers/clients.

My only point was that bitching and moaning will 1) not get you your job back, 2) won't stop outsourcing, and 3) will only take time away which can be used to brainstorm how you can use this seemingly negative trend to your advantage.

Things are impermanent. You can't do what you're doing forever. Before Cargill, being a farmer was probably great. After Cargill, being a farmer meant being poor and probably very anti-Mexican. Cargill doesn't give a shit, and the Mexicans certainly don't give a shit. So outsourcing to me is a term that most lazy people now use to whine and bitch over, and as justification for not being able to learn new skills or find work.

I'll give you a heads up on something that these same people will probably bitch about soon. Robots are going to replace most mundane work like cashiers, tellers and so forth. Here in NYC it's already happening at big chain stores.

 

[McDanger]

Have you ever met a rich man with "enough"?

Bufett didn't quit after his first billion.

Yes I have every day. BTW what is your definition of rich????????????
Buffets salary is $1/ yr
Something else to think about. It is the rich, that set up foundations to help the less fortunate. Bill Gates and Buffett have both pledged to GIVE AWAY 90% of their wealth upon death. This is on top of the Foundations that they fund while still upright. The Gates foundation is spending Billions fighting aids.
I do not want ANYBODY to tell me how much is enough. That is not freedom.
This is getting too far from the subject of outsourcing so I will apologize for threadjacking and shut up for now.

 

[CrumpleZone]

Nooooo! Not Robots!!!

Nooooo! Not Robots!!!

I'll give you a heads up on something that these same people will probably bitch about soon. Robots are going to replace most mundane work like cashiers, tellers and so forth. Here in NYC it's already happening at big chain stores.

I have been boycotting self serve checkout lines since they started appearing. Just like I refused to pump my own gas until I had no choice.

 

[CrumpleZone]

Yes I have every day. BTW what is your definition of rich????????????
Buffets salary is $1/ yr
Something else to think about. It is the rich, that set up foundations to help the less fortunate. Bill Gates and Buffett have both pledged to GIVE AWAY 90% of their wealth upon death. This is on top of the Foundations that they fund while still upright. The Gates foundation is spending Billions fighting aids.
I do not want ANYBODY to tell me how much is enough. That is not freedom.
This is getting too far from the subject of outsourcing so I will apologize for threadjacking and shut up for now.

Oh, please don't get me wrong. My point was that privately held companies are no less greedy than publicly owned ones.

Sop it up baby, as long as the getting is good. Sadly, it's nothing less than Human Nature.

The problem, and my point, is that unbridled greed (for instance, the Bernie Madoff type of greed) is taking us down. The golden goose is dead, we will be eating it soon in soup kitchens across the nation. Hopefully, the high heat of cooking will render harmless the parasites that killed it.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

It's ALL because of greed...man wants it all...for himself. Business, corporations, government, lawyers, laws, markets, they were all invented so one person could "get an advantage" over someone else. It's all human nature. To be expected.

Laws were created to keep the players above from taking advantage of each other. The positive fallout was the general public enjoying the same protections from each other and the players above. As time passes (last 3 decades) laws were/are written by lobbies of the players above, passed by lawmakers with visions of incumbency and ultimately marginalizing the general public.

Government needs separation from corporate money just like it's separation from religion.

The problem isn't the "market", it's the CORRUPTION...the fucking sleazy thieves who FIX things in secret that screws it up for everyone else. The manipulators who stack the deck and misinform. CEOs and politicians!

I agree, we have corrupt individuals in both walks of life.

Let the "natural market" govern everything...it will work itself out...the problem is...some people will get hurt while it does...and we won't allow that to happen. EVERYONE gets a bailout...from the welfare queen to the biggest banks. THAT is what is wrong.

I disagree with the idea that a natural market will "govern" itself. The only thing that governs without law is human nature.

Besides, Greenspan already publicly stated that Rand's idea of a market force governing itself isn't reality. Human nature let us down, repeatedly. No natural forces stopped the S&L crisis, the tech boom, housing boom, Bernie Maddof (and countless scams from individuals and small associations.)

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

No offense to you. I respect your opinion and I agree that the guys on top have it good. Very fucking good. But that's the law of the land. Life isn't perfect, nor is it fair, and who says it has to be fair anyway? That's another thing you can bitch and moan about, but ultimately it won't result in anything.

Nobody is saying you need to make $1 billion a year to be happy. By outsourcing, I went from being $20k in debt to making close to $200-500/day legally and with maybe 2 hours of work a week. I had an advantage of getting into my scene early as well as being knowledgable in tech and in having friends who spoke Hindi well. And this was done using Indians who "took" my old job. I learned to use it to my advantage. It's a win-win-win for the Indian, me, and my consumers/clients.

My only point was that bitching and moaning will 1) not get you your job back, 2) won't stop outsourcing, and 3) will only take time away which can be used to brainstorm how you can use this seemingly negative trend to your advantage.

Things are impermanent. You can't do what you're doing forever. Before Cargill, being a farmer was probably great. After Cargill, being a farmer meant being poor and probably very anti-Mexican. Cargill doesn't give a shit, and the Mexicans certainly don't give a shit. So outsourcing to me is a term that most lazy people now use to whine and bitch over, and as justification for not being able to learn new skills or find work.

I'll give you a heads up on something that these same people will probably bitch about soon. Robots are going to replace most mundane work like cashiers, tellers and so forth. Here in NYC it's already happening at big chain stores.

You've got good points too. Bitching isn't an actionable coping mechanism but adapting is. We might be accustomed to adaptation but we're not programmed for it. Some change is for the better and some change marginalizes. Life goes on. But we don't forget about the days when almost everybody prospered as opposed to segments of.

I'm not unrealistic to assume that idle bitching does anything positive. Sometimes political upheaval occurs when the squeaky wheel gets the grease. I don't want something I don't deserve but we've got grease. We've got squeaky wheels. Let's have some balance. I realize I'm not proposing solutions here but I'm not an economist. IMO, we're too far right on economic and tax policy.

As the saying goes, "Only the little people pay taxes." While not literal to a fault, the disparity is shocking when looking at details.

I'm glad you're outsourcing experience is positive, especially the fact you rescued your business. It's a win win in many ways. Your success even contributes to the domestic economy. Maybe not in the macro or global scale, just sayin'. Business success in the global market seems more daunting than a domestic op. Well done, !!!. Best wishes in 2011.

 

[HempKat]

Oh, please don't get me wrong. My point was that privately held companies are no less greedy than publicly owned ones.

Sop it up baby, as long as the getting is good. Sadly, it's nothing less than Human Nature.

The problem, and my point, is that unbridled greed (for instance, the Bernie Madoff type of greed) is taking us down. The golden goose is dead, we will be eating it soon in soup kitchens across the nation. Hopefully, the high heat of cooking will render harmless the parasites that killed it.

Here's what I'm getting at, if a company is held privately then it's more possible and likely that the consumers can influence the company when it gets out of hand. In that scenario the company is the only one to suffer if they don't bend to the public will. When a company is publically owned then you not only have the greed of the company but that of the shareholders as well, likely they don't care what the company does or how they do it as long as they see a positive return on their investment. The greater the return the more everyone is willing to overlook. In this scenario it's much harder for the public to influence the company because some of the public is not against what the company is doing. Also the revenue from share sales can help sustain a company when sales dip creating a buffer when/if the public attempts to object by boycott.

I'm also looking at this, it was Wall Street and what goes on there that brought the world economy to it's knees. Sure other players were involved but it was on Wall Street where derivatives are created and sold. In creating mortgage backed securities they created something out of nothing and all that was required for everyone to get rich was to get as many people on a mortgage as possible. Worry about if they can actually afford it later. It's what I call nuclear bomb mentality, where one is blinded by the awesome power they have at their disposal and what it can do right now. So much so that they fail to worry about the possible long term consequences until it's too late. That's how Wall Street is, it's the blind pursuit of profit regardless of the consequences.

 

[CrumpleZone]

You can blame "Wall Street"

You can blame "Wall Street"

That's how Wall Street is, it's the blind pursuit of profit regardless of the consequences.

You can blame Wall Street, However, Wall Street is just the arena. There are supposed to be referees watching the players, making sure that the rules are followed, and that nobody gets seriously hurt. When the regulators stopped doing their jobs, thanks to the Republican controlled congress' legislation which largely deregulated the securities industry, our fate was sealed.

Republican rolling back of financial regulation put the foxes in charge of the hen house, which degenerated into an economic free-for-all resulting in the biggest transfer of wealth (theft) from govt. coffers to the private sector in the history of the country.

So, in my opinion, it's naive to blame "Wall Street" for what has happened, without pointing a finger at the underlying withdrawal of regulation and oversight that set the stage, making the entire debacle possible in the first place.

 

[ibjamming]

Here's what I'm getting at, if a company is held privately then it's more possible and likely that the consumers can influence the company when it gets out of hand. In that scenario the company is the only one to suffer if they don't bend to the public will. When a company is publically owned then you not only have the greed of the company but that of the shareholders as well, likely they don't care what the company does or how they do it as long as they see a positive return on their investment. The greater the return the more everyone is willing to overlook. In this scenario it's much harder for the public to influence the company because some of the public is not against against what the company is doing. Also the revenue from share sales can help sustain a company when sales dip creating a buffer when/if the public attempts to object by boycott.

I'm also looking at this, it was Wall Street and what goes on there that brought the world economy to it's knees. Sure other players were involved but it was on Wall Street where derivatives are created and sold. In creating mortgage backed securities they created something out of nothing and all that was required for everyone to get rich was to get as many people on a mortgage as possible. Worry about if they can actually afford it later. It's what I call nuclear bomb mentality, where one is blinded by the awesome power they have at their disposal and what it can do right now. So much so that they fail to worry about the possible long term consequences until it's too late. That's how Wall Street is, it's the blind pursuit of profit regardless of the consequences.

Who LET them make there derivatives? It was Clinton/Bush! Why? Because the banks REFUSED to make the subprime loans without a backstop...Clinton provided it. Too good a backstop...the banks went NUTS giving loans to anyone...NINJ loans...because the GOVERNMENT interfered. YES...the banks got greedy...but it wouldn't have happened IF the government hadn't changed the rules. Nobody in their right mind would give a mortgage in the inner city without government intervention.

The actual crash occurred when oil rose and gas went to around $5 a gallon. People couldn't afford to buy gas AND pay the other bills. Many...if not most people live pretty much paycheck to paycheck...they can't absorb a $100 a month increase. They decided they didn't need the too big house...or in the case of the poor...ANY house of their own...so they stopped paying their biggest expense. That crashed the mortgage derivatives market. And now...nobody knows who holds the notes! That is what stopped the foreclosures...no signed notes available at foreclosure...the banks were FORGING that they had possession of the original note...they didn't. JUST like Obama and his birth certificate! (yes, I would like to see the signed original since there IS a chance he could be foreign born...his father wasn't a citizen)

They didn't create something out of nothing...they sold WORTHLESS bundles or WORTHLESS sub prime mortgages...all backed by the US government. These are the "toxic assets" that the fed was buying during TARP. Now they're buying back their own bonds...I know...crazy!

The people and the banks went crazy because the government INTERFERED. The banks would NOT have made loans to those people without the interference. Remember when you NEEDED 20% down? Well that was BEFORE Clinton told the banks they HAD to loan to the poor.

You're close...you're on the right track...

 

[CrumpleZone]

Okay... Democrat-Republican, to me these are opposite sides of the same coin. At least we can agree that politicians responding to special interest groups are responsible.

In the last election I voted a straight third party ticket wherever possible.

 

[gingerale]

I have been boycotting self serve checkout lines since they started appearing. Just like I refused to pump my own gas until I had no choice.

You're like the man who stands with his arms outstretched, trying to stop the wind. What a useless, irrelevant, and futile action. You're mad because people are losing their jobs to robots. What you're missing is that those people and resources are now freed up to perform other tasks. The system is becoming more and more efficient. Efficiency means less resources wasted. Back in the 1700s I bet you would have opposed the cotton gin because all those workers who used to pick seeds out by hand are now unemployed, right? Nevermind that the end result is you can now buy a cotton t-shirt for $5 at Wal-Mart, when this material used to be reserved for only the well-to-do and wealthy.

Two words: BIG PICTURE. Look at the BIG PICTURE, and inventions like robotic checkout lines are clearly huge improvements over the status quo.

 

[gingerale]

If federally it became LEGAL...you wouldn't get a dime for a dime bag. Weed would be EVERYWHERE. Everyone would have a few plants in their garden. Kids would overgrow the whole town. EVERY vacant lot would be full of weed.

Nobody is going to pay hundreds an once for something they can do themselves in the back yard. It's NOT like making your own alcohol...beer, wine, they take time AND work. In S Cal you can plant a seed outside and just water it like the rest of your outdoor plants...and at the end of the year...you're going to have some dank bud. ANY market would be limited to northern states where people probably wouldn't want the hassle of an indoor grow.

Big business is bad because it takes over. It monopolizes. And eventually, it becomes your government too.

So let me get this straight. If weed is legalized, it will be everywhere and dirt cheap. People will be able to smoke for free or damn near free, and spend their money on other things they'd rather have. College kids no longer have to drop $100/qtr on bud, they can spend the money on books, parties, or other things.

And this is bad....HOW? Because some "greedy" corporation might make a business out of producing marijuana products and make a lot of money from it?

Really, really twisted logic you're using there.

My guess is you're a small time grower who is worried that all the free and easy money is gonna dry up when this is no longer a black market, and you'll no longer be special with your homegrown bud and your life of danger and deception. You'll have to compete on a level playing field with people who most likely have more skills, resources, and money than you do.

So in other words, you oppose legalization because it's bad for YOU, even though it's GOOD for everyone else. Now who's greedy? Cry me a river.

 

[BOSCO]

Outsourcing is the PC term for exploitation....less pay, poorer working conditions, longer hours, 0 benefits, enforced overtime, no unions, and more profit for the share holders, thats what it's all about.

Buy local and support domestic manufacturing...

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Who LET them make there derivatives? It was Clinton/Bush! Why? Because the banks REFUSED to make the subprime loans without a backstop...Clinton provided it. Too good a backstop...the banks went NUTS giving loans to anyone...NINJ loans...because the GOVERNMENT interfered. YES...the banks got greedy...but it wouldn't have happened IF the government hadn't changed the rules. Nobody in their right mind would give a mortgage in the inner city without government intervention.

Are you equating government intervention with allowing derivatives? Derivatives were created in the 6th century and their use steadily increased to the present. Saying that government interfered by allowing derivatives is the same as saying that government interferes by allowing loans.

Lenders didn't have to hedge their bets because they had no liability in mortgage transactions. They get a fee based on property type and value. Lending rules were relaxed and applicants no longer had to prove their ability to repay mortgages.

But don't blame the homeowner for all the mess. Lenders didn't just sit around and wait on applicants to assume more debt on their own. Applicants were contacted in droves and convinced they were increasing their net worth, regardless of the fact they couldn't pay off contracts rife with small print.

Doesn't matter. The lender got their money. Done deal.

Oh, you lost your ass? You didn't read the 400% interest bubble in the contract? Uh, tough sh!t.

The actual crash occurred when oil rose and gas went to around $5 a gallon. People couldn't afford to buy gas AND pay the other bills. Many...if not most people live pretty much paycheck to paycheck...they can't absorb a $100 a month increase. They decided they didn't need the too big house...or in the case of the poor...ANY house of their own...so they stopped paying their biggest expense. That crashed the mortgage derivatives market.

The "actual" crash occurred when competitors of Lehman Bros realized they had relied on subprime mortgages too much. Mass short selling in the closing days of Lehman Bros led to their demise.

That sparked the crash. Mortgages had already foreclosed at record rate (up to that time) for several years. This is what sparked the panic with Lehman Bros.

And now...nobody knows who holds the notes! That is what stopped the foreclosures...no signed notes available at foreclosure...the banks were FORGING that they had possession of the original note...they didn't.

Foreclosures were stopped to give homeowners an opportunity to hang onto their home (at least temporarily) in light of shoddy foreclosure practices by big banks. BOA had a short moratorium on foreclosures to inspect their own procedures. Then they made an about face and reinstigated their fast-track foreclosure practices.

Foreclosures are happening at record rate. Get a newspaper subscription.

JUST like Obama and his birth certificate! (yes, I would like to see the signed original since there IS a chance he could be foreign born...his father wasn't a citizen)

Forget the newspaper, save your money.

They didn't create something out of nothing...they sold WORTHLESS bundles or WORTHLESS sub prime mortgages...all backed by the US government.

The only money you're backed by Uncle Same is the first $250 thousand in an FDIC bank. Gov doesn't back subprime mortgage bundles. My long-term, low-risk, highly diversified portfolio lost 40% due to the 2008 bust. Gov didn't give me a dime.

These are the "toxic assets" that the fed was buying during TARP. Now they're buying back their own bonds...I know...crazy!

The people and the banks went crazy because the government INTERFERED. The banks would NOT have made loans to those people without the interference. Remember when you NEEDED 20% down? Well that was BEFORE Clinton told the banks they HAD to loan to the poor.

You're close...you're on the right track...

Unfortunately, you're not.

Minorities have been denied loans for decades. It didn't matter whether they had the means and credit worthiness. There was never any intention of lending to anyone who couldn't pay. There was also never any intentions of institutionally corrupt lending practices.

The intent was to stop discriminatory lending practices. Regulations were loosened to ease the burden of a down payment but legit loans were structured as payable based on verifyabe income.

W envisioned "The Ownership Society" where more Americans than ever went from renting to home ownership. W should have anticipated the opportunity for institutional corruption and tightened regulations where necessary. Instead, W resided over a financial network that rewarded the very trade it overvalued or at least understated risk. It was like gas on the fire.

 

[CrumpleZone]

You're like the man who stands with his arms outstretched, trying to stop the wind. What a useless, irrelevant, and futile action. You're mad because people are losing their jobs to robots. What you're missing is that those people and resources are now freed up to perform other tasks. The system is becoming more and more efficient. Efficiency means less resources wasted. Back in the 1700s I bet you would have opposed the cotton gin because all those workers who used to pick seeds out by hand are now unemployed, right? Nevermind that the end result is you can now buy a cotton t-shirt for $5 at Wal-Mart, when this material used to be reserved for only the well-to-do and wealthy.

Two words: BIG PICTURE. Look at the BIG PICTURE, and inventions like robotic checkout lines are clearly huge improvements over the status quo.

I think that I pointed out the futility of my refusal to use the robot checkers when I indicated that I ultimately had no choice but to pump my own at the gas station. I guess I was being a bit too subtle for you. Thanks for your valuable comment, just the same.

 

[Blueshark]

Wow, what happened to 'outsourcing'?....sorry, couldn't help it.

 

[HempKat]

You can blame Wall Street, However, Wall Street is just the arena. There are supposed to be referees watching the players, making sure that the rules are followed, and that nobody gets seriously hurt. When the regulators stopped doing their jobs, thanks to the Republican controlled congress' legislation which largely deregulated the securities industry, our fate was sealed.

Republican rolling back of financial regulation put the foxes in charge of the hen house, which degenerated into an economic free-for-all resulting in the biggest transfer of wealth (theft) from govt. coffers to the private sector in the history of the country.

So, in my opinion, it's naive to blame "Wall Street" for what has happened, without pointing a finger at the underlying withdrawal of regulation and oversight that set the stage, making the entire debacle possible in the first place.

Oh I agree that it's not just Wall Street and if you knew me you would know that I feel the worst thing the Bush Administration did, besides engage us in an unnecessary war in Iraq, was the deregulation of the financial market. That's like removing the fence around the henhouse and trusting the fox when he says he'll leave the hen's alone.

Still if you never built the henhouse then you don't need anyone watching out for foxes.