Have you been paying attention to the controversy caused by the Washington Post’s article on Mitt Romney’s venture capitalism firm Bain Capital? Probably not because you, like so many other Americans, can’t stand reading about Mitt Romney due to his general awfulness. So your Wonkette will fill you in on the details: what happened was that Tom Hamburger of the Washington Post wrote a
Romney campaign's petulant whining is nonsensical.
They claim, without evidence, and in contradiction of the SEC reports on which the WaPo article was based, that the companies mentioned in the WaPo article increased their US workforces and that these jobs were "created", implying they were a net gain to the US workforce.
Even accepting their claims at face value, their implication is garbage. The <em>entire point</em> of outsourcing, even domestic outsourcing, is that the outside company can perform the outsourced function more efficiently - <strong>i.e. with fewer people</strong> than performing that function in-house. There is a claim, with a certain degree of legitimacy*, that this increased efficiency will free up funds for creation of additional jobs, but the jobs &quot;created&quot; at an outsourcing company are basically always outnumbered by the number of jobs &quot;creatively destroyed&quot; inhouse, and should never in and of themselves be considered a net-increase in American jobs.
* although as Paul Krugman has pointed out, in normal economic times even those freed-up funds will never lead to a net increase in American employment as the Fed has a target unemployment rate and tools that are usually effective in achieving it. Right now unemployment exceeds that target rate and the tools are ineffective, so right now the argument in favor of <em>domestic</em> outsourcing applies, but in general it does not.
I was going to respond at some length, but just see Chich&#039;s comment a couple spots along from here.
I spent my career in the chip industry, and was witness to (and occasional participant in) the off-shoring of an entire manufacturing industry. It never happens like &quot;off here / on there&quot;, because that is to risky. If the Wapoo is willing to do a little digging, I&#039;m sure they can substantiate most of their claims. There&#039;s just a time lag to point out.
Expansion into a lower-cost region <i>always</i> results in contraction (or reduced expansion) in a higher-cost region. This is something even mediocre businessmen like me understand.
It&#039;s like being ten- or twelve-years-old and having your parents wake you saying &quot;Get up! We&#039;re going to Disneyland!&quot;
The same right wing nutz whining about the Supreme Court decision on Health Care Reform told liberals to shut up about the 2000 ruling in Bush vs. Gore.
Romney campaign&#039;s petulant whining is nonsensical.
They claim, without evidence, and in contradiction of the SEC reports on which the WaPo article was based, that the companies mentioned in the WaPo article increased their US workforces and that these jobs were &quot;created&quot;, implying they were a net gain to the US workforce.
Even accepting their claims at face value, their implication is garbage. The <em>entire point</em> of outsourcing, even domestic outsourcing, is that the outside company can perform the outsourced function more efficiently - <strong>i.e. with fewer people</strong> than performing that function in-house. There is a claim, with a certain degree of legitimacy*, that this increased efficiency will free up funds for creation of additional jobs, but the jobs &quot;created&quot; at an outsourcing company are basically always outnumbered by the number of jobs &quot;creatively destroyed&quot; inhouse, and should never in and of themselves be considered a net-increase in American jobs.
* although as Paul Krugman has pointed out, in normal economic times even those freed-up funds will never lead to a net increase in American employment as the Fed has a target unemployment rate and tools that are usually effective in achieving it. Right now unemployment exceeds that target rate and the tools are ineffective, so right now the argument in favor of <em>domestic</em> outsourcing applies, but in general it does not.
and makes him sound like newt.
I was going to respond at some length, but just see Chich&#039;s comment a couple spots along from here.
I spent my career in the chip industry, and was witness to (and occasional participant in) the off-shoring of an entire manufacturing industry. It never happens like &quot;off here / on there&quot;, because that is to risky. If the Wapoo is willing to do a little digging, I&#039;m sure they can substantiate most of their claims. There&#039;s just a time lag to point out.
Expansion into a lower-cost region <i>always</i> results in contraction (or reduced expansion) in a higher-cost region. This is something even mediocre businessmen like me understand.
You like the logo, huh?
BTW, I did not know that Full Tilt Boogie was a Ronnie joint. Thank you for that.
Anagrammatically (Naziist): &quot;CREA&quot; and &quot;REAC&quot;.
Yes, I know those aren&#039;t anagrams, but what can you do with single words?
Fucking offshoring, how does it work?
Kinda like (r)Money as governor of Massachusetts, when he was for and against gay marriage at the same time?
Is that the political equivalent of a Shocker?
It&#039;s like being ten- or twelve-years-old and having your parents wake you saying &quot;Get up! We&#039;re going to Disneyland!&quot;
My goodness, who explains why Romney is the man to vote for? Robert Bork.
Offshoring and outsourcing. Punching Mitt in the face or nutz. Meh.
Thank you, Milo!
I stole this from a poster on Media Matters.
The same right wing nutz whining about the Supreme Court decision on Health Care Reform told liberals to shut up about the 2000 ruling in Bush vs. Gore.
The only thing that got Ron Paul madder than having the media cover him was having the media ignore him.
Or maybe it was the other way around...