Monthly Archives: October 2010

News

What causes rich Democrats to lay off Americans and ship jobs overseas?

1 Comment

First off, I spotted this American Spectator story by Robert Stacy McCain on The Other McCain.

Excerpt:

California Democrat Rep. Jane Harman’s family business is laying off American workers – including engineering employees in California – and shifting jobs overseas.

A letter from the human resources director of one Harman company, obtained exclusively by The American Spectator, describes a “permanent” layoff of dozens of California workers that went into effect last week.

[…]Harman is the third-richest member of Congress, and her net worth increased last year $40 million, according to a study of Federal Election Commission records conducted by The Hill newspaper. Her husband, Sidney Harman, founded Harman International Industries, which was valued in 2007 at about $8 billion.

[…]By May 2009, the company had already slashed its U.S. workforce by 900 and expected to make more than a thousand more layoffs by mid-2010, according to a Saturday Evening Post article that noted: “[W]hile shutting down U.S. facilities, Harman was simultaneously opening factories in China and India, as well as massive multimedia outlets in Dubai and New Delhi.”

She’s a rich Democrat… and she is shipping American jobs overseas? Why???

Well, California is an anti-business state and it’s run by socialist Democrats who hate businesses and capitalism. (H/T ECM)

But what about other countries? Why do they ship jobs overseas?

Look what is happening in New Zealand with the new Hobbit movie. (H/T Anon)

Excerpt:

At least half a dozen countries, including Australia, are lobbying to win the right to film The Hobbit and Hollywood accountants are now doing the numbers of rival offers, the movie’s co-producer and co-writer Phillipa Boyens says.

The $US150 million Sir Peter Jackson blockbuster has been mired in an industrial dispute in recent weeks, following complaints from a group of international labour unions over poor on-set working conditions for actors.

Jackson, who strenuously denies the claims, has accused the Australian-based Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance of bullying to gain control over the production, which he says may be forced out of New Zealand.

Boyens told New Zealand’s National Radio’s Nine to Noon programme the movie was ready to begin filming in January but has now been thrown in turmoil by the actors’ boycott.

She said New Zealand Actors’ Equity seemed to believe the whole thing was a bluff.

“I am concerned over some of the statements made… by New Zealand Equity that there is still a misunderstanding on the seriousness of what is involved here and what is at stake,” she said.

“That is very real and that has put at risk the livelihood of countless thousand New Zealand industry workers,” she said.

Scotland, Ireland, Canada and Eastern European countries had entered the negotiations in a “feeding frenzy” inspired by the threat of union action.

And it’s not just left-wing anti-capitalist governments and unions that cause outsourcing and shipping jobs overseas.

It’s the uncertainty caused by massive spending, constant interventions, anti-business regulations, the appointment of radical anti-capitalists and judicial activists to positions of power.

Here’s a story from Reuters.

Excerpt:

Tough budget measures to keep its international bailout on track have helped prompt thousands of Romanian companies to relocate to neighboring Bulgaria, where lower taxes and more stable regulations offer an easier place to do business.

Bulgaria has corporate and income tax on profits of just 10 percent, compared with Romania’s 16 percent, and now also has lower value added tax after Bucharest hiked its rate as part of efforts to meet the conditions of a 20 billion euro EU/IMF bailout.

Sofia has also cut red tape and initial capital for setting up a company is now 2 levs ($1.39), compared with a previous 5,000 levs and 200 lei ($63.55) in Romania. It takes less than a week, almost half the time needed in Romania.

That may seem like small beer, but business people say the speed of the changes forced by the bailout and uncertainty over future cuts in Romania have encouraged them to move base.

Bulgarian authorities have not released precise data, but local media report up to 2,500 Romanian companies have set up there already and another two are registering daily in the border city of Ruse alone.

“Romanian legislation and taxation are changing from one day to another. So how can I have any guarantee, any certainty if I open a company here?” said 23-year-old Bogdan Popescu from Bucharest, who wants to open an online television business.

“I could as well wake up with a 40 percent income tax tomorrow (instead of 16 at present),” said Popescu, who plans to put his headquarters in Bulgaria. “The present fiscal legislation is in no way a stimulus.”

The two Balkan countries share a long border and though links can be complicated — only one bridge connects the states along a 470 kilometer (294 miles) stretch of the Danube — companies can set up a paper headquarters but still effectively run operations from Romania.

Both suffered deep and painful recession after 2008’s financial crisis, but while Romania is having to cut spending and raise taxes, Bulgaria previously ran large fiscal surpluses and has enough reserves to keep taxes low despite dwindling revenues.

Whenever government and their union supporters make life difficult for businesses, the businesses leave. Governments and unions ship jobs overseas. Governments and unions outsource jobs to other countries. Businesses just dance the the tune that governments and unions play. It’s no use complaining about big corporations and rich greedy executives. If you want a job then you promote the conditions that will attract businesses. Left-wing unions, left-wing political parties, left-wing news media and left-wing judges attack businesses, and that’s why unemployment goes higher.

And businesses know that massive government spending is going to require higher taxes or printing more money to that will devalue savings. They are not going to expand in banana republic economies like the United States until we vote a large enough number of Democrats out of all three branches of the federal government.

What I resent is when rich Democrats create the legal conditions that require companies to outsource and then complaining about outsourcing while engaging in outsourcing themselves. That’s hypocrisy.

News

Feminism’s opposition to motherhood makes children less moral

17 Comments

Are you appalled by the way that children are behaving these days? Blame feminism. (H/T Ruth Blog)

Excerpt:

Many of today’s kids seem to be flunking the daily moral tests of life.

James, a teacher-friend of mine, lamented recently how “morally challenged” his high school students seem to be. “They don’t think twice about lying or slamming someone’s reputation. Cheating on tests is no big deal. They only worry if they’ll get caught.”

Recent headlines and the latest studies paint a dismal picture of cheating, bullying, sexual experimentation, on-line exhibitionism and “cyber-stalking.” College students show declining levels of empathy—a quality viewed as the foundation of ethical behavior. And the problems start early. A quick snapshot of the playground culture captures younger children who bully their way to the top of the slide or push past a crying child to reach the swings first, classic examples of self-absorption and lack of compassion.

What—or who—is to blame?

Here’s the author’s answer, which I agree with:

But new research from Notre Dame Professor Darcia Narvaez suggests that current parenting practices are the more likely culprit. The “moral sense” of children—now and in times past–hinges on whether they learn empathy and concern for others, particularly in the early years of life. ““Our work shows that the roots of moral functioning form early in life, in infancy, and depend on the affective quality of family and community support.” And the problem, according to her research, is that today’s child-rearing practices make that increasingly difficult. The result: “The quality of our cultural moral fiber is diminishing.”

The specific problems with childrearing today might be summed up by what’s missing: time together, physical closeness, and adult responsiveness. In particular, Narvaez contrasts the “emotionally suboptimal day care facilities with little individualized, responsive care” to the optimal situation that keeps children close to mom, encourages parental responsiveness to infant needs, and offers parents and children strong support from extended family and the community.

She cites a specific set of “ancestral” practices that cultivate strong family bonds—and consequently support moral development, particularly compassion and concern for others. These include:

  • Plenty of positive touch (cuddling, carrying, etc.)
  • Parental responsiveness to the child’s needs.
  • Extended breastfeeding (2-5 years)
  • Natural child-birth (which provides a hormonal boost aiding newborn care)
  • Lots of unstructured playtime, with children of varied ages.
  • The presence of additional adults (typically dads and grandmothers) to love, care for, and guide the child. Mom is not alone.

A child’s capacity for morality is grounded on the ability to feel empathy for others. And capacity is built up in the first two years of the child’s life as it bonds to its mother. But what if the mother isn’t there because she is out working? (Either because taxes are too high for just the man to work, or because there is no man in the home at all)

Basically, feminists want women to act like men, and that means that they must work. The way that feminists go about making women work when they would rather stay home is by passing policies that undermine traditional marriage. Things like increased sexual education, no-fault divorce, legalizing prostitution, anti-male divorce courts, replacing men with social programs, increased social programs to replace fathers, higher taxes to force women to work, taxpayer-funded contraceptives, taxpayer-funded abortion, taxpayer-funded IVF,  same-sex marriage, domestic violence fears, rape fears, abuse fears, etc. Anything to get women to think that men are unreliable, that marriage is impossible and that women have to have jobs in order to be full members of society.

The result is children who don’t develop a conscience. Nowhere is this more apparent than in single mother homes, where the generous welfare benefits that left-wing parties provide allow women to have sex with anyone they want without caring about what kind of father and husband the man they have sex with would be. If women don’t have to care about finding a man who can provide, and if the government provides day care, health care and everything else that a man provides, then all the incentives are there for the woman to let the state raise her child. It’s not the man’s job to support her while she raises the children – it’s the states job to raise children. Her job is to work like a man, and pay the state to raise her children for her. Blech!

News

Was Obama lying to you about keeping your health care plan?

1 Comment

Consider this article in the Wall Street Journal.

Excerpt:

Among President Obama’s core health-care promises was that Americans can keep their current coverage if they like it. Among the reasons that a new ObamaCare squall blows in every other day is that this claim simply is not true, as people are discovering.

The latest fracas was incited by Janet Adamy’s scoop in the Journal this week that McDonald’s Corp. may be forced to cancel its current coverage for 29,500 employees as a result of ObamaCare. McDonald’s told Health and Human Services regulators that new mandates will make its plans “economically prohibitive” and cause “a huge disruption” unless it gets a waiver.

[…]At issue in the McDonald’s dust-up is a type of low-cost, low-benefit insurance known as “mini-med.” These plans cover most medical services but generally have an annual deductible or benefit cap between $1,000 and $10,000. Unlike more comprehensive plans, there’s no catastrophic coverage. Essentially, the very low premiums—under $100 a month—amount to prepaying for routine expenses like office checkups and E.R. visits.

Around 2.5 million consumers are covered by “mini-med” policies, most of them concentrated in low-wage industries like fast food, hospitality and retail that have large numbers of part-time or temporary workers. In the case of the restaurants, 75% of the workforce turns over every year and nearly half are under age 25. Mini-med plans are a temporary stopgap for businesses that have low margins and face high labor and health costs.

But Democrats hate mini-med and other skinny-benefit plans, calling them “underinsurance.” ObamaCare is meant to run them out of the market by mandating benefits, eliminating coverage caps and certain technical rules about how premiums must be spent. This despite the fact that Arkansas, Connecticut and Tennessee sponsor their own mini-med plans for state residents as better than having no insurance at all.

In other words, the choice is between relatively affordable coverage that isn’t as generous as Democrats think it should be and dumping coverage entirely. McDonald’s may eventually offer the high-cost plans that Ms. Sebelius favors, or get its waiver, but many of its less profitable or smaller competitors won’t. While subsidized ObamaCare options will be available in 2014, those costs will merely be transferred to taxpayers.

Radical pro-abortion extremist Kathleen Sebelius is in the news lately, intimidating private businesses for refusing to make bricks without straw.

Michelle Malkin wrote about it.

Excerpt:

In February, the White House coordinated a demonization campaign against Anthem Blue Cross in California for raising rates. Obama singled out the company in a “60 Minutes” interview, and Sebelius sent a nasty-gram demanding that Anthem “justify” its rate hikes to the federal government. A private company trying to survive in the marketplace was forced to “explain” itself to federal bureaucrats and career politicians who have never run a business (successful or otherwise) in their lives. Sebelius went even further. She called on Anthem to provide public disclosure on how the rate increases would be spent —  a mandate that no other private companies must follow.

We already have a federal pay czar requiring companies to justify their pay raises and claiming authority to claw back bonuses already paid. Will the White House next demand that other businesses —  not just health insurers —  justify price increases deemed unreasonable, excessive or “extraordinary”?

On Capitol Hill, Democratic chief inquisitor Henry Waxman trained his sights on executives from Deere, Caterpillar, Verizon and AT&T in a brass-knuckled effort to silence companies speaking out about the cost implications and financial burdens of Obamacare. He scheduled an April 21 show trial of corporate heads who dutifully reported writedowns related to the Obamacare mandates. Obama Commerce Secretary Gary Locke joined in on the witch-hunt, pummeling the companies on the White House blog and TV airwaves for their “premature” and “irresponsible” disclosures.

After the Democrats’ own congressional staff pointed out that the companies “acted properly and in accordance with accounting standards” in submitting filings that were required by law, Waxman called off the hounds. But it was a temporary reprieve. Sebelius’ threat last week against individual market health insurers who raise rates to cope with new federal coverage mandates will be far from this desperate administration’s last.

As health costs skyrocket, doctors abandon the profession, hospitals lay off workers and private insurers shut down, the only way to quell the Obamacare backlash will be through an even more thuggish campaign to demonize, marginalize and silence nationwide dissent.

Here are some amusing responses to her Soviet-style bullying from Wall Street Journal readers.

Now you know why companies are terrified of government – and why they aren’t hiring here. Maybe they are hiring abroad, but not here.

Democrats don’t understand the effects of their policies – the purpose of the policies they enact is not to make our lives better. The purpose of their policies is to make them feel good about themselves. Their good intentions matter more than actual results. They think they are morally superior, and they balk when we don’t worship them for failing to understand economic realities. “But we are good people with good intentions”, they say, “you’re too stupid to run your own lives – you need our advanced training in socialism to make your lives better”. It’s not good enough.