Are your sure ??? More and more business outsource their software development to India...

I agree with you on that point for sure JC.

Oh, and one other thing. After reading that article at SlashDot that Brad referenced I know one thing now, I will never buy another Apple product again, nor will I buy it from any company with that type of attitude. They basically accused American's of being lazy and not worth their time or effort to employ.

I worked for a company that represented the majority of major players in the aerospace community (Boeing, Rolls Royce, Pratt Whitney, Air Bus, Goodyear, G.E., etc.) Outsourcing has always been about money and how to reduce the cost of the end product.

I won't go into the those examples of how outsourcing has decimented our manufacturing base, impacted our economy from the worker's standpoint or the selling off of our tooling and technology.

and don't forget China's long term plans for world domination.

Hey there Raven, long time no hear.

Indeed my friend, too long.

A good statement as well. I've been of the opinion for quite a while that China will be the worlds next leading Super-Power.

Because saintly Steve Jobs wanted to make a billion not half-billion.

American corporations have no allegiance to this country only the almighty dollar.

There's a bill in congress right now, H.R.3596, the United States Call Center Worker and Consumer Protection Act, that would "require a publicly available a list of all employers that relocate a call center overseas and to make such companies ineligible for Federal grants or guaranteed loans and to require disclosure of the physical location of business agents engaging in customer service communications."

I think this is a good first step and bringing US jobs back within our own borders.  The official text is here, and you can e-mail your representatives from within the site:  http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3596/text

That seems reasonable.

Much like American consumers who think nothing about buying things made in China.

Rupert Murdoch thinks people will pay to read his news website.  That's why.

That said, the sweatshop conditons are still better then not being there.  Just like it was pre-union America. when folks who wanted the rights we took for granted were assaulted and killed, often with government approval.

The choice is a lot easier when you've got a lot of money, then when you don't.  Success is a combination of talent, hard work, and luck, you need all three to be successful.  Not everyone can be successful, and the current economic disparities make it harder for an individual to be reasonably successful.   It's hard to know how difficult success is when you've been successful, you often assume everyone can do it.

Wrote a book and got off-topic, so I'll cut out what I said.

This reflects a very poor understanding of Economics. If you kill off a lot of people then you have a lot less consumers and thus you need less workers to supply them with goods. The size and population of a country has nothing to do with it's employment level.

Finally.

But in truth, there's an alternative?

Sure...you can always think nothing about buying things made in Europe ...;)

I was kinda going off on a thing about wars there, not sure why really. I'd have to say when it comes to population though it does have a lot to do with economics. There are lots of countries out there with HUGE populations, much larger than the US, and it seems to me the larger the population the larger portion, and a disproportionate part as well, that is poor. No matter how "rich" a country might be, it will be guaranteed to have a large portion of the population that is poor. Look at Saudi Arabia, a country that brings in enough wealth that every one of it's citizens could be a millionaire, and yet they still have poor and homeless people begging in the streets. A large part of their population still live in buildings with no electricity or plumbing. Why? Because they aren't getting a share of oil wealth just because they live in that country.

Trade barriers are just holding off the inevitable.

Addressing income inequality is probably the fairest solution to maximize net social benefit.

Indeed. It'll be a cold day in hell before that happens though.

I'm thinking 10-20 years.  Just gotta have boomers start dying off.

Oh, thanks...I'll just pop off this mortal coil, then and all your worries will be over.

/me contemplates executing rugrats.....

Dust off and nuke them from space....only way to be sure....

Yes, Ripley's a 'boomer' too....;p

Lets think about that and let's say other countries do the same. Hm, so what about exports ? Oh...

I agree with the first part because the way trade is supposed to work is that it allows different countries to specialize at what they are good and trade for what they are bad at making, thus increasing the productivity and output of both countries. If America or any country were to descend in protectionism and stop trading it would start a trade war and the standard of living in that country would drop significantly. Protectionism = Bad. However personally I believe a country like China is something of a exception. It's not their low wages but the fact that they are a Communist country and they cheat in order maximize exports and minimize industrial imports. However I am going to stick to what I said earlier and predict that China is going to have some rough times in the future as some of their oh so wonderful command economy decisions bite them in the ass.

The second part of this is kinda vague. Wages are set in the market place due to supply and demand for labor. How exactly do you suggest income inequality be addressed?

That is what the government still wants all to believe. China is not more 'communist' at all. Even not in the bad meaning of it. Same as with 'democracy' in most western countries btw. Looking at latest incidents here in Germany doesn't make me feel like I have any influence on any decisions made in my name for my country at all... 10 years from now we will have massive riots here on the streets also. I am very sure about that.

does it really matter what label you apply to any particular government? It's the actions of that, or any, government that defines them.

how about, the Chinese form of government does not lend it self to be a global partner in business or the human rights of it's citizens. but then again most governments don't to some degree anyhow.

thank you for the sincere wishs of long life and health (snot).

In raw terms, wealth transfers to compensate for the ability of the rich to "rent-seek" in a way the poor cannot.  Close tax loopholes (I'd prefer to get rid of all deductions, but keep progressive tax rates, while setting a 10-15% corporate tax rate, with deductions allowed only for income above $30k/yr and below $100k/yr to incentivize middle-class wages.  

 
Ultimately, why does capitalism exist?  It exists to benefit society.  When it harms society, it needs to be tweaked. 

Also, a strong emphasis on consumer rights, especially when it comes to local monopolies like phone and internet service.  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Obama created would be great for this, though I'd give the spot to Clark Howard.   (who also suggested mostly the former idea)