CEOs and their families should have live in the countries to which jobs

[loudnclear]

are exported. CEOs and the top 20 officials of any corporation that exports more than 2% of its workforce to another country should be forced to live in that country until the jobs come back to America!

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

1. sounds good to me

good idea!

[Muddleoftheroad]

2. Huh?

You now want to exile people for trying to keep their companies operating?

[loudnclear]

3. There is more than one way to keep a company operating...exporting

jobs is a "national security risk" in my opinion. We do a lot of strange things in the sacred name of "national security."

[jpgray]

4. For perpetuating poorly paid overseas workers.

The idea of exiling them is a bit silly, but something should be done. If most skilled jobs are exported in this manner, two things happen.

First, worker conditions do not rise in the country to which the jobs are exported. The whole idea is to have *cheap* labor in order to bury the competition, so therefore every effort will be made to maintain abominable labor practices to keep that low cost.

Second, as jobs evaporate from the USA, consumer response will grow more and more anemic, and therefore companies will try to force prices lower and lower. What will happen? Eventually it will all collapse and we'll have a massive mess on our hands. So let's regulate this problem, if we can. :)

[Muddleoftheroad]

5. Yes, something must be done

But I have read every thread I have seen on this and yet to see anything that would work. We live in a world economy, so our actions need to take that into account.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

6. do you support open immigration?

or do you want open borders for capital, but not labor?

[Muddleoftheroad]

7. Open immigration is silly

But most companies these days have operations in more than one nation and need to do so to compete effectively.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

9. got it, muddle

you want rich people to be able to move their captial freely across borders, but us laborers can't? That's pretty much it, isn't it? figures

[Muddleoftheroad]

10. Laborers can move their capital

Just not their bodies.

You can invest your money elsewhere, just like businesses can. But you have no inherent right to invade another nation.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

11. labor is our capital

that's what we have - our labor. You want to restrict it, but your capital, your money, you don't want to restrict.

It's a double standard.

[Muddleoftheroad]

13. Not a double standard

CEOs have labor as well and they can't move it any more than you or I. Wealth is mobile however.

[MysticMind]

14. who is stopping you from moving to Mexico

And working?

[MysticMind]

15. I have trouble believing laborers don't have capital investment

...

[JanMichael]

16. Look, their Labor IS their Capital.

Their bodies make their Labor. They are one in the same. You can't ignore that.

This is a result of the for shit thinking/ideas that have turned Human Beings into Capital to be exploited by others.

[Muddleoftheroad]

20. Yes I can

Their bodies and minds are no more and no less capital than that of a CEO or a president. Bodies aren't allowed to move as freely as information or wealth.

[JanMichael]

28. It's simply not an equitable decision.

BTW: Capital does not move completely unhindered, same with Information. There are restrictions.

Seems like you can accept some and ignore others.

Worse yet that you value Material/Monetary freedom more than the Human variety.

[Muddleoftheroad]

30. Again, the open borders concept is really silly

But in a global economy, money must move. And information always crosses borders as well.

[MysticMind]

12. money is easier to keep track of than people

Moving capital isn't without regulation either.

[MysticMind]

8. why would that hurt them

CEOs would find it horrible to live in some resort in Mexico?

[rustydog]

17. They would be the Kings of that country

If they make tens of milions here....
How far would that money go in Mexico, haiti, Phillipines, China?
No, there should be an outsourcing tax, fee, duty, whatever you want to call it.
It would be like paying a tariff on items bought overseas that could be bought in America, punishing the buyer from buying American..Why not punish the corporation that doesn't buy into Americans?

[kcwayne]

18. No, their company should be prosecuted for violating US labor laws

if they sell those products made by slaves in the US.

[papau]

19. NO - just outsource top management to India also - save millions

The easiest job is management - and overseas pay makes them very competitive for those jobs!

:-)

[camero]

21. I propose an outsource tax

On American products that are outsourced overseas.

For example, Ford makes a car in China, then that car has an added 20-30% (just a number grab, the details could be worked out) on the price of that car. But if the car is made in the good old US of A, no extra tax.

It would negate the cost of labor.

[Muddleoftheroad]

22. It would also start a trade war

By the way, sorry about the playoff game. Cavanaugh is a horrible coordinator.

[camero]

23. No it won't

Because you're not taxing countries you are taxing companies. And it's not a subsidy. And the cost of the tax will be passed on to consumers. Thus making that product cost more.

Then American products will be cheaper. I certainly wouldn't mind getting out of the WTO until they take into consideration worker's rights and child labor laws.

Do you really like to compete with children who should be getting an education?

It was a good game though. :)

[Muddleoftheroad]

25. You are taxing imports

And by doing so, you run afoul of the WTO. If we get out of the WTO, I have no idea what the ripple effect would be, but it could be ugly.

Yes, a good game. A better game would have sent the Titans packing.

[camero]

26. No, you are taxing American Companies

It comes out of the companie's profits. Not the country it came from.
If Toyota wants to build a plant here, then fine. If Ford wants to build a plant in China, then fine too. But sell the product in the country that you make it in.

[Muddleoftheroad]

31. The net result

Will be to eliminate American exports as other nations enact rules that harm U.S. businesses.

[camero]

32. If the export is not in raw materials yes.

And it's not exactly harming US business. It actually lowers thier transportation costs by selling in the country they make it in.

[LeahMira]

24. They would love it...

CEOs and the top 20 officials of any corporation that exports more than 2% of its workforce to another country should be forced to live in that country until the jobs come back to America!

They could live like kings in countries where workers earn less than a dollar an hour. With the U.S. military on standby to protect their property, they would also have no concern about uprisings among the masses. I'd imagine that more of them choose to stay here because in spite of the higher cost of living, there are still places for them to purchase their expensive comforts and entertainments.

[adriennel]

29. ummm

no doubt the living is cheaper in non-first world countries
as for security, I disagree with what you say. It's not always safe, in fact it can be downright dangerous to be an American working overseas. The US is the most secure country that I have ever lived in-- a lot better than being surrounded by walls topped with broken glass and barbed wire.

[loudnclear]

33. Yeah, but they wouldn't want to live there...just visit or vacation.

they should be made to live there for at least 10 years, until the 10-year old child making the product is at least 18.

[adriennel]

27. kinda happening now

global companies often send US executives and their families to non-US locations for "training" before installing them in the US power structure. my family was sent to both Brazil and Mexico.