On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 00:06:06 GMT, Jose
wrote in :

That is my point. Today's Capitalism demands that producers meet the
lowest price in the marketplace, or face insolvency. That means that
if one producer is willing to reduce the cost of production through
unethical or immoral means, all the other producers are FORCED to do
the same or go broke. The cost-cutting efficiency of Capitalism is
commendable, but Capitalism's continual dive to the bottom begins to
cause problems after a certain point. That issue should be addressed.
Surely, even you can see the truth in what I'm saying.

Hmmm. In light of a prevous post about arbitrary groupings, I find what
you say interesting.

Groupings? Are you referring to the report about living organisms'
innate discrimination against members of groups other than their own?

What is the difference between outsourcing from
California to Nevada, and outsourcing from California to Korea?

I would assume that there is a difference in labor pay rates between
those that prevail in California and Korea, as well as a difference in
working conditions and benefits. There is likely a difference in the
environmental standards between the US and second or third world
countries also. Due to these differences a producer might reduce his
production costs (at the expense of the other factors I mentioned, and
US jobs), and that might enable him to undersell his competition (for
awhile until they start doing the same). At that point, there is
little ethical means available to reduce production costs further, so
if a producer desires to do so he must pursue even less attractive
(from the standpoint of exploitation and environmental impact) labor,
or compete on the basis of something other than price, or resort to
unethical practices.

But during the period that his prices in the marketplace are below his
competition's, he has the potential to reap significant revenue.

It is this desperate drive to the bottom that unrestrained capitalism
imposes to which I object. Fair completion based on innovation and
creativity is far preferable to exploitation, and it is that which
should be rewarded instead of rewarding the exporting US jobs to
foreign countries, IMO.

I for one, would be willing to pay a little more for goods produced in
the USA, wouldn't you?

No. I'd pay more for higher quality (where quality matters).

And I believe your attitude is representative of the majority of
consumers. But things are changing, and hopefully a future, more
patriotic, humane, and environmentally conscience class of consumers
can find products on the market that meet their expectations in other
areas beside price.

Higher quality is often foreign.

It depends on the product. Who is currently making a better product
than Boeing? The problem with US goods is that they are more often
than not assembled from foreign made goods, so it's difficult to
assess the true quality of US goods.

Higher quality per dollar is also often foreign.

That is probably true, but it is also probably because the working
conditions, worker skill level and wage, and environmental impact are
significantly different from those in the US.