Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Why They're Offshoring...

Posted 7 years ago on Nov. 24, 2012, 9:35 p.m. EST by clamor (-40) from Hopatcong, NJ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

6,125 Proposed Regulations and Notifications Posted in Last 90 Days--Average 68 per Day

By Penny Starr November 9, 2012

(CNSNews.com) – It’s Friday morning, and so far today, the Obama administration has posted 165 new regulations and notifications on its regulations.gov website.

In the past 90 days, it has posted 6,125 regulations and notices – an average of 68 a day.

The website allows visitors to find and comment on proposed regulations and related documents published by the U.S. federal government. "Help improve Federal regulations by submitting your comments," the website says.

The thousands of entries run the gamut from meeting notifications to fee schedules to actual rules and proposed rule changes.

In recent days, for example, the EPA posted a proposed rule involving volatile organic compound emissions from architectural coatings: “We are approving a local rule that regulates these emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act),” the proposed rule states. “We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.”

Another proposed rule will provide guidance for FDA staff on "enforcement criteria for canned ackee, frozen ackee, and other ackee products that contain hypoglycin A." (Ackee is the national fruit of Jamaica; unripened or inedible portions can be toxic.)

Some of the proposed regulations revise regulations already on the books. The website also links to a video of a speech President Barack Obama gave at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington, D.C. on Feb. 7, 2011, in which the president promised to remove “outdated and unnecessary regulations.” “I've ordered a government-wide review, and if there are rules on the books that are needlessly stifling job creation and economic growth, we will fix them,” the president said.

A number of groups, including the Competitive Enterprise Institute, expect a rush of new regulations now that President Obama has won a second term:

CEI expects the EPA to move ahead on delayed rules on everything from greenhouse gas emissions to ozone standards. “Rules from the health care bill and the Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill will also likely make themselves known in the weeks to come," the group said on its website.




Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by highlander (-163) 7 years ago

It cost money to enforce regulations. It cost money to comply with regulations. In a profit-driven system, it makes sense that money and jobs will flow offshore. The US needs to make staying home more enticing that going away

[-] 0 points by ronniepaul2012 (214) 7 years ago

What everyone here seems to ignore in these outsourcing discussions....

We as a people voted with our pocketbooks to move jobs overseas. Back in the 70's til very recenty, you looked at a chevy at $x and a toyota at $y and decided the cheaper toyota would serve your purposes for thousands less. Yes, today foreign cars are assembled here, but I am talking long ago. Same with tv's and electronics in general. The only way US companies could compete was to pay comparative wages to the Japanese, Koreans, etc. No American would work for that kind of wage even tho they loved getting super cheap products. Some call it corporate greed, others call it corporate survival, How many people worried about buying made in the USA in 1980? It was more 99% greed, We wanted cheap goodies AND high wages. Doesn't really work that way. Now you can hardly find a made in the usa product since the big manufacturers of the 60's either moved production overseas or went bankrupt.

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago


They are doing it because WallStreet DEMANDS it.

It's all part of their profit pyramid.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 7 years ago

Actually, the whole thing was to go through and update or scrap regulations that were not working. Republicans and Democrats were focused on this during the summer.

That said, jobs are being outsourced because they want to pay workers the least amount of money. The way it is working is that we have people from other countries that come over here to study or learn the job and then they return to their country of origin and begin to supply whatever service or other is required. This usually is sponsored by a corporation that will benefit from this transaction.

This is 2008 http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2008/03/gates-to-congress-microsoft-needs-more-h1-b-visas/

This is 2012 http://betanews.com/2012/10/25/h-1b-visa-abuse-limits-wages-and-steals-us-jobs/

[-] 1 points by grapes (5232) 7 years ago

If only we could swap this domestic R & D for that outsourced R & D and we'll be all set. I think we should start drilling towards the Indian Ocean near Perth, Australia now.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 7 years ago

It's much more than R & D. But, that would have been a good start.

It is LPO and more.

It is ludicrous to point at regulations and say-that is why they are leaving. They are leaving because they want to pay someone two dollars an hour. I think that it is absolutely fine to play a game of you want and I want especially when dealing with a corporation or industry that has every intention of utilizing all of the rights but has no intention of picking up any of the responsibilities.

[-] 3 points by grapes (5232) 7 years ago

The crux of the matter of offshoring is maximization of profits. Many of these corporations which outsourced to foreign countries have encountered more nebulous regulations than those in the U.S. These people who complain about domestic U.S. regulations should really go trying to do their business overseas in Asian "paradises" of enterprises where understanding of "guanxi" counts and what many outreached hands under the table and kicks in the shins really mean. Do you get it? Some do and some don't -- overseas you sometimes need to spill some wine on the floor to please the local gods. Yes, there ARE local gods of electricity, telephone, zoning, leniency, etc. Hint: it is not Zeus, nor Alexander Graham Bell. They DO "regulate."

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Great point. And we can make it more attractive to onshore jobs. We can make it less attractive to outsource.

We must agitate all pols to support those efforts.! That is change that benefits the 99%.

That is where Occupy should be.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 7 years ago

I do get it.

[-] 2 points by grapes (5232) 7 years ago

The vast number of proposed regulations offered up for public comments are actually indicative of good democratic inclinations to catch the bad ones before they take effect.

It makes sense to rationalize regulations and minimize costs of compliance. It helps everybody if the government organizes and streamlines its avenues of communication to businesses so that they get heads up and reminders, rather than fines and penalties. The objective of regulations is most often to get the desired behaviors and results from enterprises, not necessarily "revenue enhancements" through fines and penalties because these are often means, not ends.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 7 years ago

The objective of regulations is most often to get the desired behaviors and results from enterprises, not necessarily "revenue enhancements" through fines and penalties because these are often means, not ends.

Yes, exactly.

[-] -1 points by clamor (-40) from Hopatcong, NJ 7 years ago

See post by highlander below.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 7 years ago

I have seen it. The way that it has been gotten around before is that you can have the regulations on the book but then you cut the funding. While I would like to think that all businesses are on the up and up, you and I both know that they aren't.

[-] -3 points by clamor (-40) from Hopatcong, NJ 7 years ago

Regulations are KILLING business. Perfect example...

"So imagine my chagrin when I read on The Huffington Post that a Florida restaurant owner plans to add a 5 percent surcharge to the tabs at dozens of eateries including Hurricane Grill & Wings, Denny’s and yes – Dairy Queen. John Metz said he’s doing this as a way to make up the “increased costs of Obamacare, along with reducing his employees’ hours.”

"Perhaps the number “5-percent” isn’t profound enough to catch the attention of newsrooms? If so, then we need more curious newsrooms: According to the National Restaurant Association, pre-tax profits for the “limited service” restaurant industry are just 6 percent.

That’s the profit margin for DQ-style restaurants. For full service operations like a Denny’s, profits are even leaner: 1-3.5 percent."

Do you realize anything teetering on the edge is going under based on Obamacare?



[-] 2 points by Shule (2638) 7 years ago

Oh come now, I certainly hope that when dining at Denny's and the like, you can find it in your heart to spring an extra sixty cents so that the guy who cooked the food for you, and the waitress who served you can have a little health care.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Regs are NOT killing business. They are keeping our water, air, & food clean and safe. Regs allow the people a say in how these businesses pursue profit.

Without the power of regs business would sacrifice all for the almighty dollar.

I stand with the 99% and the regs that protect us. You stand with the corp 1% criminals who crashed the world economy and prey on our families!?

[-] 2 points by grapes (5232) 7 years ago

You do not need to worry about John Metz outsourcing his Denny's franchises overseas much -- he can learn his lesson for real himself and come back wiser.

The U.S. is not the best place in the world for enterprises but it is pretty darn good. We are a commercial and technological superpower for good reasons. Yes, our regulation such as Obamacare borders on broad-spectrum "white" noise but what can we really expect from the choice of "all-of-the-above" while not offending the moneyed interests, huh? Some are still beating the dead horse, rather than riding into Jerusalem with the donkey.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Ok. not sure I understand exactly what you mean but good luck in all your good efforts.

[-] 2 points by grapes (5232) 7 years ago

John Metz would discover the prevalence of all forms of "tolls." The biggest one of course would be the capital control when he tries to repatriate his profits. It is fine and dandy to make tons of money overseas but that money will not really be John's.

Many U.S.-based corporations also stash their profits overseas so they may learn their lesson in due time.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Sounds good.

[-] -2 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

You could reduce regulations here to zero, and guess what. Those jobs arent coming back.

Its a labor issue. Alwayshas been.

I think that regulations are out of control. They freakin drive me nuts. Meanwhile the banks get to do whatever the hell they want.

But offshoring is about paying people 25 cents a day.

[-] 0 points by clamor (-40) from Hopatcong, NJ 7 years ago

Not true. Reducing regulations would have some jobs coming back.

Banks are among THE most heavily regulated industries. The more regulations there are, the more conflicting opinions there are and those conflicting opinions create loopholes.

If you are for more government, you are for more bureaucracy and thus you are part of the problem.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

If we cut regs on banks they will crash the worldeconomy again and create another unemployment crises.

Where were you in 2007/2008.?

We need stronger regulations on banks because they can't control their capitalist instinct to make profit at all costs. (the hell with the people, the economy or the country)

If you support weaker/fewer bank regs you are for the corp 1% oligarchs, and thus YOU are part of the problem.

[-] 0 points by clamor (-40) from Hopatcong, NJ 7 years ago

Where the hell were you in 2007/2008? You've obviously never owned a house. People used to have to put 20% down before purchasing a house. Then the "fairness in housing" leftists came forth and declared everyone can buy a house without any qualifications giving us NINJA loans.

Guess you missed that part; doesn't fit in with your 1% / 99% flat earth views.

The next time a thought comes at you, duck!

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 7 years ago

Stop blaming the victims. Bankster fraud pushed subprime mtgs on borrowers who qualified for better terms.

Banksters also pushed subrimes on borrowers they knew (and it is THEIR responsibility to know) would default, bundled (hid) and sold as good investments (with ratings agencies in collusion with fraudulent ratings.

The decent hard working American borrowers who lost everything are not the blame. The criminal corp 1% bankster oligarchs who got away with the loot are to blame.

Don't you know that with every con it is the guys who get away with the money that are the con artist. The decent hard working American borrowers who lost everything are the 'marks'.

Don't be a moron. Lay blame where it belongs. With the guys who got all the money.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Actually Bush's Ownership Society Plan was the leading factor in it, and it was just a cover for cheap money from the Fed.

Clinton's main contribution to it would be his repeal of Glass Steagall.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Jp Morgan and Wells FArgo just posted record profits in the 3rd quarter. So clearly they arent too burdened.

That being said, the amount of new bank applications this year......ZERO.

Its always the big six that writes the legislation for the banking cartel, regulate their competition right out of existence. And seems how they run both parties, I dont see that changing anytime soon.