True.

 

As corporation 'mature' and the markets they serve no longer have the growth and competitors catch up to the innovators who lead the market there is only one way to sustain profits - reduced cost. And the functions that do help corporations do that went not only to outsourcing, which has been around for decades, but adding offshoring for the cheaper labor. It is the cheap telecommunications and bandwidth that has enabled that in the last 5-8 years.

 

The only business leader I see being brazenly 'pro-American' is Trump. He is sensitized to it. I remember him recently saying he is willing to pay more for office furniture made in the USA to fill his buildings. After Trump...I am just not sure.

 

The spreadsheets may indicate it the right financial decision. And few executives can argue with a spreadsheet. So unless they really have sense of overall responsibility to their immediate or country-wide community they go with what the spreadsheet and $500 an hour consultant is telling them.

 

I have seen corporations, or rather executives in corporations, try to do the right thing. I have seen the impact on them personally after the decision. Many resign afterwards seeing the impact first hand. The human individuals who make these decisions do no do so without a conscience. But they have little support to go against the bottom line. And they usually have a $500 an hour consulting firm in their face telling them if they do not make this 'tough decision' that they will fall behind their competitors - who are also doing all this offshoring. I call it 'the race to the bottom.'

 

Some have a conscience, some do not.

 

True examples:

 

1) Stanley Furniture tried everything they could to keep a domestic line open and keep some 300 employees working around here. But after 2 years they finally had to close it down and send everything to China. They could not stay afloat and keep the job here.

 

2) Tultex textiles in 1999 abruptly closed the plant in one afternoon, filed for bankruptcy, locked out everyone and immediately more than 1,100 people were unemployed in one day. No retirement, no stock investments, no back pay, nothing. Except the CEO infrastructure that had already cashed in and moved the manufacturing out of country.

 

 

Some have a conscience. Some do not.

 

Some have a conscience. Some do not.

 

True.

 

Here a couple more.

 

Good strong community focus even in tough times - Goodyear.

 

Not so good (and would close plants like in #2) - Motorola.

Please don't read my thread as support for George Soros. I think he's scum.

 

However, I think the corporate influence upon American politics is perhaps more damaging.

 

But your original post wasn't attacking corporate influence upon American politics in general; it was attacking the GOP for demonizing Soros and claiming that Soros was incapable of outspending the rest of the Fortune 500 (which while unstated, was interpreted by me as implying that the Big Corporate money went primarily to the GOP and not the Dems). Such is not the case as has been pointed out by prior posters.

 

I've got no problem with you stating that you believe that donations from big corporate folks are damaging. But if you think it is only Soros donating to the the Dems and all the other big money types are donating to the Reps, you are flat out wrong. Hopefully the Occupy Wall Street participants are smart enough to research where the Wall Street donations went and are smart enough to realize that the rhetoric of Dems attacking Wall Street over the last several years is hypocritical as Hell. If anything, at least the Reps are honest about wanting to be able to accept big money donations. The Dems whine and cry how terrible it is and then most of them fervently solicit and accept the big money donations. A whole lot of Dems, starting with Pres. Obama, have accepted real big money from the Wall Street types. That is undeniable. So if the Reps that are beholden to Wall Street are responsible for the damage done, the Dems are also. The $64,000 question is: Will the MSM loudly and repeatedly make that point, or will they just show the clips of some Dem saying it's the Reps protecting Wall Street and ripping off the 99% of Americans?

 

Furthermore while Union membership has declined, it is a gross mischaracterization to claim that unions are a lame suggestion as a counter to the efforts of some Wall Street types to support the Reps. Big money is still donated by unions and they work hard to "get out the vote" by union members, which while fewer in number can still have a big affect on the outcome of close elections. If such was not the case, politicians would spend much less time and resources attempting to get the union endorsements. But we both know that politicians work very hard to get those union endorsements because the unions still play a big role in the outcome of elections, particularly up in the North and Northeast.