Breitbart: Walmart Outsources Almost 600 Accounting, Finance Jobs to Indian H-1Bs

[Just Passin' By]

Walmart is outsourcing 569 finance and accounting jobs in North Carolina to Indian contract workers, spotlighting the expansion of the H-1B program from software jobs to accounting, healthcare, and design...

https://www.breitbart.com/economy/20...-indian-h-1bs/

Now, who here is going to pretend that Americans won't do accounting, and that this is necessary?

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I'm not going anywhere with this specific case. I'm just pointing out a tension between protecting domestic wages from immigrant workers and the competitiveness and long term viability of the employers (and health of our economy).

Meanwhile, you're protecting corporations via govt policy. Corporate welfare.

You could give a shit about Americans who live here, even when these companies benefited from special interest sponsored trade-pacts mislabeled as "free-trade." They get capitalism for profits and socialism for losses too, and special visas for workers so they can replace American workers when they're in our country. If these companies started in America and grew here, many with help from our govt or they used those connections, then Americans should be first. Otherwise, they can move everything over to India, and we'll tariff the b-jeezus out of 'em when they want to import their goods here. If we had true free markets in the US first, this protectionism for corporations, aka corporatism, wouldn't even be an issue. Because labor and employers would have negotiated these things here first—THEN if there was no one who wanted to do certain labor anymore the govt could help them.

You're a globalist. Not just in FP but here as well.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

Taxes, tariffs and nationalization.

I don't think we're on the same page here. I think you're talking about large scale protectionism to save our market from global market pressures. I was talking about competitiveness in the far larger global market.

In the short run it might seem to work, but it would slow the economy for everyone, cause price increases for consumers (again, everyone), and American businesses/employers would get fat and lazy on the government support. So count me out on that.

[MTG#10]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Ya' know I get these email articles from this very conservative guy who's been pretty anti-Trump. He has said Trump is really a Pied-Piper for the NWO and a puppet for them. Never believed him, but it really makes me wonder. His SIL and daughter are the worst advisors too.

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

Well shit, isn’t that obv to you by now? For everyone too? Dude is a massive shill for the GOPe donor class and Pentagon contractors. And sucks Israel dick every chance he gets. He’s the worst globalist we’ve had, after George W.

So which Democrat do you two hope wins the nomination? And which ones would you still vote for Trump over if any?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Just Passin' By

But there is no such tension. Any company in position to hire hundreds of foreigners legally living in the U.S. is in the position to hire hundreds of U.S. citizens living in the U.S.. And any company that claims it is able to afford the recruitment and hiring of non-citizen legals, but can't afford to hire local citizen legals, is obviously lying to you.

So why are you falling for such an obvious scam?

That doesn't make sense to me. Obviously, I don't find it persuasive at all.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by MTG#10

So which Democrat do you two hope wins the nomination? And which ones would you still vote for Trump over if any?

None. But, that's not an argument.

I'm a paleo-conservative—nowhere near current democrats on economics. Where do you see me advocating more unionization or higher minimum wage? Nowhere.

Meanwhile, you like corporate welfare if you're for govt importing cheaper foreign workers on visas in order to get Americans laid-off.

You don't know what Old Right conservative is apparently. Look it up. You must be a NeoCon who are internationalists/globalists/corporatists.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Meanwhile, you're protecting corporations via govt policy. Corporate welfare.

You could give a shit about Americans who live here, even when these companies benefited from special interest sponsored trade-pacts mislabeled as "free-trade." They get capitalism for profits and socialism for losses too, and special visas for workers so they can replace American workers when they're in our country. If these companies started in America and grew here, many with help from our govt or they used those connections, then Americans should be first. Otherwise, they can move everything over to India, and we'll tariff the b-jeezus out of 'em when they want to import their goods here. If we had true free markets in the US first, this protectionism for corporations, aka corporatism, wouldn't even be an issue. Because labor and employers would have negotiated these things here first—THEN if there was no one who wanted to do certain labor anymore the govt could help them.

You're a globalist. Not just in FP but here as well.

I'm a realist. I'm not advocating protecting corporations or anything in particular. I'm pointing out a reality that makes this a more complicated issue than many of you give it credit for.

[Detoxing]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Meanwhile, you're protecting corporations via govt policy. Corporate welfare.

You could give a shit about Americans who live here, even when these companies benefited from special interest sponsored trade-pacts mislabeled as "free-trade." They get capitalism for profits and socialism for losses too, and special visas for workers so they can replace American workers when they're in our country. If these companies started in America and grew here, many with help from our govt or they used those connections, then Americans should be first. Otherwise, they can move everything over to India, and we'll tariff the b-jeezus out of 'em when they want to import their goods here. If we had true free markets in the US first, this protectionism for corporations, aka corporatism, wouldn't even be an issue. Because labor and employers would have negotiated these things here first—THEN if there was no one who wanted to do certain labor anymore the govt could help them.

You're a globalist. Not just in FP but here as well.

I love how BEP's post often start out as a single sentence. And then she goes back and edits and adds more. And then again. And again. And again.

And then one more time to make sure she squeezes in some sort of dig at the end.

[MTG#10]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

None. But, that's not an argument.

I'm a paleo-conservative—nowhere near current democrats on economics. Where do you see me advocating more unionization or higher minimum wage? Nowhere.

Meanwhile, you like corporate welfare if you're for govt importing cheaper foreign workers on visas in order to get Americans laid-off.

You don't know what Old Right conservative is apparently. Look it up. You must be a NeoCon who are internationalists/globalists/corporatists.

Jesus Tapdancing Christ you're a ****ing loon. I wasnt presenting an argument, I was asking a question. Trump will be the Republican nominee. Either Trump or a D will win. So are you saying you won't vote or you will throw away your vote on someone else?

[Detoxing]

Originally Posted by MTG#10

Jesus Tapdancing Christ you're a ****ing loon. I wasnt presenting an argument, I was asking a question. Trump will be the Republican nominee. Either Trump or a D will win. So are you saying you won't vote or you will throw away your vote on someone else?

She just saw an opportunity to let you know she's a "paleo-conservative" and that Ron Paul loves you.

[BucEyedPea]

Nope, you were making rhetorical questions to make a statement which is how some people argue. Like you, that is when you're not insulting someone, which is about the only time you come into DC. In this case, you implied I could vote for a D, which I presume was because of my position here.
I know your game. You still got nuthin' I see. Just trollin' again.

It's none of your business how I will vote. I am undecided currently. If I cast a protest vote, it's not throwing my vote away. It's a statement.

[MTG#10]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Nope, you were making rhetorical questions to make a statement which is how some people argue. Like you, that is when you're not insulting someone, which is about the only time you come into DC. In this case, you implied I could vote for a D, which I presume was because of my position here.
I know your game. You still got nuthin' I see. Just trollin' again.

It's none of your business how I will vote. I am undecided currently. If I cast a protest vote, it's not throwing my vote away. It's a statement.

I knew I should have only asked PB and left your nutty ass out of it.

[BucEyedPea]

The current problem in markets today, including labor markets, is government since the fake free trade pacts of the the 1990s, granting China most favored nation status and other govt bullshit.

[Detoxing]

Originally Posted by Detoxing

I love how BEP's post often start out as a single sentence. And then she goes back and edits and adds more. And then again. And again. And again.

And then one more time to make sure she squeezes in some sort of dig at the end.

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Nope, you were making rhetorical questions to make a statement which is how some people argue. Like you, that is when you're not insulting someone, which is about the only time you come into DC. In this case, you implied I could vote for a D, which I presume was because of my position here.
I know your game. You still got nuthin' I see. Just trollin' again.

It's none of your business how I will vote. I am undecided currently. If I cast a protest vote, it's not throwing my vote away. It's a statement.

She did it again hahahaha

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by MTG#10

I knew I should have only asked PB and left your nutty ass out of it.

Thanks for conceding the argument again, troll.

If'n you could read, your question was essentially answered which is that I am undecided. But you're too dumb to see it.

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I don't think we're on the same page here. I think you're talking about large scale protectionism to save our market from global market pressures. I was talking about competitiveness in the far larger global market.

In the short run it might seem to work, but it would slow the economy for everyone, cause price increases for consumers (again, everyone), and American businesses/employers would get fat and lazy on the government support. So count me out on that.

There will be consequences for firms that willfully harms American consumers.