Something has been bothering me for awhile about all the Bush bashing in the media in regards to unemployment figures and the so-called "job flight" overseas. Please, fchat members chime in with your opinions to my logical quandry. Now, first of all, I can remember being a young boy in the late 70's and early 80's and hearing my mother (God rest her soul) complaining: "Isn't anything MADE in America anymore?" in response to the massive wave of consumer goods that were, 25-30 years ago, already flooding our shores. Seemed like you turned over anything and it read: Made in Taiwan, China, whatever. This is not a NEW phenomenon. The great employment GAINS that all the dems still brag about during the Clinton years were fantasy and doomed to failure from the get go. The MILLIONS of over-paid phone bank people, customer service people and programmers took jobs that they were DESTINED to lose from day one since their employers rarely actually manufactured any product, rarely provided any real service, and even more rarely, if at all, ever made a PROFIT. Therefore, the dot.com bubble was doomed to failure, and only the guys like Mark Cuban, who was smart enough to sell to a huge media conglomorate that was stupid and greedy enough to overlook the lack of business sustainability in their zeal to jump on the information superhighway bandwagon, actually made any money. I am not saying that no one, either on this board or in the world made money in the dot.com period, it's a well established fact that many did, but how much and for how long? Nevertheless, this brings me to my main point (I hear you all saying FINALLY !!), a philosophical quandry that I would like some lefties to answer: If anyone on this board works for a company, small, medium or large, it doesn't matter, do you feel your JOB SKILLS and talents BELONG to you? In other words: (hypothetical scenario) you and your wife go on vacation to Paris and while there you meet a person at a restaurant, strike up a conversation and you realize you are in the same business field. This person tells you that their company is STARVED for (insert skill position here) and, as CEO, they would love to hire you to work in their Paris headquarters. BTW, they will pay you 3 times what their American counterpart is paying you with all commensurate benefits, etc. You look at your wife and say: "Geez honey, we live alright at home, we could live in Paris (or wherever, I already hear the French haters responding) live like KINGS on the American dollar salary equivalent, and still have double the salary to play with, life would be great" and so you accept the offer, fly back home and give your employer 2 weeks notice. Why can you do this, providing you have not signed an employment agreement in regards to term? Because, just like your body is your own and belongs to you, so to do your talents and job skills, your VALUE to your employer. I am not referring to sharing any intellectual property from your old company or breaching any confidentiality agreements as regarding trade secrets, I am just referring to your RIGHT to work for whomever will have you and pay you the MOST. I would like to here ANYONE on this board, right or left say THEY would not do this! This exact scenario happens every single day throughout the corporate world, in every field, in every position level from janitor all the way up to CEO. That's why there are headhunters. So, if your job skills and talents are truly your own, and you have the RIGHT to do with them, and take them to whomever, as you please to best benefit you and your families BOTTOM LINE, then why is everyone complaining about THEIR jobs being taken overseas? IMHO, the jobs BELONG to the company, just as your talents/skills/value inherently BELONG to you, and as such, said company has a fuduciary responsibility to it's investors to do what is best for its own bottom line. Why can Joe Six-Pack in scenario 1 say to employer: hey thanks for the memories but ABC is going to pay me 3x what you pay me, so see ya, but ABC Co. in the face of draconian legislation, governmental-imposed political correctness and union shakedowns, is NOT supposed to find the most beneficial business scenario for themselves. This is even more important given the fact that labor costs are one of the FEW things in many industries that can be actually controlled by a company. Many times costs such as materials and market price cannot, or at least not immediately, be controlled by a company in an effort to increase profitability. So, it's time for some intellectual honesty here. How do you explain the difference?