Quote:
Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45
I actually wouldn't blame Romney or Bain for the outsourcing.
Right now we are living an increasing competitive globalized world and many of the jobs that were available 20 years ago are disappearing because of the competitiveness. To put it in wording that favors Bain, Bain capital took failing companies, reworked them, and (sometimes) made them successful again. When they "reworked them", they usually cut higher paying jobs and replaced them with minimum wage jobs or outsourcing. While it is obviously bad for the middle class, I see that "reworking" as more reactionary to the current global economic climate then anything else. If this reworking didn't happen, there is a good chance the companies would fail and the jobs would have been lost anyways.
However, I don't see any of this as reasons why Romney should be president.
|
I agree with your conclusion that Romney's work at Bain isn't especially qualifying for the role of POTUS.
I saw your caveat "language favorable to Bain". But. I don't believe it's realistic to hang the heavy label "failing" on the companies that Bain worked over/with. I would say "vulnerable to takeover and possible dismantling" or "more valuable as parts than as a whole". I know this negates your opening caveat, but I feel it is fairer. Bain was never in the business of "saving" (to counterbalance your tag of "failing") any business. They were in the business of making money. Buy low, sell high, sweat equity into a fixer upper, flip this house/company--that was their game. Not rescuing failing companies.