Capitalist pig - I spit in your general direction.  lol. 

We live in a global economy now and outsourcing is part of it.  There are benefits and disadvantages to it just like anything else.  I do think that when you consider a career field you have to consider whether you job can easily be outsourced, some can, some can't. 

Now having outsourcing's babies, that's just a little over the top. 

Actually, globalization has been going on ever since people hopped in their boats and struck out into the rest of the world.  A globalized economy is hardly a new phenomenon.

As for outsourcing...eh, not my problem.  My career field won't be easily outsourced.   Hard to run a zoo in the US if your animals are in India.

~Zoo

You never know with telecommunication and live video streaming these days "virtual zoos" run in coutries where zookeepers make pennies on the hour and patrons can watch right from their couches all their favorite animals, without the stink, may become popular.

Then again how fun would that be?

Hey Draginol - it took me about six minutes to get a comment in here.  First because I can't comment with Firefox 2.0.0.12.  I simply can't click in the text box to enter text.  I can get text in the text box by quoting someone, but I still can't type over it.  (I also couldn't paste in a message from Notepad because the Paste feature is disabled by Mozilla in that kind of text box.  It gave me a message saying to edit my user.js file, which I didn't do.

So I went to Internet Explorer, pasted in http://draginol.joeuser.com/article/301252/On_behalf_of_evil_capitalistic_bastards_everywhere , got an error message when I tried to log in, went back up to the main page, made it in, and here I am.  But only because I'm dedicated.

If you ever come upon someone else citing this statistic, please make a blog post out of it, because it's the sort of thing that's basically impossible to check on one's own.  I still have nothing on the topic but the Piketty and Saez paper I linked to before, and that wasn't enough for you.  Unless I get better facts, I'm going to continue to disagree.

OK, now that I've been through all that, I can comment in Firefox now.  Who knows why.

I was just curious where you found this out.  Oh no, I'm not doubting you on this statement, I just enjoy learning about information like this, and when I tried googling for it, but was unsuccessful.  I understand that your schedule's a bit busy so any information would be quite appreciated.  Or perhaps if anyone else knows that would be helpful as well. 

Mainly it's just that when ever use the fact that the majority of the rich are small business owners, most people tend not to believe me (often stating that it's untrue that most small business owners are rich, which of course, I"m not stating in the first place *sigh*).

In any case, thanks.

Tee hee! I like your sense of humour!

"Since no one will stand up for greedy evil capitalists these days, I'll take a stab at it."

Well letsa see here- the number of special interests lobbyists (most of them business related) on capitol hill is at an all time high. In fact, since Reagan came into office the federal gov. has been about as pro-capitalist and pro-business, pro-globalization as it could get. Reagan even went so far as declaring war on the sun when he ordered the solar panels on the white house to be taken down, and the fed government has consistently retarded the development of the electric car in favour of pandering to the auto and oil industry.

The mass media is also on your side. FOX news, MSNBC, CNN, just about all of them parrot the traditional "globalization good, tax cuts good" line.

Clinton was one of the biggest pro-globalization outsourcers, although he served that cake with a layer of populist frosting on top to make it a little sweeter for the masses. But it's still the same product regardless of which side of the isle it's been served from. So what if slick willy got a BJ on the side? He still advanced globalization and outsourcing way more than Bush 1 ever did...

In all honesty a vote for Hillary or Obama will be almost identical to a vote for Mcain, or even Romney or Giuliani, so you really have nothing to worry about. Why? Because once the superficial mostly media created hype and imagery are taken away, at the core they all buy into the same concepts. All of them are pro-globalization, all of them are in favour of using military assets to achieve foreign policy goals regardless of the morality or justification of said action. The only difference will be HOW the product will be served to the people, but mark my words it will still be the same product. If Gore had been president the Iraq war could very well have still hapenned, only it might have occurred a little later in the game and been more similar to the Kosovo NATO intervention-- same product, served a little differently, but more or less the same end result.

I have provided this evidence in the past. It's based on the US census data and the IRS.

Since the top 1% are paying 20% of the taxes while about half the population pays less than half that I would say that we have different ideas of what pro-business pro-capitalist government is.

With talk of raising taxes on "the rich" I am glad that "the rich" have other alternatives.  In 20 years, globalization will be much further along where people may choose to live in different countries as those countries compete for the best, brightest, and most productive people.

You didn't spend much time studying history did you?

When you say "50 years ago" you are basically referring to the time before the New Deal, which was a bit more than 50 years ago now. When you & I were children - it was 50 years ago.

That was a time when, if you were poor, your children had to work as many hours as you did. Many of them worked in dangerous occupations, depending on where you lived. They could have worked in coal mines, textile miles, poultry plucking planets, etc. Due to lack of government 'meddling' there were few safety devices on the equipment, so losing hands/arms/legs/lives to equipment was a common thing. Overcrowded factories frequently went up in flames, and due to lack of government regulations there were rarely adequate fire escapes. That's okay though, because the business owner made enough profit there he could easily build a new factor and fill it with more children & women. Burning up 100 employees is no big deal, really, there's always more street urchins to fill the job.

That was a time when, if you were rich, you had to be exceedingly careful with your investments. You could lose everything overnight to an unscrupulous banker or stock broker who misrepresented an investment opportunity. There would be no legal recourse for you if he took your fortune and bought a farm in upstate New York with it. He did tell you there was a risk of loss, didn't he?

That was a time when, if you were elderly, you had better damn well hope your family liked you, because they would be taking care of your ass when you retired, unless you happened to be wealthy enough to afford servants.

That was a time when, if you were black.. or female... or Chinese.. or one of a dozen other groups, you didn't have a hope in hell of ever achieving beyond your "station". Yes there were a few rare examples, but most of these had extremely difficult times of it, and were often only able to achieve because of a dedicated network of people supporting them in their community. Often as not, that wasn't enough. Many who tried to achieve beyond their station had their lives ruined. Black men were frequently accused of crimes they did not commit, beaten or even killed. Women who attempted to get "out of line" would find that rumours were spread about them that resulted in people refusing to deal with them, and often they would lose their homes.

Divorced women were often not allowed to have men visit them at home. My mother - in the relatively liberal 1960s - lost an apartment because her FATHER visited her one day to fix her car, and the neighbors told the landlord she was "having men over".

But it was a great time to be a businessman.

You assume an awful lot.  So let me help you out:

50 years ago would be 1958.  The new deal was in the 30s. 

And since I said "in the last 50 years" I clearly mean more recent than that.  That woudl be the 1960s.  What happened in the 1960s? The beginning of the Great Society Programs.

The rest of your comment is completely irrelevant to the discussion and mostly a discussion on culture not economics.

Well, neither my years of reading you nor site:draginol.joeuser.com "small business" have helped me find it.  (By the way, it looks to me like Google search results with a "CID" in the URL, like "draginol.joeuser.com/index.asp?p=9&CID=16" , end up taking you to the home page instead of the article.

My impression of reality is that small business owners make up about 35% of the top 0.01% (many of these having sold their businesses in that calendar year), and about 5% of the top 10%, most of whom make their incomes being doctors, CEOs, investment bankers, celebrities, college presidents, what have you.  But I could be persuaded I was wrong.  Last time I crossed you on the prevalence of small businesses in the economy I found they were more important than I thought.  But I haven't seen any evidence either way.  If I had, I would have bookmarked it because it's hard to search out.

I think that has to do with the new format.  If you look at the url when visiting a page now, the URLs are more descriptive, and different.