>If there's 10 applicants clamoring to compete on price, you *are* lucky to have a job.
>No.
>That employer is lucky to have a temporary advantage, but will soon be out of business if people don't have money to buy its products.
>The person who gets the job is not lucky, because that situation will only deteriorate.
>The wrong job is not better than no job.
>That's a con perpetuated by union-busters and the like.

Example of my intended context is Walmart's announcement of almost 600 professional jobs being transferred to India. Analysts say that this should yield at least $5.7M savings (iow approx $10K per professional) ; since Walmart's PE ratio is 25:1, bankers are pricing in a $142M boost in share price. The architects of the deal are lauded by Indian and US shareholders and 1%ers while the welfare of 600 loyal US employees is as nothing. This hollowing-out of the middle class will continue until society recreates moral and financial reasons to employ locally and look after your own first. Remaining professionals are indeed "lucky" to be employed at Walmart, until they too can be sidelined for profit. Surely you cannot think these observations are Union-busting or a con; when you complain at the reduced buying power of today's middle class, it's because they can only stay "lucky" by accepting conditions that aren't sufficiently different from the 3rd world that it's worth emulating Walmart. This will continue as long as society tolerates celebration of $millions of paper money created by dumping loyal US workers.

By way of example, I know you have a share portfolio: what if you and a couple of million other retired wealthies declared that it's amoral to invest in companies that hurt US grandkids by exporting jobs for profit or forcing willing US workforces to compete with armies of H-1B visaholders. From now on, you will only invest in patriotic companies. Enough of you can convert moral stance into a financial reason for Walmart also to declare that it's a moral patriotic company that employs locally first. Of course that may affect dividends for you, but only the venal 1% always puts itself first - correct?