Prosperity of government through capitalism

I would first like to address some reasons as to why a company might engage in outsourcing of jobs to other countries. As was mentioned previously, it is often a matter of reducing the total costs incurred by a company. This outsourcing is frequently a result of a lack of skilled workers in the company's area. In fact, according to a study performed by Duke's Fuqua School of Business in 2006, "Nearly three-quarters of the companies that establish or expand product development offshore report that ‘access to qualified personnel' is the most important driver of their offshoring strategy, and "almost 70 percent of survey respondents select an offshoring location based on the availability of needed expertise." It is clear that companies are having a difficult time finding qualified workers in the United States. In order to continue on the path of success (which will in turn help the United States economy), these companies need skilled workers, and according to the statistics, they are often warranted in searching elsewhere. My opponent suggested that by offshoring jobs, a company may "experience increased profits in foreign sectors" which would then prompt the company to "explore that market further". Generally a company's need to outsource to foreign sectors is not an attempt to increase profits, but instead an effort to cut costs or find skilled workers. Therefore, the idea that a company will experience a power shift is virtually irrelevant when speaking of outsourcing to other countries. My opponent calls for a "shift towards greater mandatory distribution of wealth", likely resulting in the implementation of progressive taxes. In theory, this would be an excellent way to even out society and help everyone to lead a decent life. On the other hand, this distribution would essentially eliminate meritocracy. By doing so, people would be less inclined to strive for greatness because, in the end, they will not achieve much more than everyone else. The United States economy, to this day, has thrived on the ability of the individual to achieve greatness. By distributing the wealth more evenly, we would see that the rich, the poor, and the middle class would experience a significant drop in morale, as well as a probable lack of incentive to work hard. It seems apparent that people are asking themselves why, with the government doing things for me – as my opponent suggests – would I do it myself? The earlier example of charity is a prime example of this; only when people feel that something is not being done properly will they do it themselves. Finally, I would like to address my opponent's final statements. She concludes that government programs will provide people with a way to better their situation, but that a level of motivation should be built into the system. This motivation will not come from taxing the rich more; this motivation will not come from increased food stamps; this motivation will not come in a society where people believe the government will provide for them. Should motivation be defined as "the act of being provided with an incentive", then government handouts will not be sufficient. The lower end individuals, who are lower end for whatever reason, must be provided with incentive. Capitalism – an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations – provides this incentive. It is necessary that the individual work for their goals, and upon achieving them, they may reap all the benefits. This attitude of individual success, combined with the advancement of companies new and old alike, provides federal and local governments with the greatest chance at prosperity. meritocracy – social stratification based on personal merit http://www.indusbusinessjournal.com... http://dictionary.reference.com...