But you seem to really be irritated by the poll question and want to make a point, but are having trouble getting there. So what is the point of all this? What is bothering you? What is REALLY bothering you with this poll question?
I posted a poll question from a high school econimics book and people are getting spun up? What gives? There is no way on earth I was able to slant this poll - or at least I don't see one.
If that textbook has some empirical examples, I'd love to hear them and compare those contexts to our current situation.
The same will eventually happen with India and China, and there are already signs of this. Programmers during the '90's and '00's were primarily from India and are now largely from former-Soviet nations.
Another related point is, it's difficult to force businesses to use domestic labor without harming the free market. You can use trade tarrifs, but then you risk a trade war with the nation you're levying tarrifs against. You can provide tax incentives for domestic labor (we already do), but these would need to be substantial enough to negate the cost savings of using foreign labor, and right now, foreign labor is very cheap.
The best way for government to ensure domestic jobs are available is to create a tax structure that encourages people to start businesses, allows for businesses to grow, and encourages the creation of businesses which cannot outsource their jobs. Some prime examples of such businesses are energy sector industries. You can't outsource domestic mining to foreign labor. You can't outsource domestic construction to foreign labor. You can't (or at least, shouldn't) outsource the oversight and operations of power plants to foreign labor.
Right now, we've got a tax code so labyrinthine that several entire industries exist just to support the overhead of any business' legal obligations to pay those taxes. In point of fact, the overhead most domestic businesses pay for the preparation, recording and legal defense of their taxes is greater than the actual amount of taxes they pay. That is to say, businesses are forced to pay so many middlemen in order to be compliant with their tax obligations that they spend more on that than they do on the taxes themselves. This problem is only compounded for smaller businesses which typically have to perform these duties using staff that isn't specialized to do it, cutting into their actual job of producing goods and services that they trade for capital. This, in turn, reduces their capital, and therefore reduces the amount they pay in taxes. It also, of course, limits their ability to grow.
To get back to the topic of the thread, though, it seems problematic to me that the Prime lending rate is, and has been for a very long time, right around 0%. Banks are using these intraday funds to buy low-yield but safe investments, like treasuries, instead of using the money for what it is supposed to be used for, which is making credit available to business. Essentially, you've got the Fed giving money to banks for free, and the paying those same banks interest on the treasuries the banks are buying with the Fed's money. It's a wonderful cycle that serves to enrich the big banks and milk the taxpayer, with no end, or limit, in sight.
If we have a negative trade balance (ie sending money out of the country) then even if we run a government surplus (which is rare in itself) then if the surplus is less than the amount of trade imbalance the difference comes from either savings or increased leverage of the private sector, or printing of money which is essentially flat taxation and reduces savings across the board.