Headline FeedsTechNewsWorld Talkback
|
|
See Full Story
This week, the General Accounting Office (GAO) released a study on the outsourcing of jobs overseas, prompting at least two Seattle-based unions to call for government action. But while protectionism might be a typical reaction, America's future depends on embracing trade. The reasons to support greater trade are based on solid economic principles such as comparative advantage.
Outsourcing is good for America. bad or good?
Posted by: J_bolensky 2008-10-03 14:00:12 In reply to: Sonia Arrison
However many times it is mentioned that sending jobs overseas is good for america. Is it really good when because there are no jobs, poeple can't buy the products and America collapses because of businesses not recieving anymore money in America?
My biggest problem is the argument that by creating a world full of consumers just like Americans we will justify the costs of outsourcing. I didn't know consumer culture was such a positive thing to spread. Yeah...I really hope we can create 6 billion people that are as wasteful as us and maybe we can complicate our environmental problems further...
Re: Outsourcing is Good for America
Posted by: underpants 2004-09-24 10:40:00 In reply to: Sonia Arrison
Wow, many questions raised in this article:
"This week, the General Accounting Office (GAO) released a study on the outsourcing of jobs overseas, prompting at least two Seattle-based unions to call for government action.
But while protectionism might be a typical reaction, America's future depends on embracing trade."
Explain to me how objecting to outsourcing = anti-trade? Aren’t job outsourcing and trade policy two separate issues?
“The reasons to support greater trade are based on solid economic principles…as outlined by David Ricardo in the early 19th century.” Great, but it is now the early 21st century, and I think the nature of the global economy has shifted a tad in the intervening 200 or so years.
Basically, the argument is that outsourcing means cheaper labor costs, which means more businesses will open, which means ulimately there will be more jobs. Also, outsourcing widens the US market, as more people overseas will now have more money to buy US goods.
“But while these arguments make sense…” uh uh, not so fast!! Begging the question a little here, aren’t we? I’m afraid I don’t share this rosy view of the future. Where in this article are there statistics that prove the point? Have we started to see new businesses open here in the US? How much re-investing of profits are companies doing, and what are the stats on the numbers of jobs this is creating? What are the numbers on the increased income levels in outsourced-to countries and how it is helping US companies?
The article goes on to say “the debate over outsourcing is clouded with fear and hysteria.” Hm, I’m guessing the author has never been laid off. Just so everyone knows, it has the affect of making you scared and yes, a little hysterical.
Then comes the “jobs are being lost, but they’re being found just as fast” argument. Very slippery. The figures quoted are certainly inarguable. However, what are the stats on the relative salaries of those re-found jobs? Are people making more or less money when they find a new job? Could it be that people are making less money in their new jobs than they did previously? I don’t know, but this data is strangely absent from the article.
The article concludes with a slam on Lou Dobbs and John Kerry, and I’m not about to defend those two boobs. They are both two-faced and disingenuous. Unfortunately, so is the author of this article.
This article could have been written by the Bush campaign, it is so partisan. The truth is that it is not a given, by any means, that outsourcing will eventually better the lot of the US worker (and indeed the global economy as a whole.) It is just as likely (if not more so) that this process, if allowed to proceed unabated, will gradually increase unemployment; will gradually erode the US worker’s earning power; will result in negligible increased buying power of overseas workers, thereby having no impact on the global economy; and on and on. Everything the author states as a given in this article is NOT a given by any stretch of the imagination.
The solution evinced here is “relax, everything will work out.” Sorry, I’m not so optimistic that we should just let things run their course. Given the contemptuous manner in which US corporations have treated their employees in this country (especially recently), I view such defenses of outsourcing with a healthy dose of skepticism. Put simply, I don’t trust ‘em. We need to keep a close eye on this, and wade through the partisan garbage on both sides to protect ourselves and our families.
"This week, the General Accounting Office (GAO) released a study on the outsourcing of jobs overseas, prompting at least two Seattle-based unions to call for government action.
But while protectionism might be a typical reaction, America's future depends on embracing trade."
Explain to me how objecting to outsourcing = anti-trade? Aren’t job outsourcing and trade policy two separate issues?
“The reasons to support greater trade are based on solid economic principles…as outlined by David Ricardo in the early 19th century.” Great, but it is now the early 21st century, and I think the nature of the global economy has shifted a tad in the intervening 200 or so years.
Basically, the argument is that outsourcing means cheaper labor costs, which means more businesses will open, which means ulimately there will be more jobs. Also, outsourcing widens the US market, as more people overseas will now have more money to buy US goods.
“But while these arguments make sense…” uh uh, not so fast!! Begging the question a little here, aren’t we? I’m afraid I don’t share this rosy view of the future. Where in this article are there statistics that prove the point? Have we started to see new businesses open here in the US? How much re-investing of profits are companies doing, and what are the stats on the numbers of jobs this is creating? What are the numbers on the increased income levels in outsourced-to countries and how it is helping US companies?
The article goes on to say “the debate over outsourcing is clouded with fear and hysteria.” Hm, I’m guessing the author has never been laid off. Just so everyone knows, it has the affect of making you scared and yes, a little hysterical.
Then comes the “jobs are being lost, but they’re being found just as fast” argument. Very slippery. The figures quoted are certainly inarguable. However, what are the stats on the relative salaries of those re-found jobs? Are people making more or less money when they find a new job? Could it be that people are making less money in their new jobs than they did previously? I don’t know, but this data is strangely absent from the article.
The article concludes with a slam on Lou Dobbs and John Kerry, and I’m not about to defend those two boobs. They are both two-faced and disingenuous. Unfortunately, so is the author of this article.
This article could have been written by the Bush campaign, it is so partisan. The truth is that it is not a given, by any means, that outsourcing will eventually better the lot of the US worker (and indeed the global economy as a whole.) It is just as likely (if not more so) that this process, if allowed to proceed unabated, will gradually increase unemployment; will gradually erode the US worker’s earning power; will result in negligible increased buying power of overseas workers, thereby having no impact on the global economy; and on and on. Everything the author states as a given in this article is NOT a given by any stretch of the imagination.
The solution evinced here is “relax, everything will work out.” Sorry, I’m not so optimistic that we should just let things run their course. Given the contemptuous manner in which US corporations have treated their employees in this country (especially recently), I view such defenses of outsourcing with a healthy dose of skepticism. Put simply, I don’t trust ‘em. We need to keep a close eye on this, and wade through the partisan garbage on both sides to protect ourselves and our families.
It is amazing to see a such of combination of nonsense as within this article.
General Accounting Office (GAO) released a sudo-study reaching the conclusion that loosing jobs in US is a good thing.
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/36877.html
However, a couple of points are obviously trash:
Myth #1
"America is extremely good at innovating and starting new businesses -- and outsourcing boosts this efficiency."
And who is going to inovate if the jobs with advanced degrees are sent to India? A PhD. washing dishes into a restaurant is obviously not in the position to use his potential to create inovation.
The inovation will always come from educated peoples. And now these peoples are without a job.
Myth #2
"But if it's cheaper to hire labor, more businesses are likely to be created, spurring greater economic growth, investment and ultimately local job creation when companies re-invest their profits."
Here are 2 lies into single statement:
#2.1 Why the profit is going to be invested here and not there, since with the same amount of money they will get more workers?
#2.2 After a couple of years when they may (but likelly not) want to re-invest here, the qualified workforce here lost the skills by not using them for a long time. Since there is no money to be made into technology,
the students will not follow that career anymore. So, why invest back here when there are no skills and you have to pay more for low skills, how long you find curent skills there and they are cheap?
Myth #3
"Aside from the obvious benefit of helping pull poor countries out of the economic basement, it's also the case that by stimulating economic growth overseas, the U.S. is creating new markets in which to sell its products."
The guys writting this are out of their mind. Why they would buy
a US product when they can buy something cheap from China or India?
Since the workforce in US is more expensive than outside, the products will
obviously be more expensive.
The only reason US may sell something is if we can inovate something that China or India can not. But to inovate you need to have specialists here. Politicians and dish washers will never create a new technology, however
the jobs with high education are send overseas. Without inovation, US will not produce anything that can be sold overseas UNTILL wages here will be LOWER than the lowest in India and China.
The biggest lie:
"But while these arguments make sense, the debate over outsourcing is clouded with fear and hysteria."
Well, the problem is that these arguments DO NOT MAKE SENSE AT ALL.
Are just lies. Or if the authors trully believe them, then we have there a bunch of incompetents. Who is hysteric here? Or do they expect that any
lie have to be believed only because Greenspan wants that?
Myth #4
"Losing a job is never easy and, like the shift from an agricultural to a modern economy, outsourcing does temporarily displace workers"
In a balanced economy (like Europe have) the social security it is used as a feedback loop to regulate the job market. When the gov. is due to SS benefits over it can afford, it have to do something to reduce the job loss.
In the US, the benefits will simply expire after a short amount of time,
and the feedback loop is broken. The result => social instability, crime explosion and ........
Those who do not know history are condamned to repeat it !!!
Myth #5
"While these numbers might sound frightening, 400,000 jobs constitute only 0.3 percent of the U.S. labor force and the data indicate that workers who lose their jobs find new ones relatively quickly."
But how much of the educated workforce? This is not allowed to be written, isn't it?
An PhD. in Artificial Intelligence who work as a disk washer will be acounted as a employed disk washer and not as a unemployed scientist.
The 0.3% statistics looks good, but who is going to create a new product that can be sold oversea? Greenspan?
The final lie:
"Public figures like Kerry and Dobbs should stop using such an important issue to score points with a fearful public. Like the switch from an agricultural to a modern economy, outsourcing will bring temporary pain but long-term gains."
So here we go.... This is the reason for all this report.
The fact that a journalist say something like that is her rights. But why in the world GAO will compromise itself for a political game?
General Accounting Office (GAO) released a sudo-study reaching the conclusion that loosing jobs in US is a good thing.
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/36877.html
However, a couple of points are obviously trash:
Myth #1
"America is extremely good at innovating and starting new businesses -- and outsourcing boosts this efficiency."
And who is going to inovate if the jobs with advanced degrees are sent to India? A PhD. washing dishes into a restaurant is obviously not in the position to use his potential to create inovation.
The inovation will always come from educated peoples. And now these peoples are without a job.
Myth #2
"But if it's cheaper to hire labor, more businesses are likely to be created, spurring greater economic growth, investment and ultimately local job creation when companies re-invest their profits."
Here are 2 lies into single statement:
#2.1 Why the profit is going to be invested here and not there, since with the same amount of money they will get more workers?
#2.2 After a couple of years when they may (but likelly not) want to re-invest here, the qualified workforce here lost the skills by not using them for a long time. Since there is no money to be made into technology,
the students will not follow that career anymore. So, why invest back here when there are no skills and you have to pay more for low skills, how long you find curent skills there and they are cheap?
Myth #3
"Aside from the obvious benefit of helping pull poor countries out of the economic basement, it's also the case that by stimulating economic growth overseas, the U.S. is creating new markets in which to sell its products."
The guys writting this are out of their mind. Why they would buy
a US product when they can buy something cheap from China or India?
Since the workforce in US is more expensive than outside, the products will
obviously be more expensive.
The only reason US may sell something is if we can inovate something that China or India can not. But to inovate you need to have specialists here. Politicians and dish washers will never create a new technology, however
the jobs with high education are send overseas. Without inovation, US will not produce anything that can be sold overseas UNTILL wages here will be LOWER than the lowest in India and China.
The biggest lie:
"But while these arguments make sense, the debate over outsourcing is clouded with fear and hysteria."
Well, the problem is that these arguments DO NOT MAKE SENSE AT ALL.
Are just lies. Or if the authors trully believe them, then we have there a bunch of incompetents. Who is hysteric here? Or do they expect that any
lie have to be believed only because Greenspan wants that?
Myth #4
"Losing a job is never easy and, like the shift from an agricultural to a modern economy, outsourcing does temporarily displace workers"
In a balanced economy (like Europe have) the social security it is used as a feedback loop to regulate the job market. When the gov. is due to SS benefits over it can afford, it have to do something to reduce the job loss.
In the US, the benefits will simply expire after a short amount of time,
and the feedback loop is broken. The result => social instability, crime explosion and ........
Those who do not know history are condamned to repeat it !!!
Myth #5
"While these numbers might sound frightening, 400,000 jobs constitute only 0.3 percent of the U.S. labor force and the data indicate that workers who lose their jobs find new ones relatively quickly."
But how much of the educated workforce? This is not allowed to be written, isn't it?
An PhD. in Artificial Intelligence who work as a disk washer will be acounted as a employed disk washer and not as a unemployed scientist.
The 0.3% statistics looks good, but who is going to create a new product that can be sold oversea? Greenspan?
The final lie:
"Public figures like Kerry and Dobbs should stop using such an important issue to score points with a fearful public. Like the switch from an agricultural to a modern economy, outsourcing will bring temporary pain but long-term gains."
So here we go.... This is the reason for all this report.
The fact that a journalist say something like that is her rights. But why in the world GAO will compromise itself for a political game?
"The inovation will always come from educated peoples." Excuse me? I thought you just implied that only educated people are innovative. I have a High School Diploma and a little college and started a company in a basement with $100.00, a broken Radio Shack phone and a table made of drywall. Last year we grossed 1.5 Million and employed 15 people. (With health insurance by the way.)In fact a vast majority of small businesses and entrepenurial ventures are stared by people like myself, not ones with a PHD- They work for me!
Thanks
Thanks
Yeah look at Bill Gates he began Microsoft as a College (or was it High school) Drop out.
Although it is very impressive. Let me ask you what did you inovate? People here were talking about scientific and engineering inovations (which obviously more possible to do with higher education) buit not about another way to sell something to someboby with huge margin. The article's author said that America is good in business (supposedly sales business). But let me ask what will you sell if nothing new is produced and who will you sell to if nobody is able to buy it because one has no money?
You make a great point on that soon there will be no more people to buy the product. People who make the big bucks eventually get hit hard when the money runs out from the average American.(For the story sake, let's call these people, upper middle class workers with high school diplomas and little college.) They don't think longterm. Sure you can sell yourself for a short period of time. I hope this person is a savvy investor. Another thing, this person says they employed 15 people, big deal. What about the hundreds of thousands of people in the US who don't have jobs? Does he have room for them too?
