Out-sourcing Goes Both Ways.

In the discussions about out-sourcing, I've noticed that many people usually focus on all the U.S jobs that go overseas. But I hear little about the many jobs that come to American through companies like Toyota,Honda and the many other foreign companies that set up shop in the U.S. I've heard it pointed out that America actually imports twice as many jobs as it exports. So if this is accurate,then this shows that many Americans are also benefiting from globalization/outsourcing. So maybe out-sourcing isn't the problem that some assume it is?

 

well you have a point. i dont know of any issue that is cut and dry, black and white.


always shades of gray.

 

Oh, it's all good until it happens to you.

The only reason it happens is so that some rich guy can get even richer.

 

No, it happens so the market can grow in a free economy and benefit everyone.

 

Riiiiiiight. Keep on shovelin that. They love ya.

 

That doesn't address the point made by Motion. If his numbers are accurate, the United States insources two jobs for every one that it outsources. It sounds to me like you lost your job to outsourcing. Well tough shit. Why should the system change just for YOU, especially if there is a net gain in jobs?

"Rich guys getting even richer" means more employment opportunity, as they look for ways to invest their money.

 

Thank you so much for your compasion and concern. Now go play in heavy traffic.

These two in-sourced jobs for every out-sourced job... that would be why unemployment figures are going up? Even in the face of people who have lost their jobs to out-sourcing having to work two, even three jobs just to retain the same income level prior to being out-sourced? And with a possible loss of benefits? Hoo-ray for your vision of economics.

The point of out-sourcing is to get cheaper labor, period. There is no vision of a global economy beyond how does it help those with wealth and power attain more.

 

lmfao.... right pal.

 

I don't know if the insource/outsource ratio Motion supplied is correct. With that said, why would it necessarily imply anything about the unemployment rate? Jobs are created and lost for reasons other than outsourcing, y'know...

That's their tough luck. Someone else is benefiting an equal or greater amount from an imported job. You can't make everyone happy, nor should the government even try to.

Yes, "my vision of economics." What kind of economist would ever support free trade, a free market, and capitalist economic principles? Oh wait...almost all of them.

Just because the people who outsource jobs are thinking of themselves doesn't mean that no one else benefits. The foreign worker who takes the outsourced job is much better off. The company's shareholders have a greater profit margin and are much better off. The US government collects more taxes from the company and is better off. The foreign government collects more taxes from the worker and is better off. The company has more money to spend on more domestic workers and/or more attractive benefits for the workers it already has, so the American workers are better off.

Everyone is better off except the guy who lost his job to outsourcing. That's a small price to pay for economic policies which don't strangle the economy with protectionism.

 

Damn! And I thought you were going to say that a company decided to keep factory jobs here in the US, by hiring a CEO at prevailing wages in China, Mexico, or India....

 

lmao. Now wouldn't THAT be something!

 

New Hyundai plant in Alabama adds to Asia's challenge to Big Three automakers

http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ%2FMGArticle%2FWSJ_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031782838027&path=!business&s=1037645507703


Honda to start construction on Georgia plant

http://atlanta.bizjournals.com/atlanta/stories/2005/05/09/daily9.html

 

Should they be thinking of someone else? Should they be thinking about someone else's wife, family?

Sorry. I really don't care that much about the foreign worker.

The stockholders are already making a profit. Why else would they have invested in the company?

But that is offset by the loss of revenues from outsourced jobs.

Sorry. I really don't care that much about the foreign government.

Let me see if I've got this right... it's a good thing for you to lose your job and for me to keep mine because now I have more spent on me by the company ( that's funny) and, in outsourcing your job, the company is going to give me a benefit?......... I bet you believe in Santie Clause! Don't bogart that joint my friend, pass it over to me.

The keeping of jobs at home isn't protectionism. It's good sense. It's doing for your own. I'm all for extending a hand to those in need, but my own are taken care of first. Domestic workers losing jobs strangles the economy. Why else would the administration blow their horn when unemployment goes down? (See what we did? We created jobs! We're the good guys!) The unemployed don't buy as much. They don't get a new car; they don't buy expensive cuts of meat; they buy less vegetables; they don't buy cloths just because they like the outfit; they don't eat out; they don't travel, take vacations, buy new appliances, make upgrades to property, buy houses. This strangles the economy. So, no, everyone is not better off.

 

It doesn't matter who you think they "should" be thinking of, because you aren't going to change human nature through legislation or political debate. But as I said in the part of that sentence that you conveniently cut, the fact that they're thinking of themself doesn't mean that no one else benefits.

Making MORE profit isn't a good thing? If they don't feel they're making enough profit, they'll take their investment dollars elsewhere...perhaps outsourcing their money.

You're right, but it is only PARTIALLY offset because corporate income tax rates and personal income tax rates follow different rules.

If the company wants to attract better workers, or wants to keep the valuable workers it already has, then yes, it is very likely that they'll invest more in them.

But as people have mentioned and you have ignored, there are many jobs being insourced into this country as well. How do you propose that we keep THOSE jobs while also banning outsourcing? Anyone who understands international politics realizes that countries, generally run by childish politicians, tend to respond to protectionism with retaliatory protectionism. If we somehow made it difficult for American companies to outsource jobs to other countries, other governments would make it difficult for their companies to outsource jobs to America.

Because they're politicians who want to get reelected, not because they actually deserve much credit for creating jobs. These same politicians who take the credit for economic booms are the quickest to run for cover during recessions.

So the gist of your argument against outsourcing is "unemployment is bad." Yet you refuse to address the fact that foreign companies also provide employment to American workers, and you haven't shown any correlation between outsourcing and high unemployment.

 

Unemployment is only one facet of the problem with outsourcing. Decimation of our domestic manufacturing and industrial infrastructure is the one that concerns me the most.

How did the US manage to win WW2, despite a late entry into the war? How did we put men on the moon within a decade, when nobody had left the earth's atmosphere before? How did we develop transistors, integrated circuits, color TV and communications satellites? We did it by harnessing the power of a huge manufacturing base, and the industrial and scientific infrastructure that supported it. And it is those very resources that have been systematically stripped away in the quest for cheap consumer goods and quick profits for shareholders.

By shipping manufacturing overseas in search of cheap labor (and increased corporate profits), the country has gotten to a point where nothing much is made here anymore besides rich CEOs. And in the event of a major world upheaval, it will be a REAL "homeland security" issue when the country cannot produce for it's own needs anymore.

What will we do with a bunch of empty Wal-Marts and strip malls when we need to tool up overnight for the next "Manhattan Project", like a search for alternative energy sources? Manufacturing is the ONLY sector of an economy that actually CREATES wealth, and we have just about destroyed it here in the US.

 

We've simply moved past the manufacturing age. The United States, like all countries, should focus on what it does best...and from a global perspective, manufacturing is NOT what we do best.

You're right that those events were great accomplishments by the manufacturing base in this country. But they also occurred many decades ago.

Nothing is made here any more? The United States is the world leader in MANY industries, especially in intellectual property.

How did you reach the conclusion that only manufacturing creates wealth? EVERY sector of the economy creates wealth with the exception of the public sector.

 

Bullshit. As long as manufactured goods are still needed, we are still in the "manufacturing age".

"Intellectual Property" is essentially nonexistent. I am talking about real, tangible goods, not ideas and concepts that only exist because of legal niceties.

Only manufacturing takes relatively cheap raw materials and creates something of greater value than what went in. The "service economy" is essentially shuffling money back and forth, with nothing concrete being created. It is PARASITIC, not productive.

 

Well, we still need food too. Does that mean we're still in the agrarian age?

What makes a great computer program inherently less valuable than a box of Oreos? What makes a blockbuster movie inherently less valuable than an automobile? What makes a best-selling novel inherently less valuable than a sofa? Things are worth what people are willing to pay for them, and people are willing to pay for things in proportion to how much utility they'll receive from them.

Just because you can't touch intellectual property with your hands, doesn't mean it's worthless.

That's not true at all. First of all, intellectual property takes cheap raw materials (ideas) and creates something of greater value (a movie, a book, a song, a computer program). As for the service economy, why does it matter that "nothing concrete is being created"? Why this obsession with physical products that you can touch? People are benefiting from the services of others; if they weren't, they wouldn't buy them.

Look at Hong Kong: a city-state with no natural resources and a very small manufacturing base. Yet by trading services with one another, they've gone from being an impoverished third-world colony to a wealthy first-world state. They've created very few "concrete products" as you would call them.

 

Food production would be a form of manufacturing, no? Taking of raw materials and producing usable goods...

A box of cookies is useful as food in and of itself. The computer program requires a computer (and all its components) to be manufactured and electricity to be generated (and a powerplant built, powerlines strung, etc.) in order to run it. It has no value unless a huge infrastructure preceeds it. MANUFACTURING allows such an infrastructure to be built and maintained.

Ideas are not raw materials. And something that can be endlessly duplicated with little to no additional effort beyond its initial production IS inherently less valuable than material goods.

Because when the economy collapses and people realize that it is nothing but the same money changing hands in a giant circlejerk, all that we will have left are concrete goods. And those of us who know how to do something besides shuffling paper will be the ones to bring the society back.

Imagine trying to start a commune. Would you do better with a group of carpenters, farmers, engineers, and artisans, or a group of stockbrokers, consultants, bankers, and lawyers? I know where I would be....

Or they would learn to perform them for themselves....

And when the global economic bubble bursts, Hong Kong will be among the hardest hit places, along with every other economy that is based on hype and inflated stock prices.....

 

All this shows is that we need some manufacturing jobs somewhere in the world. Why do they particularly need to be in the United States in order for us to use our intellectual property?

The fact that intellectual property regularly sells for a respectable price proves otherwise.

People aren't going to suddenly "realize" that they aren't benefiting by trading their services for the services of others, because that isn't the case. You sound like a communist preaching the coming economic apocalypse...if that is the case, we have little common ground to discuss the issue.

If you were starting from scratch with no contact with the outside world, you might have a point. However, the United States (nor any other country) is NOT a commune with no contact with the outside world. So what exactly does this thought experiment prove?

As long as the farming is getting done somewhere in the world, what's wrong with having most of the people working in the service sector?

Communist countries have tried this and it simply doesn't work. Why should people try to be a jack-of-all-trades when they can specialize in what they do best and then trade their services for someone else's specialty? If I'm a fantastic doctor and you're a fantastic architect and we trade our services, we're both better off than if I tried to build a house and you tried to treat your disease.

If you say so. Communists have been preaching this for decades and we're still waiting for the "global economic bubble" to burst. In fact, we're still waiting for economic signs that the bubble burst is even coming.

Service jobs aren't a "circle jerk." Do you do everything yourself without relying on the help of experts?