A discussion on Outsourcing and Job Creation

[Michael]

There are a ton of posts every day about outsourcing and jobs. Most are political fights that quickly degenerate into name calling. Most have a conclusion built in (outourcing is good or it is bad)

I?m hoping that this thread will not be political. Rather, that it be a discussion of what outsourcing means. I also plan on discussing jobs and job creation here.

I?ll start by discussing outsourcing.

The first point I would like to make is that I think we all should be honest as to why outsourcing happens. It happens because of me and you. It isn?t some faceless corporate executive, it is the decisions that we make every day.

Consider this carefully ? I?m willing to bet the vast majority of the people reading this post right now use internet merchants all the time. For example, we use Amazon.com to purchase books.

The main driver to this is almost always cost (I?m willing to concede selection and convenience also have some sway). We all want to get the most value for our money and we tend to make decisions based on what is going out of my pocket today.

One of the big advantages that Amazon.com has is that it is not required to charge Sales Tax to most of its customers. Even if the price paid was exactly the same (after shipping, ?free? or not), most people save money on the taxes alone. Of course, Use Tax laws are supposed to catch this via self reporting, but they are basically ignored by consumers.

Sales Taxes are used by States and Localities to pay for many of the services we enjoy. The local roads, police and fire departments, schools, all of these would benefit from the sales taxes we?re not paying. If we bought the book in the local bookstore, even if it was from a big chain, we would be creating local jobs in the form of the store staff. This would mean the local economy probably would be stronger as there would be more people earning salaries locally, salaries that would be taxed and rent that would be paid to local landlords.

In the long run, unless the demand for spending by the government is reined in, we?ll end up paying for the saved sales tax via higher property taxes or state income taxes. Those, however, are indirect and in the future. Right now, today, I?m saving $2.50.

Of course, the money we save on the book can be invested to pay for my daughters? college education or used to spend on something else. Why would I want to pay more?

Millions and millions of decisions like this drive companies to provide goods and services in the least expensive manner possible.

That?s a simple example, but I think it does show how we?re all causing outsourcing in one form or another? The example even fits as environmental laws, minimum wage laws, and others vary from state to state within the USA, much like these vary from country to country.

After considering what drives outsourcing, I also think it is important to know what we mean when we?re saying that something is outsourced.

In general, outsourcing means taking a process that was done internally and paying another party to do the work. This may not mean any change in geography as it is quite possible to outsource IT support and have exactly the same number of people at your site.

Outsourcing is also being used to describe moving jobs to a different locality. This can be within the same company, or the company can start buying goods and services it used to produce internally in the USA from a completely new company in a different location.

Outsourcing can be when you used to export to another place and instead you build a factory there and build locally (like the different Japanese and German car makers have done in the US).

It also can be when you used to produce the good or service locally for local consumption but now you produce it elsewhere and import it. In the same vein, you could simply close your local plant and buy it off a foreign based plant.

Some stretch the definition to include any jobs outside the home locality. So if you had never done business in China and then you build a factory there and serve the local market from there. Some would consider that outsourcing American jobs.

I tend to think of outsourcing as continuing to serve your local market but switching from doing it locally to doing it from a different location. I don?t consider building a factory in a foreign location to service that market outsourcing.

I?m interested in your views on this.

1) Is there agreement that we (the consumers) are the ones driving the trend towards outsourcing

2) What does outsourcing mean for you?

I would appreciate a more civil discussion. Once we?ve discussed the first two items, I would suggest that we could discuss what effect outsourcing is really having and what can be done about it.

I also want to discuss why focusing on jobs is not the way to create jobs. That?s a post for another day.

Michael

 

[CADsortaGUY]

1) For the most part yes - I'd say that consumers are the driving force only because we demand cheaper goods. Yes, there may be some corporations who try to cheapen their "costs" by outsourcing solely for increased profits but it could still be tracked back to the consumer's demand for cheap or competitive pricing.

2) Outsourcing to me has different levels which I think you've hit on. There are varying degrees of "outsourcing" which I suppose depends on what the company's direction and product are. Scripted call centers can be sourced to anyone who can read a computer screen and type - whether that is here in the states or elsewhere - so the company who needs the call center doesn't have the overhead/hassle(or whatever reason they want to give) associated with such an undertaking.

Anyway - I think that "outsourcing" is often misunderstood and has become a "dirty word" even though you'd be hard pressed to find an "end to end" company today. If someone else can do it cheaper/faster/better than you can from within your own company and/or it's not the main focus(product) of your company - then it only makes sense for the bean counters to recommend using a source other than from within the company.

My $.02 on this for right now

CkG

 

[przero]

1. Exactly. We have shopped ourselves out of jobs.

2. It means slowly a lowering of all our lifestyles to compete in a "world" job market.

But No. 1 is not always for competitive pricing. Nike is a great example. They have outsourced their shoe labor for YEARS to VietNam, Cambodia, etc. There shoes however, are just as expensive as NewBalance shoes made in the U.S.A. We just allowed Nike to profit more from outsourcing.

 

[DanceMan]

Originally posted by: przero
1. Exactly. We have shopped ourselves out of jobs.

2. It means slowly a lowering of all our lifestyles to compete in a "world" job market.

But No. 1 is not always for competitive pricing. Nike is a great example. They have outsourced their shoe labor for YEARS to VietNam, Cambodia, etc. There shoes however, are just as expensive as NewBalance shoes made in the U.S.A. We just allowed Nike to profit more from outsourcing.

I don't think that we have shopped ourselves out of jobs. Quite the contrary, I think the reason why people have gone to cheaper goods is because of the wages that people earn are constraining themselves to do so.

I think the greatest reason for the shifts are: #1 Globalization. #2 Free trade deregulation (especially since the WTO and NAFTA), and #3, the valuation of a corporation via stock price rather than capital.

Oh, let me add one more - the move from material goods being a industry to services and information to being a main industry.

 

[dahunan]

So, how is outsourcing good for America?

Will the cost of education come down because degrees are more in demand?

Will American citizens all of a sudden be born with higher IQ's that will help them in the new American workforce?

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: dahunan
So, how is outsourcing good for America?

Will the cost of education come down because degrees are more in demand?

Will American citizens all of a sudden be born with higher IQ's that will help them in the new American workforce?

Check your econ there buddy. An increased demand for degrees means we'd end up paying more for an education

 

[Ldir]

1) I do not think we consumers are driving outsourcing. We take advantage of it. We do not demand lower prices but we chose lower prices when we have a choice. For example, we bought books before Amazon. We bought general merchandise before WalMart.

If no one outsourced, we would still buy the same goods at the higher price. We just would not buy as many. If outsourcing was taxed or tariffed to eliminate the price benefit, we would continue to buy the same goods. No company loses market share as long as there is a level playing field. We do not have a level playing field today.

2) Outsourcing overseas means a race to the bottom. Our standard of living falls. Companies lose customers in the United States as wages fall. They will find new markets overseas as the standard of living rises in other countries.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Ldir
1) I do not think we consumers are driving outsourcing. We take advantage of it. We do not demand lower prices but we chose lower prices when we have a choice. For example, we bought books before Amazon. We bought general merchandise before WalMart.

If no one outsourced, we would still buy the same goods at the higher price. We just would not buy as many. If outsourcing was taxed or tariffed to eliminate the price benefit, we would continue to buy the same goods. No company loses market share as long as there is a level playing field. We do not have a level playing field today.

This is assuming, of course, that we don't allow the import of goods from that country, right? (Because manufacturers in that country can take advantage of the cheaper labor) Also, we don't allow the import of goods from countries whose manufacturers might outsource work to the country with cheap labor, right? Also, since the country with cheap labor might produce intermediate goods that can be made into final goods in another country, we don't import anything from any country that trades with them, right?

So basically, as long as we totally isolate ourselves, no company loses market share

[Edit] Consumers don't drive outsourcing but their inaction certainly prolongs it. Remember, consumers don't shop prices, they shop value and utility. And if consumers actually cared about outsourcing, they'd receive a great deal of satisfaction when choosing a good from a company that doesn't outsource and would be willing to pay more for it. But that doesn't happen; Consumers grab the $1 bag of outsource-heavy potato chips and don't think twice about it. Later on, they'll complain about outsourcing at the coffee house and wonder why big, faceless government doesn't do something about it.

 

[heartsurgeon]

outsourcing is an effort to optimize the return on capital in a given industry.

companies do not produce a product, and then "set the price" and go sell it.

rather, companies do an analysis of the potential buyers of a product (market research), and come up with an estimate of what the consumer is "willing to pay" for a product (or service).

yes indeed, the price of a product is established before the product is even designed!

THEN, the company looks to see whether it has competitors, and what they sell there product for, and which "features" or extras command a greater price.

the next step is figuring out how to make the product.

the final step is figuring out how much its going to cost to make the product.....this is where outsourcing comes in.

if a company cannot make a product that costs less to produce than the public is willing to pay for it..it never gets made.
if a company cannot make a product that costs less to produce than the competition sells it for..it never gets made.
the lower the cost to make a product, the higher the rate of return on capital investments...generally speaking, this is the fiduciary responsibility of the management of a company with publically traded shares..

in a global enviroment, the market forces drive most everything.
if someone makes widgets in Ohio and sells them for $100, making a $20 profit/widget,
and another comapny makes widgets in china and sells them for $80, making a $30 profit/widget guess what's going to happen.
the company in Ohio has two choices..go out of business, or outsource widget production to china, and match the $80/widget price (or add features, or lower the price)

if you "ban" outsourcing, companies will go out of business.
if you raise tariffs ("tax barriers at the borders") other countries will reciprocate and trade will decrease, and the price of EVERYTHING WILL GO UP, and the GDP will go down.

your stuck with outsourcing because it is part and parcel of globalization and free trade.

you can't stop it.

all of Kerry's "plans" are pure B.S. "taxing" companies that move jobs offshore is rediculous. the entire corporations will move offshore as well

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Ldir
1) I do not think we consumers are driving outsourcing. We take advantage of it. We do not demand lower prices but we chose lower prices when we have a choice. For example, we bought books before Amazon. We bought general merchandise before WalMart.

If no one outsourced, we would still buy the same goods at the higher price. We just would not buy as many. If outsourcing was taxed or tariffed to eliminate the price benefit, we would continue to buy the same goods. No company loses market share as long as there is a level playing field. We do not have a level playing field today.

2) Outsourcing overseas means a race to the bottom. Our standard of living falls. Companies lose customers in the United States as wages fall. They will find new markets overseas as the standard of living rises in other countries.

that is what demand is, in an economic sense....

 

[Michael]

b0mbrman - Lower prices work. For the most part, outsourcing results in lower sticker prices. I'm convinced that buying something for a lower price is part of the satisfaction that goes with the shopping experience. All of us consumers making the choice to go for lower prices drives companies to lower their cost.

Ldir - How are we being taken advantage of? We're the ones making the choice. I know that "buy local" campaigns fail when the price difference is too much. That is us making the choice. The important point behind my assertation that we're responsible for outsourcing is that we're going to have to change our behaviour if we want to change the trend. Even if we're being "taken advantage of", there still is a need for a change.

heartsurgeon - I would like to avoid calling out political people like Kerry in this thread. We can discuss "solutions" to outsourcing, but excising the political part of the discussion might help keep the thread from being too filled with flames. The general point that you make about needing to offer goods and services in comparison to what consumers are willing to pay and what your competition is offering it at (which affects what consumers are willing to pay) is valid. I also generally agree that the USA is part of a global system. A system that we helped create when we were the best producer (even with the negative trade balance today, the USA still is a huge exporter).

I don't think that we've fuly explored what outsourcing is, but I'd like to put out another assertation:

Outsourcing is bad for some people in the short-term. It does help drive lower prices for consumers but the job losses cause at least short-term pain for the people directly effected. I know that jobs are lost all the time, but outsourcing often closes entire factories all at once which can be a big shock on a town or region. Even with the fairly resiliant and flexible system in the USA (which is part of the reason why the USA is such a strong economic force), there is an impact.

So what are some of the ideas to help here?

Michael

 

[Jhhnn]

1. Price isn't the only consumer determinant. Quality, brand loyalty and even country of origin are also selection criteria. For example, I won't buy anything except Redwing boots for work- the fact that they're extremely comfortable and durable means I don't bother to shop for anything else- it'd be a waste of time, maybe a losing proposition on a relatively expensive apparel item. I'll also pay a slightly higher price for the "Made in America" or "Union Made" label, if I have that choice. And I also buy genuine Levi's, even though they're not made in this country anymore, for similar reasons. Given the choice between a Korean product and a Chinese counterpart, I'll buy Korean, because they're actually a democracy, with real labor unions and all that entails. But I'm also a Union-pinko-commie- faggotlovin'- Liberal. People buy a lot of other products based on brand loyalty- Intel based computers, for example.

The corporate quest for higher profits also drives outsourcing- Just because the price of bringing goods to market goes down doesn't mean that the price goes down significantly. If manufacturers can cut their costs significantly while maintaining sales, there's no reason to cut the price.

2. Outsourcing means that the economic compromise that drove post WW2 has ended. At that time, the Rich could get richer, but only if they carried the rest of us along with them, shared in that success. American Capital and American Labor were inseparable. Trade barriers and redistribution thru taxation kept it that way. It was a largely closed system. We competed, yeh, but the system also made sure that we shared, too.

The twin forces of Reaganomics and Globalization changed everything- Investors have more to invest, and more freedom to do so, meaning they can afford to build that new factory outside the US, as a cost cutting measure. There's still sufficient demand in this country to carry profits, even at a lower price, while foreign demand builds. And, of course, whenever our Economy dips, the cry goes out to cut taxes at the top, to stimulate investment- Except that investment doesn't occur in America, but rather somewhere else, exacerbating the problem, accelerating wealth and power disparity across class lines in our country. The Rich are trying to get a divorce, while claiming we should pay them maintenance with a huge military to protect their interests and favorable tax treatment so we can receive their largely non-existent investment.... While our leadership is complicit, borrowing incessantly to maintain the illusion of prosperity and well-being.

The top 29K Americans have as much income as the lowest 96M- that's .001% vs 33%, and that gulf is rapidly expanding, simply because those at the top don't really pay any higher total taxes than the rest of us, they often pay less. And they invest those profits in ways that will create the highest returns, and that's not in America.

I'd encourage anybody who cares to read this article, and then the book, too- Perfectly Legal

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=16668

 

[cquark]

I don't think the solution can be found in changing how people making pricing choices, because you suggest, Michael, there is a satisfaction in getting lower prices that's a deep part of our heritage as hunter gatherers which can't be widely changed in a few years or even generations. Besides, the benefits of lower prices can be taken advantage of by everyone, while the harm of losing jobs only impacts a few people at a time (though to a much greater extent than saving a few dollars on luxury items like DVD players made overseas does for those who benefit.) If we want to protect the few before they become the many, we can't rely on individual choices to make a difference in time. We need structural changes.

The primary structural change we need is a change in corporate governance. There was another period like today in American history--the Robber Baron era of the late 19th century--where corporations grew too powerful but then were eventually reigned in by group actions--unions and legislation. However, we still live with one of the major problems of that era--a Supreme Court reporter's comment in the Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad case which stated that corporations were people, protected by the Bill of Rights and the post-Civil War amendments meant for the equality of persons. Corporations are legal fictions that we establish through government action. They were originally established for the public good, and their charters could be and sometimes were revoked when they failed in that duty. The change from that idea to the modern one where corporations are only responsible for generating profits has been terribly corrosive to human society.

Some U.S. states have passed laws stating that corporations aren't people, which is a good start, but one of the advantages of corporations over humans is that they are omnipresent, able to choose which state's laws they abide by while doing business everyplace, and thus state by state legislation will do us limited good until we can change the laws of Delaware, whether directly (unlikely) or indirectly through federal oversight of corporations.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I think people have gotten a bit one tracked on this "outsourcing" thing. Do any of you work for an "end-to-end" company? Or do you outsource parts of production, service, IT, etc? Or are you all content to think of "outsourcing" only as sending jobs out of the country?

Also, I think the fact that we seem to over pay alot of people who have no skills has been a big contributor to "oursourcing" to places who have cheaper labor(both in and out of country). But that dives into another subject - overpaid unskilled labor.

Here is a little different take on this. Hopefully addressing both ends of the global effects of "oursourcing" isn't off topic

CkG

 

[Michael]

Jhhnn - The three questions I have about your problems with income distribution in the USA:

1) Wouldn't you agree that the USA has more than its fair share of income and wealth (as a percentage of the total world population which is the same way you presented the data)? If so, doesn't outsourcing help in transferring some of that wealth form the USA to the rest of the world? Didn't the USA build much of its early development on the backs of slaves?

2) Is the disproportion bad or simply the end result of our system that has very large pay-offs if you execute an idea fully? I know that studies on gambling have shown a potential but rare pay-off is a big motivator when the pay-off is huge.

3) Isn't the USA still the best place in terms of the ability of people to move from the lower class to the upper class?

The problem with those questions, of course, is that they can lead to flames.

So, instead, I will accept the point that some people of companies benefit more than others from outsourcing and that it contributes to some people being unable to make more money and move up the ladder.

Michael

 

[Tom]

Outsourcing occurs because companies want to cut costs so they can make money. Blaming consumers is backwards thinking.

But I think outsourcing isn't the problem, the problem is the world belongs to corporations now. No nation has the power to regulate behavior of global corporations, and there isn't any global organization that regulates corporations.

I don't know if there is any possibility of undoing this.

 

[Jhhnn]

In answer to your questions, Michael-

1. Yes. Yes. Yes again.

The problem is that this redistribution isn't be presented as such, and that a very few wealthy individuals reap the largest rewards. For every dollar redistributed in this fashion, only a small percentage actually goes to the foreign worker. Few govts in the developing world engage in income redistribution except on a regressive level- moving wealth to the top, extracting it from the lower echelons. That's why investors favor certain nations- they don't pay any taxes, and workers there are utterly disposable. There's nothing humanitarian driving outsourcing, any benefits in that regard are pretty much unintended consequence. Slavery per se has been replaced by economic slavery. Keeping slaves in poor condition reflected badly on their owner- it's easier, cheaper, and entails less social responsibility to claim that they're "free".

2. Yes.

Some disproportion is obviously desirable, but the situation is now utterly counterproductive in terms of Democracy and the common good. I think that we can agree that income redistribution serves as a stabilizing and unifying force in our society, if history is any example, and was the basis of our post WW2 shared prosperity. Hell, if I made tens of millions annually, I'd be happy and proud to pay big taxes on it, believing that the system provided to me is as much responsible for success as my own efforts- reference Warren Buffet in this regard...

3. Yes, although that's rapidly changing, and has been more illusory than real for decades. The upper class, not including the extravagantly wealthy, is beinng dragged down in the process as well. Eliminating Estate Taxes will insure a hereditary Plutocracy, further reducing the availability of wealth created with redistribution.

 

[Michael]

Jhhnn - I go to China 6 or so times a year as part of my job. What I see in Shanghai and what I hear when I talk to the average person there is not "illusionary" redistribution. Their lives have become significantly better and their country is becoming more and more entwined with the Western world. This means more and more exposure to democracy and Western thought. This is a real benefit of outsourcing (in my opinion).

The same is happening in India. I expect India to become a huge force. It already is a democracy and it is my experience and expectation that the people's will gets unleashed far more strongly in a democracy. First they came to the USA for good jobs. Now they're able to stay in India (more and more) and enjoy much of what they could in the USA. That means more and more pressure on the government to open up more. I ahve never been to India, so some of this is second hand. I've personally seen the effect on China.

Michael

 

[cquark]

Dead Parrot Sketch, read my post above where I talk about states beginning to pass laws to revoke the status of U.S. corporations as people. Corporate assumption of human rights is how the age of corporate unaccountability took off.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Michael
Ldir - How are we being taken advantage of? We're the ones making the choice. I know that "buy local" campaigns fail when the price difference is too much. That is us making the choice. The important point behind my assertation that we're responsible for outsourcing is that we're going to have to change our behaviour if we want to change the trend. Even if we're being "taken advantage of", there still is a need for a change.

I did not say we are "taken advantage of". I said we consumers take advantage of the lowest prices available. They are totally different.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: cquark
Dead Parrot Sketch, read my post above where I talk about states beginning to pass laws to revoke the status of U.S. corporations as people. Corporate assumption of human rights is how the age of corporate unaccountability took off.

You make some good points but I think the issue is too big for any nation, let alone states, to deal with. Corporations can pick what countries they want to operate in, and wield unrestricted power in some nations. I think this ability to operate without restriction is a bigger reason for outsourcing than low wages are.

The problem is the restrictions, like child labor laws, pollution controls, etc., are fundamentally just ways of forcing corporations to deal with some of the long term costs of doing business, that are not normally included in quarterly calculations. When corporations are free to ignore these hidden costs, by operating unregulated, all they are really doing is shifting the cost onto someone else. It isn't real productivity, it's an illusion.

 

[dmcowen674]

Company that was regarded as Icon in Pricipal over Greed succumbs to Greed and Outsourcing:

4-4-2004 Global economy strains loyalty in company town

The story of Cummins Diesel:

Many of the jobs lost over the last several years are gone for good. And that has already taken its toll on towns like Columbus. After years of more gradual cuts, the loss of lucrative white- and blue-collar work is diluting a once-thriving middle class. A growing gap between haves and have-nots is creating social strife and bitterness. Even many of the employed are working frantically or jumping on the retraining treadmill to help save their jobs.

Miller's dedication to the community is legendary. He began the company's program of encouraging church groups, school boards and other civic organizations to hire famous architects to design the town's public spaces. Cummins paid the architects' fees but left the choice of architects and designs to the local groups.

He also stepped up to defend the town's interests against Wall Street's more banal side in 1989 when his family fended off a takeover bid from Britain's Hanson PLC, one of the era's most notorious corporate raiders. In a move hailed nationally as a triumph of principle over greed

At home, a mature market for heavy-duty truck engines means success boils down to one thing: who has the best technology at the lowest cost. For the last decade, global truck manufacturers like Volvo and DaimlerChrysler have been consolidating into massive companies that can, and do, squeeze Cummins for every last penny.

The Environmental Protection Agency (news - web sites), meanwhile, has instituted strict new standards that have required drastic reductions in diesel engine emissions. The result: Cummins has been thrust into an expensive race for compliance with its archrival, Peoria-based Caterpillar Inc.

What Solso realized was that the health of the enterprise had to take priority over the company's loyalty to Columbus. If the company founders, it won't do anybody much good. Health depends on many constituents: Wall Street, which provides it money to operate; employees overseas, who represent 43 percent of the company's workforce; and customers, who demand low costs.

Coupled with advances in technology and the availability of cheap, high-quality resources in other parts of the world, it inevitably means eliminating many jobs in the U.S. and shifting some work abroad.

While Sims has endured plenty of hassles, he is still doing all right. Others, like Karl Nading, 55, haven't been so fortunate. He started at Golden 20 years ago hauling sand and scrap iron out of the foundry's basement. His wages peaked near $20 an hour in the 1990s. He was making $12.50 when the doors closed.

And the average wage for those requesting financial aid has gone up, a signal that even people with reasonable jobs are in trouble.

With the middle class under siege, "the extremes create a greater debate because there's nothing in the middle to temper it," Solso says.

Doug Otto, the head of the local United Way, adds that the nation's epidemic of layoffs and corporate scandals has broken people's faith in leadership.

"We got rid of loyalty," Otto says. "There's almost a backlash that says we don't have to pay attention to these guys anymore. I think the change we've seen is the tip of the iceberg."

It's also true, however, that Columbus is adjusting to its new reality. The Japanese companies have stepped up to help support community groups like the Columbus Indiana Philharmonic. Love Chapel is never without enthusiastic donors. Even some of the companies most displaced by Cummins streamlining have found new ways to thrive.

Economists call that process creative destruction and for America, it has become the economic challenge of the early 21st Century. Some companies, like Golden Casting, will go out of business. Others, like SIHO, will find a new way to compete.

"We don't really know what the 21st Century is going to be like, except that it's going to be very different from the past," Miller said. "The experience we have is the experience of a world disappeared. It's gone. It's not coming back. And that means we have to look forward."
----------------------------------------------------------
Read the whole article. It addresses what Michael is talking about here quite well.

We are done as the Super Power the U.S. once was, no one knows if it will survive, if it does it will just be like any other Country. But this is not new, many already know this to be true.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Michael
b0mbrman - Lower prices work. For the most part, outsourcing results in lower sticker prices. I'm convinced that buying something for a lower price is part of the satisfaction that goes with the shopping experience. All of us consumers making the choice to go for lower prices drives companies to lower their cost.

Uh...utility or value is satisfaction - price...price is worked in, don't worry

 

[Michael]

The emotional answer I have to the doomsayers is that the USA and Americans have faced sweeping changes quite a few times and emerged on top each time.

Even if the trend is towards a more global economy and that results in some leveling of the USA, we're starting off with the best universities in the world, the best health care system in the world, a well trained and flexible workforce, and a political system that is free and able to deal with challenges.

Outsourcing is a challenge without any doubt.

Michael

 

[SuperTool]

Yes, consumers are the driving force for outsourcing, but so what?
Consumers are also the driving force for drugs, prostitution, etc. Just because something is consumer driven, doesn't mean it's a good thing.