Outsourcing: The great hollowing-out myth

[SuperTool]

Yes, individuals will be hurt in the process, and the focus of public policy should be directed towards providing a safety net for them

I agree 😀

And the bulk of these exports will not be the high-flying jobs of IT consultants, but the mind-numbing functions of code-writing.

:disgust:

 

[Dari]

Why do people disagree with an article that states the obvious? Furthermore, why do those that disagree with it don't want to provide a counterpoint or a countersolution to what the article states? The obvious answer to the changing dynamics of globalization is education and innovation. I posted a NY Times article on this very subject (education and innovation) in another thread this week.

The possibility of people losing their jobs during cyclical downturns has been an accepted reality since the dawn business, yet people still bitch and moan about it. Globalization and outsourcing has been around for centuries yet people still see it as a new "evil", yet societies have managed to deal with it. Why does the same thing have to be debated at the crest and trough of each business cycle?

 

[rahvin]

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said Friday that the steady movement of U.S. jobs offshore should help the economy in the long run, but that American workers needed to be better-prepared to take whatever higher-skilled jobs come along to replace the lost jobs.

And that ladies and gentlemen is all that needs to be said. Dean lost any chance he ever had of getting my vote when he criticized Greenspan. If congress and the president listened to his adivce consistently this country would be FAR better off.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/20/news/economy/fed_greenspan/index.htm?cnn=yes

 

[ReiAyanami]

Yep even Greenspan, is on Bush's side which is significant as Greenspan is relatively "above" politics.

However countries we "offshore" to should be forced to have better environmental and worker protection.
A lot of (actually all) of those 3rd world countries are so cheap because they have atrocious 1910's labor laws, child labor, humanitarian rights abuses, and pollute for profit policies.

DO NOT ever go swimming in ANY river in india...

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Dari
Why do people disagree with an article that states the obvious? Furthermore, why do those that disagree with it don't want to provide a counterpoint or a countersolution to what the article states? The obvious answer to the changing dynamics of globalization is education and innovation. I posted a NY Times article on this very subject (education and innovation) in another thread this week.

The possibility of people losing their jobs during cyclical downturns has been an accepted reality since the dawn business, yet people still bitch and moan about it. Globalization and outsourcing has been around for centuries yet people still see it as a new "evil", yet societies have managed to deal with it. Why does the same thing have to be debated at the crest and trough of each business cycle?

Because the article is dishonest. It says trust the theory. It does not offer a solution. It says we have a surplus of cheap service jobs even though we are losing good professional jobs. It says jobs will magically appear because they have in the past, but it does not say how, why, where, or when. It says cheap labor is good for business so jobs do not matter. It is conservative bullsh@t.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: Ldir

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: razor2025

Well said. Too bad common sense and logic doesn't go through CKG and other's thick skulls. It really boils down to, "Do you want Corporations to enrich themselves at the cost of the country and its citizen?".

No. On the other hand, however, we might also prefer that the goose laying these golden eggs remains solvent, provides as many remaining jobs as possible; pays taxes, appreciates in value and contributes to the community.

This is a strawman. Companies can be profitable without offshoring their workforce. They offshore because they can, not because they must.

This is not a "strawman". Provide us with argumentative reasoning or empirical data to back up your face-saving little tirade, or STFU.

Tirade? What a baby. Three sentences.

My "tirade" is obviously true. Most US companies are profitable. Most do not offshore. Case closed. Provide us with argumentative reasoning or empirical data to back up your face-saving little whine, or STFU.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: Ldir

Tirade? What a baby. Three sentences.

My "tirade" is obviously true. Most US companies are profitable. Most do not offshore. Case closed. Provide us with argumentative reasoning or empirical data to back up your face-saving little whine, or STFU.

The corporations that do not offshore either can't or won't. However, this is not to say that other cost-saving measures are not considered or implemented.

For example, NPR this morning broadcast a report describing H2-B visa workers in this country. A large number of corporations and even small businesses take advantage of H2-B workers because of the accompanying cost savings. The state of Texas processes between 650-800 H2-B visas per month and, consequently, a 21,000 case backlog currently exists in the system. Whether you realize it or not, H2-B IS a form of outsourcing. Why? Because so many Americans won't work at $6.00 per hour and therefore, labor at this price is difficult to find.

Is labor a commodity? Certainly. If business, large or small, seeks to cut costs in order to remain competitive, and remain viable then alternatives will obviously be explored. Is such a practice inherently fair and just to the American worker? No. However, decisions are ultimately left up to the consumer as to which course of action business might pursue. Conclusively, what defines the average consumer's spending habits? LOW PRICES.

For future reference, before blithering unintelligible socialistic rants influenced by your whackjob professors, please educate thyself.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
Yep even Greenspan, is on Bush's side which is significant as Greenspan is relatively "above" politics.

However countries we "offshore" to should be forced to have better environmental and worker protection.
A lot of (actually all) of those 3rd world countries are so cheap because they have atrocious 1910's labor laws, child labor, humanitarian rights abuses, and pollute for profit policies.

DO NOT ever go swimming in ANY river in india...

Spin that baby! Bush and all previous administrations without exception have failed to heed the economic advice of Alan Greenspan. Greenspan has repeatedly warned congress and the administration that the threat of budget deficiets is real and although in can be contained in the short term extended use of them will destroy this country economically. The falling dollar will trigger inflation and Greenspan will be forced to raise interest rates to kill inflation, this will slaughter our very unstable economy.

Greenspan isn't on Bush's side or anyone's side, he simply stated a fact that offshoring in the long term will benefit our country. If anything Bush agree's with Greenspan, not the other way around. I fear the day Greenspan announces his retirement as the stock market will likely have a very sharp downturn.

 

[tcsenter]

Because the article is dishonest. It says trust the theory.

Errr...no. It says "trust the last 100+ years."

It does not offer a solution.

That's because it is arguing against the notion that there is a problem to be solved.