Wall Street Journal: More Work is Outsourced to U.S. than Away from it

gsaldivar

Diamond Member
Apr 30, 2001
8,691
1
81
The Wall Street Journal

By Michael M. Phillips
March 15, 2004

More Work is Outsourced to U.S. than Away from it, Data Show

WASHINGTON -- Despite the political outcry over the outsourcing of white-collar jobs to such places as India and Ghana, the latest U.S. government data suggest that foreigners outsource far more office work to the U.S. than American companies send abroad.

The value of U.S. exports of legal work, computer programming, telecommunications, banking, engineering, management consulting and other private services jumped to $131.01 billion in 2003, up $8.42 billion from the previous year, the Commerce Department reported Friday.

Imports of such private services -- a category that encompasses U.S. outsourcing of call centers and data entry to developing nations, among other things -- hit $77.38 billion for the year, up $7.94 billion from 2002. Measuring imports against exports, the U.S. posted a $53.64 billion surplus last year in trade in private services with the rest of the world.

Under government accounting, when a U.S. company opens a technical-support center in India that handles inquiries from the U.S., that is considered a U.S. import of services. When a U.S. lawyer in New York does work for a German auto company or a New York investment banker works on a deal for a Japanese company, that is an export of services.

The numbers suggest that congressional efforts to restrict outsourcing by U.S. companies may backfire, if they provoke retaliation by U.S. trading partners. Economists also say that U.S. service exporters -- insurers, for instance -- might lose some competitive edge if they can't use foreign suppliers for call centers or other back-office operations.

"If you try to protect and limit outsourcing, you will have a negative impact on the exports of service activities, which generate a lot of jobs," said Catherine Mann of the Institute for International Economics, a Washington policy research group.

Despite the developments in services trade, the current-account deficit, the most inclusive measure of the U.S. trade gap, hit another record in 2003, reaching $541.8 billion, or 4.9% of the gross domestic product, up from $480.9 billion in 2002, or 4.6% of GDP. The increase came even though the deficit for the final three months of year narrowed to $127.5 billion, from $135.3 billion in the third quarter.

The white-collar trade issue has risen to the top of the political agenda and has led to legislative proposals to prevent outsourcing, or expose it when it occurs. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the likely Democratic presidential nominee, wants U.S. companies to reveal to callers that their telephone inquiries are going overseas. Others in Congress legislation to restrict government contractors from sending work abroad.

Politicians have largely ignored the jobs created in the U.S. when Americans sell white-collar services to foreign customers.

"I can understand why members of Congress are responding to what a lot of constituents feel, and I can understand why their constituents feel that way because there has been so much publicity about the potential loss of jobs," said J. Robert Vastine, president of the Coalition of Service Industries. But, he said, "a lot of it is hype, and one of the big problems in this debate is there hasn't been enough analysis."

In addition to hiring more U.S. businesses to provide services, foreigners doubled last year the amount of money invested in U.S. companies, plants, offices, stores and other facilities. That foreign direct investment swelled to $81.98 billion in 2003, from $39.63 billion in 2002, the government said.

Write to Michael M. Phillips at michael.phillips@wsj.com

Copyright 2004 Dow Jones & Company

 

jahawkin

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2000
1,355
0
0
The value of U.S. exports of legal work, computer programming, telecommunications, banking, engineering, management consulting and other private services jumped to $131.01 billion in 2003, up $8.42 billion from the previous year, the Commerce Department reported Friday.

Imports of such private services -- a category that encompasses U.S. outsourcing of call centers and data entry to developing nations, among other things -- hit $77.38 billion for the year, up $7.94 billion from 2002. Measuring imports against exports, the U.S. posted a $53.64 billion surplus last year in trade in private services with the rest of the world.

Under government accounting, when a U.S. company opens a technical-support center in India that handles inquiries from the U.S., that is considered a U.S. import of services. When a U.S. lawyer in New York does work for a German auto company or a New York investment banker works on a deal for a Japanese company, that is an export of services.


So we had more imports of private services (sending jobs to india) than exports (jobs being sent here). You should change the title of the thread.
 

gsaldivar

Diamond Member
Apr 30, 2001
8,691
1
81
So we had more imports of private services (sending jobs to india) than exports (jobs being sent here). You should change the title of the thread.

The title is accurate. Take another look at the article.

Think of it this way...

"Jobs to India" = $77.38 billion, an annual increase of $7.94 billion.

"Jobs from India" = $131.01 billion, an annual increase of $8.42 billion.
 

jahawkin

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2000
1,355
0
0
Originally posted by: gsaldivar
So we had more imports of private services (sending jobs to india) than exports (jobs being sent here). You should change the title of the thread.

The title is accurate. Take another look at the article.

Think of it this way...

"Jobs to India" = $77.38 billion, an annual increase of $7.94 billion.

"Jobs from India" = $131.01 billion, an annual increase of $8.42 billion.

You're right. I read this:
"Measuring imports against exports, the U.S. posted a $53.64 billion surplus last year in trade in private services with the rest of the world."
as imports - exports = 53.64, but its obvious from the data that this isn't the case.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
Not exactly. How is the benefit of this distributed among the workforce? The whole scenario presumes that it is somehow of benefit to the average American. Given that 20 years of trickle down hasn't seen any trickle, how does boosting the bottom line of the bankers and brokerage houses serve anybody but them? Did the secretaries get a raise? or anybody other than the top .01% ?

Yeh, as the article suggests, the situation demands more analysis...
 

gsaldivar

Diamond Member
Apr 30, 2001
8,691
1
81
How is the benefit of this distributed among the workforce?

Providers of legal work, computer programming, telecommunications, banking, engineering, management consulting and other private services who are currently employed by foreign investors would presumably otherwise be employed by American companies, or not at all.

The whole scenario presumes that it is somehow of benefit to the average American.

I didn't read that in the article. Maybe that's your own presumption...?

Given that 20 years of trickle down hasn't seen any trickle...

Where did you get 20 years from?

...how does boosting the bottom line of the bankers and brokerage houses serve anybody but them?

Do you own any stock in these companies? Do you have a 401k or mutual fund which holds stock in these companies? Increased revenue = market value appreciation... Feel free to cash in on their good work.

Did the secretaries get a raise? or anybody other than the top .01% ?

I also didn't see anything about pay raises in the article...

Yeh, as the article suggests, the situation demands more analysis...

Keep us posted.

:beer::D
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
Just because the total value of insourced work allegedly exceeds the total value of outsourced work doesn't mean that there's anything in it for working America. That would depend on the distribution of the fruits of each kind of work. With overall wages stagnant, and created jobs paying less than outsourced jobs, it seems a little disingenuous to offer dimes for our collective pension pockets in return for dollars from our wage pockets...

I'm confident, however, that both situations offer a rosy picture for our investor class. Which was all fine and good, at a time when their fortunes and those of everyday folks were fundamentally linked in a more closed system kind of economy. Obviously, that's no longer true. Corporate profits have remained strong, Executive compensation grown substantially, even as unemployment increased and wages faltered. What's good for GM isn't necessarily good for all of us, bet on that...

 

gsaldivar

Diamond Member
Apr 30, 2001
8,691
1
81
...doesn't mean that there's anything in it for working America...

"Working America" is better than non-Working America, isn't it?

That would depend on the distribution of the fruits of each kind of work...

It's simple: Wages are distributed to the person who does the work.

Why do liberals always idealize things happening in an egalitarian, proportional manner? The real world doesn't operate this way. When you need a banker - you don't need to perform a socioeconomic analysis to determine which banker "needs to be hired" most .. you just hire the best banker you can find. When you need a salesman, you hire the best salesman you can find.

If the best banker and salesman happen to be Americans, then you hire Americans.

...created jobs paying less than outsourced jobs...

So data-entry and answering phones (outsourced to India) PAYS MORE than legal work, computer programming, telecommunications, banking, engineering, management consulting (outsourced to America)?

Did you even READ the original article???

I'm confident, however, that both situations offer a rosy picture for our investor class...

Ah.... CLASS STRUGGLE!

I knew I smelled something fishy when I read your remark about the "distribution of the fruits" of labor. Your whole argument sounds quite...... SOCIALIST. :)

Executive compensation grown substantially, even as unemployment increased and wages faltered...

Links? Statistics??



 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
The only class struggle going on, gsaldivar, is the one initiated and waged against people who work for a living by those who profit from it. They've broken the compact and the compromise inherent in the postwar implementation of New Deal policy, wherein the rich could still get richer, but only if they let the rest of us tag along.

As Warren Buffet pointed out, if such is occurring, then it's his class who's winning.

http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/home/corporateprof.htm

http://www.cheslog.com/craig/parrhesia/archives/000622.html

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_04072004

If those aren't sufficiently descriptive, then I'd suggest google is your friend, or, perhaps, in the case of your position, your enemy.

EDIT- wrong epinet link-

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_archive_02042004

there's a lot more, here-

http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_snapshots_archive_02042004

 

gsaldivar

Diamond Member
Apr 30, 2001
8,691
1
81
From your own EPInet link:

Foreign companies are investing in the United States in order to obtain access to U.S. marketing and distribution systems (including U.S. brand names) for their imported products?a process that does not create production jobs in the United States...

Really........

google is your friend, or, perhaps, in the case of your position, your enemy.

rolleye.gif
OK Let's see what Google pulls up...

- U.S. subsidiaries employ a RECORD HIGH 6.4 million Americans.

- U.S. subsidiaries support an ANNUAL PAYROLL of $350 billion and pay, on average, 16.5% more than all U.S. companies.

- U.S. subsidiaries heavily invest in the American MANUFACTURING SECTOR. 34% of the jobs at U.S. subsidiaries are in manufacturing -- more than DOUBLE the proportion of manufacturing at all U.S. companies.

- U.S. subsidiaries manufacture in America to export goods around the world -- accounting for over 22.4 percent of ALL U.S. EXPORTS.

- Over the last 15 years, manufacturing "insourced" jobs grew by 82% - at an annual rate of 5.5%; and manufacturing "outsourced" jobs grew by 23% - at an annual rate of 1.5%.

- Over the same period, total "insourced" jobs grew by 117% - at an annual rate of 7.8%; and total "outsourced" jobs grew by 56% - at an annual rate of 3.8%.

- New foreign direct investment (FDI) in the U.S. totaled $82 billion in 2003, OVER TWICE THE AMOUNT from the previous year.

- In 2003, U.S. subsidiaries REINVESTED $38.6 billion ? up from $6.8 billion in the previous year.
LINK [/b]


So despite all of the doomsaying and socialist "class warfare" rhetoric, it looks like there might be some thing RIGHT with capitalism and international trade: Americans and American workers seem to be the direct beneficiaries of $350 billion worth of annual foreign investment.

Wow..... that looks pretty fvcking impressive to me.

:beer::D

EDIT: Your "updated" link DOESN'T EVEN MENTION foreign investment, outsourcing, insourcing, OR executive compensation...
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
Let's look at the disingenuous content in your link, gsaldivar-

Over the last 15 years, manufacturing "insourced" jobs grew by 82% - at an annual rate of 5.5%; and manufacturing "outsourced" jobs grew by 23% - at an annual rate of 1.5%.

You bet- but that statistic is misleading in that it doesn't reference the starting point for the comparison, or the total job flow... same for this tidbit-

- Over the same period, total "insourced" jobs grew by 117% - at an annual rate of 7.8%; and total "outsourced" jobs grew by 56% - at an annual rate of 3.8%.

- U.S. subsidiaries support an ANNUAL PAYROLL of $350 billion and pay, on average, 16.5% more than all U.S. companies.

Uhh-huh. The vast majority of these subsidiaries engage in manufacturing, so how does the pay compare to other US manufacturing jobs? Apples to apples, and all that... Toss Walmart into any such equation to make the other side's wages look good...

I have no problem at all with insourcing per se- far from it. I do, however, have a problem with pollyanna representations of such. In my industry, our European suppliers are sourcing more US jobs all the time, because the total price of production is lower than in europe. That doesn't mean, however, that they really pay very well at all, having a strong tendency to hire workers of Eastern European and Hispanic origin... Talking with them, they're amazed at just how cheap people will work in this country...

Executive compensation? Different story...

http://www.blbglaw.com/publications/Adv2002Q4Gans.pdf

We live in a time and a system where income and wealth are rapidly shifting to the very uppermost strata. Not the top 5% or 1%, but rather the top .01%, even the top .001%. The nature of both insourced and outsourced jobs and the resultant redistribution of income are in support of that trend, rather than against it...





 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
It appears any good economic news will not be beleived in in the forum and there are members that will try to spin all good economic news and make it looks it bad.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: charrison
It appears any good economic news will not be beleived in in the forum and there are members that will try to spin all good economic news and make it looks it bad.

There are members that will try to spin all bad economic news and make it look it good.

Fixed for you.

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: charrison
It appears any good economic news will not be beleived in in the forum and there are members that will try to spin all good economic news and make it looks it bad.

There are members that will try to spin all bad economic news and make it look it good.

Fixed for you.

However there are far more spinning the bad news as economic bad is becoming harder to find.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Meh... those who own a thing like to control that thing.
 

gsaldivar

Diamond Member
Apr 30, 2001
8,691
1
81
...these subsidiaries engage in manufacturing, so how does the pay compare to other US manufacturing jobs?...That doesn't mean, however, that they really pay very well at all...

Leave it to liberals to complain about the lack of jobs, and when PRESENTED WITH EVIDENCE OF SUCH, to then complain about the quality of those jobs... But, I'll play along:

Nationally, U.S. subsidiaries compensate their employees, on average, 16.5 percent more than all U.S. companies...These data are the most recent available from the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the U.S. Department of Commerce LINK

Executive compensation? ... Income and wealth are rapidly shifting to the very uppermost strata...insourced and outsourced jobs ... support that trend

Your link is a law office newsletter about executive "overcompensation", but WHERE is the reference to insourcing or outsourcing??? Oh... this is just part of your larger argument of "rich getting richer", right?

Regarding executive "overcompensation", there are some cases where an executive's compensation will be considered by some to be out-of-line with the performance of the company. However, Boards of Directors are empowered and legally entitled to compensate their management team HOW THEY SEE FIT. Now, if you don't agree with the amount of management's compensation, then you need to vote with your pocketbook: Don't buy the company's products, don't own the company's stock.

The law office newsletter you posted is working towards this goal by directing their opinion towards large public pension funds and other institutional investors. (Look at the footnote on the newsletter)

:beer:
 

cquark

Golden Member
Apr 4, 2004
1,741
0
0
Regarding executive "overcompensation", there are some cases where an executive's compensation will be considered by some to be out-of-line with the performance of the company. However, Boards of Directors are empowered and legally entitled to compensate their management team HOW THEY SEE FIT. Now, if you don't agree with the amount of management's compensation, then you need to vote with your pocketbook: Don't buy the company's products, don't own the company's stock.

Corporate officers receive high compensation for the same reasons that monarchs and feudal nobles did--they're the controlling party in an aristocratic government--the corporation for the corporate officers, the kingdom for the nobility. We need to go further than not purchasing, because we are more than just consumers--we are citizens, who are responsible for the creation of legal fictions like corporations. We need to return corporate governance to the way it was in the founding era of the U.S., when courts had not yet granted corporations the rights of people under the Constitution.
 

gsaldivar

Diamond Member
Apr 30, 2001
8,691
1
81
We need to return corporate governance to the way it was in the founding era of the U.S., when courts had not yet granted corporations the rights of people under the Constitution.

No problem - just return the fruits of 200+ years of progress to their original owners please... :)

 

razor2025

Diamond Member
May 24, 2002
3,010
0
71
Originally posted by: gsaldivar
We need to return corporate governance to the way it was in the founding era of the U.S., when courts had not yet granted corporations the rights of people under the Constitution.

No problem - just return the fruits of 200+ years of progress to their original owners please... :)

Does that mean strip all the money from the top .01% and distribute to the working class? That's what it sounds like from that quote.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Officerdown
India and China might be a good place to invest. Make the best out of a bad situation 'eh?

US investment in Indian and China has been very high.