Jump to content
TSM Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Dobbs 3K

The border war...

Recommended Posts

I am still waiting for someone to provide examples of how outsourcing american jobs is benefiting the american worker. There has already been plenty of debate over whether it does or does not benefit the american consumer.

 

Also, to me the real numbers to look at is wages, which haven't gone up in a long time. The top 1% are getting more of the pie then they did 30 years ago. The american worker's wages are not improving, yet the price of everything is going up, regardless of the fact that 90% of our products are being made in a tin-roof factory by children in china.

 

Like I said before, I have always been told that outsourcing the production/IT jobs was supposed to open up all these new oppurtunities for "better" jobs, but all I have seen is people going from IT jobs to retail and customer service jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, since we don't have a Popick, a guy I know who's currently studying for his master's degree in finance at Vanderbilt said to quote him: "Saying that outsourcing is good for American companies across the board is bullshit."

 

Earning US$3 a day in the will make you starve to death if you live in America, but earning US$3 in Africa gives you a livable wage. Comparing exchange rates as if they're one and the same is silly.

I'm not comparing them as if they're the same. And what about the ones where they earn $0.30? You're saying that these jobs all pay a fair living wage in line with that country's particular economy. I'm saying, they often don't. Minimum wage isn't something you can live on in the US, and lots of these jobs are about the same; the company pays the lowest amount it can possibly get away with.

 

What proportion of Americans could afford a two-story, four bedroom house in 1900? How many today?

I live in one like that. It cost over three hundred grand. Not too many people can afford that.

 

Also, in 1900, land was a LOT cheaper because of the much smaller population just hadn't used up nearly as much.

 

But it sounds less concerning when you take into account the projection of 160,000,000 jobs expected to exist by 2015, or the 35 million new jobs that have been created in the past decade.

Ripper answered it already better than I could:

As for your "check you unemployment rates" thing. Here is a fun fact. The US only count's the unemployment rate as those that are actively enrolled and recieving unemployment benefits. Thats right, if your unemployment runs out before you find another job, according to the US Unemployment rates, you aren't unemployeed. If you were laid off from a non profit organization(who don't pay unemployment insurance) you are not actually unemployed apparently. customer service (one of the biggest job markets in america) people who were "temp" employees(which most companies do now to avoid the cost of unemployment insurance and health insurance) when their jobs are outsourced, they offically aren't unemployed. So if a company cuts 1-2 thousand temps from their payroll not a single one of them is counted as unemployed.

 

It is not difficult to see the jobs created are not close to being on par with jobs outsourced. And the jobs created stat REALLY does count those that lost a 40k per year job and had to go and work at McDonalds for minimum wage. It really does count that as a new job created. And it STILL doesn't come close to being on par.

 

And like he said earlier, you still haven't come up with any actual examples of where outsourcing makes anything cheaper for the consumer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being a junior Popick, how about this line: Since people here have argued at length about how bad outsourcing is, now argue about how protectionism would be comparatively (not absolutely) better, without resorting to the pathos which Darryl captured brilliantly in an earlier post (steel mill + Springsteen = who needs an argument?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of this debate really answers the question of why we can't have a secure border. We can have a safe border, and a process for allowing workers to temporarily enter the country, without the complete anarchy of illegal immigration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You must be overjoyed that the increased heat has made for a roughly 50% fatality rate for boarder crossers.

 

PS. Tuk Ar Jobs!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PS. Tuk Ar Jobs!

 

Fucking stupid. That has nothing to do with what I said. Let's cater to the lowest common denominator, though.

 

Them dying in the heat isn't anyone's fault but the Mexican government's, for encouraging them to cross in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
None of this debate really answers the question of why we can't have a secure border. We can have a safe border, and a process for allowing workers to temporarily enter the country, without the complete anarchy of illegal immigration.

 

I still say US greed is what is causing the problem also along with the Mexican goverment not attempting to make a change. They want a thousand bucks for a green card, then it cost how many thousands to become a citizen? After how many years?

 

You have people sneaking across the boader to make a better living for their families. Doing it legally, it would be kinda tough. Where exactly are poor people supposed to pull the thousand dollars from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
None of this debate really answers the question of why we can't have a secure border. We can have a safe border, and a process for allowing workers to temporarily enter the country, without the complete anarchy of illegal immigration.

 

I still say US greed is what is causing the problem also along with the Mexican goverment not attempting to make a change. They want a thousand bucks for a green card, then it cost how many thousands to become a citizen? After how many years?

 

You have people sneaking across the boader to make a better living for their families. Doing it legally, it would be kinda tough. Where exactly are poor people supposed to pull the thousand dollars from?

 

I'd say the greed of the corporations is mainly what is driving immigration as they want the influx of cheap labor. I mean they are going to find it someway, either from illegal immigrants or prison which is packed with fresh bodies for stupid shit on a daily basis, which are now becoming privately owned and have contracts with major companies to do work for them for very cheap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do agree that it shouldn't cost thousands upon thousands of dollars to become a citizen, and shouldn't take years. But there still has to be a process. We can't just have anyone waltzing in when they feel like. It would be like saying "I need a way to commute to work, but I can't afford a car, so I'm just going to steal one off a dealer's lot." It's not a valid argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Soriano's Torn Quad
You must be overjoyed that the increased heat has made for a roughly 50% fatality rate for boarder crossers.

 

PS. Tuk Ar Jobs!

Is a boarder crosser someone who posts at TSM and another message board? That fatality rate isn't high enough. The plight of the border-crosser is sad, though. Get on it, Bruce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Being a junior Popick, how about this line: Since people here have argued at length about how bad outsourcing is, now argue about how protectionism would be comparatively (not absolutely) better, without resorting to the pathos which Darryl captured brilliantly in an earlier post (steel mill + Springsteen = who needs an argument?)

 

If protectionism=tariffs and subsidies for rich farmers, count me out.

 

If protectionism=labor and environmental standards in trade agreements, like the ones it looks like we are going to negotiate with Peru and Panama, well then Springsteen me up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If protectionism=tariffs and subsidies for rich farmers, count me out.

Don't forget assorted price ceilings and wage floors.

 

If protectionism=labor and environmental standards in trade agreements, like the ones it looks like we are going to negotiate with Peru and Panama, well then Springsteen me up.

Go on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hell, that's one reason why companies outsource, to get away from regulations like those. You can get away with all kinds of pollution in most of the third world that would land you in prison if you did it in America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I live in one like that. It cost over three hundred grand. Not too many people can afford that.

 

Also, in 1900, land was a LOT cheaper because of the much smaller population just hadn't used up nearly as much.

 

I might as well mention it for a third time. STOP TALKING ABOUT NOMINAL PRICE RISES. A 'cheap' house that costs $500 in 1900 is not cheap at all if no one has the money. If you want to argue that the standard of living was somehow better and cheaper in the US more than a hundred years ago, then please continue this argument. I'm going to choose to ignore it, so will every history professor in the world.

 

Ripper answered it already better than I could:

As for your "check you unemployment rates" thing. Here is a fun fact. The US only count's the unemployment rate as those that are actively enrolled and recieving unemployment benefits. Thats right, if your unemployment runs out before you find another job, according to the US Unemployment rates, you aren't unemployeed. If you were laid off from a non profit organization(who don't pay unemployment insurance) you are not actually unemployed apparently. customer service (one of the biggest job markets in america) people who were "temp" employees(which most companies do now to avoid the cost of unemployment insurance and health insurance) when their jobs are outsourced, they offically aren't unemployed. So if a company cuts 1-2 thousand temps from their payroll not a single one of them is counted as unemployed.

 

It is not difficult to see the jobs created are not close to being on par with jobs outsourced. And the jobs created stat REALLY does count those that lost a 40k per year job and had to go and work at McDonalds for minimum wage. It really does count that as a new job created. And it STILL doesn't come close to being on par.

 

And like he said earlier, you still haven't come up with any actual examples of where outsourcing makes anything cheaper for the consumer.

 

So effectively your argument is to ignore the extraordinary differences in net job growth, not only domestically, but in international comparisons with countries like France and Germany, on the basis that the formal definition of employment is inadequate. If you want to get into specifics, there are plenty of estimates of high job growth in high-value employment sectors.

 

As for for your friend doing masters' in finance, good on him. I could quote Greg Mankiw, PHD in Economics and senior professor at Harvard, who writes Economic 101 textbooks for Universities all over the world, who would disagree with your friend. But I won't do that.

 

Actually I will. His study, which I get my numbers from, is here

 

http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/m...%207%202006.pdf

 

He also draws on dozens of other empirical work by other economist.

 

Feel free to to bring up your qualms and concerns of the methodology in the papers available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you have got to be kidding me that the reply I made got lost.

 

Summary:

 

This is a intersting paper, but in the end it is a republican slanted opinion piece and nothing more.

 

He is an economist that views the customer service sector as another imported/exported good, and while that works for the manufacturing sector which is pretty much the basis behind the theory of outsourcing as a whole (the outsourcing of some labor jobs creates the window for newer and better labor jobs) it does not work in the customer service field, which once again wouldn't be a big deal except that this is the field that is being most effected by outsourcing for the last 3-5 years.

 

I had alot more stuff detailing about how customer service jobs are to the lower middle and upper lower class citizens and why it is important, and why I don't blame the companies, but at the end of the day, loopholes are making it easier and smarter to export and important job field with no return to the american job market the way other sectors actually do offer a return.

 

And other economist agree. Just not this guy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like a pretty standard legal issue, snuffbox. It doesn't have to do with the race of the individual involved, as much as you'd like to make it so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×