Outsourcing: Good or Bad in the long term?

[Guest Cerebus]

With all the talk about outsourcing, India, a "jobless recovery", and Benedict Arnolds I thought this thread was necessary. To be honest, besides for an Economics 1 class I took my freshman year in college I don't know very much about macroeconomics (and virtually nothing about micro) but I found this article in the National Journal to be quite informative. Thoughts? Opinions?

 

(Hate to sound like another boarder who won't be mentioned, but let's keep the Bush/Kerry Repubs/Dems out of this thread. If you want to bash one side or the other there are plenty of other threads to do it in.)

[Guest MikeSC]

With all the talk about outsourcing, India, a "jobless recovery", and Benedict Arnolds I thought this thread was necessary. To be honest, besides for an Economics 1 class I took my freshman year in college I don't know very much about macroeconomics (and virtually nothing about micro) but I found this article in the National Journal to be quite informative. Thoughts? Opinions?

 

(Hate to sound like another boarder who won't be mentioned, but let's keep the Bush/Kerry Repubs/Dems out of this thread. If you want to bash one side or the other there are plenty of other threads to do it in.)

Extremely good in the long term.

 

And, America, if we want free trade --- we can't gripe about this.

-=Mike

[Guest Cerebus]

With all the talk about outsourcing, India, a "jobless recovery", and Benedict Arnolds I thought this thread was necessary. To be honest, besides for an Economics 1 class I took my freshman year in college I don't know very much about macroeconomics (and virtually nothing about micro) but I found this article in the National Journal to be quite informative. Thoughts? Opinions?

 

(Hate to sound like another boarder who won't be mentioned, but let's keep the Bush/Kerry Repubs/Dems out of this thread. If you want to bash one side or the other there are plenty of other threads to do it in.)

Extremely good in the long term.

 

And, America, if we want free trade --- we can't gripe about this.

-=Mike

To your second point, that's very true.

 

To your first...it seems uncertain at best. The folks at Foreign Affairs agree with you and seem to think that the political jibber-jabber about outsourcing may be more dangerous than outsourcing itself.

 

To me, this seems like a new sort of a new phenomenon in the realms of economics and no one can really provide any decent data on exactly how many jobs have been lost, let alone how many we WILL lose. While I don't take the rosy view that FA does, I think it's difficult to predict one way or the other at this point.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Bah, this is just more campaign blather, much like how 1992 was THE WORST ECONOMY IN ONE GILLION YEARS.

 

Although it's funny how manufacturing workers that were laid off in the 1980s were told back then to re-train via the IT field. Now some of those jobs are moving overseas. D'oh. It appears the new right-wing spin seems to be now "Go out there and make your OWN job."

 

Until, of course, your own job gets shipped off to India where it could be done cheaper...

[Guest MikeSC]

With all the talk about outsourcing, India, a "jobless recovery", and Benedict Arnolds I thought this thread was necessary. To be honest, besides for an Economics 1 class I took my freshman year in college I don't know very much about macroeconomics (and virtually nothing about micro) but I found this article in the National Journal to be quite informative. Thoughts? Opinions?

 

(Hate to sound like another boarder who won't be mentioned, but let's keep the Bush/Kerry Repubs/Dems out of this thread. If you want to bash one side or the other there are plenty of other threads to do it in.)

Extremely good in the long term.

 

And, America, if we want free trade --- we can't gripe about this.

-=Mike

To your second point, that's very true.

 

To your first...it seems uncertain at best. The folks at Foreign Affairs agree with you and seem to think that the political jibber-jabber about outsourcing may be more dangerous than outsourcing itself.

 

To me, this seems like a new sort of a new phenomenon in the realms of economics and no one can really provide any decent data on exactly how many jobs have been lost, let alone how many we WILL lose. While I don't take the rosy view that FA does, I think it's difficult to predict one way or the other at this point.

Honestly, this has gone on for MANY years (why do you think so few clothes are made in America? Because it's markedly cheaper to make them elsewhere and Americans don't want to do it). It's just rhetoric now because job shifts have gone on for longer than any of us have been around.

-=Mike

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

With all the talk about outsourcing, India, a "jobless recovery", and Benedict Arnolds I thought this thread was necessary. To be honest, besides for an Economics 1 class I took my freshman year in college I don't know very much about macroeconomics (and virtually nothing about micro) but I found this article in the National Journal to be quite informative. Thoughts? Opinions?

 

(Hate to sound like another boarder who won't be mentioned, but let's keep the Bush/Kerry Repubs/Dems out of this thread. If you want to bash one side or the other there are plenty of other threads to do it in.)

Extremely good in the long term.

 

And, America, if we want free trade --- we can't gripe about this.

-=Mike

Trickle Down Economics don't work with outsourcing in the long term. People won't refinance their homes if they get downsized.

[Firestarter 0]

No theory of "Trickle Down Economics" has ever existed in any country in the history of the world, and it does not exist now. Try to focus on finishing high school.

[Highland 0]

It probably is good for the long term economy, but no politician is going to tell their constituents that losing jobs is a good thing.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

It probably is good for the long term economy, but no politician is going to tell their constituents that losing jobs is a good thing.

Just like giving people the option to privatize part of their Social Security or raising the age where people can become eligible.

 

Bunch of wimps this country has...

[NoCalMike 0]

The success or failure of outsourcing jobs, really depends on what kind of jobs the unemployed folks are getting to replace their jobs. Also, I don't see how it is in any way good for our country to lose manufacturing jobs especially. Some people claim "we send the shitty jobs overseas, so we keep the good ones" but I don't buy into to that, considering an economy will always need some percentage of "shitty" aka lower paying jobs. Another thing I question, is why these jobs are being outsourced in the first place when most of these companies are already making huge profits into the billions. I know there are a lot of Michael Moore haters on here but his film, "The Big One" is playing a bunch on IFC lately, and it was made in '96, and it covers this topic, now of course you have to sit through a biased opinion most of the movie, but I guess you can find the other side of the argument somewhere.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Whether you think it's good or bad, I think it's kind of lame to support outsourcing and complain about the government giving unemployment benefits at the same time. One leads to the other.

 

We either fight to keep the jobs we already have going or we're going to have people between jobs. I know there's people who abuse government assistance, but there's also people who need the money and use it practically with plans to get off.

[NoCalMike 0]

Whether you think it's good or bad, I think it's kind of lame to support outsourcing and complain about the government giving unemployment benefits at the same time. One leads to the other.

 

We either fight to keep the jobs we already have going or we're going to have people between jobs. I know there's people who abuse government assistance, but there's also people who need the money and use it practically with plans to get off.

Or we can support Bush in his effort to re-classify McDonalds as a Manufacturing job.

[Guest MikeSC]

Whether you think it's good or bad, I think it's kind of lame to support outsourcing and complain about the government giving unemployment benefits at the same time. One leads to the other.

 

We either fight to keep the jobs we already have going or we're going to have people between jobs. I know there's people who abuse government assistance, but there's also people who need the money and use it practically with plans to get off.

Far too many abuse it to make it worth the while.

-=Mike

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

Another thing I question, is why these jobs are being outsourced in the first place when most of these companies are already making huge profits into the billions.

I can't think of a single, brainless moron who would expect a company to stop trying to make money simply because they already have a lot of it...

[Guest MikeSC]

Another thing I question, is why these jobs are being outsourced in the first place when most of these companies are already making huge profits into the billions.

I can't think of a single, brainless moron who would expect a company to stop trying to make money simply because they already have a lot of it...

Well, if NoCalMike was a CEO...

 

I kid, I kid.

-=Mike

...No way a board would elect HIM to that position

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

I cant wait til people start complaining because their jobs were replaced by robots.

 

You think outsourcing to India is a problem? McDonalds was testing a robotic burger flipper 2 years ago that flipped and assembled hamburgers. McDonalds could easily automate/robotize 90% of each restaurant, cutting lots of jobs and saving lots of money in the long term, although right now its just not economically viable right now with the high upfront cost of the robots. But it will be in a few years, and at that time the only humans they'll probably hire to work at McDonalds are janitors and a manager to oversee the whole thing.

 

Good Article on Robots

 

The unusual thing about the robotic revolution is that the robots will come and displace millions of workers throughout the economy, but the robot industry will create very few new jobs. Millions will be unemployed in America, but there will be nothing for them to do.

 

Conventional wisdom says that the economy will respond to all of these unemployed workers by creating new jobs for them. But look at our economy today. For the past 40 years, the economy has been generating millions of low-paying service sector jobs that create a large class of employees known as the working poor. 60% of the American workforce makes less than $14 per hour today [ref]. If the economy is going to be creating millions of high-paying, exciting, fulfilling jobs for all of these displaced workers, it would be doing it now. Why can't all of the Wal-Mart/Target/McDonald's/etc. employees who are going to get displaced in 2015 step into their new, exciting, higher-paying jobs right now, instead of waiting? It's because the economy tends not create jobs like that in any sort of volume.

 

At this moment, instead of creating exciting new jobs, the economy is locked in a race to the bottom. This race is marked by a workplace that continuously creates lower-paying jobs instead of higher-paying ones.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Far too many abuse it to make it worth the while.

-=Mike

Well, there should be limits, or maybe it should be cut back, but I don't think it should be abolished entirely..

 

Helping a laid-off worker feed his family while he looks for a job is different than providing housing and other crap for people who don't want to work.

[Guest MikeSC]

Far too many abuse it to make it worth the while.

            -=Mike

Well, there should be limits, or maybe it should be cut back, but I don't think it should be abolished entirely..

 

Helping a laid-off worker feed his family while he looks for a job is different than providing housing and other crap for people who don't want to work.

It's not abolished now.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

I cant wait til people start complaining because their jobs were replaced by robots.

 

You think outsourcing to India is a problem? McDonalds was testing a robotic burger flipper 2 years ago that flipped and assembled hamburgers. McDonalds could easily automate/robotize 90% of each restaurant, cutting lots of jobs and saving lots of money in the long term, although right now its just not economically viable right now with the high upfront cost of the robots. But it will be in a few years, and at that time the only humans they'll probably hire to work at McDonalds are janitors and a manager to oversee the whole thing.

 

Good Article on Robots

 

The unusual thing about the robotic revolution is that the robots will come and displace millions of workers throughout the economy, but the robot industry will create very few new jobs. Millions will be unemployed in America, but there will be nothing for them to do.

 

Conventional wisdom says that the economy will respond to all of these unemployed workers by creating new jobs for them. But look at our economy today. For the past 40 years, the economy has been generating millions of low-paying service sector jobs that create a large class of employees known as the working poor. 60% of the American workforce makes less than $14 per hour today [ref]. If the economy is going to be creating millions of high-paying, exciting, fulfilling jobs for all of these displaced workers, it would be doing it now. Why can't all of the Wal-Mart/Target/McDonald's/etc. employees who are going to get displaced in 2015 step into their new, exciting, higher-paying jobs right now, instead of waiting? It's because the economy tends not create jobs like that in any sort of volume.

 

At this moment, instead of creating exciting new jobs, the economy is locked in a race to the bottom. This race is marked by a workplace that continuously creates lower-paying jobs instead of higher-paying ones.

But can the robots match the acne and bad attitude of a regular McDonald's employee?

 

If it can, do we really want that thing out in the world?

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

It would actually be a step up over here.

 

Unless, of course, the robot's OS was installed with Spanish as it's primary langauge setting. Then it would be an accurate California fast food employee.

 

And no, that's not racist, that's saying that's what the most common language behind the counter is at any of the places here.

[Guest MikeSC]

It would actually be a step up over here.

 

Unless, of course, the robot's OS was installed with Spanish as it's primary langauge setting. Then it would be an accurate California fast food employee.

 

And no, that's not racist, that's saying that's what the most common language behind the counter is at any of the places here.

Also in casinos in NJ. Nothing better than having to stop what I'm doing to explain our policies because the cashiers are unable to do so themselves.

-=Mike

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

I think this is the best way I've heard it put..

 

Robot Nation Blog on Job Out-Sourcing

Off-shoring, Jobs and Robots

 

Rage against off-shoring is very real by David Kirkpatrick

 

David Kirkpatrick had written an article about how beneficial off-shoring is for the U.S. economy. In response, he received "the biggest outpouring of letters ever." He states: "I've been given a sudden and bracing education in just how angry Americans are about what's happening with jobs. "

 

Here is why Americans are so angry: They are scared to death.

 

Here is why they are so scared. Good, high-paying IT jobs are being taken away from Americans and shipped to India and China right now. The people in India and China who are taking these jobs are making something like $6,000 per year for their labor. There is no way an American can compete with that. $6,000 per year is less than $3 per hour, or about half of the U.S. minimum wage.

 

So offshoring will eliminate a huge number of IT jobs in the U.S. There is no stopping it, and it will not stop at IT. Accounting, financial analysis, reporting, writing, film making, customer service, billing/payroll, editing, illustration, engineering, design, manufacturing, etc., etc. -- millions of jobs across a wide spectrum of white-collar and blue-collar activities -- can all move off-shore to some degree. And they will.

 

Off-shoring is not new. It has been happening to factory workers for several decades. However, politicians, white-collar workers and writers like David Kirkpatrick were unaffected. They could smugly say to factory workers, "You may not like it, but this is good for the economy."

 

It might be good for "the economy", but I have never met the economy, nor its spouse and children. "The economy" does not care about the lives and families of human beings. So millions of factory workers lost decent jobs in factories and ended up in trash jobs at McDonald's and Wal-Mart. Yes, many people got rich and were able to concentrate massive amounts of wealth. The economy did grow. But millions of people are doing worse now, not better. [And, if you think about it, there is no need for that to have happened -- Wal-Mart could pay workers twice what it is paying them now with no downside.] That same unfortunate process is now happening to white-collar workers, and it is terrifying to anyone with a family and a house payment.

 

At the same time, the leading edge of the robotic revolution is just starting to hit the American economy. Robots are going to rip out tens of millions of McJobs within a decade or two. Simply look at the dozens of entries in this blog to see just how profound an effect robots will have on America's employment landscape within the next 20 years or so.

 

To put it succinctly: The American people are about to watch tens of millions of American jobs evaporate because of the twin forces of off-shoring and robots. Americans are beginning to understand what that means. And it is terrifying.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Also in casinos in NJ. Nothing better than having to stop what I'm doing to explain our policies because the cashiers are unable to do so themselves.

-=Mike

You work in a casino? That's... Interesting.

 

 

Please don't tell me you work for Trump.

[MrRant 0]

Eh... Mike will lose his job and convince himself that he is worth the unemployment while condeming others because he is better than them.

 

I really don't think he would care about a hard working person who may hold a meaningless job (In Mikes opinion) like an office clerk with a kid or two losing his job and having to be out of work for 4 months and the kids can't eat.

 

Fuck them eh Mike? Well hopefully you lose you job. I'm actively rooting for it... either that... or for another woman to beat the hell out of you again.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Ow.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Ow.

Agreed. Especially coming from a so called hippy basher.

 

What did Mike say that was so bad? Job outsourcing like it or not is the risk you take in a free market society. Truthfully businesses would be foolish not to take advantage of lower wages in overseas markets. That may not seem fair to people, but life isn't always fair.

[MrRant 0]

Had nothing to do with outsourcing.

 

More of the anti-unemployment for people that may have a hard go of it for a few months. Nothing wrong with that as we all could have that happen at some point.

 

I'm totally against people leeching off unemployment for 7-12 months. Get a job at McDonalds or Walmart and have some respect at least.

 

I hope he has a few hard months with a few repos as well.

 

Besides... Hippies don't work period or even try.

[NoCalMike 0]

Another thing I question, is why these jobs are being outsourced in the first place when most of these companies are already making huge profits into the billions.

I can't think of a single, brainless moron who would expect a company to stop trying to make money simply because they already have a lot of it...

umm, who said they weren't making money? And I never said they shouldn't still try, however there should be an ethics involved in business, from the top to the bottom, and unfortunately there is not, the dollar is all that seems to matter to the board of *ahem* "trustees" Oh and cry me a fucking river that someone fat cat doesn't think a billion dollar profit is not enough. Another problem with this would also be the fact that companies openly and willing don't care about employment conditions in other countries and are perfectly willing to exploit the foreign worker, where in America it would be impossible. If it just came down to WAGE, then of course America is going to lose out everytime, but maybe if corporations were actually held responsible for their actions, they might think again before going out of country. I am also kind of dissapointed in americans themselves for supporting companies like Nike, who don't operate a single manufacturing plant in America. If people stopped buying Nike products, it would send a bigger message, then trusting a politician to do something about, but hey advertising is a strong tool and when "your favorite sportsstar" wears their shoe, what choice do you really have?

[NoCalMike 0]

Another thing I question, is why these jobs are being outsourced in the first place when most of these companies are already making huge profits into the billions.

I can't think of a single, brainless moron who would expect a company to stop trying to make money simply because they already have a lot of it...

Well, if NoCalMike was a CEO...

 

I kid, I kid.

-=Mike

...No way a board would elect HIM to that position

wow, BURN~! The point of that reply was what exactly?

[bobobrazil1984 0]

I think it would be.... fun.... if Bush talked about why outsourcing is good in the long term during one of the debates. It's one of those issues where even if he's correct in their long-term benefit, you STILL don't want to actually tell the American people this or try to explain it to them. It's a lose-lose issue that Bush should try his damnedst to ignore and Kerry should probably try his damnedst to harp on.