Outsourcing: Good or Bad in the long term?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

It was a swerve. He's been a commie all along.

 

::stunners Brian::

[Guest MikeSC]

pointless bitching and moaning

Bringing the content, per usual?

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

It was a swerve. He's been a commie all along.

 

::stunners Brian::

Wow, I'm the heel here --- yet I wasn't the one who wished unemployment and domestic problems on him.

 

*looks back*

 

Yup, didn't wish any ill upon him whatsoever.

 

Odd.

 

How I get painted with the "heartless bastard" brush is lost on me when people have a habit of wishing considerable hardship upon me.

 

Oh well. I can ignore Rant from here on.

 

It's not like he's made a relevant, cogent, intelligent, or even amusing point in all the time I've suffered through his posts. I expect little now.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

When was the last time I ever debated anything of substance?...

I think you did. At least once.

 

Well, I'm sure it was sometime in the past six months.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Personally, I couldn't live with myself if I drew unemployment.

-=Mike

And yet, when you do, you'll be glad it's there.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Oh, I'm sorry --- the vast majority of homeless AREN'T drug addicts or people with severe mental issues.

 

My mistake. They're just unlucky.

 

Man, keeping a straight face typing that is hard.

-=Mike

Hi, I'd like to introduce you to Bay Area home rates. Even if you do have enough money to buy someone's home (at which rate you could comfortable go somewhere else and live there), you may not have enough to compete in the inevitable bidding war.

 

Homeless also generally don't have a lot of mobility, so it's not like they can drive off or fly to where it's cheaper to live.

 

Yes, Virginia, there are economic factors behind poverty.

[Vyce 0]

This whole thread has just been one big fucking gauntlet match.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Oh well. I can ignore Rant from here on.

 

It's not like he's made a relevant, cogent, intelligent, or even amusing point in all the time I've suffered through his posts. I expect little now.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Oh, I'm sorry --- the vast majority of homeless AREN'T drug addicts or people with severe mental issues.

 

My mistake. They're just unlucky.

 

Man, keeping a straight face typing that is hard.

          -=Mike

Hi, I'd like to introduce you to Bay Area home rates. Even if you do have enough money to buy someone's home (at which rate you could comfortable go somewhere else and live there), you may not have enough to compete in the inevitable bidding war.

 

Homeless also generally don't have a lot of mobility, so it's not like they can drive off or fly to where it's cheaper to live.

 

Yes, Virginia, there are economic factors behind poverty.

That's when you, you know, move.

 

Almost every study indicates that the vast majority of homeless have substance abuse or mental illness issues.

-=Mike

...BTW, the official dick waving thread?!?! GO ME! I BRING THE LEGITIMACY!

[Vern Gagne 0]

When did Rant do the face turn on Mike?

Rant's become like face Jericho.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Eh, Today I read in the news that theyre back to saying outsourcing is good over the long haul.

 

See...Here's why I hate politics

 

In the long run, outsourcing benefits everyone to an extent. In the short run, a small group (relative to total population) gets hurt alot. Who's got more incentive to lobby...the guy who lost his 50K job or me, who stands to gain 300 in salary in 2 years because the US gets stronger...

 

Yeah, and that's why protectionists always get support...I shudder to think of how much potential income and output we've lost through individually rational, but economically irrational protectionist measures in our history.

 

Someone actually did a study once...a counterfactual model.

US Per Capita Income would be 10K higher across the board.

 

10K. That's like a car a year for each household...

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I've stayed pretty much out of this thread because it was bound to be the aforementioned dickwaving thread, but I did note one good point made that Popick couldn't really defend, and I'll reiterate it right now.

 

The "good" facets of outsourcing include making way for new, high(er) tech jobs that pay more money. Except as we're losing jobs in the manufacturing and IT realms, we've got absolutely nothing opening up on the cutting edge. What, do you expect the manufacturing world to become fucking biotechnicians? Even the biotech field &etc. isn't exactly bustling, and the hot college majors like pharmacy are overrun to the point of the job market potentially being overcrowded when these people actually graduate. So, in this case, I fail to see how basically folding these people's lives is going to help us; while you (and me, I admit it; I'm going into one of several fields that will never be "outsourced" and probably will never make below 60k a year, and that's for the first few years) don't particularly mind the fact that these people are losing their jobs, the United States government is supposed to be committed to helping everyone in its country, not just a select few. And thus, we need to do something to allieviate this problem, whether it's keeping the jobs in the country or promoting job training programs for those individuals who were laid off.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

We've got nothing on the cutting edge?

 

My friend, that is a malthusian vice.

 

I can defend what's going on. Yes, we've "lost" jobs. Firstly, the economy was chugging along way above what we commonly thought was optimal performance. The 1990s was the first abberation of having less than 6% unemployment without significant inflation. If this is correct, that we were at a bubble, and that the natural rate of unemployment (NAIRU) is actually somewhere between 5 and 6%, then what do we have to be worried about? If we're at NAIRU, we're doing good!

 

Now then, about losing these jobs. Of course manufacturing workers won't become biomed technicians overnight. By outsourcing these jobs, we free up Capital, Labor, and other Investment for other purposes, purposes which have a higher return than investing in those jobs. Is this effect instanteous? Hell No. Keynes was right...in the sense that the economy comes off equilibrium in the short run. I've agreed with you Tyler, that it sucks to be those people and we should have some retraining or fall-back to give them an initial lift, but the long-term benefits?

 

When we started NAFTA, what was on the cusp of new and emerging technology for manufacturing? Nada. And NAFTA was a good thing.

 

When we started losing the auto industry, what did the newspapers say? They said there was nothing that these laid off people could do.

 

In the 1970s during the oil crisis, America went into a panic over layoffs and what these assembly line workers would be doing now that their jobs went elsewhere.

 

At every stage...America has emerged more economically healthy.

 

Now, to succintly answer your point. Losing jobs is not necessarily a bad thing. If the economy is out of equilibruim, either running ahead of itself (inflationary pressure) or behind itself (employment pressure), it must adjust. Outsourcing some jobs, is just an adjustment mechanism...the economy as a whole is fine...we were simply pushing the envelope of our production possibilities. We couldn't maintain a 3% unemployment rate forever, and the economy has backed off. mpL went down and Capital became more attractive as the labor force grew. Firms have been adjusting to the relatively higher returns to capital investment rather than highering more workers...remember

 

wage rate/Marginal Product of Labor = rental rate of capital/MP Capital in long run equilibrium

 

We're adjusting to that...

 

I think I'm answering your charge Tyler, by saying that having our economy adjust like this is not a bad thing, a crisis, or an economic problem.

Edited March 31, 2004 by Stephen Joseph

[Firestarter 0]

You'd think that after Malthus and Ehrlich et al had been so thoroughly embarrassed so many times over so very many years people would get tired of paraphrasing their arguments. SJ, I applaud your patience.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

You'd think that after Malthus and Ehrlich et al had been so thoroughly embarrassed so many times over so very many years people would get tired of paraphrasing their arguments. SJ, I applaud your patience.

I'm beginning to think you have a crush on me Marney, giving me another compliment. =) *wink*

 

And yes, after 200 years of people saying we're going to run out of something, and we haven't I can comfortably say that his ideas are dead.

 

Just because something isn't here...today, doesn't mean it isn't on the cusp. No one in 1990 saw the Internet becoming what it is today. Back then, it was bunch of geeks on BBS's.

 

I applaud your intelligence, fellow Govvie.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

You can spout off formulas from your economics textbook ad nauseam, but that doesn't change the fact that these jobs aren't here yet. By all means, if I'm completely overlooking a bustling industry that is begging for this shift of labor resources to fulfill its potential, name it. Biotech isn't it, because it's already being flooded by this generation of college students. As I said before, by the time half of these kids graduate, the industry will be another IT field; it'll be hot for about five years and then it'll start being outsourced just like the rest.

 

Relying on an intangible, unexpected break in technology (e.g. IT, internet jobs post NAFTA/auto industry) is fairly reckless policy when you're 1) looking to get re-elected and 2) trying to make sure that all of your country's citizens have the best opportunities to survive. If we have active job training programs for these individuals who were laid off, this would hardly be an issue; we'd be reallocating resources efficiently and your economics professors would be grinning ear to ear. But we're not. We've either got people sitting on unemployment or bouncing around from low paying job to low paying job.

 

That's a problem (inefficient allocation of resources), and to solve it, an administration (whether it's Kerry or Bush) has to take steps other than saying "Outsourcing is good!" and ignoring it.

[Guest Cerebus]

You can spout off formulas from your economics textbook ad nauseam, but that doesn't change the fact that these jobs aren't here yet. By all means, if I'm completely overlooking a bustling industry that is begging for this shift of labor resources to fulfill its potential, name it. Biotech isn't it, because it's already being flooded by this generation of college students. As I said before, by the time half of these kids graduate, the industry will be another IT field; it'll be hot for about five years and then it'll start being outsourced just like the rest.

 

Relying on an intangible, unexpected break in technology (e.g. IT, internet jobs post NAFTA/auto industry) is fairly reckless policy when you're 1) looking to get re-elected and 2) trying to make sure that all of your country's citizens have the best opportunities to survive. If we have active job training programs for these individuals who were laid off, this would hardly be an issue; we'd be reallocating resources efficiently and your economics professors would be grinning ear to ear. But we're not. We've either got people sitting on unemployment or bouncing around from low paying job to low paying job.

 

That's a problem (inefficient allocation of resources), and to solve it, an administration (whether it's Kerry or Bush) has to take steps other than saying "Outsourcing is good!" and ignoring it.

Ok how about this? 70,000 computer programmers lost their jobs between 1999 and 2003, more than 115,000 computer software engineers found higher-paying jobs during that same period. Also, protectionism can, and often has, blown up in our face and there doesn't seem to be much to show it won't this time either.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

How about this: a bajillion manufacturing workers were laid off between I don't know and now, and now they're sitting on unemployment with people arguing that they're leeches.

 

How is that not economic inefficiency? Why are we arguing against government subsidized job training?

 

Also, frame my argument in favor of protectionism while you're at it, mmkay?

 

Read the post plz thx!

 

 

..::Tyler -- who has taken several economics courses, thank you very much!

 

(like my new tagline? Oh em gee, it's hotness)

[Firestarter 0]

How about this: a bajillion manufacturing workers were laid off between I don't know and now, and now they're sitting on unemployment with people arguing that they're leeches

How about you use actual concrete figures to make your arguments rather than "bajillion" and "I don't know?" Would it be too hard for you to argue on substance, or did the professors who taught your "several economics courses, thank you very much!" sound something like this: "So like when one of these lines on a graph I saw somewhere in a book once goes down it's like sort of bad for someone in a country somewhere on Earth... well actually it might be on Mars, excuse me, I need another shot."

 

Seriously, what the fuck? Calling your posts in this thread "incoherent" would be kind. At least the formulae SJ "[spouts] off" "ad nauseam" actually have facts to back them up.

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Read: I'M NOT ARGUING AGAINST YOUR PRECIOUS FREE TRADE! The numbers aren't the point of the argument!

 

The point is that if you've read an economics textbook within the last 50 years (which, I presume you have), it talks extensively about little things like "resource inefficiency" and the like. Whether it's 200 or 200,000, we've still got a significant number of workers that are out of work and would be better served in another industry in which they're currently not trained to perform! However, no one seems to be in favor of like, well, TRAINING these workers so they can, um, be used more efficiently!

 

I swear to god, I took this entire argument STRAIGHT out of a Friedman column.

[Guest MikeSC]

Read: I'M NOT ARGUING AGAINST YOUR PRECIOUS FREE TRADE! The numbers aren't the point of the argument!

 

The point is that if you've read an economics textbook within the last 50 years (which, I presume you have), it talks extensively about little things like "resource inefficiency" and the like. Whether it's 200 or 200,000, we've still got a significant number of workers that are out of work and would be better served in another industry in which they're currently not trained to perform! However, no one seems to be in favor of like, well, TRAINING these workers so they can, um, be used more efficiently!

 

I swear to god, I took this entire argument STRAIGHT out of a Friedman column.

The problem with job training programs is that they tend to be black holes for money. I remember Rush used to rip on one that Clinton used to cite all of the time that spent over $100,000 for every job one of their people found.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

And a problem with this board is annoying double posts. Boo.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

The problem with job training programs is that they tend to be black holes for money. I remember Rush used to rip on one that Clinton used to cite all of the time that spent over $100,000 for every job one of their people found.

-=Mike

 

A good point. However, if we made this a state issue (yes, I'm aware that takes culpability off of Bush), these programs could be instituted into state-funded colleges, etc. which would defer the cost, I presume.

[Ripper 0]

I don't like how all of these theories ignore the fact that this type of haphazard outsoursing perpetuates the cycle of poverty.

 

The people in the lowest percentile of pay rate are the ones that are biggest hit. Education venues remain unopen for thier children. They go on to have low income jobs that are cut and the cycle continues. Then you have people saying how the poor stay poor because the rich worked harder. Most lower to midlevel workers come from a homes of lower to mid level workers. Is it really better for the country if some people don't recieve equal chances?

 

I see sensible outsourcing, I just don't see how anyone can justify it when there is no foreseeable reasoning(such as in Customer service, a field that really hasn't changed much for centuries, only over the phone now in stead of in person) . Low to midlevel jobs are a absolute necessity to try and even the playing field for the generations hit hardest by insufficent education. To eleminate these jobs (which you seem to be saying is necessary) is only leading to them taking lower paying jobs. It is basically priviledged stepping on the back of the underpriviledged to get higher.

 

And while if you look at the economic numbers as a whole, it will all look fine and good, I personally have a problem with the sacrificing men and women AND their future generations for the betterment of those who already can afford the new training that will be necessary to compete in the changing work environment.

 

Count casualties in percentages to the entire population of a country and no one came out to bad in any war. But when we get past that it is more than just numbers, you can see where the real damage came in. Thats all I am saying.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

OK, Stephen Joseph, Mr. smarty-pants, here's why my old man (an old-school union guy) thinks of your "outsourcing."

 

(The following is a true story that happened at Christmas, 2003)

 

So the old man called me at Xmas and after all that "Merry Christmas" crap was out of the way he began saying what he always says: "Nobody's working. All the jobs are gone." Except this time he added something new. "Nobody was buying this Christmas season." When I informed him that holiday spending rose he said, without missing a beat, "That's because the weatherman on TV told everyone that this was going to be a bad winter and for everyone to go out and do their Christmas shopping early. Now everyone did all their shopping and there was no snow, so now nobody has any money to buy anything."

 

Sure he's completely out of his mind, but he's my dad and I only have one of him (thank god)...

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Read: I'M NOT ARGUING AGAINST YOUR PRECIOUS FREE TRADE! The numbers aren't the point of the argument!

 

The point is that if you've read an economics textbook within the last 50 years (which, I presume you have), it talks extensively about little things like "resource inefficiency" and the like. Whether it's 200 or 200,000, we've still got a significant number of workers that are out of work and would be better served in another industry in which they're currently not trained to perform! However, no one seems to be in favor of like, well, TRAINING these workers so they can, um, be used more efficiently!

 

I swear to god, I took this entire argument STRAIGHT out of a Friedman column.

You're assuming that you know something the market doesn't know at the time.

Markets clear given the rules, institutions, and other variables.

 

Therefore, you're treating this as an abberation, a problem, like the Great Depression was.

 

I'm merely stating that evidence exists to show that this isn't a problem at all, and that its just a minor correction before our next productivity boom.

 

The Soviet Union tried to plan an economy. Failed

China tried to plan an economy. They figured out it fails and adapted

Let the market take care of itself. In cases of extreme distress, oh which this is not, intervention has a place.

 

KKK-Im totally confused by your statement...Doesnt it support me?

 

Rip-Companies are making sensible decisions. If you want to have a different system, look at what Japan's been through for 10 years with a system that has much more solidarity between workers and owners...Their economy is stagnant.

 

As per education being unavailable to the poor masses...

 

Using the Statistical Abstract for the United States (God Bless the Census)

http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/02statab/educ.pdf

 

More whites, black, and hispanics are enrolled in education since 1980

-black in particular up 5%

-Education attained (college) has doubled since 1980. The rate of growth in black college edu attained is growing much faster than white

Everything on real terms is up

 

I can quote PCI figures as well...those are up in real terms too, for all groups, but in particular the poorer groups are growing at rates faster than the richer...they're catching up!

 

Read the Stat Ab.

 

This outsourcing is not haphazard. Companies are actively trying to stay competition in a growing globalized world, and they're still being profit maximizing.

Outsourcing is perfectly rational given what these companies are going through.

 

And there will always be entry-level positions in the US. But they CHANGE. They'd didnt use to be 9-5 desk jobs! The quality and pay of "low-paying: entry level jobs has increased dramatically since the 1950s

 

Please, go look at the stat ab.

Edited March 31, 2004 by Stephen Joseph

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

You're assuming that you know something the market doesn't know at the time.

Markets clear given the rules, institutions, and other variables.

 

Therefore, you're treating this as an abberation, a problem, like the Great Depression was.

 

WTF.

 

No, I'm not.

 

I'm saying that we're responding to the market's inefficiencies (i.e. unused labor resources) by repeating "Outsourcing is good!" ten times fast instead of investing in job training and reallocating those stagnant resources.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

KKK-Im totally confused by your statement...Doesnt it support me?

You are actually thinking about something I said. That's your first mistake...

[Stephen Joseph 0]

You're assuming that you know something the market doesn't know at the time.

Markets clear given the rules, institutions, and other variables.

 

Therefore, you're treating this as an abberation, a problem, like the Great Depression was.

 

WTF.

 

No, I'm not.

 

I'm saying that we're responding to the market's inefficiencies (i.e. unused labor resources) by repeating "Outsourcing is good!" ten times fast instead of investing in job training and reallocating those stagnant resources.

No. I'm saying that outsourcing IS a response and we shouldn't be getting our panties in a wad that its happening.

 

Laissez Faire people! 99% of the time it works for the best outcome!

And this isn't a crisis of the 1% of those time we need to institutionally intervene!

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

No. I'm saying that outsourcing IS a response and we shouldn't be getting our panties in a wad that its happening.

 

Does anyone else see how he's completely missing the point?

 

I'm going to respond by speaking in really choppy sentence fragments.

 

Market inefficiency.

 

Is bad.

 

And thus.

 

We should.

 

Work.

 

To allieviate.

 

It.

 

Instead of.

 

Ignoring it.

 

And spouting off things out of the textbook.

 

So we should reallocate the resources.