Posted on 03/15/2004 2:14:21 PM PST by jpthomas
WASHINGTON, March 15 (Xinhuanet) -- Foreigners outsourced far more office work to the United States than American companies send abroad in 2003, reported the Wall Street Journal on Monday.
The value of US exports of legal work, computer programming, telecommunications, banking, engineering, management consulting and other private services jumped to 131.01 billion dollars in 2003, up 8.42 billion dollars from the previous year, the report said.
Data released by the Commerce Department showed that imports of such private services, meanwhile, hit 77.38 billion dollars for the year, up 7.94 billion dollars from 2002, said the report.
Measuring imports against exports, the United States posted a 53.64 billion dollars surplus last year in trade in private services with the rest of the world.
Under government accounting, when a US company opens a technical-support center in a foreign country that handles inquiries from the United States, that is considered a US import of services. When a US lawyer in New York does work for a foreign company or a New York investment banker works on a deal for a foreign company, that is an export of services.
The report said the number suggests that efforts to restrict outsourcing by US companies may backfire, if they provoke retaliation by US trading partners.
Economists say that US service exporters -- insurers, for instance -- might lose some competitive edge if they cannot use foreign suppliers for call centers or other back-office operations, according to the report.
I posted the summary of the original article because it may require a Wall Street Journal on-line subscription to access the original. If you want to try to access it on the WSJ website, here's the link: More Work Is Outsourced to U.S. Than Away From It, Data Show
Here's a graphic from the WSJ article that shows the US outsourcing surplus:
No, because the talking point is easier to remember, it has the luxury of not needing to be true, and those who read WSJ probably make up less than 5% of voters. So you can expect the DNC to continue touting the "job outsourcing" mantra all the way to November 2. And if W happens to point out that we are actually "importing" more jobs by exporting more services than we import you can also expect the media to report this as a vicious negative attack on Kerry.
Buying a sofware consulting from IBM was not considered outsourcing no more that buying a car from Ford, and if the vendor, say IBM, is outsourcing this work then what does that dso to these numbers.
What a silly remark!
I suppose you prefer Kerry's dour horse-face.
This article (at least the portion posted here) is unclear on what they mean, that is my objection. I take them to mean by "outsourcing" the practice of outsourcing offshore. Otherwise there would be little point to the article.
Typically outsourcing break down thus:
Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) which could be a call center but could be check clearing,Human resources or and other business function that is not core to the profit making structure of the business. IT development is generally not considered a BPO because it is not really a business faction.
Sub Contracting Product/infrastructure development This is generally not done on a permanent basis and applies to IT. It is outsourcing if it goes out of the host country by my definition, otherwise it is just subcontracting. But this is not just buying a component, there is some sort of design and/or fabrication value add from client input.
Consultations These are consultations that apply to the country of the firm. It would not, for instance, be outsourcing to hire a American lawyer facilitate doing business in America. I realize there are gray areas here when it comes to tech development, but the IBM consultancy case would often come here.
The problem with your definition is that someone like IBM consulting has world wide offices to handle the consultations that apply locally and these local offices have their own resources and often keep their own books. they may even be local subsidiaries depending on tax and tariff laws in the host country. So to say IBM is getting work "outsourced and offshored to the US" would not really be true. All of the large and middle consultancies do this. The small ones do not because they cannot compete in the local market. On top of this, we would not know were IBM might have some of their resources. So it confounds issues.
So I think my point still stands regarding this article. They may be right but they do not give enough information to make out what the real impact of outsourcing/shoring has on the US economy and, as seems to be the point, good jobs in the US. Thus the article looks more to be a polemic raather than a presentation of fact.
It it irritates his supporters, it's because they're looking for something to be irritated about.
After all that Bush has done on the war on terrorism, if that's all that the "undecideds" are focusing on (Bush's looks), he's done pretty well.
And, who the hell cares what his enemies think?
I just think it's silly for a Bush supporter to expect him to change something about his expression that he is obviously not going to change!
Nothing false about it.
If Kerry weren't so botoxed-up, he might smile more.
Or, maybe not.
It's either that or liars tend to shout louder than fact finders who often have an open book in front of their mouths. Check out posts 5 and 12. You dig out the data, you post the graph, the whole enchilada, and all you get for your work is "it's all smoke and mirrors".
Some how 5.7 percent unemployment was low in '96 but it's a flippin' joblessness crisis now. Industrial production was high at 113.6 in Jan. 2001, but it's low now at 114.35. It goes on and on. They've simply decided that the economy is bad, and there is no national economic measurement that can go up against a closed mind.
If it irritates his supporters, it's because they're looking for something to be irritated about.
Not your best logic. Irritations happen, even when unsought (e.g., President Bush’s smirk).
(2) After all that Bush has done on the war on terrorism, if that's all that the "undecideds" are focusing on (Bush's looks), he's done pretty well.
More suboptimal logic. The undecideds, we all know, are focusing on much more than the President’s “looks.” Unfortunately, a quirky mannerism such as Mr. Bush’s often incongruous smirk tends to reinforce certain pervasive stereotypes about his character and temperament.
(3) And, who the hell cares what his enemies think?
Your best point. Even here, though, there’s prudence in controlling the controllables, such as a tendency to smirk at moments of high seriousness. No sense in loading the enemies’ quivers for them as they try to win over the undecideds.
(4) I just think it's silly for a Bush supporter to expect him to change something about his expression that he is obviously not going to change!
No, it’s not “obvious” that he’s not going to change, unless you’re aware of some inexorable law of nature that says he can’t erase an irritating smirk no matter how hard he tries, as try he should. Savvy political candidates are continually reviewing their public images with a view toward controlling or eliminating gestures and speech patterns that might alienate the electorate.
One needn’t be Director of Central Casting to know with which type of character (e.g., William Jefferson Clinton) smirks are associated. Western Civilization, as you know, has 2,400 years of reflection on this matter, going back to Aristotle’s Rhetoric and beyond. And today’s political consultants are forever measuring the “Likeability Factor,” a factor which smirking has never been known to enhance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.