Outsourcing boom brews a season of despair in US

Economic Times of India ^ | August 23, 2003

[sarcasm]

WASHINGTON: As President and chief bottle-washer at his one-man web development design firm, Mark Oesterle often has to decide which high-tech workers to hire to fill a stream of small contracts.

Sometimes he uses locals in Charlotte, North Carolina, to programme and design. Other times, he’ll throw the work to high-tech mavens in Austin, Texas, Columbia or South Carolina. With virtual work, geography isn’t important. Except that for Mr Oesterle, who regularly attends a job-seekers’ group studded with unemployed high-tech workers, geography ends at the US border. He has vowed not to move work to overseas markets like India, where eager high-tech workers can be hired at a fraction of US costs. “I’d rather give up the business than take away jobs from people who are unemployed,” Mr Oesterle said.

The 45-year-old is swimming against a stiff current. A study last month by a computer consulting firm found one in 10 jobs in US computer services and software could move to emerging markets such as India or Russia by the end of ’04.

Examples abound. IBM has said it has no choice but to expand software and semiconductor development overseas. Electronic Data Systems Corp, the world’s No 2 computer services firm, has moved work to what it calls the most economical locations — including India, Egypt, Poland, Canada and Brazil.

A raft of technology jobs has vanished since the ’01 slump began. Of 2.7m jobs lost since March ’01, more than half a million — or one in five — have been in programming, Internet publishing, computer systems design, telecommunications and data processing.

America has long relied on cheap immigrant labour, filling jobs US workers find unappealing. Even sending factory jobs to Asia or Mexico has been grudgingly accepted by consumers as the best way to satisfy their appetite for inexpensive clothing and electronics.

But with businesses now shipping white-collar service and high-tech jobs overseas to cut costs, a whole new sector and class of workers is feeling the pain.

[sarcasm]

ping

[harpseal]

Addressing some of the problems of our current trade envirornment.


In no particular order of importance.

1. Get rid of government subsidies for offshore investment of US companies. OPIC is the first such program which should go but support of World Bank programs that subsidize the outflow of Capital would be another.

2. Use tariffs on those nations which are engaged in unfair trade practices such as currency manipulation (China and India for example), those nations which refuse to open their markets to US products (China for example with its 50% tariffs on US consumer goods and non tariff barriers), those nations that subsidize competition to American Industry (airbus for example) and those nations which have slave conditions for their workers.

3. Use tariffs and other means to prevent the relocation of jobs offshore that are essential to the national defense. If necessary take control of the company seeking to export vital technology or industry by means of eminent domain (No I do not like this last option and I will only defend its use as an absolute last resort like say in the case of rare earth magnets essential to smart bomb technology). Provide a hardened, widely distributed infrastructure to supply all that is needed for our military units and civil defense that can be continued to be deployed in the event of any military attack.

4. An immediate end to guest worker programs. If people wish to come to the USA to work and make a life let them immigrate according to the rules.

5 Provide economic development zones where the corporate income tax is zero for operations within these zones. In order to operate in this zone a company must agree to only purchase American components if available and employ only American citizens or legal immigrants in these operations. These economic development zones shall be eventually be expanded to include every bit of every state once the benefits are shown I would like them to be totally implemented immediately but I realize4 that may be overreaching.

6. Scale back unnecessary regulation including the tort system. Institute a cap on punitive damages, limits on class action suits, and limits on liability to the actual percentage of liability with no plaintiff able to collect if said plaintiff was involved in the commission of a felony at the time of the alleged tort or was more than 49% negligent in the alleged tort. Note that the loser in a frivolous lawsuit shall pay the attorney fees of the winner. There are many other regulatory structures that also need to be included that need to be included such as repealing the Family leave mandate, getting rid of OSHA etc.

7. Increase the domestic content in purchases by the Department of defense and give absolute preference in non-domestic content to proven allies of the USA over say the French or Germans. The only reason any content for DOD purchase may come from non US allies is that content is not available elsewhere and is essential.

8. Do not allow expense involved in moving operations overseas to be included in business expenses under the IRS code.

9. Prosecute for perjury anyone who has made a false statement in order to employ an H1B or L1 visa worker. I will be lenient on the actual perjurer if he/she was ordered to make this false statement and he/she provides testimony to aid in the conviction of the person ordering the perjury. Just because a person is a CEO does not give them a pass on criminal behavior.

10. Prosecute anyone who orders the transfer of vital defense technology or funds a R&D project that could be of use to our military overseas except to strong allies of the USA. Make the necessary enhancements to our espionage laws so that continued support or funding of any R&D in a nation whose government has threatened the USA is guilty of espionage. The UK and Australia come to mind as meeting these criteria for being eligible for transfer of technology first. There will be other nations and a gradation of what can be transferred to which specific nation. Under no circumstances may technology be transferred to any nation whose government has threatened the USA within five years without a complete change of government or specific exemption from Congress and the administration.

11. Deport all illegal aliens immediately and take measures that prevent the entry of any more illegal aliens. Fine all companies knowingly employing illegal aliens Criminal sanctions should be imposed on anyone helping an illegal alien stay in the USA in violation of our laws.

12. Decrease the punishing levels of taxation on companies and eliminate the double taxation on corporate dividends. See effects of item 5 for how minimal this will be if item 5 covers the entire USA. Eliminate all IRS provisions that inhibit free use of independent contractors by businesses for example section 1706.

13. Eliminate the minimum wage so that the worker can be paid based on productivity. Overtime compensation will remain the same but instead of 150% of the "wage" the worker would receive 150% of the production pay. If one through 13 are enacted # 14 becomes an irrelevancy as no one will be working for that low a wage.

Now since I started posting this plan another idea has come up that in my opinion is a very good policy that stands on its own. Now I give credit to Jim Gibson and Freeper Ed_in_NJ for coming up with the idea, separately to the best of my knowledge. However I can be corrected on that. The tariff phrasing is from Jim Gibson.

“I suggest that the US Customs Department charge a $1,000-per-container inspection fee on every container entering the United States. This fee would be used to completely fund the cost of inspections. If we assumed that a four-man team could fully inspect two containers a day or about 500 per year, it would require 48,000 inspectors. Allowing for at least 2,000 support personnel, we would need at least 50,000 workers. Because these workers would require high intelligence and skill levels they should earn at least $30 per hour. At 40-hour weeks plus benefits, I estimate the cost per worker to be over $75,000 per year, all paid by the foreign manufacturers. Even so, this would still leave over $2.25 billion to cover all other costs. Any revenue not used would be used to compensate American workers displaced by foreign imports. “

I urge and encourage everyone who agrees with this plan and or the terror tariff idea to communicate this to every politician you can think of.

[harpseal]

ping

On or off let me know.

[Brilliant]

Season of despair? How do they figure?

[harpseal]

Mark Oesterle a fellow american to be proud of.

[bvw]

Good for him!

[sarcasm]

A shame there aren't many more like him.

[netmilsmom]

When can my IT employed hubby and I vote for you for president?

[staytrue]

Our trade deficit is 500 billion. It means we trade 500 billion of capital (stocks, bonds, real estate) for 500 billion of imported goods and services.

The only solution is to work the same and spend 500 billion less or produce more, 500 billion more, but get to spend the same.

The american people like spending more than they produce to the tune of 1,500 dollars per person or about 3,000 dollars per worker.

No one wants to hear this, but tariffs will not change the fact that we need to produce more or consume less.

Getting rid of govt. spending which is mostly useless, tort reform, getting rid of govt. regulation will help.

Tariffs will not change the equation of produce more or spend less.

[ex-snook]

OPEN ASSIGNMENT
MISSION TO SAVE AMERICAN JOBS
August 23, 2003

President Bush:

Mr. President your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to recover the 3+ million jobs lost on your watch. You are to find where they went, recover them, and prevent this from happening again.

You have until November 2004 to complete this mission.

If you choose not to accept this mission, or are incapable of performing, don't run in the GOP Primary so another Republican can accept this important mission for America.

American Citizen Voter

PS Ronald Reagan was the last Republican to understand. Ross Perot sent a warning to your Dad but since then all we hear is the mantra, 'Perot gave us Clinton'. Actually your Dad gave us Perot.

[staytrue]

$1,000-per-container inspection fee

And how do you charge a tariff on tech support and software design ? The em waves go to india and some em waves come back here with the finished product.

[Dane]

When can my IT employed hubby and I vote for you(harpseal) for president?

As soon as harpseal states his position publicly that he wants to dictate his laws on business.

Such as that American business cannot find the lowest costs to benefit consumers or stockholders.

You had a candidate to vote for in 2000, his name was Pat Buchanan, in 2004 his name is Dick Gephardt.

[Mini-14]

Say thank you to Mark Oesterle for his patriotism

(704) 756-3878

info@ectnc.com

www.ectnc.com/Contact.htm

[Steven W.]

I think this is the third time I've seen this posted this week on FR - must mean that you doom & gloomers are really near the point of desperation to come up with new material ROFLMAO.

[sarcasm]

[harpseal]

When can my IT employed hubby and I vote for you for president?

The quick and easy answer is probably not whithin my lifetime. I held office in a state other than where I reside now (state legislature). I found that since I would not vote according to party instructions even when thye told me it was a crucial vote and I would not be able to advance in politics without going along I told them not so poolitely to "Go **** yourselves," with a few adjectives added for emphasis as per my training as a Navy Chief. Due to my stands on several other issues I am absolutely unelectable to office. Gun Control - I am a strong advcoacate that the best gun control provisions are as follows: Pistols Weaver Stance is usually best. Rifles prone position is best. Shotguns standing position is best. No mandates a simple declration of the above should suffice for all gun control by the government. Interpretation of the US Constitution. It means exactly what it says the no law provision of the first ammendment aplies as much to establishing atheism as the state religion as any other religion and the no law prhibiting the free exercise thereor is clearly part of the Constitution.

Now you tell me where in the USA those positions would allow me to be elected to any national office. In CT where I reside. I could not get enough support to make it to Board of Selectmen with tose stands as part of my positions.

What we need is a grassroots campaign positiverly oriented.

[1stFreedom]

I'm going to accept a job that involves transferring some stuff over seas.

I fully intend to refuse to do so and will tell them to stick it up their ass when the time comes.

Then I'll walk out after telling them what the last two years has been like. If they are pissed that I refuse and quit, "FUCK YOU".

[harpseal]

No one wants to hear this, but tariffs will not change the fact that we need to produce more or consume less.

Since tariffs are a consumption tax they do at least affect one side of the equation. Just ask most of those who scream how poor people won't be able to afford the necessities of life if we impose any tariffs on Chinese goods.

Getting rid of govt. spending which is mostly useless, tort reform, getting rid of govt. regulation will help.

Thank you for supporting those parts of my compromise plan but unless and until we build enough suppport from thsioe who agree that some portions of the plan provide impetus in a posirtive direction even though they might not actively support it all can we get enough pressure on DC to get them actively moving in a positive direction which is at least partly away from the goals expressed at the Uraguay Round.

Tariffs will not change the equation of produce more or spend less

Please see my comments regarding at least the consumption side. Now both Adam Smith and David Riccardo recognized that tariffs could also "foster industry." That is they create a better overall climate for investing in a nation. I believe and can cite some supporting evidence that investment improves productivity and creates jobs. So again IMHO the tariff also affects the produce more side of the equation by fostering investment in teh USA and likewise I can provide at least one tariff regression analyissi that supports this premise. If you can find a case where a tariff harmed this nation on a net basis benefits - costs less than 0 I would love to see it as i have lonng been looking for such a case to demonstrate that tariffs are not universally beneficial to this nation. Now clearly since groups like the Cato espouse regression analysis as the tool of choice for quantitative analysis of costs and benefits. such evidence should include regression analysis of the Costs and benfots of both sides of the issue to arrive at the net. Cato only does the costs of tariffs.

Tariffs will not change the equation of produce more or spend less. ,P>See above for why I can not accept this as fact and for logic as to why no one should. if you can provide qantitative analyiss of why we should accept this or even a logical agrument I will be happy to consider that.