Thousands of federal jobs may go abroad, U.S. says

Statesman ^ | 9/11/03 | Marilyn Geewax

[Teacher317]

Thousands of federal jobs may go abroad, U.S. says

Well, when I wished they would go away, that's not quite what I meant!

[harpseal]

Americans could be stationed overseas to do this and although this is not my idea it is a good one and Should nbe implemented. Now as for your objections about consumers having to pay for the cost of the inspections. Well since the people who are doing the importing including the final customers are the one's who are benefiting from the imports they are clearly teh one's who should pay for it. I do not care if one calls it a user fee or a tariff it should underwrite the cost of inspections to prevent any WMD from entering the USA. Or do you think that everyone else should subsidize your desire to purchase imported products?

[Ches]

It is a sad commentary on the state of our federal government and our nation in general when it becomes so top-heavy and burdensome that we can not afford to hire our own people. Tax burden, government mandates, oppressive rules and regulations render the income charts (mentioned earlier) useless. What is the tax and federal burden in Ireland as an example, or India for that matter.

Has downsizing government ever been considered as an option? Or has it been just Washington hot air?

[harpseal]

It is a sad commentary on the state of our federal government and our nation in general when it becomes so top-heavy and burdensome that we can not afford to hire our own people.

That is the sort of situation which has in other times and places led to violence.

Tax burden, government mandates, oppressive rules and regulations render the income charts (mentioned earlier) useless. What is the tax and federal burden in Ireland as an example, or India for that matter.

India is a socialist nation with currency controls and the world second highest overall tariffs per the World Bank. The current trade envirornment was set up as a wealth transfer scheme per teh Uruguay Round meetings and it seems to be working in taking wealth from the USA and tranferring it to everyone else.

Has downsizing government ever been considered as an option? Or has it been just Washington hot air?

It has been considered and rejected.

[DugwayDuke]

"Or do you think that everyone else should subsidize your desire to purchase imported products?"

I think consumers should have the right to choose what they buy without interferrence from a government imposing tariffs to ensure they buy the "right product from the right producer". This hairbrained idea of imposing a "fee" on containers is only an attempt to put fancy makeup as a disguise for tariffs. Downright Clintonian.

[norton]

The original article is misleading and most of the first fifty or so posts miss the mark because of that.

USG has been increasing the amount of "government work" actually done by private industry for some time. Every year it is an issue in funding, basing, and a dozen other debates. A great number of entrenched time servers, socialists, ward-healers, and politicians hoping for union or institutional support are (real) hostile to any reduction in the bulk of federal bureaucracy.

That's what it is all about - reducing the federal direct payroll while achieving economies through competition. It would seem that this ambition would be welcomed on FR.

It can get pretty byzantine as the entrenched ("heritage") types arm wrestle with the innovators. Results are mixed because the same out-sourcing can include measures to protect government jobs that are really no longer necessary (like having a fireman on a turbine train).

The other side, the thing the original article stakes its legitimacy on, is the suggestion that private contractors would shift (critical) jobs overseas. This seems pertinent because we've seen a host of reports lately of IT jobs (the guy you wait a half hour to talk to about a billing statement or why your PC developed jaundice) moving to India or some other foreign land.

Meanwhle, the "it's the UN in there" comment addresses world-wide sourcing of commercial electronic parts - that's long term and entirely segregated from privatizing of any government tasks. (It has more impact on the parallel government trend toward using more commercial hardware; building around market available commodities rather than writing a spec and paying through the nose for someone to build 'just the right thing'. A thing that is usually obsolete before the prototype is signed off.)

As to security, where the government chooses to apply them, there are pretty strident export laws in place that address ANY kind of pertinent information - including chit-chat. In short; it's illegal to move controlled data or tasks to a third country without specific federal approval. (Any single piece of data, including unclassified briefing charts and techinical chats at a convention can be considered on par with a purpose built computer)

Problems DO arise where the government makes a decision on what can be shared, usually commercialitems and often after the fact. Some big time companies have been burned badly and the Clinton administration/State Department were widely dunned for inadvertent or intentional "lapses". (Aircraft tooling and "standard" computers, confrences with Chinese "scientists", etc.)

The red herring in the article, the IT linkage, addresses "routine' data, account administration, and similar support and maintenance functions. The government has subcontracted those activities for a long long time because it is simply not economical to sustain in-house capabilities at each and every site 'round the globe. Concurrently, data crunching, component assembly, and basic component manufacturing are already being widely spread around the globe: that is part of the industry in long range and not likely to stop for any reason.

So, when an IT industry representative is reported as 'nodding his head' at a two sided question what does it mean? It seems to mean "do those companies perform some of their routine functions off-shore (yes) & would some functions of the service then be carried out outside the US (maybe).

Clue; where that is the case, it's already being done.

The point of the article is "don't reduce the size of the federal work force because that would be bad for those at the federal trough". The remaining implications, those most addressed in our responses, are convenient to, and misstated by, the author.

[norton]

Trust me:
It's not "President Bush" who started this but there is no reason to be surprised that the issue comes up under his administration.

[waterstraat]

Although Bush has been calling for the creation of more jobs, his administration has been promoting a plan to open roughly 425,000 federal jobs to competition from private companies.

Another 425,000 jobs for indians.

AS soon as these jobs are privatized, they will be outsourced to india. Just who/how many will be left to pay all the United States income taxes?

[waterstraat]

Uh huh...and eventually, this will drastically reduce the income tax revenue here in the U.S. Wonder if those idiots have thought of that yet?

No. They havent. And neither have the free traders. The free traders think that it is all benefit, and dont realize that they will have to pay their taxes, and their neighbors incomes taxes also. By the time that they find out that their income taxes are going to double, it will be too late.

[Tax Government]

"over the long term, productivity lifts Americans' wages."

Maybe lifts productivity relative to an earlier point in time, but not relative to the productivity of foreign-outsourced jobs. We can't maintain a permanent lead in productivity, relative to the foreign competition. It's wishful thinking to believe that productivity will somehow save us. We need protectionism of some kind. (As a conservative, that's hard to say. But I believe it.)

[harpseal]

I and the author did not try to disguise this tarriff you have presented a false description of what is essentially a tariff whose funding is devoted to the sevurity of the USA that tariff would be directly passed to those who supposedly benefit from imports. You are the one demanding a subsidy or decreased security to save some pennies on products.

That alone tells me you do not believe in the Constitution of the USA and have some other goal than even a libertarian philosophy.

[DugwayDuke]

You've been looking for a rationale to justify a predetermined solution. National security just happens to be a convienient excuse. Face it, you'd be for this "inspection fee" regarless of the threat.

Now that I think of it, it does remind me of the "inspection fees" often imposed by Japan to ensure "quality" and to "protect domestic consumers" of such things as imported rice and automobiles. IOW, just an excuse to protect suppliers and force consumers to pay higher prices for lesser quality goods.

[harpseal]

You've been looking for a rationale to justify a predetermined solution. National security just happens to be a convienient excuse. Face it, you'd be for this "inspection fee" regarless of the threat.

I am tired of anti-American scum like those who would lay the USA prostrate before its enemies in order to save a few pennies misrepresenting my position. I am for this container inspection fee for every container that enters the USA. Who should pay for these inspections? Clearly it should be those who benefit by bringing these containers into the USA. I thought you were a person of principle and clearly you are willing to throw any semblence of principle out the window if it means a little profit for you.

Now that I think of it, it does remind me of the "inspection fees" often imposed by Japan to ensure "quality" and to "protect domestic consumers" of such things as imported rice and automobiles. IOW, just an excuse to protect suppliers and force consumers to pay higher prices for lesser quality goods.

Wrong as long as what is coming in matches the bill of lading let it come. If the fees can be lower by usinbg higher tech or customs agents stationed abroad so be it. I have no problem with lowering the costs but I have real problem with making others subsidize your or anyone else's imports. I want the fees to bee based upon the costs. I want secure ports of entry. I realize that Chem, bio and nuclear weapons may still get into the USA but I support this idea from someone else because it makes sense and it imposes the costs where they belong.

Now in simple point of fact I am still waiting for someone anyone to show proof that any protective tariff harmed the USA at any time in our history. If tariffs asre harmful to the USA the a net quantitaive analysis should show that clearly via mathematics. If its science its mathematical other wise it is bull sh*t.

[DugwayDuke]

"Now in simple point of fact I am still waiting for someone anyone to show proof that any protective tariff harmed the USA at any time in our history. If tariffs asre harmful to the USA the a net quantitaive analysis should show that clearly via mathematics. If its science its mathematical other wise it is bull sh*t."

Why wait for others to do your homework for you? A simple web search turns up a large number of articles. For example:


http://economics.about.com/cs/taxpolicy/a/tariffs.htm#b

You might find this section relevent to your point:

Study after study has shown that tariffs cause reduced economic growth to the country imposing them. A few of examples:

The essay on Free Trade at The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics looks at the issue of international trade policy. In the essay, Alan Blinder states that "one study estimated that in 1984 U.S. consumers paid $42,000 annually for each textile job that was preserved by import quotas, a sum that greatly exceeded the average earnings of a textile worker. That same study estimated that restricting foreign imports cost $105,000 annually for each automobile worker's job that was saved, $420,000 for each job in TV manufacturing, and $750,000 for every job saved in the steel industry."

In the year 2000 President Bush raised tariffs on imported steel goods between 8 and 30 percent. The Mackinac Center for Public Policy cites a study which indicates that the tariff will reduce U.S. national income by between 0.5 to 1.4 billion dollars. The study estimates that less than 10,000 jobs in the steel industry will be saved by the measure at a cost of over $400,000 per job saved. For every job saved by this measure, 8 will be lost.

The cost of protecting these jobs is not unique to the steel industry or to the United States. The National Center For Policy Analysis estimates that in 1994 tariffs cost the U.S. economy 32.3 billion dollars or $170,000 for every job saved. Tariffs in Europe cost European consumers $70,000 per job saved while Japanese consumers lost $600,000 per job saved through Japanese tariffs.

These studies, like many others, indicate that tariffs do more harm than good. If these tariffs are so bad for the economy, why do governments keep enacting them? We'll discuss that question in the next section.

There are some embedded links that didn't copy so you can verify these studies at your leisure.

[DugwayDuke]

"I am tired of anti-American scum like those who would lay the USA prostrate before its enemies in order to save a few pennies misrepresenting my position. ... I thought you were a person of principle and clearly you are willing to throw any semblence of principle out the window if it means a little profit for you."

Referring to fellow freepers as "anti-American scum" is not nice and is frowned up by the moderators.

[harpseal]

"I am tired of anti-American scum like those who would lay the USA prostrate before its enemies in order to save a few pennies misrepresenting my position. ... I thought you were a person of principle and clearly you are willing to throw any semblence of principle out the window if it means a little profit for you."

I did not accuse you of this I was merely making a comment about those who would forego reasonable security for some political or economic agenda. If you choose to identify with the comment that is your problem not mine. I am very tired of people who pose as Americans and conservatives but when it comes to standing up for America and its founding principles as defined in our Constitution are absent. Those who take the view that tariffs are an infingement on liberty are just such individuals. Clearly tariffs are a part of the US Constitution and the argument can well be made it was to have common tariffs for all the United States that generated the Constitution instead of the Articles of Confederation.

No matter. I stand by my comments and if the shoe fits wear it with pride. If you are perfectly willing to sacrifice American lives to avoid paying a few pennies more on imported products admit that such a position is anti-American. The alternative is that one thinks taxpayers should subsidize imports by foisting the costs of inspections on other taxpayers so you caqn be subsidized. That sort of socialist philosphy is also anti-American.

Like I said if you wish to discuss the effectiveness of inspections or where these inspections should be done then that is totally another matter but clearly those who benefit from teh inspections should pay for them.

[harpseal]

Gee if there is study after study then why can't a net quantitative analysis be found among all these studies? This is my problem with those who oppose tariffs there is a large amount of ussupported aleegation and precious few facts. I have done my homework and there has yet to be a net analysis showing that tariffs have harmed teh nation imposing them the lies you are citing to the contrary.

Like I said there are laots of references to "numerrous articles but when one looks for the articles there is no substance behind the claims. I have been posing this simple challenge since July to find one regression anlysis that uses the same methodologies on the costs and on the benefit side to show a NET harm from a tariff. Nobody has come up with a link to one yet. If there are so many numerous studies come up with one. The Cato institute does not have one and that anti-tariff hotbed should be able to. Several self proclaimed economics professors have not been able to come up with such a study. I have repeatedly posted a link to an examination of US China trade that uses such a methofology. There are also several such studies for the nineteenth Century that show several tariffs having a positive effect. I expect those who wish to contraqdict me to have the intellectual honesty to post such a study wo we can verify the mathematics and teh facts on which it was based.

Now the infanous Steel Consumers study uses regression analysis on teh consumer's side but not on the producers side. Perhaps their agenda had something to do with this?