Posted on 02/17/2004 5:35:48 PM PST by phil_will1
Last week, Council of Economic Advisers Chairman N. Gregory Mankiw ran into a buzz saw. He committed a major gaffe, which in Washington means he spoke the truth, by defending the concept of outsourcing -- contracting with foreigners for information technology services. With a lack of job growth being the central economic issue in the country today, Mankiw's comments were assailed across the political spectrum. President Bush quickly distanced himself from his aide's remarks, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., repudiated them, and many Democrats called for Mankiw's dismissal.
There is at least one person in Washington who knows precisely how Mankiw feels: Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. Back in 1974, Greenspan held the same position Mankiw now holds. Shortly after his confirmation in September of that year, Greenspan participated in an economic summit. At the time, the United States was in the middle of the deepest recession of the postwar period and inflation was rising rapidly. That year, the Consumer Price Index would rise 12.3 percent.
Greenspan was asked whether the Ford administration's policies were benefiting the rich over the poor. He replied: "If you really wanted to examine who, percentage-wise, is hurt the most in their incomes, it is Wall Street brokers. I mean their incomes have gone down the most."
Needless to say, Democrats had a field day attacking Greenspan for seeming to worry more about the problems of rich Wall Street brokers than those of common people. Although he quickly apologized, many observers believe that Greenspan was permanently scarred by the incident and forever afterward became far more circumspect in his public and even private comments.
Of course, when one gets caught in one of these Washington firestorms, there really isn't much one can do except apologize, hunker down and wait for the storm to pass. That is what Mankiw is doing. Unfortunately, the result is that debate on serious issues is often short-circuited and the political establishment draws erroneous conclusions. In this case, it may conclude that the issue of outsourcing is radioactive and everyone may rush to support ill-conceived legislative fixes with harmful economic consequences.
Here is the offending statement in the Economic Report of the President that has led to calls for Mankiw's head: "One facet of increased services trade is the increased use of offshore outsourcing in which a company relocates labor-intensive service industry functions to another country. ... Whereas imported goods might arrive by ship, outsourced services are often delivered using telephone lines or the Internet. The basic economic forces behind the transactions are the same, however. When a good or service is produced more cheaply abroad, it makes more sense to import it than to make or provide it domestically."
One would have a hard time finding a reputable economist anywhere who disagrees with this analysis. No nation has ever gotten rich by forcing its citizens to pay more for domestic goods and services that could have been procured more cheaply abroad. Nations get rich by concentrating on doing the things they do best and letting others produce those things they can produce better and more cheaply. It is called the specialization of labor, and it is the foundation for economic growth. That is why even Democratic economists like Janet Yellen, Laura Tyson, Brad DeLong and Robert Reich have come to Mankiw's defense.
What is different about outsourcing and why it has aroused so much protest is that it is affecting workers who thought they were immune from international competition. Blue-collar workers in manufacturing have been suffering from outsourcing for 100 years. It is worth remembering that textile jobs in South Carolina today were originally outsourced from Massachusetts. While in the short run, the transition was painful for Massachusetts textile workers, they soon found better jobs in new industries. That is why per capita income there is and always has been far higher than that in South Carolina.
It would be grossly unfair to say that it is OK to move manufacturing wherever production is cheaper, but wrong to subject information technology services to the same competition. It is mostly because of the Internet and the fact that IT people know how to use it that they are getting attention disproportionate to their numbers. Moreover, if we hadn't just gone through a painful economic recession, most of these people probably would have already found new jobs and the problem of outsourcing would not be worth writing nasty emails about to politicians and people like me.
In any case, even if the federal government tried to stop outsourcing, it cannot. We can put quotas and tariffs on goods that cross our borders, but it is impossible to stop people from importing software and data over the Internet. The only response that is possible is to adapt, innovate and stay ahead of the curve.
Actually, this wasn't really the case at all. While it is true that the Homestead Act resulted in the creation of what we now identify as a "middle class," these people were not the intended beneficiaries of the Act, nor were they "independent" in any real sense.
The Homestead Act was specifically aimed at helping U.S. railroads secure a lifeline to natural resources, while at the same time building markets for finished products made by eastern manufacturers. In essence, the railroads were looking to build up what is known in the industry as a "back haul" by running revenue service in both directions.
And far from being "independent," the farmers who settled in the Great Plains were beholden to the railroads in almost every area of their lives, from the prices they received for their grain to the prices they paid for their farm equipment.
So out of a class of 30, you might have 2 that will excel in a global marketplace, 25 that will go on to blue collar jobs or make fries, and 3 that will forever live on the incomes of the others. I suspect that in Japan and many other countries you would have a much larger percentage that will excel and a smaller number of french friers.
Actually, yours is the seriously mistaken notion. The huge industrialization advantages that the U.S. realized were not just from the plentiful resources here (witness Japan becoming a manufacturing collossus without ANY indigenous resources other than labor) ..but from a protected environment fostered by U.S. protections of its capital formation...i.e., manufacturing industries.
When a CORPORATION is the employer, it is OUR DUTY to hold it to act compatibly with and sometimes IN our interests, even if against its own to some bearable degree. Neal Boortz's logic "we don't own our jobs" applies only to sole proprieterships and partnerships unprotected by such Charters -- once a company of people seeks the protection of the state from liability, etc, and petitions for a corporate or LLP charter -- by golly, it is OUR DUE REGARD to demand that such a protected entity make our welfare its interest as well as its own, for it is WE when grant it the protections and rights accorded the corporate charter.
Welcome to Free Republic. HIPAA is uneforceable in India. Privacy is a dead letter to any outsourcing of data processing sent to India.
The post-WW2 period was an economic anomaly in which the U.S. was able to dominate almost every industry in the world because we were the only industrial giant that had emerged from the war with our industrial capacity unscathed. That transition period pretty much ended by the late 1960s, if Japan's emergence as a manufacturing power is any indication. It's no coincidence that the late 1960s also marked the start of the economic malaise in this country that lasted until the early 1980s.
This is where your analysis is only partially correct, and the part that is incorrect actually reinforces my point. The United States did not have the highest standard of living in the world throughout the 1970s -- as indicated by the two fuel crises, spiraling inflation, and stagnant economic growth that afflicted us for almost the entire decade.
Everyone needs to become autodidactic renaissance men, capable of having every skill imaginable ready to bear expertly at the drop of a hat. No specialization, because that's a dead end. Any specialty can and will be outsourced to someone more cheaply once that specialty knowledge is imitated. (specialties like managment, financial advisors, tort lawyers, military special ops)
Of course, in a bell curve world, not everyone is capable of being a renaissance man, so some of you are going to have to die, for the good of the economy. You die so that I may retire at 35 a very rich man. Think of the better world that your sacrifice represents. A middle class in class concious India and for the U.S. a small, elite band of UberMannen, furiously running from new "next thing" to "newer" like a pack of dogs (though very high acheiving and pedegreed canines) around the latest fifi on the block for a quick clusterf**k and then move on.
We'll have to take away your franchise before we can implement our brave new world, of course, but by then, you'll be greatful for the security and leadership we provide.
And then Ve shall rule ze Verld! (or what little part of it India and China allow us.)
It's not all that difficult to prove, actually. Go back to the 1930s and compare the U.S. to Germany, for example. Even though Germany was far worse off than the U.S. during the depression, they were still the most advanced country in the world in terms of technology, science, music, etc.
It's no coincidence that the greatest advances in the U.S. during and after World War II were only possible (at that early time, at least) because the U.S. was able to tap Germany's knowledge base in nuclear science, aeronautics, and rocket propulsion research.
Yes, the free trade uber alles crowd keeps forgetting that. The granting of the suffix ".inc" entails responsibilities for the recipients above and beyond shareholder profits.
While I can accept the possibility that "standard of living" is a fluid concept, I can NOT accept this statement at face value.
Please provide a source, or stats.
People cannot live in chaos for long. Cultures, states, communites, families and children cannot prosper in chaos. Even slaves will not tolerate chaos for long. And your money and cherished "property" would be devoured by chaos.
But before your chaos takes over, the order will be restored in other way.
Rome established a republic in 509 B.C. The Senators who ruled the city were elected by popular vote, but Roman law restricted what they could do. As a result, the people were free, and most of them prospered. With the passage of time, however, a ruling class evolved and began using the Senate to pursue their expansionist agenda. A series of foreign wars ensued which enriched the oligarchy and impoverished the people. Those who acquired wealth purchased vast tracts of land and farmed them with slaves captured in battle. Small farmers couldn't compete with them, and they were forced to sell their land. Class warfare broke out, and the power of the State was expanded to control the populace. The right to vote was extended to promote democracy and quiet dissent. The oligarchy began fighting among themselves for positions of power, which led to ever increasing chaos. Eventually Augustus Caesar intervened and replaced the Roman Republic with the Roman Empire.
(Encyclopedia Americana Volume 23, pp. 665-69.)
One of the serious adverse affects of the industrial revolution (in all parts of the world, not just the U.S.) is that for the first time in history we had an enormous class of "free" people who relied entirely on employment by others for their livelihoods. As a result, we now have a country in which people who don't know even the most rudimentary principles of economics are casting votes for public officials based primarily on the state of the nation's economy.
As someone else posted on a similar thread, this is no different than asking the electorate to vote on the best method for treating pancreatic cancer.
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.