Why We Have Nothing to Fear from Foreign Outsourcing

Free Trade Bulletin, Center for Trade Policy Studies, CATO Institute ^ | March 30, 2004 | Daniel T. Griswold

[CSM]

I found this article while looking for a different one written by this author. His current article in the National Review is better than this one. If I can find it I'll post it.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Willie Green ain't gonna like this.

Facts confuse him so.

[CSM]

Who runs the outsourcing ping list? I wanted to make sure to ping them.

[Mears]

Sorry,CSM,but no one wll ever convince me that outsourcing of good jobs is good for our economy as long as there is one unemployed person in this country with the skills to do the job,

It benefits the corporation itself, and the stockholders,not the workers---God,I sound like a Communist here,but that's the way I feel

[Libertarianize the GOP]

bump

[CSM]

Shouldn't the unemployed person be responsible to ensure that their skills match the available jobs? Or is it the corporation's responsibility to ensure that they can offer a specific job to a person with specific skills?

[E. Pluribus Unum]

I don't know. Sorry.

[Mears]

Sure it's up to the employee to have the skills to match the jobs. You aren't telling me that these call center jobs that are being outsourced couldn't find anyone here in the USA that have the correct skills.

Baloney!

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Sorry,CSM,but no one wll ever convince me that outsourcing of good jobs is good for our economy as long as there is one unemployed person in this country with the skills to do the job,

I am still pissed off that the buggy whip business was destroyed by the automobile. Those were good jobs. They should never have been displaced.

[NormalGuy]

Sometimes, the unemployed's problem is attitude, not lack of skills. They won't take any job that would have them. They have marketable skills in proven technologies. But they refuse yesterday's technology and will only accept positions on the bleeding edge where a company can make no profit.

I could be a case in point. There are jobs in Chicagoland. But I don't want any of them. So I work 120 miles from home in a company that is killing funded projects faster than it is sending them to India because it cannot find enough people like me who will take the jobs available.

[CSM]

Did you read the article? It is clearly presented with statistics, from reputible sources,that for each $1 spent on labor overseas, the overseas company spends $3 here. Would you eliminate the $1 spent and enter into a trade war losing the $3?

[beelzepug]

"Shouldn't the unemployed person be responsible to ensure that their skills match the available jobs?"

If it is only a matter of skills training, the companies can train their own workers right here in America more easily than they can train workers in India. It's all about larger profits at the expense of American jobs, plain and simple. Guess I'm a commie as well.

[Mears]

Yes,I read the article,but statistics make me weary.They change so often I have no faith in them anymore.Statistics are tweaked to obtain the desired results.

[CSM]

My apologies, I think I confused the other article with this one. In the "National Review" article, he does present the stats I posted above. If I can find the article I will post it. Page 37, National Review, May 3rd.

"In 2002, US companies exported $14.8 billion worth of computer, data processing, research, development, construction, architectural, engineering, and other IT services. During that same year, Americans imported $3.9 billion of those same kinds of services."

[CSM]

I agree. However, that attitude does not merit more government intrusion into the market. Nor does it merit the demonization of corporations. The protectionists would love to have the government protect their job, but they aren't willing to pay the premium costs associated with that protection.

[Mears]

Aw,come on,not the old buggy whip argument.That doesn't apply here.

I'm not talking about jobs that are no longer relevant,I'm talking about jobs that still are relevant,but going elsewhere.

[CSM]

Fine. The question should still be answered. Would you forgo the $3 imported for the $1 not exported?

[cyborg]

I'm getting plain confused, nevermind facts!

[mommybain]

This is what I don't get about all this: these articles consistently maintain that only the lower-paying jobs are being outsourced and offshored. The company I work for is outsourcing and offshoring IT jobs that are not lower-paying. We have an old system that is sunsetting and a less-old system that is being modified. The maintenance programming tasks on the old system are being outsourced. My coworkers and I spent months documenting everything we did to analyze and make programming changes to that system, and then performing "knowledge transfer" sessions to impart our wisdom on the programmers from Covansys that were taking our old jobs so that we can move onto new ones. All well and good, but.....

It took us years to learn that old system, and the performance we're getting from the offshore contractors indicates that they really needed years to learn to do our jobs, not months. What a surprise! The end result here is that folks who were supposed to be freed up by now to move onto greener pastures are still hand-holding the contractors. In the meantime, the greener pasture has deadlines approaching and no staff to do the work. Soooooo, we have foreign contractors learning the new stuff too.

Gives me a headache.

[CSM]

I don't understand your post. Yes, a contractor was hired to take actions related to the "old" system. But I don't see any loss of jobs related in your post, instead a reallocation of jobs to the "new" system. At least that is the intent.

What would your reaction be if they had hired a contingent of US IT professionals to do the contractors job, then after the transition they laid them off? Would you consider that job loss?