You wrote:
". . .Actually, it's not outsourcing -- it is importing of services, no different than if you import a German car or a Japanese TV."
Actually, there is a difference.
A German car (Mercedes) is built by a German company.
If an American buys a Mercedes, his money goes overseas.
If Mercedes then builds a plant in the Carolinas, some of
that money pays US workers in the Carolinas and the
rest of the American customer's money goes overseas.
If as a result of the new plant in the Carolinas, Mercedes
sales go UP, then the brass in Germany will indeed make
more money.
However, this is not likely to cheer up the German worker
who has lost his job to the worker in the Carolinas.
---If it had been Indian companies, who had started in
India, servicing SE Asia and not initially competing
head-to-head with us, until they had developed expertise;
and then attempted to compete head-to-head with us on
the basis of price--that would be one thing.--
--Instead it is US-owned companies--who until 'recently'
had hired US employees--who have unilaterally dropped
US workers and hired overseas workers to do the same work.
--And lied that 'the company would go out of business'
if not allowed to hire overseas in preference to the US.
--Who in the *&*#$ really thinks that the only thing
keeping Intel, Cisco, Microsoft afloat is cheap overseas
labor? What other companies are about to eat their lunch
based upon lower labor costs?
[Note: I chose those companies specifically. If and when
you respond, please reply in terms of other companies
which are in DIRECT competition with these three, not
with bilge about tech companies in general.]
My beef is not so much with the fact of outsourcing,
but the sliminess of the lies, and the underhandedness
of the fashion, in which it was performed.