Posted on 02/15/2005 6:44:11 AM PST by dennisw
"The Great American Job Sellout By Paul Craig Roberts
Americans are being sold out on the jobs front. Americans' employment opportunities are declining as a result of corporate outsourcing of US jobs, H-1B visas that import foreigners to displace Americans in their own country, and federal guest worker programs
President Bush and his Republican majority intend to legalize the aliens who hold down wages for construction companies and cleaning services. In order to stretch budgets, state and local governments bring in lower paid foreign nurses and school teachers. To reduce costs, US corporations outsource jobs abroad and use work visa programs to import foreign engineers and programmers. The American job give away is explained by a "shortage" of Americans to take the jobs.
There are not too many Americans willing to accept the pay and working conditions of migrant farm workers. However, the US is bursting at the seams with unemployed computer engineers and well-educated professionals who are displaced by outsourcing and H-1B visas. During Bush's entire first term, there was a net loss of American private sector jobs. Today there are 760,000 fewer private sector jobs in the US economy than when Bush was first inaugurated in January 2001.
For years the hallmark of the European economy was its inability to create any jobs other than government jobs. America has caught up with Europe. During Bush's first term, state and local government created 879,000 new government jobs. Offsetting these government jobs against the net loss in private sector jobs gives Bush a four-year jobs growth of 119,000 government jobs. Comparing this pathetic result to normal performance produces a shortage of 8 million US jobs. What happened to these jobs?
Over these same four years the composition of US jobs has changed from higher-paid manufacturing and information technology jobs to lower-paid domestic services. Why?
During this extraordinary breakdown in the American employment machine, politicians, government officials, corporate spokespersons, and "free trade" economists gave assurances that America was benefitting greatly from the work visa programs and outsourcing.
The mindless chatter continues. Just the other day Ambassador David Gross, US Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy in the State Department, declared outsourcing to be an economic efficiency that works to America's benefit. There is no sign of this alleged benefit in US jobs statistics or the US balance of trade.
Repeatedly and incorrectly, US corporations state that outsourcing creates more US jobs. They even convinced a New York Times columnist that this was the case.
The problem is, no one can identify where the US jobs are that outsourcing allegedly creates. They are certainly not to be found in the BLS jobs statistics. However, the Indian and Chinese jobs created by US outsourcing are highly visible.
On February 13, the Dayton (Ohio) Daily News reported that jobs outsourcing is transforming Indian "cities like Bangalore from sleepy little backwaters into the New York Cities of Asia." In a very short period outsourcing has helped to raise India from one of the world's poorest countries to its seventh largest economy.
Outsourcing proponents claim that US job loss is being exaggerated, that outsourcing is really just a small thing involving a few call centers. If that is the case, how is it transforming sleepy Indian cities into "the New York Cities of Asia"? If outsourcing is no big deal, why are Bangalore hotel rooms "packed with foreigners paying rates higher than in Tokyo or London," as the Dayton Daily News reports?
If outsourcing is of no real consequence, why are American lawyers or their clients paying $2,900 in fees plus hotel and travel expenses and two days' billings to attend the Fourth National Conference on Outsourcing in Financial Services in Washington DC (April 20-21)?
On the jobs front, as on the war front, the social security front and every other front, Americans are not being given the truth. Americans' news comes from people allied with the Bush administration or dependent on revenues from corporate advertisers. Displease the government or advertisers and your media empire is in trouble. The news most Americans get is filtered. It is the permitted news. Many "free trade" advocates also are dependent on the corporate money that funds their salaries, research and think tanks.
Another clear indication that outsourcing of US jobs is no small thing comes from the reported earnings of the leading Indian corporations that provide American firms with outsourced IT employees and engineers. During the recent quarter, Infosys' revenues increased by 53%, TCS grew by 38%, and Wipro was up 34%.
On January 1, 2001, Cincinnati-based Convergys Corp had one Indian employee. Today it has 10,000. Why? Because it can hire Indian university graduates for $240 a month, a sum that is a small fraction of the US poverty level income.
Many Americans think that an outsourced job is an existing job that is moved offshore. But many outsourced jobs are created offshore in the first place. On February 11, USA Today told the story of OfficeTiger, "the sort of young technology company that once created thousands of high-paying jobs in the USA, fueling sizzling economic growth." The five-year old startup business employs 200 Americans and ten times that number of Indians. The company has plans for hiring many more Indians to perform "tech-heavy financial services."
Under pressure from venture capitalists who fund new companies, American startup firms are starting up abroad. Thus, the new ventures, which "free trade" economists assured us would create new jobs to take the place of the ones moved offshore by mature firms, are in fact creating jobs for foreigners.
As a consequence, tech jobs in the US are falling as a percentage of the total. Clearly, tax breaks for venture capitalists are self-defeating when the result is to create jobs for foreigners, not for Americans. Why should the American taxpayer subsidize employment in India and China?
These developments have obvious adverse implications for engineering and professional education in America. The BLS jobs forecast for the next ten years says the vast majority of US jobs will not require a college education. University enrollments will decline and so will the production of PhDs as fewer professors are needed.
As India and China rise to first world status, the US falls to third world status where the only jobs are in domestic services.
This has enormous implications for the US balance of payments. Americans' consumption of manufactured goods is heavily dependent on foreign manufacture, whether that of foreign firms or that of US multinational firms that supply their American customers from offshore. How does an economy in which employment growth is concentrated in nontradable domestic services pay for its imports with exports?
Since 1990 the US has been paying for its imports by giving foreigners ownership of its assets. In the last 15 years foreigners have accumulated $3.6 trillion of America's wealth.
America has been able to pay for its consumption by giving up its wealth because the dollar is the world's reserve currency. As America's high-tech and manufacturing capabilities decline and its red ink rises, the dollar's role as reserve currency must end.
When the dollar loses its reserve currency role, America will not be able to pay for the imports on which it has become dependent. Shopping in Wal-Mart will be like shopping at Neiman Marcus.
Until recent years, US companies employed Americans to produce the goods that Americans consumed. Employment supported sales, and sales supported employment. No more. By their shortsighted policy of moving US jobs abroad, our corporations are destroying their American markets.
Economists give assurances that the dollar's decline and fall will bring jobs and industry back to the US. Once Americans are as poor as Indians and Chinese are today, the process will reverse. Multinational corporations will locate in America to take advantage of cheap labor and unserved markets. By becoming poor, the US can become rich again.
You might want to ask the economists and our "leaders" in Washington why we should put ourselves and our descendants through such a wrenching process."
--Jerry Leslie Note: les...@jrlvax.houston.rr.com is invalid for email
Alabama
Hmmm good question, if a Airport Security Screener joins a Unions does it make him better at his job?
I think the answers to both questions depend on your theory of government and economics.
I say no to both.
You are the fool if you think this "out-sourcing", "free trade" economy is capitalism or good for the US, but like I said, you got yours so everyone else can take a hike. I have been thinking about writting a article on this subject, but Paul Roberts really nails it just about every damn time. You would be wise to read old conservative writings on "free trade" you mught start with the founders.
Hard to say if that happened. It was wordy and poorly written. And you didn't take the time to write it just now, so why would I take the time to read it now? Maybe I'll read it later if I can wade through it.
Quote: You by the way are the most annoying sort of person. Things apparently, are going well for you, so the country, the economy, the citizens can all be damned as long as you get yours. I am happy do not know you.
Ditto to what you are saying. He is a profiteer and screw everyone else.
Here:
In the early part of the 1990's the federal government began to use US taxpayer money to start to build the infrastructure in other countries with cheap labor pools. Countries like COMMUNIST china, and SOCIALIST democracy India received huge sums of money from USAID and the IMF and other taxpayer funded organizations to build highways, water transportation and storage networks,power grids and plants and hospitals.
This was the set up that was required for technology industries and manufacturing to move off shore.
No I'm not. Freedom is what this country was based on. Thugs who can't compete like your system.
but like I said, you got yours so everyone else can take a hike.
You don't know anything about me. You live in a world of your own design.
I have been thinking about writting a article on this subject,
LOL, in Mad Magazine?
I'm into shaker myself.
Here:
Also, in the early part of the 1990's the government held a series of meeting with large corporations. The government, not in the spirit of free enterprise, but in the spirit of a fascistic partnership with business,began to trade favors to companies for moving offshore.
We have a successful business and currently we're having growing pains.
The one who left to build houses wanted to get in the family business and wasn't interested in more money. The two techs lured to another company were on performance probation and probably would have been fired soon.
They shouldn't do that.
Companies who use government force to attain goals are just as bad as anyone else who does it.
One side on this thread thinks business is bad for doing it, but advocates for themselves. It's absurd.
They should all be advocating that government get out and stay out of this nonsense, instead they think more poison will cure the patient.
Jobs is jobs.
Don't forget the labor studies department at Northeastern University study.
During the 2000 to 2004 "jobless recovery" at least 2.5 million "recent" immigrants obtained jobs. The study did not distinguish bewteeen legal and ILLEGAL immigrants. About 800,000 citizens and established immigrants lost jobs during that period. Foreign Immigration and the Labor Force of the U.S.: The Contributions of New Foreign Immigration to the Growth of the Nation's Labor Force and Its Employed Population, 2000 to 2004 by the Center for Labor Market Studies, Northeastern University
As India and China [and other emerging nations] rise to first world status, the US falls to third world status
That's the plan of the Davos crowd: Republican "free traders," New Democrat Third Way progressives, and their international elite comrades.
Typical Ann Rander, I loved Ann Rand books, but that the Ann Randers do not have the IQ to grasp is that she was deliberately writing it the extreme to make a point about communist systems and NOT advocating a serious economic system. Any serious economic system that attempts to create a stable society WILL seek some level of REDISTRIUTING the accumulated wealth. Without such a mechanism a tolitarian form of government will result.
Shaker style is nice, I kinda started in that. But I figure with all the Indians now working in the tech field, the demand for indian style wood working is gotta go up.
I have, Hayek is the final word on old-school Conservative Economics and Free Trade. However, the economic doctrine you keep spouting more falls in line with the Socialist Keynes.
I believe the problem with your economic theory is you haven't a clue what you are talking about and have got all your info from websites of dubious origin.
This should tell you al you need to know. Keynesian Economics (government intervention, government regulation of markets, tariffs and protectionists policies) are all embraced by the left.
Free Markets are hated by most Liberals, Socialists, Fascists, Communists and most Congress critters. If you are unsure about which way to go in any given situation just find out where that aboved named group is heading and do a 180. You may not be on the best of all possible courses but it will be close enough for those who don't want to put in the time to study economics.
Of course the above advice is for those of us who are interested in pursuing Conservative/Libertarain values one of which is Free Markets.
"I get job offers from all over the country"
Don't move to Dallas or you will find yourself at Home Depot!
No excuse, go fishing.
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.