The Great American Job Sellout

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."

Jpsb is capable, apparently, of noting the good done by something that he may or may not fully agree with. See, that's the nature of HONTESTLY persuing the right course for this nation. Unions once served a purpose - to give the workers some measure of equity against the slavemasters of business at the time.

The problem is - to the extent that the unions helped, that has been largely supplanted with a union structure today that is as abusive as the businesspeople they were a protest against. Not all unions are bad; but, when looking at some glowing examples, we find the UAW which has largely come to be as abusive to the employee as to the employer and seems to fail both - begging their real worth in the midst of the abuse.

Contracting for labor individually or collectively is the right of the people and such has been written into law in this country. So, whatever your opinion of it its irrelevant to the discussion. It's legal and has been for quite some time. But, I doubt very much that unions, given their track record, will survive the next century. If they can't be useful without being abusive to business and the worker, then they are fated to die out just as they were fated to exist.

You're beef seems to be, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, that you think unions are communistic and have no place her. Is that true, and if so, why? Do you think workers have no rights? If so, do you believe business has rights? Given that both are people, how is it that you suppose one may have rights where the other has none?.. if indeed you do believe that. Not trying to put words in your mouth here, just trying to ask the obvious questions and perhaps get some thinking going here instead of flip reactions.

No it was Protectionism, until the Socialist movement got going in the 1800s

What do you think Protectionism was?! Do you think at all or just throw words? The whold idea of protectionism was to protect our economy from subversion. It's called ensuring that our nation survived. No economy means no military. No military means anyone who wants to subjugate us can walk in and do so at will. You throw the word like it's an epithet without having any sense about what our forefathers did. And Hawley-Smoot is self explanatory - diddling beyond protection from subversion caused a trade war. Any idiot on either side of this debate knows that and can tell you that. That doesn't mean that we pull down the one defense we have against subversion and pretend we're safe.

If you want good examples of tariffs working, it's our history up till Nafta. It isn't like we have to search long and far for an example - tariffs are the reason our economy has been able to thrive since this nation was born. You got the onus on the wrong example, bud. You guys destroyed what worked in order to experiment with an unproven theory that is at best dangerous while it predicts revolution because of anticipated happenstances that have been playing out since the experiment began - as if on queue.

We don't owe it to you to show you what worked about tariffs. That is long and well established in the history of this nation. You owe us proof of your untested theory which seems impossible given the damage it's doing even now. It's like the border. But, when put to you, you have nothing but the theory to fall on and a pretense that we're doing great while all of us out here are being sacked and our jobs handed to foriegners in other lands so that you can hire there and get profits here.

"You're beef seems to be, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, that you think unions are communistic and have no place her. Is that true, and if so, why?"

Trade Unions (the modern incarnations) were transformed in the Socialist/Communist movement circa 1805 by Robert Owen (an Englishman) check out his history and you will see how it all began.

Here is what I believe on labor prices If I deem a job is worth 5.00 an hour then that is what I want to pay, if you deem it is not enough then you don't have to work for me.

If I decide my loaf of bread needs to sell for $2.00 than that is what I want to charge. If you want to pay $1.00 per loaf then you don't have to buy my bread.

If I hire you and Bill Gates to make bread for me and Bill manages to make me 10 more loaves a day than you do and I give him a raise for his increased output it doesn't mean you get a raise.

Unions screw up every bit of the above and increase costs that only get passed on to the end user anyhow it is just a power grab by a few elites using populist BS to get a "us vs. them" war going so they can profit off of it.

I am stating for the record, in retort to you putting words in my mouth, that I didn't say the words you attempted to ascribe to me. If you're here to dialogue, then dialogue. If you're here to shadowbox yourself and claim to win an argument with yourself, then I'd direct you to a nuthouse for apraisal of your capacities. I can debate myself all day long - real easy..

"is he an idiot"
"nope, he just thinks all of us are"

See how that works. I'll leave it to you to tell us how accurate that is by your tactics. So far, it seems true.
And it's the same mindset America is sick to the teeth of from the Dims. And we aren't any more inclined to put up with it from our own. If you can't be honest, don't expect that we're so dumb as to not see through the tactics and dishonesty.

"If you want good examples of tariffs working, it's our history up till Nafta.."

Tariff Wars have been going on since this country was formed. BTW How well did them Steel Tariffs work in the early 70s how about those Auto Tariffs?

Yeah, all our auto manufacturers did so well even with the heavy Tariffs we used to have on Auto imports and our Automakers got all fat and happy and boom now most of our autos are foreign made (as in foregin companies making them, even the dometic ones) because we tried to "protect" our auto market. We made our auto industry week and we paid a heavy price for it.

"But, when put to you, you have nothing but the theory to fall on and a pretense that we're doing great while all of us out here are being sacked and our jobs handed to foriegners in other lands so that you can hire there and get profits here."

OK so if this is all so damaging and all of us/you(sic) are out of work as you say then why are we almost 12% above the normal employment rate as averaged by the BLS over the last 40 years?

What you are arguing is what unions turned in to in some instances - not what they are to begin with. And your view of pricing is unrealistic. The market is supposed to decide those things, not you alone. You may think a job is worth 5.00 an hour to you. If the market says it's worth 7.00 an hour, then you either pay that, or don't do business. It may mean you have to raise your price; but, that's in your power to do within reason.. the market shapes that too. You may want 2.00 a loaf; but, that doesn't mean anyone is going to buy it at that. That is the reality. If you want cheap labor, you'll end up with cheap labor. You know it as well as I do - you get what you pay for.

You'll get no argument from me on your other example. If I work harder than the next guy, he doesn't deserve the raise I get. Nor should I be disowned by the union for working harder to help my boss produce more. And that does happen regularly in the UAW. I could probably list more abusive things than you have and in greater volume. I've seen it.
I know a guy that was docked a week's pay for picking up a monitor and moving it across a line less than 2 feet away.
The job of moving it was going to be held up by a full day because an electrician wasn't willing to come and move it, thus killing production at that station for a day. That is abuse.. any way you cut it.

That said, you are a third of the equation. You're workforce is a third and your client is the remaining third.
Each plays a role in you producing any product or service.
All have rights and expectations. Your take seems to be that only you have any rights in the matter. That isn't how this country works. Many things you say I can agree with. If you have someone who won't do the job, can them. Many businesses won't do that; but, then want to pay good workers nothing on the basis that the bad workers do nothing. Somehow, the good worker is supposed to suffer and make up for the loss of the work the bad worker isn't doing; but, the bad worker continues getting paid. And this isn't a rare happenstance.

Business does not have to be a war between employer and employee. But, it ends up being a war because there's always someone that thinks themselves more worthy of
consideration than the other - whether it is the worker or the employer. Both need to understand that neither is going anywhere without the other and then act accordingly. But that's what we're on about here, profit margin is more worthy of consideration than the defense of this country against attempts to subvert the economy.. that cannot stand.
If it takes a war to undo, the price paid will be a result of the greed of a few. Whatever one imagines the result will be to those few physically, their story for history will be one of Nero fiddling blindly.

Tariff wars do happen. What's new. It isn't an argument. You're trying to say that because a random shell takes out one abrams while it's still the best tank platform on the planet, we should scrap the tank and stand our guys in the field with rpgs and hope for the best. That is where your logic takes us. Trade wars happen when people go too far. And nobody is ruling out trade with other nations. Amazingly we grew to an immensly prosperous nation over hundreds of years because of tariffs. So where you think you're taking us here isn't tracking.

You use the example of the automakers and admit "heavy" tariffs. Equitable tariffs should have been enough; but, someone got greedy.. I think that was the example of Hawley-Smoot, was it not. And even your side is failing to learn from it in getting greedy but not caring about the outcome of that, save that you'll get yours before it hits the fan.

And 12 percent. Try saying it right.. Nineteen MILLION people. Nineteen million people are irrelevant to you and undeserving of consideration, their jobs, their rights, etc.
Nineteen million that are unemployed based on current figures who haven't fallen off the unemployment roles and gotten lost in the shuffle - no longer to count. We had better numbers than that before ya'll started throwing Americans out on the street in a bad economy during wartime - not because you couldn't afford to pay them; but, because you wanted more money. There are some people that lost their jobs due to the burst of the tech bubble as it's called - we ain't talkin about them. We're talking about the people you guys hamstrung during wartime for more profit. That's history, It'll only get worse in the textbooks.

"The market is supposed to decide those things, not you alone."

You misunderstand, I was speaking in the context of me deciding based on the needs to operate my business at a profit (market factors being included) My point was to illustrate I want to decide to set prices free of union and government tampering.

The point illustrates the Free market of labor and goods.

If I want to pay 5.00 bucks and you don't want to work there for that then you exercised your rights under free market laws. If I can't get anyone worth a damn to do the work at that price I have three choices raise the offer, do away with the job or do it myself. That same free market exists in the price of goods.

However whenever something is introduced to upset that Free market be it Minimum wages, government regulation, or tariffs/taxes then the market will seek to rebalance.

This is what has happend with outsourcing. We have weighed down business with unions, government regulation, etc. that we have literally made it cheaper to make some products on the opposite side of the world and still be able to ship them back here and make a profit.

More government regulation to fix what was caused by government regulation in the first place is the very definition of digging deeper in the hole you find yourself in.

Will you go on record and state that Tariffs will not have an effect on the Free Market?

Why would I? Show me a period when tariffs haven't had an effect on the market. Calling it the "free" market doesn't change the reality. Tariffs protected this market from being subverted. There now is Nothing protecting the market from subversion - zip. And as a result, you're turning third world nations into trade empires while stripping that status from your own country. How do you suppose that's gonna look in the history books - not good, unless you're aim is to look at it from the point of view of the countries you built up while destroying your own. And the Chinese are more then happy to oblige. Thus the entry of the word treason to the conversation.

"And 12 percent. Try saying it right.. Nineteen MILLION people. Nineteen million people are irrelevant to you and undeserving of consideration, their jobs, their rights, etc."

What was that rant awhile back where you said I put words in YOUR mouth?

We are 12% above the average employment figures as averaged by the BLS for the last 40 years. Yet you tell me that all is lost because of Reagan's Free Markets these last 20 or so years

Seems to me if your theory is correct we should be way up in unemployment, yet all evidence is to the contrary.

Would you care to explain why or am I misconsturing your assertion.

He says that the private-sector job market is not growing, only the government-sector job market.

Dr. Roberts is correct on this point, as you might imagine, since he is an honest observer. (Although I find that his excoriation of President Bush is far too personally harsh.)

However, on a positive note, the current trend in private employment is indeed upward, and we can all hope that it soon does cross both the numbers from its peak in 2000 and, even better, it also catches up for five years of population growth.

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
Series Id: CES0500000001 Seasonally Adjusted Super Sector: Total private Industry: Total private NAICS Code: N/A Data Type: ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS
1995	96980	97181	97381	97537	97544	97744	97823	98109	98347	98462	98607	98744
1996	98742	99142	99350	99532	99847	100119	100328	100574	100729	100980	101261	101432
1997	101639	101928	102235	102531	102795	102982	103232	103294	103738	104018	104302	104595
1998	104859	105028	105170	105424	105766	105967	106037	106363	106558	106734	106976	107285
1999	107393	107729	107829	108142	108364	108578	108806	108963	109121	109490	109746	109996
2000	110210	110302	110644	110860	110735	110952	111148	111167	111387	111367	111566	111680
2001	111622	111644	111565	111219	111156	110916	110763	110579	110301	109896	109551	109352
2002	109206	109077	109003	108887	108790	108831	108765	108724	108693	108735	108733	108559
2003	108614	108492	108296	108258	108252	108250	108250	108279	108432	108525	108617	108701
2004	108839	108915	109204	109516	109787	109908	109976	110105	110203	110462	110588	110728(p)
2005	110862(p)
p : preliminary

Year	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
Series Id: CES9000000001 Seasonally Adjusted Super Sector: Government Industry: Government NAICS Code: N/A Data Type: ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS
1995	19397	19407	19427	19434	19418	19445	19437	19429	19430	19464	19463	19466
1996	19450	19485	19532	19515	19529	19528	19547	19504	19567	19554	19565	19571
1997	19593	19598	19608	19603	19601	19660	19686	19617	19679	19738	19761	19766
1998	19770	19786	19792	19816	19875	19879	19930	19959	19985	20001	20044	20079
1999	20084	20144	20168	20237	20229	20272	20339	20375	20404	20457	20496	20540
2000	20571	20599	20733	20802	21147	20887	20867	20837	20735	20743	20760	20804
2001	20832	20902	20946	20995	21031	21113	21178	21224	21248	21276	21328	21353
2002	21375	21401	21438	21448	21536	21546	21512	21571	21557	21574	21582	21602
2003	21633	21633	21611	21595	21575	21604	21607	21580	21521	21551	21555	21554
2004	21533	21551	21582	21607	21586	21571	21586	21645	21677	21700	21706	21699(p)
2005	21711(p)
p : preliminary

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.