Why don't you start.
Why exactly are American workers entitled to pay well above market rates?
Actually the history of the past ten years show a series of government interventions to deny them market wages.
When the unions did this conservatives were up in arms and complained that the government (especially the Democrats) was damaging American productivity. Now that the white-collars are facing wage erosion and loss of jobs, I guess the government has to step in.
Actually it is time to realize that some conservatives take their hatred of the Unions to such a degree that they will at times act against the USA simply to spite the unions. it was wrong when manufacturing jobs were leaving for China and it is wrong for technical jobs to be leaving we need both in the USA and a tariff policy that supports sucvh jobs is beneficial to the USA. there are certain strategic induistries that are needed in teh USA if we are to maintain our liberty. Even with the socialist encroachments we have more liberty in the USA than most of the world. certainly more than India or China. So we are to take those supporters of China and India at their word that the further destruction of the US economic base is good for us? Why.
Race you to the Third World. On your mark, get set, GO!
The key question you ask is why American workers are entitled to pay well above market rates. It depends on just where that market is... The article mentions American programmers who earn $60,000 a year, vs Indian programmers who earn $6,000 a year. When you out-source, off shore, the market hasn't changed for the employer. What's changed is simply the need to pay employees what you would have to pay them if they lived in the US. So that pay has nothing at all to do with what the job value is in the market. Sort of like how a company like Nike makes shoes that they sell in the US for $175 a pair, but only costs $12 to make, including labor (which isn't the greatest cost of the the shoe). Interesting how those savings aren't put into making their products and services more affordable, and therefor, more competative, insn't it?
What it boils down to is simply trying to increase profits at all costs. Never mind how destructive those costs happen to be. I've seen some "free marketers" go on about how when people find themselves without a job, they just need to move on, move to a new place to get a new job, and all will be well. They just have to get off of their "lazy butts." That's all well and good, if it's possible for them to move. But what about the people who have lived in a town all their lives, where a factory is the primary employer. These people have been paying a 30 year mortgage for the last 20 years while "living the American dream." Now, the factory is closed. People have lost their jobs. This family who still has another 10 years of payments to make on their home, their #1 investment, have just been wiped out, since the value of their home is now gone: Since the factory closed, nobody can buy a house... So, how do they move to a new city to find new work? I suppose that they could just abandon the house, maybe declare bankruptcy, and just move on. Yup, nothing to look at here, just move along.
Mark
Do you realise that those "market rates" are enough to make a good living in India while in America they will qualify a person with family for food stamps, Medicare, housing and cash assistance? Is it the way how you want to subsidize the cheap labor force for the corporations? Guess who will have to pay taxes.
No matter how you spin or slice it you have only three choices - the fair market economy guided by patriotism, class warfare against working class with Latin American style oligarchy or socialism. (Or some combination of these three).
We've priced ourselves our of the labor market with excessive taxes and burdensome regulations.