Posted on 08/08/2003 7:41:52 AM PDT by samuel_adams_us
Aug. 7, 2003 / 5:32 PM ET Readers on outsourcing: I’ve been corresponding with readers this week about two Newsweek pieces, one on the “jobless recovery” phenomenon and the other on offshore outsourcing. It’s a major hot-button topic, particularly among IT workers, but the mail for the most part has been quite reasoned, if somewhat sorrowful and resigned. A few readers asked some pointed questions:
Name: Marc Hansen Hometown: Seattle When all the Microsoft, Oracle, and IBM software production has been outsourced offshore, and when all Intel factories are completely automated, and when all Home Depot stores have self-check-out lines. ... my question is: Who, in America, will be able to afford the food that the McDonald’s robots cook?
Name: EV Hometown: Annapolis, Md. Where do all of these upper level managers think they will be when everyone has been outsourced? Guess they better learn Hindi or one of the other 18 dialects. You are only a manager if there is someone left to manage.
Name: Daniel E. Platt Hometown: Putnam Valley, N.Y. Sixteenth century Spain was quite rich on gold from America. While they funded the industrial revolution in the rest of Europe, they were largely left behind in the end. Are we doomed to the same fate? Or should we purchase a future at the cost of lower profit margins now?
Rogers replies: All good questions. Here are some personal tales from the trenches:
Name: Toni Klinger Hometown: Massillon, Ohio I am so angry. My husband is 59 and lost his job to Canada four months ago. Yesterday, my sister-in-law was notified that her skip-tracing job was going to India. Hey, no problem, she’s only been with the company for 21 years! I have never been so frustrated in my life. People in their 50s just can’t start over. I hate life!
Name: G. Popsworth Hometown: Dallas, Texas I am struggling with what to suggest to my children for a course of study at college. It is becoming more and more difficult for college grads to find employment. Now with outsourcing rampant, they need something stable for their career opportunities. A small town dentist, doctor or lawyer might be appropriate.
Name: Thela Jinseet Hometown: Clinton, N.J. Here’s my story: I am a journalist for an online publication, and I’m bracing for impact. My employer’s entire technical staff is from India, making up nearly 50% of the employees here. The owners of the company are also Indian and they outsource to a team in India. Our Indian employees are a real bargain because they work ungodly hours: 10- to 12-hour days every day and on the weekends. They are also extremely bright. And it’s for low pay. But there’s more. My husband lost his electrical engineering job four days after 9-11 from a major Japanese company that closed its plant and moved its operations to France. Despite graduating with honors from a top university, it took more than a year for him to find work. And just in time: We had two weeks of unemployment benefits left, which was barely enough to pay for our mortgage. This time, he saw a substantial cut in pay. I am truly frightened after our experience. I am scared to buy another house. (We had to sell ours for his new job.) I am scared to have a baby. We can’t afford to save for retirement. Pensions are a thing of the past. My company doesn’t even have a 401(k) plan or even direct deposit for paychecks. I fear we will be poverty-stricken when we retire at 75. Why isn’t Congress listening?
Rogers replies: There were also some suggestions about what to do:
Name: Bill Hometown: Roswell, Ga. Outsourcing customer service jobs overseas is a double-edged sword. One side slashes the number of jobs that are available to U.S. employees and the other side slashes the income taxes that the federal government can collect. Uncle Sam ends up funding unemployment benefits for U.S. citizens who are denied jobs that have been sent overseas. One solution may be to penalize these outsourcing companies in the form of a negative subsidy so that they can help pay benefits for the unemployed.
Name: Mike K. Hometown: Aurora, Ill. Outsourcing makes for some really profitable companies, but fewer consumers have the money to buy that company’s products. That profit won’t last for long. Remember the big “Buy American” kick back in the 80s? I think we’re on the way to the “Hire American” craze. Find out who outsources and who doesn’t and support those who support America by hiring Americans.
Knowingly posting a false statement makes him a liar, not a traitor. And do you really know for sure it's his intent to harm the USA? Maybe he believes all this will be good for America in the long run. He would be wrong, but that would make him an idiot, not a traitor.
I guess what I'm saying here is try harder to be accurate in your insults.
Overview. The Corn Laws were a series of statutes enacted between 1815 and 1846 which kept corn prices at a high level. This measure was intended to protect English farmers from cheap foreign imports of grain following the end of the Napoleonic Wars.
Note: in this context "corn" means grain of all kinds, not simply the vegetable corn.
Background. During the Napoleonic Wars, the British blockaded the European continent, hoping to isolate the Napoleonic Empire and bring economic hardship to the French. One result of this blockade was that goods within the British Isles were protected against competition from outside sources. Farming became extremely lucrative, and farming land was traded at very profitable rates.
When the wars ended in 1815 the first of the Corn Laws was introduced. This law stated that no foreign corn would be allowed into Britain until domestic corn reached a price of 80 shillings per quarter.
Who Benefited? The beneficiaries of the Corn Laws were the nobility and other large landholders who owned the majority of profitable farmland. Landowners had a vested interest in seeing the Corn Laws remain in force. And since the right to vote was not universal, but rather depended on land ownership, voting members of Parliament had no interest in repealing the Corn Laws.
Who suffered? The artificially high corn prices encouraged by the Corn Laws meant that the urban working class had to spend the bulk of their income on corn just to survive. Since they had no income left over for other purchases, they could not afford manufactured goods. So manufacturers suffered, and had to lay off workers. These workers had difficulty finding employment, so the economic spiral worsened for everyone involved.
Reform. The first major reform of the Corn Laws took place during the ministry of the Duke of Wellington in 1828. The price of corn was no longer fixed, but tied to a sliding scale that allowed foreign grain to be imported freely when domestic grain sold at 73 shillings per quarter or above, and at increasing tariffs the further the domestic price dropped below 73 shillings. The effect of this reform was negligible.
The Reform Act. In 1832 the right to vote was extended to a sizable portion of the merchant class through the passage of The Reform Act. The merchant classes were far more likely to look favorably on changes to the Corn Laws.
The Reformers. Several groups arose during the early and mid 1800s to fight for repeal of the Corn Laws amid other social reforms. Most prominent among these movements were the Chartists and the Anti-Corn Law League. The ACLL began in 1836 as the Anti Corn Law Association, and in 1839 adopted its more familiar name. Despite its social reform agenda, the league drew its members largely from the middle-class; merchants and manufacturers. Their aim was to loosen the restrictions on trade generally, so that they could sell more goods both at home and around the world. After constant agitation, the ACLL was successful, and in 1846 the government under Sir Robert Peel was persuaded to repeal the Corn Laws.
And if you had a business, your employees would be having caviar and champagne for lunch.
JMO, you wouldn't be in business long.
I agree. Like I have stated before on these type of threads, I saw this same type of rhetoric 20 years ago when the steelworkers were shouting about those damn "Japs" taking everything to Tokyo.
We all saw what happened to Japan.
Now what happened to Japan was that Ronald Reagan by imposing tariffs and quyotas on Japanes goods forced Japan to relocate manufacturing to the USA in order to access American markets. Following this Japanese companies made very substantial investments in factories overseas from Japan in part funneling the Asian Pacific boom and many of the "tiger economies." Japan opened it borders to Japanses financed goods and services produced in otehr nations. Following this some of the structural problems of Japanese banks came to light as some of the nations Japan had invested in had currencies hot by peculation/currency trading. It was revealed that Japan's problems in its banking industry were severe. Deflation ensued. Now if you have any problems with this history of Japanese economics from the 80's please let me know. I believe everthing is factual but I am not posting from referneces today. If we have a disagrement perhaps others vcan provide appropriate references.
Now as to the argument that protectionism caused the Japanese problems with defation an opening of Japanese markets took place first.
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.