Posted on 08/23/2003 11:03:07 AM PDT by sarcasm
WASHINGTON: As President and chief bottle-washer at his one-man web development design firm, Mark Oesterle often has to decide which high-tech workers to hire to fill a stream of small contracts.
Sometimes he uses locals in Charlotte, North Carolina, to programme and design. Other times, he’ll throw the work to high-tech mavens in Austin, Texas, Columbia or South Carolina. With virtual work, geography isn’t important. Except that for Mr Oesterle, who regularly attends a job-seekers’ group studded with unemployed high-tech workers, geography ends at the US border. He has vowed not to move work to overseas markets like India, where eager high-tech workers can be hired at a fraction of US costs. “I’d rather give up the business than take away jobs from people who are unemployed,” Mr Oesterle said.
The 45-year-old is swimming against a stiff current. A study last month by a computer consulting firm found one in 10 jobs in US computer services and software could move to emerging markets such as India or Russia by the end of ’04.
Examples abound. IBM has said it has no choice but to expand software and semiconductor development overseas. Electronic Data Systems Corp, the world’s No 2 computer services firm, has moved work to what it calls the most economical locations — including India, Egypt, Poland, Canada and Brazil.
A raft of technology jobs has vanished since the ’01 slump began. Of 2.7m jobs lost since March ’01, more than half a million — or one in five — have been in programming, Internet publishing, computer systems design, telecommunications and data processing.
America has long relied on cheap immigrant labour, filling jobs US workers find unappealing. Even sending factory jobs to Asia or Mexico has been grudgingly accepted by consumers as the best way to satisfy their appetite for inexpensive clothing and electronics.
But with businesses now shipping white-collar service and high-tech jobs overseas to cut costs, a whole new sector and class of workers is feeling the pain.
When did they ever get a real choice? Often the very best and latest of new designs were always made overseas FIRST! There was never a straight apples vs. apples comparison for shoppers, with a big unavoidable sticker for country of origin on the product. Walmart never gave them that choice...indeed they lied about it. Target didn't. K-Mart didn't. Even Sears didn't.
As soon as harpseal states his position publicly that he wants to dictate his laws on business.
Now why should I satae taht I want to dictate my laws on business when that is clearly not and never has been my position. I want to convince peopel to get the message to politicians about this paln as a possible solution to the problems. I have no desire to dictate to anyone. can the same be said of those who advocate our current trade envirornment? Certainly not at least as a generality.
Such as that American business cannot find the lowest costs to benefit consumers or stockholders.
While I certainly agree that American businesses should find teh greatest benefit to stockholders i also hold they should stay within the law and that government policy on tariffs should be set to benefit the entire USA not just business managers who find personal gain at the longer term expense of their stick holders.
Clearly I am opposed to government picking winners and losers in the American economy. You seem to be opposed to denying foreign governments teh right to pick winners and losers within theAmerican economy for teh benefit of foriegn nations at the expense of teh US national interest.
You had a candidate to vote for in 2000, his name was Pat Buchanan, in 2004 his name is Dick Gephardt.
Now as far as Pat Buchanan's stand it was against the destruction of america through the continuation of Clinton's trade policies but Bush ran as a compassionate conservative. We do not have a one issue Presidency. Now Gephardt has come out with his stand on trade issues he is not for tariffs he is for an international minimum wage. In short he is just anotehr internationalist. Now why would anyone try to encourage someone to who has an expressed an disgut for internationalists who favor teh current trade structure which is really quite Marxist in it inspiration While special safeguards should continue to be available for developing countries, the developed world should not resort to such instruments. Since tariff reduction is supposed to be in line with the Uruguay round approach, rich nations are to go in for deeper cuts.
No I do not mean to imply you are a Marxist.
Now I note the following please tell me of one place where I have stated I would like to dictate anything. My proposal calls for teh goverment to use its enumerated poweres I must add clearly enumerated powers. I propose cutting taxes. i propse getting rid of the Marxist focus of our tariff policies, i propose cutting unecessary regulations. I propose voluntary zones where businesses may opt to get a tax break if the decide tehy like the terms. No regulations imposed tha they do not voluntarily opt into and may opt out of at any time.
If you are implying tariffs are bad policy I have asked you before for soem evidence of the allegartion taht a tariff produces a net harm I have posted such quatiative anaylsis of at least one case where a tariff provides a net benefit to the American Economy.
Well Dane, at least you have the honesty to admit that your agenda is to lower the wages, benefits and standard of living for the vast majority of Americans. Afterall, consumers don't benefit one iota if they don't have employment adquate to pay for what they consume.
"The high wage begins down in the shop. If it is not created there it cannot get into pay envelopes. There will never be a system invented which will do away with the necessity for work."-- Henry Ford
There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible.
-- Henry Ford
Huh, how does innovation and seeking lower costs to the consumer, corrupt consumers?
Please tell me, am I corrupt for seeking the lowest price and highest quality for a car, TV, or salmon steak?
While it's true this article refers to white collar jobs, we all know that the labor unions were largely responsible for the ridiculous labor costs in this country. Key point: cost needs to be in line with productivity; we don't mind seeing workers being paid very well, but they'd damn well better produce. Labor contracts seem bent toward max pay for least amount of work.
Is it any wonder that manufacturing jobs began streaming out of this country as a result? Is it any surprise that, once that flood gate was opened, that the next level of workers (white collar) found their jobs equally in jeopardy?
Does this really surprise anyone?
There are never simple reasons for particular dynamics in macroeconomics..........but personally, I place the blame squarely on the American labor unions as the catalyst for all this overseas outsourcing and the accompanying misery.
Now that would require a politician appointing a person and the Senate advising and consenting to a person who would say it out loud when they were "Full of Sh*t" in just those words. Elective and appointive office is ruled out by my personal foibles. I find it hard enough holding together and not flaming those who flame me. admittedly this is hard to do and not alll that recent so we shall see how long it lasts.
When the combined effect of Government policies and regulations places utilization of our own productive resources at an economic disadvantage to those of other nations, Yes, I judge that to be not only corrupt, but also tyrannous and treasonous.
And I care very little about how loud you screech your self-serving, mastabatory rant when the welfare of our nation as a whole is at stake.
Gee this is the first post of this I have seen of Free Republic I guess I don't get on many offshoring threads. And as for gloom and ddom why would you characterize the need to address a problem in the American economy as "gloom and doom?" Why not addrss specific isues and maybe we can all improve our knowledge?
I presume you are referring to the leading economic indicators and not the current numbers of those actually employed.
It seems to me that these Bush hating people who post these doom and gloom articles are attempting to stifle growth by using psychological subterfuge.
Now pleas etell me why you presume those who post arrticles about structural problems in teh US economy are Bush hating. Certainly I do not qualify as do a number of othe rposters who actively worked to get Bush elected. There is a great deal of difference between advocating Bush adopt a winninbg strategy and being a Bush hater.
They did the same thing in 1992 when the economy, which Dimwits claimed was the worst in 50 years, was later proved to have been growing at 3-5 percent
In 1992 the Democrats ran against GHWB on the economy. His prior tax increase consent in a deal with the Democrats where he delivered on his end of the deal violating his "READ MY LIPS NO NEW TAXES" pledge of the 1998 campaign cost him significant votes and clearly led to the Ross perot candidacy. Those of us who remember and do not wish to see another Democrat in the White house bring this up hopefully to get Bush to "triangulate teh issue of oursourcing and structural changes in the US economy by being able claim his plan is out there at least and actively being advocated.
It really does not help to infer malice where none exists. This has been posted many times before on Outsouring economy threads and IMHO you should have seen it. now I really do not remember you from any of the threads over teh past weeks where I have been actively posting but then agains I may have missed a whole lot.
Well i went to the source and the publication date on the Source is August 24, 2003. given teh time differecne not unusual. Perhaps you are mistaken on the number of times you saw it? Hmmmm.
It's clear today that the definition of recovery is market spikes and fewer workers losing jobs this week than last. The chart shows historically that employment lags a tiny bit. Now it's not a lag it's more like another era for employment to recover if the 1990s recovery is any guide.
Who needs recurring consumer demand that jobs bring. The market has recovered. It's happy days!
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.