We can't very well become luddites and say 'all technology is bad', especially since we are now addicted to technology and we could not be nearly as productive (nor do most jobs at all) without it. However it does result in a lot of jobs no longer being necessary, and those displaced workers must adapt. Productivity soars, and the end product is often better and more consistant than before the technology came along.
On the other hand, outsourcing to cheap labor is different. Instead of replacing many jobs with a single machine, we are replacing many jobs with many jobs...just not for us. While the low-paid workers in China and India deserve to make a decent living just as we do, the fact is that many of them DON'T make a decent living from outsourced jobs. The very fact that makes outsourcing appealing to CEOs is what makes it less than satisfactory for the workers...paying pennies on the dollar for the same work. Also, the quality of the end product is very often inferior when compared with the original...witness the rapid backtracking of Dell, Lehman, GE/Marquette, HP/Compaq and others who either have returned customer support from India to the USA or are considering it due to complaints. Although they get tech support done for pennies, callers say they get meaningless script reading by people who are hard to understand and know little about US business. Not at all a cheaper replacement for US tech support jobs, just cheap crap.
The article is thought-provoking though and raises some good points. It is good to admit that jobs do come and go, regardless of the administration or world politics. Otherwise the left seems to think there are only 2 types of jobs: ones magically created by Bill Clinton, and ones negligently lost by George Bush.
If the result is judged solely on loss of jobs, then they really do deserve to be lumped together. They may be different causes, but they end up with the same result. That said, one is easier to swallow than the other from a pride standpoint. It is easier to accept that one's job has been replaced by a state of the art thingamabob than to accept that an uneducated person in a third world county can do the job, and for a fraction of the cost.
We can't very well become luddites and say 'all technology is bad', especially since we are now addicted to technology and we could not be nearly as productive (nor do most jobs at all) without it. However it does result in a lot of jobs no longer being necessary, and those displaced workers must adapt. Productivity soars, and the end product is often better and more consistant than before the technology came along.
Workers must adapt.
That is, always has been, and always will be the key to success. Change is the only constant in life. One who works on a production line assuming, or worse expecting, that their job will always be there as long as they show up is in a serious case of denial. Whether it is demand, technology, or cheaper labor, they have failed to continuously change with the times.
In my opinion unions propagate and magnify this problem by instituting "seniority" requirements that directly reject continuous learning and adaptation for the false promise of everlasting job security.
On the other hand, outsourcing to cheap labor is different. Not really. In both cases production costs have been reduced plain and simple. The only difference is those who failed to adapt will blame either a machine which is like blaming a brick wall, or a person, something everybody can relate with. No difference in the result, just the emotional side of the response.
Instead of replacing many jobs with a single machine, we are replacing many jobs with many jobs...just not for us. Case in point, who cares if our jobs are lost to a machine, or our jobs are lost to other people. The result is the same, the jobs are lost. The only real difference is that people are easier to blame than machines.
While the low-paid workers in China and India deserve to make a decent living just as we do, the fact is that many of them DON'T make a decent living from outsourced jobs. The very fact that makes outsourcing appealing to CEOs is what makes it less than satisfactory for the workers...paying pennies on the dollar for the same work
While that may be true to some extent, the fact is that they are doing the jobs at a lower cost. That lower cost then means that I pay less. By me paying less it means I have more money. I should not be forced to support a higher living standard for some any more than I should be forced to pay for homeless people to have cell phones.
Additionally, I could be saving money on my low skill processes enough to expand my business to employ more highly skilled (adapted) workers which would support not only a minnimal standard of living, but an ever increasing standard of living.
Also, the quality of the end product is very often inferior when compared with the original...witness the rapid backtracking of Dell, Lehman, GE/Marquette, HP/Compaq and others who either have returned customer support from India to the USA or are considering it due to complaints. Although they get tech support done for pennies, callers say they get meaningless script reading by people who are hard to understand and know little about US business. Not at all a cheaper replacement for US tech support jobs, just cheap crap.
This is a perfect example of market forces in action. If the cheap labor option does not meet the consumers requirements, consumers will chose a product that does. If that requires more skilled labor available here, those positions will be created and the demand will be met or someone else will and carve out their niche in the free market.
The article is thought-provoking though and raises some good points. It is good to admit that jobs do come and go, regardless of the administration or world politics. Otherwise the left seems to think there are only 2 types of jobs: ones magically created by Bill Clinton, and ones negligently lost by George Bush.
I agree. Happy holiday to you and yours.
Again, this is not a problem, if the markeyplace is free. There is no definition of "quality" other than what the buyers demand. The quality will be exactly what the consumers demand it be.
If the people who buy the product want and are willing to pay for a higher quality product someone will produce and sell it to them. If the quality of the product deteriorates because of "cheap foreign labor", and the consumers continue to buy it and do not demand a different product, then the quality was, in fact, too high in the first place.