The Harsh Truth About Outsourcing

Business Week ^ | March 22, 2004 | Paul Craig Roberts

[sarcasm]

Why don't we discuss the entire conclusion:

Nevertheless, large problems remain and some have even grown worse in the 1990s. Wages in the middle and top of the wage distribution have grown more slowly over the current cycle than they did in the 1970s or 1980s. The distribution of family income, at least through 1996, has grown more unequal, with the bottom four fifths of the distribution experiencing stagnant or declining real incomes over the period. Not surprisingly, given the family income trends, the poverty rate rose from 12.8% to 13.7% between 1989 and 1996. Finally, the already highly unequal distribution of wealth grew even more unequal between 1989 and 1997, in part, as a function of a stock market boom, whose benefits are still rather narrowly confined.

[Southack]

We shouldn't discuss the entire conclusion because it gives you too much room to wiggle and squirm.

The single sentence that I pulled out of the conclusion is all that is necessary to pin you down, which is something that you decidedly don't want to happen.

You don't want to answer that even your own Canadian study concludes that wages here in the U.S. did indeed grow, albeit more slowly.

[Sybeck1]

I would personally rather send some menial lower income jobs to a developing country, instead of a blank check of foreign aid to its despot leader.

[Southack]

"Wages in the middle and top of the wage distribution have grown more slowly over the current cycle than they did in the 1970s or 1980s."

Hey, that's from your own Canadian study's conclusion!

Tell me again, did wages GROW or shrink?!

[sarcasm]

From the study you've grown to love:

The distribution of family income, at least through 1996, has grown more unequal, with the bottom four fifths of the distribution experiencing stagnant or declining real incomes over the period.

[sarcasm]

We shouldn't discuss the entire conclusion because it gives you too much room to wiggle and squirm.

Au Contraire - I wish to discuss the entire conclusion - especially the part that you don't want to discuss.

[Southack]

"The distribution of family income, at least through 1996, has grown more unequal, with the bottom four fifths of the distribution experiencing stagnant or declining real incomes over the period..."

...if one chooses to use the CPI-U-X1 index instead of the standard U.S. government CPI index.

Now tell me again what your Canadian study concluded. Did wages GROW or shrink?!

[Southack]

We shouldn't discuss the entire conclusion because it gives you too much room to wiggle and squirm.

"I wish to discuss the entire conclusion"

Of course. You need the wiggle room.

[neutrino]

Any argument which attempts to transfer that same quality to the manufacture of household toasters deserves to be dismissed as frivolous.

With regard to toasters, true enough. But with regard to AI, computer chip manufacture, and that sort of thing - the argument ceases to be frivolous.

It must also be remembered that the Chinese will graduate 350,000 engineers this year to our 90,000. Given those numbers, it seems most imprudent to continue transferring technology to them - whether for toasters, or otherwise.

[sarcasm]

Now tell me again what your Canadian study concluded. Did wages GROW or shrink?!

Says it right here:

The distribution of family income, at least through 1996, has grown more unequal, with the bottom four fifths of the distribution experiencing stagnant or declining real incomes over the period.

[sarcasm]

Of course. You need the wiggle room.

You want to control the terms of the debate - not gonna happen.

[Southack]

Now tell me again what your Canadian study concluded. Did wages GROW or shrink?!

"Says it right here:"

It actually says it HERE:
"Wages in the middle and top of the wage distribution have grown more slowly over the current cycle than they did in the 1970s or 1980s."

[templar]

...whereas the wages in the U.S. have continued to rise.

What percentage of the population in the US has experienced a wage increase, both in dollars and inflation adjusted dollars, what percentage has stayed the same, and what percentage has declined??

[sarcasm]

You, of course, don't wish to discuss what happened to the wages of those not in the middle or the top - it doesn't fit your agenda.

[Southack]

See the link in Post #50.

[Southack]

"You, of course, don't wish to discuss what happened to the wages of those not in the middle or the top - it doesn't fit your agenda."

No, it doesn't fit with the point under discussion, which is the *average* wage of Americans...which has gone up since 1959 (again, see the link in post #50 as well as the conclusion to your own Canadian study).

[lelio]

"Wages in the middle and top of the wage distribution have grown more slowly over the current cycle than they did in the 1970s or 1980s."

How is wage defined? IE Steve Jobs has a $1/year wage for the past couple of years. Is there anything in there that states what wage means?

[sarcasm]

Found this in the Economist:

</HTML

They seem to agree with the Canadians.

[Victoria_R]

No, real wages in the U.S. have steadily increased even after inflation. Wages in China and Mexico, however, have declined.

Actually, I once figured real wages for 1970 to 2000 for the Western U.S. by state and found out the government numbers didn't include taxes (income, sales, gas, etc.) and a few other items. The average wage looked like it was increasing until I put the taxes and other stuff back in, then it was a steady decrease except for a short period in the mid to late 80's (Reagan tax cut).

And when you consider personal debt, it gets really ugly...

[HitmanLV]

Not so. I picked up a decent and cheap hawaian style polo shirt at Walmart the other day for $11, not made in the USA.

If it was made here, it would almost certainly cost more than $1.

I benefitted.