NationStates Jolt Archive

Seeing how ive been seeing alot in the news about outsourcing(mainly against it), i would like to see what the average shmoe(or not so average shmoe) thinks about it. Seeing how i have traveled the world and i see what a positive affect this has on those countries, and seeing how america hasnt collapsed and roams of angry hobos arent roaming the country, ridding in technicals, or launching terrorist attacks on our neighbors(like in Pakistan and India used to be before outsourcing. Expecially in the northern areas), dont be surprised if i give a pro-outsourcing view.

My thoughts:

Listen, if we have to sacrifice the jobs of a few million americans so that the developing world(India, for example) can grow, then so be it. Having a happy, rich, peaceful India is better than having an angry, poor, trigger-happy India, Isnt it? Expecially seeing how the country they would obviously nuke(Pakistan), has quite alot of nuclear weapons itself! Isnt stoping a nuclear war in south asia, saving more than 1 billion lives, and creating a truly civilized and advanced society worth the jobs of a few million americans? Expecially seeing how the united states economy is almost mroe than 2x that of our nearest competetor, China.

i largely agree with you
but i do think that if there are tax loopholes that encourage outsourcing, they should be closed. kerry keeps talking about it but i really dont know what these supposed loopholes are or if they CAN be closed.

it seems to me to be a very good thing to have countries like india bringing in money and raising their standard of living. prosperiety and education could go a long way to solving their overpopulation problem.

Outsourcing is the bane of American existense and should be illegal in our country and for our companies.

Outsourcing is the bane of American existense and should be illegal in our country and for our companies.

Interesting posistion! Could you elaborate a bit so we can understand your logic? :D

Well, I'm going to school for computer science, a field that is getting hit by the oursourcing...so I just hope I can get a job when I graduate. I'm sure it's good for the WORLD economy, but I'd still like to be able to support myself and pay my bills when I'm done with school.

Expecially seeing how the united states economy is more than 10x that of our nearest competetor, Japan.

US GDP : 10 trillion
Chinese GDP : 6 trillion
Japanese GDP : 3.7 trillion

As for outsourcing, heh, this is probably my specialty area, ie foreign market trends.

Outsourcing can be beneficial as long as it's handled right, there seems to be a trend by companies looking to cut costs to over extend themselves by outsourcing core industries (example, if my company makes televisions. outsourcing the production of remote controls is a good idea, outsourcing the production of my television tubes is a horrible idea) as what ends up happening is you create ready made competitors that will eventually lead to crippling your own company.

If you want to look at a company with an exceptional outsourcing model, General Electric.

Companies which undertake good outsourcing will benefit from them, bad outsourcing, and they're going to end up being the victims of their own bad business. This could really spell trouble, especially for the American economy because loose estimates would shoot at 10-15 years and companies in china and India are probably going to be causing a splurge of bankrupcies in the US that makes the entire Enron/MCI/etc scandals pale in comparison.

If I didn't explain this understandably, I'll try and fix it up, I did a Thesis on this last year but I was trying to simplify a lot.

Companies which undertake good outsourcing will benefit from them, bad outsourcing, and they're going to end up being the victims of their own bad business. This could really spell trouble, especially for the American economy because loose estimates would shoot at 10-15 years and companies in china and India are probably going to be causing a splurge of bankrupcies in the US that makes the entire Enron/MCI/etc scandals pale in comparison.

True, but if India learns to support itself, then WE wont have to give so much aid. (im somewhat of a skilled person in foreign affairs, so go with me here.). A self-sufficent India means 1. A higher standard of living in India, 2. A HAPPY India, good for world peace. 3. The Ability for India to make economic deals with Pakistan, making better relations. 4. A peaceful south-asia. 5. A peaceful south-asia means less terrorists. 6. Afghanistan begins to see good results, seeing how the Pakistanis can now trade with them. 7. Alot less terrorists.

The good thing with CHINA is that this could lead to the destruction of Chinese communism. 1. Chinese people become really rich. 2. Chinese government wants to limit their power. 3. Chinese people get pissed off. 4. Chinese governmetn gets pissed off, kills some demonstrators. 5. Chinese people get REALLY pissed off, overthrow the government, and china becomes a Capitalist Democracy.

Of couse, the China scenario is mostly my high-hopes, but the Indian Scenario (at LEAST up to step number 5) is actually quite possible.

Outsourcing doesn't necessarily make a recipient nation rich. It's only attractive because it enables corporations to exploit third world workers with shitpiece wages, don't forget. Though it is money they wouldn't earn otherwise.

Its a sometimes sad, but inevitable result of globalisation.

Interesting posistion! Could you elaborate a bit so we can understand your logic? :D

America needs to be looking out for Americans, not the Chinese of the Indians, we need to be giving jobs to our citizens not some other country's citizens. Period.

Outsourcing doesn't necessarily make a recipient nation rich. It's only attractive because it enables corporations to exploit third world workers with shitpiece wages, don't forget. Though it is money they wouldn't earn otherwise.

Its a sometimes sad, but inevitable result of globalisation.

Exactly. The people get money they never even DREAMED of! Sure, for the first decade they'd only see a light increase, but with mroe money comes more buisiness'. More buisiness' means more jobs, which equals more money. Remember folks, america didnt get rich in a day. It actually took a few decades.

America needs to be looking out for Americans, not the Chinese of the Indians, we need to be giving jobs to our citizens not some other country's citizens. Period.

Sooooo..

YOu suggest we let the rest of the world fall into chaos? over 3 billion poor people Doesnt equal a happy planet. With all that poverty, there will be a SURGE in terrorism. And since america will be hoarding all of the money, they will ALL target america! Even those who were once enemies( Hindus and Muslims, Jews and Muslims, Communists and capitalists) will unite to crush America and take the spoils for themselves!

Outsourcing doesn't necessarily make a recipient nation rich. It's only attractive because it enables corporations to exploit third world workers with shitpiece wages, don't forget. Though it is money they wouldn't earn otherwise.

Its a sometimes sad, but inevitable result of globalisation.
What then is an example of "shitpiece wages" you talk about?

Outsourcing doesn't necessarily make a recipient nation rich. It's only attractive because it enables corporations to exploit third world workers with shitpiece wages, don't forget. Though it is money they wouldn't earn otherwise.

Its a sometimes sad, but inevitable result of globalisation.Yep. I thought Howard Dean put it best in the primaries. We globalized corporate rights and their abilities to make profits, but we didn't globalize workers' rights, and as a result, we have a race to the bottom in terms of wages. Companies mostly outsource jobs because they can make more money, not because they're in danger of going under without it.

Outsourcing is the bane of American existense and should be illegal in our country and for our companies.

Well, what else are businesses supposed to do? Just go out of business?

Outsourcing doesn't necessarily make a recipient nation rich. It's only attractive because it enables corporations to exploit third world workers with shitpiece wages, don't forget. Though it is money they wouldn't earn otherwise.

Its a sometimes sad, but inevitable result of globalisation.

That's not outsourcing.

Outsourcing is where i sell a contract to a company that's not my own.

IE. Let's take my previous example of a television manufacturer.

Moving my factory to whatthef***istan isn't outsourcing.

Approaching a company in wtfistan, and having them manufacture my remote controls and ship them back to me is outsourcing.

Relocation, ie building a factory of my own elsewhere has a much higher starting overhead and runs nowhere near the risks of "bad outsourcing" since I'd never need to send my design procedures to what could potentially become competitiion in future.

It encourages oppression (sweatshops, child labor etc.)
I'm against

Exactly. The people get money they never even DREAMED of! Sure, for the first decade they'd only see a light increase, but with mroe money comes more buisiness'. More buisiness' means more jobs, which equals more money. Remember folks, america didnt get rich in a day. It actually took a few decades.

It depends, the businesses have to be responsible and provide decent working conditions and safety as well. A case point being the chemical plant in India that exploded and killed 20,000 people...the business got off scot-free until recently, I believe.

What then is an example of "shitpiece wages" you talk about?

An American that may get paid $35,000 a year for a task might be contrasted with an Indian who would earn $5000 (and thats being really generous. Overly generous, actually, considering the per-capita GDP of India)

Yep. I thought Howard Dean put it best in the primaries. We globalized corporate rights and their abilities to make profits, but we didn't globalize workers' rights, and as a result, we have a race to the bottom in terms of wages. Companies mostly outsource jobs because they can make more money, not because they're in danger of going under without it.

Exactly.

What then is an example of "shitpiece wages" you talk about?
Well they are very low but (i think) its enough for them to live on. Its money they wouldnt have if the companies didnt outsource their jobs

It depends, the businesses have to be responsible and provide decent working conditions and safety as well. A case point being the chemical plant in India that exploded and killed 20,000 people...the business got off scot-free until recently, I believe.

Of course! This is INDIA we are talking about! Most countries outside of Europe, Canada, and the U.S. dont have the saftery standards we do! But thats because the countries DONT HAVE THE MONEY! As is stated, for the first decades it'll be rough, but afterwards there will be great things stemming from it.

Besides, there are ALOT more non-labor jobs in India now. With low-cost airlines, computer companies, train companies, busy trade-ports, airports, textile manufacturers, all these companies being made, India is in the middle of a BOOM! We owe it to the world, we Americans, to increase the standard of living, because, if we dont, we might as well go back to the old isloationist days and let China, India, or Russia take our place!

Of course! This is INDIA we are talking about! Most countries outside of Europe, Canada, and the U.S. dont have the saftery standards we do! But thats because the countries DONT HAVE THE MONEY! As is stated, for the first decades it'll be rough, but afterwards there will be great things stemming from it.

Besides, there are ALOT more non-labor jobs in India now. With low-cost airlines, computer companies, train companies, busy trade-ports, airports, textile manufacturers, all these companies being made, India is in the middle of a BOOM! We owe it to the world, we Americans, to increase the standard of living, because, if we dont, we might as well go back to the old isloationist days and let China, India, or Russia take our place!

The countries not having the money is no excuse for negligence on the part of businesses.

I am in no way disagreeing that development is a bad thing, i'm simply arguing that it could be done better if businesses were willing to be more responsible, and there were moves to prevent shameless exploitation, such as sweatshop labour. (Making a few shirts in a makeshift factory isn't going to develop the counry much, let's face it, and there is no reason the employers can't treat employees better)

Anyhow, bedtime for me.

Outsourcing is another way for the American empire to exploit the third world.

(Making a few shirts in a makeshift factory isn't going to develop the counry much, let's face it, and there is no reason the employers can't treat employees better.


I agree, but outsourcing your IT jobs and moderate paying jobs WILL increase a countries economy. India already makes enough T-shirts!

Outsourcing is another way for the American empire to exploit the third world.

Here, folks, is an extremist view! PAy NO attention until he explains his point properly, or else you will turn into extremist zombies(not unlike Richard Simmons' fans)

I agree, but outsourcing your IT jobs and moderate paying jobs WILL increase a countries economy. India already makes enough T-shirts!

Of course. As long as the employees are treated fairly.

The countries not having the money is no excuse for negligence on the part of businesses.

I am in no way disagreeing that development is a bad thing, i'm simply arguing that it could be done better if businesses were willing to be more responsible, and there were moves to prevent shameless exploitation, such as sweatshop labour. (Making a few shirts in a makeshift factory isn't going to develop the counry much, let's face it, and there is no reason the employers can't treat employees better)

This

is

not

Outsourcing.

Outsourcing is where you pay another company to do something for you.

When you outsource, you do not control the business responsible for then undertaking the manufacturing of the item you are outsourcing.

You are independent, they are independent, you are leasing their services, it is their employees.

Here, folks, is an extremist view! PAy NO attention until he explains his point properly, or else you will turn into extremist zombies(not unlike Richard Simmons' fans)

Well, it is (in a way, I wouldn't blame it on the country itself, or even Americans alone) true, but like I said, it's inevitable, so i'm trying to look at what positive aspects I can ;)

How is it America's responsiblity to bring up the standards of the whole world? Why does the burden get placed on the US?

Sooooo..

YOu suggest we let the rest of the world fall into chaos? over 3 billion poor people Doesnt equal a happy planet. With all that poverty, there will be a SURGE in terrorism. And since america will be hoarding all of the money, they will ALL target america! Even those who were once enemies( Hindus and Muslims, Jews and Muslims, Communists and capitalists) will unite to crush America and take the spoils for themselves!

The rest of the world is already uniting against us, anyway, because we're arrogant jerks, remember?

All I'm saying is that if we can't even keep all our citizens employed, why should we be employing people who don't even live here?

Of course. As long as the employees are treated fairly.

I agree.

This

is

not

Outsourcing.

Outsourcing is where you pay another company to do something for you.

When you outsource, you do not control the business responsible for then undertaking the manufacturing of the item you are outsourcing.

You are independent, they are independent, you are leasing their services, it is their employees.

I do believe in the case of the Chemical Plant explosion, that it was infact the original corporation declared responsible. I will do some checking tomorrow.

How is it America's responsiblity to bring up the standards of the whole world? Why does the burden get placed on the US?

I agree...It should be the USA, Canada, (western) Europe, Japan, and Australia. Happy? :)

The rest of the world is already uniting against us, anyway, because we're arrogant jerks, remember?

All I'm saying is that if we can't even keep all our citizens employed, why should we be employing people who don't even live here?

Because, Mr. Pessimist, the entire world ISNT united against us!

Take PAksitan for example. Everyone says "Everyone in PAkistan hates us! Nuke it!" WRONG! I lived in Pakistan until quite recently, and about, oh, 99% of the COuntry likes america. America, to them, is the land of dreams. Where you can pave your own way, make money, live a good life! They dont ALL hate America, only the extremists!

((OOC- This is getting OT.))

How is it America's responsiblity to bring up the standards of the whole world? Why does the burden get placed on the US?

Because, quite frankly, we are the sole super-power. We dominate EVERYTHING! And since we dont live in the good ol' days where people could just say "Screw you, India!" we have to help! We live in a GLOBAL SOCIETY! If one area falls, it brings the rest down with it(at least part of the way down, at least).

I support allowing companies outsource whatever they want. It helps us, helps poor countries, and helps the copmanies.

Because, Mr. Pessimist, the entire world ISNT united against us!

Psst... It's "Ms." Pessimist.

And, yes, I very much am so, because today in this day and age, I live with threats of both biological and nuclear terrorism; I can't walk down the street and hold my fiancee's hand for fear of getting shot for being a homosexual; and on a day-to-day basis I have to listen to news reports and broadcasts that tell me we're losing American citizens to a war the world neither wants us to fight or to win.

Yeah, I think I have a right to be a pessimist.

Psst... It's "Ms." Pessimist.

And, yes, I very much am so, because today in this day and age, I live with threats of both biological and nuclear terrorism; I can't walk down the street and hold my fiancee's hand for fear of getting shot for being a homosexual; and on a day-to-day basis I have to listen to news reports and broadcasts that tell me we're losing American citizens to a war the world neither wants us to fight or to win.

Yeah, I think I have a right to be a pessimist.

Listen, it wasnt much different before, in the Cold War! Then we were under constant threat of nuclear attack by the Soviet Union, the Vietnamesse were killign american soldeirs in the thousands, and gay people were hated even MORE so!

Voldavia, I think the problem is that in the media, outsourcing and offshoring have been made into the same thing, with outsourcing becoming the dominant phrasing. What we're really talking about is offshoring here, moving jobs to a place with a lower labor cost, although outsourcing is also costing us jobs here in the US. Whether a US company closes a call center and then sub-contracts it to a company in India, or it opens a call center in India itself, the net effect is still the same--US workers are out of jobs.

I agree...It should be the USA, Canada, (western) Europe, Japan, and Australia. Happy? :)
It is lots of companies around the world outsource its not limited to american companies

My thoughts on outsourcing:

Yes, outsourcing doesn't necessarily mean shipping jobs overseas, though that word has been bantered about in reference to this practice. I personally don't think outsourcing in its original definition (hiring another corporation to do some of your work for you) is always such a great idea. At least not from a business standpoint, it isn't anyway. My case is Wal-Mart, which uses all its own shipping and its own warehouses and doesn't do a whole heap of this traditional outsourcing. They save what other companies would have charged in insane markups. It does, however, make sense to outsource when your company doesn't specialize in something. Computers are built with parts from several different companies. Sure, I am typing on an eMachines, but I asure you that the processor was not by eMachines, nor was my Ethernet card. My mouse and keyboard are HP, and my speakers, if I knew where the hell I left them, are from...Compaq, I think.

Now I give a little diagram for my opinion on outsourcing as the Bush/Kerry debate defines it - shipping American jobs to India, Pakistan, Armenia, and wherver-the-hell-else.

Tax benefits for keeping jobs at home - it's called protectionism, and nationalistic governments or those who pander to unions might practice it. Economically, it might cause problems; politically, it's a winner for unionist parties.

Tax structures the same either way - it's called free market, and governments that don't keep a lot of tabs on business or try to prod them in one direction or another might practice it. Economically, it's good long-term; politically, parties can sell it to businesses fairly easily.

Tax benefits for sending jobs abroad - I don't know what the hell this is. It doesn't make a lot of sense. Unions would hate it, people losing their jobs would hate it, and businesses can be pleased with free market, so it strikes me as overkill.

Right now I have mixed feelings about it. I don't really know enough about economics to make a descision about it (until I take that class next semester). For the most part I picked this answer in the poll because I don't know, but there is a small part of me that doesn't care seeing as how i'm only in high school.

So far i can tell that the MAJORITY of people(not counting those who are abstaining or dont know) are for it(at least partially) with those against it(or at least against it partially) trailing behind by a few votes!

So far i can tell that the MAJORITY of people(not counting those who are abstaining or dont know) are for it(at least partially) with those against it(or at least against it partially) trailing behind by a few votes!

Good. People are finally getting it.

Seeing how ive been seeing alot in the news about outsourcing(mainly against it), i would like to see what the average shmoe(or not so average shmoe) thinks about it. Seeing how i have traveled the world and i see what a positive affect this has on those countries, and seeing how america hasnt collapsed and roams of angry hobos arent roaming the country, ridding in technicals, or launching terrorist attacks on our neighbors(like in Pakistan and India used to be before outsourcing. Expecially in the northern areas), dont be surprised if i give a pro-outsourcing view.

My thoughts:

Listen, if we have to sacrifice the jobs of a few million americans so that the developing world(India, for example) can grow, then so be it. Having a happy, rich, peaceful India is better than having an angry, poor, trigger-happy India, Isnt it? Expecially seeing how the country they would obviously nuke(Pakistan), has quite alot of nuclear weapons itself! Isnt stoping a nuclear war in south asia, saving more than 1 billion lives, and creating a truly civilized and advanced society worth the jobs of a few million americans? Expecially seeing how the united states economy is almost mroe than 2x that of our nearest competetor, China.


Do I care about indians....hmmm NO. America first!

Outsourcing may have some disadvantages, but in the long run, it'll help out a lot.

Do I care about indians....hmmm NO. America first!

You will once all of asia erupts into massive nuclear war, the entire world is hit my nukes, and 99.8% of people become hobos! (the last .2% will just be poor).

The base wage for a Chinese garment worker is thirty cents an hour. Thirty cents. The corporations are just looking to cut back at the expense of the workers, whether in China or in developed countries.

The base wage for a Chinese garment worker is thirty cents an hour. Thirty cents. The corporations are just looking to cut back at the expense of the workers, whether in China or in developed countries.
And what is the cost of living for that same Chinese garment worker?

And what is the cost of living for that same Chinese garment worker?

And just as important, what are the wages for those who don't have the opportunity to work in such places?

http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_48/b3709036.htm

Here's some of what happens in these sweatshops.

It makes sense: it makes companies competitive (at the end people by the cheapest products), opens new markets and leads to the development of other places in the developing world. And that is also opening the market for new exports from the industrialized countries. Shure, some people may suffer: the unqualified, unskilled worker in the US and Europe. He/She loses her/his job or has to expect lower pay. But for the overall economy it is positive.
The response needs to be for developed countries to be better, more energetic, more competitive, more efficent and more educated. That are the things industrialised country must do. Trying to prevent ousorcing is like trying to prevent a river from flowing into the ocean. It won´t work and keeps distraction away from the question: How can we use the river for our benefit.
Globalisation is most beneficiary for developed countries. Outsorcing is a price for it. You can not have the one without the other.

http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_48/b3709036.htm

Here's some of what happens in these sweatshops.

That's forced labor. Completely different and utterly irrelevant.

http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_48/b3709036.htm

Here's some of what happens in these sweatshops.


The article has less to do with outsourcing than it does with immigration policy and CRIMINAL gangs.

Surely you dont believe that NIKE or GE engages in that behaviour.

Globalization ( including "outsourcing" ) is as inevitable as death and taxes and the sooner all of us get use to the idea and adjust accordingly, the sooner all of us ( first, second and thrid world people ) are going to do better.

Some people seem to think they can be FOR liberal economic policies, including development of third-world countries, and AGAINST globalization. I see this approach as inherently contradictory.

Apparently, DKNY does.

http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/stop-traffic/1999/1033.html

Apparently, DKNY does.

http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/stop-traffic/1999/1033.html

a) that wasnt DKNY's doing, it was a contractors.
b) If there was unscrupulous behaviour, there will be a remedy in court
c) getting stiffed on overtime or being paid piece meal if a far cry from being beaten and raped.
d) I didnt read the whole thing, but noone is claiming to have been FORCED to work. If workers are unhappy, then they were free to find other employment.

Globalization ( including "outsourcing" ) is as inevitable as death and taxes and the sooner all of us get use to the idea and adjust accordingly, the sooner all of us ( first, second and thrid world people ) are going to do better.

Some people seem to think they can be FOR liberal economic policies, including development of third-world countries, and AGAINST globalization. I see this approach as inherently contradictory.


Seriously, this has been going on since adam smiths days. Since the fifties the US has been "outsourcing" its manufactoring jobs just like how many business from other countries "outsource" to the USA.

Kerry is talking about tax loopholes...LOL what a joke. The cost differentials between doing many types of work in the USA vs a place like India or China is so huge that the govt would have to start paying the companies to stay here.

a) that wasnt DKNY's doing, it was a contractors.
b) If there was unscrupulous behaviour, there will be a remedy in court
c) getting stiffed on overtime or being paid piece meal if a far cry from being beaten and raped.
d) I didnt read the whole thing, but noone is claiming to have been FORCED to work. If workers are unhappy, then they were free to find other employment.

a.)That still doesn't make it right.
b.)It's sad that it still has to go to court.
c.)Who's being beaten or raped? What does that have to do with the debate at hand?
d.)Maybe they couldn't find other jobs.

a.)That still doesn't make it right..

You were the one claiming that a major US company engaged in behaviour similiar to the behaviour in your previous link(rape, beatings ect)



b.)It's sad that it still has to go to court..

Why? 2 groups have a disagreement that needs to be settled. Filing a lawsuit is something that gets the other party to the negotiating table. Barring that, at least I have some confidence that they will get a fair arbitrator.



c.)Who's being beaten or raped? What does that have to do with the debate
at hand?.

It has to do with your previous link and then a subsequent post alluding that Major comapanies engage in behaviour such as rape and beatings.



d.)Maybe they couldn't find other jobs.

In that case they are better off with the jobs they currently have. Do you even entertain the possibility that the contractor might be correct. Or even if he broke some laws he did so in order to win the contract? Without the contract, the workers wouldnt even have the pay they currently do.

Maybe the contractor did it because he is a greedy pig and wanted more profit by taking advantage, and maybe he did it to stay afloat and possibly make a minimal profit and provide some jobs where there might not have been otherwise. Maybe the contractor did nothing wrong and it is some unscrupulous lawyers looking to make quick money. All of these things need to be considered

America needs to be looking out for Americans, not the Chinese of the Indians, we need to be giving jobs to our citizens not some other country's citizens. Period.

Yes that's why it's good - America gets a lot more benefits from outsourcing than it does from the status quo...the fact that India does as well is probably a plus...

Seriously, this has been going on since adam smiths days. Since the fifties the US has been "outsourcing" its manufactoring jobs just like how many business from other countries "outsource" to the USA.

Kerry is talking about tax loopholes...LOL what a joke. The cost differentials between doing many types of work in the USA vs a place like India or China is so huge that the govt would have to start paying the companies to stay here.

Good point. I see major problems on the horizon. The UN is impotent, trapped between its organizational limits on one side, and warring factions on the other. Yet as globalization increases, the power of international economic organizations will become almost unbelievable. Given these two trends, we will wind up sooner than later with a worldwide economic oligarchy. Wonder how we will all fare under that form of "governance?"

Bumporz!!!

Given these two trends, we will wind up sooner than later with a worldwide economic oligarchy. Wonder how we will all fare under that form of "governance?"

hahahahaha

you mean the WTO, G-7 and OECD ?

Of course, we can't forget the World Bank and IMF...

Listen, it wasnt much different before, in the Cold War! Then we were under constant threat of nuclear attack by the Soviet Union, the Vietnamesse were killign american soldeirs in the thousands, and gay people were hated even MORE so!

Exactly my point! :p

It makes sense: it makes companies competitive (at the end people by the cheapest products), opens new markets and leads to the development of other places in the developing world. And that is also opening the market for new exports from the industrialized countries. Shure, some people may suffer: the unqualified, unskilled worker in the US and Europe. He/She loses her/his job or has to expect lower pay. But for the overall economy it is positive.

Cheaper products? Base prices seem to remain the same. If many many people are out of work or have taken jobs for less pay, how does the economy improve if they aren't buying as much as they were.

Finally, the latest job exporting is not the unskilled worker. It is now skilled workers for example. System Administrators, Network engineers, Software engineers.

America is going to have even more bad times as there seems to be noticable drop offs in computer science enrollments.

Cheaper products? Base prices seem to remain the same. If many many people are out of work or have taken jobs for less pay, how does the economy improve if they aren't buying as much as they were.
Finally, the latest job exporting is not the unskilled worker. It is now skilled workers for example. System Administrators, Network engineers, Software engineers.
America is going to have even more bad times as there seems to be noticable drop offs in computer science enrollments.
Do you think that the US is the only country with that problem? I´m amused.
Well. This is one side of globalisation. It not only means the americanisation of the world but the globalisation of America. America is the main benefitor.
And to put it plain. Putting protectionist policy on it would raise prices and would tremendously harmed other countries who rely on the US economy.
The 1929 economic crisis began as an American crisis but was globalized due to protectionism. It played a very negative role for the world economy and destabilized countries. Destability is causing the rise of radical ideologies and makes it easier to come to power.
Economic development and trade is needed for other countries. And that makes also America safer than more countries with a deep recession which may lead to political radicalisation. Dealing with that later is at the end mostly more expensive as history has proven.
Protectionism is therefore only one thing: short-sighted.
You are only looking to the economy from the supply side. I look to it from the demand side.
President Bush with his tax-cut has adressed the supply side and the demand side. I´m optimistic that America is now at the right track. Figures are looking good recently. However the US may need to get use to a bit more unemployment than 4%. With 5% or 6% it is still lower than in most European countries.

I think we should outsource our politicians. Do you know how much cheaper we can get someone in India to handle(for example) a Senate seat? We could save a fortune! Not to mention how much more work we could get for our money. Eighteen hour days with no bathroom breaks. Seven days a week. No vacations. Imagine how much we could get done! We'd save billions with an Outsourced Congress. :)

Do you think that the US is the only country with that problem? I´m amused.
Well. This is one side of globalisation. It not only means the americanisation of the world but the globalisation of America. America is the main benefitor.
And to put it plain. Putting protectionist policy on it would raise prices and would tremendously harmed other countries who rely on the US economy.
The 1929 economic crisis began as an American crisis but was globalized due to protectionism. It played a very negative role for the world economy and destabilized countries. Destability is causing the rise of radical ideologies and makes it easier to come to power.
Economic development and trade is needed for other countries. And that makes also America safer than more countries with a deep recession which may lead to political radicalisation. Dealing with that later is at the end mostly more expensive as history has proven.
Protectionism is therefore only one thing: short-sighted.
You are only looking to the economy from the supply side. I look to it from the demand side.
President Bush with his tax-cut has adressed the supply side and the demand side. I´m optimistic that America is now at the right track. Figures are looking good recently. However the US may need to get use to a bit more unemployment than 4%. With 5% or 6% it is still lower than in most European countries.

Ok I will make it simple for you.

Let's drop the economic theory.

What's your answer to the people out of work?
What's your answer to the people who say what should I train for?
What are the new jobs to expect?

I see one side of outsourcing. The help desk. Financically it is a God send to my vendors. Super cheap labor and I am paying the same price for support. But the knowledge on the support line is usually crap at best. We noticed that our time on the telephones have doubled.

As you can guess i am one of the multitudes of middle class who don't think things are improving. That's one message the shrub is fighting hard to answer.

Not many seem to be buying it.

Ok I will make it simple for you.
Let's drop the economic theory.
What's your answer to the people out of work?
What's your answer to the people who say what should I train for?
What are the new jobs to expect?.
Flexibility.

I see one side of outsourcing. The help desk. Financically it is a God send to my vendors. Super cheap labor and I am paying the same price for support. But the knowledge on the support line is usually crap at best. We noticed that our time on the telephones have doubled.
As you can guess i am one of the multitudes of middle class who don't think things are improving. That's one message the shrub is fighting hard to answer.
Not many seem to be buying it.
Not hard. But if companies are not competitive they have to cut even more jobs. You completly miss the fact that those countries are also export markets. And you miss the fact that this is good for the cooperations.
If you want better lines you should not buy the cheapest products. Obviously everything has its price.
Competition is good. The best opportunity to have a full-employment is a state economy like in the USSR. But that economy collapsed. You need competition. Excluding it (by battleing outsorcing) would only exclude competition. It would weaken the competitivness of the US economy and weaken it compared to those who remain in this framework - like Europe.
It has its price at the begining but it can works.
The biggest boom phase in the US during the 1990s was also a period where the US was more and more importing goods.
Outsorcing is making things cheaper. That sets money free for other things.
Being against competition is only making the economy less competitive and weaker in the long-run.

I think we should outsource our politicians. Do you know how much cheaper we can get someone in India to handle(for example) a Senate seat? We could save a fortune! Not to mention how much more work we could get for our money. Eighteen hour days with no bathroom breaks. Seven days a week. No vacations. Imagine how much we could get done! We'd save billions with an Outsourced Congress. :)

You have no idea what you are talking about. Being a politician in India is probably the most lucrative profession in the world. The level of corruption(blatant in your face, fuck the press and the people type of corruption ) is staggaring there. The levels of corruption isnt limitted to 6 figures, or even millions. Tens/hundreds of millions in straight forward theft in some occasions even billions of dollars.

Trust me, US politicians are much cheaper.

Ok I will make it simple for you.

Let's drop the economic theory.

What's your answer to the people out of work?
What's your answer to the people who say what should I train for?
What are the new jobs to expect?

I see one side of outsourcing. The help desk. Financically it is a God send to my vendors. Super cheap labor and I am paying the same price for support. But the knowledge on the support line is usually crap at best. We noticed that our time on the telephones have doubled.

As you can guess i am one of the multitudes of middle class who don't think things are improving. That's one message the shrub is fighting hard to answer.

Not many seem to be buying it.

These questions are relatively moot. Outsourcing/offshoring is something that has been going on, and something that will continue to go on. Some people will suffer, some politicians will suffer. Some states and economies and even regions will suffer. Other will gain, but even that is irrelevant because the costs/suffering from enactacting any measures to stop this process will invariably cost more in terms of suffering.

whats my solution? I dont have one other than to say be flexible and try your best to adapt to a changing world.

This has nothing to do with either Bush or Kerry, it has to do with market forces and there is no beneficial way for a society to fight that.