The Reality of Outsourcing

Townhall.com ^ | Bruce Bartlett

[Redcloak]

I'm always amused by your quaint view of economics. There's a reason why students are ready to become "environmentalists, diversity consultants, and democratic party campaign operatives" rather than engineers. That's because there's someone else willing to pay them to be "environmentalists, diversity consultants, and democratic party campaign operatives". It's that ol' supply and demand thingee you crypto-socialists have so much trouble with.

[Jim Cane]

I am not completely against tariffs, but believe that
removing corporate income taxes (in conjunction with removing corporate "personhood") is a better way to go.
Or dangle the carrot of tax breaks for companies that
hire Americans.

[Alberta's Child]

In contrast with the Latin America (where top families own the most) the land taken from Indians was GIVEN FOR FREE to the all citizens in order to create the independent middle class.

Actually, this wasn't really the case at all. While it is true that the Homestead Act resulted in the creation of what we now identify as a "middle class," these people were not the intended beneficiaries of the Act, nor were they "independent" in any real sense.

The Homestead Act was specifically aimed at helping U.S. railroads secure a lifeline to natural resources, while at the same time building markets for finished products made by eastern manufacturers. In essence, the railroads were looking to build up what is known in the industry as a "back haul" by running revenue service in both directions.

And far from being "independent," the farmers who settled in the Great Plains were beholden to the railroads in almost every area of their lives, from the prices they received for their grain to the prices they paid for their farm equipment.

[Alberta's Child]

Actually, the last 15 years in this country should be a lesson to all of us. There is no such thing as a "stable job" -- so get used to the chaos we're seeing today. The only "stable jobs" you find today are in government -- and these are actually part of the problem we face, not a solution.

[Sender]

My wife teaches technology in a GA high school. From what I have heard from her, in a 'typical' class there will be a handful of bright overachievers that are really sharp and mostly bored by the dull pace of school. Add to the mix a handful of special ed kids who would be thrilled to graduate knowing how to tie their shoes. The vast bulk of the class is made up of 'average' kids whose writing skills are atrocious and who hate math and literature and mostly just hang out doing the minimum until they can get home to microwave some food and continue hanging out.

So out of a class of 30, you might have 2 that will excel in a global marketplace, 25 that will go on to blue collar jobs or make fries, and 3 that will forever live on the incomes of the others. I suspect that in Japan and many other countries you would have a much larger percentage that will excel and a smaller number of french friers.

[Paul Ross]

The USA did not "get rich" in that period by assessing tariffs on imports -- it got rich by taking advantage of an "accident of history" (the settlement of the frontier) that allowed us to secure land and resources at costs far below what First World nations would have had to pay.

Actually, yours is the seriously mistaken notion. The huge industrialization advantages that the U.S. realized were not just from the plentiful resources here (witness Japan becoming a manufacturing collossus without ANY indigenous resources other than labor) ..but from a protected environment fostered by U.S. protections of its capital formation...i.e., manufacturing industries.

[bvw]

I agree with removing Federal corp income taxes, and revisting those sad court rulings that made corporations rebels against their masters, We are the masters of corporations for through our state covenrments we grant them their *limited* charters. Coprorations are not individuals, they are fiats of the state -- in the US the state is an merely the agent of the People, and the state in chartering and policing the corporations MUST -- by all that is honest and right by the laws and duties of agency -- act in OUR interets.

When a CORPORATION is the employer, it is OUR DUTY to hold it to act compatibly with and sometimes IN our interests, even if against its own to some bearable degree. Neal Boortz's logic "we don't own our jobs" applies only to sole proprieterships and partnerships unprotected by such Charters -- once a company of people seeks the protection of the state from liability, etc, and petitions for a corporate or LLP charter -- by golly, it is OUR DUE REGARD to demand that such a protected entity make our welfare its interest as well as its own, for it is WE when grant it the protections and rights accorded the corporate charter.

[OldBlondBabe]

Anyone remember, about a year ago, the big stink about Stanley Tool wanting to relocate a part of its operations oustide of the US to avoid a hefty tax bill? Mitch Albom (his show follows Rush here in the Metro-Detroit area and sometimes I don't get it shut off quickly enough) was bad-mouthing them by claiming "it must be nice to be able to locate somewhere else to avoid paying US taxes" (or words to this effect)..."wouldn't it be nice if we (the little guy) could just move to avoid paying our taxes too?"

What an idiot. Is he too stupid to realize WE pay the taxes in the cost of higher goods, lower wages, fewer jobs and reduced dividends to shareholders? As I recall, Stanley collapsed under pressure and did not relocate.

[Paul Ross]

Outsourcing=Competition Since Feb 18, 2004

Welcome to Free Republic. HIPAA is uneforceable in India. Privacy is a dead letter to any outsourcing of data processing sent to India.

[Alberta's Child]

Well, that certainly explains American dominance of exporting from 1950-1985. Catch a course on econ history, AC.

The post-WW2 period was an economic anomaly in which the U.S. was able to dominate almost every industry in the world because we were the only industrial giant that had emerged from the war with our industrial capacity unscathed. That transition period pretty much ended by the late 1960s, if Japan's emergence as a manufacturing power is any indication. It's no coincidence that the late 1960s also marked the start of the economic malaise in this country that lasted until the early 1980s.

This is where your analysis is only partially correct, and the part that is incorrect actually reinforces my point. The United States did not have the highest standard of living in the world throughout the 1970s -- as indicated by the two fuel crises, spiraling inflation, and stagnant economic growth that afflicted us for almost the entire decade.

[hobson]

Great reply! Welcome to FreeRepublic! Or, have you just assumed a new screen name?

[Jim Cane]

Actually, the last 15 years in this country should be a lesson to all of us. There is no such thing as a "stable job" -- so get used to the chaos we're seeing today. The only "stable jobs" you find today are in government -- and these are actually part of the problem we face, not a solution.

Everyone needs to become autodidactic renaissance men, capable of having every skill imaginable ready to bear expertly at the drop of a hat. No specialization, because that's a dead end. Any specialty can and will be outsourced to someone more cheaply once that specialty knowledge is imitated. (specialties like managment, financial advisors, tort lawyers, military special ops)

Of course, in a bell curve world, not everyone is capable of being a renaissance man, so some of you are going to have to die, for the good of the economy. You die so that I may retire at 35 a very rich man. Think of the better world that your sacrifice represents. A middle class in class concious India and for the U.S. a small, elite band of UberMannen, furiously running from new "next thing" to "newer" like a pack of dogs (though very high acheiving and pedegreed canines) around the latest fifi on the block for a quick clusterf**k and then move on.

We'll have to take away your franchise before we can implement our brave new world, of course, but by then, you'll be greatful for the security and leadership we provide.

And then Ve shall rule ze Verld! (or what little part of it India and China allow us.)

[Alberta's Child]

I don't believe that you can prove this contention.

It's not all that difficult to prove, actually. Go back to the 1930s and compare the U.S. to Germany, for example. Even though Germany was far worse off than the U.S. during the depression, they were still the most advanced country in the world in terms of technology, science, music, etc.

It's no coincidence that the greatest advances in the U.S. during and after World War II were only possible (at that early time, at least) because the U.S. was able to tap Germany's knowledge base in nuclear science, aeronautics, and rocket propulsion research.

[Jim Cane]

We are the masters of corporations for through our state covenrments we grant them their *limited* charters. Coprorations are not individuals, they are fiats of the state --

Yes, the free trade uber alles crowd keeps forgetting that. The granting of the suffix ".inc" entails responsibilities for the recipients above and beyond shareholder profits.

[Alberta's Child]

Japan would never have become a manufacturing colossus without a trading partner (the U.S.) that was immensely wealthy and enjoyed a much higher standard of living than Japan. All the tariff protection in the world hasn't kept Japan from bleeding manufacturing jobs to places like Malaysia, China, and India.

[ninenot]

Please re-analyze your conclusions.

Are you REALLY trying to convince us that the Bell Curve is not operative in India, Japan, and China?

[ninenot]

The United States did not have the highest standard of living in the world throughout the 1970s

While I can accept the possibility that "standard of living" is a fluid concept, I can NOT accept this statement at face value.

Please provide a source, or stats.

[ninenot]

Knowledge and understanding are a FAR CRY from "standard of living," AC.

Try again.

[A. Pole]

There is no such thing as a "stable job" -- so get used to the chaos we're seeing today.

People cannot live in chaos for long. Cultures, states, communites, families and children cannot prosper in chaos. Even slaves will not tolerate chaos for long. And your money and cherished "property" would be devoured by chaos.

But before your chaos takes over, the order will be restored in other way.

Rome established a republic in 509 B.C. The Senators who ruled the city were elected by popular vote, but Roman law restricted what they could do. As a result, the people were free, and most of them prospered. With the passage of time, however, a ruling class evolved and began using the Senate to pursue their expansionist agenda. A series of foreign wars ensued which enriched the oligarchy and impoverished the people. Those who acquired wealth purchased vast tracts of land and farmed them with slaves captured in battle. Small farmers couldn't compete with them, and they were forced to sell their land. Class warfare broke out, and the power of the State was expanded to control the populace. The right to vote was extended to promote democracy and quiet dissent. The oligarchy began fighting among themselves for positions of power, which led to ever increasing chaos. Eventually Augustus Caesar intervened and replaced the Roman Republic with the Roman Empire.
(Encyclopedia Americana Volume 23, pp. 665-69.)

[Alberta's Child]

If you back and look at the history of this country, you'll find that a person's liberty was almost directly proportional to his ability to accomplish many different things on his own.

One of the serious adverse affects of the industrial revolution (in all parts of the world, not just the U.S.) is that for the first time in history we had an enormous class of "free" people who relied entirely on employment by others for their livelihoods. As a result, we now have a country in which people who don't know even the most rudimentary principles of economics are casting votes for public officials based primarily on the state of the nation's economy.

As someone else posted on a similar thread, this is no different than asking the electorate to vote on the best method for treating pancreatic cancer.