# How exactly does outsourcing make us stronger? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 17, 2004, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-does-outsourcing-make-us-stronger/234846 "2004-03-17T14:44:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2004, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-does-outsourcing-make-us-stronger/234846/161 "2004-03-20T20:47:09Z")
> [@Johnny L.A.](#): > > Hm. It seems that losing our jobs is our own fault, so we deserve to be unemployed. That’s the way the free market works, right? Dude. You have to stop going here. I’m not just picking on you, but it seems that many people have it in for the free market because they sense that they are being blamed for their own problems. That’s not correct. If I may start with a quote from the dictionary: blame: “\*a reproach for some lapse or misdeed \*” responsibility: “\*a form of trustworthiness; the trait of being answerable to someone for something or being responsible for one’s conduct \*” or perhaps “_the proper sphere or extent of your activities_” My point is that the market does not blame you for any failures. It simply places the responsibility for your successes on you. There is a difference. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2004, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-does-outsourcing-make-us-stronger/234846/162 "2004-03-20T21:03:04Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > But, as I have been saying, the first step is acknowledging the problem…And, that seems to be where we are stuck at the moment. But we are only stuck here because you (and when I say you, I don’t mean you only, I mean you liberals \) are insisting on defining the “problem” is such inflamatory terms. > [@](#): > > I don’t understand the logic here. Apparently, one is still not allowed to discuss the way in which the income tax is cut and who benefits from this? Is it the will of God that the income tax be cut in this way? In which you paint my position as having some religious context or overtones. It had none. I, in fact, said that discussing whether to have a tax cut or a tax increase were perfectly valid lines of discussion. You then interpreted that as shutting down discussion of tax cuts. Inflamatory. > [@](#): > > I stick by my position: The class warfare is what Bush has perpetrated by enacting these tax cuts. (And, as Warren Buffett notes, his class is winning.) Telling the poor and middle class that they are under attack is not “class warfare”. Right, and using words like attack are not inflamatory. I’m sorry, **jshore** , but you can’t have it both ways. You can’t run around claiming that economic activity which does not involve force is some sort of attack or war, and then cry fowl when conservatives call you on it. > [@](#): > > Well, what happens then is that you enact policies under the guise of how they are going to give us all these resources. Then, you let those vast resources accumulate to a small minority of the population while the rest get a few crumbs. And, then you argue that discussion of how the policies might be made to actually get the resources to those who need them are off the table either because they are “class warfare” or “anti-globalization” or “protectionist”. Not at all. You enact policies which allow as many people as possible the freedom to create wealth. Then you discuss how those resources might be used without force to solve various problems. Seriously, have you ever suggested a single solution to any of the problems you harp about that does not involve massive new taxes? Even a single one? I’m not claiming that taxes are evil, but you seem to believe “Is it the will of God that the income tax be [increased] in this way” as it were. > [@](#): > > There are plently of other options. There is the option of actually discussing what is happening and devising policies that are not designed to encourage the flow of resources just to a wealthy few. Ok, let’s hear one simgle suggestion that does not involve massive tax increases on this issue. Just one. Right now I am not even requiring that it be reasonable or have a good chance of working. If you can offer even one suggestion for making our society more egalitarian without massive taxes, I’m willing to listen. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2004, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-does-outsourcing-make-us-stronger/234846/163 "2004-03-20T21:15:34Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > **Jshore** said: > Don’t worry - I think you’ll get your progressivity back in about 5-10 years, in spades. Because you’re right - huge amounts of revenue are going into the government today in the form of Social Security ‘savings’, and the government is spending it. That means in about 10 years when the boomers retire in large numbers, there will be a MAJOR re-alignment in government. … Yes, **Sam** , but you are missing the point which is that right now the government is using the regressive social security taxes to pay part of government operations outside of social security. Now, you may be right that down the road, government will wake up and recognize that this is unsustainable (at least once there isn’t the surplus coming out of S.S. anymore) and that income taxes must be raised…by that time significantly, given how much will have to be paid back to the S.S. trust fund. But then, why should we have cut income taxes in the first place? Wouldn’t it be better to keep the income taxes in place now so we don’t just dig a deeper hole? And, I am not so confident that the solution won’t involve cuts to social security, e.g. by increasing the retirement age or decreasing benefits…in which case, we will have had the net effect of taking money collected regressively through payroll taxes and using it to pay what was supposed to be paid with more progressively collecte income taxes. Bush’s short-sighted policies of cutting taxes primarily on the wealthy is exactly what is pushing us in the direction you speak of where we will have heavily-taxed working people paying the burden in the future. P.S. - In my opinion, many proponents of means-testing social security are suggesting this as a sort-of “divide and conquer” approach. I.e., they know that cutting social security is very unpopular now because everyone gets it, so they want to turn it into a purely-for-the-poor program so they can go after it like they do the social safety net programs. And, social security was never supposed to be purely an anti-poverty program on the one hand or purely a pension plan on the other where you pay in to your own account and then get the money back. It is sort of a hybrid between the two and I think the hybrid approach is a reasonable one. And, it does necessarily involve some intergenerational transfer both because the early recipients got more in than they paid out and because society has grown steadily wealthier over time. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2004, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-does-outsourcing-make-us-stronger/234846/164 "2004-03-20T21:15:45Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > Well, it’s been a while since I read those links myself but I think the legal issues were far from settled and it was/is not clear how they were going to turn out. Well, in fact, the Canadian suit against the US was still in arbitration, but the US suit against Canada haaad resulted in Canada being fined something like 15 million if I recall. Look, this is certainly an issue. A treaty, encompassing a very new type of international law, signed a handful of years ago is still being wrangled over by the lawyers. The chapter in question does not amount to a repeal of environmental laws. If some companies’ lawyers are filing law suits which amount to that, we will have to interpret the treaties or even modify them to prevent that. It is certainly nothing to panic over, nor should we call for “never putting anything like that in any other treaties”. > [@](#): > > but the fact that resources have been expended in this way and that governments have been threatened with legal action because of environmental laws that they have enacted is a bad thing. Well, now this seems to go too far. Are you actually saying that suing governments over environmental laws should be outlawed in all cases? Certainly you can’t be saying that. > [@](#): > > At the very least, future agreements need to be written so that such suits can be thrown out immediately as not having any sound basis in the trade agreement. Well, perhaps you are saying that. 😉 > [@](#): > > (1) Does that mean that just because Bush decided to cut income taxes, he is then free not to consider the distributional effects on the tax burden as a whole? Of course not. However, it is somewhat misleading to take a quote from the administration about those tax cuts and imply that they meant it about the entire tax structure. Which is what your continual harping on them does. > [@](#): > > Bush could have chosen to cut the income tax in a way that would not make the tax structure as a whole more regressive if he had, e.g., not cut the top rates. Exactly. And there is much reasoned debate that we can have on this issue. But when you use inflamatory language and hyperbole to make the point, I call it class warfare. Notice that in those other threads, I used the term very lightly. Because we had reasoned debates on these issues. > [@](#): > > You seem to be implying that social security has to be considered separately. No, not quite. I’m simply saying that considering social security seperately is not entirely out of bounds. I did not mean to imply that it has to be considered seperately. In fact, I think it cannot be ignored, as I indicated in those other threads. > [@](#): > > Most of these people now cite this ~ 2017 date as a dat of reckoning when, in fact, unless they are planning to rip off the social seurity fund, the day of reckoning is not until about 2043. I have not seen a good debunking of the 201X date. Can you link to such a thing? My understanding was that the 201X date was linked to population aging projections. Did I mis something? ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2004, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-does-outsourcing-make-us-stronger/234846/165 "2004-03-20T21:38:41Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > Well, now this seems to go too far. Are you actually saying that suing governments over environmental laws should be outlawed in all cases? Certainly you can’t be saying that. I am saying that, say, a Canadian company should not be able to sue the U.S. government (or the California state government) claiming lost revenues because of impacts to sales of their products due to environmental laws. And, vice versa. > [@](#): > > Of course not. However, it is somewhat misleading to take a quote from the administration about those tax cuts and imply that they meant it about the entire tax structure. Which is what your continual harping on them does. I lost you…What quite am I taking from the administration about those tax cuts? My point is that whenever the Democrats try to discuss how much of the cuts goes to who or anything of this sort, it is immediately derided as “class warfare”. > [@](#): > > Exactly. And there is much reasoned debate that we can have on this issue. But when you use inflamatory language and hyperbole to make the point, I call it class warfare. Well, I may get a bit carried away in the frustration of the apparent failure of people to see how this whole taxation thing is working but I hardly think my language is that inflammatory…After all, the “class warfare” terminology was initially used by the Bush side of the argument. > [@](#): > > No, not quite. I’m simply saying that considering social security seperately is not entirely out of bounds. I did not mean to imply that it has to be considered seperately. In fact, I think it cannot be ignored, as I indicated in those other threads. And yet, you have repeatedly made statements about the poor not paying taxes and stuff which are manifestly untrue unless you are ignoring social security (and all the state and local taxes that also tend to be regressive). > [@](#): > > I have not seen a good debunking of the 201X date. Can you link to such a thing? My understanding was that the 201X date was linked to population aging projections. Did I mis something? [Here](http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_socialsecurity_socsecfacts) is one link: > [@](#): > > Social Security is building up a trust fund. > Because income is currently exceeding expenditures, Social Security is building up a trust fund. Total income to Social Security was $602 billion in 2001. Its expenditures came to $439 billion, $432 billion of which was benefit payments. Consequently, Social Security managed to increase its trust fund by $163.1 billion in 2001. As a result, Social Security held a total of $1,213 billion in assets at the end of 2001. If Social Security faces a shortfall in income, the trust fund assets can be used to pay for the additional benefits. > > Trust fund assets are invested in government bonds. > Social Security trust fund assets, currently worth over $1 trillion, are invested in special, non-tradable government bonds. Each year the U.S. Treasury issues these government bonds, up to the amount of the Social Security trust fund surplus, to be added to the account. The bonds earn an interest rate comparable to the market interest rate for tradable government bonds. During 2001, the effective annual interest rate earned on all bonds held by the trust funds was 6.6%. > > Social Security is not going broke. > Each year, in early spring, the trustees of Social Security release their report. As required by law, the trustees present what can be described as their best guesses for three different scenarios for the future of Social Security. In their annual report for 2002, the trustees project that Social Security will take in more in income than it will pay out in expenditures until 2017. Between 2017 and 2027, interest income earned on the trust fund assets is forecasted to make up the difference between income and expenditures. After 2027, Social Security is expected to draw down its trust funds to pay for the expenditures that are not covered by income. Finally, in 2041, the trust fund assets are expected to be gone, and income is projected to be less than expenditures. However, the trustees project that Social Security will still be able to pay for more than 2/3 of its promised benefits from 2041 to 2076. > > Social Security is not going broke. The trustees instead project a financing shortfall that may happen almost 40 years from now. These projections, however, are based on pessimistic assumptions. Real growth is expected to fall to between 1.7% and 1.8% over the long-run, which has never been the case for an extended period of time during the post-war years. Similarly, the trustees assume that in the long-run the economy will settle on an average productivity growth rate of 1.6%, which is again too low by historical standards. Higher productivity and consequently faster real wage growth – which have both historically been about 2.0% – would be more realistic and improve Social Security’s finances. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2004, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-does-outsourcing-make-us-stronger/234846/166 "2004-03-20T21:54:51Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > But we are only stuck here because you (and when I say you, I don’t mean you only, I mean you liberals \) are insisting on defining the “problem” is such inflamatory terms. Well, this is sort of a chicken-and-egg argument. I would say that I am resorting to “inflammatory terms” only out of frustration at having the argument phrased in ways that does not even appear to allow questioning of basic issues involving trade policy and taxation policy…Namely: Who are those who are advocating the policy choices that are made? Who are the winners and losers? What other policy choice might exist? > [@](#): > > Not at all. You enact policies which allow as many people as possible the freedom to create wealth. Then you discuss how those resources might be used without force to solve various problems. Yes, but statements like “enact policies which allow as many people as possible the freedom to create wealth” are basically “motherhood statements”. I.e., anyone will claim that their policies do this and it comes down to such things as whether you believe in supply-side economics (which is often more religious belief than scientifically based, as I understand it) . In practice, especially under the current administration (although the Clinton Administration is certainly not without fault too), this has seemed to mean that one enacts policies that seem to align with and benefit certain subgroups like multinational corporations and the wealthy. What I am trying to get at is the question of whether these policies are automatically the best policies. > [@](#): > > Seriously, have you ever suggested a single solution to any of the problems you harp about that does not involve massive new taxes? … > > If you can offer even one suggestion for making our society more egalitarian without massive taxes, I’m willing to listen. Well, I disagree that I have talked of massive new taxes. The reason we are focussing on taxes is only because those on our side of the issue are necessarily in a reactive mode since the Congress and Presidency are in Republican hands and what we are getting is massive **tax cuts** going in large part to the very wealthy. We are simply arguing that these are in fact counterproductive given what has happened in terms of inequality in our society (as well as being fiscally irresponsible). Hell, we aren’t even talking about what might be done to stop the growth of inequality, let alone reduce it. We are stuck on just trying (so far unsuccessfully) to prevent policies that will likely lead to the acceleration of this growth! That said, I think there are some ideas out there concerning what might be done to reduce (or slow the increase of) inequality. As I have mentioned before, this book “The Winner-Take-All Society” discusses some. But, at this point, it is kind of premature to be talking about taking constructive steps in this direction when we are having enough trouble just trying to stop destructive steps. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2004, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-does-outsourcing-make-us-stronger/234846/167 "2004-03-20T22:09:18Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > I am saying that, say, a Canadian company should not be able to sue the U.S. government (or the California state government) claiming lost revenues because of impacts to sales of their products due to environmental laws. And, vice versa. Well, in most or many cases, sure. And if there are only 2 cases in court since the passing of NAFTA, and if the outcome of those cases is dubious, then I still don’t see a reason to panic. > [@](#): > > I lost you The quote you keep harping about where the administration claimed that the biggest percentage cuts went to the poor instead of the rich. I think I am bring too much information from other threads in here. Sorry if I am. > [@](#): > > My point is that whenever the Democrats try to discuss how much of the cuts goes to who or anything of this sort, it is immediately derided as “class warfare”. And my point is that whenever Democrats try to discuss such things, the invariably do so in an inflamatory and “class warfare” manner. Having said that, I will admit that liberals get painted over broadly with that brush. > [@](#): > > I hardly think my language is that inflammatory…After all, the “class warfare” terminology was initially used by the Bush side of the argument. The inflammatory part is your assumption that all wealth is some sort of public trust. You don’t see it as inflamatory, but it is to those of us who believe that our lives and wealth belongs to us individually. > [@](#): > > And yet, you have repeatedly made statements about the poor not paying taxes and stuff which are manifestly untrue unless you are ignoring social security (and all the state and local taxes that also tend to be regressive). But this is not the case either. The times we have gotten into this, we have discovered that the federal tax system is anything but regressive. Each and every time, you have claimed that the State taxes are on the whole regressive. More than that, you have claimed that they are regressive enough to make up for and even reverse the progressivity of the federal tax system. However, you have consistently failed to prove this. I have never made much out of it because I acknowledge that proving the effects of the State tax structure either way is incredibly difficult. Especially for this forum. However, you still need to give some sort of evidence if you are going to rely on this point for your position. Unless things have changed, Nevada, for instance does not have a sales or income tax. I’d call that pretty progressive. Clearly, they are not the norm. However, you at least could show that States collect enough taxes to even be able to reverse the trend of progressivity in the federal system. Even assuming massive regressive tax structures int he States, do they collect enough taxes to reverse the trend? > [@](#): > > [Here](http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_socialsecurity_socsecfacts) is one link: Thanks very much for the link. However, it assumes that the Social Security system has some sort of trust fund. This is odd, in my opinion. That trust fund is simply IOUs from the general fund. Paying those IOUs back will take a greater and greater amounts of money from the general fund starting in 2017. That is, the general fund will loose the income from the SS surplus investments, and have to start paying money out in the form of interest. If you are going to say that payroll taxes must be considered taxes just like all othe taxes (which I can probably agree with), then you need to agree IMHO that Social Security expenditures are in fact expenditures. > [@](#): > > Well, I disagree that I have talked of massive new taxes. Fair enough. You have not actually suggested that we have to have large new taxes. However, you also never seem able to acknowledge that other options might be available. Somehow, you never seem able to acknowledge that individuals are entitled to their own wealth. You and I seem to go round and round on this. Perhaps I should stop taunting you and avoid hijacking another thread before we get parodied again. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2004, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-does-outsourcing-make-us-stronger/234846/168 "2004-03-20T22:17:20Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > I would say that I am resorting to “inflammatory terms” only out of frustration at having the argument phrased in ways that does not even appear to allow questioning of basic issues involving trade policy and taxation policy I just had an odd thougt. What if we could come up with terms for both sides to use that were not so segragationist or inflamatory. How about this for a start. I propose that we both agree that 1/2 of a person’s income should be off limits for government confiscation. Assuming the person earned the money without the use of fraud or force, 1/2 of it should be unrevocably his. In exchange, I propose that the other half is completely up for grabs in terms of social engineering, wealth redistribution or anything else as long as we also pay for defence and the justice system with it. Now, we can argue about whether 1/2 and 1/2 is enough in either direction. We can argue about what constitutes force or fraud. We can also argue about which social engineering programs are more worthy. But we can also drop the warfare context. You don’t have to keep saying that the rich are ripping of the poor in regards the 1/2 of their wealth they get to keep, and I can stop offering analogies to theft regarding the 1/2 that the government can take. Would some such proposal help reduce the flames? Should this be its own thread? ---
**Author:** ![iamme99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@iamme99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamme99)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2004, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-does-outsourcing-make-us-stronger/234846/169 "2004-03-20T23:51:12Z")
I think we should eat the unemployed (after we take whatever useful organs they have and give them to the employed people). We eat them when they run out of savings and have nothing left to offer consumer America. Eating them would lower the costs of beef and chicken because these manufacturers would be competing against the ever increasing supply of unemployed people. And if you thought you would get eaten if you lost your job, you would save more money, which helps the banking system and you would work harder and for less pay! Which would make businesses happy, which would make all the employed freetraders here happy. See, there’s a creative solution for everything… Soylent Green anyone? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [March 20, 2004, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-does-outsourcing-make-us-stronger/234846/170 "2004-03-20T23:58:47Z")
> [@iamme99](#): > > I think we should eat the unemployed (after we take whatever useful organs they have and give them to the employed people). We eat them when they run out of savings and have nothing left to offer consumer America. Eating them would lower the costs of beef and chicken because these manufacturers would be competing against the ever increasing supply of unemployed people. And if you thought you would get eaten if you lost your job, you would save more money, which helps the banking system and you would work harder and for less pay! Which would make businesses happy, which would make all the employed freetraders here happy. See, there’s a creative solution for everything… > > Soylent Green anyone? 😕 You are really not helping your side of the argument with this stupidity. ---
**Author:** ![iamme99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@iamme99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamme99)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2004, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-does-outsourcing-make-us-stronger/234846/171 "2004-03-21T00:25:32Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > You are really not helping your side of the argument with this stupidity. Ha! It doesn’t seem like there is any other way to get you and your ilk to look at all sides of the issue. Let me again try to summarize my points: As I’ve said before, I’m not religiously against outsourcing or productivity enhancements {that lead to lower pricing} **AS LONG AS THESE LOST JOBS ARE BEING REPLACED BY EQUAL OR BETTER JOBS**. Problem is, that isn’t happening. A country with too many marginal or unemployed people is not going to be a strong country. Therefore, we have an excess of marginally employed or unemployed people that need some kind of serious help in fitting into this new economic paradigm. That help doesn’t exist right now and the new industry that people are supposed to be able to fit into doesn’t seem to exist either. Furthermore, it SEEMS that if we continue on the trail of ever increasing outsourcing and productivity improvement, that more and more people will be added to the marginally/unemployed groups. IMO, the government, which sets economic and social policy for us, has been happy to allow unrestricted outsourcing and productivity improvement because of the benefits we have reaped BUT it has not adequately addressed what happens to people caught up in that web nor how to best help them. btw: I tired to make the above short so Pervert doesn’t have to waste a lot of brain cycles parsing too many individual thoughts. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2004, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-does-outsourcing-make-us-stronger/234846/172 "2004-03-21T00:34:24Z")
> [@iamme99](#): > > btw: I tired to make the above short so Pervert doesn’t have to waste a lot of brain cycles parsing too many individual thoughts. 😃 Dude, unnecessary. How about answering a simple question then. If you want the jobs replaced, how fast does it have to happen? You keep saying that it isn’t happening, but it is in some cases. You also keep saying that we have an excess of unemployed people, but even your own conspiracy driven numbers don’t show that. How about this for short? You are wrong. If not in each and every premise on which your thesis is based, then on the majority of them. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![iamme99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@iamme99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamme99)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2004, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-does-outsourcing-make-us-stronger/234846/173 "2004-03-21T00:44:01Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > Dude, unnecessary. > > How about answering a simple question then. If you want the jobs replaced, how fast does it have to happen? You keep saying that it isn’t happening, but it is in some cases. You also keep saying that we have an excess of unemployed people, but even your own conspiracy driven numbers don’t show that. > > How about this for short? You are wrong. If not in each and every premise on which your thesis is based, then on the majority of them. 😃 Sheese. Why does everyone have to keep repeating the same thing over and over for you? We went through the BLS stuff already. We know that approximately 3 million jobs have been lost in the last 3 years through outsourcing, recession and productivity gains and have not been replaced by EQUAL OR BETTER jobs. Why can’t you retain what has gone before??? Go back and read what has gone before! Do me a favor and don’t reply to my posts. As to how fast does job replacement happen - ideally within 6 months of a job being lost. And I ain’t your “dude”. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2004, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-does-outsourcing-make-us-stronger/234846/174 "2004-03-21T01:00:48Z")
iamme99, you list a number of problems you perceive and yet you do not propose any remedies. Just ranting about how bad you think things are is meaningless. especially considering things are worse in pretty much any other place in the world. If you tell us what remedies you propose I can tell you my opinion. It would be helpful if you explain why you think the remedies you propose will work, why you think they will not have other negative effects, examples of countries who have tried them with good results and citations of expert economists who have praised such measures. All that will go a long way in advancing the debate. If you just want to rant we have a forum for that at the end of the hall, on the right hand side. ---
**Author:** ![litost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c4cdca/32.png) [@litost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/litost)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2004, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-does-outsourcing-make-us-stronger/234846/175 "2004-03-21T01:13:48Z")
> [@iamme99](#): > > Sheese. Why does everyone have to keep repeating the same thing over and over for you? We went through the BLS stuff already. We know that approximately 3 million jobs have been lost in the last 3 years through outsourcing, recession and productivity gains and have not been replaced by EQUAL OR BETTER jobs. Why can’t you retain what has gone before??? Go back and read what has gone before! Do me a favor and don’t reply to my posts. > > As to how fast does job replacement happen - ideally within 6 months of a job being lost. > > And I ain’t your “dude”. Reports have suggested that \< 300000 jobs have been off-shored. Fine, let us ban out-sourcing and get those jobs back (thus completely ignoring the possibility that companies and industries can fold down and lay off thousands as a result). Who do you blame for the remaining 90% of the jobs lost and how are we going to legislate and get them back? Please let me know. ---
**Author:** ![pervert](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bbe5ce/32.png) [@pervert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pervert)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2004, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-does-outsourcing-make-us-stronger/234846/176 "2004-03-21T03:00:12Z")
> [@iamme99](#): > > Sheese. Why does everyone have to keep repeating the same thing over and over for you? Well, because you keep missing the point. Let me spell it out. We lost 3 million jobs in 3 years. So what? I’m sorry, but 3 million jobs in this economy is simply not so earth shattering that we need to restructure society to take care of it. I know it sounds like a huge number, but in an economy the size of the United States it simply is not. All the hand wringing and politician mongering you are talking about is just that. Chicken little fear mongering with very little basis in facts. So, go ahead and have your littel rant about the end of the American dream. I’ll stop responding to you and just go on living that dream. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![iamme99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@iamme99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamme99)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2004, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-does-outsourcing-make-us-stronger/234846/177 "2004-03-21T04:25:18Z")
> [@sailor](#): > > iamme99, you list a number of problems you perceive and yet you do not propose any remedies. Just ranting about how bad you think things are is meaningless. especially considering things are worse in pretty much any other place in the world. If you tell us what remedies you propose I can tell you my opinion. It would be helpful if you explain why you think the remedies you propose will work, why you think they will not have other negative effects, examples of countries who have tried them with good results and citations of expert economists who have praised such measures. All that will go a long way in advancing the debate. If you just want to rant we have a forum for that at the end of the hall, on the right hand side. I again addressed the problems as I see them a few posts back in reply to your so-called “stupid” post of mine. I have recommended solutions here and in other similar threads on SDMB. But you don’t like them because you feel they threaten your perceived “freedom” of paying the lowest possible price for anything. Let’s be honest - it doesn’t matter what is proposed, what is cited, it’s clear that you don’t agree there is a problem, that everything is just fine and dandy right now, that everything will work out in the end. I don’t agree with that viewpoint. I have provided cites where others also acknowledge that there are serious problems. Furthermore, I don’t make any promises that what I have proposed will work. And it is simply not fair to ask people to continually rehash and rephrase what has gone before. The record exists, go back and look it. ---
**Author:** ![litost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c4cdca/32.png) [@litost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/litost)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2004, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-does-outsourcing-make-us-stronger/234846/178 "2004-03-21T04:55:18Z")
> [@pervert](#): > > Well, because you keep missing the point. Let me spell it out. > > We lost 3 million jobs in 3 years. > > So what? > > I’m sorry, but 3 million jobs in this economy is simply not so earth shattering that we need to restructure society to take care of it. I know it sounds like a huge number, but in an economy the size of the United States it simply is not. All the hand wringing and politician mongering you are talking about is just that. Chicken little fear mongering with very little basis in facts. And, outsourcing is a small piece of the 3 million jobs, \< 10%. I am still waiting for **iamme99’s** solution to getting back the remaining 90% of the lost jobs. ---
**Author:** ![iamme99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/57b2e6/32.png) [@iamme99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamme99)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2004, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-does-outsourcing-make-us-stronger/234846/179 "2004-03-21T05:01:19Z")
> [@litost](#): > > Reports have suggested that \< 300000 jobs have been off-shored. Fine, let us ban out-sourcing and get those jobs back (thus completely ignoring the possibility that companies and industries can fold down and lay off thousands as a result). Who do you blame for the remaining 90% of the jobs lost and how are we going to legislate and get them back? Please let me know. I agree that if the 300k number is correct, it isn’t that big a number. I posted a cite here or in the other thread on unemployment that said there are those who study these things who think the number might be a lot higher. Whatever. Although offshoring is a growing problem, it appears from the articles Businessweek ran last week (also previously cited), that the real issue is productivity increases. If productivity gains keep accumulating as they are predicted to do so, then more and more people are going to lose their jobs. A number of people like to throw historical examples around here as a justification for not needing to worry about what is happening now. But by historical standards, we are far behind normal job creation based on where we are relative to the last recession we were in. Therefore, something has changed. Which means that maybe we need to look at doing something different than was done before, so we can stop the apparently ever increasing job bleed. The possible solutions **MIGHT** include putting restrictions on outsourcing, requiring corporations to replace every outsourced job with an equivalent domestic job, taxing corporations more to provide for training for ALL displaced workers (because of both outsourcing and automation acceleration), not just manufacturing jobs lost, taxing wealthy people more to provide training and/or support for the white collar unemployed and a whole host of other possibilities. I will again repeat what has gone before by again contending that there is both a revenue and social cost to people being unemployed. The more that are unemployed, the more cost. Whether you or anyone else agrees or disagrees that there is a problem, the reality is that there are a LOT of articles being written about job loss in the media. It is one of the major issues in the upcoming election. Politicians ARE going to address this issue because a lot of their constituents want them to do “something”. They are not simply going to be able to turn their backs on this issue as they have done in the past. The only open question is WHAT will they do? ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2004, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-does-outsourcing-make-us-stronger/234846/180 "2004-03-21T05:07:35Z")
> [@iamme99](#): > > The possible solutions MIGHT include putting restrictions on outsourcing, requiring corporations to replace every outsourced job with an equivalent domestic job, taxing corporations more to provide for training for ALL displaced workers (because of both outsourcing and automation acceleration), not just manufacturing jobs lost, taxing wealthy people more to provide training and/or support for the white collar unemployed and a whole host of other possibilities. Why not simply federalize all business and put them all under government control? I mean, if you are going to force them to hire some useless person for every job displaced through either outsourcing or automation, tax them for training of people, etc…why not just put them entirely under government control? Seems thats where you are headed. Weren’t these kinds of ‘reforms’ tried somewhere in the past? Its on the tip of my tongue… -XT [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-does-outsourcing-make-us-stronger/234846.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-does-outsourcing-make-us-stronger/234846.md?page=10)