Offshore outsourcing of hi-tech white collar jobs - Is globalization devaluing labor?

Great Debates
21

I am just being observant, and a realist, and exploring what the inevitable future holds.

My own feelings have nothing to do with it.

What I personally like or dislike is irrelevant, and NAFTA will not go away just because I may happen to dislike it, nor was it passed just because congress found out that Susanann liked it.

The situation is, that american companies can and will move their factories and high tech jobs to cheap foreign lands, as they have been doing increasingly.

What our country will be like in the future when there are no high tech jobs remaining here, and when no manufacturing remains here, is what we have to deal with, whether you or I like it or not. The economists and the voters, and the congress have already determined that this is the desireable thing to do, and that this is the future of america that most of us want.

Our young people need to be aware of what the future holds, and what life will be like in this country in a decade or two, so they can properly plan their lives and education. The only thing we can do now, whether you are for free trade or against it, is to best visualize what our economy and our role will be so we can all better plan for the future.

22

I take it then, that you are in agreement, you are admitting, that the United States is the leading, the only world power, capable of meddling and wielding power anywhere in the world, despite a drastic and continuing loss of its industrial capacity.

Yes, the US seems to be able to do what it pleases, with no other country being able to restrict it, including Uraguay.

I am not personally saying that I like it, I am just saying that is the way it is.

In the last 20 years, the United States has lost millions of jobs, and tens of thousands of factories, and in that same time period, the United States went from one of 2 or 3 super powers, to being the only super power in the world.

How many jobs we have, how many jobs we are losing each year, and whether or not we produce anything at all 10 years from now, has nothing to do with the power and wealth and control that we have in the world.

23

Good luck if you think American economic or military power will last indefinitely. The USA was probably comparatively speaking at its peak after WWII until the 1960s when it was the inly industrial power. After that Europe and Japan have developed strong economies so that the US has a smaller protion now of the world economy. Let’s wait another 30 years and see what happens with China and other Asian economies. In any case, prospects are that the USA will continue to diminish as a percentage of the world economy.

If it continues to go into military adventures singlehandedly it will overextend itself and find it cannot afford to pay for them. It has happened to pretty much every empire that was before and it is a question of time for the USA.

But that is another thread.

24

The USA was at a peak in power, immediately after ww2, and before the Soviet Union developed its weapons and influence.

For a short time in the late 1940’s, the United States was the leading super power, slightly above england, china and russia.
At that time, the United States had much manufacturing capability.

Today, the United States has more power than it did in the late 1940’s, even though it has lost most of its industrial capacity. Today, there are no other super powers. The soviet Union has broken up, its military in shambles, its influence gone. Britain has lost most of its colonies and its military is a skelaton of what it was.

Therefore, it is today that the United States is at its peak, and not in the 1940’s(although it was very powerful back then too) despite having almost no manufacturing base remaining, and what little manufacturing that we do stillhave is at an all time modern low in capacity.

Jobs, factories, industrial might are sometimes nice things to have, but are not the same thing as power, and do not determine who actually rules the world.

The US rules the world, it is the US dollar which the world bases its entire economy on. The US effectively controls the UN and the World Bank, world credit and debit policy, and all the oceans and skys and trade routes. It is the United States which determines most trade policies around the world. The federal reserve and the American banks effectively control most all other banks around the world. The United States has half of the worlds gold supply.

Does it really matter if we lose all of our factories and all of our high tech jobs? We have lost so much already, and we keep increasing in power, not decreasing.

25

Sailor, you offer a wonderful and concise perspective to
this question IMHO!
It seems to me, that the question of morality becomes more
complex when the same principle is applied to technology, as opposed to jobs.

Arguably, many of our global issues of slavery result from
the ‘war’ of preserving trade secrets, and thus a false economic
advantage, to the degree that other entities would manufacture
surplus in areas where individuals are currently paying
high ‘taxes’ in the form of overpaying for basic needs.

26

One can only anxiously await the day when we stop industrial production completely and the US Army is using Czech rifles and British tanks- our influence will surely be at its zenith then…

27

The only people who support glogalization are–

  1. Employed
    and
  2. Financially well-off.

Susanann has surely never missed a meal, and beyond a doubt has never tried to live on welfare. And is more than a trifle unworldly. Even naive.

Because there isn’t going to be a Utopia!! :mad:

There will only be the infinitly rich, & the totally destitute.

Her nonsensical jabber is an insult to any person who knows history–indeed, an insult to any thinking person.

Human nature never allows for a “utopia” of the kind you describe. There will be no Labor-Free utopia. Merely the ruination of the American Middle-Class, the destruction of any semblence of an “economy” that does not serve the needs of a privaleged few.

We will not see a golden age–more like the slums of the 19th Century.

And why?

Because there’s never “enough money”!

If you are wealthy, there is no such thing as “enough”. The wealthy will always want more, more, MORE!

And then, the funds needed to create the “utopia” will vanish.

And yes–the “remaining workers” can and will abandon their fellow human beings to die.

Oh, Susanann dear? Sweetie? If the Republicans are trying to create a labor-free society & a paradise on Earth, why the hell are they destroying the social services support net? After all, there’s gonna be a lot of suffering, unemployed, homeless families who are gonna be evicted & live on the streets, cause Daddy can’t get work no more.

I’d tell you what I think of your morality, Susanann, but this ain’t the Pit. But you’re likely a lost cause.

28

Sure. Precisely because the US is the wealthiest country on earth. And a country isn’t the waelthiest by producing “nothing”.

Then you probably don’t understand the real world, either…

Nope. The transition is between a manufacturing society to a service-producing society, not to a “nothing-producing” society.

Hmmm…the US is producing somthing like 25% of the world GNP. Doesn’t seem to be on the verge of not producing anything.

Don’t worry…If the US begins to produce nothing or close to nothing, then Rwanda and San-tome and Principe will become major challengers from the US point of view.

It’s not in manufactories that most of the wealth is created in today’s world. It’s in the services.

And if there are people who loan/invest money to/in the US, it’s because they think their investments will be profitable and their loans will be reimbursed. If the US produce nothing, there won’t be any loan and there won’t be any investments.
This is a trend that has been going on now for a couple of decades, and there is no reason to think anything will be different next year, or next decade.

If the US is deemed to be unable to reimburse its debts (and that would certainly be the case if it produces nothing), then then perhaps other nations/individuals will write off the money because they won’t be able to get it back, and the the US bonds will be traded for 1% of their value on the international markets, as it’s the case for some third world countries, but nobody will buy anymore US bonds or invest in the US. Are you actually in the belief that foreign investors will just hand out money to the US if they’ve no hope to get it back. I suppose that some some shipments of rice or milk could be sent by the NGO when we’ll begin to see starving american children, though…
I’m sorry but your statement is nonsentical. Assuming that you’ve currently a job which pays well and a good credit record, then, you might easily convince your bank to loan you a lot of money. Would you, on this basis, assume that if you stop working and don’t have any income anymore, you’ll be able to keep the same lifestyle? That because your bank loans money to you now, it will do so forever, even when you’ll be unemployed and won’t reimburse your previous loans?

29

What we should become is a nation of 300 million factories–using our brains as the factories.

30

I can’t let that one pass. What on earth do you consider “best fed”? unbridled access to Macdonalds and terminal obesity from poor diet?

31

Sadly I have to agree with this. The power of an empie doesn’t wax or wane overnight…it’s a process of decades and maybe centuries. Susanann seems to be ignoring that the other great superpower of the last half of the 20th century took 45 years to fold. How did it fall? It tried to keep up with the US and its inefficient economy simply couldn’t bear the pace indefinitely.

Now look at the US…it out spends its nearest eight competitors combined on military spending. It is just a matter of time till that weight drags the US down.

What should scare the rest of the world is the potential lash-out a dying empire might try as a last gasp.

This might indeed be a better subject explored in a different thread as the implications are scary. Sorry for the hijack…

32

At any rate and getting back to the OP, the fact is that the communications revolution has made it extremely easy to locate jobs far away. Distance does not matter any more for many jobs. The same communications that allow you to work from home allow a guy in China to work from his home and that is just impossible to contain and we better get used to it.

A few hours ago I saw a bit of a Chinese movie on TV and thought my friend in Utah would like it so I went online and purchased it. The person who took the order is in Canada and told me the movie will ship tomorrow morning from China and my friend should get it in about 7 to 10 days. Fifteen years ago this was just unthinkable.

33

Sailor:

You make an interesing analogy on the slavery issue. It’s off topic here, but I would like to debate with you sometime your “go slow” approach to manumission. I’d argue that you’d reek more havoc with your plan than by simply freeing the slaves. But that’s neither here nor there.

I do agree that immigration restrictions between countries with similar stds of living are probably unnecesary. But requiring the wealthy nations to bring the poor nations up to snuff is rather naive. You know the old saying: You can lead a horse to water… Look at a country like Mexico. It has a large populace, plenty of natural resources, and is located rgiht next to the richest, most powerful country in the world. There is no reason on earth that Mexico needs to be a 3rd World country. There is either something wrong with the way the society is structured there, or the way the government operates that is holding the country back. Neither of those things are amenable to be “fixed” from the outside. And by “wrong” I don’t mean to pass judgement on a country’s choice of either society or government. I am simply using the criteria of living standards of the common people as the guage or rightness or wrongness here.

34

yes, that would be a whole 'nother thread but at least, what I am saying here is that rich countries should not be doing things which tend to keep poor countries poor such as subsidising their own industries (which make it difficult or impossible for poor countries to compete) or putting obstacles to buying goods or services (including jobs) from them. I am not saying we are responsible for making them rich but at least we should not put hurdles in their way.

Another discussion would be whether the individual is responsible for what his country does. Why should someone who was born in Burma not enjoy the same right to bid for a job in the USA than someone who was born in the USA? Are we born equal or are we not? Obviously not. But at least we should allow the job to go to Burma if we will not allow the Burmese to come to the job.

35

Sailor:

I agree. We should not out obstacles in the way of other countries exporting goods to the US.

And I agree that Joe Burma should be able to bid for any job he can get. Absolutely.

But to argue for compeltely open borders, is to make the argumetn that countries should not exist. If a country cannot control it’s borders, then it ceases to exist as a sperate country.

I certainly agree that open borders are a great long term goal. And perhaps there are countries not, like Canada, that we could have open borders with. I’d actually like to see that-- along the lines of how Australia and NZ operate.

Unfortunately, people do have to live with the consequences of their government’s policies. Joe Burma is free to do everything in his power to chage his government, but I don’t see how we are obligated to free him from oppression.

36

Oops. That should’ve been “now, like Canada,” in the 4th paragraph instead of “not, like Canada”.

37

Here you go Ale:
http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/english/modules/economic/gnp/

:eek:
Woooo!

Well. This thread seems to have lasted about 3 posts before degenerating into mindless ranting and rhetoric.

Being “born equal” has nothing to do with it. If I have to choose between losing my house and having my family put out on the street vs the same thing happening to some guy in Burma, the Burmese guy looses every time. And as an American citizen who pays taxes, I expect my government to act on my behalf. Not on behalf of some guy halfway around the world.

That said, I do believe in free trade. In an ideal world, there would be a free echange of goods and labor between all countries, resulting in a more efficient use of resources that benefits everyone.

In the real world, having a million jobs disappear overnight is highly destabilizing. Globalization has to be a gradual process otherwise it will cause more problems than it solves.

So what should the individual person do? Well, for one you need to be flexible. Education helps. I worked in technology for 5 years before being laid off. Do I stand out on Park Avenue with a “Will Code for Food” sign bitching about jobs going overseas? No…I used the skills I had from my previous jobs to work in a new industry.

What is the role of government? If the government is to get involved, it should get involved with helping companies upgrade their facilities, not vreate barriers to cheaper products. One of the most ridiculous things I have seen was a giant sign complaining about Japanese steel imports in front of a steel mill that had to be 50 years old.

Also…people need to understand that being born an American does not make them immune from market forces or guarantee them a lifetime of above-average wages

38

Why are you picking on me? I am only teling you like it is, I never said I liked it.

For all you know, I could be the only one on this board who actaully voted for both Buchannan and Perot.

The fact of the matter is, that most americans are in favor of the polcies which we have, and that is why they voted for whom they voted for, That is why Perot and Buchanan did not get many votes.

The leaders that the majority of american citizens voted for have instituted free trade, which means that american companies are fee to locate anywhere they want to, and they are free to hire anybody they want to. If a chinese laborer will work for less than an american citizen, then he gets hired. That is what the american people wanted, and that is what they are getting.

The majority of americans want NAFTA, they want outsourcing, they want H1-B and L-1 visas, and they want all the cheap chinese goods that come in from canada and mexico under NAFTA.

The point is, that if american companies can locate to where they dont have to pay attention to epa, osha, social security, fair labor laws, minimum wage, etc then they are all going to move there.

If american companies can hire an Indian or chinese to work for less than an american, they are going to hire a foreigner.

In a few short years, we will have no manufacturing left, and no high tech jobs left here in america. We can get everything done cheaper in foreign lands.

That is reality, and that is what the american people wanted and voted for, and that is what you are going to get.

If you voted for clinton, gore, dole, bush, lott, etc then it is you who are doing this, it is you who are eliminating amerian jobs and american factories.

However, if you dont like it, then please limit your criticism to those who voted for this.

39

“In a few short years, we will have no manufacturing left, and no high tech jobs left here in america. We can get everything done cheaper in foreign lands.”

Hmmm, fos some reason that reminds me of the novel The Time Machine by Orwell, it really made me laugh when I read it, I couldn´t stop thinking that the future people (the ones not working) were like Teletubbies, pretty, fluffy, utterly useless and living a pointless existance. :smiley:

Anyway, serioulsly speaking, if there´s no manufacturing, and no hightech works, what will the average Joe American do for living?
I can´t wrap my mind around the idea of an economy working without some kind of productive sector. You think that the USA will turn into a services country?, financial for example.

40

It’s threads like this that make me think of The Economist’s lament that it was founded 160 years ago to promote informed thinking on economics and trade, and it seems as if they’re getting no closer to their goal.

Bloody, bloody hell.