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

Great Debates
121

Bosda, the USA has never been a protectionist country. Your saying that just proves your ignorance. Read about the automobile industry in the 70s and 80s when it was threatened by Japanese imports. You are really talking ignorant nonsense which is just untrue.
Re, Communist countries:
>> So-the various economic embargos the WEST placed against them slip your mind, huh? The fact that for decades we refused to trade with them doesn’t spark any memories?

This is RICH. So, they were doubly protected from outside competition. You are making my point. Domestic industries in communist countries had no competition for the reason you just stated. Now, how far did that get them? Would they have been better of if they were allowed to trade outside? If Cuba were to open up to the outside tomorrow, would it be better off?
>> this Globalization movement, created in a spirit of dishonesty for the enrichment of a very few at the expense of billions.

Give me a break. The USA is not doing any worse than it has in the average of its history and it is doing much better than at certain periods.
>> Hey, let’s just shoot the poor! After all, the above statement reeks of the worldview that believes we have no moral obligations to our fellow man.

On the contrary, my obligations to my fellow man are to those most in need and Americans are not those most in need by any stretch. Your perspective just shows how self-centered and selfish you are. I am the one who wants the poor in third world countries to have some opportunity uyou want to deny them.
>> Except there will be no new consumers overseas, and no new jobs. Economies are driven by consumers.

This is not only stupid, it is untrue. China is becoming a huge consumer. Western firms are building huge projects in China. Ever heard of the Three Gorges Dam? It is the largest in the world and it was built by Germans. Ever hear of the Guangzhou metro? The Shanghai high speed train? Of course you haven’t! Anything outside your little world does not matter to you.
>> Wages overseas won’t go up. I discussed that in my previous post. Something you avoid mentioning at all costs–the basic fact that Globaliztion Theory doesn’t work in small scale tests!

That is not true and goes against historical precedent. Japan started out as an exporter of cheap junk 45 years ago and look at them now. Their salaries are comparable to any western nation, if not higher. Salaries in China for many people have already increased exponentially and continue to do so. My Chinese friends can afford to take vacations in Europe which is more than some Americans can do.
>> Globalization is a theory that has been tested, & has failed those tests.

That is just you and your ignorance speaking. Anyone who knows anything about economics and about history will disagree with you. You have not cited a single example of a protectionist economy doing well. Look at Cuba and North Korea for good examples.
>> It is not a path to economic growth, it is a path leading to a global depression. One that may linger for a decade, if only because our political leaders will be too blind to accept its failure.

Not that is you talking about your microscopic view of the world. People like you have been saying the same thing for decades and thank goodness nobody listens. Again, read about the automobile industry in recent decades. They asked for rotection and did not get it. They warned the country would go to hell if they did not get it and yet, the country is still there.
>> Now, sailor, desdinova—why have you failed to address the question I asked earlier? I’ll ask it again, and I promise not to use big letters or multicolored posts.

Because it is a stupid question. Why do many people oppose globalization? For two main reasons: Because it harms them personally even if it is good for the world and they are selfish and selfcentered and/or because they are ignorant. What’s your point? I can show you there has been opposition to pretty much any innovation from the railway to computers.
>> If all of this is too complicated, ask yourselves this–if Globalization is so benevolent, why all the police-state tactics against protesters? Why the senseless violence? The coroporate-sponcered media ridicule? The organized efforts to silence dissent by totally unprincipled means?

No, people demonstrate all the time against their governments and nothing happens to them. It is the anti-globalization protesters who turn violent and wreak havoc and they get what they deserve. And, BTW, their arguments are that globalization harms the poor countries. The problem is the poor countries beg to differ and they want those jobs.
>>The worth of a political/econmoic movement is measured by the ethics they keep, or fail to keep. The history of Fascism, of Nazism, of Communism, all support this premise. Your “benficial” Globalization gets its way by beatings, tear gas, violation of free speech, & libelous “coverage” by coroprate-owned media. Who’s foolish? The people who object to a movement hallmarked by this behavior, or the people who try desparately to rationalize this evil mistreatment of people in an allegedly free society?

Give me a break. Demonstrators who vandalise property and attack police deserve to get knocked over the head. It just shows you they have no better arguments. At the same time the entire world has seen anti-war demonstrations which went smoothly for the most part even though the numbers were much larger.

Again, show me examples of countries which have progressed with protectionist policies. And try to get it right and not show your ignorance by naming the USA which has historically been one of the most open countries if not THE most open.

122

No, 1% of the US is doing better. The rest of us are facing an uphill battle just to make ends meet.

Lie. The US was protectionist until the late 60’s-early 70’s. Prior to that era, a man could work full-time & provide for his wife & family. Now it takes 2 people working full time.

But you are the one advocating the alleged benefits of a change to Globalization. The burden of proof is on you, the advocate of change. And I have provided clear examples that the changes you advocate do not work and never have. In a non-democratic society, the results will be a catastrophie {sp?} for the working man and his family. Indeed, for his entire society.

No, the protestors are non-violent. The police increasingly act against them with unprovoked violence. If you’d consider going to non-corporate news sources, and look for an article or two that comes from a more impartial source, you might change your mind.
BTW-- by “poor countries” in the above posts, read “brutal dictatorships ruling over the poor countries”.

And those countries will stay poor no matter what you do, until these nations have leaders & governments that do not view “government” as nothing moore than a tool to enrich those that govern.

I do not accept the idea that a nation is “rich” when vast wealth accumulates in the hands of 1 or 2% of the population, & rest are left to go hang. Perhaps this is the basis of our disagreement.

123

I guess our history books were different. In mine, after WWII America invested heavily to develop Europe and Japan and bought what those countries would sell. That led to prosperity both in the USA and in Europe and Japan. What is being said today about China was being said 40 years ago about Japan flooding America with cheap transistor radios.

Anyway, what you or I think is of little consequence. What matters is what the future will bring and everything seems to indicate the future is bringing even more opening of markets and free trade in spite of a few protestors. You can like it or not but there it is. People like you are losing this one and consumers like me are getting more choice in buying domestic or imported goods and services, as it should be. I do not feel any sympathy for people like you who believe they are entitled to my money when some third world guy needs it much more badly. You are asking the government to extort money from consumers and give it to you. Sorry, but I have no sympathy for you. Go beg somewhere else or find a job doing what people are willing to pay for.

124

Does anyone here have any interest in calmly and rationally discussing the pros and cons of trade liberalization, or should I just stop trying?

Incidentally, in response to the OP, I would say “yes, at least for American labor.” This shouldn’t be any real shock, it was predicted by Stolper and Samuelson through the corollary of factor price equalization over half a century ago.

125

The mutual benefits of free trade is one of the most settled issues in economics.

You can find economists that support supply side, or demand side. You can find Keynesians, monetarists, etc.

But what you’ll have a hard time finding is any economist who would seriously argue that trade protection is a good thing.

This is not to say that there aren’t legitimate issues to discuss around trade. Security requirements, local disruptions in markets, etc. But no one would argue that a country will improve its economy by closing off markets to outside competition.

Yes, there will be jobs lost in some industries. There may even be entire industries wiped out. But ONLY because better, cheaper foreign alternatives come along. So the affected industry may suffer, but the consumers of that industry’s goods will benefit, and they in turn help create new jobs.

Consider this: In the U.S. in the not-too-distant past (100 years), over 90% of the population was involved in the agriculture industry. Today, it’s less than 5%. Where did all those jobs go?

Come up with the answer, and you’ll gain an insight into the benefit of free trade.

126

The shift from the farm was caused by a technological change–the invention of the McCormick Harvester. Wheat must be harvested in a very short period, because if the harvest is delayed, the wheat is useless.

Prior to the Harvester, farmers would reap by hand, using scythes & the help of every member of his family, & every hired hand he could get. But he still couldn’t plant & harvest enough wheat to feed both his own family & three other families.

But with Silas McCormick’s Harvester, drawn by horses, he could plant as much as he could, & feed more than ten families, as well as his own.

But your argument is irrelavant–Globalization is the product of a treaty, not the natural evolution of an economy due to technological change.

I will end my involvement with a quotation from Cecil Adams –

Why yank the wires when it’s unnecessary? And of dubious chances of success?

127

What’s the difference? It’s an efficiency gain due to finding a method other than local labor to create something.

Think of it this way - if you could build a machine into which you could pour grain and push a button, and a car would come out the other side, would that be a good thing? Let’s say the cost in grain was somewhat less than an equivalent cost to hire people to build the cars.

This machine would put a lot of auto employees out of business, wouldn’t it? But the overall cost of cars would come down. So it would be a good thing, right? Those ex-auto workers would have to find new jobs, but the gains in efficiency would mean that the country overall is wealthier, so new industries would spring up for them. After all, that’s what happened to the blacksmiths, livery owners, saddle makers, and other horse-related industries when the motor car came along. Or an exact analogy is your havesting machine - pour gasoline in one end, and it replaces twenty people hand-threshing grain.

So this magical grain-to-cars machine would be a good thing, right?

Now call the machine ‘Japan’. Pour grain (or other goods) into the cargo hold of a ship, sail it away, and it comes back loaded with cars that are cheaper than the cars you can build.

Where’s the difference?

Extra credit assignment - look up David Ricardo’s Theory of Competitive Advantage. It helps to explain why economists almost universally agree that free trade is a good thing.

128

Hmm, my father lost his job in a technical field in his late 40s, possibly not due to globalization, more due to changing technology, and unluckily being with a company that just didn’t guess the trends right during a recession. Guess his experience isn’t comperable because his job wasn’t farmed elsewhere. He never got anything resembling appropriate work again, and retired completely (stopped trying to find work) in his early 50s. Around that time my mother had a work accident which stopped her from working in her field ever again, and the legal issues still haven’t been resolved, meaning she still hasn’t had a financial settlement.

No, they didn’t face bankruptcy or financial ruin, because they had no debt. They considered themselves fortunate to make so much money, so they lived modestly and saved. Yes, they were lucky they had that chance, but they weren’t only lucky. I don’t know if it’s their age or their family histories, but my parents assumed there would be recessions, changes in society and technology, and just bad luck. Millions had been through worse before, they never assumed they would be protected.

I’m following the example, and I have enough saved to cover my bills for a while without breaking into my retirement money. If my work dries up, and I can’t find more, I’ll do something else. Maybe I won’t make even half as much money, maybe I’ll go back to school for a while to figure it out, or move somewhere else, or all of the above. Nobody owes me a living, especially not a good living like I have now. At least, I don’t deserve it any more than some random person with the same inteligence living in (insert country here) deserves a job giving the same standard of living.

I still want to know if I should consider that I’m taking a Chinese or French job when I work on long-term contracts for them. It’s work being done for the governments, no less. I did a couple months on a US contract, too, does it make it less theft of american jobs if I mention we were the only bidder?