# The Outsourcing Myth **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 19, 2005, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-outsourcing-myth/295366 "2005-03-19T23:37:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2005, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-outsourcing-myth/295366/21 "2005-03-21T23:13:46Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > The article I mentioned was intended to spark debate, not to be authoritative. I know, I wasn’t insulting you. > [@](#): > > Even if the figures are accurate (we don’t KNOW if they are credible or not…no one has put forth squat for cites countering them in this thread. Including you btw), they are minimal…it was a one page blurb in a tech magazine for gods sake. Hogwash. You know how it works: S/he who posits must prove. Now that’s not you, as you’re not holding up the figures as the Truth; it’s the article, which didn’t do its job well. I’ve never even heard the word “insourcing” before, so I think either the article is doing some original thinking without much justification, or it’s total junk. > [@](#): > > I had HOPED that someone on this board who has some expertese in this area would wander in and provide some harder facts and cites. This hasn’t happened unfortunately, and I’ve been unable to make heads or tails out of what my own limited research has dug up…not being anything close to an expert on this subject. I really don’t think there _are_ any experts out there, a thought your research seems to confirm. In general, I trust economists and their conclusions about as much as sociologists and theirs; they don’t call it the “dismal science” for nothing. What is more, however, is that talk of outsourcing rarely seems to be fortified with facts, figures, or even a good conceptual model. ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2005, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-outsourcing-myth/295366/22 "2005-03-21T23:49:44Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > I know, I wasn’t insulting you.Hogwash. You know how it works: S/he who posits must prove. Now that’s not you, as you’re not holding up the figures as the Truth; it’s the article, which didn’t do its job well. I’ve never even heard the word “insourcing” before, so I think either the article is doing some original thinking without much justification, or it’s total junk.I really don’t think there _are_ any experts out there, a thought your research seems to confirm. In general, I trust economists and their conclusions about as much as sociologists and theirs; they don’t call it the “dismal science” for nothing. What is more, however, is that talk of outsourcing rarely seems to be fortified with facts, figures, or even a good conceptual model. Insourcing is quite simply the opposite of outsourcing. Every job that the US outsources to India, India insources from the US. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2005, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-outsourcing-myth/295366/23 "2005-03-22T02:07:30Z")
> [@Shalmanese](#): > > Insourcing is quite simply the opposite of outsourcing. Every job that the US outsources to India, India insources from the US. I’m asking when this word achieved “reality.” Did you even read my explanation as to why I think it’s stupid? Google yields 14,700,000 hits for “outsourcing,” but only 128,000 for “insourcing.” Obviously, people are using the word (in comparatively small numbers), but should they be? ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-outsourcing-myth/295366/24 "2005-03-23T04:24:12Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > I’m asking when this word achieved “reality.” Did you even read my explanation as to why I think it’s stupid? > > Google yields 14,700,000 hits for “outsourcing,” but only 128,000 for “insourcing.” Obviously, people are using the word (in comparatively small numbers), but should they be? Well, what else should we call it? Insourcing seems like a rather obvious extension of the idea. The reason why it’s not used as often is because it’s more intuitive to think of things being outsourced from A to B than insourced from B to A. It’s only really useful when you need to compare the two, otherwise, you just say that India outsourced 3m jobs to the US instead of the US insourced 3m jobs from India. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2005, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-outsourcing-myth/295366/25 "2005-03-23T14:01:07Z")
From [http://www.uscsi.org/publications/papers/05-07-04.htm](http://www.uscsi.org/publications/papers/05-07-04.htm) > [@](#): > > According to the BLS data, out of 288,000 new jobs created last month, 238,000 were in services. Employment in professional, business, and technical services (a key insourcing sector that includes legal, consulting, engineering, and other commercial services) grew the most, adding 123,000 new jobs over the month. The growth was mainly in management and technical consulting services, architectural and engineering services, and services to buildings and dwellings. > > US exports (insourcing) of financial, professional, business and technical services were $131 billion in 2003, $54 billion greater than US imports of such services. > > Total US services exports of $305 billion in 2003 exceeded imports by $60 billion. … > > … > US services exports create additional well-paid high-skilled jobs in the US. In 2002, average annual incomes in professional, scientific and technical services were almost $73,000 Some cool BLS charts: > **[BDM Charts Created by BLS](https://www.bls.gov/bdm/charts.htm#chart1)** > [@Aeschines](#): > > I really don’t think there are any experts out there, a thought your research seems to confirm. In general, I trust economists and their conclusions about as much as sociologists and theirs; they don’t call it the “dismal science” for nothing. They call economics the “dismal science” because it often provides a lot of bad news. The market forces caused by millions of people acting in enlightened self-interest tend to overpower attempts to circumvent them because someone thinks it’s “not right” or “unfair”. Just because you don’t like what economists predict does not make it hocus-pocus or mumbojumbo. I trust economists about as much as I trust the weatherman. He might not be right all the time, but if he tells me it’s going to rain, I generally pack an umbrella just in case. If you want to split hairs over the semantics of “insourcing” or “exsuppling” or whatever feel free to go right ahead. I don’t think it adds anything to the debate. > [@Chairman Pow](#): > > The money a company makes from insourcing may be good for the economy, but doesn’t help people who have lost their jobs to outsourcing. No, but it helps people who work for companies that do business “insourcing”. > [@Chairman Pow](#): > > The US numbers may also simply be due to expertise in areas that other countries just don’t have access to. Yes…that is why companies in/outsource. To gain access to expertise that can do the job cheaper, faster and/or better. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > As a tech that gets constant reminders that the tech centers in India are getting better, quality surveys are regularly posted showing that the quality is at last getting as good as the American ones, the message that the American corporation is telling us grunts is simple: learn to leave with less or you are history. > … > > …So no, outsourcing is not bad, it is what the corporations and government do not do to help the workers to face the uncertainty, unfairness and inequality of the future job market. What’s fair about you keeping your job when someone can do it at least as good but cheaper? That’s why economics is the dismal science. [quote=dotchan] Speaking of fast food and outsourcing, I hear that Mickey D’s is outsourcing its drive through service to a call center in Colorado or something. [/quote] On the surface this seems ridiculous but if you think about it it makes a wierd kind of sense. You have fewer employees who can handle orders for more Drive-thrus so you have less people sitting idle during off-peak hours. You can maintain a higher level of service because it’s more centralized. All the biological unit in the window has to do is collect the money and hand over a bag of food. Personally, I think it’s going to make Drive-thrus unnecessarily complicated. But if the end results is better service and lower costs, is it still a stupid idea? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-outsourcing-myth/295366.md?page=1)