Poll: Is outsoursing taking jobs away from Americans????

Economics Economics Questions
1

I know this much: Since the beginning of mankind, people trade because they profit from it. The next step in trade was for companies aside from exporting/importing to move business operations to their desired foreign markets. No one in their right mind would say that international trade in anyway hurts a country.

But this stuff of outsourcing is new and honestly I DONT LIKE IT. Here is why:

Suppose you have two countries, one rich one poor, with the same population. The rich country has 0% of unemployment and poor one has 50% of unemployment. If for whatever reason the workers from the poor country can work from their country like if they are in the rich country; the following happens.

1- Increase unemployment in the rich country vs. increase employment in the poor country.

2- Decrease wage rates in the rich country vs. Increase wage rates in the poor country.

Despite accountability records that show a gain for both nations doing outsourcing I think it depends on who gets benefited. And the way I see it, this is just a TRANSFER OF WEALTH horizontally to the foreign country and vertically to the rich class in the rich country.

I appreciate your comments towards this hot topic. THANK YOU.

2

Again this guy proves what a joke he is…can we please remove him?

1.) Outsourcing allows companies to get their labor at a rate which will be more profitable for them. When the jobs are outsourced the country that has outsourced them loses some of their skilled labor, which benefits them long run. This loss of skilled labor allows the opening for unskilled labor, such as lawyers, doctors, accountants etc. This allows for higher wage rates in the outsourcing country, a greater quality of life and a more educated base of employees.

Also, even if the outsourcing country just lost the job, there would be a distinct advantage. If the country with “50%” unemployment gets these jobs, the people now being employed will get paid. What will they do with that money? They will either save it or spend it. If they save it in the banks, then the banks have more to loan out, which will lead to more business and better overall well being. If they spend it, the companies where they buy things will have more money to hire people, or more money to expand their business.

Therefore, the trade of employment allows for higher wage rates in both countries, without a loss of employment, and the overall well being of both countries increasing.

3

You’re not real likely to get a lot of sympathy here, friend. While your overall point may be somewhat correct, your reasoning is highly flawed.

I’ll start with a couple of the things wrong with your argument. First, here is nothing essentially different between moving a job to a poorer country than moving it to a poorer town in the same country, or even a poorer part of the same town. Why do you decide to focus on the national level to decide when someone should or should not seek out the cheapest labor available?

Second, why should the consequences to people on one particular patch of dirt (nation or other defined geography), to whom the business owner has no special obligation, determine how he does his business. As you yourself admit, outsourcing the jobs is not only better for the business owner, but also for the people he hires on the other patch of dirt. There is no transfer of wealth, because the wealth created does not yet exist. It is a transfer of future wealth, in a sense, but nobody owns future wealth until it exists, and then only its producers or those to whom it’s contracted can claim it.

Now for a couple reasons, in general, to support your point. Frequently, it is not truly a free market in these poor countries that produces an abundance of extremely cheap labor, but rather corrupt, corporate-bribed governments forcing people off their farms and the like to produce that pool of starving workers. Thus is labor forced to be cheaper than it would otherwise be. The idea that early stages of industrialization are an improvement over traditional lifestyles is a myth spread by corporatists.

Also note that virtually every source of petroleum and other fuels is owned by governments, and all roads are heavily subsidized, and thus that transportation of goods, particularly over land, is heavily subsidized. In a truly free market, transportation of any large bulk of goods would be far more expensive, prohibitive to the production of any but the most rare and valuable goods at any great distance to their markets.

So, in short, in a free market, “outsourcing” would not be and should not be, but for none of the reasons you cite.

4

I thank you for your answer. I write stuff here to share IDEAS and THOUGHTS. Not to gain SYMPATHY or to be LECTURED by nobody. Have a great day.

THERE ARE A OF EXPERTS AROUND. People don’t say things like “I think” “In my personal opinion” “I agree with such person (a qualified expert source)”. INSTEAD they tell you everything you have said wrong and they kindly correct you on them. As my PROFESSOR used to say (now MIAMI DADE COUNTY CHIEF ECONOMIST) 'EVERYBODY THINKS they are economists; big deal.

Now I hope the other participants share their opinions on the “outsourcing” matter instead of lecturing people or fighting for their sympathy.

5

In that case “I think” you’re rather sick for denying people willing to work the opportunity simple because their skin is a darker colour. Also, “I think” you’re ignoring the fact that if these workers in other country are taking the jobs the the Americans previously worked all it means is that American labour is now free to work in other areas of the economy thus increasing productivity. You also forget the advantages that the consumer receives from a reduction in price as a result.

Of course, JC makes some good points, but that doesn’t make you any less of a xenophobe.

6

Good for you then that I am not nobody, and so you can read the lecture. You are clearly in no position to think yourself other than a student, after all.

What? I’m sure you meant to say something coherent, here, but I’m afraid your efforts were met with failure. Oh, and allcaps are STOOPID!

7

In answer to the title of the thread, it depends on what your assumptions are. You ask if outsourcing is taking away jobs from Americans? First of all, there is not a limited supply of jobs. There is a limitless supply of jobs, as such, in this regard, no, it is not taking away jobs from Americans.

However, you are probably really asking if the jobs outsourced are more valuable than the new jobs Americans have to take as a result of those jobs not being available. My guess is that the answer again is probably no. As far as I know, most jobs that are outsourced are either manual labor or customer service jobs. These are not the highest paying jobs. They are probably replaced with better paying jobs, now that Americans have more time to do more with their resources.

8

Thanks for your answer, finally someone shared his thought.