Outsourcing and other trivial pursuits

[charrison]

linkage

Trade warriors have been staring down the wrong side of their canons -- imports, rather than exports. Imports have been weak for three years, but exports have been even weaker. That matters because the United States is by far the world's largest exporter of goods -- China ranks fifth. U.S. merchandise exports rose by 6 percent a year from 1990 to 2001, while exports from Europe grew by only 4 percent a year and exports from Japan by 3 percent. The United States is the world's largest exporter of services by an even wider margin -- India ranks 21st. Like China, India's imports of commercial services have doubled since 1995. Although India did achieve a tiny surplus in services in the past two years, the country has a sizable overall trade deficit.

By the fourth quarter of 2003, real U.S. exports of services were 5.2 percent higher than a year before. That is, the United States was exporting more "outsourcing" services, though service imports were flat. Real exports of goods were 7.2 percent higher. But those gains were still not enough to get exports back to where they had been before the global recession. Real U.S. exports in 2003 were still 0.6 percent smaller than they were in 2000.

Here is the problem: Just as U.S. imports grow only when the U.S. economy is growing (and shrink only in recessions), other countries' imports also grow only if and when their economies are growing. Strong economies, including ours, need more industrial imports and can afford to buy them. Unfortunately, the economies of our biggest trading partners have not been strong.

 

[sandorski]

Wow. The guy likes to play the numbers game for all it's worth.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Wow. The guy likes to play the numbers game for all it's worth.

Yep, him and CAD, two peas in a pod. Even when their "precious" numbers are proven to be wrong later they spin the wrong numbers. Amazing to watch. Gives P&N "Entertainment" value so in a way contributes to the Economy ironically.

 

[chess9]

Assuming the truth of his argument that strong economies need more imports, how will that occur with the dollar in the tank? By way of example, I've stopped buying most euro bike parts because they are very expensive.

A more important question is what kind of jobs, IF ANY, will replace the outsourced jobs now leaving America like rats abandoning a sinking ship?

-Robert

 

[athithi]

Yet another angle to the outsourcing issue - not for or against it, so don't flame me.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: chess9
Assuming the truth of his argument that strong economies need more imports, how will that occur with the dollar in the tank? By way of example, I've stopped buying most euro bike parts because they are very expensive.

A more important question is what kind of jobs, IF ANY, will replace the outsourced jobs now leaving America like rats abandoning a sinking ship?

-Robert

Government Jobs?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: athithi
Yet another angle to the outsourcing issue - not for or against it, so don't flame me.

Very interesting.

 

[chess9]

Red:

Exactly right. Government jobs is THE job growth sector. I believe it is outstripping the private sector.

-Robert

 

[chess9]

Athithi:

Hmmm. Let's take that discussion to the edge of absurdity just for the purposes of this argument. Suppose 2 million Americans move to India to take jobs and live there? The resulting negative impact on our economy would be enormous.

We need good paying jobs in America, period. When these call center and programmer jobs go overseas they are not being replaced by good paying jobs here.

This is a very, very disturbing trend and I do not trust the Republicans, who brought us TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS, to do much.

-Robert

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: sandorski
Wow. The guy likes to play the numbers game for all it's worth.

Yep, him and CAD, two peas in a pod. Even when their "precious" numbers are proven to be wrong later they spin the wrong numbers. Amazing to watch. Gives P&N "Entertainment" value so in a way contributes to the Economy ironically.

dave - here is your golden opportunity - athithi's link
Anyway this supposed "problem" is relatively minor in the grand scope of things and there is little anyone can do about it to stop it. Adaptation and change in economies has been taking place since the dawn of time. You either move with it or choose to be left behind. I guess we know how a couple here answered that question

CkG

 

[alchemize]

Ironic outsourcing story of the day...

Yesterday I get two calls from 2 (indian) systems analysts. They are asking about some work that is rumoured to move offshore to india, and whether or not they will lose their job

 

[chess9]

Alchemize:

Bwuahahaha! Now that's funny.

CAD:

When you are a 50 year old trying to get a job, then you'll understand. Employers don't want to hire older workers, except in menial jobs, and they certainly won't help with the re-training. So, say some 50 year old guy takes classes at night for a year to learn ALICE, the latest and greatest iteration of Visual C+. What then? Or, would you like to see a lot of middle-aged men burning down the burbs ala the 1960's. It could get ugly....

-Robert

 

[athithi]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Ironic outsourcing story of the day...

Yesterday I get two calls from 2 (indian) systems analysts. They are asking about some work that is rumoured to move offshore to india, and whether or not they will lose their job

I know the feeling....the division I work for has received specifc instructions to move as much stuff as possible to India within a fixed time frame. I've been unofficially advised to keep my options open and another Indian colleague has been offered a promotion and a permanent position if he will take his own job back to India (where it will be given to underlings and my colleague can lead the team).

Moving to India is not such a bad thing - but I won't recommend it until the day I grow a pair and do it myself

 

[athithi]

Originally posted by: chess9
Athithi:

Hmmm. Let's take that discussion to the edge of absurdity just for the purposes of this argument. Suppose 2 million Americans move to India to take jobs and live there? The resulting negative impact on our economy would be enormous.

We need good paying jobs in America, period. When these call center and programmer jobs go overseas they are not being replaced by good paying jobs here.

This is a very, very disturbing trend and I do not trust the Republicans, who brought us TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS, to do much.

-Robert

It's not the same thing, but the Indians who left India and came to the US looking for jobs helped the Indian economy. I wouldn't be surprised if that even helped the entire BPO industry develop in India in the first place. I am not saying that it would do the same thing here, but perhaps there might be some merit if fresh graduates went to other countries (not necessarily India) to kickstart their careers. People nearing the end of their careers too might see some benefit to working overseas in different countries where their experience would be much more useful and the competition, that much less. I agree that it does not address what would happen to the vast majority of workers that fall inbetween the two extremes - am just trying to see the positive side of working abroad.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: athithi
Yet another angle to the outsourcing issue - not for or against it, so don't flame me.

Very interesting.

Cool, the number one Export for the U.S. will be people leaving to fill those Jobs over in India.

That's surprising given the size of the population over there but not all of them have the knowledge yet and certainly do not have the experience. You have to wonder what will happen to those "valuable" transplanted Americans once India does have the experience to do it on their own.

Americans, the new Global Nomads in search of work. How far we have come.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: chess9
Athithi:

Hmmm. Let's take that discussion to the edge of absurdity just for the purposes of this argument. Suppose 2 million Americans move to India to take jobs and live there? The resulting negative impact on our economy would be enormous.

We need good paying jobs in America, period. When these call center and programmer jobs go overseas they are not being replaced by good paying jobs here.

This is a very, very disturbing trend and I do not trust the Republicans, who brought us TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS, to do much.

-Robert

Why would it be a negative impact?

The goal is to make the U.S. just an ordinary Third World like Country, it would be mission accomplished.

 

[Dari]

The only thing I'd have to agree with the Kerry camp is that George Bush has put little, if any, pressure on China to correct her fixed currency regime. I remember when I was in high school in 1994 Bill Clinton put massive pressure on Japan to stop their anti-competitive measures against companies like Motorola. The president has had a good two years to warn the Chinese, but all were lip-services. I'm going to hold judgement on Kerry's international trade policy until I see his (potential) team. China is breaking a lot of international trade laws and the Bush Administration is just twiddling their thumbs and doing absolutely nothing.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Dari
The only thing I'd have to agree with the Kerry camp is that George Bush has put little, if any, pressure on China to correct her fixed currency regime. I remember when I was in high school in 1994 Bill Clinton put massive pressure on Japan to stop their anti-competitive measures against companies like Motorola. The president has had a good two years to warn the Chinese, but all were lip-services. I'm going to hold judgement on Kerry's international trade policy until I see his (potential) team. China is breaking a lot of international trade laws and the Bush Administration is just twiddling their thumbs and doing absolutely nothing.

Given the close relationship between Bush and the business community, and the dependency of the business community to the Chinese gold mind, there is no way Bush is going to do anything that could harm the current relationship with China.

Just look at his recent stand on the Taiwan-China issue....did he choose to stand on the side of democracy and freedeom? Yeah sure.....money talks man.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Dari
The only thing I'd have to agree with the Kerry camp is that George Bush has put little, if any, pressure on China to correct her fixed currency regime. I remember when I was in high school in 1994 Bill Clinton put massive pressure on Japan to stop their anti-competitive measures against companies like Motorola. The president has had a good two years to warn the Chinese, but all were lip-services. I'm going to hold judgement on Kerry's international trade policy until I see his (potential) team. China is breaking a lot of international trade laws and the Bush Administration is just twiddling their thumbs and doing absolutely nothing.

Given the close relationship between Bush and the business community, and the dependency of the business community to the Chinese gold mind, there is no way Bush is going to do anything that could harm the current relationship with China.

Just look at his recent stand on the Taiwan-China issue....did he choose to stand on the side of democracy and freedeom? Yeah sure.....money talks man.

That's pure BS. Clinton's Presidency was very pro-business. Many businessmen here in NYC and across the country supported him because he stood for our cause. The difference between Clinton and Bush is that the former knew had to separate the issues. Clinton's economic team threats against the Japanese trade practices were limited in scope...to trade policies. I think that the Bush team have bought, either sold to them by the Chinese or engineered in their own minds, that security (read: north korea) and economics are both on the table when there are bilateral discussions. THis is stupid and risks undermining certain US interests while taking care of others.

As for Taiwan, this is a very delicate dance that all three parties understand very well. While the US supports the one-China policy agreed upon by Nixon, the Taiwanese must understand that they cannot rock the boat too much or else this will tick off a very sensitive China. Bush may sound like he's contradicting himself but the One-China Policy main success is in its vagueness. Actually, Bush statement in 2001 that he will support Taiwan at any cost actually comprehends his warning against Taiwan in December 2003. Again, this is a very delicate issue. I have an upcoming thread on it.

 

[Ferocious]

Global trade is good in theory. And it can be good in practice. And there are many examples of good and fair trade.

However there are many cases of unfair trade where foreign governments constantly protect their corporations and stifle true free trade.

Also many countries have unfair labor laws and few if any environmental laws. Heathcare is yet another issue.

Bush's stance regarding other countries' labor and environmental laws are that they are sovereign countries and we should not force there hand in changing their laws or/and practices.

Fine....but we should be responding in a different matter than kissing their asses but don't change our behavior because of the massive corporate influence in our government.

And the DEMOCRATS in recent years in general have been nearly as eager as the Repubicans to kiss ass. :| (hence one reason Nader is running)

 

[charrison]

It seems the points made in this article have been completely ignored in this thread...

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Dari
That's pure BS. Clinton's Presidency was very pro-business. Many businessmen here in NYC and across the country supported him because he stood for our cause. The difference between Clinton and Bush is that the former knew had to separate the issues. Clinton's economic team threats against the Japanese trade practices were limited in scope...to trade policies. I think that the Bush team have bought, either sold to them by the Chinese or engineered in their own minds, that security (read: north korea) and economics are both on the table when there are bilateral discussions. THis is stupid and risks undermining certain US interests while taking care of others.

As for Taiwan, this is a very delicate dance that all three parties understand very well. While the US supports the one-China policy agreed upon by Nixon, the Taiwanese must understand that they cannot rock the boat too much or else this will tick off a very sensitive China. Bush may sound like he's contradicting himself but the One-China Policy main success is in its vagueness. Actually, Bush statement in 2001 that he will support Taiwan at any cost actually comprehends his warning against Taiwan in December 2003. Again, this is a very delicate issue. I have an upcoming thread on it.

What is BS? Is it BS that Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton or Bush was the CEO of Spectrum 7 Energy? Clinton Admin was pro-business, but Bush Admin IS a part of the good old boy's network.

It doesn't matter what Bush team thought China can help them with, either NK issue or economic gains. The fact is that Bush has done nothing concret to address the currency advantage that China has, which is the major reason why the trade is so one sided. The fact is also that Bush sat side by side with the Chinese Primier and announced that he supported the Chinese definition of one-China policy and ignored Taiwanese's wish of having an option to become an independent country through democratic process.

Whatever the reason is, either economic gain or simply not having the guts to deal with a big powerful country, there isn't much Bush Admin is gonna do much about China.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: charrison
It seems the points made in this article have been completely ignored in this thread...

Yeah because all the guy knows is throwing number at people without specifying how those numbers relate to the topics. From the title of the article, he is suppose to discuss "outsourcing" as the white collar jobs in America being outsouced to India/China. Yet all he cites is the grand total of import/export of the service. Those number are probably meaningful in a discussion about trade deficits, but not job outsourcing because those job outsourcing have 1. small impact on total export/import of services and 2. maybe no impact on the import/export of services depending on the business arrangement of the outsourcing deals.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison
It seems the points made in this article have been completely ignored in this thread...

You must be new here.

 

[Wolfdog]

They should start outsourcing the government jobs. That would get thier attention.