There is much more at stake here than the article or you guys lead on.
By definition trade is the exchange of goods and services mutually benificial for both parties. I is trade that has allowed each nation to specialize in production of certain products at a lower price. So the argument to keep *everything* within one's borders is not only less than ideal, but repressive for increasing productivity and wealth.
As Rainsford has mentioned...it's not as simple as equating labour of nation 1 vs. labour of nation 2. Outsourcing tends to go to areas of political instability and low capital investment is desired, therefore more labour is required for the same output. Also, these regions are long distances away and require extremely large inventories for warehousing, during shipment causing much more costs and inflexibility to customer demand. That's not even considering costs to ship and distribute the goods. Therefore it's not just a labour issue; there are many other cost considerations when deciding to outsource.
It is for these reasons I fully support the outsourcing of manufacturing
when economically justified, as it is the most efficient use of limited resources, we increase our productivity and wealth, and we allow the poorer nations of the world a chance to better their lives.
Read Here
Companies who do not remain competitive will not survive and eventually die. If a company in the US decides to go against the most economically favourable route (ie. to outsource or not to outsource), within a margin of course; they will likely underperform, lose investment and become a burnden on the economy through debt, lack of profits and poor opportunities for growth.
Don't be short sighted in saying that domestic products are always in our best interests, and don't assume outsouring is a bad thing. If this flag waving way of doing business continues, we could see a move towards isolationist inefficiencies typical of socialist regimes.
Food for thought.