Exporting work

[question everything]

(snip)

High-tech businesses defend outsourcing, saying it helps lower prices and will ultimately create new jobs in the United States. In the past two weeks, the AeA and the Information Technology Association of America, or ITAA, have released studies arguing that when businesses save money by offshoring jobs, it improves their ability to hire workers in the United States, making offshoring good for the economy and for the work force.

(snip)

"This is not a zero-sum game," said Harris Miller, ITAA president. "Even if some jobs go to Dublin, Manila, Bangalore (India's high-tech center) or Moscow, we will be creating more jobs and higher real wages for American workers." Some economists question that logic, suggesting that U.S. companies are more likely to pump their profits into low-cost overseas operations instead of taking on more high-paid U.S. workers.

(snip)

Nevertheless, White House officials have jumped onto the bandwagon. Two weeks ago, President Bush's Export Council, dominated by the heads of such firms as Bechtel, Boeing and General Motors, warned that curbs on offshoring would make U.S. businesses less competitive, "thereby hurting prosperity and discouraging the very job growth we all seek." Last week, Treasury Secretary John Snow picked up the theme.

(snip)

Perhaps the most stunning statistic comes from University of California Berkeley's Haas School of Business, where economist Cynthia Kroll warns that 14 million U.S. jobs are vulnerable to outsourcing. "That doesn't mean all those jobs are going overseas, but that's how many people are involved in jobs that could be performed in remote locations," she said.

Kroll said some of the most vulnerable areas include business and financial support jobs, financial analysts, legal assistants, software developers, mathematicians and radiology technicians. Least vulnerable, she said, are jobs that require face-to-face contact with customers, such as retail, trade and personal services. "Unfortunately, many of those jobs are not high-wage, which is part of the concern about outsourcing," she said.

(snip)


Dean Calbreath: [phone]; [email protected]


Find this article at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040404/news_lz1b4work.html

[terisel]

1. How many US retail jobs do you need

How many US based retail jobs do you need to sell over the internet to American customers?

Basically I think many multinational corporations see Americans right now as taxpayers who fund services for them:

1. military might and State Department services that gives them confidence to locate and do business overseas.
2. source of payments when they are contracting directly with US goverment or obtaining "support" payments through Agriculture and other departments.
3. a market for their goods and services.

At the point when we no longer have a thriving middle class as a market-they will be marketing to emerging markets around the globe.

The reason Bush will never limit immigration from Mexico and South America (which drives part of his base crazy) is because lower wages will require more workers to pull in the same amount of tax dollars for the ever-expanding corporations.

Beware the "we" word.

[FreakinDJ]

2. Lets Out Source CIA, FBI, Adminstration Jobs

And see how they react to that

[ikojo]

4. Of course corporate America or corporate India is more

interested in creating an Chinese or Indian consumer class. After all there are only 270 or so million Americans and a couple BILLION people in China and India. Even if only ten percent of each nation's population were to become American style consumers that would be 200 MILLION consumers of stuff.

In the US there is practically one car for every man, woman and child. Imagine how giddy the car companies must be over the prospect of the same happening in India and China? The same with televisions and other consumer goods.

Companies are loyal only to the green and I don't mean green party.

[The_Casual_Observer]

3. This is not a zero-sum game

Usually when somebody says this is really is, however, in this case it would be a wild exaggeration to say "zero sum" since it is strictly negative!!!!!