posted on May 28, 2003 08:49:46 AM new
The wholesale exporting of manufacturing jobs from the U.S. to countries where labor is cheap was easier for this writer to chalk up to the smooth workings of the free market than was the loss of 560,000 high-technology jobs over the last two years. There's nothing like first-hand experience to bring about a rude awakening as to the direction the American economy is headed.
The breadwinner in this family, we presumed, was not in an easily displaced occupation. Relatively young, with a Ph.D. in electrical engineering and a stellar design record, it was not unreasonable to think that an economic powerhouse like the U.S. needed his skills.
Alas, by necessity, the outsourcing or the exporting of high-income and highly-skilled work to places like China and India, where wages can be as low as one-tenth of what an American with a similar skill-set commands, has been the topic of discussion around our dinner table.
According to CNN's Lou Dobbs, of the 2.5 million jobs that have been shipped abroad over the past two years, a large number are such high-productivity jobs. A company like Ernst & Young, for instance, is outsourcing, albeit through a contractor, finance and accounting services to India. Dobbs estimates that 1 million people across India "work for U.S.-based companies, like GE Capital, Oracle and Microsoft."
The trend is growing.
The American economy will be employing fewer engineers, accountants, information technology workers, stock analysts, radiologists, architects and research and development scientists – all highly trained top earners who ought to form the backbone of a vigorous and vibrant economy.
And I'm talking the lock, stock and barrel loss of careers, not a temporary shortage of jobs.
When manufacturing jobs were lost en masse, economists promised we'd become a service-oriented economy, quips columnist Paul Craig Roberts. Now that professional services and high-tech jobs are moving offshore, often with no more than a click of the mouse, what shape is the economy destined to take?
A very poor shape indeed, I venture.
Exporting jobs to where labor is cheapest may be the most efficient allocation of capital, but it results in unemployment in the U.S. and is a contributing factor to a trade deficit that increases by an average of $1.5 billion a day. To the argument that the cheap goods sold back into our markets offset the loss of exported jobs, there is only one humane response: Tell that to the unemployed who are too poor to purchase the goods.
If a company were to buck the tide and stay put, it would, however, soon go out of business because it's competing with dirt-cheap imports. For their part, consumers expect that every new model Pocket PC should have more features yet, at the same time, be cheaper.
On the highway to Third-World status, we've thus been exporting high-wage jobs while importing one very costly problem: an abundance of poor, Third World legal and illegal immigrants. This influx, encouraged by successive administrations, further increases unemployment and contributes to the suppression of wages. The "real earnings of those in the top 10 percent fell 1.4 percent over the last year," reports Roberts, with "the real weekly pay for the median worker falling by 1.5 percent."
The allure of outsourcing is, of course, cheap labor, although it used to be that American workers, while expensive, were also highly productive – this was a very skilled, well-educated and highly capitalized work force. Weak property rights and a dicey rule of law in the Third World outweighed the enticement of a cheap labor force. On balance, it was once viable for companies to stay in the United States. Things, however, have changed. Doing business in Asia, for instance, where the vast work force is now relatively skilled, is far less precarious and so much cheaper that companies are willing to risk diminished legal protections.
posted on May 28, 2003 09:07:25 AM new
Almost 10 million workers have lost their jobs since 9/11.
Yesterday 2000 people showed up for job interviews at a new Target opening up.They need 300 people for their store.The people stood outside all day in line,in the sweltering heat.
posted on May 28, 2003 10:04:13 AM new
I said this before, but here in PA Wal-mart is now the largest employer of a former industrial state. This trend continues to grow, and in time everyone will be working for these companies earning $5.15 an hour. Everywhere you look dollar stores are popping up stocked full of imports. USA made goods are quickly being replaced with imports at many stores. NAPA is now stocking china made parts, which used to be USA made. And now like reamond says the other high paying jobs are leaving quick. We are in trouble unless something is done.
posted on May 28, 2003 10:55:54 AM new
By the way- I didn't author the above article- it is a snipet from another article, but it brings up the issues I have stated here before.
I wish the problem were as simple as a change in presidents. Neither party will pursue a protectionist agenda.
If you're in manufacturing your job is gone, if you're in the service professions your job is gone.
Do you realize that everytime wages fall, it makes money that wealthy people have amassed worth more ?
posted on May 28, 2003 12:12:18 PM new
Well, you can thank the Reagan years and the Bush Sr. years for accelerating the pace. And you can thank Bush jr. for rewarding companies that move..
A politician will call you intelligent to keep you ignorant. I tell you that you are ignorant so that you may want to be intelligent - Eugene Debs
posted on May 28, 2003 12:52:59 PM new
gosh, you mean it's not Clinton's fault?? I thought everything was.
If you can't answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.
- Elbert Hubbard
posted on May 28, 2003 01:20:50 PM new
Lou Dobbs also said that pretty soon, people from the U.S. will be trying to cross the border into Mexico to find work.
I agree mlecher... Reagan was a pitiful President.
posted on May 28, 2003 01:21:53 PM new
Reamond, I do not trust any politician on either side anymore. They will sell their souls to the devil to make a buck under the table. We really need term limits across the board badly, and we need to stop NAFTA.
posted on May 28, 2003 01:30:02 PM new
NAFTA does offer the U.S. some positive things, such as oil from Canada. Although not very lucrative for Canada, without it, the U.S. would be dependant on middle east oil. Clinton wasn't THAT stupid!
posted on May 28, 2003 01:37:11 PM new
we can compete with them if we lower our wages,material is the same everywhere,it is the labor cost which makes the difference.
hey,our healthcare cost is a bundle,if we all eat less and exercise more,we can get our job back from those curry eating indians.what do you guys say??
i love curried chicken and curry beef,just dont want to smell up my house
posted on May 28, 2003 02:14:12 PM newwithout it, the U.S. would be dependant on middle east oil
If the US got all of its oil from Canada, we would still be dependent on Middle East oil.
Any oil producer that withholds oil from the market creates a shortage for all users in an open market, and that shortage will be reflected in higher prices.
As example: If Japan gets cut off from middle east oil, Japan will go on the open market and try to buy oil from another supplier and drive the price up. The country without enough money to buy the more expensive supply of oil loses their supply and the rest all pay more for it.
It doesn't matter where the industrialized countries get their oil, we all have to have it.
posted on May 28, 2003 03:48:47 PM newPublished on Tuesday, September 26, 2000 in the Toronto Globe & Mail Washington To Canada: Fill 'er Up It's No Wonder Bill Clinton Opened US Oil Reserves. NAFTA Guarantees That He Can Top Up His Country's Tank With Canada's Fuel
by Maude Barlow
