I think it is a bad because Americans are losing their jobs, and it is defiantly effecting our economy because by not having jobs, Americans dont have money to buy things with which effects our stores and other buissness'. I think people are stupid if they think having U.S jobs in foreign countries is a good thing. I dnt know about you bt I need a job because a job gives me money, and money lets me live

i believe outsourcing is bad because when workers lose their jobs, they rely on unemployment money from the Gov't which means higher taxes for everyone else

I can't believe how many people are selecting "Good".

So the companies out source their jobs to make things cheaper? Well, if it only costs $5 to make the item (including materials and labor)... WHY are they selling it for $15 and $20? I thought they outsourced to make the prices cheaper. Why not 6 or 7 dollars instead of 20? So if they kept their business stateside it would cost them around $10 to $15 dollars to make the item (including materials and labor)... so they could still sell it for $20 or $25. Not only that but it would create jobs for many many many Americans who are on unemployment right now and those people who get those jobs will have money that they will be able to spend on "wants" not only "needs" so they would be able to buy more things, putting money back into the economy.

Everyone who selected "Good" in my opinion are feeding off of what the companies who outsource want them to think.

Lots of great arguments have already been made here. A couple that I have not seen:

1) Outsourcing US Jobs offshore can only be good if there are new jobs being created for those displaced workers to move to. Clearly right now in our economy, we are losing jobs on a net basis, so in that environment, outsourcing US jobs cannot be good in any way shape or form if it is contributing to greater domestic unemployment, which it is right now. The impact of that includes a) a reduction in the tax revenues at the state and federal levels which is one significant reason why we have such huge deficits and have become a debtor nation to China. The state of California has such a huge deficit that very important programs including education are getting cut. How is that deficit created? It all comes back to tax revenues offset by spending. Fewer jobs means less income means less in taxes and b) more unemployment means more americans receiving unemployment assistance and other public programs which further contribute to the deficit. This is such a fundamental issue yet somehow it gets glossed over. When the economy is growing and new jobs are being created, it is not noticeable, but today it is a glaring weakness in our economic policy to allow this practice to continue unfettered.

2) Treating white collar jobs as commodities, as outsourcing does, fails to take into account the human element. Just because I might be hired to do a certain job, as an employee of a company I know that if I find ways to improve the way we do things and innovate, it will reflect positively on me and help lead the way to promotions and greater compensation. When you outsource a job offshore, you significantly diminish the potential for innovation. Despite what marketing people might tell you, the outsourcing industry performs a "lift and shift" and nothing more. They take your work and move it offshore and perform it in exactly the same way as you are doing it in the US. Couple that with 50% or greater turnover rates in places like India and what you have is a situation where nobody ever sits in the job long enough to understand it well enough to actually have an opportunity to think about ways to improve it. The liklihood that an offshore employee that has been hired to perform a specific task is going to come up with ideas for innovation are virtually nil. They don't have the same motivation or opportunity. Unless you find a way to measure and quantify the concept of innovation and then build it into your contract with the outsourcing provider, innovation is just not going to happen, which will lead to stagnation. I feel this is the leading characteristic of outsourcing white collar positions that is going to lead to a permanent deterioration of the US Economy, because innovation is what made the US economy so great. Corporate greed over maximizing short term profits through labor arbitrage will lead to long term losses that ultimately may take decades to recover from, if ever.

I am not fully against outsourcing but one point of view I have not seen here is. If we outsource medium paying jobs and those jobs are replaced with less paying jobs the total number of people paying Fed Income taxes will reduce. If this happens the overall tax burden will become more burdensome to those who continue to pay taxes. With less people paying taxes and more people needing govt assistance the tax burden on those still paying taxes will grow even faster. This is one argument many have overlooked regarding the consequences of outsourcing.

What is unamerican? The political climate that lead to the economic depression we are now facing. That political climate supported big business in avoiding taxation by operating overseas, while outsourcing labor (and good paying jobs) to those in other countries who are able to work for less, due to differences in currency. Outsourcing, the practices of employing remote foreign labor to maximize profits has been the primary example of what is UnAmerican. If the jobs are being exported, is it no wonder that so many Americans are foreclosing on their homes, and are not active consumers?

The outscourcing of jobs to foreign coutries is a bad thing not only does it put the American people out of work but it also is a double whammy on the tax payer. This is not right that are jobs be sent over to some foreign country are economy is in a crisis right now and we need to keep American jobs here.

The United States has lost a vast amount of jobs to foreign countries. Large corporations have cut jobs in the U.S. and moved them overseas to decrease their annual operating expenses, which you can't blame them because they are making decisions that will better their corporations. However, despite bettering their company from a monetary standpoint, the problem in this model is that corporations do not care about the United States—as a country. When the board members of a company meet to make decisions to cut jobs or increase productivity within a company, they are not thinking about what’s best for the country, rather they are driven by decisions that best reflect the interest of shareholders.

Decisions made today by corporate America are based on greed, because all they care about is the price per share earnings ratio to sky rocket. Upper executives do not have the capacity to make sound moral decisions that will lead to an outcome that will suit the best interest for the workers that have dedicated 30 to 40 years of their lives for the company.

This is the double-edge sword of capitalism and it’s killing the U.S. economy. In 2004, the Midwest U.S. alone lost 7,555 in a matter of three months in 2004—almost all to Mexico. This number is part of the 2.7 million manufacturing jobs lost since 2000 in the United States. Think of the economic ramifications these job losses have created, everything from paying on mortgages on homes to buying goods—severe effects trickle their way down the economic ladder. Compare this 2.7 million loss since 2000 to General Motors situation in present day 2008. The government announced this past week that if General Motors fell it could put the U.S. into a severe Recession or Depression, with the loss of 2.5 million jobs total (manufacturing, assembly, tiered suppliers, dealerships, etc). Anyway you look at it, the exchange of money from individual to business to business declines dramatically with these job losses.

I’ll keep it simple and finish up for everyone. Because of our job losses in the manufacturing and assembly sectors, this has led to auxiliary losses in other sectors and our country has become less self-sufficient in correlation to other countries, which now have those “U.S.” jobs. In other words, if you don’t make anything, then you are not appealing to trade with, and eventually countries will not trade with you. Adding to this, the U.S. is still the number one consuming country in the world—number one in imports vs. (China #1 in exports). Furthermore, if we are not making anything in our country to sell to other countries, then a trade imbalance or deficit has been created. We are already in debt as a country and the U.S. is currently borrowing money from other countries to pay for a bailout, sparked by the sub-prime mortgage crisis.

I found this documentary to be very interesting. Take a look at what Warren Buffett and David Walker are saying: http://www.iousathemovie.com/

The latest economic expansion has in fact been one of the worst recoveries known to man. Those figures you rattle off have something called 'ghost jobs' and are subject to the birth/death model.

In the end, US job reports can be off by hundreds of thousands of jobs a month. And it's all because of the way the government attempts to report unemployment.

Did you know that after a certain amount of time of being unemployed, you are taken off unemployment stats? Some estimate true unemployment at well over eight percent.

That's not to say that this recovery had less jobs due to outsourcing. It was mainly due to Alan Greenspan trying to keep the economy out of recession and instead, blowing up the housing bubble.

Let's hope Bernanke doesn't follow the Greenspan model.

Even if a product is cheaper, if you are out of a job or your paycheck is 'downsized', you can't afford to buy it.

Outsourcing and free trade 'level the playing field': the end result will be that workers anywhere in the world will be paid similar wages. Our standard of living will be lowered to raise the standard of living in the poorest countries.

At some level this may be "fair" but it isn't playing by the rules we've been following thus far.

In the meantime, big business will be enriched beyond reason, just as oil companies continue to enjoy record profits.

I'm not sure how many of you have been down to Nogales, Mexico, but the factories there (many owned by US corporations outsourcing their production facilities) have horrendous working conditions. Outsourcing is exploiting the lax labor laws in other countries and the people in an effort to save some money on production costs. Doesn't matter whether children work in the factories, doesn't matter how poorly the laborers are paid or treated - all corporations are interested in is profit.

I'm just making an argument from a moral perspective because there are plenty of others who can argue economics better than I. This is just another aspect to think about.

I like my job. I speek english. I don't want my job going to another countries. And I don't want people who cant communicate to me what needs to be done on my computer, or my phone, or my sterio trying to help me fix it.

Additionally, the unskilled worker in america (ie: the average american) is finding it harder and harder to find work because their job are going over seas.

I think it is quite clear that outsourcing hurts the local economy in the end.

To quote a recent World Public Opinion on Globalization...

"Support for globalization is remarkably strong throughout the world. The highest levels of support are found in countries with export-oriented economies: China (87%), South Korea (86%) and Israel (82%)."

There is significant concern about the effect of trade on employment, especially in more developed countries.

80% of French respondents believe trade has a negative impact on job security in their country

73% percent think it is also bad for the creation of jobs there.

In the United States, 67% consider trade harmful for U.S. workers' job security & 60% call it detrimental for job creation."

The outsourcing of American jobs to foreign countries cannot possibly be good for our economy. Taking jobs away from well-educated Americans and giving them to well-educated people of India, just because the people of India are willing to work for less, is not the right way to handle this situation. The only people that such outsourcing benefits are the already-wealthy corporate businessmen of America, and it takes away opportunities for honest, hard-working Americans to get a good job. Certainly, if the workforce is not available in the US, then the people of India should be given the opportunities. But American-based companies serving America should first turn to the American people for their workforce. The unemployment rate is more important than the salaries of corporate tycoons.

At this point in time when thousands of people have lost their jobs, I believe keeping what we can in the U.S is better for Joe Worker. The profit here is only for the big corporations there really is no plus for us, how are we profitting in any way other than possibly cheaper products?

baaaaaaaad... Come on there is nothing good about it for the ecomomy i,no matter how you look at it takes jobs and american cash flow away. Corp money is not cash flow it stays in the banks.

Next!

Great point! Outsourcing overall is good for all companies and countries involved. It allocates resources efficiently and drives down costs.

Given how much Turpificatus's arguments need to be deconstructed I'm going to have to start a new line of argument over here. (Also, if I oppose and opposer I am apparently affirming that Outsourcing is good according to the system).

"Yes, it is ego driven. They lived a much more privileged life than can be expected for people who work in such industries, and demand that the lifestyle be maintained. If we take the living conditions of global manufacturing 'grunts' for want of a better word, the American 'grunt' is excessively well off. Really, all outsourcing is doing is re-balancing the equality, equal pay for equal work."

Why is it the workers who must pay the price for outsourcing? Why is it egotism for them to want to live like the average American? In our society we have a certain standard of living that, if a person or family is below, they become low in status, power, prestige, honor, authority, regard..etc..etc. If noone in the United States owned a computer it would be one thing, but when computers are the norm, and in many cases a necessary aspect of our social, economic, and political lives it is harmful for anyone without access to it.

Why, when the rich have an abundance equal to the wealth of nearly everyone else on earth combined, when individuals and companies have budgets and assets larger than many countries, should the factory workers pay the price, and be scorned when they complain? Why should they make sacrifices so someone else can get even more fabulously wealthy, and so the poor in other countries can see a small amount of an increase in prosperity?

It is egotistical to want a certain standard of security and prosperity in a nation of wealth, or is it egotistical to disregard the hunger, the poverty, the want, the destitution of those in vulnerable economic positions for the sake of those with plenty of wealth to spare?

"The problem in those communities that rely on manufacturing industries for survival is a shortcoming in the government, and it's inability to encourage high technology industry development. These people are not suffering due to corporate decisions to outsource, but the government's inability to observe the inevitable, and plan ahead."

This is a rather interesting statement, and it amounts to this:

It isn't the fault of corporations for practices that harm communities, it is the fault of the governments for not heading off and making plans to overcome these practices early on.

First off, these companies with their wealth and power have a great deal of influence over local communities, state governments, and the Federal Government. That is well known and I shouldn't have to mention it.

Secondly, your stance amounts to blaming the victim. It's apparently not the fault of companies for harmful practices but the fault of governments for not waving a magic wand and making things better sooner.

As a Libertarian I find your stance all the more intriguing, you are practically saying that it is the government's job to fix this problem. I would like to see some suggestions as to how.

"yes these immediate issues are destructive, however over the course of history, again and again during the era of industrialization, children are exploited, environments defecated upon and nations are exploited, however it strikes me that only after such a nation industrializes, do they preach suffrage and equality and fair trading practices. Do you really expect solar panels in Africa, three times as expensive as developing coal, and notoriously unreliable, to power a steel industry? Or that they won't employ child labour and cut their workforce in half?"

I think you are simplifying and distorting a very turbulent and complex development. Are you forgetting how people had to fight and die for these programs? Are you forgetting how people were shot, hung, and murdered to keep children out of factories, how battles were waged across the country in courtrooms and legislative houses in order to pass environmental regulations.

These things did not come naturally, they came from pitched political battles between the progressive forces and business interests. It wasn't after the nation became universally prosperous that these reforms occurred, it was when abject and terrible poverty were still very much a norm. It was during the great depression that many of our reforms occurred in the labor and welfare departments, and it was the turbulent 60s and 70s that our major environmental reforms were created.

You have all of history on its head, first prosperity then progress; I am afraid it was progress then prosperity.

There already large movements in the developing world in favor of better labor practices and environmental protection. Unfortunately, anti-democratic governments, democratic governments bought out by business interests, and U.S. backed dictatorships have kept these movements down.

You are giving us a false choice between economic stagnation or livable working and environmental conditions. We have the money and the technology to provide economic, labor, and environmental prosperity; we simply lack the political will.

In fact, Africa is seeing solar panels installed in many remote tribal communities due to the high cost of oil, their poverty, and western aid programs. We are seeing laptops that cost 100 dollars and are powered by hand-cranks, we are seeing community water purifiers that are powered by a person on a bicycle. We are perfectly capable of providing these nations with an entrance into the modern era without the problems and strife that we had to deal with during our development.

"In relation to domestic production and ownership, yes, it will reduce domestically owned industry, however once enough wealth is achieved, the odds will begin to even. Also, Food is a tenuous example to use as it is a strategic resource as well as economical. Fluctuations in world food prices are also why countries like Japan give 700% subsidies to their farmers, to ensure that the domestic agrarian industry is never lost and in times of strife, will continue to produce. It is also why the EU refuses to reduce tariffs on imported foods, as it will decimate their agriculture."

Here is the problem, and I mentioned this earlier on:

Corporations and western governments who support their interests regularly force smaller governments to adopt practices that benefit them and not their own people.

Nations that want their people to be prosperous, nations that want to ensure a minimum standard of living that ensures human dignity use protectionist measures to stabilize what amounts to a volatile international market filled with sharks, parasites, and institutions which regard humanity as a mere tool to place large wads of cash into their pockets.

It's not the "hackers" that you read about in the news that I'm primarily concerned with. If the data is encrypted and the company has designed decent security in to their network, as you mention it should be relatively safe.

I'm concerned about the people who have access to the data via call center applications, development environments, etc. It doesn't matter if the data or the session is encrypted or not, if they have access to it they can just store it on a removable media device or email it out to their personal account.

Insider fraud is MUCH more prevalent than someone hacking in to the system from outside.

You do make a good point with regards to Mexico, to a certain extent. Of course, Mexico only makes up a part of the outsourcing trend. Am I to understand that you are concerned about the environmental impact of outsourcing to far-away nations?

As for increasing environmental standards in developing nations; that may be true but there are some aspects to that argument you left out.

The damage done before these regulations are made and enforced has been and will be massive. We've seen pollution levels in countries such as China and India beyond imagination. Thousands to millions have been harmed or killed by complications arising from the truly horrific environmental standards of countries like China.

We no longer have the luxury of slow-moving environmental standards, of the kind the U.S, Canada, and the E.U. have enjoyed. The scale of industrial development is far beyond what has occurred at any one time in the past, and the types of byproducts being produced are doing immeasurable harm already.

Global Warming and environmental contamination are not things we can wait decades to slow or stop. So while China may eventually have standards that are up to par with their environmental situation it will be long after severe and perhaps irreversible damage has been done.

Through regulations, laws, and policies in our own country we are either going to have to halt outsourcing to those countries or put high tariffs or taxes on goods produced through ways that are overly detrimental to the environment.

Either we stop outsourcing or force them to adopt sufficient environmental policies. Neither China, it's people, or the rest of the world can afford to wait for a non-democratic, slow-moving bureaucratic government to act on these matters.

You are still ignoring the lack of choice for many people on small, fixed incomes. They can either starve or go otherwise wanting or purchase goods that fulfill their needs at their budget but indirectly support harmful practices. People voice their direct opinions by vote, not dollars. No matter how people spend their money they are going to be indirectly supporting harmful practices or practices they do not agree with.

The other points are going to get into whole new areas of discussion, we may have to make new debates about those. God knows I'd love to, but this debate is already huge in scope.

I completely agree, and to add to your argument, Ricardian theory of competitive advantage supports this idea. If other countries have the competitive advantage (do the work more efficiently than in the US) then the US should allow them to do it, and specialize in other things that we are good at.

Yes it takes more energy to ship goods when they are manufactured overseas, however equally, it may bring the producer closer to the consumer. Consider American Jobs being outsourced to Mexicans. Many of the consumers in Florida and Texas are now much closer to the source of goods than if they had been manufactured in Illinois. Furthermore, employment is generated in maritime occupations, if the goods do travel vast distances.

Moreover, although companies do get away with extensive pollution in developing economies like China, once these economies mature, anti pollution acts and stringent environmental regulations begin to be stringently enforced, as wealthier, more literate citizens become increasingly aware of health risks associated with pollution. So if we do raise the standards of living in developing countries, it follows that eventually they will become more environmentally regulated and thus will eventually impose restrictions. However as long as the poverty remains, people will sacrifice their environment to pursue wealth.

Yes, it means all those after about 1990 who buy outsourced goods are less liable, however, just as children must deal with the choices of their parents, the youth must deal with the mistakes of their elders. The youth are still responsible, albeit less so, for the mistakes of the past generation.

In respect to "There have been periods where wealth distribution has been either equalized or more evenly distributed. There have been periods where the middle and lower classes started to close the gap, due mostly from extensive government programs, regulations, and progressive taxation", The redistribution of power has always been radical. Wealth, in both the feudal and capitalistic sense, has been self aggregating, and so unless we adopt a model where wealth does not aggregate, it is unlikely that inequality can be eliminated. Furthermore, as shown by the great Soviet experiment, even with a centralized, distribution service, wealth still manages to aggregate within the upper echelons of society.

It has never been true prior to our great age of globalization, but if we look at how China has come to the fore relatively recently in terms of economic prowess, it has effectively been through employment as the American industrialist's candy store, supplying almost whatever was demanded, including cheap sweatshop labour. And yes, a Roosevelt, a Lenin, a Chavez, a Castro may come along, but they come through radicalism, but political power is achieved through the barrel of a gun. While reform did occur, wealth eventually re aggregated into a new ruling echelon.

I believe that most of the arguments against outsourcing aren't because people feel that Americans are any more superior to those in other countries. I for one believe that all humans are equal and with the same freedoms and i believe that most others feel the same.

3rd world nations do grow because of foreign investment and that is a good thing. but corporations also manage to steal a lot of the resources of these 3rd world nations which they then make the native people work with.

it is one thing to invest and open new plants/buildings in 3rd world countries while keeping the original ones in America, it is completely different to close down the ones in America and then moving to a poorer nation and exploiting the fact those people will work for next to nothing because they have nothing better.

lets face it corporations don't outsource to help the poorer nations or its people, they do it because its cheaper, less environmental restrictions, and less strict worker conditions.

"I accept that outsourcing does aid wealth generation by those who already have wealth, but the resource pillaging, environmental ravaging and monopoly synthesizing of the world is not driven by outsourcing. Consider this, the demand for a product is increasing, and therefore more resources will be consumed producing the product. It doesn't matter where the resources come from, they will still be used, and so outsourcing is not generating all this environmental damage and resource consumption, it's already there. One even could argue that outsourcing is protecting American natural resources and instead ravaging someone else's."

You are absolutely correct in noting that outsourcing alone is not causing massive economic destruction and global warming. However, it is making matters much worse, worse than they could be.

Remember, it takes several times less energy to manufacture and transport a doll a mile away than it does ten thousand. All of that travel means CO2 production, which is a prime component of global warming.

Also, companies are purposely going to nations that do not have as stringent environmental regulations (or ones they can bully into deregulating such things) as the United States and the E.U. What companies get away with in China with regards to pollution would find it much more difficult (if not impossible) to do so in the States. You know that, I am sure.

"Also, places like Walmart exist because, in it's early days, someone bought products from Walmart, before it closed down other manufacturer's factories, and thus outsourcing did not force the consumers to buy, but once it began, it became self reinforcing. So the original choice was still by the consumer."

Then your argument is valid until 1990, I am afraid all of the customers born after outsourcing began or those who shopped before it began and continued cannot be, logically, forced into supporting outsourcing simply by their purchase.

"Moreover, the rich have always been getting richer, throughout history, it has been the case. Nothing short of revolution will ever, or ever has, reversed this stream. Only by playing into the pockets of the super wealthy can extremely poor nations hope to gain some semblance of prosperity"

There have been periods where wealth distribution has been either equalized or more evenly distributed. There have been periods where the middle and lower classes started to close the gap, due mostly from extensive government programs, regulations, and progressive taxation.

"Only by playing into the pockets of the super wealthy can extremely poor nations hope to gain some semblance of prosperity"

That has never, ever been true. What usually happens is the wealthy have their run of things for awhile, then a Roosevelt, a Lenin, a Chavez, a Castro...etc..etc...will rise to power and either openly revolt or enact reforms.

I accept that outsourcing does aid wealth generation by those who already have wealth, but the resource pillaging, environmental ravaging and monopoly synthesizing of the world is not driven by outsourcing. Consider this, the demand for a product is increasing, and therefore more resources will be consumed producing the product. It doesn't matter where the resources come from, they will still be used, and so outsourcing is not generating all this environmental damage and resource consumption, it's already there. One even could argue that outsourcing is protecting American natural resources and instead ravaging someone else's.

Also, places like Walmart exist because, in it's early days, someone bought products from Walmart, before it closed down other manufacturer's factories, and thus outsourcing did not force the consumers to buy, but once it began, it became self reinforcing. So the original choice was still by the consumer.

Moreover, the rich have always been getting richer, throughout history, it has been the case. Nothing short of revolution will ever, or ever has, reversed this stream. Only by playing into the pockets of the super wealthy can extremely poor nations hope to gain some semblance of prosperity

This is the issue, you are in favor of overseas investment then, not outsourcing.

There is a distinct difference between a lack of job creation (which occurs when a company chooses to invest its money overseas), and outsourcing (which is when a company takes its existing resources and reconfigures them so that current jobs are moved overseas).

I think you need to use a better example if you are going to defend the current practice; a practice which seems altogether different from what you are currently using as an example.

For the record, I don't oppose investment overseas (under certain mutually beneficial conditions). However, outsourcing seems to be an inherently destructive process which brings little benefit to foreign workers and impacts negatively domestic ones.

While I agree we need to help encourage economic growth and development in the third world the current model of outsourcing and investment isn't a stable or good thing.

The people that win big are the already wealthy minority of the world. They are able to decimate their competition by providing goods and services at reduced prices. Where they don't have much competition (or when their competition has already been wiped out) they can provide goods and services at the same or a higher price but for a lower cost to them.

This amounts to one of the grandest capital buffets the world has ever known. The wealthy are getting wealthier at an astounding rate, while at the same time the lower and middle classes are barely keeping pace with inflation (and there is much indication that that isn't even the case anymore).

The poor in third world countries see their resources pillaged, their environments ravaged, and their governments under the control of multinational corporations. They cannot unionize, their children work in sweatshops, they are killed if they try to protest or resist, they live on subsistence (or below subsistence) wages, and their local produces are easily run out of business by the cheap, efficient, and quality products of the western industrialists.

Of course, they are being modernized, progress.

Our own workers are being pressed on both sides. They are losing their jobs and wages to inflation and outsourcing, so they have to purchase those same cheap goods from companies that stole their work and status. A worker who lost his or her manufacturing job to overseas labor will go and shop at Wal-Mart, which is helping this process along, because they are compelled to do so. They have to purchase as cheaply as possible because of their increasing poverty.

It's always funny when those on the other side label this non-choice as a vote, as if the worker is voting in favor of these practices simply because they have to buy as cheaply as possible.

1. There are a finite amount of resources in the world.

2. Likewise, a corporation has a finite amount of assets at any given time. A corporation's assets decrease by some fractional amount when they pay wages to American workers.

3. Now, when a corporation moves overseas, and they pay their new employee's wages, they don't have to pay so much; so now, their assets are decreasing by a smaller fractional amount than before.

3a. The corporation's revenue hasn't changed. But now it's got more assets. It can invest in more assets (production facilities) with that money. It can hand out some bonuses to the people at the top (sounds likely). It could lower prices (with the exception of the electronics industry, I don't see prices falling anywhere...)

3b. Let's say the corporation reinvests in itself. Do the employees get a stake in that investment? No. Ignoring for the moment where the employees are located, the net effect of the transaction is that wealth (which is finite) has been redistributed to the top.

"Outsourcing is bad because it destroys jobs for Americans."

Perhaps the more correct statement is 'outsourcing is bad for americans as it reduces their employment opportunity'.

I can't believe you are suggesting that American customers (ie, workers) have at any time demanded that American companies lower the cost of goods in the marketplace by moving their jobs overseas!

What Americans are demanding is a good standard of living with a decent wage so we can afford to buy all the goods and services we need; so we can provide for our families, without working 2 or 3 jobs. Outsourcing to developing nations drives wages down.

The one consumer item that American's are complaining long and hard about is gas. Have the massive, record profits reaped by American Oil interests translated into reduced gas prices? Of course not.

I think it is bad. I mean, our economy is already going to crap, and the government wants us to put money in it, but if we don't have jobs, thus making no money, how can we help it?

I'm not an economist, but I know that corporations don't outsource so they can "pass their savings along" to me. How much does it cost Nike to make a pair of shoes, again?

When corporations offshore jobs they are, in a sense, dumping the labor of that other country into the US job market -- This has the immediate effect of taking money out of the hands of the poor and middle class worker, and, in the longer term, diluting the worth of the American worker. When our jobs go overseas, Americans have to take less skilled jobs that pay less and are less secure. You're saying that it's OK if Americans have less money, because products cost less? Well, the cost of living in America is going up, not down!!!

Who benefits the most from outsourcing? By far, the benefit is disproportionately enjoyed by Management and Shareholders.

Let's take it one step at a time, shall we? We have jobs. Having a job makes sure I'll get paid. Getting paid makes sure the girl at the supermarket won't call the cops to inform a theft, so I can sit back and drink my hard-worked-for coffee and watch my favorite show on my screen. So far so good.

Wikipedia tells me that outsourcing is often made in the interest of lowering firm costs, now - if the firm would have paid her workers in relation to profit, outsourcing would be a definite fair game, since an abundant place like the US could help other poor countries around the world with money and those countries could aid the US with more manpower, most likely even a better manpower.

But the system doesn't work that way. The first advice I have ever heard from the stock exchange field is "Buy low, Sell high", this is a typical capitalist saying. Get as much information as possible, prophesy the cheapest way to get best results, and sell it to suckers.

For an existing and successful firm, the advise would be - figure out a way to produce the (even if only allegedly) same product, with less expenses.

Wasn't the system built by the big boys upstairs, in order for them to keep their seats? If not financially, how else can a man declare himself, to himself and close relatives and friends, the he IS the alpha male?

Outsourcing is bad because it destroys jobs for Americans.

the people who lose their jobs must now find a new job they may not be as well qualified for as their old job. these people will also have more financial problems for some time which will slow down their spending on non-necessary things. this will hurt the economy in America as well as lower the quality of life for Americans.

With companies outsourcing they do not need to maintain as many facilities in the US and thus they are not taxed and thus the government does not make get money for the services it supplies. also companies that outsource do not need to follow the same production requirements as those of companies staying in the US.

Outsourcing is good for some businesses not necessarily the economy or the American people.

when companies outsource they nearly always save money, and are able if they want to reduce the prices of their products or keep them much lower than the competition. this hurts the small companies that can't outsource.

in the end it is about what think is a greater good. I personally value people living better lives where they can find work doing something they like or are good at vs letting a business make more money that most workers won't even notice.

Outsourcing American jobs offshore is bad, and we are just beginning to see the effects of our offshore binge. The scary part is that the majority of the offshore jobs are being sent by financial companies.

So, now, someone working in a call center in India has access to my SSN, my credit card number, and all of my information. The security over there is so lax that they can easily steal that information and start opening up accounts in my name.

Not to mention the fact that corporate greed is driving honest hard-working Americans jobs offshore. It's pathetic.

Granted, outsourcing is not good for American jobs. This is obvious.

Outsourcing is a byproduct of globalization. Globalization is process where societies and cultures have become integrated through a globe-spanning network of communication and execution. This integration of national economies into the international economy through trade, foreign direct investment, capital flow, migration, and the spread of technology has benefited millions of people throughout the world. Outsourcing has put millions into work. We can't blame companies because of global competition. In terms of requirement and regulations, most companies opt to leave the U.S. because of those requirements because they are only trying to compete globally.

Comparative Advantage is the most critical aspect of outsourcing and globalization because it is hard for America to compete with China in labor since China has cheap labor. However, the street goes both ways. If China didn't produce the limitless number of products, how much more money would you be buying things if those were produced in America. Probably, anywhere from $5-10 dollars more per product. Look at some of you everyday things in the house and you will discover what is made in China, Japan, India, and Mexico.

Yes, it is a major problem that America is slowly losing economic strength in the world because of our lost of mass production. We don't produce any goods anymore. All we have is service due to the endless number of products we are offered to buy.

Good for them!

Bad for us :(

Well-educated Americans? Yea, there are, but few. Mal-edukado, a lot....Those are Americans who does not want to listen, getting personal with the customer service agents with accents. English may not be our mother tongue, we speak multi languages. For example, Americans loves items on sales but doesn't know how to read simple instructions whatsoever. The keyword is SELECTED ITEMS. Like, 20% disc on selected items, but they would insist that they are supposed to get disc on items they want. If they cant get it, they would gone mad. People from other countries are laughing for you guys,,,do not think you all are GOD...

One day the world will consist of one market. This is just the beginning and the people reluctant to change are the ignorant people who presume outsourcing is bad.

Just because 73% of American's 'think' outsourcing is bad doesn't make it bad. Who were the people who answered this sruvey? How were they selected? So many questions and so little answers.

Many may not like outsourcing now because they lost their job because of it. but now that the dollar is weak, major corporations are begining to look to the U.S. as a haven for cheap jobs.

Its the reason why Fiat, VW, and Audi all plan on opening new plants in the good old US of A.

The question isn't whether outsourcing of jobs is good or bad for America, the question is whether outsourcing itself is good or bad.

For many Americans, outsourcing is a bad thing. For others, it's a good thing. More importantly, for the world outsourcing is a positive as it lowers trade barriers and enocurages devlopment of underdeveloped countries.

You're comparing Apples to Oranges.

In the end, it's all supply and demand.

Gas is more expensive because there isn't much of it. Jobs are being exported because there is a better workforce somewhere else willing to work at a lower wage. You don't think outsourcing didn't contribute to lower prices? Then just look at the low inflation the US enjoyed throughout most of the 90's and even into 2000.

In the end ask yourself this question: Who needs the jobs more, the richest country on earth or poor, developing countries?

You think an American has a hard time losing their job? Let's see, they can collect unemployment, welfare, and housing assitance.

Someone in India without work is lucky to have a roof over their heads or any food on the table.

Everybody forgets exactly how many jobs have been imported into America. While GM, Ford and Chrysler cut back, Toyota, Nissan, Fiat, Hyundai, Nintendo, Sony, and other overseas companies add jobs.

According to the Organization for International Investment, the numbers of manufacturing jobs insourced to the United States grew by 82 percent, while the number outsourced overseas grew by only 23 percent. Moreover, these insourced jobs are often higher-paying than those outsourced.

Outsourcing isn't a bad thing. What's bad is bad government policies which fail to help people who lost their job get retrained for a better paying job.

Really? Can you provide some specific figures? I seem to remember that in 2003, the US experienced a net increase of jobs. 2003, when globalization was at its apex. I'm sure the figures for 2004, 2005 and 2006 are similar.

As globalization takes place, this is completely natural. If offshore jobs are competitive with the US and cheaper, then US wage rates are clearly in disequilibrium with the rest of the world.

Its a matter of perception. On the macro level its good for everyone. Improved efficiencies and global communication make a flat world (yes I've read that book). In the global market, we aren't concerned with the little stories of blue and white collar layoffs.

I live in an area that has seen a lot of outsourcing, and its good in the long run. The selfish nature of the human spirit is what keeps those thinking thier job was important enough to stay in their town.

Bitter irony, many companies are starting to insource (outsource to them) back to the US. All the foreign car companies are putting in new plants. Sorry Detroit, they're going to other parts of the country.

Good or bad for who? If you're talking about US then there are particular groups that it would negatively impact while others positively. If you're talking about foreign countries then it would also be good since they benefit by earning return for their labour.

"Sound" economic practice? The only "sound" that I hear from this is the sound of all the disgruntled workers in the unemployment office around the corner from my house.

Outsourcing is destroying American jobs and the economy. Look at the mess we're in currently thanks to outsourcing.

Corporations are supposed to do what is best for the shareholders, not for their country or even for their customers. In fact in the US the CEO is required by law to do what's best for these shareholders. And what is best for the shareholders is more profits. More profits come through lowering your cost of goods sold or increasing your revenue (or both). It has been proven time and time again that outsourcing to foreign countries can lower the overall cost of goods that you sell. Therefore, companies must outsource in order to survive today.

Yes, it is ego driven. They lived a much more privileged life than can be expected for people who work in such industries, and demand that the lifestyle be maintained. If we take the living conditions of global manufacturing 'grunts' for want of a better word, the American 'grunt' is excessively well off. Really, all outsourcing is doing is re-balancing the equality, equal pay for equal work. The problem in those communities that rely on manufacturing industries for survival is a shortcoming in the government, and it's inability to encourage high technology industry development. These people are not suffering due to corporate decisions to outsource, but the government's inability to observe the inevitable, and plan ahead. Yes these immediate issues are destructive, however over the course of history, again and again during the era of industrialization, children are exploited, environments defecated upon and nations are exploited, however it strikes me that only after such a nation industrializes, do they preach suffrage and equality and fair trading practices. These ills are intrinsic towards the development of industry. Do you really expect solar panels in Africa, three times as expensive as developing coal, and notoriously unreliable, to power a steel industry? Or that they won't employ child labour and cut their workforce in half?

In relation to domestic production and ownership, yes, it will reduce domestically owned industry, however once enough wealth is achieved, the odds will begin to even. Also, Food is a tenuous example to use as it is a strategic resource as well as economical. Fluctuations in world food prices are also why countries like Japan give 700% subsidies to their farmers, to ensure that the domestic agrarian industry is never lost and in times of strife, will continue to produce. It is also why the EU refuses to reduce tariffs on imported foods, as it will decimate their agriculture.

The same principles of capitalism - supply and demand - should be what guides our world economy and the thinking of Americans. If America doesn't keep itself competitive by outsourcing, we will lose in the long run because we won't be players or winners in the game of supply and demand. Isolating ourselves from the world economy by not outsourcing would be a major, major mistake representative of a country doomed to fail.

The term "out sourcing" adds a negative adjective to what is sound economic practice. When manufacturing prices final goods for the market they must be competitive. American companies can be competitive using resources found all over the world. Labor or other resources need to be secured from all locations. When a competitive product is sold in America by an American company using labor or other resources gained from "out sourced" locations, Americans still win. The US economy has employed some Americans which is far better than not employing any Americans. If their company did not out-source, it would not be competitive and would go out of business.

"The difference between redirecting job creation and and taking someone's job away is that now ego is involved, because that person thinks they have been wronged, while in reality, they have been surpassed. Simply put, they ask for too much."

Ego? You do realize that most of these people have families, they tend to like to be able to provide for them. Also, many communities depend on manufacturing jobs as their primary source of economic activity. You do realize what's been happening in these cities and towns, don't you? Dramatic increases in poverty, crime, drug-abuse, prostitution, dilapidation of homes, main streets, commercial districts, industrial districts. Ego indeed.

"And how is it conclusively destructive? Outsourcing is helping Indians build telecommunications and roads, abet at the expense of American roads and telecommunications. But because the net value cannot really be measured, one cannot definitely conclude that"

You can say that it is conclusively destructive in a number of ways:

It aids and proliferates child labor.

It destroys the environment by taking advantage of weak, small nations with little environmental protections.

It dominates small nations politically, leading to a dramatic decrease in democracy in such nations.

It acts as a force against collective bargaining, unions, both at home and abroad (abroad it tends to bust unions through murder and intimidation, of course).

It decimates domestic production and ownership, which can lead to famine in the case of Haiti (where domestic produces were pushed out by cheap food prices, and then the citizens were left to starve when prices rose way above their income levels).

It increases our already abundant CO2 production by putting emphasis on goods and services that must travel long distances between consumer and producer.

The lists go on. But, to be blunt, these are not destructive if you don't believe in the effects or do not believe the effects are all that bad (or bad at all).

But see, outsourcing is a form of overseas investment, and that is why i support it.

The difference between redirecting job creation and and taking someone's job away is that now ego is involved, because that person thinks they have been wronged, while in reality, they have been surpassed. Simply put, they ask for too much.

And how is it conclusively destructive? Outsourcing is helping Indians build telecommunications and roads, abet at the expense of American roads and telecommunications. But because the net value cannot really be measured, one cannot definitely conclude that

I was rather referring to the consumer's original preference for cheaper goods. Then they loose their job and the spiral begins.

In my reference to Japan and Singapore, their development is due significantly to American investment, money, which may have also been used to develop American Industry, but wasn't. Is that not also loss of employment opportunity? And by opening factories in America, it proves the point that the foreign investment was also returned domestically and hence ultimately aided the American economy.

"Because, the more profitable method was to outsource, it seems to me that the consumer may have driven their own demise."

Are you telling me that consumers are choosing to commit economic suicide?

Let's just put this little hypothetical into play:

I lose my job because my company cut costs by moving it overseas. I am now on a much tighter budget. Because of my tight budget and precarious economic situation I buy the cheapest things I can, which turn out to be goods coming from overseas factories.

This doesn't seem to be the vote of confidence you are making it out to be; especially in cases where the consumer has no idea where the product is made or if their particular product isn't made anywhere but in other countries.

"Furthermore, outsourcing will ultimately drive global wages up, which is much more beneficial than merely maintaining American standards of living at the expense of everyone else. Taking Japan and Singapore as examples, after the initial bout of heavy industrial development, they moved into much more information based services accumulating in higher salaries and gross GDP growth, which in turn stimulated the American economy. Thus while American wages will suffer in the short term, it is a better long term approach to outsource."

I do not remember hearing about any U.S. jobs being sent to Singapore and Japan during the 70s and 80s, in fact, due to protectionist policies implemented by the U.S. government (and other nations) Japanese corporations such as Toyota and Mitsubishi had to open up factories in the United States and Canada in order to increase the number of cars sold.

Yes, the wealth gap widens within America, but no more so than the global wealth gap. Throughout history, the inequality between people is well recorded and indeed it can even be argued that inequality is part of human nature, but that's not what this is about. What I'm saying is that with outsourcing, the African peasant will earn a little more, and narrow the gap between them and the American Worker. What I find frustrating about all these arguments is that they assume the American worker is superior and/or sacred and thus must be protected.

Moreover, you seem to focus on Corporate wealth, but have you ever thought about how 3rd World countries industrialize? It is almost exclusively through foreign investment that poor economies grow and outsourcing is such an investment.

It's good for the foreign countries!

Just to be clear, you are referring to offshore outsourcing, right?

In your hypothetical scenario, the company offshores so it may then lower prices and remain competitive. In reality, I think companies resort to offshoring because they have bowed to investor pressure to maximize short term profits.

There was price competition in this country before we sent millions of jobs overseas. Are corporations not rich enough? Wealth is being redistributed as we speak, and it's going to the very top. I don't see this trend reversing--do you?

The whole corporate model of business is based on infinite resources and endless growth. This model is entirely incompatible with wage parity in any meaningful sense. If you take the wages of the bottom 95% of the world and distribute them equally among that 95%, then 95% of the world would be poor.

Corporations don't think past the next quarter. They have no idea where all this is leading. The people who really run the Corporations from the Board of Directors probably have some kind of plan for where all this is going, but I don't think it involves those of us in the bottom 95%!

The idea that what is good for the Corporation is somehow good for the worker is highly suspect in my opinion. A corporation is a profit machine, nothing more.

Security is a big issue when it comes to outsourcing, however just as a chain is as strong as it's weakest link, the encryption that needs to be overcome is not particularly strong either, and this is the larger issue in terms of security. Nobody should be able to access your information even if they have the data, because of encryption. If the encryption is weak, then it doesn't matter where the information is, because it will be cracked. Indeed, most of the black market data racket is coming not from India, as one might expect, but from Russia's commodity driven economy.

Also, perhaps corporate greed may be driving the American worker's job overseas, but it is giving the 3rd world worker new opportunities and helping to reduce their poverty.

The American consumer shows demand not though petitions or the like, but rather in their choice of purchase. Outsourcing occurs because the consumer chooses the cheaper package over the more expensive despite where it was made. I would suggest that this feedback to companies who outsource, helps them conclude that the consumer wants cheaper goods. Because, the more profitable method was to outsource, it seems to me that the consumer may have driven their own demise.

Furthermore, outsourcing will ultimately drive global wages up, which is much more beneficial than merely maintaining American standards of living at the expense of everyone else. Taking Japan and Singapore as examples, after the initial bout of heavy industrial development, they moved into much more information based services accumulating in higher salaries and gross GDP growth, which in turn stimulated the American economy. Thus while American wages will suffer in the short term, it is a better long term approach to outsource.

Yes, the management and shareholder receives a large slice of the profits, but by outsourcing, americans are investing in the infrastructure and productivity of another country, who have lower living standards and live in poverty. Is it fair on those who are willing to work for less, so that the company may build basic neccessities such as roads and telecommunications equipment, that they should be denied work because the american wants to keep their worth? The worker, and the economy, must evolve with the times, and really, it is egocentric to believe that the american worker is superior to the Chinese, the american telemarketer superior to the Indian. Many people will work just as hard for less because of the side benefits rather than just the whole wage deal, and just because a worker is american does not make them inherently better.

Well, there is Outsourcing and there is OUTsourcing. dnadublin is an irish design studio with head offices in belo horizonte in brazil, same land mass, if you ever need a sofa, let me know, you can always drive down. =)

I agree, outsourcing jobs is ultimately good for the economy. Although this is a very tough pill to swallow and difficult to explain to someone whose job has just been shipped overseas, the fact that it promotes efficiency and cost reduction in companies ultimately benefits more people than it harms. Thus, I believe it is good for the country.

On a macro scale, outsourcing is good for the economy. Customers and investors drive businesses, and customers demand lower prices and investors demand higher profits. In order to lower their cost structure, companies outsource non-critical activities to places where they can get the most value for their money.

This, in turn, allows them to offer their products at a lower price, and depending on what the company does, millions of customers could benefit. Likewise, the investors then receive higher profits and better returns on their investments.

So, while it sucks for Joe Worker that his job has been offshored to India to someone who will do his job for $5 a day and no bathroom breaks, the positive impact it has on a large scale make outsourcing a good thing.