[quote=Bleuachdu][quote="Short Hand":cf072]Why do you think these company's leave America...... TO [b]EXPLOIT[/b] CHEAP LABOR. It is not a matter of being nice to foreign people. These jobs were in America. They fired hard working average joe's.....To go and exploit Poor joe oversea, or south of the border... I am trying to be nice while explaining this to you......
[/quote]
First of all, outsourcing and offshoring are not the same thing. What you are referring to is offshoring; or sending jobs overseas. Outsourcing is simply contracting another firm to handle a business or administrative function you are not capable of.
Second, why does sending work to China or Mexico or India mean that workers will be exploited? There are certainly extreme cases of sweatshops and child labor, but on the whole, American companies typically pay beyond competitive salaries to foreign workers.
Please, google "Maquiladoras" to learn more about Mexican border factories. Yes, there are problems in these factories with poor worker conditions. However, when companies like Ford & GM pay the Mexican workers 3 to 4 times the average local salary, is it really exploitation? “Poor Joe” is now upper-middle class Joe and can afford to take care of his family and send his kids to college. In addition, the Big 3 motor companies who have set up operations along the border have recently encouraged the Mexican workers to form a Union to protect themselves. Is that EXPLOITATION? You have to remember; a big American company comes into a depraved Mexican area and pours money into the local economy. Thousands of jobs are created and on a microeconomic scale, the area flourishes.
Finally, in addition to supporting foreign markets and economies, offshoring is actually beneficial domestically. Moving jobs offshore creates a temporary vacuum in the domestic market. However, the primary motivation for moving jobs offshore is to lower costs. If costs are actually lowered, what happens to the savings? An unethical CEO may pocket the extra money, however if the CEO is smart, he’ll reinvest the money locally. Whether it’s back into his own company or into domestic markets doesn’t matter. The fact remains that he is spending locally which increases the GDP.
Think of it this way: producing a product costs $1000/unit domestically. Producing the same item in Mexico costs $100/unit. If the corporation is smart, it will maintain its sale price for the item and take the $900 and reinvest it locally. Remember, investing produces a return (if you’re smart) so over a period of time, that $900 may become $1000 again. This $900+ spent domestically increases the economic well-being of a market. In this example, we take an industry, manufacturing, and assume that costs are drastically lower in a foreign country. The domestic manufacturing industry will ultimately suffer, however the capital savings passed on from foreign countries can be applied to other industries, which will ultimately see growth. Maybe the company that saved $900 on manufacturing decides to double the size of their IT department to increase ease of communications between their domestic and international business units. Manufacturing jobs were lost, but IT jobs were gained; see my point?
What we’re talking about here is globalization. Do you understand that? I think the eventual effect will be that the Mexican/Chinese/Indian/South American labor forces will eventually be on an even keel with those in the United States, salaries and standards of living will be similar across varying markets and the cycle of business will continue. Could it be that the globalization model would actually help third world countries? I don’t know if that will happen or not. What I do know is that you should study up on this before ranting about it with your buddies between bong hits.
Here are some supporting arguments:
[url:cf072]http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/3015027[/url:cf072]
[url:cf072]http://www.isanet.org/noarchive/quintero.html[/url:cf072]
[url:cf072]http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/publications/myths.asp[/url:cf072]
[url:cf072]http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/3014031[/url:cf072]
[url:cf072]http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=S%27%298%24%24P17%2B%21P %22P%0A[/url:cf072]
[url:cf072]http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguide_offshoring[/url:cf072]
[url:cf072]http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/89/essay.html[/url:cf072]
[url:cf072]http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/publications/win_win_game.asp[/url:cf072][/quote:cf072]
I am not argueing the economics of it. That was never my intention. YES it saves money... YES IT IS CHeaper. It is the [i]morality[/i] behind the concept. offshoring, outsourcing.. blah blah blah.. HAS been going on for YEARS.... Mexico is still in Poverty. Labor laws theri are no where near what they are hear. If offshoring in theiory is so beneficial, then why has it not shown itself yet ? where are these lush flourishing mexican communitys ?
WHy are they fleeing in record numbers to come here... ?
[url="http://edition.cnn.com/US/9604/13/mexican.border/"]http://edition.cnn.com/US/9604/13/mexican.border/[/url]
Why are alot of them living in shacks, in horrible conditions, if all these jobs are being created their ? Yes theri is some good in it, People getting great jobs etc etc....but cheap general labor is the name of the game. Why pay an American worker 30 an hour, when this Mexican, chinese, or Indian man will do it for 2 an hour.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3072272/3072272
http://globalization.about.com/od/outso ... horing.htm
offshoring has good, and bad. We will never agree on the topic, THis is just my final setiment on the issue.
03-16-2005, 08:10 AM
Linear Mode
