OT Food for thought

I don't often find myself in agreement with Thomas Friedman and I'm
not sure if I'll end up agreeing with this column, but it did cause
me to think of outsourcing in a different way. This will be of little
consolation to those whose jobs have disappeared, but it is food for
thought.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/26/opinion/26FRIE.html

Also in today's Times, (scary **** this ;-), a front page article
on Max Cleland that could have been culled from the pages of roff,
well, with a little bit of editing and a whole lot of cleaning up. ;-)

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/26/po...gn/26CLEL.html

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 16:06:40 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

I don't often find myself in agreement with Thomas Friedman and I'm
not sure if I'll end up agreeing with this column, but it did cause
me to think of outsourcing in a different way. This will be of little
consolation to those whose jobs have disappeared, but it is food for
thought.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/26/opinion/26FRIE.html

FWIW, the US companies whose goods are used in Indian call centers
also outsource the development, production, support, etc,. of those
same goods to India, Asia, etc. So yeah, there is a US brand name on
the product, but it probably wasn't produced in the US. US companies
are, for the most part, managed for their investors not their
employees. Wall Street loves a layoff, but they love outsourcing even
more.
--
Charlie...

Ken Fortenberry wrote in news:jQo%
:

I don't often find myself in agreement with Thomas Friedman and I'm
not sure if I'll end up agreeing with this column, but it did cause
me to think of outsourcing in a different way. This will be of little
consolation to those whose jobs have disappeared, but it is food for
thought.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/26/opinion/26FRIE.html

Also in today's Times, (scary **** this ;-), a front page article
on Max Cleland that could have been culled from the pages of roff,
well, with a little bit of editing and a whole lot of cleaning up. ;-)

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/26/po...gn/26CLEL.html


Ken--

I often find myself in agreement with Friedman (you might have noticed!),
but I think he's missing a little bit here.

His thoughts on US companies supporting international offices hold only
until Carrier and CocaCola move out of the US themselves, and of course
the issue of "net" jobs needs to be carefully calculated. If we're
losing high paid jobs to be replaced by a lesser number of blue collar
jobs, this isn't necessarily good.

I can agree with opinions widely expressed to the effect that
"something" will come along to replace those lost jobs. However, it
seems like when we're talking about something like people's ability to
feed their families, we should have a slightly better idea about what
that "something" is.

Maybe this wouldn't be a big issue if economies moved slowly, but today
technology is advancing things faster than economies can keep up. A
slightly protectionist attitude aimed towards slowing down labor shifts,
along with a steering-committee type plan regarding where our economy
should go, so long as there is a timetable for de-protection, might not
be the stupidest thing that the US could do.

Scott

From: Scott Seidman

However, it
seems like when we're talking about something like people's ability to
feed their families, we should have a slightly better idea about what
that "something" is.

Yes, indeed.

Maybe this wouldn't be a big issue if economies moved slowly, but today
technology is advancing things faster than economies can keep up.

A
slightly protectionist attitude aimed towards slowing down labor shifts,
along with a steering-committee type plan regarding where our economy
should go, so long as there is a timetable for de-protection, might not
be the stupidest thing that the US could do.

I agree. The horse is out of the barn, and we can't, (and maybe shouldn't),
stop it, but we do need some way to buy time and develop a strategy for the
future. It took about ten years before outsourcing really had a major impact on
manufacturing jobs, but it only took a very short time to impact call centers,
etc.

Another thing that worries me: I contually hear people from all over the
political spectrum fret over our dependence on foriegn oil....how about our
dependence on foriegn manufacturing?


George Adams

"All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of
youth that doth not grow stale with age."
---- J.W Muller

ojunk (George Adams) wrote in message ...

I agree. The horse is out of the barn, and we can't, (and maybe shouldn't),
stop it, but we do need some way to buy time and develop a strategy for the

Outsourcing is inherently an unsustainable mechanism. It only
benefits those who use it first. A good question to ask oneself
when deciding whether to do something or not is "what would
happen if everyone did it?".

Outsourcing assumes that those who produce the product cannot
afford to buy it. Or, put another way, it's goal is to pay wages
to build a product lower than it takes to make someone a consumer
of the product. If all jobs (i.e., wages) are outsourced to a
cheaper market, no one is left to buy the product. The whole thing
fails on the asymptote.

What's the alternative? Having goods produced in the market they
are intended for. Yes, that means everything would cost more. Some
things alot more. Yes, that means no KPOS 3wt (OBROFF). Yes, that
means we would all have to own less. But that wouldn't be a bad thing
for most of us...

I'm ready for flames. I understand the downsides of protectionism
and all that. All I'm saying (as I did for a different topic way
back when rw was touting a Linux stock) is we're in a Ponzi scheme.
We live at a standard that is unsustainable, as it is achieved through
unsustainable "optimizations". It _will_ fail eventually, the only
question is when. And I for one am starting to think sooner rather
than later...

Jon.

"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message
m...
ojunk (George Adams) wrote in message
...

a lot of sensible stuff snipped

It _will_ fail eventually, the only
question is when. And I for one am starting to think sooner rather
than later...

Jon.

I couldn't agree more.. When Teva sandles moved to Indonesia, Teva's
averaged around 60 bucks a pair, and production costs at their Portland
facility were something like $13,000 per hour**, a few years after the move,
production costs had dropped to a couple of thousand an hour, and a pair of
sandle put you back $79.95.



** its been a while since i actually looked at these numbers, so if I got it
wrong somewhere, mea culpa.

On 26 Feb 2004 15:29:27 -0800, (Jonathan Cook)
wrote:

(George Adams) wrote in message ...

I agree. The horse is out of the barn, and we can't, (and maybe shouldn't),
stop it, but we do need some way to buy time and develop a strategy for the

Outsourcing is inherently an unsustainable mechanism. It only
benefits those who use it first. A good question to ask oneself
when deciding whether to do something or not is "what would
happen if everyone did it?".

[snip]

Jon.

Is it all bad? Well maybe yes, maybe no. The decline in trade
unionism is also mirroring a decline in well-paying blue collar
manufacturing jobs and seeing them replaced by non-union McJobs.
Employment standards are eroding in parallel with union decline as
these standards were dependent on the political clout of the unions to
to maintain them. In manufacturing it appears we are in a race to the
bottom. The Walmartification of both our economies is well under way.

But is that always true? Is this something unique? Well, no it
isn't. Ever since the Industrial Revolution started in England,
social institutions have never kept pace with technological
advancement. Structural unemployment is an artifact of this reality.
Capital is extrermely mobile, production is very mobile, but labour is
not. Capital changes very rapidly, production capability changes
rapidly, but labour does not. Since those first few factories started
up in England, labour has never kept pace with technology.

When NAFTA was signed into law, Ross Perot predicted there would be a
huge sucking sound made by all of the jobs flowing south across the
border. He was right. Canada and especially Ontario, was shoved into
the throes of a vicious recession as huge numbers of manufacturing
jobs flowed out of high standards, high wage Ontario, into the low
standards, low wage states of the US. The manufacturing sector of
Ontario was gutted. Ontario was a miserable place to be in the early
1990s for our earning power fell steadily behind that of the US. At
the beginning of the decade, I might have had the earning power of my
equivalent in the US but by the end of the decade, it was around 60%
to 70% of that level. Had we enjoyed a free trade agreement in
labour, we would not have had this earning loss for our skilled
workers could have followed their jobs to the US. Those companies
that remained would have had to compete with US salaries to retain
those workers and our salaries would have kept up. But NAFTA did not
include a free trade in labour and the remnents of Ontario's
manufacturing sector started to enjoy the benefits of a captive,
passive, and insecure labour force.

Was it the end of the world? No. Modern economies are very resilient
and Ontario turned around so much so that, by the end of the decade,
it was roaring along, outpacing the US. We still have plenty of
problems, largely caused by declining tax revenue (as a percentage of
GDP), due in large part by our inability to make corporations pay
their fair share and have them stay in Canada. In teh 1960's, the
income tax take was split roughly 50-50 between personal and corporate
sources. Today, the corporate share is only about 7%. The tax burden
falls disproportionately on the middle class to support both the poor
and the corporate welfare bums. Consequently, much of our public
infrastructure is eroding. But, we're doing OK. We do have a growing
disparity in wages as the working poor contiue to decline, but a new
entrepreneur class, high tech industries, and other growth sectors are
leading to a resurgence in earning power.

So, the current trend in the US will balance out. The
Walmartification of the US economy will hurt, especially considering
the cost of the war and the fiscal ineptitude of the current
administration, yet it will turn around. I do know that protectionism
would be just about the worst thing you could do. Whatever job losses
you stem in those under-competitive, declining sectors, they will be
more than offset by job losses in other sectors in the economy,
directly caused by protectionism. Protectionism helps the declining
sectors of your economy and punishes the performing sectors. I always
laugh when I hear the righties wail about the need for protectionism
because it's such a lefty thing to do.

RDL's comments in a previous thread are symptomatic of the arrogant
blindness that prevents many Americans from understanding just how
dependent the maintenance of their well being depends on other
nations. Protectionism in the US has always been bolstered by the
notion that America can go it alone. America never has been able to
go it alone and it can't especially now. It's a nice little fantasy
but it has never been true. Hell, American males even need a foreign
contry to help them with their hard-ons. The next you take the little
blue pill to get a stiffy, remember to hum a few bars of, "Rule
Britannia" in gratitude.

Globalization is probably the grandest expermiment in human history.
So please do remember to fasten your seat belts as the ride will be a
little rough. Oh, and please do remember that the global trade rules
driving Globalization are maintained by the WTO and supported by other
international organizations such as the World Bank and the IMF, and
international trade agreements like NAFTA. Institutions and agrements
that were developed in American, by America, for the benefit of
America. This game is being played out according to your rules so it
still works out in your favour more often than not.

So, remember the little blue pill, the next to time you get the urge
to vote the protectionist line and do both your lady and your country
a favour.

(BTW,. if you're having trouble squaring this post with my last one, I
figure it's pointless to swim against the tide -- also a decent
metaphor for protectionism and globalization.)

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html

In article , Peter Charles
wrote:

On 26 Feb 2004 15:29:27 -0800, (Jonathan Cook)
wrote:

(George Adams) wrote in message
...

I agree. The horse is out of the barn, and we can't, (and maybe shouldn't),
stop it, but we do need some way to buy time and develop a strategy for the

Outsourcing is inherently an unsustainable mechanism. It only
benefits those who use it first. A good question to ask oneself
when deciding whether to do something or not is "what would
happen if everyone did it?".

[snip]

Jon.

snipped

But is that always true? Is this something unique? Well, no it
isn't. Ever since the Industrial Revolution started in England,
social institutions have never kept pace with technological
advancement. Structural unemployment is an artifact of this reality.
Capital is extrermely mobile, production is very mobile, but labour is
not. Capital changes very rapidly, production capability changes
rapidly, but labour does not. Since those first few factories started
up in England, labour has never kept pace with technology.

More Petah's pertinent stuff snipped

It's true, I understand the buggy whip and barrel stave making trades
are expecting large layoffs.
Since we evolved into a mfg society it's been a case of continual
education and awareness of the viabiiity of ones trade to earn a living
and to ensure you have a job in the mid and long term. Not saying it's
the best way and not saying that formal or OJT education alone will
save you but it seems to be reality. The other thing I note is folks
seem to not want to move to find jobs. I was out hiking in the
Patapsco forest with the dog last fall and ran into an older guy
sitting on the bank tying a new leader. I stopped and exchanged
pleasantries and he mined me for a bit of information about my home
river (FF'ing content noted). He had just moved from Dallas and was in
the large building construction industry business. He said the
DC-Baltimore corridor was experiencing the highest rate of commercial
building construction in the country yet he couldn't get workers to
move here. I asked if it was a pay issue since this is a high cost of
living area and he said they were paying union wages plus a 30% cost of
living allowance and even still they were about 50% manned on the three
sites he was a foreman for. Maybe since I grew up in Chicago, moved to
Indianpolis in HS, Lived in Pensacola for flight school, then
Washington state and then Marlyland I've learned that each part of this
country (and our friends to the north Peter!) have something to offer
that's worth seeing so if the jobs worth doing or it's what has to be
done to earn a living I'd be willing to relocate.

Allen
Catonsville, MD (for now)

"Peter Charles" wrote:


But is that always true? Is this something unique? Well, no it
isn't. Ever since the Industrial Revolution started in England,
social institutions have never kept pace with technological
advancement. Structural unemployment is an artifact of this reality.
Capital is extremely mobile, production is very mobile, but labor is
not. Capital changes very rapidly, production capability changes
rapidly, but labour does not. Since those first few factories started
up in England, labour has never kept pace with technology.



RDL's comments in a previous thread are symptomatic of the arrogant
blindness that prevents many Americans from understanding just how
dependent the maintenance of their well being depends on other
nations. Protectionism in the US has always been bolstered by the
notion that America can go it alone. Britannia" in gratitude.

Globalization is probably the grandest experiment in human history.
So please do remember to fasten your seat belts as the ride will be a
little rough.
Peter

IJ offers----good stuff peter - I'm currently enjoying a course at our
local college on global economic history and have been amazed to learn
more about Britannia's end of empire in U.S., Africa, and India.
I think empire U.S. will more likely follow the example of the Ottoman
Empire--it just went bankrupt.

Peter Charles wrote in message . ..

Is it all bad?

Of course not, for the top 10% or so (of which I am one, I guess).
We still need the 90% to serve us meals, fix our car, do our
yardwork, and be our ghillie on the river (OBROFF).

Structural unemployment is an artifact of this reality.

That's nice and sanitized, but _people_ are having to live it.

Modern economies are very resilient
and Ontario turned around so much so that, by the end of the decade,
it was roaring along

For the top 10% or for everyone?

... Consequently, much of our public
infrastructure is eroding. But, we're doing OK. We do have a growing
disparity in wages as the working poor contiue to decline

Sounds like you're heading towards feudalization as fast as we are...

laugh when I hear the righties wail about the need for protectionism
because it's such a lefty thing to do.

IMO it's populist, not right or left.

that were developed in American, by America, for the benefit of
America. This game is being played out according to your rules so it
still works out in your favour more often than not.

Oh, I know. It makes it easier to delude the 90% (of Americans) that
they're not heading towards serfdom because the effects aren't seen
by them as quickly.

Jon.

PS: Actually, I don't begrudge other countries wanting to provide
more and better jobs for their people -- 90% of the gradute students
who have worked with me are foreign, and are great people. But as
you say, the global trade rules don't really help them either -- just
treats them as more serfs. I understand the world that technology,
communication, transportation, and all that makes, and no, I don't
have any answers. I just think it's plain as day that the ROFFians
my age (quickly heading towards 40) and under better start thinking
about how they might plan for some _serious_ societal upheaval.