While viewing FoxNews earlier, they did a segment on outsourcing;

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113761,00.html

The article correlates with other commentary and reports I've read, that perhaps the whole outsourcing issue has been overblown by the Democrats. While this article doesn't list numbers, the interview did. Kane himself said that the loss of jobs to outsourcing was very minimal to the actual number of jobs in the US (he compared it to a not even a tenth of a percentage point in actual jobs).

Another item of interest was that Robert Reich, who served under Clinton as Secretary of Labour, viewed outsourcing as part of the economy revival and predicted that in 18 months the number of jobs lost to outsourcing would be minimal compared to the number of jobs gained.

I guess my question is this;

Do you think outsourcing is truely the problem it's been made out to be?

I do not think it is. Due to the article above along with the interviews and reports done by other economists (along with Greenspan's comments on this issue as well) over the past few months, I believe that outsourcing is not truely as damaging to the economy as it's been made out to be that perhaps the issue has become more politicized fodder then an actual issue.

Outsourcing didn't start when G.W. was sworn in. It's been going on for a long time, maybe forty years or so. Old jobs go away, new jobs replace them. The problem now is that new jobs aren't replacing them fast enough. Why? Part of the answer is that government makes it too hard to create new jobs. I'd be for tackling the problem that way: reduce regulations that make it difficult and expensive to create jobs.

Btw, Robert Reich is a smart guy, one of the best Democrats to listen to; he's very liberal but he's also a good economist.

This should make my fellow Republicans chuckle;

http://www.heinz.com/jsp/di/corp_pro2003/corpProfile9.jsp

Terasa Heinz Kerry...

Most of the factories of the Heinz business are in foreign countries, I counted eight out of far to many more for me care to count factories in the US.

Maybe John Kerry should look at his own family before stumping on outsourcing considering how much money his wife has gained from it (correct me if I'm wrong, ain't she worth 800+ million?)....

From the frontpage;

Yes it is a problem, but it is also unavoidable unless you're willing to take another look at free trade. I would like to take issue with one thing however.



"Spinners" love to through numbers around on this on both sides. If you want to get a better idea of the reality of this, I think it would be better if people presented the statistics based on average wages rather then the number of jobs.

If a town closes a small factory but opens 2 restaurants they maybe lost 30 jobs but gained 30 jobs. However the jobs gained pay minimum or near minimum wage while the jobs lost paid good wages.

Personally, I'd like to see these numbers based on wages before I believe jobs have been gained.

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-5172975.html

The article above details a few of Greenspan's recent views on outsourcing and protectionist policies.

Interesting article, though it doesn't really say anything new. However, it doesn't address the issue of lost wages and the difference in wages between jobs lost and jobs gained.

I can't say for certain that this is really a problem. Not without statistics on job losses and gains that compare wages. I do suspect that the gains are in areas that pay significantly less then the losses though.

Yes.

I've been looking for those same statistics as well as I'd like to get better a understanding of outsourcing (if it's is as detrimental or not to the economy and the American worker as it's recently been pointed to be), I've yet to have any luck finding any though.

I am in the same boat. Perhaps someone out there that is better versed in sources of statistics will point the way.

I for one think job loss and job gain numbers are meaningless if we don't:

A> consider wages and any differences between them

B> consider new small businesses started by the previously unemployed or outsourced.

Not as far as raw economics go.

However, it could get to be a problem if the United States continues its refusal to compete with other nations to be the most attractive spot for manufacturing and entrepreneurial activity. The danger is that more and more U.S. companies will be swallowed up by international conglomorates, and then the innovative people needed for a strong economy will disappear.

We can start by cutting our exorbitant corporate tax rate, "ideally," as National Review put it, "to a rate no higher than Ireland's."

I also believe that we should be considering whether we want nations like Mexico or China to be taking over our manufacturing sector. I'm not sure how much we should trust Mexico right now (especially since Fox seems more than willing to dump its impoverished population in the States so he doesn't have to worry about it), and I certainly don't trust China to be a reliable source of equipment in times of war.

Outsourcing is not merely an economic issue; it is an issue of preserving our national sovereignty.

One more thing: I think it should be the policy of the United States that if another nation imposes a tarrif on us, we will give them a set period to revoke it, or else impose an identical tarrif on them.