News Is outsourcing/offshoring the biggest threat to the US general economy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ThomasT
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Economy General
Click For Summary
Globalization is seen as a mechanism that redistributes wealth from traditional economic powers to developing nations, impacting American workers negatively during downturns. The primary intent of globalization is to increase profits for companies investing in these developing markets, often at the expense of U.S. jobs, leading to a perception that it does not aim to improve the standard of living for American workers. While globalization may reduce the likelihood of wars between economically intertwined nations, it also raises concerns about environmental degradation and social consequences in developed countries. Critics argue that protective measures against globalization are ineffective and that the focus should be on the profit motives of corporations rather than the welfare of American workers. Overall, the discussion highlights the complex interplay between globalization, economic growth, and the varied impacts on different populations.
  • #31
Here's a link to an interview that mentions outsourcing/offshoring:




And an article by the interviewee on real unemployment:

Leo Hindery said:
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), using its Current Population Survey of non-farm jobs, announced this morning that in March 2011 "U.S. employers increased non-farm payrolls by 216,000 jobs, including 230,000 private sector jobs added in the month versus an adjusted upward 240,000 increase in February. The 'official' unemployment rate edged down to 8.8% from 8.9%."

The consensus expectation was for 195,000 new private sector jobs, versus the 230,000 that were announced. The BLS also identified 13.5 million unemployed workers.

The monthly BLS announcement regarding unemployment, however, as we note each month:

1. Uses only a "survey of households" rather than much more accurate payroll data;

2. Excludes changes in employment among the nation's 11.0 million farm and self-employed workers; and

3. Most important, does not take into account the 14.7 million workers who are:

i. "part-time-of-necessity" (i.e., underemployed) because their hours have been cut back or they are unable to find a full-time job (8.4 million);

ii. "marginally attached" to the labor force because while wanting a job, they have not searched for one in the past four weeks because of availability, skill or personal reasons (2.4 million); or

iii. "discouraged" and who have removed themselves from the labor force although they "currently want a job" (3.8 million).

Our Summary of U.S. Real Unemployment [attachment 1] makes these three adjustments. It also identifies average weeks unemployed, job openings, and the all-important "Jobs Gap" that needs to be filled in order to be at full employment in real terms. With the three adjustments made, in March:

· The number of real unemployed workers in all four categories - official BLS, part-time-of-necessity, marginally attached, and discouraged - decreased by 193,000 workers to 28.2 million, which remains more than twice BLS's official figure of 13.5 million. Significant changes in real employment included: private service-providing sector employment increasing by 199,000 jobs; manufacturing increasing by only 17,000 jobs; construction employment flat after increasing by 37,000 jobs in February; and government employment, mostly local, again declining, this month by 14,000 jobs.

· The real unemployment rate is 17.7%, compared to last month's real unemployment rate of 17.8% and to BLS's dramatically lower 'official' rate of 8.8%.

· The number of real unemployed workers has increased by 11.5 million since the start of the Recession, and just since December 2008 by 3.7 million. The latter figure and the Jobs Gap figure that follows are of significant political import, since the economy needs to add at least 150,000 new private sector jobs each month simply to keep up with population growth.

· The Jobs Gap, in real terms, is 20.2 million.

(Some in the national press, notably the New York Times, when commenting on real unemployment, still leave out those discouraged workers who while wanting a job have removed themselves from the labor force. Yet this remains a huge category (3.8 mm) and arguably the most 'unemployed' of the four categories. The all-in real unemployment rate of 17.7% drops to 15.7% when these workers are not included.)

The average number of weeks unemployed is at least 39.0 and the number of workers unemployed a half year or longer is at least 9.9 million (i.e., BLS's official figure of 6.1 mm plus the 3.8 mm discouraged workers). Each figure remains unprecedented in modern times, and when considered together, they are always a much better measure of the real employment condition than the commonly used weekly "initial jobless claims" number.

Compared to other nine recessions and recoveries since the Second World War, the Great Recession of 2007, which very much continues especially for the long-time real unemployed, remains hindered by our nation's large trade deficit in oil, the large and again growing manufacturing trade deficit with China, and federal tax policies that continue to dissuade job creation here at home.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
you asked bit complicated question.

Interesting read ...
www.alternet.org/world/62848/
 
  • #34
AlephZero said:
OmCheeto said:
The world was a much different place 200 years ago.
Not true.
:rolleyes:
Economics is about human activity. Humans still think the same way as they did 2000 years ago let alone 200. They probably thought the same way when the Neanderthals were around, but the evidence is hard to come by.
Ok Aleph, I'll agree with that.
You really should learn a bit of history. For example compare what has happened over the past few years with the South Sea Bubble, back in the 1720s.

Can you explain exactly what is the difference between "subprime mortage lending" and "The carrying on of an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to know what it is"? I don't see any.
I've been involved in lots of these economics threads, and know lots about economic history. But I have no desire to become an expert in economic history, knowing every bubble that ever existed. On top of that, It's irrelevant to the thread topic.

No thanks. I made over 40% return on my investments (after tax) in 2008. Remind me again how much the economic experts in the US finance "industry" made. I seem to remember it was a negative number.
So are you one of those "investors" that had to change his panties on July 6, 2007?
ThomasT said:

Excellent interview. I'd say it hits the button on the nose.

CAVANAUGH: ... since the manufacturing sector, as you say, has been decimated, can we return to manufacturing here? Is it too late?

NAVARRO: It's not too late. If we have a level playing field, if we let the currency adjustments take place, the wage adjustments that are taking place right now, when we begin to reinvest in America like we should, all's good. But we have to start acting now. We can't—we cannot—let the factory floor in this country collapse anymore than it has.

Like Peter Navarro, I'm still optimistic. Hence I'm still investing in American companies, and buying American goods. Though my finger has been hovering over the GE "sell" button for the last few days...

Oh wait, that was intended for https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=486090"... Ooops. :redface:

GE has been not been playing by Adam Smith's rules.


http://www.bibliomania.com/2/1/65/112/frameset.html"
Book 4, Chapter 2, Page 1
Adam Smith said:
First, every individual endeavours to employ his capital as near home as he can, and consequently as much as he can in the support of domestic industry; provided always that he can thereby obtain the ordinary, or not a great deal less than the ordinary profits of stock.

Wasn't it the Supreme Court of the United States that recently said corporations are individuals?

Is it time for me to divest from GE?

hmmm...

Remember http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disinvestment_from_South_Africa#Criticism"!

----------------------------------
Sorry about my random thought ramblings.
This https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3220506&postcount=7584" appears to be working on my brain as well as my pain.
Push the (Submit Reply) button Om. Push it now...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
I picked the simple example, because a) it is nowhere near as long as a book, and b) does not make much in the way of claims: it simply shows mathematically how and why trade is beneficial to both parties. Before discussing what should be done, or whether a particular situation is good or bad, it's worth understanding the mathematical foundations.
 
  • #36
OmCheeto said:
I've been involved in lots of these economics threads, and know lots about economic history. But I have no desire to become an expert in economic history, knowing every bubble that ever existed. On top of that, It's irrelevant to the thread topic.
Well, I think it's relevant to the constancy of human nature that a lot of economic pain was caused by the public at large being fleeced by financial "experts" (in the UK in 1720, and in the US in recent history). But I accept some people think history didn't start until 1776 :smile:
So are you one of those "investors" that had to change his panties on July 6, 2007?
Sorry, you lost me there. I guess that must be the date of something significant in US economics (though Google hasn't told me what it was) but I'm in the UK.

GE has been not been playing by Adam Smith's rules.
Adam Smith said:
First, every individual endeavours to employ his capital as near home as he can, and consequently as much as he can in the support of domestic industry; provided always that he can thereby obtain the ordinary, or not a great deal less than the ordinary profits of stock.
Note the words "endeavours" and "provided that". Sometimes the grass really is greener in the next field.
 
  • #37
AlephZero said:
Well, I think it's relevant to the constancy of human nature that a lot of economic pain was caused by the public at large being fleeced by financial "experts" (in the UK in 1720, and in the US in recent history). But I accept some people think history didn't start until 1776 :smile:
Well, I know for a fact that history started around 3500 bc:

Sumerians first created their cuneiform writing ... more than 5,000 years ago. ... These clay tablets ... contain the world's first epics, the first recorded histories, the first medical prescriptions(thank freakin god!), the first accounting ledgers...

little&boldscript mine

And according to Christopher Woods (2010), "The earliest Mesopotamian writing":

pfhistoryofpreservedwrittenlanguage.jpg


It wasn't for another six hundred years before King Mebaragesi could brag about how many goats he had.

ie. I have 300 goats... vs. I have 300 goats. Ha ha ha ha ha ha. I got more than you do. (I'm fairly certain that Parker and Stone are both of Kish decent.)

Sorry, you lost me there. I guess that must be the date of something significant in US economics (though Google hasn't told me what it was) but I'm in the UK.
I wish you kids would update your profiles with where you are from. This is a U.S. hosted forum, and this is a U.S. centered thread topic, with over 250,000 members from all over the world. I cannot keep all of you straight in my head.

Anyways, July 7th, 2007, was the day they repealed the uptick rule here in the colonies. Just a few months later, the market started it's; "I think I'm going to be sick, no wait, I'm fine, urp, oh wait, urp, oh don't mind me, I'm fine, holy crap, vomit" collapse. The fact that you made a 40% return on your investments while the markets tanked in 2008, implied in my little feeble mind, that you were shorting everything. Not a bad strategy by the way, given there's nothing wrong with it, it makes the markets more efficient, and it was outlawed for hundreds of years in some parts of the world.


Note the words "endeavours" and "provided that". Sometimes the grass really is greener in the next field.

I don't watch TV anymore, but I was at a friends house the other day, and there was talk of our companies moving to Ireland. They've got fairly green grass don't they?

Oh wait. That was tax avoidance. I keep mixing up these two damned threads.

What the hell is this thread about? Outsourcing. hmmm...

Complicated topic. Everything is fine "economically", unless of course, it's your job that get's outsourced.

Surprised that the Chamber Opposed Anti-Outsourcing Bill? Don't Be...
Posted by Christy Setzer on September 28, 2010

If you were surprised that the US Chamber-- an organization that announced, with much fanfare last year, a campaign to create 20 million new jobs-- OPPOSED the Senate bill to crack down on outsourcing, well, don't be. The giant lobbying organization's been pretty keen on outsourcing for some time now. Here are some of our favorite quotes from the Chamber on taking American jobs and putting them overseas:

Odd that all of the quotes are from 2004.

hmm... time for my meds. bbl.
 
  • #38
From Norman's thread How to make $5.1 Billion (US) and not pay federal taxes : http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/b...580187-HWK/YsUY3H85DTyZ4E8 3Q&pagewanted=all"

While G.E.’s declining tax rates have bolstered profits and helped the company continue paying dividends to shareholders during the economic downturn, some tax experts question what taxpayers are getting in return. Since 2002, the company has eliminated a fifth of its work force in the United States while increasing overseas employment. In that time, G.E.’s accumulated offshore profits have risen to $92 billion from $15 billion.

“That G.E. can almost set its own tax rate shows how very much we need reform,” said Representative Lloyd Doggett, Democrat of Texas, who has proposed closing many corporate tax shelters. “Our tax system should encourage job creation and investment in America and end these tax incentives for exporting jobs and dodging responsibility for the cost of securing our country.”
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #39
OmCheeto said:
Well, I know for a fact that history started around 3500 bc...
My bible-thumping uncle agrees with you, but I'm one of those radicals who actually thinks we've been around a little longer. :biggrin:
 
  • #40
OmCheeto said:
Well, I know for a fact that history started around 3500 bc:

Al68 said:
My bible-thumping uncle agrees with you, but I'm one of those radicals who actually thinks we've been around a little longer. :biggrin:

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, "history" didn't start until the 14th century.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/history
 
  • #41

Similar threads

  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
9K
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
10K
Replies
37
Views
8K
Replies
33
Views
7K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
7K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K