Job "Exportation" Discussed by Harry Browne

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Discuss and have fun. Browne makes a strong arguement, so I agree with him.

[Crown]

Just going to comb through the article and quote passages I liked/disliked. I will write my reasons, whether they are true or not I do not know, for I do not profess to be an economist.

The only concrete solution that's been offered (that I've come across) is the introduction of state laws to require any companies doing business with the state government to produce their products within the U.S.

That's fine, as far as it goes. However they prevailing wisdom behind globalisation is that we don't impose barriers to companies and protect our markets, thus increased competition will result in lower prices. This smacks or protectionism to me.

Since American wages have always been much higher than wages in Thailand, India, Indonesia, and other Asian countries, why weren't American companies exporting jobs to those countries 30 or 40 years ago?

I don't know. Obviously laws would have changed between now and then, one can also ask was there the possibility of a companie to be able to export these jobs back then?

Since wages in African countries are even lower than those in Asian countries, why aren't American companies exporting jobs to Africa?

See above. Also the political realities in Africa do make it a more higher risk, than the more stable Asian governments.

Since wages in America are lower than those in Japan, why don't Japanese companies export jobs to America? Yes, they have factories here that employ Americans, but those plants make products that are sold here. They don't ship the products to Japan to be sold. American companies build factories in foreign countries but don't sell the products there; they bring the products here for sale.

It is hardly a secret that Japan engages in more than a little enthusiastic subsidised and closed economy.

Most likely, companies are heading overseas because U.S. regulators just won't quit heaping more and more demands on American corporations. . . .

• About the only sure way a company can avoid discrimination suits by government regulators or individuals is to hire by quotas, which certainly isn't the most efficient way to build a workforce.

• EPA officials can make a company's life miserable by demanding changes in the way a product is produced — changes that conform to government rules but don't make the environment any safer.

• At any time a company might have to make major changes in its facilities to accommodate new rules for dealing with disabled employees or customers.

• In addition to the wages paid to employees, companies must collect and contribute to payroll taxes that grow bigger and bigger over the years.

I neither have the knowledge to go trough these points one at a time, and I am even less possesed by the inclination, but I assume the author has some solid evidence of some of his claims. What am I saying? It's in print so it has to be right!

I am not going to deny that there isn't a negative impact on companies if government chooses to over regulate.

But for fucks sake! EPA = Satan, equal opportunities = inefficient hiring practices and providing adequate facilities for disabled employees = breaking the bank?

Pull the other one. What's next? Limiting the minimum working age robs companies of a huge market of labour? Or how about corprate responsibility to share holders is asking too much?

I am sorry, this guy is a looney.

[kojikun]

The problem is that jobs aren't vanishing, they're changing sector. The boring, mindless jobs like DB administration and factory work go overseas, but the innovation, research, and development isn't going anywhere and those jobs are lacking much needed people. But the people being fired aren't looking for those jobs, they're looking for their standard, mechanically-boring, mindless, number-crunching jobs, which they won't find. This is from an IT perspective, anyways. It's the same thing as when manufacturing jobs were mechanized during the industrial revolution. Give it time and it will result in copious more jobs and money with some period of turmoil where the workers are out of worker jobs waiting to realize that there's infinitely more operations and management jobs opening up.

Wired has a great article:

http://wired.com/wired/archive/12.02/india.html

[Iceberg]

The problem is that jobs aren't vanishing, they're changing sector. The boring, mindless jobs like DB administration and factory work go overseas, but the innovation, research, and development isn't going anywhere and those jobs are lacking much needed people. But the people being fired aren't looking for those jobs, they're looking for their standard, mechanically-boring, mindless, number-crunching jobs, which they won't find. This is from an IT perspective, anyways. It's the same thing as when manufacturing jobs were mechanized during the industrial revolution. Give it time and it will result in copious more jobs and money with some period of turmoil where the workers are out of worker jobs waiting to realize that there's infinitely more operations and management jobs opening up.

Wired has a great article:

http://wired.com/wired/archive/12.02/india.html

The problem is that the "standard, mechanically-boring, mindless" jobs in IT are the ones that give inexperienced people experience without putting them in charge of decisions that could cost lives or billions of dollars.

[Thinkmarble]

I.
Someone capeable to do the mindnumbing job may not be capeable to do a non-mindnumbing one
II.
The article is insofar correct, that regulations in regards to enviroment, anti-discrimination and worker health is one of the push factors.
Companies are not moral actors and more interested in earning money then doing the right thing so it is not surprising that they will follow a strategy that will maximize profits.

[Wicked Pilot]

If you want a good job, then you go to school and make yourself competitive. If that's too hard for you, and you want to do easy repetitive task for a living, then I suggest McDonalds, or a plane ticket overseas.

[Master of Ossus]

Companies are not moral actors and more interested in earning money then doing the right thing so it is not surprising that they will follow a strategy that will maximize profits.

It's more than that. If one company refuses to maximize profits while another company in the same industry DOES maximize profits, then eventually the first company is going to go out of business or it's going to be bought out. Either way, the workers are EVENTUALLY screwed.

That being said, the more you have to train your workers, the more benefits you should be willing to give them since it costs vastly more to hire a replacement. Thus, skilled workers like doctors, economists, scientists, and engineers should actually BENEFIT from this sort of work.

[Darth Wong]

Have you people read the article? The guy is a moron.

But just once I would like to see someone on television ask one of these politicians, reporters, or "experts" the following question:

Since American wages have always been much higher than wages in Thailand, India, Indonesia, and other Asian countries, why weren't American companies exporting jobs to those countries 30 or 40 years ago?

Maybe because those countries were utterly devoid of skilled workers 30-40 years ago. This is rapidly changing, particularly in India.

Or

Since wages in African countries are even lower than those in Asian countries, why aren't American companies exporting jobs to Africa?

Obviously because of the lack of skilled workers.

Or

Since wages in America are lower than those in Japan, why don't Japanese companies export jobs to America? Yes, they have factories here that employ Americans, but those plants make products that are sold here. They don't ship the products to Japan to be sold. American companies build factories in foreign countries but don't sell the products there; they bring the products here for sale.

That's because they are choosing instead to export their jobs to Korea, China, and other Asian countries instead of the US ... because of cheap labour. Is this guy really such a fucking imbecile that he thinks these three questions are unanswerable and will devastate the argument for wage pressures driving labour overseas? Does he know nothing about what's been happening to the Japanese economy for the last 15 years? Any moron can easily walk to Best Buy, turn a Panasonic DVD player upside down, and see "Made in China" on the bottom, where it would have said "Made in Japan" 15 years ago. Jesus Fuck, this guy is a retard.

If you think about these questions, you can't help coming to the conclusion that jobs aren't being "exported" because of wage differentials, but rather for some other reason.

Or, you could simply notice that all three questions have a FUCKING OBVIOUS answer.

What is the reason?

Most likely, companies are heading overseas because U.S. regulators just won't quit heaping more and more demands on American corporations. . . .

1. About the only sure way a company can avoid discrimination suits by government regulators or individuals is to hire by quotas, which certainly isn't the most efficient way to build a workforce.
2. EPA officials can make a company's life miserable by demanding changes in the way a product is produced — changes that conform to government rules but don't make the environment any safer.
3. At any time a company might have to make major changes in its facilities to accommodate new rules for dealing with disabled employees or customers.
4. In addition to the wages paid to employees, companies must collect and contribute to payroll taxes that grow bigger and bigger over the years.

These are just a few examples of the many regulatory problems companies face. Every little regulation, every demand, every new policy imposed by the government costs money. And at some point, it simply becomes too expensive to continue operating within the United States.

I like the way he draws a horribly obvious "false dilemma" fallacy between lower regulatory costs and lower wages in developing countries, as if one can't conclude (as most sensible people do) that corporations move overseas for both. Or the way he ignores the fact that said legislation is justified for various reasons.

Is he suggesting that anti-discrimination laws should be stricken from the books in order to make life more convenient for companies who wish to discriminate, so they won't go elsewhere? Is he suggesting that environmental laws should be stricken from the books in order to make life more convenient for companies who wish to pollute at will, so they won't go elsewhere? Is he suggesting that laws stipulating accomodations for disabled customers and employees should be stricken from the books in order to make life more convenient for companies with a "fuck the disabled" policy, so they won't go elsewhere?

What an asshole. If we accept his logic, any and all laws which limit economic output, no matter what their social impact, should be eliminated in order to make life easier for corporations. We might as well bring back slavery, for fuck's sake.

[Axis Kast]

The problem with protectionism is that it makes sense to most Americans who know very little about practical economics.

Technically, when jobs go overseas, they produce cheaper products, which in turn save our money. The idea is that, properly invested, this money goes back into the most luctrative targets - the developmental sectors here at home (i.e. medical research, aerospace engineering, computer systems engineering, and what have you). On top of that, one assumes that the system functions in such a way that "deserving," or competitive, businesses recieve the windfall of those savings made by starving noncompetitive companies of your capital.

Most Americans don't really care about this scheme, however. It's viewed as obtuse. That leads them to accept the arguments of people such as Senator Edwards that trade is a "moral" subject.