Europe is Doing Better With the Outsourcing Problem

Right glynch, why not take it a step further and just end all trade -- be it goods, services or labor -- with all foreign countries? The benefits from trade are undeniable, whether you like it or not. Trade and specialization of labor lower consumer prices and allow for superior product quality and selection. They also lower costs of labor for the multitude of US businesses, both large and small which enables enhanced profitability, investment, and as a result higher productivity. Would you as a small business owner rather lose your business and fire all your employees because your labor costs were too high, or would you rather outsource selected functions and save the other jobs? Americans can not attempt to shield themselves from outside competition. If we can't compete, we should pursue higher value added jobs. If you are someone whose job gets outsourced, then you haven't made the case to your employer that you are more valuable than low-cost labor in a developing country. How is that the government's problem? Sounds like a personal issue that needs to be addressed through education or other means.

 

Germany and France's unemployment rates are around 10% each. That's 2x what they are in the US. I wouldn't pattern any type of economic model after those two countries.

 

Once again, you didn't read the article at all, particularly the part that talked about this issue specifically. Read it and come up with an intelligent response.

Thanks in advance.

 

Caught you before you edited it.

 

you're da man...

 

Why is hiring illegal Mexicans bad and outsourcing good?

 

It's quite simple. Because illegals do work nobody else wants to and outsourcing just takes good existing skilled jobs away from everyday Americans and exports them off to foreign lands......Err, uhh, wait, that logic's fuzzy

Anyways, just keep your mouth shut, show your patiotism, and support CAFTA!!

 

Oh no!!! You caught a dreaded typographical error!!!

Surely that trumps anything of substance, right?



Neither you nor your brother (even if y'all are not related by blood, you are near carbon copies of each other in posting, so the moniker will stick) bothered to read the article, which addressed the issues that both of you raised. If you are able to compose an intelligent response that addresses the substance of the article and not red herrings or typographical errors then I will respond. Until then, you are PWNED.

Thanks in advance.

EDIT: I never edited it before. You introduced the typo in the quote and then "called" me on it. You are truly a sad, pathetic excuse for a human being.

 

My points stand uncontested. Andymoon, would you like to offer a rejoinder?

 

The article addressed all of your "points." Read it and respond intelligently and I will be happy to provide your rejoinder.

Thanks in advance.

 

No it does not. It addresses none of them.

 

This article doesn't do a good job explaining why Europe's model is better. It simply stated some stats as important, while dismissing others.

I don't see how you can claim 10% unemployment rate vs 5% is somehow not important. Try to tell that to the people who are unemployed.

He doesn't explain how the EU are tackling the out-source problem other than "Its harder to close down a firm in Europe".

What? Increase our labor cost will somehow make our industrial more competitive globally? That alone should tell you this article is pretty worthless.

 

Then you need a remedial course in reading comprehension.

 

andy, you've contributed nothing to the thread, and you are being willfully obtuse in responding to my very salient points. Either refute my points on your own, without redirecting readers to the article (which does not refute them), or gracefully exit stage left and let the adults debate outsourcing.

 

How exactly were you "debating outsourcing" when you edited a quote of mine to "call" me on a typo?

PWNED

 

LOL - I did read the article, brah. Their pathetic attempt to explain this point away is completely ridiculous. The chance of being laid off is higher, so you're more likely to be laid off? Uhh...the chance of finding another job is also higher, so their point is null. The unemployment rate explains it all.

 

That's the third time in this thread that you've copied my patented "thanks in advance". I guess imitation is the sincerest form of flattery!

EDIT: Actually it was the THIRD time, not the second as I had originally thought.

 

From the article...

"Last year, according to the WTO, German export goods had a value of more than $915 billion. China's had a value of about $593 billion. In a so-called flat world, it turns out that the country with the world's highest labor costs is the world's champion exporter. Add in France et al., and the EU is even further ahead -- last year, it had export goods of more than $1.5 trillion. What's more, the endless dire talk in Germany about losing it all to Eastern Europe has turned out to be wildly overstated. It's now 2005, and the recent data show that far from investing more in Eastern Europe, Germany of late has been slightly disinvesting."

The benefits of trade are undeniable, but the benefits of a trade surplus surpass that of a trade deficit. The article clearly does not come out to say that trade is a bad thing, in fact it points out that even in economies that you decry, they benefit from trade without outsourcing their own industries.

From the article...

"There's one problem with using the US and UK models for saving Europe's industrial base: Both have wrecked their industrial bases. Some, or a labor lawyer like me, would argue that we wrecked ours not because our labor costs were too high but because they were too low. In the low-cost United States a firm can shut down and pay workers next to nothing -- and the investors can open up a Wal-Mart. By contrast, in high-cost Europe, with expensive "closing plans" and labor vetoes in Germany and France, it is much harder than in the low-cost United States for a firm to go out of its industrial business altogether."

The article clearly points out that the UK and US have done a disservice to their industrial base, a disservice that is simply not necessary. Their regulatory structure makes it more difficult to shut down businesses and yet somehow they just keep plugging along with fair to good GDP growth even though their work week is far shorter than ours.

From the article...

"Of course, there is more outsourcing to Eastern Europe, but the bottom line is that Germany's overall trade surplus is growing. US and other companies have passed over Germany and put money into Eastern Europe, and labor cost is one reason, but an equal and bigger reason is simply that there is a huge untapped market in Eastern Europe, while Western Europe is relatively sated. Yet Germans bemoan it, and neoliberals have been brilliant at rattling German self-confidence over, well, not much."

So, even though Germany and France reduce outsourcing through their regulatory structures, their corporations still profit (although not as much as evidenced by the fact that the difference between the highest earners and the lowest is much smaller than ours and shrinking), their industrial base remains intact, their economies still grow, and their workers still have jobs.

Contrast that with an America where employees are laid off more often (as pointed out in the article), are forced to work longer hours and sometimes off the clock entirely, and the only thing that seems to matter is the corporate bottom line and executive "golden parachutes."

Again, I submit that you could use a course in reading comprehension. I would be happy to give you the phone number to the college I work at, we have some wonderful instructors and open registration is going on now.