90% of economists don't want any restrictions on the outsourcing of labor to foreign countries (source: Google "The Consensus of Economists Mankiw" because I can't directly link because 4chan has a faggot spam filter).
Do you know better than them?
Just because it will result in a world wide increase in GDP doesn't mean it will result in an increase of quality of life for the nations which pursue such options. Find me an economist who makes this particular claim- that outsourcing *always* has a positive effect on the quality of life for a nation which chooses to do it.
There's nothing wrong with outsourcing.
The problem is that western governments are making conditions unfavourable for businesses to produce goods domestically.
Minimum wage, endless fees and tariffs, property taxes, etc. make setting up a factory in the west much less profitable than in, say, China.
TL;DR outsourcing is good for internationalist and their bottom line. the american manufacturing sector be damned
for all the idiocy about cheaper prices, let me tell you this. i would pay 5x the amount for an american made product because i know it wouldn't fall apart in a month and i'd be keeping american money in american hands
You never said WHY they don't want it. Now we have to assume. I will assume your are speaking of a strictly profit-driven viewpoint, and I would counter your economists with that profits should not be sole consideration while making these claims. It's very easy to appeal to authority by saying "Whelp 90% of these fags love cocks, so I should too."
You forget that 90% of economists probably don't have everyones best interests in mind. Nor do their statements accurately reflect an interest in having such. Outsourcing takes from something to give to something else. Who is on the losing side of this bargain? If me, then I am against it.
Outsourcing is largely a function of retarded statists making it nearly impossible to run a successful business in their location (see: California).
Although most people hate outsourcing for retarded reasons like thinking autarcky is a preferable condition to the division of labor and free trade (which is why the "solution" is protectionism).
The fact that it is actually profitable for major firms to put a large part of their manufacturing process to the other side of the globe and back speaks to how fucked up the market is by the state.
not same anon, but this is also destroying the middle class, you are giving poor people the means to exist, while making the rich richer, fucking the middle class right in the assl, I don't know about you but I prefer a world with three economic classes instead of two.
>I failed econ 101
Krugman: "If there were an Economist’s Creed, it would surely contain the affirmations 'I understand the Principle of Comparative Advantage' and 'I advocate Free Trade'."
I don't give a fuck if some 3rd worlder becomes better off. International trade, immigration, and outsourcing all has winners and losers. The winners are the extreme poorfags who go from making nothing to making a dollar a month, and the international businesses who profit enormously from it. Everyone else loses. We see the effects today as the gini coefficients are plummeting in modern societies.
>how it`s fucked by state
How come? Single reason for outsourcing is greater profit margins.
You would need to lower wages to 3rd world levels in order to compete successfully. That just would mean that workers can`t simply sustain themselves in 1st world.
Ah, an ad hominem attack. Your argument is falling apart before your eyes. This "source" you provided, a "just google it you dumb fuck," turned up as a blogspot post. Delving further I was presented with:
>Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.
So here's what we have:
>No readily available source provided
>Appeal to authority stance
>Ad hominem attacks
Thanks, but come back when you have something more substantial other than your errant feelings. Take care.
Maybe 1st world workers can demand higher wages due to higher productivity due to capital from the market process? Something that will arrive in the 3rd world over time.
Ponder that, will you?
Yes they can demand them, but that does not equate that companies would magically stop outsourcing. Lower wages or just accept fact of outsourcing, there is no legislative way to stop it(corporations can re-locate fairly easily).
You don't even know what ad hominem is. I didn't discredit your argument on the basis of you being an idiot, I just called you one.
First result is Greg Mankiw's blog. He is an economics professor at Harvard University.
Typical neo-lib "libertarian" bullshit. I guess /pol/s idea to solve the problems would be to remove what little government regulation there is and just let them export ALL the jobs.
1st world production will never be at parity because while 1st world technologies like plant and equipment can be exported to 3rd world countries, costs like health and safety requirements, healthcare and education costs are not.
>tfw just graduated debt free and got a legit paying job that isn't likely to be autotomized or outsourced any time soon
>didn't even have to apply, the company sought me out from a database
>tfw all these /pol/ job threads don't mean anything to me anymore because I got mine
how is it an advantage for us when we buy more than we produce? how is it an advantage when it's displaced millions of jobs? how do we benefit from buying cheap junk with no quality, that you have to turn around and buy again because the quality was so shitty?
i'd rather buy something once and have it forever, than buying the same thing over and over again at a cheap price
if you notice any good outdoor clothing manufacturers sell their stuff for a lot more than a jacket you can buy out of sears or walmart or whatever. thats because they use quality materials and craftmanship. and they also come with lifetime warranties.
you spend a little more but you get a better product that will last a lifetime instead of buying 30 jackets over the course of your life and you end up spending more money in the long run anyway
>economics professor at Harvard University.
what advantage besides cheaper prices are we getting out of the deal? i really want to know, because personally i don't think wrecking a nations manufacturing capacity has any benefits or is worth a cheaper price
Can't find the exact question, verbatim, so I couldn't comment, however it could be that the question doesn't specifically ask about quality of life, but rather, economic productivity, or it may be ambiguous, in which case economists will give the answer they've been trained to give- one with regards to economics, not quality of life.
US worker produces 100lbs of baby formula an hour at a production cost of $2/lbs. Formula meets strict regulations, factory meets strict regulations, worker receives healthcare and benefits.
Chinese worker produces 100lbs of baby formula at $1/lbs. Baby formula is produced in substandard factory and is 10% melamine. Worker receives no benefits or healthcare and dies of lead poisoning at the age of 13 from licking the labels to stick on the can. 10 US babies die a year from acute melamine poisoning.
B-but my comparative advantage says its a win win situation! This is why economics is not a real science.
>For example, if, using machinery, a worker in one country can produce both shoes and shirts at 6 per hour, and a worker in a country with less machinery can produce either 2 shoes or 4 shirts in an hour, each country can gain from trade because their internal trade-offs between shoes and shirts are different. The less-efficient country has a comparative advantage in shirts, so it finds it more efficient to produce shirts and trade them to the more-efficient country for shoes. Without trade, its opportunity cost per shoe was 2 shirts; by trading, its cost per shoe can reduce to as low as 1 shirt depending on how much trade occurs (since the more-efficient country has a 1:1 trade-off). The more-efficient country has a comparative advantage in shoes, so it can gain in efficiency by moving some workers from shirt-production to shoe-production and trading some shoes for shirts. Without trade, its cost to make a shirt was 1 shoe; by trading, its cost per shirt can go as low as 1/2 shoe depending on how much trade occurs.
so how could these asian countries be more efficient at making things than us, before we literally sent our whole manufacturing industry to them?
they aren't more efficient, they just have less rules on how you can treat their workers so it benefits the owners of the companies because they don't have to spend any money on safety stuff and can pay their workers pennies
if you actually think we are gaining something by buying everything from someone else you are a top level retard
I favor protectionist legislature with high tariffs on imported goods. You want to keep a highly paid staff in your country if you ask me. It works better when you have these resources close at hand, not to mention the economic factor of the manufacture and sale of goods instead of merely a support position between one of those two roles.
Oy vey! The goyim know.
SHUT IT DOWN AND SLIDE IT
captcha: mullets anyojob
>90% of economists don't want any restrictions on the outsourcing of labor to foreign countries (source: Google "The Consensus of Economists Mankiw" because I can't directly link because 4chan has a faggot spam filter).
>Do you know better than them?
Are you implying we don't?
Economists working for governments don't have the same goals the common man does. They want their state to appear great when there is another fact in light. The state is not great and the outsourching of labor and production has such huge transport costs that it is impoverishing the earth.
It also happens to be what turned America into an economic superpower. America was protectionist for most of its history, and incidentally government mainly ran on tariffs rather than taxes.
We get cheaper goods. How is that not an advantage?
Americans are much more educated than your average Chinese factory worker. Why should we have them do simple unskilled work?
We can have the Chinese do this while the Americans do things that require actual skills. Not every American is capable of a skilled job, but as we all gain due to comparative advantage more skilled Americans can afford e.g. hiring unskilled Americans to clean their houses. Maybe they can afford eating out more, and thus more unskilled Americans can work to serve food.
No need for those pesky little questions goy
economists will endorse slavery if they're being honest and without conscience.
the headaches america has explaining 2% of it's southern states' labor practices 150 years ago are going to seem miniscule when it's trying to explain it's present relationship with china 100 years from now.
Manufacturing is what Americans have always done well. It's what helped turn them into a global power. Also, outsourced Chinese products are far less in quality than American-made goods.
The reason for outsourcing is because these Chinese will work for pennies, and have zero safety/health code policies
because like i stated in one of my previous posts is we end up paying more for junk, having to buy it 5 times, instead of just paying a little bit more one time
i remember i bought a pair of boots from walmart for work once, thinking hey, i'm just going to beat these up so i don't care if they're cheap
they lasted me literally 4 months and the soles started separating. i've never bought a pair of cheap boots again, i actually have the same pair of boots i got from LL bean like 5 years ago.
i paid a little more for them, but they lasted 10x longer and i would have ended up paying more money if i were to just keep buying cheap shitty boots from walmart
you can keep your low prices because that's just a gimmick
>trying to explain it's present relationship with china 100 years from now.
Good thing all whites will be dead by then. The controlling Jews can tell their mulatto slaves, er employees how evil whitey was and no one will be the wiser.
Are Apple products extremely low quality?
Does Made in USA automatically mean high quality? Does Made I'm China automatically mean low quality? Is it the other way around when shopping in China, considering the American products would be the foreign ones?
yes, apple is shit, and china make shitty products
america has always been known for making high quality goods. are you a teenager or a foreigner or something? how do you not know this?
>Are Apple products extremely low quality?
Yes. Do a comparison between similar priced goods within the same market. Apple products are terrible for what they are.
>Does Made in USA automatically mean high quality? Does Made I'm China automatically mean low quality?
In most cases, yes to both.
>Is it the other way around when shopping in China, considering the American products would be the foreign ones?
No. It's the same if you were an American shopping for machine parts and came across some manufactured in Germany. You'd except high quality for that alone.
>Are Apple products extremely low quality?
Will you quit posting this, shitskin?
At some point the job charity we're sending you is going to dry up. Microsoft won't be able to lay off 18,000 workers and still claim muh shortage
They don't have to be more efficient. If you look at the quoted example one of the dudes is better at making both shirts and shoes.
That's where 'comparative' comes in. One of the parties is better at making shoes than shirts, the other isn't. Even though he's better at making both shoes and shirts, they still benefit from trade (that is, reach an amount of goods impossible without trade).
Made in Japan used to mean low quality. They make much high quality shit today. I don't think you should generalize shit by nation anyway. Americans can create shit products and the Chinese can make good products and vice versa.
ok so we'll have an economy made up of a few designers and hoards of paper pushers. sounds sustainable
also you people aren't taking into account how dependent this makes us on other countries when we don't have to be.
hypothetically what would happen if we were to go to war with china? we've sent our whole manufacturing sector over there. we couldn't even make our own clothes. i think this is very dangerous
>Lower prices benefit everyone.
Not when your wages plummet due to devaluation of labour. Lower prices in that context only benefit a few people.
Moreover these "lower prices" are for cheap foreign junk that breaks repeatedly and has to be continually replaced, so you actually pay the same money overall without having the same job to provide that money.
People who work with money for a living want cheap labor? Shocking, OP. Truly shocking.
Is it better for profit? Of course. Is it better for the well being of a nation? No, because living expenses don't get cheaper with the drop in wages.
because i'm one man in a house, not comparable to a country of 300,000,000 with vast resources
like i said, we used to make everything here. your comparison is completely retarded
It makes the rich richer at the expense of their countrymen. Past generations could support a family on a factory job but now everything has gone to the Asians or to the wetbacks. Anyone that supports this bullshit is just a myopic trust fund kiddy.
And that would work the company's would go crazy at first. Yeah we can pay people shit for their jobs and make a huge profit. Soon there profits would plummet because they got rid of all their consumers their buisness would go bankrupt and they would go well maybe paying people is a good thing because it keeps our consumers alive. As long as the government doesn't bail them out and allows them to fail then they will learn this lesson the hard way.
Just like buisness now should learn the hard way that paying your employes like shit creates a frugal society and kills the consumer society they worked so hard to create.
It doesn't. Apple has factories in China because it's all just putting things together and they just need dumb automatons. There isn't that much value added, all the value added stuff (r&d, design, etc) is done in California.
Because of the destruction of our tariff system and trade protectionism, exploitaion can now be exported world wide, with no government oversight or accountability in puppet governments, banana republics or crony capitalist states.
Thanks, Free market!
Ireland here, while doing a Msc, an Indian student tried to outsource his thesis on one of them outsourcing sites.
He was offering Rupees, so he was trying to outsource back to India.
Imagine trying to work your arse off next to people like that, plagiarists and cheats are awful.
The baby boomers really didn't give a shit. They were some of the most shortsighted and selfish pieces of shit to ever exist: happy to screw over their own children's future while they buy crappy chinese knickknacks and destroy America's industry.
It takes a special kind of hate to deliberately fuck over your own children.
Big names in politics/government are not interested in outsourcing for the sake of a fairer economy or humanitarian reasons, they do it because outside of western society they can exploit their workers more.
top rated comment by OMG6319:
Oswald Mosley was one of the good guys, who unlike Churchill didn't intend to sell our country to the Jewish bankers, and a little research will reveal this... you won’t get the truth from uni libraries because what we are told about WW2 today in schools is utter rubbish, unless you believe in santa, the tooth fairy or the holocaust. The British have been made to suck the dicks of their greatest enemies and most of them they are so backward they hunt down and jail people who tell the truth, whilst glorifying vermin like Churchill. Our people are being destroyed by the communist euroCUNTS who are deliberately flooding Britain with non-whites in order to divide us even more, until one day we will be choking on our last breath for survival...
if you don't believe what I say ...then go ask the mentally deranged Jews, Marxists, Communists, traitors and hypocrites that run the parliament.
Yea well not my problem the gooberment wants to tax the shit out of everything, which then makes it cheaper to outsource, plus shipping it back. Reduce the expenses here, and jobs come back faggot.
Yes, people who cheat are thought of as being skilled. How's that for decline for ya.
Bulls don't care what it is they're doing, as long as its churning out $$$ at the other side of the process.
> MONEY = GOOD
> MONEY & DEGENERACY = GOOD
> MONEY & CORRUPTION = GOOD
> MONEY & MORAL DECAY = GOOD
> DEGENERACY = BAD
> CORRUPTION = BAD
> MORAL DECAY = BAD
no, but outsourcing labor and outsourcing capital and two entirely different things
Faggots who whine "dey tuk urrr jerbs" are insufferable but allowing capital flight is terrible. The region of Canada I live in is economically depressed because of cronyism and allowing international corporate colonialism take over.
But giving shit jobs to foreigners for cheaper is not a problem at all.
>But giving shit jobs to foreigners for cheaper is not a problem at all.
Only if there are enough jobs within the country for you and your neighbor. Otherwise, it'll just be a handful of Canadians running a bunch of factories elsewhere while you are busy lying in the gutter being homeless. Unless you want to move to China and become a modern day slave.
>But giving shit jobs to foreigners for cheaper is not a problem at all.
Yes, because they're working class and don't interfere with society, apparently? That is an awful premise to import people.
>90% of economists don't want any restrictions on the outsourcing . . .
Economists are more often sympathetic to statistical figures like GDP, corporate profits and percentage growth than they are about actual people.
Economics is essentially gambling.
For all the models and formulas they develop, they seem to always be wrong about most everything and then you have a gigantic clusterfuck that comes along eventually.
Hell, there are some schools of economic thought that outright discount all attempts at study or modeling, and they are actually considered just as credible as the others because every fucking economist is a snake oil salesman at their core.
I mean hell, just look at what happened in 2008. Everyone fucking assumed that the financial industry would self-regulate and play nice and all that bullshit because according to the charts and models it was in their best interest to do so. Well it turns out that they failed the most basic prisoner's dilemma situation imaginable; I wonder why all these financial giants with their array of top paid talent and money market geniuses completely shit the world economy bed.
Well surely some model out there had a misplaced decimal or something, the study of economics cannot fail it can only be failed. Now please take us seriously again.
In most fields when people fuck up so spectacularly that they destroy trillions worth of wealth heads usually roll. Strangely, nary a soul has spent a picosecond inside a jail cell for the chicanery that occurred.
Outsourcing is good to make the rich richer.
What economists fail to comprehend is sociology comes into play when iniquity becomes too gross. Since nobody likes rich parasitic kikes when they're hogging the whole damn economic pie, civil unrest is the natural outcome of their economic policies. Argue how it's good for GDP when the mob shows up with torches and pitchforks, greasy economist jews.
People who hate outsourcing need to check their privilege. You're not entitled to a job. You're not entitled to a first world living standard. People in poorer countries deserve opportunity and capitalists value these people in that they actually value them more than your expensive ass. Shit, your first world living standard is thanks to businesses moving production abroad and bringing cheaper products for your consumption. You'll all bitch and moan about capitalists exploiting workers but you'll partake in it if it saves you money. You'll project your greed on to muh corporations and shriek about them even though they're just enablers to your own material gluttony.
All immigration should be illegal. Outsourcing should be illegal. Companies based in tax havens should not be allowed to sell their products here.
GAS THE GLOBALISTS
ECONOMIC WAR NOW
Ross Perot was absolutely dead-on right when he ran against GHWBush and Clinton in 1992. The only thing he accomplished, however, was a Clinton first term.
It was contemporary with shows like "Charlie's Angles" and "The Six Million Dollar Man"
What are those economists taking for an "end-goal"? That everyone around the world has a certain standard of living 200 years from now?
Well, sorry for being so selfish, but I'm alive now, this shit is wrecking the world I live in now, and I don't see how it's a good thing that my standard of living is getting destroyed so a family of chinks goes from absolutely miserable to just miserable and then to my current standard of living in 3 more generations. Thanks, but no thanks. I didn't put their country in the shitter, and I don't want it to be taken out of the shitter at the cost of my livelihood.
The economists can go get fucked.
Political and social instability does not have an entry in the accounts so they are not considered by these people.
The 'creative accounting' that goes on in large modern corporations is absolutely disgusting. If a cost can be hidden or manoeuvred off the books it is not a real cost.
Meanwhile those of us that live in the real world as opposed to managerial/accounting fantasy land have to pick up the pieces.
Competition is a sin and as long as this is true such a phenomenon will exist. It seems pretty clear yet most of you complain like a woman on their period....
Bitching isn't going to change it so go watch some tv and shut the hell up.
different goals have different methods.
it's not that other people's methods are ineffective at reaching their goals.
it's that those people have awful goals which don't benefit as much of society as other goals might.
Well if theyre gonna be the next burgerland...pretty sure they need to actually be manufacturing stuff!
The burgers are too slow and busy with their entertainment to notice...oh well...
Build It and Tear It down...
Everyone loves cheap labor until it comes to take their job.
>90% of economists don't want any restrictions on the outsourcing of labor to foreign countries
That's because those economists are fucking stupid. We just had a thread similar to this yesterday. Swear to God it's a been Groundhog Day around here.