I think we basically agree but there are times the economy (on the macro level) benefits from outsourcing. It depends on the type of job that is offshored (it really is not outsourced, but offshored). During the past 20 years, thousands of factory jobs were lost here in North Carolina alone. The transition was painful, but most of the jobs were actually replaced by better jobs due to economic growth and industry development as a result of technological evolution. Each outsourced position has the potential of generating employment for almost 20 other workers due to the flow of cash in our economy. The majority of the retail money goes to r&d, wholesale, distribution, and the retailer. Very little actually ends up in the foreign country for labor costs. Additionally, the companies that outsourced predominantly low-wage jobs actually grew stronger and brought more $ into the economy due to lower costs/increased sales (I haven't seen the lower costs though, have you?). If it makes you feel any better, I recently read that China actually lost more manufacturing jobs than the U.S. did during the last decade.

High-tech offshoring or worse yet, high-tech outsourcing is a different can of worms. We are basically moving the assets or value of our companies overseas. It all depends on assets - are the assets tangible goods such as equipment or intangible goods such as the employees and knowledge? It is more likely a security risk and an economic bomb rather than free-trade and an economic boom.

Since the baby boomers will be retiring soon, many think the greatest risk is actually a shortage of workers and not a shortage of jobs. I don's see that happening though.


>I think we see this differently. Why would it promote more hires in the US when they could get all the cheap talent they need in India?
>
>>Long before out-sourcing became an economic issue here in the U.S., many large corporations already had branches and factories in foreign countries. Their executive U.S. employees often were transferred to these other countries but continued to make the standard U.S. salary. If my company did as this company did, I would be trying very hard to relocate (by being transferred to or assigned to) to India. Imagine the money you could save after working and living in India while making a U.S. salary! While I consider this a form of outsourcing - afterall, there is nothing preventing the company from moving everything to India except for their corporate headquarters as others have done - it may actually strengthen the company which in the longrun may promote more hires here in the U.S. and could promote economic growth here in the U.S. as well.
>>
>>>I came across this earlier. I have edited it for branding purposes.
>>>
>>>

>>>The Company is announcing today that it will expand its presence in India by opening an office in Mumbai in order to bring work currently outsourced back into the company
>>>and hire employees of The Company to fill these positions.  We plan to open the new office by mid-2006 with approximately 200 employees who will do work that we currently
>>>outsource to vendors in Mexico and India.  The work currently outsourced includes claims data entry jobs, IT coding/application development jobs and IT quality assurance
>>>jobs. Our existing business in India is a joint venture in which we own a majority interest in Another Company, which sells widgets and related widget services.
>>>

>>>
>>>How is this still not considered "outsourcing?" The jobs are still going to residents of India, as much as I can tell.