Jobs That Went Overseas

As far exporting jobs the US is still the winner in the long run as these exported jobs are exported for one reason alone cheap labor. The profit of these ventures goes back to the company located in America. take Nike 100 dollar shoes at 1.85 labor cost in Asia. Where does the savings goes.

In my country the Philippines, America has exported the answering services. We now answer inquiries from American consumers about American Products. The difference, five dollars a day labor cost versus five dollars an hour in America.

Some might call it exploitation.

Pardon me, but if you think that the exploitation you talk about helps IN ANY WAY the average American, think again.

We're getting screwed. Not only are these jobs lost to us and our children, but having somebody in the Philippines trying to answer a question about a product that they never use (and in a thick accent and on a poor connection) is not very helpful. Check out the discussion in last week's Christian Science Monitor about the current poor record of customer service. But I digress... the average American doesn't even get the benefit of taxes paid because, of course, there aren't any taxes paid on overseas operations.

It was not the average American who wanted to see jobs shipped away. It is not the average American who gains one bit. The only folks who win (besides the foreigneers who now have American jobs) are those who have a lot invested in the big businesses and they don't even have to be Americans. Lots of non-Anericans invest in Wall Street.

And, btw, having lowered production costs doesn't lower the price of the shoes we pay in the states. One pair of Nike shoes costs between $85 and $125.

I would also like to point out that the unemployment figures for the United States are totally cocked in another way. About ten years ago the Labor Department decided willy-nilly to remove all the people who wouldn't or couldn't register for unemployment services. They are supposedly not looking for jobs anymore and it was deemed unfair to keep them in the statistical pattern. If you added ALL the people who don't work, the unemployed figures would be about 20% higher... that is, at least 27% of Americans between the ages of 18 and 65 don't have jobs.

I do think it helps Americans. The alternative is non-competitive corporations and the decline of the American corporate empire.

The average American simply does not put much thought into it, a pity because it's near-sighted to focus on the job and not note what drives our economy.

We could play the protectionist game, and we will see economic atrophy which would cost many more jobs.

Everywhere that the US gets free trade, the locals suffer. A free trade agreement with the US for Australia could see our medicines increase in cost by up to 500%. It will also see massive rises in gas, electricity, water-everything that's essential.

The decline of the American Corporate Empire? That's a short book.

I don't want to be protectionist. I think the best would be for every country to have a strong economy of the same girth as ours. I have no interest in being part of a "wealthy" nation while others are living meager lives. These jobs don't leave JUST because of lowered wages, but also because the other countries don't insist on OSHA standards, environmental standards and long-term worker perks like pension funds.

It's not possible for all countries to have the same strong economy. If you want other nations to improve their conditions ours will have to worsen a bit.

Ours has worsened, except for the very wealthy segment who seem to have more than ever and a larger share, as usual. But apparently other countries aren't getting better either.

It was interesting in the UK... jobs advertised everywhere.

Other countries have been getting better. This global economic downturn makes it hard to see but many nations have been improving.

Interestingly progress is often seen in nations abandoning protectionism and adopting floating markets.

"Other countries doing better" is good to hear. With the post from Ricardo of the Philippines and Wilso's from Australia, I assumed they weren't feeling an improvement.

We have to decide, I think, if the demands that we make on corporate activity within the states... that they treat their employees well, that work is done safely, that they obey rules of environmental standards, etc.... should be demanded when these American corporations move to other countries.
That isn't happening now, which seems at least as gratifying to business as low wages in other countries.

Well, many people in the improving countries do not immediately feel it.

I saw Brazil evolve by leaps and bounds and the people were still discontent enough to ditch the only government that managed to end hyperinflation.

As to demanding better conditions overseas , I dunno if that would help. Frankly I think it would make things worse.

The American concern about sweatshops is sweet, but the bottom line is that those nations need to enforce better standards themselves. If we artificially do it we will just see corporate workarounds.

People keep using Nike as an example, what they do not realize is that Nike does not manufacture anything.

Nike is a marketing company. They do not own the "sweatshops" so forcing Nike to uphold an artificial standard overseas will make no difference, Nike is not in the business of making shoes. Nike only markets them.

If a standard above what the host nation stupilates is demanded by the US the corporations will simply deal at arms length and circumvent the law.

And if they can't do that then many of the "sweatshop" jobs will simply evaporate.

What Americans often do not consider about "sweatshops" is that the condition is often better than the standard in the country.

I agree with curbing the American corporations' instinct to make the whole world a bannana republic but I disagree that artificially raising the bar will help.

In third world countries a job in a sweatshop can be a god-send. If we want to change the world we can do it by simply eliminating some of the prohibitive tarrifs and living with the consequences stateside. Trying to enforce standards overseas will just be an artificial fix.

I may have presented a oneway view when I told everyone about jobs exported in the Philippines. But job exportation is not new. When I was living in California I have a taste on the bad side of job exportation upon the enactment of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement). I was working for an Architectural and Construction Development Firm in Temecula, California about 50 miles from the Mexican border. We specialize in industrial building and I was a project manager. As soon as NAFTA took effect most of our clients decided to move the industries to Mexico because of cheap labor but also because of California very tough environmental laws. The additional 50 miles in trucking is no major concern compared to the savings. And yes, I lost my job. Our company is not licensed to design in Mexico as well as construct there. The City of Temecula was hard hit in 1990 probably up to now.

The lost of my job and others was compensated by America's gain in the bargain. American products flooded Mexico. American corn and flour devastated the Mexican farmers to a lost of about 60,000 farming jobs.

Some of the Mexican farmers moved to California as farmworkers. More jobs lost by Americans. They bring in their families and now overloads the school system, welfare and medical services. Lack of medical personnel forces American hospitals to import doctors from India and Filipina nurses.

I do understand that "sweatshops" are often the best alternative in other countries... they offer a relatively high wage for the community, usually with some stability.

As to hamstringing corporations operating outside this country by forcing them to obey standards from within... what's the alternative? In the current situation Americans are reviled for taking advantage of others. If we try to encourage other countries to adopt more stringent rules, then we're paternalistic.

There is seemingly nothing Americans can do to make the rest of the world like us en masse-- and in that situation, the prudent politician begins to say, "Why bother?" We don't have to become protectionists to become emotionally isolated and no longer care or have any "sweet concerns" at all.

Oh, I do not consider Americans exploitative. But if we want to help the world we will need to take a hit.

If we eliminated tariffs for developing nations we would make the world of a difference. But some of our noncompetitive industries would take a huge hit.

A blanket-change in tariffs? Like what? I'd be more inclined to look at tariffs on a case-by-case basis. If they're for food, I'm leery since I think that prudently speaking, we need to keep a good "home" production of food maintained in this country even though that segment is probably non-competitive.

Not a blanket change. Just a continuation of what the WTO is slowly moving toward.

Developing countries already get a break in tarrifs. For example when Bush played protectionist about steel developing nations were exempted. For Brazil that was important.

I am strongly against the US agricultural tariffs. Food in the US is expensive and not that good.

Food in the United States not that good? Well, some is, some isn't.

The alternative is to drop all pretense that we grow foods here and pave over (as we've done) large amounts of good agricultural land for the higher purpose of shopping malls and their ilk. There is a limited amount of land around the world that is suitable for agriculture... eventually people will realize it is as precious as clean air and water. Meanwhile, the only way it can be kept is by protecting it. If that takes a tariff and I guess it does, so be it.

I disagree that the farmland would be paved. Some farmers would go out of business, yes, but America has some of the best land for agriculture in the world.

Like you said, it will be precious some day. I disagree that it needs a tariff to protect it. I disagree that a tariff actually protects the land at all.

Well, you may disagree about farmland being paved, but it is a real problem and only through the efforts of a lot of people who were very concerned about it has there been any realization and change. My mom was from Iowa and used to bemoan it (she's been dead 20 years). I've personally seen the farmland being paved over when I drive to Seattle... been going on that same stretch of freeway for thirty years and it has changed... dramatically. All the good flat land of the Kent valley and most of the Puyallup valley has been turned into miles of industrial complexes, shopping malls, and tract homes. It is hard to get current figures... when Clinton was in office, it was considered a pretty important point. Now that we have Bush Jr. we're back to hidden numbers. Any protection of farmland comes from the people who saw it as a disaster in the making and have lobbied hard to turn the trend around.

Tariffs help farmers and allow them to keep their land in production by giving the farmers a leg up with the competition. France and other European countries do it quite successfully and with the added impetus that tourist LIKE to see farmland. There are plenty of commodity supports here, too. I think they're important except for the one on tobacco which seems questionable.