Perhaps all the crying about outsourcing is not really justified.
http://www.cato.org/dispatch/03-15-04d.html#1
Unfortunately I don't have an account with The Wall Street Journal so couldn't check the source. I would hope that the link Cato provides is genuine. Maybe someone here can verify the data.
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Insourcing Tops Outsourcing
Insourcing Tops OutsourcingFollow
No WSJ account here. I'll wait until I can read the entire story in context before commenting though.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Cato's a right wing free markets at all costs thinktank. That doesn't make the numbers bad, but if the AFLCIO published a study saying the opposite I'd be just a skeptical.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
That may be true about Cato but the referenced data in their report is from an article in The Wall Street Journal. I would expect that most people consider that paper a pretty reliable source. Unfortunately since I don't have a subscription to that paper I haven't been able to read the article or analyze the numbers myself. I was hoping someone here would be able to take a look and provide some insight.
The Wall Street Journal is a right wing free markets at any cost platform for Republican economic theory. /shrug.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Quote:
right wing free markets
Strange how in a lot of other countries those that support free markets are referred to as "left wing".
Quote:
Fears about job losses and chronic job shortages are on the loose again. Over the past few years, millions of U.S. jobs have disappeared, and foreign competition is increasingly taking the blame. Manufacturing jobs are supposedly fleeing to China, while service-sector jobs are being "offshored" to India.
Job losses are always painful, and the recent recession and sluggish recovery have meant real hardship for many Americans. It is important, however, to shun hysteria and demagoguery in assessing what is going on with the labor market and why. The employment picture today is that of a temporary, cyclical shortage of jobs caused by the recent downturn; there is no permanent shortage of good jobs on the horizon.
Even in good times, job losses are an inescapable fact of life in a dynamic market economy. Old jobs are constantly being eliminated as new positions are created. Total U.S. private-sector jobs increased by 17.8 million between 1993 and 2002. To produce that healthy net increase, a breath-taking total of 327.7 million jobs were added, while 309.9 million jobs were lost. In other words, for every one new net private-sector job created during that period, 18.4 gross job additions had to offset 17.4 gross job losses.
International trade contributes only modestly to this frenetic job turnover. Between 2000 and 2003, manufacturing employment dropped by nearly 2.8 million, yet imports of manufactured goods rose only 0.6 percent. Meanwhile, despite the new offshoring trend, the Department of Labor is forecasting a 35 percent increase in computer-and math-related jobs over the next decade.
Calls for new trade restrictions to preserve current jobs are misguided. There is no significant difference between jobs lost because of trade and those lost because of technologies or work processes. All of those job losses are a painful but necessary part of the larger process of innovation and productivity increases that is the source of new wealth and rising living standards.
Job losses are always painful, and the recent recession and sluggish recovery have meant real hardship for many Americans. It is important, however, to shun hysteria and demagoguery in assessing what is going on with the labor market and why. The employment picture today is that of a temporary, cyclical shortage of jobs caused by the recent downturn; there is no permanent shortage of good jobs on the horizon.
Even in good times, job losses are an inescapable fact of life in a dynamic market economy. Old jobs are constantly being eliminated as new positions are created. Total U.S. private-sector jobs increased by 17.8 million between 1993 and 2002. To produce that healthy net increase, a breath-taking total of 327.7 million jobs were added, while 309.9 million jobs were lost. In other words, for every one new net private-sector job created during that period, 18.4 gross job additions had to offset 17.4 gross job losses.
International trade contributes only modestly to this frenetic job turnover. Between 2000 and 2003, manufacturing employment dropped by nearly 2.8 million, yet imports of manufactured goods rose only 0.6 percent. Meanwhile, despite the new offshoring trend, the Department of Labor is forecasting a 35 percent increase in computer-and math-related jobs over the next decade.
Calls for new trade restrictions to preserve current jobs are misguided. There is no significant difference between jobs lost because of trade and those lost because of technologies or work processes. All of those job losses are a painful but necessary part of the larger process of innovation and productivity increases that is the source of new wealth and rising living standards.
The full paper with references can be found here. http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/briefs/tbp-019es.html
I am highly skeptical both parties Democrats and Republicans keep bringing this subject up as if its really happenning but Cato seems to be the only ones who say that what both the Democrats/Republicans and Media are saying is true that we are losing jobs. Bush is responding to this by saying that he will create some 2.6 million jobs this year. Dems are pointing to all the people out of work around the country and saying look see here it is.
Seems odd that as much as I have to call other companies customer services departments or deal with my company's customer service department that I India 90% of the time, be it MBNA, Microsoft, Aol, ATT the list is huge. Its like your living in denial man. <shrug> but if that is what works for you.
Seems odd that as much as I have to call other companies customer services departments or deal with my company's customer service department that I India 90% of the time, be it MBNA, Microsoft, Aol, ATT the list is huge. Its like your living in denial man. <shrug> but if that is what works for you.
Quote:
I am highly skeptical both parties Democrats and Republicans keep bringing this subject up as if its really happenning but Cato seems to be the only ones who say that what both the Democrats/Republicans and Media are saying is true that we are losing jobs.
Is anyone else as confused as I am about this statement?
nah its just you=P
basically its people who say we are losing more jobs are a) the republicans b) the democrats c) the media
people who claim we are not losing jobs are a) the cato institute well and you
basically its people who say we are losing more jobs are a) the republicans b) the democrats c) the media
people who claim we are not losing jobs are a) the cato institute well and you
Umm... You forgot to mention that the government is also saying that we haven't lost jobs. Either that or you failed to notice that most of the statistics used in that brief were provided by the Bureau of Labor.
From what I've seen, in my little niche of the IT world, we're bringing Indians to the US in masses to give them jobs.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Funny you would say that, let me guess your big on conspiracy theories too. The source they are quoting is this government release.
http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/newsrel/trad0303.htm
guess Cato is not above cooking the books to try and prove their
point either.
Edit-- another lil tidbit press release from the Secertary of Commerece talking about how they are focusing on increasing jobs
http://www.commerce.gov/opa/press/2004_Releases/January/16_evans_cleveland_release.htm
Edited, Thu Mar 18 19:37:08 2004 by flishtaco
Edited, Thu Mar 18 19:37:51 2004 by flishtaco
http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/newsrel/trad0303.htm
guess Cato is not above cooking the books to try and prove their
point either.
Edit-- another lil tidbit press release from the Secertary of Commerece talking about how they are focusing on increasing jobs
http://www.commerce.gov/opa/press/2004_Releases/January/16_evans_cleveland_release.htm
Edited, Thu Mar 18 19:37:08 2004 by flishtaco
Edited, Thu Mar 18 19:37:51 2004 by flishtaco
Not sure what that link you provided is for. Didn't see anything there relating to jobs. From what I can gather the data that The Cato Institute used was pulled from this report.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cewbd.pdf
Straight from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. You can challenge the data I suppose but you better come up with some pretty good sources.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cewbd.pdf
Straight from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. You can challenge the data I suppose but you better come up with some pretty good sources.
Smasharoo wrote:
The Wall Street Journal is a right wing free markets at any cost platform for Republican economic theory. /shrug.
Ok. Let me see if I've got this straight. The WSJ is just a Republican mouthpiece, and not to be believed at all about things like econmics (even though pretty much all the people in business read it for just that reason).
But!... If the NY times prints an article that doesn't actually say jobs are being lost, but merely that it found "evidence", from some unamed source, that IBM "might" ourtsource 3 thousand jobs, maybe, sometime, you'll happily use that as proof that 10 million Programmer jobs have been outsourced to India.
I'm just making sure I've got the Smasharoo logic down. Ok. Got it. You may now carry on with your topic.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
"Despite the political outcry over the outsourcing of white-collar jobs to such places as India and Ghana, the latest U.S. government data suggest that foreigners outsource far more office work to the U.S. than American companies send abroad," The Wall Street Journal reports.
"The value of U.S. exports of legal work, computer programming, telecommunications, banking, engineering, management consulting and other private services jumped to $131.01 billion in 2003, up $8.42 billion from the previous year, the Commerce Department reported Friday."
In "The States and Outsourcing," Cato Policy Analyst Radley Balko writes: "For all the talk of off-shoring, the cost of packing up a domestic plant and moving it overseas is pretty significant. Even outsourcing tech support and programming doesn't always make economic sense. American workers are still far more productive than, for example, Indian workers, even when you factor in the lower wages. It's only when the onus of complying with federal, state, and local tax laws and regulations becomes overly burdensome that it makes economic sense for a corporation to shop jurisdictions for a better deal."
here is the whole of your orginally linked article, note the underlining of Commerce dept, I did that. Then I found the sources from the Commerce dept that prove what I am saying, then you come back with sources from the Labor dept that suposedly prove what you are saying.
Get this it is a different dept then your first source used and it starts off saying that is for the 2nd quarter of 2002 and for that 3 month period we gained 7.5 million jobs and lost 7.7 million did you even read this!!! That is a loss of 200,000 jobs in the 2nd quarter of 2002 alone. Sheesh thanks for finding another source to prove my point.
"The value of U.S. exports of legal work, computer programming, telecommunications, banking, engineering, management consulting and other private services jumped to $131.01 billion in 2003, up $8.42 billion from the previous year, the Commerce Department reported Friday."
In "The States and Outsourcing," Cato Policy Analyst Radley Balko writes: "For all the talk of off-shoring, the cost of packing up a domestic plant and moving it overseas is pretty significant. Even outsourcing tech support and programming doesn't always make economic sense. American workers are still far more productive than, for example, Indian workers, even when you factor in the lower wages. It's only when the onus of complying with federal, state, and local tax laws and regulations becomes overly burdensome that it makes economic sense for a corporation to shop jurisdictions for a better deal."
here is the whole of your orginally linked article, note the underlining of Commerce dept, I did that. Then I found the sources from the Commerce dept that prove what I am saying, then you come back with sources from the Labor dept that suposedly prove what you are saying.
Get this it is a different dept then your first source used and it starts off saying that is for the 2nd quarter of 2002 and for that 3 month period we gained 7.5 million jobs and lost 7.7 million did you even read this!!! That is a loss of 200,000 jobs in the 2nd quarter of 2002 alone. Sheesh thanks for finding another source to prove my point.
Umm... did you even read the report I linked at Cato? It looks like all you read was the synopsis provided by the 1st link and didn't read the full report which has all the sources listed. Doesn't matter I guess since it is hard to argue with the Bureau of Labor's statistics. Not to mention the fact that your link provided no data on job growth or job loss.
Sure its hard to argue with their data, which clearly states that we lost 200,000 jobs for the 2003 2nd quarter which you linked you dumb@#$.
Edit--my bad report is 2nd quarter 2003, not 2002 the job LOSS numbers are still correct though
Edited, Fri Mar 19 14:55:45 2004 by flishtaco
Edit--my bad report is 2nd quarter 2003, not 2002 the job LOSS numbers are still correct though
Edited, Fri Mar 19 14:55:45 2004 by flishtaco
Actually there was a net gain of 2.537 million jobs in the 2nd quarter of 2003. Once adjusted for seasonal influences that equals a net loss of 180,000 jobs. However, I am not sure what you are attempting to prove by using the numbers for three months. Do we now start making policy based on the numbers for those three months and ignore the previous ten years? Oh wait, if we did that then I guess we wouldn't be using the seasonally adjusted numbers either. 
What? you dont even know how to read the report that you put up?
The link I provided was for the whole year of 2003, also a link from the Secretary of Commerce talking about what they were going to do to fix the problem.
Your link to support your whole friggin claim is for 1 friggin quarter and you got the damn numbers wrong.
I show you a year, and you show me a quarter, get the numbers wrong and then try and say I am ignoring a decade for focusing on the 3 months you provided as your only documentation. Um get a clue.
The link I provided was for the whole year of 2003, also a link from the Secretary of Commerce talking about what they were going to do to fix the problem.
Your link to support your whole friggin claim is for 1 friggin quarter and you got the damn numbers wrong.
I show you a year, and you show me a quarter, get the numbers wrong and then try and say I am ignoring a decade for focusing on the 3 months you provided as your only documentation. Um get a clue.
Here are some excerpts from your report.
Even in the charts and graphs with "seasonal adjustments" caluclated it states that we LOST jobs in this quarter. This is your PROOF, your LINK to support YOUR CLAIM and well it supports my claim and it narrowly focuses on only one quarter.
Quote:
From March to June 2003, the number of job gains from opening and expanding establishments was
7.5 million, and the number of job losses from closing and contracting establishments was 7.7 million,
according to preliminary data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of
Labor. Expanding and contracting establishments accounted for most of the jobs gained and lost. (See
charts 1 and 2.)
7.5 million, and the number of job losses from closing and contracting establishments was 7.7 million,
according to preliminary data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of
Labor. Expanding and contracting establishments accounted for most of the jobs gained and lost. (See
charts 1 and 2.)
Quote:
Opening and expanding private sector business establishments gained 7.5 million jobs in the second
quarter of 2003, or 69,000 more than in the first quarter of 2003. This is the first over-the-quarter increase
in gross job gains since the first quarter of 2002. Over the quarter, expanding establishments added 6.0
million jobs, while opening establishments added 1.5 million.
Gross job losses totaled 7.7 million in the second quarter of 2003, 229,000 fewer than in the first quarter
of 2003. This is a return to the downward trend in gross job losses that was interrupted by a slight increase
in the first quarter. In the second quarter of 2003, contracting establishments lost 6.1 million jobs, while
closing establishments accounted for a loss of 1.6 million jobs. (See table A and chart 2.)
quarter of 2003, or 69,000 more than in the first quarter of 2003. This is the first over-the-quarter increase
in gross job gains since the first quarter of 2002. Over the quarter, expanding establishments added 6.0
million jobs, while opening establishments added 1.5 million.
Gross job losses totaled 7.7 million in the second quarter of 2003, 229,000 fewer than in the first quarter
of 2003. This is a return to the downward trend in gross job losses that was interrupted by a slight increase
in the first quarter. In the second quarter of 2003, contracting establishments lost 6.1 million jobs, while
closing establishments accounted for a loss of 1.6 million jobs. (See table A and chart 2.)
Even in the charts and graphs with "seasonal adjustments" caluclated it states that we LOST jobs in this quarter. This is your PROOF, your LINK to support YOUR CLAIM and well it supports my claim and it narrowly focuses on only one quarter.
Not sure what your claim was. I put the Cato report up to show the history of job gains over the past ten years and what can be learned from it. Not sure how the data for a 3 month period refutes the conclusions that were made using 10 years of data.
Umm... no. Look at the report. It contains figures starting in 1992. These are the same numbers used in Cato's analysis. Try reading the whole report next time instead of just the first page or two. And yes, jobs were actually gained in that quarter but when adjusted for seasonal fluctuations 180,000 were lost. Still don't see what 3 months has to do with the big picture.
Quote:
Your link to support your whole friggin claim is for 1 friggin quarter and you got the damn numbers wrong.
Umm... no. Look at the report. It contains figures starting in 1992. These are the same numbers used in Cato's analysis. Try reading the whole report next time instead of just the first page or two. And yes, jobs were actually gained in that quarter but when adjusted for seasonal fluctuations 180,000 were lost. Still don't see what 3 months has to do with the big picture.
Dyzalot wrote:
Not sure what that link you provided is for. Didn't see anything there relating to jobs. From what I can gather the data that The Cato Institute used was pulled from this report.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cewbd.pdf
Straight from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. You can challenge the data I suppose but you better come up with some pretty good sources.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cewbd.pdf
Straight from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. You can challenge the data I suppose but you better come up with some pretty good sources.
maybe you should review your evidence some more =) Its easy really just click on the link you provided here.
Edit--I get it your referring to the two little charts on the Labor Report not the actual writing of the report or what its about, but the funny thing is that even these little squiggly lines support that we have lost like 2 million jobs under Bush, I think maybe you need to find a new government source instead of making my case for me.
Edited, Fri Mar 19 19:45:26 2004 by flishtaco
Not sure what case I made for you. Last I checked I'm the one that started the thread and posted the two reports from Cato. I haven't seen you do anything to refute their findings. Also note that you still aren't looking at all the charts that are at the end of that BLS report. Oh well, I'd copy them here except that you can't copy text from a PDF file.
nah nothing but 2 government sources from the Dept of Commerce =)
Quote:
Ok. Let me see if I've got this straight. The WSJ is just a Republican mouthpiece, and not to be believed at all about things like econmics (even though pretty much all the people in business read it for just that reason).
People in business read it to read about news in the business world, not for the editorial content. It's not my imagination that WSJ's editorial content has been rabbidly neo-conservative for years. I didn't make that up.
Quote:
But!... If the NY times prints an article that doesn't actually say jobs are being lost, but merely that it found "evidence", from some unamed source, that IBM "might" ourtsource 3 thousand jobs, maybe, sometime, you'll happily use that as proof that 10 million Programmer jobs have been outsourced to India.
Actually I used it as proof that outsourcing was happening to high elvel tech jobs at all. If you recall you asserted that it never happened, wasn't happeneing, and was unlikely to happen. Learn how to read.
Quote:
I'm just making sure I've got the Smasharoo logic down. Ok. Got it. You may now carry on with your topic
Smasharoo logic is simple to understand as it's exactly the same as Descartian logic. That is, start with facts, establish cause and effect and be willing to re-examine an idea if the facts aren't what you'd expect.
As opposed to Gabaji logic which by all appearences is, start with an idea, ignore facts, change the facts if they don't meet the idea.
Just wanted to make sure I understood Gabji logic.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Recent Visitors: 273
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (273)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Insourcing Tops Outsourcing
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC