This is a post to Lizzie and other naysayers on this thread.
When I was in MBA school many many years ago, we did a class project. That project was to calculate the net cost to America of offshoring to Asian countries of the textile industry. We formed theories and tested them using real data from a sample of American companies. Our conclusions, validated by our teacher, were that America loses jobs, which results in some lower amount of consumption, which impacts GDP. However, offsetting that, companies saved money, which allowed them to pass on some savings to American consumers, which added more to GDP than the cosumer spending due to lost jobs. Companies also saved money from offshoring, which they then spent on new more strategic investments like automation, and expanding their business into new revenue streams. These efficiencies and these new revenue streams created more jobs than were originally lost. This was a proof of the virtuous cycle of increasing company efficiencies through correct allocation of resources and hiring labor wherever it is cheapest in the world.
I don't expect everyone to understand or even agree that this is how a modern capitalistic economy works. If you have no macro or micro economics training, then it's doubtful that you will ever agree that economic Darwinism is good for our economy in the long run. However, the brightest economic minds in the world (along with a few students in ages past) have come to the same conclusion that the ability to move economic resources frictionlessly throughout the world is the best way to ensure that economies are optimized and maximum jobs growth is sustained.
That is a fact and it applies to the offshoring of tech workers. It's a harsh reality for those who never recover, but the long run effect is a richer and better jobs environment for Americans, as long as we can retain our competitive edge of identifying the next horizon and educating our people to lead the world to that horizon. |
