I wasn't thinking in terms of cutting people because of productivity gains. I was thinking in terms of employers who offshore large numbers of jobs that would normally go to Americans.
Productivity gains account for a far larger part of the reduction in manufacturing jobs than off shoring.
Also off shoring contributes to productivity gains through allowing for greater specialization and competitive advantage, and in some cases increases jobs in the US, or prevents greater loss of specific jobs from having the whole operation move, or go out of business after it loses to a foreign competitor.
Management's argument for doing so is so that they can stay competitive in a global economy but that doesn't stop them from giving themselves plush offices and huge salaries and bonuses.
If you hate the bonuses for moral or aesthetic reasons then argue directly against them, but in practical terms they aren't very meaningful. Most of the CEOs getting really large salaries and bonuses are heads of huge companies, and their compensation tends not to be a significant part of the cost structure of a company. In the cases where it is that's more the business of the specific company and its shareholders, than it is really a issue properly addressed in political terms.
"Loyalty" in the sense that you apparently are using the term, would generally decrease all sorts of productivity increases. For specific people it might be good, esp. in the short run, but for the country and the world as a whole it would be very negative. If Americans "buy American", and Canadians "buy Canadian", and Chinese "buy Chinese", and Germans "buy Germans", you reduce the benefits from trade. That includes trade in services through outsourcing, not just trade in manufactured goods. |
