Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tradelite who wrote (17284)	2/13/2004 5:38:07 PM
From: Tradelite	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Realities Make 'Offshoring' Hard to Swallow By Steven Pearlstein Friday, February 13, 2004; Page E01 In one respect, White House economic adviser Greg Mankiw is absolutely right: There is no economic difference between BearingPoint using cut-rate software engineers in China and India and Black & Decker making its power tools in Mexico and the Czech Republic. One's a good, the other is a service, but according to standard economic models, importing both is supposed to be beneficial to the U.S. economy. The problem with the standard model, however, is that it is based on a number of key assumptions that are increasingly at odds with reality. One big one is that labor markets are either at full employment, or will get there real soon. What this ignores is that the world has just gone through a political revolution -- the end of communism -- which suddenly has dumped a billion underemployed, low-cost workers into the global labor pool, with multinational corporations champing at the bit to equip them with western capital and technology. At the same time, the arrival of the Internet and the digital revolution have suddenly made it possible for many of those workers to compete against tens of millions of U.S. service workers in sectors once immune to trade. Taken together, these two extraordinary and simultaneous developments threaten to create such an imbalance in the supply and demand for labor that we could have an extended period of job dislocation and wage stagnation. Or as one wag put it: This may not be a jobless recovery, it's just that the new jobs are in Bangalore. Another assumption in the standard model is that in a world of free trade and free-floating currencies, countries won't run big trade imbalances. In the real world, however, two of our biggest trading partners, China and Japan, are manipulating their currency like crazy while using trade barriers to limit imports of American goods and services. The result: a large and persistent trade deficit. Or put another way, all those countries benefiting from "offshoring" haven't yet used much of their new income to buy American goods and services. Indeed, in a set of papers that has been used to boost public support for offshoring, the consulting firm McKinsey & Co. estimated that every dollar of service activity transferred to India generates only about 5 cents in additional U.S. exports. Finally, the standard model relied on by defenders of offshoring assumes a world of perfect competition. But as Princeton University economist William Baumol and Ralph Gomory, IBM's former research director, point out in an intriguing new book, there are now many industries in which competition is imperfect because entry by new firms is virtually impossible. That leads them, by way of some fancy mathematical footwork, to the conclusion that trade may not always be the win-win proposition economists have always said it was, particularly when it is between higher-income countries or involves higher-skilled industries. The point here is not to suggest that offshoring is always bad or that it suddenly threatens every job in America. Rather, it is to cast a critical eye on the idea -- peddled by most economists and the burgeoning consulting industry that has developed around it -- that offshoring is always a good idea. McKinsey's much-cited study, for example, calculates that for every dollar in service work transferred offshore, the U.S. gets $1.12 back in benefits each year. But it turns out this calculation is based on the assumption that the economy will be as successful in finding jobs for displaced service workers as it did in the past, when the service sector was largely protected from global competition. Nor have any of the briefs filed in defense of offshoring even taken a stab at calculating what happens to income inequality when so much more of the labor force is subject to the "discipline" of low-wage competition. The experience of the last 25 years, however, is hardly encouraging. If you peel back the arguments in favor of offshoring, what you finally end up with is an article of faith -- faith that history will repeat itself and the U.S. economy will quickly generate enough new jobs in higher-paying industries to compensate for the ones lost to trade. What I've yet to see, however, is even a educated guess as to what those jobs might be. Steven Pearlstein can be reached at pearlsteins@washpost.com. © 2004 The Washington Post Company

To: Tradelite who wrote (17284)	2/13/2004 6:03:53 PM
From: Tradelite	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

addendum to previous post... One additional thought: Maybe we should send the unions over to China and India. They'll drive up wage costs, pronto, and we'll get those jobs right back here in the U.S. <<gg>> Seriously, it will be interesting to see how things work out as prices of materials and labor (inevitably, I believe) get higher in developing countries. Then maybe it will be time for the U.S. to get protectionist and once again produce the bulk of goods and services at home.

To: Tradelite who wrote (17284)	2/14/2004 3:51:58 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Tradelite, RE: "I think the political candidates are pandering to emotions and ought to start talking specifics about what they truly think they're going to do" On the weekend, I searched the various candidate's websites for their specifics, and they weren't there. You're definitely right. Kerry's supporters are complaining he isn't clear on the specifics - Kerry hasn't said how he intends to address the underlying issues. He voted against Pell grants, hasn't acknowledged a need to make the USA more competitive, and hasn't advocated innovation to create jobs. He is only advocating protectionism, with zero specifics. Meanwhile, Bush is promoting a job training program at community colleges, as if Bush is still living in the 80s. He is unaware this downturn is different - it's hitting an even higher educated group - the people who have been displaced are college educated IT dept engineers that need to be retrained into more hard core physical sciences (nanotechnology, biotech, medicine, material science, newer comm areas, etc.). All our candidates seem to be living in the 80s, when a college degree was enough. They need to beef up our universities, pump money into them and give grants to PhD students for hardcore scientific areas. Move on to the next innovative thing. Neither Democratic Party nor Republican Party fully understand how the USA corporations need to get more competitive. The world is no longer in the complacent 90s. Neither Party supports upper education (grad students & universities). On immigration, all Parties say, "give us only your poor but not your smart people." Neither Party understands the market is global, nor are they addressing the key issues so employees here get ahead. Neither Party advocates improving underlying issues, none give specifics. RE: "grocery store are getting OUTRAGEOUS" Bought a meal during lunch and paid $7.00. Just a few months ago this same meal was $5.50. That's a serious jump in prices. Is inflation rearing its head? Regards, Amy J