Ability to Outsource: Good or Bad?

[futurepres]

Title says it all.

[Redalgo]

The ability to outsource strikes me as being more good than it is bad.

[dialectical fetishist]

3 quarters bad.

[Kuu ülevaade olulisematest]

Essentially a meaningless question.

[© Tweed the Younger]

strict capital controls w/extreme, public punishments.

[opebo]

Its good when you're the only one doing it, but once everyone does deflation and dearth of demand destroy your economy and thus adversely effect your business.

[Gustaf]

Phrased this way, the answer is good.

[Formerly Californian Tony]

It is good for businesses, bad for a society.

[dead0man]

Phrased this way, the answer is good.

Indeed, the ability to do it is a good thing.  Now, whether actualy doing it is a good thing or not, well that would depend on many variables.  But we shouldn't remove the ability to do it.

[Dr. Cynic]

If you are a businessman and you outsource because the labor is cheaper, you're helping yourself but hurting your country.

So, in order for it to not be so beneficial, penalties need to be incurred so that it will ultimately be cheaper for you as a businessman to employ workers in your own country, rather than another.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

It is good for businesses, bad for a society.

Bad for whose society? I'm quite sure the people who get the outsourced jobs in the other country are quite glad to have the opportunity.

[Is Totally Not Feeblepizza.]

The ability to outsource? Eh. Maybe.

Actually exercising that ability? I repeat: good for the businessman and bad for society as a whole. It should be strongly discouraged, but without being made illegal.

[Pacific Councillor Big Wiggly Style]

I don't believe it's necessarily a "freedom practice" per se, but I believe economic globalism is a good thing, therefore I voted good.

[Gustaf]

It is good for businesses, bad for a society.

Bad for whose society? I'm quite sure the people who get the outsourced jobs in the other country are quite glad to have the opportunity.

But those people are poor and brown, John. No proper left-winger would care about them.

[Formerly Californian Tony]

It is good for businesses, bad for a society.

Bad for whose society? I'm quite sure the people who get the outsourced jobs in the other country are quite glad to have the opportunity.

But those people are poor and brown, John. No proper left-winger would care about them.

Gustaf's philosophy : "if you disagree with me you must be a racist, a sexist or somehow a bad person".

Anyways, the "benefits" of outsourcing for developing countries is only an illusion. In the end, it always ends up as a way for companies to pressure countries to cut taxes and worker protections. Developing countries benefit from it because their population is miserable and therefore has no choice but working in inhumane conditions and without any social protection. While human progress would imply that these countries gradually develop a comprehensive welfare system protecting the poorer and guaranteeing reasonable levels of equality, outsourcing totally subverts the process, leading the advanced countries to gradually dismantle this system. This is a case study of how competition can, at the end of the day, harm everybody.

[Gustaf]

It is good for businesses, bad for a society.

Bad for whose society? I'm quite sure the people who get the outsourced jobs in the other country are quite glad to have the opportunity.

But those people are poor and brown, John. No proper left-winger would care about them.

Gustaf's philosophy : "if you disagree with me you must be a racist, a sexist or somehow a bad person".

Anyways, the "benefits" of outsourcing for developing countries is only an illusion. In the end, it always ends up as a way for companies to pressure countries to cut taxes and worker protections. Developing countries benefit from it because their population is miserable and therefore has no choice but working in inhumane conditions and without any social protection. While human progress would imply that these countries gradually develop a comprehensive welfare system protecting the poorer and guaranteeing reasonable levels of equality, outsourcing totally subverts the process, leading the advanced countries to gradually dismantle this system. This is a case study of how competition can, at the end of the day, harm everybody.

Lol. Coming from someone who's never shown any respect for any dissenting opinion on anything (and who even called me a racist himself!) that isn't very convincing. Unlike you I don't name-call or condescendingly disregard everyone who disagrees with me politically.

In this case, I find Westerners' preference for their own comfort over possibilities for poor people in the 3rd world intellectually lazy and rather immoral.

In order to understand my posts I'm afraid you have to understand the concept of sarcasm though. It can easily be found on google.

You think giving people jobs in the 3rd world ends up hurting them? What planet do you live on? Are you aware of the enormous increases in economic well-being that has taken place in areas like Southeast Asia or Eastern Europe?

That you want to deny these people the chance of a better life just because you can't be bothered to understand how economics work is not necessarily racist, sure, but it's hardly commendable.

[Oakvale]

Mostly positive.

I don't think you can deny that there are negatives, but the positive benefit of outsourcing on the developing country that the jobs are outsourced to outweights the job losses in the developed country the jobs are outsourced from.

It's a weird question, though. The ability, which is what is asked, to outsource is certainly good. Whether the outsourcing itself is 'good' depends on a whole bucketload of variables.

[Formerly Californian Tony]

Lol. Coming from someone who's never shown any respect for any dissenting opinion on anything

This is obviously false. There are several people in this forum who could easily prove you wrong.

(and who even called me a racist himself!)

This is also a lie. I called you a bigot, and, with this post, you proved me right once again.

In this case, I find Westerners' preference for their own comfort over possibilities for poor people in the 3rd world intellectually lazy and rather immoral.

In order to understand my posts I'm afraid you have to understand the concept of sarcasm though. It can easily be found on google.

You think giving people jobs in the 3rd world ends up hurting them? What planet do you live on? Are you aware of the enormous increases in economic well-being that has taken place in areas like Southeast Asia or Eastern Europe?

That you want to deny these people the chance of a better life just because you can't be bothered to understand how economics work is not necessarily racist, sure, but it's hardly commendable.

I don't know if I'm supposed to represent "the Westerners" in your metaphor, but I just made a very simple point showing why the "benefits" of outsourcind for poor people in the 3rd world are only apparent. But you, instead of addressing my post, just disregarded it with scorn, as you do every time someone says something you disagree with. Since you are unable to address a point with rational arguments, you engage in strawmen and indirect name-calling cowardly covered-up as "sarcasm".

The same dirty tactics you used when I dared to challenge your stereotypes regarding french "culture" and your propension to find someone guilty based on these stereotypes.

In other words, Gustaf, you are a despicable, self-righteous moron. See you next time.

[Gustaf]

Lol. Coming from someone who's never shown any respect for any dissenting opinion on anything

This is obviously false. There are several people in this forum who could easily prove you wrong.

(and who even called me a racist himself!)

This is also a lie. I called you a bigot, and, with this post, you proved me right once again.

In this case, I find Westerners' preference for their own comfort over possibilities for poor people in the 3rd world intellectually lazy and rather immoral.

In order to understand my posts I'm afraid you have to understand the concept of sarcasm though. It can easily be found on google.

You think giving people jobs in the 3rd world ends up hurting them? What planet do you live on? Are you aware of the enormous increases in economic well-being that has taken place in areas like Southeast Asia or Eastern Europe?

That you want to deny these people the chance of a better life just because you can't be bothered to understand how economics work is not necessarily racist, sure, but it's hardly commendable.

I don't know if I'm supposed to represent "the Westerners" in your metaphor, but I just made a very simple point showing why the "benefits" of outsourcind for poor people in the 3rd world are only apparent. But you, instead of addressing my post, just disregarded it with scorn, as you do every time someone says something you disagree with. Since you are unable to address a point with rational arguments, you engage in strawmen and indirect name-calling cowardly covered-up as "sarcasm".

The same dirty tactics you used when I dared to challenge your stereotypes regarding french "culture" and your propension to find someone guilty based on these stereotypes.

In other words, Gustaf, you are a despicable, self-righteous moron. See you next time.

You routinely refer to right-wingers as idiots or morons and seem unable to understand how people can differ from you on political issues.

I'm a bigot because I care about people in the Third World? I think you'll have to explain that one.

Just like when you accused me of being a racist, you're not very good at understanding irony. Of course I proved you wrong with actual arguments back then, whereas you had only name-calling and your emotions.

Your "argument" was that developing countries that get jobs from the West dismantle their welfare system and get harmed. This is stupid. It's so wrong that it should hardly have to be disproven. Again, have you been to any developing country? Read any economical statistics on these things? Are you actually denying that countries in Southeast Asia and Eastern Europe have become much, much richer over the last two decades?

Apart from the fact that your argument is belied by reality it doesn't make any sense in theory. Why would people take those jobs if they were hurt by them? Since what they produce is more  valuable they have higher productivity and thus earn higher wages.

The improvements in peoples' lives in many third world countries have been enormous. You're simply making things up so as to make your immoral position seem more palatable.

I'll also note that you called me a "moron" which is again typical of your name-calling. Even though you've displayed a shocking ignorance of the world and its economic history I haven't called you any such thing.

[Formerly Californian Tony]

You routinely refer to right-wingers as idiots or morons and seem unable to understand how people can differ from you on political issues.

If "right-wingers" are people like BigSkyBob, Politico or CaDan, I really don't see where the problem is. Their being morons is pretty much a consensus on this forum, and rightfully so.

I'm a bigot because I care about people in the Third World? I think you'll have to explain that one.

Yeah, OK. Pathetic strawman is pathetic.

Just like when you accused me of being a racist, you're not very good at understanding irony. Of course I proved you wrong with actual arguments back then, whereas you had only name-calling and your emotions.

Anyways, the "benefits" of outsourcing for developing countries is only an illusion. In the end, it always ends up as a way for companies to pressure countries to cut taxes and worker protections. Developing countries benefit from it because their population is miserable and therefore has no choice but working in inhumane conditions and without any social protection. While human progress would imply that these countries gradually develop a comprehensive welfare system protecting the poorer and guaranteeing reasonable levels of equality, outsourcing totally subverts the process, leading the advanced countries to gradually dismantle this system. This is a case study of how competition can, at the end of the day, harm everybody.

Name-calling and emotions. Right.

Your "argument" was that developing countries that get jobs from the West dismantle their welfare system and get harmed. This is stupid. It's so wrong that it should hardly have to be disproven. Again, have you been to any developing country? Read any economical statistics on these things? Are you actually denying that countries in Southeast Asia and Eastern Europe have become much, much richer over the last two decades?

Apart from the fact that your argument is belied by reality it doesn't make any sense in theory. Why would people take those jobs if they were hurt by them? Since what they produce is more  valuable they have higher productivity and thus earn higher wages.

The improvements in peoples' lives in many third world countries have been enormous. You're simply making things up so as to make your immoral position seem more palatable.

The point is that the businesses don't go in developing countries for the sake of helping poor people, they go there because being in a poor country allows them to make higher profits. As soon as their financial advantage disappears (ie when people start asking for slightly more humane wages) they'll go elsewhere or threaten to do so in order to force a country not to develop as it should. This is what is happening in China right now.

Of course at the micro level, outsourcing may bring a few jobs to a region, but if you look at the big picture, it's hard to see any advantage, as all countries are forced to "compete" with each other in order to attract businesses. This is the typical case when individual interests and collective interests diverge. And BTW, why do you assume development would be impossible without foreign intervention ?

I'll also note that you called me a "moron" which is again typical of your name-calling. Even though you've displayed a shocking ignorance of the world and its economic history I haven't called you any such thing.

Yes, people who can't make a single point without recurring to strawmen and dismiss valid arguments with unjustified remarks are, in my view, morons. And I also said "despicable" and "self-righteous".

[dialectical fetishist]

It is good for businesses, bad for a society.

Bad for whose society? I'm quite sure the people who get the outsourced jobs in the other country are quite glad to have the opportunity.

But those people are poor and brown, John. No proper left-winger would care about them.

Gustaf's philosophy : "if you disagree with me you must be a racist, a sexist or somehow a bad person".

Anyways, the "benefits" of outsourcing for developing countries is only an illusion. In the end, it always ends up as a way for companies to pressure countries to cut taxes and worker protections. Developing countries benefit from it because their population is miserable and therefore has no choice but working in inhumane conditions and without any social protection. While human progress would imply that these countries gradually develop a comprehensive welfare system protecting the poorer and guaranteeing reasonable levels of equality, outsourcing totally subverts the process, leading the advanced countries to gradually dismantle this system. This is a case study of how competition can, at the end of the day, harm everybody.

Lol. Coming from someone who's never shown any respect for any dissenting opinion on anything (and who even called me a racist himself!) that isn't very convincing. Unlike you I don't name-call or condescendingly disregard everyone who disagrees with me politically.

In this case, I find Westerners' preference for their own comfort over possibilities for poor people in the 3rd world intellectually lazy and rather immoral.

In order to understand my posts I'm afraid you have to understand the concept of sarcasm though. It can easily be found on google.

You think giving people jobs in the 3rd world ends up hurting them? What planet do you live on? Are you aware of the enormous increases in economic well-being that has taken place in areas like Southeast Asia or Eastern Europe?

That you want to deny these people the chance of a better life just because you can't be bothered to understand how economics work is not necessarily racist, sure, but it's hardly commendable.

These people are exploited Gustaf. Your cheering for a system that pays them pathetic wages and effectively reduces them to the status of a slave class is really quite disgusting.

[IDS Judicial Overlord John Dibble]

These people are exploited Gustaf. Your cheering for a system that pays them pathetic wages and effectively reduces them to the status of a slave class is really quite disgusting.

The question is are they worse or better of than they were before? Developing a country from a third world one to a first world one is a process. You are not going to see people in these nations immediately get the wages and benefits they would get in a developed nation, otherwise it wouldn't make any economic sense for companies to outsource. However, as things develop the situation will likely improve along the lines they did in our nations. Gradual improvement is preferable to stagnation.

[Gustaf]

You routinely refer to right-wingers as idiots or morons and seem unable to understand how people can differ from you on political issues.

If "right-wingers" are people like BigSkyBob, Politico or CaDan, I really don't see where the problem is. Their being morons is pretty much a consensus on this forum, and rightfully so.

I'm a bigot because I care about people in the Third World? I think you'll have to explain that one.

Yeah, OK. Pathetic strawman is pathetic.

Just like when you accused me of being a racist, you're not very good at understanding irony. Of course I proved you wrong with actual arguments back then, whereas you had only name-calling and your emotions.

Anyways, the "benefits" of outsourcing for developing countries is only an illusion. In the end, it always ends up as a way for companies to pressure countries to cut taxes and worker protections. Developing countries benefit from it because their population is miserable and therefore has no choice but working in inhumane conditions and without any social protection. While human progress would imply that these countries gradually develop a comprehensive welfare system protecting the poorer and guaranteeing reasonable levels of equality, outsourcing totally subverts the process, leading the advanced countries to gradually dismantle this system. This is a case study of how competition can, at the end of the day, harm everybody.

Name-calling and emotions. Right.

Your "argument" was that developing countries that get jobs from the West dismantle their welfare system and get harmed. This is stupid. It's so wrong that it should hardly have to be disproven. Again, have you been to any developing country? Read any economical statistics on these things? Are you actually denying that countries in Southeast Asia and Eastern Europe have become much, much richer over the last two decades?

Apart from the fact that your argument is belied by reality it doesn't make any sense in theory. Why would people take those jobs if they were hurt by them? Since what they produce is more  valuable they have higher productivity and thus earn higher wages.

The improvements in peoples' lives in many third world countries have been enormous. You're simply making things up so as to make your immoral position seem more palatable.

The point is that the businesses don't go in developing countries for the sake of helping poor people, they go there because being in a poor country allows them to make higher profits. As soon as their financial advantage disappears (ie when people start asking for slightly more humane wages) they'll go elsewhere or threaten to do so in order to force a country not to develop as it should. This is what is happening in China right now.

Of course at the micro level, outsourcing may bring a few jobs to a region, but if you look at the big picture, it's hard to see any advantage, as all countries are forced to "compete" with each other in order to attract businesses. This is the typical case when individual interests and collective interests diverge. And BTW, why do you assume development would be impossible without foreign intervention ?

I'll also note that you called me a "moron" which is again typical of your name-calling. Even though you've displayed a shocking ignorance of the world and its economic history I haven't called you any such thing.

Yes, people who can't make a single point without recurring to strawmen and dismiss valid arguments with unjustified remarks are, in my view, morons. And I also said "despicable" and "self-righteous".

No, it's a general attitude of yours.

So, you're not going to explain how my position here is bigoted? I think you should be more prepared to back up your slander.

You are a bit slow but my comment about emotional name-calling was about the last time you called me a bigot, not this time.

So, you completely ignore my question. Is China right now becoming poorer? Do you have any statistics to back up that notion?

See, what any economist could tell you is actually happening is this: as Western investment in those countries raise productivity levels, the low-productivity jobs that moved there from the West move to even poorer countries, improving thing for them whereas people in China switch to better jobs. You are, hilariously, arguing that China first gets hurt by getting the jobs from the West and then gets hurt by losing them! How can capitalists threaten them with moving away if their move is so harmful in the first place?

I might be wrong, but I seem to recall you used to have a Paul Krugman quote in your signature. Perhaps you'd be interested on what such a self-righteous, right-winged, bigoted moron had to say on this issue: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1997/03/in_praise_of_cheap_labor.html

[Gustaf]

It is good for businesses, bad for a society.

Bad for whose society? I'm quite sure the people who get the outsourced jobs in the other country are quite glad to have the opportunity.

But those people are poor and brown, John. No proper left-winger would care about them.

Gustaf's philosophy : "if you disagree with me you must be a racist, a sexist or somehow a bad person".

Anyways, the "benefits" of outsourcing for developing countries is only an illusion. In the end, it always ends up as a way for companies to pressure countries to cut taxes and worker protections. Developing countries benefit from it because their population is miserable and therefore has no choice but working in inhumane conditions and without any social protection. While human progress would imply that these countries gradually develop a comprehensive welfare system protecting the poorer and guaranteeing reasonable levels of equality, outsourcing totally subverts the process, leading the advanced countries to gradually dismantle this system. This is a case study of how competition can, at the end of the day, harm everybody.

Lol. Coming from someone who's never shown any respect for any dissenting opinion on anything (and who even called me a racist himself!) that isn't very convincing. Unlike you I don't name-call or condescendingly disregard everyone who disagrees with me politically.

In this case, I find Westerners' preference for their own comfort over possibilities for poor people in the 3rd world intellectually lazy and rather immoral.

In order to understand my posts I'm afraid you have to understand the concept of sarcasm though. It can easily be found on google.

You think giving people jobs in the 3rd world ends up hurting them? What planet do you live on? Are you aware of the enormous increases in economic well-being that has taken place in areas like Southeast Asia or Eastern Europe?

That you want to deny these people the chance of a better life just because you can't be bothered to understand how economics work is not necessarily racist, sure, but it's hardly commendable.

These people are exploited Gustaf. Your cheering for a system that pays them pathetic wages and effectively reduces them to the status of a slave class is really quite disgusting.

Reduces them to a slave class? What exactly do you think life in China used to be like before they got "exploited"? Do you think they were not a slave class back then? Again, if you have statistics showing how life has gotten much worse in China over the last 20 or 30 years, feel free to share. You would probably get a Nobel Prize in economics with such a revolutionary discovery.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

While Antonio prepares to join the ranks of Friedman and Samuelson based on his emense contribution here regarding the "Inverse Practical Effect of Positive Per Capita Income Changes", I think I will take the time to provide some perspective here.

The OP asks about outsourcing in general. If you have several companies that have a legal dept that provides services occasionally, but not enough to justify paying them on staff continuously, it is of immense importance that they be able to outsource their legal services to an independent firm that can handle several firms on a contractual, potentially even on an as needed basis. So the answer is yes.


The solution to outsourcing of jobs overseas, is to boost competativeness in as many fields as possible. Any attempt of substance to restrict the operations of multinationals would amount to the dismantling of the international trade-based economy. The effect of which would be dire economically here in the US and other developed countries, but absolutely devasting to many less well off countries and the poor people within them.