You have a point. On the contrary, it actually saves the US money or other western countries for that matter as mentioned in the article as this is due to the differential in wages. The labor in some other countries is cheaper compared to that in the west.
It makes perfect sense that labor in countries that are not in the same economic position that the us is would be cheaper. That is also the main reason outsourcing is used as far as i know. Saving people that have lots of money, a little money by sourcing labor to places where it costs them less. In turn, they have more money, and the common American worker is out of a job and the money that would stay in the country's economic chain is now in another country. Bonus is, there are tons of tax dollars Mr. Moneybags INC. doesn't have to pay. Things like workers comp and such as factories in Asia and India aren't going to be covered by US insurance policies/companies. The product they produce and ship over however, will have all of our regulations and checks to make sure it is viable to sell and up to par with the standards of whatever industry it is. So it's a win win from a business side. As I stated before I could be on either side of this one, both sides have valid arguments.
It's definitely about money, but not always in the most direct ways you might envision. It's not as simple as worker B earns less in the Fillipines than worker A would in the US. It could very well be that worker A and B earn the same amount. Could be that worker B doesn't have a union that dictates the tasks that worker B can and cannot perform. Could be that worker B doesn't have labor laws that restrict the amount of hours they can work. Could be that worker B doesn't come with a laundry list of OSHA guidelines attached to them. Could be that worker A earns the same amount but if they're slightly injured on the job, could sue for workman's comp and not ever have to work again because they "threw out their back" while performing their job. Guess who is paying that comp plan? Guess whose liability premium just went up? This is not an unusual story in the US. We are a highly litigious society and we increasingly look at businesses as the enemy for some reason. Often, I don't blame business owners for looking over seas.
I agree with everything you're saying here, and I don't think businesses are the enemy, there just happen to be a lot of situations that involve large businesses doing not the most upfront things to save, usually ceos/owners/presidents, money or increase profit by eliminating costs in various ways. I'm going to stick with my statements concerning outsourcing making perfect sense from a lot of standpoints, all of which happen to be on the business side and almost always/usually pertaining to costs/regulations. I just think that there is something to be said about keeping internal economy strong via keeping our assets here when possible.
I think from a business standpoint, outsourcing = 100% sense However, from an ethical standpoint, 100% depends on the reason for the outsource.
So I wouldn't say that outsourcing is bad, but I would say it can be, and just the same as everything else, there are pro's and cons/cost vs reward/risks and benefits.
If you want to keep the assets/jobs in the US, then make the US a super friendly business climate. It's really that simple imo. Nobody wants to outsource work. What's the scenario you envision where an owner/ceo has outsourced in a way that is despicable?there just happen to be a lot of situations that involve large businesses doing not the most upfront things to save, usually ceos/owners/presidents, money or increase profit by eliminating costs in various ways
-What, by your estimation is wrong with eliminating costs? Especially if it's done in a way that doesn't compromise your products integrity? I just think that there is something to be said about keeping internal economy strong via keeping our assets here when possible.
-Then, shouldn't you look at the policy makers that put restrictive regulations in place? Or the unions that make their own workers obsolete by insisting that unskilled laborers be paid exorbitantly or that they dictate what workers can and cannot do?
Depends on the reason for eliminating costs an the way you go about it. For instance, the owner of the corporation that owns my school argosy, claimed a $5 million income one year and a $15 million income the the next year. Meanwhile, firing almost all of his teachers and administrators and cutting down our studio hours from 24/7 to 12/5. Now we get to register on the phone with someone out of state, online with as system that barely works occasionally, or with an academic advisor over all 8 departments. Also, the studios we are supposed to work and do our projects in are constantly booked the first week of school so 3/4 of the students don't have the time they need or we're promise when being admitted. As for the second part, partially with you but what about regulations that are for worker safety? That other countries just dgaf about. And the companies that are literally just outsourcing to avoid paying insurance and minimum wage? Like if you outsource and those workers can make the same type of living American workers would, that's pretty ethically sound. The thing is, mos of the big companies like Nike and coke turn to sweat shops and worker made an even shittier living than their American minimum wage counterparts, and there are no regulations to protect them when things go wrong.