Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Protectionists Take Note: There Really Aren’t That Many Jobs Being Shipped Overseas

The Tax Foundation smacks down an oft-repeated (by Barack Obama and other protectionists) myth about jobs being shipped overseas.

Barack Obama frequently says he will remove the “tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas.” Yet, he has never either identified the specific parts of the tax code that is supposedly encouraging such outsourcing nor has he identified any specific company that has engaged in such actions. 

In fact, according to Department of Labor statistics, the hysteria over outsourcing is greater than the actual occurrences of jobs being shipped abroad. According to DOL’s April 2008 report on extended mass layoffs, “In 2006, employers laid off about 936,000 workers in 4,885 private nonfarm extended mass layoff events.”

As the chart below shows, only 3.6% of these workers were separated because their jobs were relocated to a foreign or domestic location. Indeed, only 1.4% of all workers separated in 2006, 13,367 in total, were laid off because their jobs were relocated overseas. The vast majority of these job changes were relocations within the same company and not “outsourced” to another firm.

By contrast, 2.2% of all laid off workers, 20,669 in total, were separated because their jobs were relocated to another part of the United States. Again, the vast majority of these job changes were made within the same company. 

An inconvenient (for populists) myth, to be sure, but don’t expect it to change anything.  The “your job could go to some dirty foreigner” line is just too useful to the proponents of big-government, anti-free trade policies to be relegated to the dust heap by mere fact.

Comments

It’d be a lot better if these business that employ domestic workers just went bankrupt.  That way the entire supply chain can be run by foreigners rather than just part of the manufacturing.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on October 14, 2008 at 04:19 pm

Ask yourself: Where did all the technology jobs go? Like actualy manufacturing computer chips, motherboards, printers, videocards, etc?  When I ordered a laptop for my college bound son it had HP’s name on it but the package with the laptop arived from China.
What happened to the jobs that used to make clothes for millions of Americans? Poof!! Just like Ross Perot said. I can go on and on. But I have to call my bank to talk about an issue. So I will continue later on my post.
Ok I am back. Could not resolve the issue becase I was talking to someone in India and could not understand what the hell she was talking about.

ellinas on October 14, 2008 at 04:27 pm

The “your job could go to some dirty foreigner” line is just too useful to the proponents of big-government, anti-free trade policies to be relegated to the dust heap by mere fact.

“And we need to crack down on those who have abused our credit market and caused this housing decline. We need to take action to support American businesses so that we can stop jobs from going overseas and create more jobs here at home. America has the second highest business [tax]rate in the entire world. It’s any wonder that jobs are moving overseas. We’re taxing them out of the country.”

John McCain
August 6, 2008


Excuse me, you were saying?


realitybasedbob's signature
realitybasedbob on October 14, 2008 at 04:31 pm

Millions of jobs have been shipped overseas. 

Meanwhile we’re wealthier than other and unemployment has recently been at rock bottom.

Where are you going to find the people to take all of these jobs when we get them back?


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on October 14, 2008 at 04:37 pm

Millions of jobs have been shipped overseas. 

Meanwhile we’re wealthier than other and unemployment has recently been at rock bottom.

Where are you going to find the people to take all of these jobs when we get them back?

The Whistler on October 14, 2008 at 04:37 pm

It is not just about jobs. Seen our trade deficit recently?

ellinas on October 14, 2008 at 05:34 pm

It is not just about jobs. Seen our trade deficit recently?

And the significance of that metric means what?

I have a trade deficit with my local grocer. Is that a bad thing?

likwidshoe on October 14, 2008 at 05:41 pm

It is not just about jobs. Seen our trade deficit recently?

And the significance of that metric means what?
I have a trade deficit with my local grocer. Is that a bad thing?

likwidshoe on October 14, 2008 at 05:41 pm

Yes it is. If you did not have an income producing job, would your grocer extend credit to you indefinetely?
We borrow to buy our foreign goods. How long before the Chinese and others demand payment?
FYI, They already have, and we could not pay. So we mortgaged future generations.

ellinas on October 14, 2008 at 05:55 pm

For anyone with actual intelligence, the amount of money the govt borrows to finance non-productive social spending has nothing at all to do with trade.  We get more value from their stuff than it costs us to buy it, so we make money from trade.  If we buy more from them than they do from us, it’s because we are wealthier than they are.
Neither the debt nor the deficit is due to trade; it’s about useless and wasteful govt social spending.
Cut the social spending by about 75-80%, and the debt and deficits will fade away.


Save America; boycott the MSM.

robert108 on October 14, 2008 at 06:13 pm

Yet the United States remains the world’s top manufacturing country, its factories producing goods worth $1.49 trillion in 2005, 1.5 times the level in the next country, Japan. And the value of U.S. agricultural production trails that of only China and India.

http://www.america.gov/media/pdf/books/economy-in-brief.pdf


C. Y.'s signature
C. Y. on October 14, 2008 at 07:36 pm

Trade with China : 2008
NOTE: All figures are in millions of U.S. dollars, and not seasonally adjusted unless otherwise specified.  Month Exports Imports Balance
January 2008 5,854.9 26,167.7 -20,312.8
February 2008 5,773.9 24,128.6 -18,354.7
March 2008 6,354.1 22,432.0 -16,077.9
April 2008 5,680.6 25,919.3 -20,238.6
May 2008 6,614.3 27,663.6 -21,049.4
June 2008 6,413.7 27,843.3 -21,429.6
July 2008 6,437.3 31,314.0 -24,876.8
August 2008 6,506.7 31,840.2 -25,333.5
TOTAL 49,635.5 217,308.7 -167,673.2

‘TOTAL’ may not add due to rounding.
Table reflects only those months for which there was trade.
CONTACT: Data Dissemination Branch, U.S. Census Bureau, (301) 763-2311
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Division, Data Dissemination Branch, Washington, D.C. 20233

ellinas on October 14, 2008 at 07:50 pm

ellinas - We borrow to buy our foreign goods. How long before the Chinese and others demand payment?

Uh, no, we don’t.

The government borrows to buy votes.

The people may be borrowing from Mastercard and Visa to buy that big screen TV, but they’re not borrowing from the Chinese.

You’re confusing the economy with the government spending.

FYI, They already have, and we could not pay. So we mortgaged future generations.

“We” did no such thing.

You can lay that one on the laps of those who give us big government, which is not me and not “we”.

likwidshoe on October 14, 2008 at 08:00 pm

We’re not going into debt buying their stuff, moron; it’s the social spending.  We make money on what we buy; we don’t make money from the social spending.
Again, you illustrate your ignorance.


Save America; boycott the MSM.

robert108 on October 14, 2008 at 08:00 pm

likwid: Like Obama, this moron thinks the govt is “the system”; it’s the old Marxist error.


Save America; boycott the MSM.

robert108 on October 14, 2008 at 08:01 pm

C. Y. You left a lot out of your quotation. From the same article:

The $758.5 billion trade deficit amounted to 5.7 percent of 2006 GDP, a level viewed as unsustainable by many economists because it relies on continuing inflows of foreign investment to pay for it.

“because it relies on continuing inflows of foreign investment to pay for it” Meaning: We have to borrow money from others.

ellinas on October 14, 2008 at 08:04 pm

...by many economists…

More bullshit.  Name them.  Again, moron; if not for the massive wasteful govt spending, there would be no deficit or “national debt”.  Businesses operate at a profit, which is what keeps them viable.  If you’re making a profit(a word you don’t understand), it exceeds your debt, by definition.
Educate yourself, instead of ignorantly parroting words you don’t understand.


Save America; boycott the MSM.

robert108 on October 14, 2008 at 08:11 pm

because it relies on continuing inflows of foreign investment to pay for it.

Well, no $hit Dick Tracy, I’ll bet they aren’t dealing in rubles either.  The world wants US Dollars even when we’re told the economy sucks.


C. Y.'s signature
C. Y. on October 14, 2008 at 09:38 pm

“because it relies on continuing inflows of foreign investment to pay for it” Meaning: We have to borrow money from others.

I doubt you’d like any solutions to this problem. End welfare. Cut medicare and medicaid. Start scaling back social security. End earmarks. No more Katrina spending. No more UN spending. Cut taxes so that the top bracket is 25%.

This would immediately end the deficit and allow us to pay the debt off in 10 years.


For the first time in my adult life, I am ashamed of my country.

Kenny on October 14, 2008 at 10:10 pm

Yes it is. If you did not have an income producing job, would your grocer extend credit to you indefinetely?
We borrow to buy our foreign goods. How long before the Chinese and others demand payment?

If I didn’t have an income producing job, I would not have a trade deficit with my grocer. I would buy nothing from them, and they would buy nothing from me (cause I had no money). The proof of a deficit shoots your point down. We have money and are spending it on China. There is no credit being given. “Trade deficit” means that we spend more money on them than they spend on us.

You don’t understand ANYTHING.


For the first time in my adult life, I am ashamed of my country.

Kenny on October 14, 2008 at 10:15 pm

“Trade deficit” means that we spend more money on them than they spend on us.

Exactly.

I got the sense that ellinas believes it means trade debt.

likwidshoe on October 14, 2008 at 10:23 pm

Exactly.
I got the sense that ellinas believes it means trade debt.

Well, since she’s talking about credit… And “would they keep loaning if you didn’t have a job"… That’s exactly what she means.

No clue how the world works.


For the first time in my adult life, I am ashamed of my country.

Kenny on October 14, 2008 at 11:31 pm

Ironically, the very term “trade deficit” doesn’t make sense. If I trade you 6 dollars for your cool new toy...where is the deficit? Either we are saying the toy is worth more than six dollars or that the toy is less. We are trading something (money) for something else (goods). The deal is a wash. Trade is even by it’s very nature.

It’s illiterate lies that because they don’tspend as much money on OUR goods as we spend on theirs...the trade is unfair!


For the first time in my adult life, I am ashamed of my country.

Kenny on October 14, 2008 at 11:34 pm

The whole “trade deficit” meme originated as a sop to labor unions; it is designed to force people to “buy American”, even if those goods are more expensive.  It is the greedy unions wanting Americans to subsidize their inefficiency.  They want to eliminate competition, so that they can keep on with their greedy wage demands and lazy work rules.


Save America; boycott the MSM.

robert108 on October 15, 2008 at 05:54 am
Avatar for Samantha Burgess

About.com just added 3 new sites to their top 10 job site list. 

http://www.linkedin.com (networking)
http://www.indeed.com (aggregated listings)
http://www.realmatch.com (matches you to the perfect job)

Theres a perfect job out there for everyone!

Samantha Burgess on October 15, 2008 at 10:57 am

Ironically, the very term “trade deficit” doesn’t make sense. If I trade you 6 dollars for your cool new toy...where is the deficit? Either we are saying the toy is worth more than six dollars or that the toy is less. We are trading something (money) for something else (goods). The deal is a wash. Trade is even by it’s very nature.
It’s illiterate lies that because they don’tspend as much money on OUR goods as we spend on theirs...the trade is unfair!

Kenny on October 14, 2008 at 11:34 pm

You are out of six dollars and cannot continue to be out of six dollars indefinitely. How many times are you as a nation going to use your “six dollars”? There will come a time that because your earnings are less then your spending you will not be able to buy that “six dollar toy” anymore. Therefore if you want that “toy” you have two choices: Not buy, or borrow. Borrowing has its limits. How long before the Chinese demand that we sell them something they want with those “six” dollars? What do we have to sell them that they already don’t produce? We Have America. Thats right. The good old U.S. of A. The current crisis is due to us not having any dollars left. The worthless market paper evaporated. Still we have to pay. And we are. Instead of the Chinese and Co. owning our banks, the government moved in to partialy or fully nationalize them.

ellinas on October 15, 2008 at 05:57 pm

e moron: You still don’t get it; business makes money from what they buy, so it’s not a loss, and no lasting debt is incurred; you confuse govt debt with business debt, and so you keep coming to the same erroneous conclusion.  If I spend money on a “toy”, it’s disposable income, and I can afford it.  If I can’t, I don’t buy the toy.  Duh.
Your example is crap, your thinking is crap, and you continue in your ignorance, even though you have been schooled many times in the reality here.  The govt borrows money to fund its wasteful social spending, which returns nothing.  It’s not business spending that’s at fault here; it’s wasteful govt spending on useless social programs.


Save America; boycott the MSM.

robert108 on October 15, 2008 at 06:06 pm

When any one of you loses his/her job because the company decided to move overseas, then tell me how much the statistics quoted above mean to you.

ollie-B on October 15, 2008 at 06:49 pm

It’s not business spending that’s at fault here; it’s wasteful govt spending on useless social programs.

robert108 on October 15, 2008 at 06:06 pm

Your objection to social spending is duly noted.
However it is buisiness that are failing, unless you don’t consider banks as buisiness. I suppose you consider that $700 billion social spending.
I am not denying that when a buisiness buys and ressels a “toy” that buisiness makes a profit. However dollars do not grow on trees. If I buy underwear from China and sell it in the USA surely I will profit. But that is profit for the underwear only. Do I make enough of a profit as to buy enough underwear to meet the demand? No? So I need capital to be able to buy more. Which means I have to borrow. The Chinese flush with dollars are willing to fund my buisiness.
I cannot borrow directly from them. A bank can, with backing from uncle SAM. Since we spend more than we produce we cannot go on like this forever. We do not have an unlimited supply of dollars. The investment banks along with regular banks are failing or are in danger of failing. The money tree dryed out. Notice GM and Ford did not go and borrow from the Chinese. They can, but the Chinese will want a slice of them and not a simple repayment plan. Since our banks are out of dollars we the taxpayers are asked to lend money to our banks so they can lend it back to us (a ponzi scheme). It would not serve the politicians well to admit the fucked up if they allowed foreigners to own our banks, Ford or GM. It is election time, so the dream up these shemes to cover their incompetency.
To end this I will close by saying that IMO no nation can stay sovereign for long if they are not capable producing more then they need. It is this excess capacity that makes a nation wealthy.We are importers and not exporters.

ellinas on October 15, 2008 at 08:51 pm

Do I make enough of a profit as to buy
enough underwear to meet the demand?

If you don’t, you go out of business.  Duh.


Save America; boycott the MSM.

robert108 on October 15, 2008 at 10:12 pm

Do I make enough of a profit as to buy
enough underwear to meet the demand?

If you don’t, you go out of business.  Duh

.
robert108 on October 15, 2008 at 10:12 pm

Not neceseraly moron. I don’t have to grow. I can stay at the level I am at.

ellinas on October 16, 2008 at 07:03 am

Not neceseraly moron. I don’t have to grow. I can stay at the level I am at.

Wrong again.  Making a profit sufficient to restock isn’t growth.  If you want to grow, you have to borrow, and if you don’t grow, you go out of business.  If your profit is enough to stay at a certain level, you don’t have to borrow.  Duh.


Save America; boycott the MSM.

robert108 on October 16, 2008 at 07:46 am

Look! You don’t go out of buisiness for not growing. You go out of buisiness because a)No one, or not enough people are buying from you, b) you have no profit and need to borrow continualy, and c) people cannot afford your product.

ellinas on October 16, 2008 at 08:06 am

I’m glad some of my schooling you has sunk in.


Save America; boycott the MSM.

robert108 on October 16, 2008 at 08:08 am
Avatar for rightwing conspiracy

To end this I will close by saying that IMO no nation can stay sovereign for long if they are not capable producing more then they need.

You are assuming all business is retail or wholesale.  Business can be services as well (are they included in the stats?) How about barbers, cafes, consultants, community organizers, etc?

rightwing conspiracy on October 16, 2008 at 11:05 am

No business can remain open unless they make a profit, but the same is not true of govts.  For example, most of the ME oil producing countries are wealthy, but only on a cash flow basis.  Their wealth is based on one product, and when the price of that product is cut in half, as has recently happened, they are in trouble.  The situation is more complex than simply producing more than you need.


Save America; boycott the MSM.

robert108 on October 16, 2008 at 11:11 am

USA is a country that used to produce many “toys” that others wanted. No more. For example: Where is our textile industry? Look at your computers. Who makes them? I can go on and on. The excess capacity when sold abroad is the basis for a nations wealth. Meaning the national trade sheets should be in the black. When in the red, and by a large margin, we the are net importers and are exporting our wealth. Surely, any idiot knows this is not sustainable. Soon your creditors come knocking on your door. And like I said before if we have nothing to sell them, they will want a slice of America.

ellinas on October 16, 2008 at 04:59 pm
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.

    

By submitting your comment you agree to our terms of service.