To accept that thinking though you have to beleive that economic gains are largely out of your control. That simply isn't true. It also assumes that you think someone other than you is suppossed to provide you with said economic gain. Also not true.
It assumes neither. And it is a moot point anyways since it is not about beliefs nor assumptions. It is about empirical observations, such as after the 2006 Congressional elections
Exit polls showed the economy competing with ethics and national security and even besting Iraq when voters were asked about the importance of the various issues in determining their vote for Congress. Eighty-two percent of Americans said economy was either extremely important (39 percent) or very important (43 percent) in their vote for Congress. By comparison, 74 percent said corruption and ethics were either extremely important (41 percent) or very important (33 percent) in their vote for Congress. Sixty-seven percent said Iraq was either extremely important (35 percent) or very important (32 percent) in their vote for Congress. Seventy-two percent said terrorism was either extremely important (39 percent) or very important (33 percent) in their vote for Congress. Sixty-two percent said illegal immigration was either extremely important (30 percent) or very important (32 percent) in their vote for Congress. And just fifty-seven two percent said values issues were either extremely important (36 percent) or very important (21 percent) in their vote for Congress.
Link
How can this be when economic growth has been pretty much average compared to past history? Usually, when things are good or average, people do not single out the economy as one of the most important issues, let alone resoundingly thump the incumbent party.
And the reason is because over the past few years, the gains from economic growth have accrued primarily to the wealthiest. People aren't stupid. For most people, the economy has not been good. The economy is growing but the majority of the gains are accruing to a minority of the population.
This, BTW, isn't an issue that started in 2000. The trend in economic inequality has been rising since about 1970. So, if you think I'm singling out Bush, that's incorrect, though Bush's policies have certainly exacerbated the situation.
I believe the whole have/have not issue centers around that. While not wanting full income equality for obvious reasons many still support some form of wealth redistribution. Inherent in that support is that people don't have control over their economic gains. That simply isn't true.
People have some control over their economic future but they certainly do not have control over all their economic future. A black kid growing up in the ghetto has a far less chance of making it in America than a white kid whose father went to Harvard and donated a million dollars to the endowment. This is an overwhelming statistical fact. Of course, the black kid from the ghetto certainly can make it in America, and there are many examples of such. But people do not have entire control of their destiny.
I do recall that from Buchanen now.
Anybody who rails against outsourcing is making a de facto argument for protectionism, whether they outright say it or not. They are statists, no different than socialists, using the power of government to redistribute wealth from the masses of the consumer to the few whose jobs are protected. If you believe there shouldn't be any form of taxation and redistribution, then you should support outsourcing fully because the effect of protecting jobs is the same as welfare. Its actually even worse, as economists have shown because writing a person a check brings about a lesser dead-weight loss than protectionism.
While I wouldn't support it, the opposite argument can be made. Forget about goods and focus on jobs for a second. How do American's gain econimcally if their jobs are taken from them and moved overseas to the lowest bidder. In alot of industries American businesses simply can not compete dollar for dollar with overseas labor. But the question remains how the have nots are going to gain economically if the jobs if they are qualified for given their skill sets are shipped overseas?
Actually, the opposite argument cannot be made. Americans' jobs are not being taken away from them. The number of jobs have been growing in America. Rather, specific industries have seen the number of jobs fall as manufacturing went overseas. But this describes only a small minority of American workers. In aggregate, Americans benefit by lower prices for goods and have more money to spend on other things, which generates economic activity elsewhere. The cost of protecting the jobs that would be outsourced is far greater than the cost of losing those jobs. You see the jobs that are lost from the closing plant but you do not see the jobs that are never created by forcing higher prices on Americans, and the cost of the jobs never created is almost always greater in aggregate than the jobs lost in the outsourced factory.
Extend your logic to America. If protecting jobs from foreign competition produces more wealth for Americans, then certainly protecting jobs in each state creates even more wealth. Therefore, no jobs should be allowed to move from New York to New Jersey because that is bad for New York. And if its good for states, why not for cities? Jobs in New York City can't go to Buffalo. And if its good for cities, surely its good for burroughs. Thus no job in Manhattan should go to Queens. And if its good for cities, it must be good for neighborhoods. No jobs in Midtown should ever go to SoHo. Etc., etc., etc.
Its bad economics.